Election, Arminian style

[FreeGrace2]

The predestined are called and justified. Every last one of them. When Matt 22 is introduced, I know the opposition has lost and is grasping at straws.

Please share with the forum how you are so "knowledgable" aboaut the opposition.

The truth is that your response here only DODGES once again the issue. There are those "called" and there are those "chosen" (elected). They are not the same number. There are more "called" than "chosen", but you've chosen to ignore that fact.

 

[Hammster]

Please share with the forum how you are so "knowledgable" aboaut the opposition.

The truth is that your response here only DODGES once again the issue. There are those "called" and there are those "chosen" (elected). They are not the same number. There are more "called" than "chosen", but you've chosen to ignore that fact.

I've given you the truth for years. You continue to reject it. You are not arguing against me. You are arguing against God's truth. I was foolish enough to think I could convince you. It's obvious that it's the work of the Spirit to open your eyes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've given you the truth for years.

This would be an opinion.

You continue to reject it. You are not arguing against me. You are arguing against God's truth. I was foolish enough to think I could convince you. It's obvious that it's the work of the Spirit to open your eyes.

Your opinions are wrong. Reformed theology cannot provide verses that SAY what they claim. As I've shown over and over. Yet, I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe.

That's where the issue lies.

 

[FreeGrace2]

1 Tim 2:4
2 Peter 3:9
Ezekial 18:all

IS it true that God created before the foundation of the world a stiff necked people and named them Calvinists ?

Or

Are they stiff necked by choice, choosing to reject God's word ?

Anyone

 

[Hammster]

This would be an opinion.


Your opinions are wrong. Reformed theology cannot provide verses that SAY what they claim. As I've shown over and over. Yet, I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe.

That's where the issue lies.

I understand why you feel this way. I did once myself.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I understand why you feel this way. I did once myself.

Don't patronize me. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe, unlike that of reformed theology.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 saya "Yet, I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe." To which we get:-



Is this the the problem ? He did one himself provide verses but not any more, rather referring to Scripture as "straw" !

Obviously so.

 

[Hammster]

"When Matt 22 is introduced, I know the opposition has lost and is grasping at straws"

I'd be interested to know why you refer to Mathew 22 as "Straws".

Thanks

Sorry, pinkman, Ghost air, Markea, JackSparrow, etc. plus the 600 socks you created just to insult me and other Calvinists. I don't answer known trolls.

 

[Hammster]

Don't patronize me. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe, unlike that of reformed theology.

I know you believe that. Those who deny the trinity have verses that actually say what they believe. So do universalists and annihilationists. God hasn't opened their eyes yet, either.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I know you believe that. Those who deny the trinity have verses that actually say what they believe.

Are you kidding?? Where is the verse that SAYS that there is no Trinity?

Here's the deal. Those who deny the Trinity are idiots, because the Bible clearly identifies God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Maybe they just can't count real good.

Another thing: anyone can claim anything. So what? The proof is in the pudding.

We all know there isn't any verse that says, much less teaches, that Christ only died for the elect.

We all know that God doesn't choose who will believe, or that God causes one to believe.

Why do we know these things? Because the Bible doesn't say that stuff.

 

[Hammster]

Are you kidding?? Where is the verse that SAYS that there is no Trinity?

Here's the deal. Those who deny the Trinity are idiots, because the Bible clearly identifies God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Maybe they just can't count real good.

Another thing: anyone can claim anything. So what? The proof is in the pudding.

We all know there isn't any verse that says, much less teaches, that Christ only died for the elect.

We all know that God doesn't choose who will believe, or that God causes one to believe.

Why do we know these things? Because the Bible doesn't say that stuff.

And again, those who deny the Trinity will tell you that there's no verse that says God is three in one. We know they are wrong on their views, but it's because we understand how to interpret the scriptures. So just like the Trinity must be spiritually discerned, so must the truth of the Atonement and election. God will reveal it to you someday, either here or in heaven. You'll be excited when He does.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And again, those who deny the Trinity will tell you that there's no verse that says God is three in one.

Doesn't matter at all. The Bible identifies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God.

We know they are wrong on their views, but it's because we understand how to interpret the scriptures.

I don't think plain words need interpreting.

So just like the Trinity must be spiritually discerned, so must the truth of the Atonement and election.[/QUOET]
Again, plain words don't need interpreting. When the Bible says that Christ "died for all", it really means that.

God will reveal it to you someday, either here or in heaven. You'll be excited when He does.

Or vice versa.

 

[Hammster]

Doesn't matter at all. The Bible identifies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God.


I don't think plain words need interpreting.

You've obviously never discussed oneness with those who hold to the view. It's just like a Calvinist talking to someone who holds a free grace view.

 

[DeaconDean]

I've given you the truth for years. You continue to reject it. You are not arguing against me. You are arguing against God's truth. I was foolish enough to think I could convince you. It's obvious that it's the work of the Spirit to open your eyes.

Here again, I am forced to agree completely with you.

In spite of having shown (numerous times) from the theology of Arminius himself, and what he said and wrote, Arminian theology shows that "Election, Arminian style" is based purely on "foreknowledge" what you will do.

Nobdysfool was 100% correct:

"Plegaianism is alive and well in the 21st centry". And, its thriving.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bcbsr]

Brian Abasciano has provided a very helpful explanation of two ways that Arminians have understood election:



The whole article can be read here.

If salvation is by faith, then it must by faith. If you take the Calvinist/Augustinian view of pre-birth election, then salvation is not by faith, but by election.

In fact if a person is elect at birth, then there is never a possibility that such a person will go to hell. Yet such is contrary to the rhetoric Paul uses, for example in Eph 2:3 "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." But the unbelieving elect were never objects of wrath. They were never in danger of condemnation. So what you're left with is election by faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If salvation is by faith, then it must by faith.

Yet, Eph 2:8 says that we are saved by grace, through faith.

If you take the Calvinist/Augustinian view of pre-birth election, then salvation is not by faith, but by election.

The NT contains 3 related words for "election" or "elect"; noun, verb and adjective. And none of these words are related to being elected or chosen for salvation.

The ONLY verse that says "we are chosen for salvation" is found in 1 Thess 2:3, but the word isn't related to any of the 3 words translated "elect/election"

The Calvinist view of election concludes that God chooses (elects) who will believe, ultimately. Yet, without any support from Scripture for that view.

 

[FaithInHisName]

Brian Abasciano has provided a very helpful explanation of two ways that Arminians have understood election:



The whole article can be read here.

God knows, sees everything including your misunderstanding. Your deception is it willful or lack of understanding?

 

[DingDing]

...
The whole article can be read here.

I am very much in agreement with the corporate view of election. The individual view of election has way too many issues and is just not biblical.

 

[ToBeLoved]

For those who are Calvinists, how would any of them like the statement that "converted Calvinists tend to become flaming Arminians"??


A poor choice of words to describe his change from Arminianism to Calvinism. The word "convert" should only be used in the sense of becoming saved. Not a change of denomination or theological position. It would be more accurate to say that he apostatized from Arminianism to Calvinism, just as the other way as well.

"Convert" was a poor choice of words, but I think the author knew what he was saying. It's just too bad that differences in theology are seen this way, but some take their Calvinism too far. That said I guess the opposite is true for some too.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It was clear. It was clear that you added to scripture.

And according to the foreknowledge of God means according to God's foreknowledge. Pretty basic.

So you are denying that faith even needs to exist in a believer?

That is a zap, zap with a pinch of electrocution.