"I see no evidence in the Word that faith and repentance are gifts from God."

[Tzaousios]

From your testimony, it only shows that mental assent and verbal profession of Christ means nothing. But thank God that His Spirit continued to convict you and you were cut to the heart and repented and really believed.

First of all, it is a false dichotomy to assert that all that Calvinists do is pledge mental assent and verbal profession of Christ.

Secondly, speaking of "cutting to the heart," it is interesting that you have left out an extremely important passage in Ezekiel. What does it say about the fallen condition of humans in terms of will and desire? What does it say that God thought it necessary to do do to restore those things?

Genesis 11:19-20

19 And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.

Genesis 36:25-27

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Surely you will not write these passages off as pertaining only to the stiff-necked Hebrews of the Old Testament.

 

[Tzaousios]

But the true meaning of election intended in the Word is totally different from what Calvinism has asserted.

No, you have rhetorically described the non-Calvinist interpretation of election as "from the Word." It serves only to prop up your interpretation and demonize that of Calvinists.

One is from the Word, one is from man, which would you believe?

Case in point. Calvinism as "from man."

Search for the truth in God yourself, rather than believing in man's theologies.

Case in point, again. Calvinists as "believing in man's theologies."

 

[Skala]

However, when we correctly interpret the passage above (Eph 2:8-9), faith is NOT what is being given as a gift...the gift is "saved." When we further correctly interpret the passage, the word for "saved" here simply means deliverance, not eternal life.

You're just plain wrong here brother. But first, I am curious how you came to your conclusion that the pronoun "this" in the phrase "this is not your doing, it is a gift from God" points only and specifically to the word "saved"

Can you tell us why you concluded such a thing? What rule of grammar are you following, if any at all? I eagerly await your answer.

Philippians 1:29 he writes, “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”

True, but then again, when we correctly interpret the passage, it is saying that it has been granted that those who want eternal life must not only believe in Him, but also suffer for His sake.

Um, I know English. I speak it. I know English grammar. And I have no idea how you concluded the thing you asserted above. Where does the verse say "those who want eternal life must believe and suffer". I strongly think you are reading strange and foreign ideas into the text. Grammatically, the author says that "belief" and "suffering" are what is granted, not the "command to believe and suffer". There is no imperative at all in the verse. Again, why did you conclude such a thing?

Yes, but I have no idea what version of scripture you are using, for all the version I have read..."to those who have obtained..." meaning that they chose, as if by lot, to believe,

When has the word "obtained" ever, in the history of mankind, meant "to choose to do an action"????

I think you are grasping at straws, and making up strange rules, because the clear implications of scripture are just hard for you to swallow my friend.

 

[cygnusx1]

But the true meaning of election intended in the Word is totally different from what Calvinism has asserted. One is from the Word, one is from man, which would you believe?



That is why I asked you to search the truth for yourself, didn't I? .

so I am OK to search out for myself , but I am a man ..... you are against doctrinal formulas created by men and still expect me , a man , to come to some sort of understanding that will not be "man and his doctrine" ..... I fail to see the consistency in your approach.

Just admit you have condemned anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on a faulty deduction.

 

[Skala]

Terene, I would ask you to tell me what election truly means..but wait, you're a man arent' you?

Technically you're a woman, so that's ok I guess!

But you see the point....you're making a silly distinction that doesn't really exist. No where does the Bible say "Ok guys, here's what election means" and then spell it out plainly. So your imperative to "ignore men" really doesn't accompilsh anything. I take it then, that you don't listen to sunday morning preaching, since it's a man at the pulpit, right? He's the one giving you his interpretation of the Bible, thereofre, it must be incorrect, right?

Anyways, you have yet to provide the "true" understanding of "election", so please enlighten us, since the list of following people couldn't reach the right conclusion:

Charles Spurgeon
John Owen
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
Martin Luther
JI Packer
John Piper
John Macarthur
John Calvin

Weird...all the greatest teachers, preachers,a nd theologians in church history couldn't figure out what "election" means, but Terene did? What an accomplishment!!

 

[Tzaousios]

Charles Spurgeon
John Owen
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
Martin Luther
JI Packer
John Piper
John Macarthur
John Calvin

+ St. Augustine

 

[Skala]

It's curious why Teren's theology, whatever it is, isn't also "from a man". After all, she's a mere man, and she believes it, teaches it, and preaches it. Many other men, called Arminians and Semi Pelagians also believe and teach exactly what Terene believes/affirms.

What makes her theology suddenly not qualify for this category described as "of men"?

It's this kind of generalizations and sweeping statements that really bother me.

 

[Tzaousios]

It's curious why Teren's theology, whatever it is, isn't also "from a man". After all, she's a mere man, and she believes it, teaches it, and preaches it. Many other men, called Arminians and Semi Pelagians also believe and teach exactly what Terene believes/affirms.

Ah, but those are all "theologies of men," as well. I guess she has independently discovered a non-Calvinist interpretation that is untouched by all of those human, demonic, Calvinist, and Reformed doctrines.

What makes her theology suddenly not qualify for this category described as "of men"?

Most likely it is because she is simply repeating "what the Bible clearly/plainly says," free from all interpretation or influence of man and demons.

 

[Skala]

Those demons are rascals!

How dare they to give me the wrong interpretation of Acts 13:48!

 

[cygnusx1]

Rom 12:3 "as God has allotted to each a measure of faith".

 

[Terene]

so I am OK to search out for myself , but I am a man ..... you are against doctrinal formulas created by men and still expect me , a man , to come to some sort of understanding that will not be "man and his doctrine" ..... I fail to see the consistency in your approach.

Just admit you have condemned anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on a faulty deduction.

When I mean search out for yourself, I mean you search it ALONE with God. I do not mean you rely on yourself, but that you rely on God ALONE, not me, not Calvin, not any theologists that you know, GOD only do you rely. I hope I made myself clear enough.

Again, I have condemned no one, but pointed out why Calvinism is wrong and unbiblical. I used human's reasoning, and whatever understanding I have been given of God. I believe I spoke what was easy to understand. I did not avoid any of your arguments, but I gave reasoning to whatever you said and why they may be wrong. I have yet to hear some reasoning from YOUR SIDE.

 

[Terene]

Terene, I would ask you to tell me what election truly means..but wait, you're a man arent' you?

Technically you're a woman, so that's ok I guess!

But you see the point....you're making a silly distinction that doesn't really exist. No where does the Bible say "Ok guys, here's what election means" and then spell it out plainly. So your imperative to "ignore men" really doesn't accompilsh anything. I take it then, that you don't listen to sunday morning preaching, since it's a man at the pulpit, right? He's the one giving you his interpretation of the Bible, thereofre, it must be incorrect, right?

Anyways, you have yet to provide the "true" understanding of "election", so please enlighten us, since the list of following people couldn't reach the right conclusion:

Charles Spurgeon
John Owen
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
Martin Luther
JI Packer
John Piper
John Macarthur
John Calvin

Weird...all the greatest teachers, preachers,a nd theologians in church history couldn't figure out what "election" means, but Terene did? What an accomplishment!!

I certainly don't believe in every doctrine I hear, and I do test them out again and again to see if they line up with the Word.

Actually, I don't know what conclusions those men reached about election, but I believe I have given you that explanation long ago. From my previous thread:

...I have had a bit of discussion with you, but some of my posts earlier on was not tackled by you. For instance, I said that believing God has chosen us to be saved can also be a source of boasting because it can make some of us think we are "special" in God's sight simply because we are the "elect". This, you never addressed.

The truth has been spoken already: God is no respecter of persons. If God does not show partiality, then there is no reason that He can choose people to be saved or doomed apart from man's own free will choice. The only way God chooses is because man has already made the choice, and God brings things to pass because He foreknew their choices. Whom He foreknew He predestined: This means God foreknew the entire being, from his/her character to his/her choices in life. This foreknowledge of God is indeed the foreknowledge of every single one of us in totality, but knowing everything about us also means knowing our choices in life - whether we choose to believe in His Son or not. This is not inconsistent with what the Word says.

I do believe God chooses and brings things to pass, the matter of dispute is not whether God chooses or brings things to pass, but HOW and WHY He chooses and brings things to pass. The Calvinism viewpoint makes it seem that God chooses and brings EVERY SINGLE THING (be it good or evil) to pass solely based on His desires and will. But here is the problem:

God can never desire or will for something evil to happen. I repeat, God never desires or wills evil things to happen in His universe. Saying that He does is accusing Him of being responsible for the evil things in this world, because God is responsible for His willful actions and desires as well, since He is the Ruler of the Universe. If God has a will for evil things to come to pass (which Calvinism asserts), then surely God is at least partly responsible for the evil in this world and He wouldn't be a judge anymore since He Himself is responsible for things He judges. Delving into the logic behind Calvinism exposes easily the contradictions that it poses against the Nature of God and His Word. God's will is always to do good, and always to bring GOOD things to pass. He has no will or part in the evil in this world, He allows evil to happen, but that has nothing to do with Him wanting the evil to happen. This is the true and holy nature of God. Willing and allowing things to happen are two TOTALLY different things - Willing is deeply connected to an innate desire, but allowing does not mean desiring. I believe you are confusing the two here, Skala. If my will is to bring a stealing incident to pass, then I am already considered responsible for the stealing because my will approve of stealing. Are you now going to say God is responsible for all the evil in this world because it is His will to bring them to pass? Does God approve of the evil in this world through His will? God forbid!

That brings us back to the question on HOW and WHY God brings things to pass. Since God cannot approve of evil (so evil events are not His will), then God allows them to happen not because He approves of them, but because He either meant to turn the evil into good (as in the case of Joseph's slavery in Egypt), or simply because He has given those who do evil to a reprobate mind because they refuse to honor Him even though they knew His existence (Romans). But even in these events, where do we see that God approves of the evil that is allowed to happen? Nowhere, so these evil events can NEVER be even part of God's decreed will because willing something already means approving something.

Same thing with election of the saved and doom of the unsaved. God chooses men to be saved because He foreknew EVERYTHING about them, which includes their choices of salvation. God also allows people to be doomed, because He foreknew they would reject His Son, but does that mean God wants people to be doomed? No, because the Word clearly says:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Perhaps you are going to say that the two "world" refers to different things, but how can that be? If God did not send His Son to condemn the world, then surely the world refers to every single sinner (even those who will reject Christ). Then immediately, the Lord said He was sent so that the world through Him might be saved. Again, it is clear that the world here refers also to every single sinner (even those who will reject Christ). God has made it clear that He has sent His Son to give the world (every single sinner) a chance to be saved, and the final outcome rests in the choices of man.

Now you may say that Christ does not fail, so how can He die for those who will be lost? But that is a faulty reasoning. Christ's work on the Cross is simply to take away the sins of the world and to destroy the works of the devil, His work is not to guarantee EVERYONE to be saved. His blood shed already accomplished the two primary goals, and anyone who accepts His atonement receives the full effect of His work without fail. Christ did not fail in His work because man are lost, no, man are lost because they did not choose to accept His successful work on the Cross. Even though Christ's work is to remove the sins of the world, there is a condition that man must meet before he can inherit this work of Christ: that is faith in Christ. This has again nothing to do with Christ's failure, but how God decreed it to be. God can indeed decree Christ to take away the sins of every sinner apart from their faith in His Son, but that is not what God wants. Applying a condition on man in no way makes Christ's work ineffective. God has made His gift of salvation 100% successful and effective, but He wants sinners to accept His gift with gratitude, not with an unwilling heart and forced will.

Putting all these things together already fully refutes what Calvinism teaches regarding how God chooses a few to be saved and others to be doomed. It also refutes the idea that God somehow approves of evil by willing them to come to pass. God chooses with His foreknowledge (of all His creation), not with His desires for only a few to be saved. God allows evil to come to pass, but He never approved of it in His will. He is just, and He will ultimately judge everyone according to their works. The will of evil men dooms them, but the will of the righteous are in line with God's will....

You did not reply me when I posted this in reply to your posts. I hope you did not just skip over my post because you don't like it. Because if you do scrutinise my post, you will see where I am coming from.

I am but a woman, but I also do believe I can do EVERYTHING THROUGH CHRIST. So if God is with me all the time, I believe even as I write this, He is with me to give me understanding. I have such confidence in God, what about you?

It's curious why Teren's theology, whatever it is, isn't also "from a man". After all, she's a mere man, and she believes it, teaches it, and preaches it. Many other men, called Arminians and Semi Pelagians also believe and teach exactly what Terene believes/affirms.

What makes her theology suddenly not qualify for this category described as "of men"?

It's this kind of generalizations and sweeping statements that really bother me.

That is because I see contradictions in Calvinism which cannot be explained other than acknowledging that Calvinism is not in line with the Word. I know not a single Arminian or Semi Pelagians in my life, neither did I read any of their works (or at least that I know of), so associating me with them does nothing to discredit me.

I am open to all to examine my theology and doctrines and I am open to any reasonable discussion about what I have said here. In fact, I would exhort you and the others to pray to God about EVERY SINGLE POINT I make on here to see whether it lines up with the Word. I mean what I say here: Examine EVERYTHING I say about biblical doctrines and make sure with God what I speak is truth. But I don't see the same kind of open-mindedness from you and others here who vehemently defend Calvinism even when I pointed out with reason and with logic why it is contradictory to the Scriptures. I wonder why is that so?

I base my faith only in the Word and in Christ, so if you point out errors in my doctrines, I would be happy and grateful to re-examine my beliefs to make sure I abide in the truth of God only. But when I point out errors in Calvinism, I see nothing but much frustration and offense taken from those who support Calvinism. Why so? Theology in itself does nothing to support our faith, and we are always to reject theologies when they don't stand up to the Word. Why do I see the contrary here? It seems to me that one is ready to forsake the truth just to defend his/her favourite theology, even when the glaring truth is that that theology is faulty and contradicts Scriptures. How will such a one be able to abide in the truth of God?

 

[Terene]

Those demons are rascals!

How dare they to give me the wrong interpretation of Acts 13:48!

Whoever you are referring to, calling posters "demons" is more than condemnation, and is much uncalled for. I exhort you to repent before God, and don't be haste to accuse anyone like that again. I am saying this because I honor you in the same way you did me before. I hope you will not prove me wrong for honoring you like a brother.

 

[Brother Chris]

Whoever you are referring to, calling posters "demons" is more than condemnation, and is much uncalled for. I exhort you to repent before God, and don't be haste to accuse anyone like that again. I am saying this because I honor you in the same way you did me before. I hope you will not prove me wrong for honoring you like a brother.

He wasn't calling you a demon. He was just being silly about a demon giving him the "wrong" interpretation of scripture which clearly shows the sovereignty of God in salvation (Acts 13:48).

 

[Brother Chris]

Those demons are rascals!

How dare they to give me the wrong interpretation of Acts 13:48!

I actually laughed at this statement. LOL!!!

 

[Terene]

He wasn't calling you a demon. He was just being silly about a demon giving him the "wrong" interpretation of scripture which clearly shows the sovereignty of God in salvation (Acts 13:48).

I didn't think he was, even if he did, I would forgive him. Regardless, if he indeed refers to some posters on here (which I hope he isn't like you said), he would have need of repentance.

 

[Tzaousios]

Terene, please see my replies to you starting with post #62 on page 7. Thanks.

 

[Terene]

Tzaousios seems to forget that in my previous thread, I have said I would add him to ignore due to the ceaseless accusations I get. He may expect no more replies from me to him.

 

[Tzaousios]

Tzaousios seems to forget that in my previous thread, I have said I would add him to ignore due to the ceaseless accusations I get. He may expect no more replies from me to him.

Then why are you gracing Skala with the luxuries of replies? He too pointed out the silliness in drawing false dichotomies with doctrines of God/demons/men, etc. It must be very convenient to label something "ceaseless accusations" and think one is justified in not replying to them.

 

[Terene]

Tzaousios fail to realise that there is a difference between pointing out facts and judging people with false accusations. I hope he hasn't forgotten how he accused me of scandalizing Calvinists when I am but pointing out the errors in Calvinism. Theology has nothing to do with the people involved. I can discuss all about a theology without ever meaning any insult to those who believe in that theology. But Tzaousios likes to put them together and finger point others for "scandalising" and "labelling" people when the theology was what was really discussed. He has not stopped on here, and still tries to bait me and see if I am by any chance calling Calvinists "nonsensical" and what not. I do not know everything Skala did, but he never once tried to finger point me in that manner. And if he has shown me such respect, he deserves as much, if not more respect from me. And I respect him by telling him the truth, as much as he is able and willing to hear.