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.
All elects received God based on God's own choice made before they were even born but not based on what the elects do down the road of thier life. This makes boasting Impossible. Free willer semi pelagians creates imaginary boasting from self illusioned free wills and post self destructive topics like this one.By definition, His children ARE saved.
Jn 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
Gal 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
What?Whats wrong with proving illogical folks calvinism is in tune with God's Word with its backed up with quotes others leave?
Putting time as a restraint for God I think is one of the big errors.All elects received God based on God's own choice made before they were even born but not based on what the elects do down the road of thier life. This makes boasting Impossible. Free willer semi pelagians creates imaginary boasting from self illusioned free wills and post self destructive topics like this one.
Too much intellect never sends a soul to heaven either. The problem with you is that you're not creative. You fit in the dominant conversationalist listed in the psychiatric disorders. You're stiff and noncreative. Creativity is art. You need talent.This is what I posted:
"Why do some think that those who believe that God has given man freedom of choice think that free will has any inherent power?
Free will doesn't do anything. Free will is a condition of freedom to make choices.
Consequences come from what has been chosen. There are no consequences from having free will. Free will doesn't create, doesn't do.
Free will simply IS.
Can Calvinists please just understand that simple point?"
And, this is the response:
Huh? What does this have to do with my post?
So, I'll ask again: can Calvinists please just understand that simple point about free will?
This, instead of an intellectual discussion of what I said.
But this is the kind of response from those who are ignorant of the subject matter; just deny it.
Oh! That explains it.I said I'm finished with the debating on here so I'm going to try to respond in a way that doesn't provoke more debate on this thread.
1) I'm agnostic on the Flat Earth thing. I'm open to it. More open then to the Globe. I'm very anti-Heliocentricism. I believe NASA uses fake images and footage, the moon landing was a hoaxing, they can't go to space and do the things they say they can. I haven't seen curvature in a plane. My wife recently took a flight and she took pictures of outside the window, all pictures have zero curvature except for maybe one that looks like it may have slight but it could just be an illusion. Google Earth flight at 40000 ft. has clear unmistakable significant curvature. But there's a video on YouTube of a rocket with a non-fisheye lens camcorder and it goes up over 120000 ft. and there is no curvature. Anyway, I don't see why it isn't likely they lie to us about this too if they lie to us about pretty much everything else. Flat Earth could be wrong though. But I have learned about so many things that are wrong with science and how unreliable it is, I don't see any reason to trust it. and I definitely am not going to let it shake my faith in God's Word.
2) I'm merely showing how the ways of the world philosophy do not work. What is called progressive really isn't progressing to working society. As Christians who believe the Bible we shouldn't embrace, support, and sync our faith with worldly ideas like this. for the most part I don't think this can happen, especially now when it looks close to the Beast rising to full power and the Tribulation happening, but it has in the past, but i'm not 100% against if it is clear God has given a society of this world into our hands that we should not take it over and run it by biblical principles, God's Law, a theocracy. Anyway, when the Millennial theocratic reign comes everyone will for sure see how a Torah government under the King of Glory Yeshua is the only government that can perfectly work, it is the only way of life that perfectly lines up with God's created world reality.
3) Scripture itself contradicts Sola Scriptura. Just like it contradicts inerrancy in the copies of Scripture. One example is the issue of the canon. There is no internal support for it in the Bible itself and there are blatantly things in it that contradict it. Like check out what I wrote in response to a guy trying to explain away what Jude is clearly doing in his epistle:
"4. No it's not a logical fallacy and giant leap in logic. When you see them quoting and using the same
language as these books, which many scholars recognize, it is not a giant leap in logic. And it is pure
conjecture upon your part to say that Jude's quote of 1Enoch was just some oral tradition that was true
which got added to the book later. You have zero evidence for this I'm sure. It's only something you
conjured up in your mind or got from others who did so to reason away this blatant quote of 1Enoch and
these blatant allusions to it of him, which aren't even comparable to the quotations of pagan writings by
Paul. Let me now show how illogical and nonsensical it is to believe what you do about Jude's epistle:
Jude wrote a very short epistle. Probably so it could be easily circulated widely and quickly, since in that
time copying was not easy like it is today. And the reason was that he wanted to remind the Church of
"the faith once delivered to saints" and to expose and refute the gainsayers quick and clean. What a
horrible job he did by writing something so confusing by authoritatively quoting to and alluding to
Jewish "pseudepigraphal" writings as legit sources of info about the truth and prophecy; writings that he
no doubt knew that certain of his Jewish contemporaries accepted as true genuine authoritative texts.
He totally just opened the door to pure confusion and the acceptance of heretical writings as Scripture
which are not Scripture. Jude wants to remind his readers about "the faith once delivered to the saints,"
which supposedly contains the all-important doctrine of the Protestant Canon being all the Scripture
there is, but instead of listing the Canon for us so there can be no question on the matter at all, he
authoritatively references extra-canonical texts, that certain Jews accepted as authoritative Scripture, as
sources of prophecy and truth. Now you can have "deceived" people like me using Jude's epistle to say,
"Look, Jude believed there were more Scriptures than just the Bible. And look, they say that the belief
about the fallen angels marrying human woman and producing giants by them is true." What a great job
Jude did in telling us what this "faith once and for all delivered", which supposedly includes the allimportant doctrine of the 66 book Protestant Bible, found nowhere in that very Bible itself, is. But any
unbiased person can see to Jude "the faith once delivered to the saints" included Apocryphal literature,
not just the Pharisaic canon. If Jude was just quoting these writings to make a point, but did not accept
them like people like me do, he could have easily added a disclaimer to protect people who would be
misled, like me. Your oral tradition stuff is totally useless in determining truth since you pick and choose
which majority beliefs of the Ante-Nicene Fathers you want to believe. You reject almost all of them from
what I can tell. Like what they believed about the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man." Whatever
oral traditions were being faithfully passed down are corrupted to you as per the fact that you are in a
restorationist movement and reject most of the things the early Church after the Apostles believed, like
how strict, hard and serious it really is in attaining salvation, and their views on divorce and remarriage.
Your final authority is Scripture and it's really all you have in the end to truly determine the truth. And
nothing in any of the OT Scriptures you accept says or even so much as hints at anything about any fallen
angels teaching humans the sins they were committing in Noah's day and being bound at that time. So
you rely on conjecture that Peter is talking about fallen angels bound in Noah's day though the OT is
silent on this according to your views. And if you don't mind I would like to know where I can find these
Jewish historical texts that say that the angels taught man these things in Noah's Day and were bound
then, but say there was no angel fornication going on. But I would also like to know why we need these
things and they aren't so much as hinted at in the OT and then suddenly appear so vaguely out of
nowhere so as to cause readers so much confusion if the Bible is all-sufficient to equip the man of God
with the full knowledge of the truth."
4) I believe most Christians throughout history have misunderstood the NT, especially Paul, which Peter actually warns about, by looking at it from their gentile presuppositions and not being grounded enough in the OT. They read the NT too much into the OT and their NT interpretations are based on not being familiar with OT and its Hebraic culture, thought and idioms. I am working on things and have already put out some things to correct the anti-Torah misunderstandings out there. One example you gave. The eye for an eye thing in the Torah was originally about the judicial system, not personal vendetta. That is how it was being misapplied in Yeshua's day. Even the OT tells us not to quickly have a bad temper, render evil for evil, and tells us to love our neighbours and even enemies. And yes the Law has changed, and it changed before even the NT. In the OT we see the Letter of Law was changed before the Law was given, at the time the time the Law was given and after the Law was given. But by I do not believe the Law can be changed in such a way as to contradict the Spirit/principles/character of God as revealed in the Law of Moses. I do not believe the Law has been completely done away with or that it has been radically changed beyond recognition in the Law for the New Covenant for today.
5) Well whatever you want to term it. But the text you quoted is talking about kidnapping. When Israel bought slaves from other nations it is highly doubtful they didn't ever buy kidnapped people. At least those people being in a nation that has right laws to deal with bondservants would be a lot better for them than being sold to some gentile nation without God's Law. Anyway, if you think this capitalist atheist way things are now is really better than a Torah government with righteous slave laws in an agrarian society, then I don't know how you can believe Scripture that says God's Law converts the soul, enlightens the heart and is perfection and liberty. The societies are a mess we live in. All the details in Scripture about what Christ's Kingdom will be like are a theocratic Torah worldwide rule. And the evil nations tat went against God's people it says will be put in forced slavery to them. Paul clearly tells slaves to obey their masters and work for them as they would the Lord and doesn't discriminate between who was stolen or who sold himself. Even sends a slave back to his master. We aren't in the New Heavens and New Earth yet. Not everything is perfect so we need perfect laws to deal with imperfect situations.
Thanks for the article. I'll have to check it out sometime.
Now we know you. Weird"Whats wrong with proving illogical folks calvinism is in tune with God's Word with its backed up with quotes others leave?"
Is that to imply that is what you are doing? Because all I'm getting from you is a bunch of incoherent babble. I'm sorry.
Teasers? My explanation of what free will means was clear enough. What did you not understand about my proposition?
Freedom of choice is just that. Nothing more. Do you understand this proposition?
Can I get an Amen!This is what I posted:
"Why do some think that those who believe that God has given man freedom of choice think that free will has any inherent power?
Free will doesn't do anything. Free will is a condition of freedom to make choices.
Consequences come from what has been chosen. There are no consequences from having free will. Free will doesn't create, doesn't do.
Free will simply IS.
Can Calvinists please just understand that simple point?"
And, this is the response:
Huh? What does this have to do with my post?
So, I'll ask again: can Calvinists please just understand that simple point about free will?
Teasers? My explanation of what free will means was clear enough. What did you not understand about my proposition?
Freedom of choice is just that. Nothing more. Do you understand this proposition?
I think so too. I follow another thread that Tulipbee is on and it is frankly going in a very odd, off topic, non-sensemaking direction.Tulipbee,
Dude, I don't even want to talk to you anymore, because you are just trolling.
Thats the problem. The boasters tries to divide calvnism from the gospel while the other calvinist provides biblical proof texts to back up their claims. I'm just pointing out your denial of God's Word in plain view for everyone to see. Its obvious.What?
Your post is not clear if you are for or against Calvinism.
Do you retread your posts before you reply? Because they are confusing to the point I can't even guess if you are for or against.
No mistake of it being both. Calvinists are robots without being robots. You're a bully like this guy in this movie bragging about your free will. If you want understand 'fighting without fighting' then lets go to the island. You get on the boat first, I'll follow.Putting time as a restraint for God I think is one of the big errors.
God is omnipotent
, omnipresent. For Him there is no past, future, before or after.
You limit God to human conditions on the earth.
Big mistake.
How do you feel the boasters divide Calvinism from the gospel? Let's start there. Try to be as specific as you can.Thats the problem. The boasters tries to divide calvnism from the gospel while the other calvinist provides biblical proof texts to back up their claims. I'm just pointing out your denial of God's Word in plain view for everyone to see. Its obvious.
Why do you seem to diverge from scripture to little digs? This response has nothing to do with God, and isn't God the topic?Go on, get on the little boat, we'll talk on the island, you first.
You're geting seasick. we will no longer be little children, tossed and carried about by all kinds of teachings that change like the wind. We will no longer be influenced by you who use cunning and clever strategies to lead us astray.Why do you seem to diverge from scripture to little digs? This response has nothing to do with God, and isn't God the topic?
I do not understand if you want to do one-liners back and forth why you would not start a private conversation instead of jacking someone's thread. It's very rude.
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?