Acts 18:4

[FreeGrace2]

Because there's nothing in the text to indicate it. Unlike FGism, Calvinism relies heavily on context.

Unlike Calvinism, my theology, the Bible's theology, relies heavily on what is actually SAID, and believes what is SAID.

And not one Calvinist has refuted any of my "so-called" single verses "so-called" taken out of context.

I'd much rather believe and defend a theology that aligns with verses that SAY what I believe than a theology that cannot find any verses that actually SAYS what it believes.

I guess that explains why defense of your position is so lacking in your posts.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Christ death and resurrection is the basis for the gospel and what constitutes the atonement. If Christ atonement is not supposed to save anyone then the gospel is false.

BTW- this is a typical misconception of arminians.

BTW, I'm neither ARM or CALV.

Yep. And God knows exactly who will have faith.

This isn't the debate. Of course He knows. And this response completely dodges my point, that Scripture's requirement for salvation, justification and adoption as sons is faith, not His death.

Of course, now you are going to attempt to explain to me what foreknowledge means.

Don't you know? I don't feel any urge to explain what I believe you do or should already know.

Then more study is in order.

Why would "more study" lead to being comfortable with a contradiction?

Is baptism required for salvation? Oops, now you are adding to faith which above you said it was the only requirement for salvation.

If one only reads the WHOLE verse, one realizes that faith is the issue for salvation, not faith and baptism.

Yep. Unfortunately these are not believers. Keep reading the parable of the seed and you will arrive to those whose seed landed in good soil which is those with saving faith.

The point of Luke 8:12 is that IF they had believed, they would be saved. Your blatant dodge of the clear meaning of the verse is telling.

Yes. And those who God knows will have faith will listen to His word and be saved. Perseverance of the saints.

Where do you get any of this from Acts 11:14???

Yes. And those who God knows will have faith will listen to His word and be saved. Perseverance of the saints.

Where do you get any of this from Acts 16:31 ???? The answer to the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved is to believe.

So now you believe in lordship salvation? Are you adding again to faith?

Your continuing to dodge the obvious meaning and words of Scripture is telling and explains a lot. I don't believe in LS and I haven't added to faith.

Who are those who will believe? Does God know who they are?

What relevance does either question have to Rom 1:16? None. The clear point is that one is saved by faith, not by Christ's death, which you're dodging.

Yep. Faith IS a gift of God. Faith is not a gift of man.

Nope. The gift refers back to being saved, which is affirmed in Rom 6:23. Your 2nd statement is totally irrelevant and meaningless.

Yep. Does everyone that read scripture get the wisdom to be saved?

The clear point of 2 Tim 3:15 is salvation through faith. And no, only those who accept that wisdom.

lol Protected by the power of God? Right? Soooooo...……

The point of 1 Pet 1:5 is "through faith for salvation", which you've repeatedly dodged.

Yep.

That's right. 1 Pet 1:9 says the outcome of our faith is salvation. Glad you finally seem to accept the reality of faith being the requirement for salvation.

God has chosen? Am I reading this right? Does the verse say that God chose you or that you chose God?

The real question is HOW God chose the Thessalonians for salvation. Please read the WHOLE verse. "through belief in the truth". That's the requirement for salvation.

"For justification"….
Every single one of these verse do NOT make sense if Christ atonement is not sufficient for salvation. [/QUOTE]
Apparently you've completely misunderstood all 11 verses that base justification on faith, not on Christ's death.

I cut a few of the verses that you posted because of redundancy. Many of these verses teach exactly the opposite of what you are teaching.

Actually they teach exactly what they all SAY, which you've continued to dodge.

All the verses I posted SAY that salvation, justification and adoption as sons is by faith. Not by Christ's death.

 

[Hammster]

What you have done is to decide to exclude those whom Paul discusses but who are not the addressees. You have no basis or reason for doing this other than to prop up doctrines that are not even found in scripture.

Obviously your theology is imperilled if Paul also intended his sentiments regarding his kinsmen to be directly addressed to them. Tellingly, Paul would have guarded against this if his theology had been the same as yours...

He didn't and it wasn't.

Maybe my theology would be imperiled if Paul intended his comments to be addressed to unbelieving Jews. But since they were not...

 

[Hammster]

OK, please tell me what my "inaccurate view" is of Calvinism. I don't believe that is possible.

Then, please explain HOW it is inaccurate.

This should be interesting.

Just about everything you post concerning Calvinism is incorrect. So just read your posts.

 

[Hammster]

Unlike Calvinism, my theology, the Bible's theology, relies heavily on what is actually SAID, and believes what is SAID.

And not one Calvinist has refuted any of my "so-called" single verses "so-called" taken out of context.

I'd much rather believe and defend a theology that aligns with verses that SAY what I believe than a theology that cannot find any verses that actually SAYS what it believes.

I guess that explains why defense of your position is so lacking in your posts.

You've been refuted. Ad infinitum. Single malt scotch might be good. But single verse theology is just plain shallow.

 

[Hentenza]

BTW, I'm neither ARM or CALV.

Neither am I.

This isn't the debate.

The thread is in the debate forum.

Of course He knows.

Great. I'm glad you know.

And this response completely dodges my point, that Scripture's requirement for salvation, justification and adoption as sons is faith, not His death.

Is not just His death FG, Christ atonement includes His death and His resurrection.

All the verses I posted SAY that salvation, justification and adoption as sons is by faith. Not by Christ's death.

Lets cut to the chase since going in circles is not my thing. The verses that you posted do not support man's decision as the catalyst for faith. Faith IS a gift of God and one that He has always known the believer would "accept" and one that He always known the unbeliever would not "accept." Christ atonement is critical to salvation. No death and resurrection, no covenant of faith. In fact, no Christ atonement, no salvation by faith since salvation is by the grace of God through faith in the son.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Just about everything you post concerning Calvinism is incorrect. So just read your posts.

Gonna have to do better than that. "just about everything" is an obvious dodge to my challenge to back up your charge. Transparently so.

It is clear that you're not able to note anything I've posted about Calvinism that is incorrect. When other posters have posted incorrect understandings or views of my position, I have always immediately corrected them. Unlike yourself.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've been refuted. Ad infinitum.

Many claims to that effect, all just ad nauseum. But no evidence, no support.

Single malt scotch might be good.

Doesn't sound good.

But single verse theology is just plain shallow.

Another error on your part. My theology is not based on a single verse, as you've insinuated. Just another attempt to demean my theology, which is supported by Scripture that clearly SAYS what I believe, unlike Calvinism.

To any objective person, a theology that is backed by verses that actually SAY what is believed is far better than a theology that cannot be backed by verses that actually SAY what is believed.

I have Scriptural support for my beliefs, unlike Calvinism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
And this response completely dodges my point, that Scripture's requirement for salvation, justification and adoption as sons is faith, not His death.

Is not just His death FG, Christ atonement includes His death and His resurrection.

Seems you're not going to acknowledge the requirement of faith, huh.

Lets cut to the chase since going in circles is not my thing. The verses that you posted do not support man's decision as the catalyst for faith.

I never said they did, nor did I ever even bring up "man's decision". Or any "catalyst for faith", whatever that may mean. Seems the discussion isn't being followed very well.

Faith IS a gift of God and one that He has always known the believer would "accept" and one that He always known the unbeliever would not "accept."

There are no verses anywhere that support the claim that faith is a gift. Eph 2:8 does not say what you think it means. The gift there refers back to salvation, not faith.

Christ atonement is critical to salvation.

I never said it wasn't. I did say His death was the BASIS for our salvation, but not the requirement.

No death and resurrection, no covenant of faith. In fact, no Christ atonement, no salvation by faith since salvation is by the grace of God through faith in the son.

Well, there it is, finally. The acknowledgement that salvation is by grace through faith. Which has been my point all along. But apparently missed.

 

[Hammster]

Gonna have to do better than that. "just about everything" is an obvious dodge to my challenge to back up your charge. Transparently so.

It is clear that you're not able to note anything I've posted about Calvinism that is incorrect. When other posters have posted incorrect understandings or views of my position, I have always immediately corrected them. Unlike yourself.

It's not a dodge. It's just an overwhelming task that I don't have the energy or desire to tackle.

 

[Hammster]

Many claims to that effect, all just ad nauseum. But no evidence, no support.


Doesn't sound good.


Another error on your part. My theology is not based on a single verse, as you've insinuated. Just another attempt to demean my theology, which is supported by Scripture that clearly SAYS what I believe, unlike Calvinism.

To any objective person, a theology that is backed by verses that actually SAY what is believed is far better than a theology that cannot be backed by verses that actually SAY what is believed.

I have Scriptural support for my beliefs, unlike Calvinism.

What I mean by single verse is that all you have is a collection of single verses. No context. No depth. Very shallow, yet you think that because it's a mile wide, you've succeeded.

 

[janxharris]

Maybe my theology would be imperiled if Paul intended his comments to be addressed to unbelieving Jews. But since they were not...

Though Paul does not explicitly state that what he says about his kinsman can be directly addressed to them, there is nothing in the text that might restrict anyone from doing so. Paul does not explicitly say that one should not.

Only a genuine 'heart's desire and prayer to God' about their salvation would lead to pragmatism - if Paul's intention in his words about them where never meant to be realised in practise, then how can it be said that Paul's concern was real and sincere?

In citing Deuteronomy 30:12-14, though Paul did not explicitly say that, 'I am addressing Jews here,' nevertheless, they were explicitly being addressed since it was Moses who did so at the time. Indeed, you have already grudgingly accepted (you said 'maybe') that the Israelites remain the subject of those verses, but still maintain that it was not written to them. Well, I have clearly shown that it was written to them.

Please would you deal with these points. Thanks.

 

[janxharris]

What I mean by single verse is that all you have is a collection of single verses. No context. No depth. Very shallow, yet you think that because it's a Mike wife, you've succeeded.

Mike wife?

 

[heymikey80]

Heb 2:9 explicitly says so. The vast majority of English translations indicate that the writer meant "everyone" rather than the elect/etc.

With clear verses SAYING that He died for everyone, and ZERO verses that say that He didn't die for everyone, RT has no leg to stand upon.

Apparently the term "might" now means "does", and the subjunctive can't mean anything else other than intent.

If this were God's primary intent, then that intent would not be thwarted by an unmentioned capability of men.

Ultimately, there're all kinds of places where all the term "all" does not mean without exception. All of you know all sorts of situations like all that. We are always running into them all too frequently. So too with the Greek "pas".

In fact, more die than men. Or in the New Creation, are only men immortal? No, the whole creation is freed from death. I daresay Hebrews 2's reference to the future glory puts us at a point where all in that future, not simply humans in the present, could readily be in view.

As for the limited scope of Jesus' death and the gospel ...

I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:15, 11, 10

That I might by any means save some 1 Cor 9:22

That anyone who believes in him might not perish John 3:16 (It is a condition. Why a condition, and not a universal? Does not God love the world? Yes, as a whole. But some part of the world stands condemned. So not universal.)

Rom 5:15 the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many

 

[janxharris]

Apparently the term "might" now means "does", and the subjunctive can't mean anything else other than intent.

If this were God's primary intent, then that intent would not be thwarted by an unmentioned capability of men.

Ultimately, there're all kinds of places where all the term "all" does not mean without exception. All of you know all sorts of situations like all that. We are always running into them all too frequently. So too with the Greek "pas".

In fact, more die than men. Or in the New Creation, are only men immortal? No, the whole creation is freed from death. I daresay Hebrews 2's reference to the future glory puts us at a point where all in that future, not simply humans in the present, could readily be in view.

As for the limited scope of Jesus' death and the gospel ...

I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:15, 11, 10

That I might by any means save some 1 Cor 9:22

That anyone who believes in him might not perish John 3:16 (It is a condition. Why a condition, and not a universal? Does not God love the world? Yes, as a whole. But some part of the world stands condemned. So not universal.)

Rom 5:15 the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many

You have taken John 10 out of context for Jesus demonstrates his good shepherdship there whilst exposing the Pharisees bad shepherdship. Dying for one's sheep is a demonstration of that good shepherdship. The fact that Jesus continues to preach to those whom he considers NOT to be his sheep reveals the truth that anyone can become one of his sheep (see vv. 37-38).

1 Cor 9:19-22
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

If your intention is to win as many as possible, then you are certainly not out to just win some and not all. Verse 22 is Paul the the realist - he knows that not all will come.

I think John 3:16 has already been dealt with. Verse 15 - Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so shall the son of man be, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

No Israelite who was bitten by a snake was excluded from the OFFER of living by looking at the raised serpent. But it did require faith - ie belief in the proffered cure - one had to turn and look at the serpent.

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Looks like you are unintentionally proving that not all men will die - just many.

 

[Hammster]

Mike wife?

Fixed.

 

[Hammster]

Though Paul does not explicitly state that what he says about his kinsman can be directly addressed to them, there is nothing in the text that might restrict anyone from doing so. Paul does not explicitly say that one should not.

He doesn't explicitly state, nor implicitly state. That's the point.

Only a genuine 'heart's desire and prayer to God' about their salvation would lead to pragmatism - if Paul's intention in his words about them where never meant to be realised in practise, then how can it be said that Paul's concern was real and sincere?

That Paul’s concern was real isn't the issue.

In citing Deuteronomy 30:12-14, though Paul did not explicitly say that, 'I am addressing Jews here,' nevertheless, they were explicitly being addressed since it was Moses who did so at the time. Indeed, you have already grudgingly accepted (you said 'maybe') that the Israelites remain the subject of those verses, but still maintain that it was not written to them. Well, I have clearly shown that it was written to them.

In the OT it was written to redeemed people. If you want to say that it's the same in the NT, okay.

 

[janxharris]

He doesn't explicitly state, nor implicitly state. That's the point.

It is most certainly implied.

That Paul’s concern was real isn't the issue.

Yes it is. If it was the case that he was not encouraging such hope to put into practise by preaching this message to such men then his heart's desire was vacuous.

In the OT it was written to redeemed people. If you want to say that it's the same in the NT, okay.

Moses words were written to Israelites. The blessings and the curses are in chapter 28 and Moses continues in the same vein in chapter 30.

You have not proved your restriction on the addressees of Moses words.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's not a dodge. It's just an overwhelming task that I don't have the energy or desire to tackle.

Your own statement from post #44:
"Just about everything you post concerning Calvinism is incorrect."

Sounds to me that it should quite easy to find errors of mine, since "just about everything" I post is incorrect.

Again, your dodging is very apparent. If your charge were true, you'd have been able to find any number of errors in nearly every post of mine.

Rather, we all know that your charge is untrue and that there aren't any errors regarding Calvinism in my posts.

Otherwise, you'd have posted a few.

btw, since there is no claimed desire to prove your charges, why even bother throwing them out?

If one is not ready and willing to prove their claim, they shouldn't make one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What I mean by single verse is that all you have is a collection of single verses. No context. No depth. Very shallow, yet you think that because it's a mile wise, you've succeeded.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Your theology has NO verses that SAY what you believe and claim.

btw, the Bible is full of single verses. So what? There ARE verses that actually SAY what I believe, UNLIKE your view.

And I've exegeted the context for the verses I've given plenty of times, so your claim is erroneous again. And no one has ever refuted my exegesis.

{hint} disagreement or rejection does not equal refutation.