A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[5thKingdom]

You were wrong in your statement. Calvinism does not teach that anyone is regenerated against their depraved will. It teaches that their will is not consulted —not causal, not resisting nor consenting, in their regeneration. It is, therefore, not against their will.

And no I do not say he does it secretly nor openly. He merely does it. For some it is immediately evident to them and to others, not, until they (like some you too have probably heard say it) realized that they believed.

Your sarcasm not withstanding, it is not secret in the Bible. It is even more plain than the notion that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches that God intends but is unable to save everyone.

Is there no clear distinction between the Holy Spirit coming to dwell within you, and being filled with the Holy Spirit? I think you are conflating the two.

Why should God do it the way you think Calvinists present it. God does it all sorts of ways. I would even argue that your notion of 'before' is irrelevant as to sequence of causation. You give humans way too much credit in their ontology.

Well said

 

[5thKingdom]

What does hyper-calvinism have anything to do with anything?
They believe exactly the same as moderate calvinists, except they're not afraid of stating it
and have a harder and more unloving attitude toward their felllow man.

Why does hyper-Armenianism have anything to do with anything?
They believe exactly the same as moderate Armenians, except they're not afraid of proclaiming a "works" gospel.

/

 

[5thKingdom]

God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of who will repent and abide in Christ.

You are saying God's election is based on the "work" of man...
that is NOT the Gospel of the Bible.

The Gospel of the Bible is God's election is based on "His Purpose" alone.
Man does not save himself with some "work".

Rom 9:15-16
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Pretty simple doctrine


/

 

[John Mullally]

You were wrong in your statement. Calvinism does not teach that anyone is regenerated against their depraved will. It teaches that their will is not consulted —not causal, not resisting nor consenting, in their regeneration. It is, therefore, not against their will.

And no I do not say he does it secretly nor openly. He merely does it. For some it is immediately evident to them and to others, not, until they (like some you too have probably heard say it) realized that they believed.

Your sarcasm not withstanding, it is not secret in the Bible. It is even more plain than the notion that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches that God intends but is unable to save everyone.

Is there no clear distinction between the Holy Spirit coming to dwell within you, and being filled with the Holy Spirit? I think you are conflating the two.

Why should God do it the way you think Calvinists present it. God does it all sorts of ways. I would even argue that your notion of 'before' is irrelevant as to sequence of causation. You give humans way too much credit in their ontology.

Enough, show me where pre-faith regeneration is described in the Bible. Ezekiel 18:31 in speaking to Israel in the OT says that receiving a new heart and a new spirit (which is arguably equivalent to regeneration) follows repentance. If regeneration occurring pre-faith is as important as Calvinists state, it should be expressed clearly in the NT.

Ezekiel 18;31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?​

And please comment on Paul's conversion. Why did Paul have to be struck blind and harshly rebuked, when a gentler pre-faith regeneration was available? My opinion is that being struck blind and harshly rebuked was an act of mercy because that was the best means God had of getting Paul to come to his senses and repent.

​

The Bible does not say God gives faith to some and bypasses others. It says faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17) and we all can choose what we listen to.

God desires all men to be saved and is able to save all men. Christ's redemption is only efficacious to those who believe.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.​

 

[John Mullally]

Where does the Bible teach that?
Are you sure it does not teach He desires all or "His Sheep" to be saved?




Of course, NONE OF THIS has anything to do with the subject.

5thKingdom said:
The Gospel is clear that some men were NEVER MEANT to "be converted"
or that "their sins should be forgiven them".






Yes... but WHAT is the CONTEXT of the word "our"...
does it represent everyone born (no, it does not)
does it represent all of "His Sheep" (yes)

L
OOK at the CONTEXT of the word "our"


Jn 2:1-2
My little children, [this is the CONTEXT of who is included in the word "our"]
these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
And he is the propitiation for our [all of His little children's] sins: and not for ours only, but also[after the Great Commission]
for the sins of the whole world [all of His little children in the world].


When you understand the Context of the passage is "MY little children" then (and only then) can you understand
the MEANING of the word "our".





No, that is not correct.
The Gospel is about the finished work of Christ.
The Gospel is NOT an offer to save anyone since some mean were NEVER MEANT to be saved [Mark 4:11-12]





The Atonement was sufficient to save all of "His Sheep"
The Bible never teaches the Atonement paid for the "tares/goats" in the church (sown by Satan)
and the Bible certainly NOT teach Christ paid for the sins of all the lost souls OUTSIDE the church.





Of course the Atonement only benefits "His Sheep"...
that is what I said above. It is a "Limited" Atonement which only applies to "His Sheep"

/

Nowhere in Acts or the Epistles are those agricultural terms used to describe people. Obviously you are stuck in parables from the Old Covenant. You might want to get familiar with the New Covenant which is written to NT believers and states that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Parables, like all analogies, are presented to help understand new concepts - you should be careful not to draw more out of them then they were meant to convey.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Enough, show me where pre-faith regeneration is described in the Bible. Ezekiel 18:31 in speaking to Israel in the OT says that receiving a new heart and a new spirit (which is arguably functionally equivalent to regeneration) follows repentance. If regeneration occurs pre-faith is as important as Calvinists state, it should be expressed clearly in the NT.

Ezekiel 18;31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?

I don't suppose you realize that Ezekiel 18 is about Israel returning to living as God's people, and not about the salvation of individual souls...

And please comment on Paul's conversion. Why did Paul have to be struck blind and harshly rebuked, when a gentler pre-faith regeneration was available? My opinion is that being struck blind and harshly rebuked was an act of mercy because that was the best means God had of getting Paul to come to his senses and repent.
The Bible does not say God gives faith to some and bypasses others. It says faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17) and we all can choose what we listen to.

"Best means"? It was the ONLY means God intended to use. God doesn't operate from options. But why ask the question? What makes you think God would've or should've been gentle with Paul if Calvinism is true? I don't get your reasoning there.

The Bible does say (Romans 8) that the natural man is unable to please God. It also says (Ephesians 2) that we were dead but God made us alive. It does not mention any activity by man that accomplishes this —on the contrary, it denies it.

Faith DOES come by hearing the Word of God. Is it a mere book? Of course you choose what you will listen to, and sometimes God gets the truth through anyway, according to his time and place and means.

God desires all men to be saved and is able to save all men. Christ's redemption is only efficacious to those who believe.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

If God desires all men to be saved and is able to save all men, then how is it possible that not all men are saved? If you say because of man's free will, then you have denied either that he desires all men to be saved, or you have denied that he is able to save all men.

Mark 16 is far from the only passage that says belief is necessary for salvation. But salvific belief is not generated by man!

 

[John Mullally]

I don't suppose you realize that Ezekiel 18 is about Israel returning to living as God's people, and not about the salvation of individual souls...

Yes I mentioned it was OT - so it is not exactly the same thing. But I believe the same priniciple applies. And you did not address how the Bible supports pre-faith regeneration.

"Best means"? It was the ONLY means God intended to use. God doesn't operate from options. But why ask the question? What makes you think God would've or should've been gentle with Paul if Calvinism is true? I don't get your reasoning there.

You dodged another question. What makes you think that God would go to the extreme of striking Paul blind to teach him a lesson when He could have given him something far less severe like a dream or He could have exercized pre-faith regeneration? This points to pre-faith regeneration being a falacy.

The Bible does say (Romans 8) that the natural man is unable to please God. It also says (Ephesians 2) that we were dead but God made us alive. It does not mention any activity by man that accomplishes this —on the contrary, it denies it.

What must the spiritually dead do, in order to receive spiritual life?

John 5:40: “‘And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.’”​

The answer would seem to be that you have to come to Jesus. The lost are spiritually dead until they come to Jesus and receive life. The key ingredient is coming to Jesus—who is the source of life.

If God desires all men to be saved and is able to save all men, then how is it possible that not all men are saved? If you say because of man's free will, then you have denied either that he desires all men to be saved, or you have denied that he is able to save all men.

The fact that not all are saved, despite God’s desire that they be saved, leads inexorably to free-will, in which God gives people a choice, without forcing His choice upon them. The advantage for non-Calvinists is that they can accept 1st Timothy 2:4 on face value, without supposing a weak desire, and without restricting “all men” to only Calvinism’s elect.

God “desires all men to be saved” freely, by believing in His Son through willing participation, rather than desiring for all men to be saved irresistibly.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You dodged another question. What makes you think that God would go to the extreme of striking Paul blind to teach him a lesson when He could have given him something far less severe like a dream or He could have exercized pre-faith regeneration? This points to pre-faith regeneration being a falacy.

How is that extreme, to God? Has it not occurred to you that it WAS regeneration? Do you have some mental picture of what regeneration looks like and this wasn't it?

What must the spiritually dead do, in order to receive spiritual life?

John 5:40: “‘And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.’”
The answer would seem to be that you have to come to Jesus. The lost are spiritually dead until they come to Jesus and receive life. The key ingredient is coming to Jesus—who is the source of life.

Using a verse in the negative doesn't prove a positive. They will always be unwilling to come to him, until he gives them new birth, new heart, new mind.

The fact that not all are saved, despite God’s desire that they be saved, leads inexorably to free-will, in which God gives people a choice, without forcing His choice upon them. The advantage for non-Calvinists is that they can accept 1st Timothy 2:4 on face value, without supposing a weak desire, and without restricting “all men” to only Calvinism’s elect.

God “desires all men to be saved” freely, by believing in His Son through willing participation, rather than desiring for all men to be saved irresistibly.

So, just as I said. You said that God wants all to be saved, and is able to save all; but not all are saved, because of free will. Therefore, free will limits God's ability to save all. According to what you are saying here, God is not able to save all.

 

[John Mullally]

How is that extreme, to God? Has it not occurred to you that it WAS regeneration? Do you have some mental picture of what regeneration looks like and this wasn't it?

Being stuck blind was extreme to Paul. The Bible does not say Paul was regenerated when he was struck blind. Paul's experience looks to me as God getting his point across through severe hard knocks as we see was done with Jonah.

As far as a mental picture: Regeneration and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit are both from the Holy Spirit and in many peoples eyes are the same thing. Jesus provides a picture of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is one of goodness. He said we should not be afraid to ask God for the gift of the Holy Spirit because it is a good gift. Since regeneration is also of the Holy Spirit, I would view it similarly as a good gift and not as a thunderous rebuke while being struck blind.

Luke 11:11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”​

​

Perhaps you can get a mental picture of you answering my question you continue to dodge: How does the Bible supports pre-faith regeneration?

Using a verse in the negative doesn't prove a positive. They will always be unwilling to come to him, until he gives them new birth, new heart, new mind.

What Bible verse says "They will always be unwilling to come to him, until he gives them new birth, new heart, new mind."?

In the parable of the prodigal son, a dead man returns home to his father and humbly confesses his sins. The problem is that Calvinists conflate spiritual death with physical death, in order to manufacture a pretext for the necessity of Irresistible Grace. The reality is that the unsaved do not have “rigor mortis.” Spiritual death is not rigor mortis. Instead, it is separation, which can be reconciled, just like in the case of the Prodigal Son.

Luke 15:31-32: “‘And he said to him, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”​

So, just as I said. You said that God wants all to be saved, and is able to save all; but not all are saved, because of free will. Therefore, free will limits God's ability to save all. According to what you are saying here, God is not able to save all.

God is able to save all if all participate willingly through faith as outlined in Mark 16:16 - but that does not happen. I have been very clear on that point with you at least a dozen times.

I do not believe that there is any conflict between free will and divine sovereignty, primarily because I do not equate divine sovereignty with exhaustive determinism, as Calvinists do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Being stuck blind was extreme to Paul. The Bible does not say Paul was regenerated when he was struck blind. Paul's experience looks to me as God getting his point across through severe hard knocks as we see was done with Jonah.

As far as a mental picture: Regeneration and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit are both from the Holy Spirit and in many peoples eyes are the same thing. Jesus provides a picture of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is one of goodness. He said we should not be afraid to ask God for the gift of the Holy Spirit because it is a good gift. Since regeneration is also of the Holy Spirit, I would view it similarly as a good gift and not as a thunderous rebuke while being struck blind.

Luke 11:11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”​

​

Perhaps you can get a mental picture of you answering my question you continue to dodge: How does the Bible supports pre-faith regeneration?


What Bible verse says "They will always be unwilling to come to him, until he gives them new birth, new heart, new mind."?

In the parable of the prodigal son, a dead man returns home to his father and humbly confesses his sins. The problem is that Calvinists conflate spiritual death with physical death, in order to manufacture a pretext for the necessity of Irresistible Grace. The reality is that the unsaved do not have “rigor mortis.” Spiritual death is not rigor mortis. Instead, it is separation, which can be reconciled, just like in the case of the Prodigal Son.

Luke 15:31-32: “‘And he said to him, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”​

God is able to save all if all participate willingly through faith as outlined in Mark 16:16 - but that does not happen. I have been very clear on that point with you at least a dozen times.

I do not believe that there is any conflict between free will and divine sovereignty, primarily because I do not equate divine sovereignty with exhaustive determinism, as Calvinists do.

What Bible verse supports libertarian free will? To you, you've shown this many times. To me, I've many times shown how the Bible supports regeneration-caused faith. We've gotten nowhere, and I'm tired of pointing out that you're manufacturing strawmen to beat up on. You keep saying that Calvinism say this or teaches that, which it does not. I point out your inconsistencies and logical self-contradictions and you even repeat them word for word. We've been through this too many times.

Good day to you and God bless you, John.

 

[John Mullally]

What Bible verse supports libertarian free will? To you, you've shown this many times. To me, I've many times shown how the Bible supports regeneration-caused faith. We've gotten nowhere, and I'm tired of pointing out that you're manufacturing strawmen to beat up on. You keep saying that Calvinism say this or teaches that, which it does not. I point out your inconsistencies and logical self-contradictions and you even repeat them word for word. We've been through this too many times.

Good day to you and God bless you, John.

I do a far better job of stating positions, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist, - as you do not acknowledge non-Calvinist positions and you have told me you never studied Calvin - whereas I quote him. In my stating Calvinist positions, I give the opportunity for you to show where you disagree or where you think I misrepresent.

The mass of directives in the Bible points to libertarian free will, as it makes no sense for God to dispense instruction to those who cannot willing respond to it. If you have children, you know that you will get better results if you love them and you identify your desires and expectations to them regularly. You won't tell your teenager that he does not have a free-will unless you want to give him an excuse for unwanted behavior.

You have pointed out scriptures that show unregenerate man to be depraved - but don't prove that man has to be regenerated pre-faith in order to respond to the Gospel message. The Gospel message is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and thus man's positive response to that translates him into the kingdom of God. If there is a pre-requirement (like pre-faith regeneration) needed for faith, then it should be plainly stated in the NT like far less important doctrines are.

From scripture all we know for certain is that men who respond to the Gospel in faith (repentance, baptism, and confession are acts of faith), are saved (Acts 2:36-41, Romans 10:6-13, Mark 16:16). There are no scriptures that explicity speak of a required pre-faith regeneration needed for men to respond to the Gospel. The fact that a precondition (like pre-faith regeneration) is not raised in the Bible leads non-Calvinists into believing what is stated plainly in the Bible: that the preaching of the Gospel, the conviction of the Holy Spirit. and a willing reponse from hearer is sufficient to save men and that salvation includes regeneration.

Assuming pre-faith regeneration is dispensed by God, God is the sole determiner of who is regenerated and only those he first regenerates can ever have faith in God and be saved. If pre-faith regeneration is true it presents a problem with the following scriptures.

1. 1 Timothy 2:4 which says that God desires that all men be saved. God cannot desire the non-elect to be saved because He withholds the means for them to be saved (i.e. pre-faith regeneration).
2. 1 Timothy 4:10 which says "“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” God cannot be a savior to those to whom he withholds pre-faith regeneration. This passage indicates that the non-believers have a savior - all they have to do is believe.
3. Romans 10:17 which says Faith comes through hearing the word of God. It would be far more accurate to say that faith comes from pre-faith regeneration. As those who do not experience it will not have faith in God.
4. Acts 10:17 wich says that God commands all men everywhere to repent. That is misleading because God withholds any possibility for repentance in those to whom He did not dispense pre-faith regeneration.
5. Romans 1:16 says that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation. It would be more accurate to say that pre-faith regeneration is the power of God to salvation because that must preceed responding to the Gospel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

..

I do a far better job of stating positions, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist, - as you do not acknowledge non-Calvinist positions and you have told me you never studied Calvin - whereas I quote him. In my stating Calvinist positions, I give the opportunity for you to show where you disagree or where you think I misrepresent.

The mass of directives in the Bible points to libertarian free will, as it makes no sense for God to dispense instruction to those who cannot willing respond to it. If you have children, you know that you will get better results if you love them and you identify your desires and expectations to them regularly. You won't tell your teenager that he does not have a free-will unless you want to give him an excuse for unwanted behavior.

You have pointed out scriptures that show unregenerate man to be depraved - but don't prove that man has to be regenerated pre-faith in order to respond to the Gospel message. The Gospel message is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and thus man's positive response to that translates him into the kingdom of God. If there is a pre-requirement (like pre-faith regeneration) needed for faith, then it should be plainly stated in the NT like far less important doctrines are.

From scripture all we know for certain is that men who respond to the Gospel in faith (repentance, baptism, and confession are acts of faith), are saved (Acts 2:36-41, Romans 10:6-13, Mark 16:16). There are no scriptures that explicity speak of a required pre-faith regeneration needed for men to respond to the Gospel. The fact that a precondition (like pre-faith regeneration) is not raised in the Bible leads non-Calvinists into believing what is stated plainly in the Bible: that the preaching of the Gospel, the conviction of the Holy Spirit. and a willing reponse from hearer is sufficient to save men and that salvation includes regeneration.

Assuming pre-faith regeneration is dispensed by God, God is the sole determiner of who is regenerated and only those he first regenerates can ever have faith in God and be saved. If pre-faith regeneration is true it presents a problem with the following scriptures.

1. 1 Timothy 2:4 which says that God desires that all men be saved. God cannot desire the non-elect to be saved because He withholds the means for them to be saved (i.e. pre-faith regeneration).
2. 1 Timothy 4:10 which says "“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” God cannot be a savior to those to whom he withholds pre-faith regeneration. This passage indicates that the non-believers have a savior - all they have to do is believe.
3. Romans 10:17 which says Faith comes through hearing the word of God. It would be far more accurate to say that faith comes from pre-faith regeneration. As those who do not experience it will not have faith in God.
4. Acts 10:17 wich says that God commands all men everywhere to repent. That is misleading because God withholds any possibility for repentance in those to whom He did not dispense pre-faith regeneration.
5. Romans 1:16 says that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation. It would be more accurate to say that pre-faith regeneration is the power of God to salvation because that must preceed responding to the Gospel.

....and around we go. Fare well.

 

[5thKingdom]

5thKingdom said:
Where does the Bible teach that?
Are you sure it does not teach He desires all or "His Sheep" to be saved?

Nowhere in Acts or the Epistles are those agricultural terms used to describe people.

Sir, those terms are used by JESUS to describe people.
It matters NOTHING they are not used in Acts or the Epistles.
You cannot negate the Words of Christ... right?

Obviously you are stuck in parables from the Old Covenant.

Sir... it is the Words of Christ that establishes these TRUTHS


In Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus reveals several different perspectives about the (3rd) New Testament "Kingdom of Heaven".
The Lord reveals [v3-8] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) is like a man sowing seed, and the Christian Gospel
is called [v19] the "Word of the Kingdom". The Lord reveals [v24-30] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) includes
both saved "wheat" (sown by Christ), and unsaved "tares" (sown by Satan). Moreover, these wheat and tares look very similar,
and they are allowed to grow together - until they are separated during the "Final Harvest", which occurs at the "End-of-the-Age".


The Lord reveals [v47-50] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) is like casting a net to gather both good fish ("wheat")
and bad fish ("tares"), which are later separated during the "Final Harvest". And finally, the Lord reveals [v52] that the GOSPEL
of the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" includes the Saints ("wheat") understanding the Harmony of Scripture between mysteries
which were revealed during the (2nd) Old Testament Kingdom (represented as "old treasure") and mysteries now being revealed
during the "testimony" of the Great Commission, during the (3rd) New Testament Kingdom (represented as being "new treasure").


(1) The "Kingdom of Heaven" is an earthly Kingdom

(2) The sower of good seed represents the Lord Jesus Christ

(3) The sower of bad seed represents Satan, the King of Babylon

(4) The "Word of the Kingdom" (the seed) is the Gospel of the New Testament

(5) The "field" represents the world, as the Gospel goes forth to both Jew and Gentile

(6) The "fruit" of the field (both wheat and tares) represents the (3rd) "Kingdom of Heaven"

(7) The "Word of the Kingdom" gathers good fish and bad fish during the (3rd) Christian Kingdom

(8) The (saved) "wheat" and the (unsaved) "tares" LOOK similar, and grow together until the End-of-the-Age

(9) At the End-of-the-Age, the "wheat and tares" (the good fish and bad fish) are separated during a "Harvest"


In Matthew 13 the Lord explains the THIRD "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Christian Kingdom -or- New Testament Church)
is an earthly Kingdom consisting of both (saved) "wheat" and (unsaved) "tares". This Biblical Truth also harmonizes with
the (2nd) Jewish Kingdom containing both saved "wheat" and unsaved "tares" within the "Kingdom" of national Israel and
the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom containing both saved "wheat" (shown as "Wise Virgins" and "Toes/Kings" of IRON),
along with unsaved "tares" (shown as "Foolish Virgins" and "Toes/Kings" of CLAY), in the Fourth "Kingdom of Heaven".


In the Bible, the "Kingdom of Heaven" represents the many unsaved "tares", and/or the few saved "wheat"
associated with the "Word of the Kingdom" (preaching the Gospel) during the FOUR KINGDOMS on earth.
However, the (5th) Eternal "Kingdom of Heaven" contains only the "wheat" from each of those Four Kingdoms.
Again, notice the “Word of the Kingdom” (the Gospel) was unique in each of the “Kingdoms of Heaven” on earth.


The Saints “lived and reigned with Christ” [Rev 20:4] during the A-Millennial Kingdom, until all the Saints are “sealed” [Rev 7:1-3].
Then, when the Great Commission is finished and the Church is complete, the Holy Spirit is “taken out of the way” [2Thess 2:6-8]
(at the “End of the Age”) so Satan can be “loosened” from the “Bottomless Pit” to RULE during his “Little Season” [Rev 20:3].


Satan’s “Little Season” is also shown as (1) Daniel’s Fourth Beast, (2) The 7-Headed Revelation Beast,
(3) The Great Tribulation “Kingdom of Heaven” [Mat 25:1] and (4) the reign of the “Little Horn”
or “False Prophet” or “Man of Sin” … a man most commonly known as THE Anti-Christ.


Satan could never be “loosened” from the Bottomless Pit [Rev 9:1-3] to RULE over Daniel’s Fourth “Kingdom”, [Dan 7:25]
the Great Tribulation “Kingdom”, [Mt 25:1] and the Revelation “Beast” [Rev 17:17] while the “Saints” of the Christian “Kingdom”
were still “living and reigning with Christ”. Christ and Satan cannot rule at the same time. This is very important to understand.

You might want to get familiar with the New Covenant which is written to NT believers

The verses quoted above sir... they ARE to NT Believers.
I have NO IDEA why you would assume otherwise.


Jim

 

[John Mullally]

5thKingdom said:
Where does the Bible teach that?
Are you sure it does not teach He desires all or "His Sheep" to be saved?




Sir, those terms are used by JESUS to describe people.
It matters NOTHING they are not used in Acts or the Epistles.
You cannot negate the Words of Christ... right?






Sir... it is the Words of Christ that establishes these TRUTHS


In Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus reveals several different perspectives about the (3rd) New Testament "Kingdom of Heaven".
The Lord reveals [v3-8] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) is like a man sowing seed, and the Christian Gospel
is called [v19] the "Word of the Kingdom". The Lord reveals [v24-30] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) includes
both saved "wheat" (sown by Christ), and unsaved "tares" (sown by Satan). Moreover, these wheat and tares look very similar,
and they are allowed to grow together - until they are separated during the "Final Harvest", which occurs at the "End-of-the-Age".


The Lord reveals [v47-50] the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Christian Kingdom) is like casting a net to gather both good fish ("wheat")
and bad fish ("tares"), which are later separated during the "Final Harvest". And finally, the Lord reveals [v52] that the GOSPEL
of the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" includes the Saints ("wheat") understanding the Harmony of Scripture between mysteries
which were revealed during the (2nd) Old Testament Kingdom (represented as "old treasure") and mysteries now being revealed
during the "testimony" of the Great Commission, during the (3rd) New Testament Kingdom (represented as being "new treasure").


(1) The "Kingdom of Heaven" is an earthly Kingdom

(2) The sower of good seed represents the Lord Jesus Christ

(3) The sower of bad seed represents Satan, the King of Babylon

(4) The "Word of the Kingdom" (the seed) is the Gospel of the New Testament

(5) The "field" represents the world, as the Gospel goes forth to both Jew and Gentile

(6) The "fruit" of the field (both wheat and tares) represents the (3rd) "Kingdom of Heaven"

(7) The "Word of the Kingdom" gathers good fish and bad fish during the (3rd) Christian Kingdom

(8) The (saved) "wheat" and the (unsaved) "tares" LOOK similar, and grow together until the End-of-the-Age

(9) At the End-of-the-Age, the "wheat and tares" (the good fish and bad fish) are separated during a "Harvest"


In Matthew 13 the Lord explains the THIRD "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Christian Kingdom -or- New Testament Church)
is an earthly Kingdom consisting of both (saved) "wheat" and (unsaved) "tares". This Biblical Truth also harmonizes with
the (2nd) Jewish Kingdom containing both saved "wheat" and unsaved "tares" within the "Kingdom" of national Israel and
the (4th) Great Tribulation Kingdom containing both saved "wheat" (shown as "Wise Virgins" and "Toes/Kings" of IRON),
along with unsaved "tares" (shown as "Foolish Virgins" and "Toes/Kings" of CLAY), in the Fourth "Kingdom of Heaven".


In the Bible, the "Kingdom of Heaven" represents the many unsaved "tares", and/or the few saved "wheat"
associated with the "Word of the Kingdom" (preaching the Gospel) during the FOUR KINGDOMS on earth.
However, the (5th) Eternal "Kingdom of Heaven" contains only the "wheat" from each of those Four Kingdoms.
Again, notice the “Word of the Kingdom” (the Gospel) was unique in each of the “Kingdoms of Heaven” on earth.


The Saints “lived and reigned with Christ” [Rev 20:4] during the A-Millennial Kingdom, until all the Saints are “sealed” [Rev 7:1-3].
Then, when the Great Commission is finished and the Church is complete, the Holy Spirit is “taken out of the way” [2Thess 2:6-8]
(at the “End of the Age”) so Satan can be “loosened” from the “Bottomless Pit” to RULE during his “Little Season” [Rev 20:3].


Satan’s “Little Season” is also shown as (1) Daniel’s Fourth Beast, (2) The 7-Headed Revelation Beast,
(3) The Great Tribulation “Kingdom of Heaven” [Mat 25:1] and (4) the reign of the “Little Horn”
or “False Prophet” or “Man of Sin” … a man most commonly known as THE Anti-Christ.


Satan could never be “loosened” from the Bottomless Pit [Rev 9:1-3] to RULE over Daniel’s Fourth “Kingdom”, [Dan 7:25]
the Great Tribulation “Kingdom”, [Mt 25:1] and the Revelation “Beast” [Rev 17:17] while the “Saints” of the Christian “Kingdom”
were still “living and reigning with Christ”. Christ and Satan cannot rule at the same time. This is very important to understand.





The verses quoted above sir... they ARE to NT Believers.
I have NO IDEA why you would assume otherwise.


Jim

Many of the verses you reference are before the New Covenant and they are parables - which are analogies. If there are mjultiple passages that cover a particular subject it is better to precedence to New Covenant scriptures over Old Covenant analogies.

In Acts we see Peter promising the gift ot the Holy Spirit to those who repent (Acts 2:36-41). But it was only a few weeks ealier (just after the resurrection and the start of the New Covenant) that Peter himself received the gift of the Holy Spirit. A lot was not revealed until after the resurrection.

 

[5thKingdom]

Many of the verses you reference are before the New Covenant and they are parables - which are analogies. If there are mjultiple passages that cover a particular subject it is better to precedence to New Covenant scriptures over Old Covenant analogies.

Again, NO.

The verses I reference represent the Christian Kingdom BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
or the Great Tribulation Kingdom (Revelation Beast) AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]

In Acts we see Peter promising the gift ot the Holy Spirit to those who repent (Acts 2:36-41). But it was only a few weeks ealier (just after the resurrection and the start of the New Covenant) that Peter himself received the gift of the Holy Spirit. A lot was not revealed until after the resurrection.

This has NOTHING TO DO with what I am talking about.
Please read carefully:


The verses I reference represent the Christian Kingdom BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
or the Great Tribulation Kingdom (Revelation Beast) AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]


Jim

 

[John Mullally]

Again, NO.

The verses I reference represent the Christian Kingdom BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
or the Great Tribulation Kingdom (Revelation Beast) AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]





This has NOTHING TO DO with what I am talking about.
Please read carefully:


The verses I reference represent the Christian Kingdom BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
or the Great Tribulation Kingdom (Revelation Beast) AFTER the Last Saint is "sealed" [Rev 7:1-3]


Jim

This is the "A troublesome verse for the Calvinist" thread under Soteriology (salvation). You are morphing your discussion over to Eschatology theories I am unfamiliar with. I am not familiar with a wide range of Eschatology theories, and I don't think much about it. I do not want to participate in an Eschatology discussion.

 

[5thKingdom]

This is the "A troublesome verse for the Calvinist" thread under Soteriology (salvation). You are morphing your discussion over to Eschatology theories I am unfamiliar with. I am not familiar with a wide range of Eschatology theories, and I don't think much about it. I do not want to participate in an Eschatology discussion.

Sir, it is NOT eschatology to understand the Gospel teaches about God's Salvation Plan:

(1) for Old Testament Jewish Saints
(2) for Christian Saints of the Great Commission BEFORE the Last Saint is "sealed" (saved)
(3) for Great Tribulation Saints AFTER the Last Saint is saved [Rev 7:1-3]

That is the CONTEXT of the Soteriology you speak of.
How can you expect to understand God's Salvation Plan without that context?


Secondly...

You accused me of referencing verses BEFORE the New Covenant.
I denied that accusation


John Mullally said:
Many of the verses you reference are before the New Covenant and they are parables - which are analogies. If there are mjultiple passages that cover a particular subject it is better to precedence to New Covenant scriptures over Old Covenant analogies.



I reminded you I was referencing New Testament Scripture about God's Salvation Plan BEFORE the Last Saint is saved
and God's Salvation Plan AFTER (there is no Salvation after the Last Saint is saved)


This is not eschatology. This is the reality and context of God's Salvation Plan for Jews, the Church
and the Great Tribulation Saints on earth AFTER the Last Saint is saved.


In any case, I used New Testament text...
but, to tell you the truth I don't remember the initial point that cause me to comment to you
so there is no point of continuing.


Jim

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

The Gospel is clear that some men were NEVER MEANT to "be converted"
or that "their sins should be forgiven them".


That is what JESUS said.
Do you believe Jesus?


Mar 4:11-12
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without,
all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand; LEST AT ANY TIME they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


Jesus was clear:
Some men were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" or that "their sins should be forgiven".
Hard to argue Universal Atonement when Jesus denies that notion plainly.

/

Did you even read the verse you posted? It says clearly "lest at any time they should be converted" meaning that they can be converted unlike the Calvinist would want to believe.

 

[5thKingdom]

Did you even read the verse you posted? It says clearly "lest at any time they should be converted"

Of course I read (and understood) what I posted


LEST AT ANY TIME = AT NO TIME


This is not hard


Why do you hate Calvinists SO MUCH that you feel a NEED to comment on them to me...
who is NOT a Calvinist?

It is strange.

/

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did you even read the verse you posted? It says clearly "lest at any time they should be converted" meaning that they can be converted unlike the Calvinist would want to believe.

You really don't get how this works, do you? God is in charge, but that does not mean that he doesn't accomplish the things he does by ordinary means. You want flashy miracles and automatic stuff to happen? Sorry to disappoint you. His power is shown in weakness.