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.
No, we have no grounds for boasting because boasting is sinful, prideful, the act of lowly human beings who should look to the awesome God of the universe and boast about Him. We should definitely humble ourselves in obedience and reverence to Him.You arrive at the right conclusion, that we cannot boast in our humility. The problem is you don't realize that the only way we have no grounds for boasting is if we have no virtue to boast in.
Although I do not have my chronolgy wrong, your second line does not follow. We are not saved when we come in brokenness. We have a place reserved for us but it is up to us to remain obedient to Him to receive that gift. If any man while still living looks back and says 'I had a hand in my salvation' he should be very careful about his salvation for he could be in jeapordy. Boasting to God that you know His plans or that you can know His judgement is no small trifle.You also get chronology wrong. We were saved when we came in brokenness. It is impossible to be broken and boasting at the same time. But why can a man not look back and acknowledge, "yeah, I had a hand in my salvation." Which is boasting, and which, if we say that man provides his faith without assistance, is also true.
That, and $5 will buy you a venti Frappucino at Starbucks. The Frappucino has some worth. The rest, not so much....Although I do not have my chronolgy wrong, your second line does not follow. We are not saved when we come in brokenness. We have a place reserved for us but it is up to us to remain obedient to Him to receive that gift. If any man while still living looks back and says 'I had a hand in my salvation' he should be very careful about his salvation for he could be in jeapordy. Boasting to God that you know His plans or that you can know His judgement is no small trifle.
You've hit upon a second point of Calvinism here in an attempt to defend the first, but I reject all five as they are usually defined.
I perceive it's the other way around: Calvinism asserts that "sovereign election and monergistic regeneration (eternal life) leads to faith".Epiphoskei said:Argument from silence. Calvinism does not say that faith does not lead to eternal life.
This is the biggest "thorn" that prevents Calvinists from accepting "free will" --- where does saving-faith come FROM?The question is, upon what sits faith? And this verse does not answer, "upon man's autonomous will."
It's more absurd to think that God stands around commanding men to do what He knows they CAN NEVER do.I recall someone bringing up pelagianism already. It is absurd to say that a command make implications about the nature of the one who recieves it.
Show me where God is causal to any man's will. Take Matt22:2-14 for instance; the KING, represents God --- where does the king decide who comes, and who declines?God calls all to repentance. But depending on their will, they either will or will not come, and you should have no objection to that statement.
No, it's not; not anywhere. Cite the verse you think supports that, and I'll show the refutation.But then the question remains, "why do people will the way they do?" The biblical answer being predestination. But we'll get to that.
Yes, it is.God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So the objection goes, how can he ordain their destruction? Not quite so simple though.
To quote you, "argument from silence". I perceive that Romans2:14-16 clearly says that "when those who have not the Law (never heard of Jesus), but nevertheless show the Law written in their hearts (they believe in Him as much as they understand), their conscience will alternately accuse and defend them at the Final Judgment".If God didn't want the wicked to die and that were all there was to it, God would step in and prevent the wicked from dying. God takes no pleasure in the deaths of those who had never heard Christ, but he won't save those who would willingly choose him if they heard? He won't come down out of a cloud and preach the gospel to them himself? He wants them to live, right, and if he did, many probably would?
His agenda is clearly spelled out, in Jn6:40. "All WHO see, and BELIEVE, may be saved". Look at how this connects with what Jesus told Thomas:So it is established that God has more than one single agenda, and he will suspend his desire that all believe for some reasons.
"Election", means "salvation". All WHO believe, are elect.Is his goal of election on that list? If election is true, yes. If not true, then no.
Your interpretation of 2Pet3:9, is: "God does not decree-to-condemnation, any of the FEW-decreed-to-salvation". Why would Peter write that? You refuse the clear meaning:So verses like this, or like II Peter 3:9, all must be interpreted in light of what the Bible says about election - they cannot provide imput on election itself because everyone agrees that they do not indicate God's greatest motivation in the universe - everyone except universalists, that is.
Come now --- what does that mean? It's saying, "They were cut off for UNBELIEF; if they RETURN, they will be grafted in AGAIN."Romans 11 is about the national cutting off of Israel.
Bologna. With respect, balogna. They were "cut off for unbelief --- do not be arrogant, for YOU can be cut off, TOO." They were cut off because they chose works, rather than faith.Being that Christ crucified became a stumbling block for those who had believed in Judaism, it is clear that Jews who fell away from Israel when Christ came never had Christ to begin with.
That's right --- but Scripture never asserts that. Nowhere, nohow.Perseverence of the saints states that those who believe will not ultimatly be fallen away at the end.
James speaks of a man who FELL from salvatoin. And may be "returned" (grafted in again!).James 5 doesn't actually contradict this, except in what you are inferring from it.
Jesus plainly stated, "WERE ENTERING" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "predestined-elect". Do you disagree?Calvinism does not deny that God uses means, and Matthew 23 does not imply that the scribes and pharisees were not shutting up heaven in accordance with the foreordained plan of God. Once again, you are reading your philosophy into the silence.
Yes it does.
Paul was "OSNAS"; Eph4 speaks of "us falling".You cannot pit scripture against scripture, and you cannot say that it is impossible to interpret one verse without another from another book. The ephesians did not have thesselonians, and paul expected them to understand.
It's both, "EP". You cannot deny "chosen through faith". Can you?But what does 2 Thesselonians mean? You omitted a vital part of the verse. The verse does not say that we were chosen through faith, but rather, that we were chosen for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth.
I didn't attach it --- Paul did.Since it makes much more sense to say we were saved through sanctification as opposed to saying we were chosen through sanctification, were we chosen by faith or saved through faith? Attaching sanctification and faith to salvation and not chosen works better all around. Faith preceeds Salvation.
I can link you to a discussion of Acts13:48 where Greek scholars disagree. But verse 46, forbids the idea of "sovereign-election" --- because the Jews unelected THEMSELVES.That's simply a wrong translation. One anti-calvinists keep throwing around, but still a translation that takes liberties with the Greek and which bible translators have more or less rejected.
You're speaking of verse 44 --- it does NOT say "not every man is drawn". Jesus is saying, "Those who come to Me --- they do not come unless drawn by God". He's asserting His AUTHORITY; they were saying (verse 42), "We saw this kid grow up! Who does He think He IS?!"Then you have set scripture against scripture, for John 6 teaches that it is the fact that the father has not drawn each and every man that explains why there were some among his number who did not believe.
Deny that Jesus said "I chose ALL TWELVE", and that "I chose you (to be the 12 Disciples), and that your fruit remain".Judas was not in the audience of that passage. He left in chapter 13. These verses were adressed only to the 11, who were called and predestined differently than Judas.
First, that is an ALSO-GENTILES passage; second, Rom11:32 says "God has mercy on ALL.""I will have compassion on whom I will have comassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy."
Rom10:10, and Heb11:6, plainly tells us "were saving-faith comes from". So does 2Tim3:15. Contrast 2Tim3:15 (faith comes from studying Scripture), with Jn5:39-47, "you study but REFUSE to believe!"Which is a very calvinistic perspective, but does not imply where the faith comes from. Once again, argument from silence.
Read the Eph4 passage again; it's not an "empty warning".Once again, God uses means. The fact that means prevent the salvation of some is perfectly Calvinistic
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?