Calvinists...supported by this or hurt?

[Jesus My Wisdom]

2 Thessalonians 2
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

does this mean we are chosen from the beginning we are to be saved...or that we have the choice to be saved...and if we have the choice...can one be a full backslidden christian and still go to heaven?

It means from the beginning of their Christian faith, God chose them for salvation when Jesus comes.

This salvation event: 1 Thess 5:8-9.

JMW

 

[augustine32]

It means what it says. Pray not only for a select few. Pray for all men.

Exactly. Don't pray for just Americans or whatever nation you are in, but have a global view to your praying because God does not just desire Americans to be saved, but men from every tribe, tongue and nation. That is what God desires and Revelation lets us know that is exactly what will happen. God desires something and it comes to pass. "He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'"
Your theology basically says that God desires something that He does not get. My theology according to Scripture says that God gets exactly what He wants. If He desired every single person to be saved then He would do something about the fact that not all men are saved.

Again it means precisely what it says. The Grace of God has appeared to all men.

From where do you get your information that obviously Titus 2:11 is not true and needs to be modified to say what it did not say. That conclusion is necessary in order to validate election. It does not stand on its own merits.

God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. Just because you may not understand how God did it does not mean that it is not true. Titus 2:11 is true without any help from man...

Paul is telling the different groups in the church what their specific duty is. The passage runs like this: Older men are to...Older women are to...Younger women are to...Younger men are to...Slaves are to...For the grace of God has appeared to all men!

He is specifically speaking to five different groups of people that pretty much include every range of humanity. Then he gives them the reason that are able to do their duty. It is because the grace of God has appeared to all men which is defined in the verse by who he is talking to. It is as if to say that the slaves or younger women are not left out of this grace. People from every tribe, tongue and nation will be redeemed as will people that are old men, old women, younger women, younger men and slaves. None will be left out. It fits perfectly in the context. Would you like to tell me how Christ is revealed to those who have never heard? God does move in a mysterious way, but I do not find in my Bible that every single man will see the grace of God that brings salvation. I think it is definitely possible that every tongue, tribe and nation will have the Gospel preached to them, but pretty far fetched, unless you can find it in scripture, that every single person will have the grace that brings salvation presented to them.

You invalidate a passage, I invalidate one, and another invalidates another; pretty soon the bible is nothing but inconsistent chaos. I believe that if God were refering to different catagories of men, somewhere in scripture he would have stated it. Would he have left something that important concerning salvation up to man's intrepretation? I don't think so.

What you are doing is not relying on what is precisely stated in the bible, instead it is molded and squeezed to fit mans theology... Would you need it to be true if your views did not encompass election? Look at just how much baggage you have added to that passage. I assure you that it is more than is allowed by scripture. To the one that adds to or subtracts from the words of the bible, to him is added the curses in the bible....

Not invalidating or adding or subtracting just looking at the verse in context. No baggage either, all I brought into the passage is the logical flow of thought from the first part of the chapter.

 

[cygnusx1]

[/font]

Stop right there. If this guy said he divorced, ran off with someone else, and deserted three children, he can hardly be seen as a legalist. Quite the contrary, his actions were abundantly antinomian. To decry Calvinism as legalistic after associating it with a person who displays blatant antinomianism is rather rediculous.


Logical fallacy. Guilt by association.


Logical fallacy. False dilemma: choice between faith and law. The two are diametrically opposed only in terms of our justification, not in terms of our Christian conduct. He who has faith in God seeks to please God. How do we please God if we do not know what pleases Him (namely, His law). Covenant theology does indeed point to the Law of God as the Christian's standard of conduct. The Reformed believer doesn't seek to keep the Law of God to his utmost ability because he thinks it will save him...he does so because he knows that is what is pleasing to God. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments.



The author needs to pay better attention to those letters and to the words of Christ Himself. Shall we go on sinning (transgressing the Law of God) that grace may abound?



I knew dispensationalism would rear its head eventually.



Check your history books...the ones that deal with church history BEFORE dispensationalism. You'll see that this is by no means a new message. Apostle Paul: saved by faith alone. James: such faith is never alone.

Being well familiar with Sproul's work in particular, I have to wonder if this guy has even read or listened to him.



So, if the mark or outward manifestation of saving faith is not works, then please tell me what it is?



WHAT?!? Is he SERIOUS? The Reformed position is that one must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before one can even seek after God. This guy can't even accurately represent the theology he's trying to discount.



Again, gross distortion of the Reformed position.



Israel's failure was in relying on their performance to save them instead of keeping the Law in faith.


Yes, men like David. "Oh how I love your Law."

This entire excerpt REEKS of antinomianism and is riddled with misrepresentation. To say that this guys is an "inconsistent" Calvinist is to make an incredible understatement.

such a joy to read !

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to frumanchu again.