- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,057
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Indeed. I've never encountered this particular flavor. It's a different animal, that's for sure.
It requires a bit of discernment.Cool verses. Nothing about refusing the gift, though. Try again.
This is really quite elementary, so you don't have any excuse for your questions.So if eternal life can't be rejected, why doesn't everyone have eternal life?
It wasn't worth responding to.You're dodging the rest of my post.
What you consider secondary is unimportant and irrelevant. Those who don't have eternal life CAN'T live with God in eternity. That is the issue.Why did they not receive eternal life? Because they did not believe, which means that they remained in unbelief. There is no middle ground. If they were in unbelief, then that was the reason they were sent to hell. Not receiving the gift is secondary.
That would be your opinion only.The primary cause of their condemnation was their failure to believe.
According to the Bible.If they had believed, they would have automatically received the gift according to your doctrine.
Actually, it is your logic and failure to discern Scripture that is wrong.So the real reason they go to hell is unbelief, which means that your doctrine is wrong. Both logically and Scripturally.
You're a real hoot, you know that? LOLWhat you refuse to see and are trying to deflect from, is that your doctrine collapses when subjected to logical analysis.
Typical lame response. Your claim of refutation is just your own opinion. As for being "illogical", you have mastered that one. And Calvinism Does provide an excuse for hell dwellers, simply BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.Your OP has been refuted. it is illogical, and your bleating about an "excuse" is ineffectual, because and excuse would not change the fate of those in hell.
I never said an excuse makes any difference. In fact, the Bible is clear that no one has ANY excuse for being in hell. But Calvinism does provide ane excuse.They can have all the excuses they want or can invent! It doesn't make any difference. It does not diminish God's character one iota.
I'd say from all the flak y'all have thrown, it's really gotten under your skin.Why you think that this is some big important, Calvinism-stopping "revelation" is beyond me, and the rest of us.
Actually, from all the posts, y'all either DON'T understand it, or y'all just won't admit it. But the whining has been amusing, to be sure.Not because we can't understand it, but because we cannot understand why you think it's some big deal.
I've told you repeatedly that an excuse doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that Calvinism, NOT the Bible, provides an excuse for hell dwellers.You haven't been able to give us even one convincing answer for why it makes any difference, or why it should matter.
You're really a hoot, you know that?If you want to believe it, fine, go ahead. But stop trying to pass it off as something that destroys Calvinism.
Well, it apprears that even you aren't paying attention. Those who aren't paying attemtion are NOT 'trying to understand" my position at all.Ooh, bad form old chap! Blaming those who are trying to understand your rather amorphous position, rather than realizing your position makes no sense, or explaining your meaning. Now, can you tell me which of these you believe are in error?
This statement is in error. No one believes from their "will". And free will is about making choices, not about what one "wills".1)Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
This statement is in error. It suggests that God isn't omniscient.2)Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
That is correct, as the Bible says so.3)Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
If you hadn't added the goofy "and finally beaten so as" nonsense, it would have been correct. Salvation is a gift which can be received or rejected. There is nothing about "being beaten".4)Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
Heretically wrong.5)Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.
I actually agree with you here. God does choose those who believe.Not conditional election. God just chooses those who believe.
It requires a bit of discernment.
This is really quite elementary, so you don't have any excuse for your questions.
What can't be rejected is eternal life that has been given and possessed by anyone who has believed in Christ.
Those who never believed don't have it. Because they rejected the gift.
While Calvinism thinks that God chooses who will believe, God has always known who will believe, so He doesn't have to "determine" who will.Right. God saves believers (but doesn't determine who will believe).
In the Biblical doctrine of election, it is unconditional: He elects all believers to be holy and blameless. Eph 1:4 is an election of believers. That's who the "us" refers to. In the same chapter, in v.19 Paul makes that very clear.But don't call it conditional election (even though that's what conditional election teaches... don't call it that!)
I actually agree with you here. God does choose those who believe.
But note: that is different than "God does choose who will believe". Which the Bible doesn't teach, but is foundational in Calvinism's doctrine of election.
I disagree with Calvinism's doctrine of election. It isn't about being chosen for salvation, but being chosen for special privilege and service.So what you agree with is conditional election.
While Calvinism thinks that God chooses who will believe, God has always known who will believe, so He doesn't have to "determine" who will.
In the Biblical doctrine of election, it is unconditional: He elects all believers to be holy and blameless. Eph 1:4 is an election of believers. That's who the "us" refers to. In the same chapter, in v.19 Paul makes that very clear.
and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward US who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
The "us" in v.4 is the same "us" as in v.19.
I disagree with Calvinism's doctrine of election. It isn't about being chosen for salvation, but being chosen for special privilege and service.
There are 6 categories of election in the Bible, none of which are about being chosen for salvation:
Christ
national Israel
angels
NT believers (they're already saved)
12 disciples, one of which was Juda
Paul, chosen to preach to Gentiles
I disagree with Calvinism's doctrine of election. It isn't about being chosen for salvation, but being chosen for special privilege and service.
There are 6 categories of election in the Bible, none of which are about being chosen for salvation:
Christ
national Israel
angels
NT believers (they're already saved)
12 disciples, one of which was Juda
Paul, chosen to preach to Gentiles
Why can't you show from Scripture that God chooses who will believe?Of course God knows who will believe. He chose them.
Really? You ask this, after what I posted?So Hod chooses those who are already saved? What's He choosing them for?
The answer to your question can be found in the first line of my post above. Didn't you read my post before you fired off your question?I disagree with Calvinism's doctrine of election. It isn't about being chosen for salvation, but being chosen for special privilege and service.
There are 6 categories of election in the Bible, none of which are about being chosen for salvation:
Christ
national Israel
angels
NT believers (they're already saved)
12 disciples, one of which was Juda
Paul, chosen to preach to Gentiles
This word isn't the word translated "elect" or "election", it's different. However, that isn't really the issue. This verse tells us on what basis God chooses for salvation: "through belief in the truth".2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Thanks for that. Did you have a point?Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:1-7 NASB)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?