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.
Philemon 1:14
New International Version
But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.
New Living Translation
But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent. I wanted you to help because you were willing, not because you were forced.
English Standard Version
but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord.
Interlinear
Apart from however - your consent nothing I wished to do so that not as according to necessity the good of you may be but according to willingness.
The Berean Literal also says "according to willingness". The Berean Standard, and several others are wrong on this one. Philemon 1:14 does not mention free will.
I mentioned 'looking into the future' to make the point, that you and apparently most people on this thread and so many others seem to think, that God reacts to what we do in order to establish policy or something. To me that's just about the most coherent way I can see to put the notion. To me it is ludicrous to suppose that God decides what is going to happen, as a result of what is going to happen. His decision is meaningless in that structure.
J Mick said:Has anyone answered you?
A Calvinist is a person that is of the reformed faith that came about in the 1,500's.
It's called calvinism because it's more understood by most persons.
Calvin believed in double predestination.
This means that:
MAN HAS NO FREE WILL
MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD
GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE.
Calvinism is explained by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.
This acronym was explained in the 1930's if I remember correctly.
See the following for an explanation:
Please note that calvinism is not biblical and was never accepted by the church.
T Total Depravity: Man is born totally depraved and is unable to seek God or find Him.
U Unconditional Election: Because of the above, it is God that chooses who will be saved and who will be damned.
L Limited Atonement: Jesus did not die for the whole world, but only for the chosen by God.
I Irresistible Grace: When God wants to save someone, His grace is irristible - the person will be saved.
P Perseverance of the Saints: If a person is chosen by God, he will persevere till the end and never forfeit his salvation.
@J Mick I hope you can recognize bias when you see it. Read with a strong dose of skepticism
Are you saying that you are not biased? We all are. Get used to that fact, so you can try to see around the bias.Are you reformed or not?
What do you disagree with as to what I posted?
This is what calvinists believe...
At least admit you're a calvinist.
Post #1471 being the case, there is no NT basis for maintaining that God's foreknowledge as used in the NT is of what man is going to do, and then maintaining that such "foreknowledge" is the basis for God's decisions regarding man, when there is no foreknowledge by God of man's decisions presented in the NT.
The NT treats of God's foreknowledge (prognosis) only as relating to his own actions, and we are not at liberty to assume its usage means anything other than that for the purposes of our own theology.
what's a Calvinist?
You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.
A Calvinist is a person that is of the reformed faith that came about in the 1,500's.
It's called calvinism because it's more understood by most persons.
So that means although i disobeyed the LORDS voice when he blessed me with his Holy Spirit ( hallelujah! ) and Didn't leave my life as he called me to but saved it... that i'm going to heaven? isn't that contradictory to scripture. Don't get me wrong, GODs Mercy knows no limits but according to scripture denying his voice on the day you hear it is a NO NO? Wish I could settle this debate for you all but i'm still alive.A Calvinist is someone who believes that God chose who He will save before creation and if God didn’t choose you there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. If God didn’t choose you, you are completely incapable of believing the gospel, you are completely incapable of repentance, you are completely incapable of coming to Christ. In a nutshell if God didn’t choose you there’s nothing you can do to be saved. Also if God did choose you there’s nothing you can do to be condemned. No matter what you do, if God chose you then your destined to be saved no matter what. God controls everything and nothing happens unless God made it happen. That’s Calvinism.
Biblically demonstrate that NT usage of prognosis does not refer to God foreknowing his own actions.The word is only used twice in the scriptures and your only assuming that it refers to God’s foreknowledge of what He would do.
Whether he was right or not, he was not representing Calvinism, but only his way of looking at Calvinism. (As also, by the way, did you).He did right here.
I would really like to see where, and in context, @Clare73 said that God would choose people before creation based on who he would choose in the future.The word is only used twice in the scriptures and your only assuming that it refers to God’s foreknowledge of what He would do. I’ve already explained how that interpretation is completely ridiculous that God would choose people before creation based on who He would choose in the future. God would be saying to Himself “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now before any of them exist”? Your saying God chose them before creation according to Him choosing them in the future. That’s preposterous and it doesn’t make sense because it completely negates the purpose of His foreknowledge. Peter should’ve just said that God chose them and completely left out anything about foreknowledge.
You said, "What we deserve is based on our accepting God's commandments or not.Mark,
you should quit worrying about boasting and learn about the ONE, TRUE GOD that is biblical.
I'm sure you know of
Ephesians 2:8-9
8God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
9Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
Grace, Faith and Salvation are gifts.
SO WHERE IS THE BOASTING?
Matthew 6:1
1“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “
James 3:5
5So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!
And, regarding boasting, I'd like to say this:
Who is boasting more?
A person that knows they're a sinner and turns to God for forgiveness and thanks God every day for Christ's sacrifice.
or
A person who believes God chose HIM, out of all the persons on earth, he is one of the chosen ones.
I'd say it's the 2nd person.
Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?J Mick said:
what's a Calvinist?
Are you saying that you are not biased? We all are. Get used to that fact, so you can try to see around the bias.
You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.
You didn't represent Calvinism with mere facts concerning Calvinism, and you missed a lot of them. You jump immediately into what seems (granted that it seems to me) to be perhaps a favorite gripe of yours, Double Predestination. You ALL-CAPS the supposed doctrines you seem to hate. (Some people consider this to be SHOUTING). You don't explain what Calvinists mean by MAN HAS NO FREE WILL. You claim that double predestination means that MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD, instead of pointing out any difference between the lost and the regenerated —why didn't you say, "Man as fallen..." or "Unregenerate man is totally unable..."? Then you say that double predestination means that GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE. That is simply not true. God doesn't HAVE to do anything. His choice was made by the council of his own will, by his own authority, before the foundation of the world, before any of the three items you list came into play. God chose what he chose because he wanted to, for his own purposes —not as a reaction to anything anyone would do, nor even because of the sorry state they are in. Bias, my man!
And you gloss right over the fact that double predestination doesn't even deal directly with those three items you listed. Not only that, but you don't even mention that "double predestination", while logically reasonable, does not stand alone as such, but is only a logically reasonable conclusion —it is not Calvinist doctrine as such. Calvinism teaches that God does nothing capriciously, though that too is not the core doctrine of the matter. God has a purposeful, and just, reason for the damnation of those at enmity with him, contrary to any notion that he damns the same way that he saves.
But skipping the importance of the doctrine of God's sovereignty, and so on —i.e. that Calvinism isn't merely represented by TULIP— you even presented TULIP wrong:
Leaving alone Total Depravity as you stated it —you were close enough— you present a drawn conclusion from what Unconditional Election does say, instead of showing what Unconditional Election does say: (In my own words), that God's choice is based on nothing that we are, that we did, that we are doing or that we can do.
Limited Atonement you present with words ("Jesus did not die for the whole world") to make it seem to conflict with words of Scripture (such as in Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2). If I was to present it in opposition to you, I would have put, "Jesus did not die for absolutely every person who ever will have lived". You could at least have presented the notion of Definite Atonement, which is more to the point. But no, you had to jump right in to controversy, with no allowance of what Limited Atonement is really about. Bias.
So no, what you told him is not what Calvinists believe.
That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?
I'll admit the post did make one major blunder, when it said:
"Calvinism...was never accepted by the church."
Admittedly that statement is incredibly far off the mark. Even I myself know that much, without being an expert on the subject.
Huh? I didn't get you.That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<
Perhaps it was nitpicky. But @J Mick only asked what Calvinism was, and that isn't what he got. I wouldn't have minded if he had been told what it was, and after that to hear objections, or even objections clearly delineated as such throughout. Instead, he got biased misrepresentation.Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?
So that means although i disobeyed the LORDS voice when he blessed me with his Holy Spirit ( hallelujah! ) and Didn't leave my life as he called me to but saved it... that i'm going to heaven? isn't that contradictory to scripture. Don't get me wrong, GODs Mercy knows no limits but according to scripture denying his voice on the day you hear it is a NO NO? Wish I could settle this debate for you all but i'm still alive.
Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?
I'll admit the post did make one major blunder, when it said:
"Calvinism...was never accepted by the church."
Admittedly that statement is incredibly far off the mark. Even I myself know that much, without being an expert on the subject.
doesn't necessarily apply to my particular problem?Not exactly, Calvinists don’t teach that you will be saved regardless of what you do, at least not in that sense. They teach that if God has chosen you, you will eventually repent and abide in Christ no matter what. If you are rebellious towards God and indulge in a sinful lifestyle you will eventually repent and do God’s will before the end. So they don’t teach a license to sin they teach that God will absolutely make you want to do His will before it’s too late.
doesn't necessarily apply to my particular problem?
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?