Lost Witness
Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")
- Nov 10, 2022
- 1,749
- 1,032
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
"Many are called but few are chosen" which in my experience is true, so far.
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.
"Many are called but few are chosen" which in my experience is true, so far.No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.
Yes, it would help if Calvinsits would become familiar with the simplicity of God's Word intead of complicating it with their long winded, out of left-field, Theoligical framework termed TULIP. And worse, Calvinists magnify thier error by interpretting all scripture based upon the TULIP framework - its circular reasoning. Leaving Calvinism: Jesus poses salvation as being offered to all, as in all who believe and are baptized will be saved in Mark 16:16. And we see Peter, full of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in Acts 2 promising remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit (i.e. salvation) to those who repent and are baptized. The emphasis by Jesus and Peter was on man's choice as no indication is given that God is not willing.No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.
I believe "she" and "her".I’m sure that when God’sGrace101 said that Calvinism was never accepted by the church he was most likely referring to the apostolic church, not the reformed church.
Strictly speaking, Paul was speaking to the jailer, who was in fear for his life. From what I understand, the sure punishment for losing custody of the prisoners was death. It seems THAT is what he wanted saved from. Others have also said that the calamitous ruin of the jail had made him fear death. Whatever, proper hermeneutics shows that Paul was not talking to us.No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.
Yes, it would help if Calvinsits would become familiar with the simplicity of God's Word intead of complicating it with their long winded, out of left-field, Theoligical framework termed TULIP. And worse, Calvinists magnify thier error by interpretting all scripture based upon the TULIP framework - its circular reasoning. Leaving Calvinism: Jesus poses salvation as being offered to all, as in all who believe and are baptized will be saved in Mark 16:16. And we see Peter, full of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in Acts 2 promising remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit (i.e. salvation) to those who repent and are baptized. The emphasis by Jesus and Peter was on man's choice as no indication is given that God is not willing.
John said God as Love, and per 1 Corinthians 13, love hopes all things (i.e. God is always willing) - but in my first paragraph per Jesus and Peter, sinful man still has his part to respond positively to God's love (i.e. termed faith) to receive salvation. Per Paul's interaction with King Agripa in Acts 26:28, some refuse which agrees with Stephen in Acts 7:51 who says that many resist the Holy Spirit - so men can reject God. This is all to say that man plays a roll - and why should that not be the case because God judges man. Taking off Theolgical glasses: If God choreographed everything man does (per Calvinist theology) how coud man righteously be judged? Sinful man is not judged for sin, but for rejecting God (John 15:23).
Paul conflicts with Calvin in that Paul clearly states that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), but Calvin says that God decrees (i.e. predestines) eternal torment to those He assigns prior to birth as "doomed from the womb" (look it up on the Google) - both Paul and Calvin cannot be correct on this - time to choose.
Strictly speaking, Paul was speaking to the jailer, who was in fear for his life. From what I understand, the sure punishment for losing custody of the prisoners was death. It seems THAT is what he wanted saved from. Others have also said that the calamitous ruin of the jail had made him fear death. Whatever, proper hermeneutics shows that Paul was not talking to us.
Seems strange to me that you would go there. The account says that all the doors were opened and that they were no longer bound. Furthermore, Paul told him, before his question was asked, that everyone was still there.The jailer didn’t ask them “what must I do to be saved” because he thought they had already left. How would that make any sense? Why would he ask them “what must I do to be saved” if he thought they weren’t there? Surely you don’t ask people questions who you think have already left do you? Paul told him they were still there and the jailer fell down before them before he asked what he must do to be saved.
Really? Do you honestly think that is what I was saying??? No. I'm saying that some say he was in fear from falling debris. It's not even my claim. But you must mock.So a jailer would fear being killed because an earthquake caused damage to the jail? He’s expected to protect the jail from earthquakes?
So you ignore the rest of my post to claim I interpreted it according to my theology. My theology does not oppose the usual interpretation, as I showed even in the post from which you extracted a quote out of context. Who is being too quick here?These are the kind of responses that result from twisting scripture from its intended context. No, what makes more sense is that the jailer knew why they were arrested in the first place which is typical of prison guards. They usually know why the prisoner is in jail. Next time you shouldn’t be so quick to accept evidence that supports your theology without thinking it thru and following it to its most logical conclusion. These are both obviously illogical explanations.
Seems strange to me that you would go there. The account says that all the doors were opened and that they were no longer bound. Furthermore, Paul told him, before his question was asked, that everyone was still there.
Really? Do you honestly think that is what I was saying??? No. I'm saying that some say he was in fear from falling debris. It's not even my claim. But you must mock.
So you ignore the rest of my post to claim I interpreted it according to my theology. My theology does not oppose the usual interpretation, as I showed even in the post from which you extracted a quote out of context. Who is being too quick here?
Clare,Explained in post #1472.
Please exegete Ro 4:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion
This means that we are held guilty of sin.
There was no sin between Adam and Moses, because there was no law to sin against.
But they all died because of their guilt of sin.
Of what sin were the guilty?
Of what sin were they guilty between Adam and Moses when there was no sin because there was no law to sin against?
My point is that, contrary to your assertion, sin is imputed to us, per Ro 5:12-15.
Good question. . .Paul is demonstrating that since,
where there is no law there is no sin, yet
all those born of Adam between Adam and Moses, when there was no law to sin against,
died anyway. . .it was because the sin of Adam was imputed to them (they were made sinners, Ro 5:19)
and which Ro 5:14 states is the pattern of Christ. . .
of Christ's righteousness likewise being imputed (they were made righteous) to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11, Ro 5:19).
Ro 5:19 parallels the contrasting imputations of both sin and righteousness.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what Romans 4:12-15 has to do with the discussion.Explained in post #1472.
Please exegete Ro 4:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion
This means that we are held guilty of sin.
There was no sin between Adam and Moses, because there was no law to sin against.
But they all died because of their guilt of sin.
Of what sin were the guilty?
Of what sin were they guilty between Adam and Moses when there was no sin because there was no law to sin against?
Clare,
Here's post 1472:
GG101 replies:
How does Romans 5:12-15 state that sin is IMPUTED to us?
Where exactly does it state that?
What it does state is that, due to Adam's fall, we have all become sinners.
This means that we sin.
It does NOT mean that we are imputed with Adam's sin.
He sinned....not each one of us individually.
I believe I've explained what Romans 5:19 means.
I'll post it again since this is very important in understanding our Christianity...
Romans 5:18-19
18Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.
Paul is explaining that Adam's sin brought condemnation for everyone. Everyone from that time onward would be lost because Adam's sin affected all of humankind. We are condemned - separated from God, just like Adam became separated after he ate of the fruit.
Please exegete Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.Where does it state that we are blamed for Adam's sin?
It does not state this.
We are condemned with separation from God...
It does not say we are imputed with Adam's sin.
When someone tells you what you think...it wastes too much time trying to correct the wrong impression instead of getting on with the topic at hand. I wasn't insulted.If you don't wish to answer what looks to you like nonsense, I can understand that. But it seems you took it more as insult than nonsense. Just saying...
So, what is your point of view? Is God's Grace comprehensive, or do we add to God's Grace by our faith? Is our faith something we produce, or is it produced by the indwelling Spirit of God? Always a 'cooperative' effort? Or are we In Him, he living within us?
A woman went up to ask John Piper a question after a debate or discussion, can't remember.And here on this site repeatedly I've been told I have no reason for assurance of my salvation due to my theology. Oh, well...
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!
Whoa!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.
Saying that calvinism was never accepted by the church was not a misquote.That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<
the Post you are quoting was originally a quote from another poster that i was going to add an image to but it messed up and i deleted it.Saying that calvinism was never accepted by the church was not a misquote.
see my post no. 1515.
I'm very careful in what I post.
Thank you. Nicely handled.I sincerely apologize brother it wasn’t my intention to misrepresent your post. I really thought that was what you were saying. I should’ve asked first before carrying on the way I did. I’m truly sorry, I only got like 5 hours of sleep last night and I replied first thing in the morning and I was super groggy so I wasn’t thinking clearly. Like I said I should’ve asked if that was what you actually meant instead of proceeding to refute your explanation. When you said that the jailer has lost custody of them I took that as they had escaped so I suspected that you probably read a commentary somewhere and didn’t compare it to the scriptures. This is a common mistake made here on CF and I’m confident that you’ve witnessed these kinds of mistakes as well. When you mentioned the jail being ruined I suspected that you were implying that the damage was a result of Paul and Silas and not from the earthquake. Like I said I’ve seen these kind of mistakes made before where people make claims that are contrary to what the scriptures say so it didn’t seem unfathomable to me. I just wanted to explain my actions here and convey my sincerest of apologies and I will strive to be more inquisitive in the future before making false claims against you brother. God bless.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it just the question: "Where is the good news?"?A woman went up to ask John Piper a question after a debate or discussion, can't remember.
She was very sad because she wasn't sure she was saved.
Now, if I was asked such a question I'd answer that if someone is worried that they are NOT saved, it most surely means they are.
Unsaved persons don't go through life worrying about it.
However, Piper replied that she was right...that she could not be sure.
Where is the good news?
I would tend to wonder if it was really true that I was one of the lucky chosen ones.
However, I do want to say that although I understand what they're saying...
I also want to state that we cannot be the judge of anyone's soul.
We're just talking here.
Whoa! Indeed! Who teaches God sends some to hell through no fault of the persons?Whoa!
And what do you know is the purpose of God creating persons to go to hell for His own purposes...
What could that JUST reason possibly be?
I would say that a god that sends some to hell through no fault of the persons is VERY capricious.
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?