2 Calvinists leave Christianity Romans 9

[Behold]

• No one comes to the Father except through the Son ... Jesus is the ONLY DOOR! (looking forward or looking back)

Jesus is this......John 14:6.

"I am THE WAY"...= "no one comes to the FATHER, but by ME".

That "Me" is faith in Christ.

The "me" is the Cross, and the Death, and Resurrection, which is.=. "without the shedding of BLOOD, there is no remission, no forgiveness, of SIN".

This is why Jesus also said..>"if you do not believe i am the Messiah, the Savior, you will die in your sins"..

So, what Calvin did, was Deny the Cross, by "limiting" it,....... instead of.. teaching the Truth about the Cross.

This truth..

Jesus said.. 'If i be lifted up (on the Cross), i will draw EVERYONE, to me"..

See that verse?

Calvin denied it. and His Mind Blinded deny it for their Master........ And He also denies this one, that is the context of Jesus's words...
>"For God so love the WORLD...that He sent His son"..

To the "WORLD" Jesus was sent... not to just the elect.

To the "WORLD">.....Like this.... "Jesus came into the WORLD to save SINNERS""< and not just the elect.

Who is a SINNER?

A.) The entire WORLD of humanity. = Everyone.

 

[Behold]

I quoted Jesus (that is why the words are in RED) ... you are arguing against His words, not mine.

Im not arguing at all., @atpollard

Im only showing you that your interpretation of the verses isn't true.

See what you did was post parts of verses, and then teach them out of context.

Listen..
John Calvinism is Satanic.

Paul said in Galatians, that these clever types, ... they do more then fool you.... they "BEWITCH" you....

2 Corinthians 11:15 = John Calvin

And that is what John Calvinism, does to its disciples..

Remember also.. reader..

Calvin makes Calvinist's.

GOD makes CHRISTians.

They are not the same.

And remember also.. Reader.

God is not a Calvinist.
Jesus is not a Calvinist
The Holy Spirit is not a Calvinist
The Apostle Paul is not a Calvinist.
The Doctrine for the Body of Christ was not written by John Calvin.

 

[TibiasDad]

Deep down, people are just no darn good.
Prevenient Grace would suggest that at some point, people would reach a state of moral neutrality.

I would not concur with this statement. We are, in Adam, morally corrupt and thus prone to sin and disobedience to God. It is such that we all necessarily sin, and in a graceless vacuum, we would always continue on that path with increasingly negative results.

Prevenient grace is Grace that prepares the way ahead of, and operates beforehand in the knowledge that Christ is slain from the foundation of the world.

It mitigates the power and effect of sin in us, and provides us the capacity to grasp the reality of our spiritual condition in relation to God. We are not neutral in a pre-fall Adamic sense, but because of Grace, we are not fully consumed by sin’s power and control.

I affirm completely that “deep down” we are not good. We are sinful, but the degree to which this sinfulness is exhibited is mitigated by grace through social constructs and moral values within an individual’s culture.

Doug

 

[atpollard]

Jesus is this......John 14:6.

"I am THE WAY"...= "no one comes to the FATHER, but by ME".

That "Me" is faith in Christ.

The "me" is the Cross, and the Death, and Resurrection, which is.=. "without the shedding of BLOOD, there is no remission, no forgiveness, of SIN".

This is why Jesus also said..>"if you do not believe i am the Messiah, the Savior, you will die in your sins"..

So, what Calvin did, was Deny the Cross, by "limiting" it,....... instead of.. teaching the Truth about the Cross.

This truth..

Jesus said.. 'If i be lifted up (on the Cross), i will draw EVERYONE, to me"..

See that verse?

Calvin denied it. and His Mind Blinded deny it for their Master........ And He also denies this one, that is the context of Jesus's words...
>"For God so love the WORLD...that He sent His son"..

To the "WORLD" Jesus was sent... not to just the elect.

To the "WORLD">.....Like this.... "Jesus came into the WORLD to save SINNERS""< and not just the elect.

Who is a SINNER?

A.) The entire WORLD of humanity. = Everyone.

You have a great deal of hatred for a man that has been dead for 500 years.

I have never read the writings of Jon Calvin (John is the English version of his name), nor do I have any great desire to read a translation of "The Institutes". I came to embrace "Particular Baptism" (the religion of Charles Spurgeon, the Baptist Preacher and Evangelist) which includes the "Doctrines of Grace" (what you might call "T.U.L.I.P.") 100% from reading the bible.

Your flaw appears to be defining "world" as "every person without exception" ... which makes the Cross a failure (everyone without exception is not saved) and God's will thwarted and subservient to the will of men (God desires one thing, all men without exception to be saved, but men hold the power to determine who will or will not be saved).

If you define "world" as it is in John's Revelation as "all men without distinction" (And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood [men] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. - Revelation 5:9), then the Cross was a complete success and God's will is accomplished!

I am incredulous at people that insist on rejecting the obvious solution of allowing scripture to define scripture and eliminate all conflict, and dogmatically forge ahead determined to explain why black is white and white is black. (God desires all without exception to be saved and most go to hell, but God's will is still done. God is in control, except men have the power to chose salvation or damnation and it is God that still saves rather than the choice of men - who have nothing to boast about.)

 

[atpollard]

I would not concur with this statement. We are, in Adam, morally corrupt and thus prone to sin and disobedience to God. It is such that we all necessarily sin, and in a graceless vacuum, we would always continue on that path with increasingly negative results.

Prevenient grace is Grace that prepares the way ahead of, and operates beforehand in the knowledge that Christ is slain from the foundation of the world.

It mitigates the power and effect of sin in us, and provides us the capacity to grasp the reality of our spiritual condition in relation to God. We are not neutral in a pre-fall Adamic sense, but because of Grace, we are not fully consumed by sin’s power and control.

I affirm completely that “deep down” we are not good. We are sinful, but the degree to which this sinfulness is exhibited is mitigated by grace through social constructs and moral values within an individual’s culture.

Doug

I question which of us has misunderstood "Classic Wesleyan Theology".
I was under the impression that prevenient grace was thought to be "universal" to allow "all men without exception" access to the cross (making the rejection of Christ 100% the fault of the individual and relieving God of any responsibility). In essence, undoing the "Adamic Curse" with respect to sotieriology (accepting/rejecting Jesus) but not other areas of human life.

PS. I would certainly HOPE that you disagree with me ... otherwise YOU should be a Particular Baptist, too. The world is more interesting with diversity. Like the blind men describing the elephant ... it would be dull if they all grabbed an ear.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Plus your free will decision. About which you can, and do, boast.

Calvinism boasts about being elected?

In my opinion, this is the single greatest boast in all of systematic theology.

That God chose "them" and then chose the means of "their" salvation. With such a claim, even "Christ" is subservient to you in God's choice.

How this excludes boasting is beyond me. To me... that is creates a special distinction that can not be denied with "god's good pleasure". Though I have meet countless Calvinists that have tried.

Not that I'm attacking your brother. You know I'm not. It is just part of the discussion.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Calvinism boasts about being elected?

In my opinion, this is the single greatest boast in all of systematic theology.

That God chose "them" and then chose the means of "their" salvation. With such a claim, even "Christ" is subservient to you in God's choice.

How this excludes boasting is beyond me. To me... that is creates a special distinction that can not be denied with "god's good pleasure". Though I have meet countless Calvinists that have tried.

Not that I'm attacking your brother. You know I'm not. It is just part of the discussion.

Nothing could be more absurd. By default, we all deserve death and hell. God chooses some. But God NEVER says WHY he chooses one over another. It is impossible to be proud of being chosen, because we know we had nothing to do with it. That's monergism. You can't have pride or boasting in monergism.

Well, there is one clue as to why he chose the elect: "Those he foreknew". Free-willers like to twist that into "those He foreknew would choose". But the Greek word for foreknew means those he knew beforehand, not what they would do. It is "foreknew" as opposed to "depart from me, I never knew you". Obviously, he's not saying "I never knew what you would choose".

 

[Dizerner]

But God NEVER says WHY he chooses one over another. It is impossible to be proud of being chosen, because we know we had nothing to do with it. That's monergism. You can't have pride or boasting in monergism.

This is very, very false.

One can be proud of anything.

But the Greek word for foreknew means those he knew beforehand, not what they would do.

How can you relationally know someone that doesn't exist yet. Never had a Calvinist answer me that.

You'd have to believe in Pre-Conception Existence theology.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nothing could be more absurd.

I disagree.

By default, we all deserve death and hell.

Notice the "WE" here. I know you're referencing ALL OF HUMANITY in your use of "WE". Somewhere in this conversation, you're going to switch from that view to a limited view of the work of Christ. Which is entirely self serving.

God chooses some. But God NEVER says WHY he chooses one over another. It is impossible to be proud of being chosen, because we know we had nothing to do with it. That's monergism. You can't have pride or boasting in monergism.

That is an empty claim. Does the choice of God contain MERIT? Does God make meritorious choices? When God chose Jesus Christ, it was because HE DESIRED IT. He has ETERNAL value.

The choices of God are not meritless. You need to make an argument that actually does not bestow value. You're not doing that. You just simply claim (incorrectly) that the Scriptures do not tell us why God chose "us".

I know many Calvinists that boast of their election BY GOD at the expense of those just like them. (at least that is what Calvinists claim.) In their theology, Calvinism bestows value to themselves in the choice itself.

When I choose something, it is not a choice that has power. It is the work of another. When God chooses something.... it is ALL ABOUT POWER.

Well, there is one clue as to why he chose the elect: "Those he foreknew". Free-willers like to twist that into "those He foreknew would choose". But the Greek word for foreknew means those he knew beforehand, not what they would do. It is "foreknew" as opposed to "depart from me, I never knew you". Obviously, he's not saying "I never knew what you would choose".

Sure. I'm not denying foreknowledge just like you're stating. However, God knew the elect in Jesus Christ.

Calvinists were not chosen individual. God knows the Elect because He knows Himself in Christ Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is very, very false.

One can be proud of anything.



How can you relationally know someone that doesn't exist yet. Never had a Calvinist answer me that.

You'd have to believe in Pre-Conception Existence theology.

Agree and disagree. Agree about "pride". Disagree about foreknew.

Foreknowledge is God's direct and Divine purpose among humanity. What He has purposed, He will perform. However, God certainly hasn't proposed all things. Yes. There is no good purpose to be found in many things that man does.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

How can you relationally know someone that doesn't exist yet. Never had a Calvinist answer me that.

Only God can answer that question. But the verse is indisputable.


For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

And since the Greek word means "knew" as in "knew intimately" (no not THAT kind of intimacy), Scripture puts an end to any dispute. He somehow knew us from the beginning, long before we were born.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only God can answer that question. But the verse is indisputable.


For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

And since the Greek word means "knew" as in "knew intimately" (no not THAT kind of intimacy), Scripture puts an end to any dispute. He somehow knew us from the beginning, long before we were born.

You referenced the purpose of God in Jesus Christ.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son

God chose Jesus Christ.

 

[Dizerner]

Only God can answer that question. But the verse is indisputable.

It's a very unnatural reading and makes it redundant.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

And since the Greek word means "knew" as in "knew intimately" (no not THAT kind of intimacy), Scripture puts an end to any dispute. He somehow knew us from the beginning, long before we were born.

You're basically making it say "Those God predestined he predestined."

Obviously whatever the meaning is, is going to be substantially different than predestined.

Foreknew, as in know about beforehand, is a well attested use of this word.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You referenced the purpose of God in Jesus Christ.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son

God chose Jesus Christ.

That's abusing the text. The text in Romans is the same as Ephesians:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Yes, we're chosen in him, but that's not the same as He chose Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It's a very unnatural reading and makes it redundant.



You're basically making it say "Those God predestined he predestined."

Obviously whatever the meaning is, is going to be substantially different than predestined.

Foreknew, as in know about beforehand, is a well attested use of this word.

You are correct to a degree. However, it is intimate knowledge referenced in predestination. That is why Jesus Christ is the target here. God had a target. He was forming man after His Son.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Foreknew, as in know about beforehand, is a well attested use of this word.

It is not. It's those whom he foreknew. Not those whom he foreknew about what they'd say, do, or choose, although God knows that, too. But the verse is about WHOM he FOREKNEW.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's abusing the text. The text in Romans is the same as Ephesians:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Yes, we're chosen in him, but that's not the same as He chose Jesus.

How did God choose you without choosing Christ first?

I mentioned the means of salvations because it is relative. God first chose Christ as the target. He is the elect of God. The elect only have their identity in Christ. It is nameless collective. Not individual election.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It is not. It's those whom he foreknew. Not those whom he foreknew about what they'd say, do, or choose, although God knows that, too. But the verse is about WHOM he FOREKNEW.

Correct. He foreknew Jesus Christ. The conforming is predestined... which confirms what choice is being made.

I tell you how you can know this. How are "these" identified in the Scriptures?

Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

It is a family that was chosen. Not individuals. The only identity that exists is found in Jesus Christ.

 

[Dizerner]

It is not. It's those whom he foreknew. Not those whom he foreknew about what they'd say, do, or choose, although God knows that, too. But the verse is about WHOM he FOREKNEW.

Have you ever looked up uses of foreknew in any lexicon?!

Because you are 100% wrong on this.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

www.youtube.com

MY GUESS would be that they weren't "Born Again" Christians at all. Probably just "Calvinist tares".