Calvinist limited love for mankind

Bible Highlighter said:

I believe Proverbs 15:1 is in regards to speaking about the individual, and it is not in reference to rebuking wrong beliefs.

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3).

Titus 2:15 says, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority...”

But we also have to consider that our Lord and even the apostle Paul used some harsh words towards certain individuals. So there is a time and place and or season for everything under the sun. I believe we are to generally be loving and good in our words towards the person, but sometimes folks do need a cold splash of water to wake them up, too. Jesus called people snakes, etc.



I don't believe Calvinism promotes true righteous living because it teaches Once Saved Always Saved. This means that even if a believer slips into doing a certain sin, they can still be saved while they have fallen into that sin. They cannot lose salvation by their sin, which means a believer does not really need to worry about Sanctification. John MacArthur (a Calvinist) teaches that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved. This is why the family of Kenneth Nally sued his church. For their son (Kenneth Nally) committed suicide as a part of the influence of their teachings. John MacArthur also believes that the “sin unto death” is any sin that a believer commits and God takes them home early (by physical death) because they are no longer useful on this Earth. Meaning, a believer can sin and still be saved (Thereby nullifying any concept of true Sanctification).

Click to expand...

I would like to talk OSAS but I think they don't allow threads on the subject and I can't discuss it here as its off topic but I will say that it is not a belief dedicated to one religion. Its an individual belief. To me how can you not believe in it? You have to keep being saved over and over again otherwise? So once isn't enough for you? That would seem to say that being saved is meaningless if you can't count on it to stick around. Okay, okay I will stop. Perhaps I will try to start a thread on it.

Bible Highlighter said:

I don't believe Calvinism promotes true righteous living because it teaches Once Saved Always Saved. This means that even if a believer slips into doing a certain sin, they can still be saved while they have fallen into that sin. They cannot lose salvation by their sin, which means a believer does not really need to worry about Sanctification. John MacArthur (a Calvinist) teaches that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved. This is why the family of Kenneth Nally sued his church. For their son (Kenneth Nally) committed suicide as a part of the influence of their teachings. John MacArthur also believes that the “sin unto death” is any sin that a believer commits and God takes them home early (by physical death) because they are no longer useful on this Earth. Meaning, a believer can sin and still be saved (Thereby nullifying any concept of true Sanctification).

Click to expand...

Calvinism teaches that God chooses and irrevocably saves the Elect only. OSAS is only a quick handle on the concept, and I note, is not even a particularly Calvinistic notion --the confidence in the promises of God to complete what he has begun in us is a welcome doctrine to both Calvinists and Arminian-leaning synergists alike.

Calvinism by no means promotes a lazy or careless life for the redeemed. My Bible-scholar Calvinist-leaning (quietly so) father was always quick to point out that while the Greek in 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sin, the construction shows that the forgiveness is indeed contingent on the confession. Calvinism doesn't put a system in place where one can be lazy --it is only one's take on it that does that.

Calvinism doesn't teach that the saved needn't be kept, but that the keeping is God's work from first to last (see Perseverance of the saints) and so the redeemed will indeed be kept. Salvation is not lost, not because it is an institution into which the members are lifetime members, and not even because of the efforts and faithfulness of the Elect, but because God will not allow him to be ultimately lost. This does not mean the saved need not work to keep himself, for like with Salvation, in Sanctification the Holy Spirit-driven regenerated nature produces the desire for holiness and Godliness, compelling the will to do according to God's purposes. Calvinism teaches that if one is not obedient to Christ, he has no basis by which to claim salvation.

Furthermore, Calvinism is careful to teach the need for the believer to "make his calling and election sure". From ligioner.org: "John Calvin reminds us that “purity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence.” Work at supplementing your faith with the virtues of 2 Peter 1:5–7 so that you may grow in assurance of your salvation, and be wary of those who confess Christ and yet show no desire for holiness." Make Your Election Sure

One can hardly read John Owen (perhaps my favorite Calvinist) and deduce that the redeemed can be lazy concerning Sanctification. I have never read or heard of an Arminian more vehement on the matter.

To my Calvinist friends...

I’m not so sure any Calvinists in the topic can make sure their calling and election, not in light of the dreaded false hope and false callings. For example, John Calvin taught...


Why God would send out a general call to everyone when there’s been no sacrifice made upon their behalf really brings into question the genuineness of the call to begin with, it’s like me inviting the entire world to my birthday party, but only sending out 4 written invitations (everyone without a written invitation gets turned away at the door,) then I use my non written invitation (AKA the general call) as “an occasion for severer condemnation,” heaping greater punishment upon the people who didn’t come.

Still, the only reason they didn’t come was because they were incapable to begin with, made so by my decree before the world began.

The problems are dizzying when you take time to really consider them. Anyhow, my actual point about making our calling and election sure hereafter...



There’s probably no amount of gratefulness which you could feel or display to match the ultimate sacrifice in the life of Jesus Christ (if He died for you,) or there’s no amount of gratitude to help repay the gifts of illumination, food, happiness, health etc, that God gifts you, so, every Calvinist is probably guilty of the sin of ungratefulness at one time or another. Everybody on the planet is probably guilty of this.

Maybe you ate an inordinately large cheese steak that was too much for you, tasted fantastic but gave you a little heartburn afterwards, imagine indulging like that rather than using that time to praise God instead. It’s ungratefulness.

If you insist you’re saved now, and you model your lifestyle around great preachers, teachers and healers, doing greater works than Jesus and casting out demons, ignoring and giving no inch to the idea of a false hope, couldn’t that just be God striking you with “even greater blindness”?

There’s no promise that Christ died for you personally or that the Father loves you by an electing love.

Who can resist God if in his eternal decree he’s declared that you renounce faith upon your final breath.

There’s no making sure if that’s the case right? There’s only one sure thing and that’s the fact you shall fall away.

The classic free will theist and their understanding of God and the work of Christ upon the cross makes way for 2 views that they can confidently hold onto which the 5 point Calvinist can’t.

A. Jesus died for me.

B. God loves me and His deepest desire for me is that I live.

Calvinists in the topic seem to be adamant that “we don’t know the identity of the elect,” which would include themselves (especially in light of the false hope,) in addition they don’t know the identity of those for whom Jesus died, in fact for whom he died and the number of the elect are identical according to Calvinism, so they can’t know either number.

We might be able to reply with some confidence “Abraham is elect!” Or “Moses is elect!” but the point is about you, me, people we meet and share the gospel with, practical life stuff.

The bigger picture isn’t clear to the Calvinist in regards to either the elect or for whom Jesus died. Calvinists don’t know for whom Jesus died in their circle of friends, for example. The free will theist does know, they are aware that Jesus died for everyone.

The free will theist might not claim to know who will be amongst the number of the elect, but they do know that Jesus’ death was for the whole world (themselves included.)

Furthermore Calvinists confidently confess that yes God doesn’t love the non-elect person in the same way or with the same depth of love that he loves the elect believer (meaning there’s no promise God loves you with the full depth of his love.)

I welcome all of your thoughts on the above ^^^^ and an answer to those two belief points in light of the false hope.

Mark Quayle said:

Calvinism teaches that God chooses and irrevocably saves the Elect only. OSAS is only a quick handle on the concept, and I note, is not even a particularly Calvinistic notion --the confidence in the promises of God to complete what he has begun in us is a welcome doctrine to both Calvinists and Arminian-leaning synergists alike.

Calvinism by no means promotes a lazy or careless life for the redeemed. My Bible-scholar Calvinist-leaning (quietly so) father was always quick to point out that while the Greek in 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sin, the construction shows that the forgiveness is indeed contingent on the confession. Calvinism doesn't put a system in place where one can be lazy --it is only one's take on it that does that.

Calvinism doesn't teach that the saved needn't be kept, but that the keeping is God's work from first to last (see Perseverance of the saints) and so the redeemed will indeed be kept. Salvation is not lost, not because it is an institution into which the members are lifetime members, and not even because of the efforts and faithfulness of the Elect, but because God will not allow him to be ultimately lost. This does not mean the saved need not work to keep himself, for like with Salvation, in Sanctification the Holy Spirit-driven regenerated nature produces the desire for holiness and Godliness, compelling the will to do according to God's purposes. Calvinism teaches that if one is not obedient to Christ, he has no basis by which to claim salvation.

Furthermore, Calvinism is careful to teach the need for the believer to "make his calling and election sure". From ligioner.org: "John Calvin reminds us that “purity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence.” Work at supplementing your faith with the virtues of 2 Peter 1:5–7 so that you may grow in assurance of your salvation, and be wary of those who confess Christ and yet show no desire for holiness." Make Your Election Sure

One can hardly read John Owen (perhaps my favorite Calvinist) and deduce that the redeemed can be lazy concerning Sanctification. I have never read or heard of an Arminian more vehement on the matter.

Click to expand...

Problem. You distort 1 John 1:9 to say that He has already forgiven you of your sin, when that is not what 1 John 1:9 says. 1 John 1:9 says IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. This is why these kinds of discussions end up going nowhere most times. Your not reading and believing what your own Bible is saying plainly. You have to change it to fit Calvinism.

As for making your Election sure: Yeah, that would be YOU along with God to do something to make sure you are saved. But God alone is not going to force save you despite anything that you did or in doing nothing. God is not going to preach the gospel for you, or help the poor, or to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. That is something that you have to work out with God together.

As for holy living and Calvinism:
I imagine there may be different circles on this kind of belief. I have ran into Calvinists saying they can sin and still be saved. Others like John MacArthur appear to be for holy living but it is a Trojan horse because he says that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved. He says that the “sin unto death” is a sin that a believer commits whereby God takes their life early because they are no longer useful on this Earth. So God saves them in their sin. So yeah. Holy living with John MacArthur? Yeah, it's a joke. I mean, do you know of any Calvinist who teaches that a believer loses their salvation via by sin? If not, then one is promoting that one can sin and still be saved.

alllivesmatter said:

I would like to talk OSAS but I think they don't allow threads on the subject and I can't discuss it here as its off topic but I will say that it is not a belief dedicated to one religion. Its an individual belief. To me how can you not believe in it? You have to keep being saved over and over again otherwise? So once isn't enough for you? That would seem to say that being saved is meaningless if you can't count on it to stick around. Okay, okay I will stop. Perhaps I will try to start a thread on it.

Click to expand...

I replied to you within the thread you created here, and here so as to show you why Eternal Security or OSAS is not biblical.

Cormack said:

Why God would send out a general call to everyone when there’s been no sacrifice made upon their behalf really brings into question the genuineness of the call to begin with, it’s like me inviting the entire world to my birthday party, but only sending out 4 written invitations (everyone without a written invitation gets turned away at the door,) then I use my non written invitation (AKA the general call) as “an occasion for severer condemnation,” heaping greater punishment upon the people who didn’t come.

Click to expand...

False representation of the facts. God has said if we live in perfect obedience to the law, we will live forever, yet I don't hear you complaining that none can do so. What is the difference here, really, where original sin has set all wills against God? They are invited, but most do not come. Some may step into the mechanics of the Gospel, but they show up unclothed in Christ's righteousness.

2nd: The ultimately lost are condemned because they sinned. If their sin was laid upon Christ they would not be condemned. The degree of their sin (as judged by God) determines the degree of their punishment. The judgement will be precise and thorough. You want to deride God for some judgement you don't agree with?

Bible Highlighter said:

Problem. You distort 1 John 1:9 to say that He has already forgiven you of your sin, when that is not what 1 John 1:9 says. 1 John 1:9 says IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. This is why these kinds of discussions end up going nowhere most times. Your not reading and believing what your own Bible is saying plainly. You have to change it to fit Calvinism.

Click to expand...

Then you don't know the Greek. Remember Greek tenses do not translate well into English. The tense of the phrase in 1 Jn 1:9 commonly translated "will forgive" is translated so, to denote the contingency on confession, not to show whether it already has happened or will happen afterwards. The Greek tense for "will forgive

Here's a paraphrase:"If we admit the fact of our sins, then by his faithfulness his pardon and cleansing applies to us. If we deny we've sinned, we call him a liar and his word is not in us."

Bible Highlighter said:

As for making your Election sure: Yeah, that would be YOU along with God to do something to make sure you are saved. But God alone is not going to force save you despite anything that you did or in doing nothing. God is not going to preach the gospel for you, or help the poor, or to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. That is something that you have to work out with God together.

Click to expand...

The reference is to assurance --not to causing the salvation. Even Arminians agree with this.

Mark Quayle said:

Then you don't know the Greek. Remember Greek tenses do not translate well into English. The tense of the phrase in 1 Jn 1:9 commonly translated "will forgive" is translated so, to denote the contingency on confession, not to show whether it already has happened or will happen afterwards. The Greek tense for "will forgive

Here's a paraphrase:"If we admit the fact of our sins, then by his faithfulness his pardon and cleansing applies to us. If we deny we've sinned, we call him a liar and his word is not in us."

The reference is to assurance --not to causing the salvation. Even Arminians agree with this.

Click to expand...

How convenient. You know more than the 47 translators on the KJB with many of them knowing the Hebrew and Greek fluently. Sorry, I trust the KJB in what it plainly says, and not you.

Bible Highlighter said:

As for holy living and Calvinism:
I imagine there may be different circles on this kind of belief. I have ran into Calvinists saying they can sin and still be saved. Others like John MacArthur appear to be for holy living but it is a Trojan horse because he says that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved. He says that the “sin unto death” is a sin that a believer commits whereby God takes their life early because they are no longer useful on this Earth. So God saves them in their sin. So yeah. Holy living with John MacArthur? Yeah, it's a joke. I mean, do you know of any Calvinist who teaches that a believer loses their salvation via by sin? If not, then one is promoting that one can sin and still be saved.

Click to expand...

Your end statement is bad logic, I think. What do you mean by sin --continue in sin, commit just one sin, live in sin, live at enmity with God? What are you talking about? No, I know of no Calvinist that teaches one can lose his salvation at all, nevermind by sinning. The fact is, I know of no Calvinist that teaches one believes in Christ who continues in sin.

But what evidence do you have that John McArthur is wrong? If he has said that one loses his salvation by sinning, I would like to hear the quote, with context. What reason do you have to say that suicide causes loss of salvation? What do you think "sin unto death" is, and what evidence do you have for that?

Mark Quayle said:

Your end statement is bad logic, I think. What do you mean by sin --continue in sin, commit just one sin, live in sin, live at enmity with God? What are you talking about? No, I know of no Calvinist that teaches one can lose his salvation at all, nevermind by sinning. The fact is, I know of no Calvinist that teaches one believes in Christ who continues in sin.

But what evidence do you have that John McArthur is wrong? If he has said that one loses his salvation by sinning, I would like to hear the quote, with context. What reason do you have to say that suicide causes loss of salvation? What do you think "sin unto death" is, and what evidence do you have for that?

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me.

John MacArthur (A Calvinist) teaches that a believer can sin and still be saved.

Some Calvinists will boast in "Lordship Salvation" that is promoted by John MacArthur, but I believe this is a Trojan horse. John MacArthur does not really believe we must live holy exactly (as a part of salvation).

John MacArthur also teaches that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved.

He says, I quote: "At the trial, MacArthur, 45, is seeking to clarify his church’s teaching on suicide. “It’s not only a sin, it’s illegal,” he says. “But we teach that even if a believer takes his own life, the Lord will still receive him into His presence.”

Source:
Fundamentalist Clergymen Face Charges of 'Malpractice' When a Parishioner Turns to Suicide

John MacArthur says that a person can take the mark of the beast and they can still be saved afterwards. Listen to this audio clip by him here:

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/audio/macarthur-take-mark.mp3

John MacArthur says, ".. sin does not result in spiritual death for the believer ... (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1927, comment on James 1:15)"

Also, check out this video on John MacArthur teaching that we can sin and still be saved: (Important Note: Turn down sound at the beginning of the video just in case you may have sensitive hearing like me):

Mark Quayle said:

What reason do you have to say that suicide causes loss of salvation?

Click to expand...

First, nobody in the Bible who has committed suicide is ever said to be saved, but the Bible speaks of them in a bad light. Second, suicide is basically self murder. 1 John 3:15 says no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Mark Quayle said:

What do you think "sin unto death" is, and what evidence do you have for that?

Click to expand...

The Context of 1st John
(From Within the Epistle Itself):

What does John mean by “death?”

It is unlikely John means the physical death common to all humankind, whether righteous or unrighteous. With the exception of the final generation when Jesus returns, all humans will inevitably die. In the only other occurrence of "death" in the epistle (1 John 3:14) John claims true believers have already "passed over out of (ek) death into (eis) life." Those who do not love the brethren are already "abiding in death" (note the Greek present tense – an ongoing state of abiding “in death”). In the Greek clause both “life” and “death” have the definite article; that is, “the life” and “the death.” John is referring to two different spheres or realms: one of life and one of death.

Elsewhere in 1 John we read that those who love the saints “abide in the light” (1 John 2:10), are “born of God (1 John 4:7) and God abides in them (1 John 4:12). In comparison those who hate their brothers and sisters “are in darkness until now” (1 John 2:9), “walk in the darkness” (1 John 2:11) and “do not know God” (1 John 4:8). John is contrasting two different spheres, one characterized by light and life, the other by darkness and death. What determines in which realm one lives is one’s relationship to God and the community of faith. 1 John 3:14 is parallel to John 5:24 ("he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed over out of the death into the life”) where the exact same terminology is found.

John uses terms like “life,” “death,” “light” and “darkness” metaphorically to contrast two different manners of living; two different kinds of character. Those who love God and His children already live in light and life. Those who do not even now dwell in the realms of darkness and death. Nothing is said of whether one can change the “realm” in which one lives.

What does John mean by “ask for life” in 1 John 5:16?

In 1 John “everlasting life” is what God has promised to true believers (1 John 2:25). Who are these true believers? Those who love God and the brethren have already passed over from the realm of death to that of life (1 John 3:14). God has given those who love Him life that is found only in His Son (1 John 5:11) and those who believe in the name of the Son already have “everlasting life” (1 John 5:13). Indeed, God sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might have life even now (1 John 4:9). When John speaks of life he does not mean the mortal existence all humans have between birth and death, but the “everlasting life” from God that is found only in the Son, a life we can possess and experience in some sense now, though its fullness awaits the Age to Come.

In comparison the one who hates his brother does not have eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15) and the one who does not have the Son already lacks life (1 John 5:12). Though one continues to exist, one does not in any sense possess the everlasting life of the Age to Come. Those who have the Son and love the brethren already have “life” (1 John 2:25)(1 John 3:14) (1 John 5:11-13).

John’s epistle begins with the thematic statement about the “Word of life” (1 John 1:1-3), the life of the Father manifested in the historical person of Jesus Christ and now proclaimed as the message of “everlasting life.” In this epistle the term “life” is a way to sum up what God has done for believers including “being in the light” (1 John 1:5), the forgiveness of sins (1 John 1:9-2:2) (1 John 4:10), the granting of everlasting life (1 John 1:2) (1 John 2:25) (1 John 3:14) (1 John 5:11-13) (1 John 5:20), fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7), an anointing (1 John 2:20), love from the Father (1 John 3:1), the status of “children of God” (1 John 3:1-2) (1 John 3:10) (1 John 5:2), the hope of becoming like Him (1 John 3:2-3), the gift of the Spirit (1 John 3:24) (1 John 4:13), being “born of God” (1 John 5:1), and our victory over the world (1 John 5:4-5). John summarizes his message with the statement, “and this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son”. Compare 1 John 5:11 with 1 John 5:20.

Historical & Literary Context:

John was writing to a congregation (or possibly several small ones) experiencing turmoil caused by doctrinal disputes with former members (hereafter referred to as ‘secessionists’), individuals who had left the church and were teaching heretical doctrines (1 John 2:18-28) (1 John 4:1-6) (1 John 5:6-7). This problem went beyond discouraged or disgruntled individuals who had simply left the church. Some of them were attempting to propagate their false teachings to those still in the assembly (1 John 2:26) (1 John 4:1-3) (2 John 1:7), raising the possibility that some members of John’s congregations would be deceived and also leave the assembly.

In his opening section John lays out the main claims of the secessionists. They claimed to have “fellowship with Jesus” and to walk with Him (1 John 1:6), “to have no sin” (1 John 1:8), and that they “have not sinned” (1 John 1:10). In the same passage John provides some of the details of the controversies in play. To their claim of “fellowship with Jesus” John responds that those walking with Him “love one another” and Jesus' blood “is cleansing us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). By implication the secessionists were failing to love the brethren. As to having no sin, John points out the necessity of confessing sin and thereby receiving forgiveness (1 John 1:9). And as to the assertion they “have not sinned,” John cites this as evidence that His word is not in them (1 John 1:10).

The secessionists boasted that they have come “to know Him” (1 John 2:4). John refutes this with the charge they are “not keeping His commandments,” the logic being that if you know Him you will keep his commandments. They boasted that they are “abiding in him (1 John 2:6). If so, John retorts, they should be “walking in the same manner” as did Jesus. The secessionists emphasized that they are “in the light” yet, as John points out, they hate their brothers and sisters (1 John 2:9). When John speaks of “commandments” he is not thinking of the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Law, but of God’s commands to love Him, believe in His Son and to love one another. In other words, the community of faith (1 John 3:23) (1 John 4:21) (1 John 5:2-3). Likewise “walking in the manner Jesus walked” refers above all to following his example of self-sacrificial love for one’s brothers and sisters (1 John 3:16).

Source:
Gospeltoallnations.org
(Please take note that this link is no longer active; But it was active at one time).

Mark Quayle said:

Your end statement is bad logic, I think. What do you mean by sin --continue in sin, commit just one sin, live in sin, live at enmity with God? What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Abiding in unconfessed mortal sin for any amount of time for a believer means that they are abiding in spiritual death and not life. The believer needs to confess of their sin to be forgiven again (1 John 1:9). I know. You don't like that verse so you have changed it by believing you are a Kione Greek expert (When nobody alive speaks or writes that language anymore). A believer also needs to forsake their sin, as well. For the believer cannot think that they can just sin again as if it is inevitable. Proverbs 28:13 basically says he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy. 1 John 1:7 supports this idea. It says if we walk in the light the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.

Bible Highlighter said:

How convenient. You know more than the 47 translators on the KJB with many of them knowing the Hebrew and Greek fluently. Sorry, I trust the KJB in what it plainly says, and not you.

Click to expand...

No, they did the best they could, and it is important to note in your hermeneutics that Greek is the original language, and no translation can be perfect. It is a simple fact.

Mark Quayle said:

No, they did the best they could, and it is important to note in your hermeneutics that Greek is the original language, and no translation can be perfect. It is a simple fact.

Click to expand...

Mark, you did not grow up speaking and writing Kione Greek. Nobody in recent history has. Only Scholars who have written books are guessing as to what this language is saying hindsight. They do not have a time machine to confirm what they are saying is true. You did not grow up in Bible times to truly know the nuances of that language. So do not pretend like you know a dead language when nobody today truly does.

Bible Highlighter said:

Some Calvinists will boast in "Lordship Salvation" that is promoted by John MacArthur, but I believe this is a Trojan horse. John MacArthur does not really believe we must live holy exactly (as a part of salvation).

Click to expand...

Are you saying that MacArthur does not promote holy living? Of course he does not say that holy living procures nor even secures salvation. That is the work of God alone, or you have a perverted Gospel.

Mark Quayle said:

No, they did the best they could, and it is important to note in your hermeneutics that Greek is the original language, and no translation can be perfect. It is a simple fact.

Click to expand...

Mark. James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith. Do you honestly believe that the poor guy on the street is going to know what you know? Sorry, I am not buying it. The rich fat scholar is not the poor guy that is rich in faith. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. Mark. Your not hearing the Word of God, but your hearing what scholars say what they think the Word of God says. I just read and believe my Bible simply and plainly. Your not doing that. Sorry.

Mark Quayle said:

Are you saying that MacArthur does not promote holy living? Of course he does not say that holy living procures nor even secures salvation. That is the work of God alone, or you have a perverted Gospel.

Click to expand...

A person may say that they are against drinking rat poison, but if they put just a super small minuscule amount of rat poison in people's drinks, they are for lying. MacArthur is not for holy living because he promotes that believers can sin and still be saved.

Bible Highlighter said:

First, nobody in the Bible who has committed suicide is ever said to be saved, but the Bible speaks of them in a bad light. Second, suicide is basically self murder. 1 John 3:15 says no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Click to expand...

So there is your proof? God is the judge, not you. God looks on the heart to judge the deeds.

Let me ask you this: Do you think you have a pretty good handle on what is and what is not sin? Can you honestly say that there is nothing about you that at the end of your life God could show you has been sinful all along and you have been unwilling to even look at it? Sin is not just sins, but sinfulness.

Mark Quayle said:

False representation of the facts. God has said if we live in perfect obedience to the law, we will live forever, yet I don't hear you complaining that none can do so. What is the difference here, really, where original sin has set all wills against God?

Click to expand...

So far as I’m reading, Mark, the first portion of your reply rests largely upon the idea that God requires man to do something by way of the law, something you believe he’s incapable of doing on account of “original sin,” but that’s not an answer to why God is sending out an invitation to believe, obey and follow a gospel to people for whom Jesus didn’t die and are ineligible from claiming the sacrifice.

Your point (probably inadvertently) only works towards impugning the idea of original sin, inability and commands to obey an unfulfillable law as being on the same level of absurdity as the impossible command to obey and accept an offer of the gospel for unbelievers who have no part in the cross to begin with.

If your assumptions about the natural inability of man were true that would land you in two absurdities and not one, two absurdities wouldn’t wash each other clean.

Your actual point is that I’m guilty of some kind of hypocrisy for not “complaining” about mans inability to keep the law, but instead for pointing out the inability of man to follow Gods command to believe the gospel promises. Is that right? That’s assuming upon my behalf beliefs I may or may not hold though.

Mark Quayle said:

The ultimately lost are condemned because they sinned. If their sin was laid

Click to expand...

Although their sins can’t be laid upon Christ, correct? He didn’t die on their behalf according to 5 point Calvinism, yet they’re still being invited to be party to a sacrifice that wasn’t made for their sins. Isn’t the offer of the gospel being made in bad faith on this view?

Mark Quayle said:

You want to deride God for some judgement you don't agree with?

Click to expand...

No, I’m just exchanging ideas about Christianity on a forum dedicated to discussing Christianity.

Since the majority of my previous message has gone unanswered, maybe that’s a concession that those portions are accurate and not falsely representing the facts as you see them?

Mark Quayle said:

So there is your proof? God is the judge, not you. God looks on the heart to judge the deeds.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is read your Bible. It's everywhere! You have to fight and ignore almost every page in order to make your belief work. Matthew 7:23 is a great one. Jesus says to certain believers who did wonderful works in His name to depart from Him because they worked iniquity, too. Iniquity is sin. They did good works. Yeah, they put on a show of holiness. Yeah, they appeared to be for holy living, but they were not for holy living because they justified sin or iniquity. Proof? Keep reading. Matthew 7:26-27 says that everyone who does not do what Jesus says is like a fool who built his house upon the sand and when a storm came, great was the fall of that house. So Jesus' point here was not trusting in the finished work of Christ while we can think we can still sin and still be saved. No, no. Most certainly not.

You said:

Let me ask you this: Do you think you have a pretty good handle on what is and what is not sin? Can you honestly say that there is nothing about you that at the end of your life God could show you has been sinful all along and you have been unwilling to even look at it? Sin is not just sins, but sinfulness.

Click to expand...

It's not about me. At the end of the day we all have to answer to the Word of God. I am just a messenger. I am nothing. Christ is everything. Paul says we have the mind of Christ. Now, most Christians today do not have the mind of Christ because they justify the idea that they can sin and still be saved. Did Jesus ever justify sin? Surely not.