An Article on free will

The elect
Show me the elect here-

1Ti 2:1 FIRST OF all, then, I admonish and urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be offered on behalf of all men,
1Ti 2:2 For kings and all who are in positions of authority or high responsibility, that [outwardly] we may pass a quiet and undisturbed life [and inwardly] a peaceable one in all godliness and reverence and seriousness in every way.
1Ti 2:3 For such [praying] is good and right, and [it is] pleasing and acceptable to God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 Who wishes all men to be saved and [increasingly] to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there [is only] one God, and [only] one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,


1Ti 2:2 for ὑπὲρ kings βασιλέων and καὶ all πάντων those τῶν being ὄντων, in ἐν authority, ὑπεροχῇ so that ἵνα we may lead διάγωμεν a tranquil ἤρεμον and καὶ quiet ἡσύχιον life βίον in ἐν all πάσῃ godliness εὐσεβείᾳ and καὶ dignity. σεμνότητι.
1Ti 2:3 This τοῦτο [is] good καλὸν and καὶ acceptable ἀπόδεκτον before ἐνώπιον God Θεοῦ, our ἡμῶν - τοῦ Savior, Σωτῆρος
1Ti 2:4 who ὃς desires θέλει all πάντας men ἀνθρώπους to be saved σωθῆναι and καὶ to come ἐλθεῖν. to εἰς [the] knowledge ἐπίγνωσιν of [the] truth. ἀληθείας

1Ti 2:4 who [all men wants] to be delivered, and [to full knowledge of truth to come].


1Ti 2:4 Who will willeth
have all men humanity to be saved,
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1Ti 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1Ti 2:4 Who01 All02 Humans03 Is-willing04 To-be-saved05 And06 Into07 realization08 Of-truth09 To-be-coming10

1Ti 2:4 Who wants kol Bnei Adam to have Yeshu'at Eloheynu (the Salvation of our G-d) and to come to da'as HaEmes (knowledge of the truth).

1Ti 2:4 ος παντας ανθρωπους θελει σωθηναι και εις επιγνωσιν αληθειας ελθειν

Show me @brightfame52.

J.
 
You don't like questions, do you?

Again and one more.

1. Do you believe Christ died for the sins of the elect only?

2. Do you believe you are elected?

Simple yes or no questions.
Im not here to answer a thousand questions from people who dont believe a word I say, thats crazy lol. And read my threads on what I believe about the elect
 
This business of being our own savior unless we're Calvinist in theology
IS OLD Kermos.
IT'S BORING Kermos.

Try to come up with something new.
NO CHRISTIAN believes he saves himself.

You wrote "NO CHRISTIAN believes he saves himself", and I can prove that YOU believe you save yourself.

You believe that you are saved if and only if you free-will choose to believe in Jesus; moreover, you believe that you would have been unsaved without you free-will choosing Jesus; therefore, your being saved hinges entirely upon your free-will choosing to believe in Jesus.

The Blood of Christ shed on the cross, that is, the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, again, the Savior of the world is insufficient to save you from the wrath of God because you believe one more "step" beyond Christ's work must be executed by your own free-will that you must choose to believe in Christ for you to be saved according to your Free-willian Philosophy.

Your statement "NO CHRISTIAN believes he saves himself" is true, and you believe that you are your own savior.

Self-will or image of Christ will​

These 16 parts integrally contribute to one full composition. A response to post #6,699.
Part 1 of 16: Illegitimate Isolation
Part 2 of 16: Self-exaltation
Part 3 of 16: Unity Prayer (Acts 4:24)
Part 4 of 16: CHOOSE, ABLE, list
Part 5 of 16: God creates all
Part 6 of 16: Matthew 11 examined
Part 7 of 16: Free-willian NT Conflict
Part 8 of 16: John 3 16/Matthew 11:25
Part 9 of 16: Free-willian Self-savior
Part 10 of 16: Faith, the gift of God
Part 11 of 16: Free-willian are self-willed
Part 12 of 16: The Potter and the clay
Part 13 of 16: the problem here
Part 14 of 16: you confuse Calvin for Christ
Part 15 of 16: Christ controls Christians
Part 16 of 16: Christians hear Christ
 
Im not here to answer a thousand questions from people who dont believe a word I say, thats crazy lol. And read my threads on what I believe about the elect
Nope.

You can not properly defend what you believe and as a result of that you post the above, a no-brainier and an excuse not to answer 2 simple yes or no questions.

Allow me to answer my own questions -

[Q] - Do I believe Christ died for the sins of the elect only?
[A] - No, Christ died for the sins of all people.

[Q[ - Do I believe I am elected?
[A] - Yes, I am elected by the predestination of the Lord who knew every outcome (including you and me) in advance before He created us.

Scripture on request.
 
You keep forgetting about the New Covenant that your favorite Apostle of all times (Paul) allowed Gentiles to participate in as the Lord's Supper. Come out and say that you love Paul. Don't be shy.

Your Ethnic Cleansing spirit must be convulsing in sheer agony because of that fact. Tell us its name so that we can proceed with its exorcism.
We know that Samaritans were called "Samaritan" by Jews and not called Jews. Samaritans were the offspring of the Assyrian conquest of the ten northern kingdom tribes and their exile out of the Holy Land and into and among Gentiles and Gentile lands.
But what are the offspring of the two southern kingdom tribes called as a result of their conquest and exile to Babylon and in and among other Gentile lands? Where are they identified in the gospels of the letters (epistles)?

From 72q BC until the advent of Christ about 25-30 generations of Jews and mixed heritage Jews grew up without a nation in Gentile lands heavily influenced by Greek culture (Hellenized.) Then from 586 BC to Christ were about 15-20 generations of Jews and mixed heritage Jews who grew up in Gentile lands as Gentile heavily influenced by Greek culture. Where are these offspring of Judah and Benjamin with Gentiles through rape, concubinage, slavery, and forced or otherwise marriage to survive. Where are they mentioned in Scripture?

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34 is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ. All Jeremiah does is prophesy the result and no mechanisms of covenant as is found in the Abraham Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. The Abraham Covenant records what God is going to give, and Abraham's response as part of his responsibility is to circumcise.
The Mosaic Covenant records God giving the children of Israel His Law which covered every aspect of Hebrew life from social, moral, and ceremonial mechanisms and the only requirement from the children of Israel is obedience. The New Covenant doesn't have such descriptions of quid pro quo. All it records is what God will do absent any requirement from the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes.) Why is that? God requires nothing from the House of Israel and Judah in the New Covenant. Why is that?

No Jew, religious leaders, elders, even the common people would ever seek to circumcise a non-Hebrew Gentile nor to command a non-Hebrew Gentile to obedience to the Law of Moses. Why is that? Because all Jewry knows that the covenants were made with Abraham and with his seed and Gentiles do not come from Abraham's seed. BNUT if a person is the offspring of Jew-Gentile intermingling they are still Abraham's seed and heirs according to the Promise. Saul, Peter, James, John, none of the Jews and Jewish Christians would ever seek to do those things upon non-Hebrew Gentiles. They are NOT the seed of Abraham. Saul knows this. He would never seek to circumcise a non-Hebrew Gentile nor to cause a non-Hebrew Gentile to obey the Law of Moses, something he still did after meeting the Lord on the Damascus road and he was held in high esteem by the Jews and the religious leaders as well.

Fact #1. The Abraham and Mosaic Covenants are between God, Abraham, and Abraham's seed and non-Hebrew Gentiles are not the seed of Abraham. They are the seed of Japheth and Ham.

Fact #2. If Jewish Christians (Saul, Peter, James, John, etc.), were to actually seek to circumcise and non-Hebrew Gentile (a Jew would know what this would mean), or to order or cause a non-Hebrew Gentile to obedience to the Law of Moses this would be vilation of the Law because all Jews know that non-Hebrew Gentiles are NOT included in the Law.

Fact #3. Under the Law the high priest would sacrifice an animal yearly on Yom Kippur to atone for the sins of the children of Israel. There is no Scripture the high priest did this for non-Hebrew Gentiles.

Fact #4. Jesus fulfilled every precept of the Law of Moses. In keeping with the Law of Moses Jesus Christ, as High Priest, died and resurrected to atone finally and eternally for the sins of the children of Israel. Jesus KEPT the Law, a Law that did not include non-Hebrew Gentiles.

Fact #5. The New Covenant is, as Jeremiah prophesied, is between God and the House of ISRAEL and the House of JUDAH, thus covering all twelve tribes of Israel.

This is why Saul wrote this truth:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal. 4:4–5.
 
So who represents true calvinism? :unsure:
@synergy

I will only say a few words, because I refuse to cast God's precious pearls before the swine's in mystery Babylon's religious sector who have no true love for them.

Let it be said very clearly that God's children to not represent any system and which generally can be seen on forums where some use fictitious pseudonym when identifying themselves, yet others like you boldly come out to defend a system that is contrary to testimony the word of God, and chose a name to represent what they believe, so, I do not have to ask who around here defend armenianism, I know by your very own choice of a name you desire others to call you. Calvinism is much closer to the truth than armenianism, yet still isn't the truth, so I prefer to defend the word of God.
Or is calvinism is one big bloody non-cohesive mess that no one can understand?
If you want to know the answer to that question then read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, your fathers killed men who preached pure grace and who rejected a gospel that's built upon "man having a active part" in his salvation from sin and condemnation.
 
Last edited:
I will only say a few words, because I refuse to cast God's precious pearls before the swine's in mystery Babylon's religious sector who have no true love for them.

Let it be said very clearly that God's children to not represent any system and which generally can be seen on forums where some use fictitious pseudonym when identifying themselves, yet others like you boldly come out to defend a system that is contrary to testimony the word of God, so, I do not have to ask who around here defend armenianism, I know by your very own choice of a name you desire others to call you.
Um it is Arminianism.
 
Do you believe Jesus only died for the elect ?
@ProDeo

It is very clear that he died for his sheep, aka, the elect of God. If you think other wise, than please answer this by John Owens written over four hundred years ago, meaning, men have had many years to refute it, yet have not done so as of it, maybe you can be the first. But, I have my serious doubts.

One of the more challenging books I have read in my life, a book, in the reading of which I found myself actually learning how to think, is John Owen’s (1616-83), The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It has long been recognized as the most persuasive biblical and theological defense of definite atonement. The latter is the doctrine that it was only for the elect of God that Jesus suffered and died and exhausted the wrath that we deserved.

I seriously doubt if many of you will take the time and make the necessary effort to read Owen’s book, so here is a brief summation of its principal argument. Enjoy!

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men, or

2. All the sins of some men, or

3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.

2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer,“Because of unbelief.”

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
 
Last edited:
Um

Calvinistic Pastor, Dr. John Piper, teaches:

“God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…” (Link)— Mark R. Talbot, “’All the Good That Is Ours in Christ’: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us,” in John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds.), Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 31-77 (quote from p. 42).

John Calvin himself taught:

“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)



“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin,Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)



“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)



“…it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God’s will. For his will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are.”…”For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)


and there is much more
@TomL

Tom, just quoting Calvin without using the context from where these quotes are taking from can be very misleading. As for John Piper, I'll pass on him since I refuse to read very much of what he has written, since he's truly a rubber stamp Calvinist, infant baptism and all. I can be more merciful to Luther and Calvin since they broke from the great whore and brought some of their dirty bed sheets with them in my opinion, infant baptism being one of them.
 
Last edited:
It is very clear that he died for his sheep, aka, the elect of God. If you think other wise, than please answer this by John Owens written over four hundred years ago, meaning, men have had many years to refute it, yet have not done so as of it, maybe you can be the first. But, I have my serious doubts.

One of the more challenging books I have read in my life, a book, in the reading of which I found myself actually learning how to think, is John Owen’s (1616-83), The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It has long been recognized as the most persuasive biblical and theological defense of definite atonement. The latter is the doctrine that it was only for the elect of God that Jesus suffered and died and exhausted the wrath that we deserved.

I seriously doubt if many of you will take the time and make the necessary effort to read Owen’s book, so here is a brief summation of its principal argument. Enjoy!

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men, or

2. All the sins of some men, or

3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.

2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer,“Because of unbelief.”

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
Owen's view of the atonement assumes Christ's death for someone automatically remits their sin. It doesn't.

Instead, it applies a provision for any who would believe.

The Calvinist Shedd noted

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner ......
he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.



William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726.
Shedd
 
Owen's view of the atonement assumes Christ's death for someone automatically remits their sin. It doesn't.
Tom take what John Owens wrote and prove it wrong. You avoided the post completely.

He's more by Owens: https://ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath/deathofdeath.i.x.iv.html This has seven sections to it.

The Calvinist Shedd noted
Mr. Shedd was not mentioned by me, but we can consider what he wrote as soon as you address post #7032, Thank you.
 
Tom take what John Owens wrote and prove it wrong. You avoided the post completely.

He's more by Owens: https://ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath/deathofdeath.i.x.iv.html This has seven sections to it.


Mr. Shedd was not mentioned by me, but we can consider what he wrote as soon as you address post #7032, Thank you.
You are confused here. I took it head on. Christ's death of itself without faith does not remit sin. Owen assumes it did, positing a commercial theory of atonement. With an incorrect understanding of atonement, his argument is of no value.
 
@ProDeo

It is very clear that he died for his sheep, aka, the elect of God.

Wow Red, I did not see that coming :(

1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1John 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
1John 2:5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:
1John 2:6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

What more can I say, I am flabbergasted, maybe John the Baptist?

John 1:28 - These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John 1:29 - The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
 
You are confused here. I took it head on. Christ's death of itself without faith does not remit sin. Owen assumes it did, positing a commercial theory of atonement. With an incorrect understanding of atonement, his argument is of no value.
Wishful thinking on your part. If you think John Owen assumed anything then go back and take those seen seven sections (but one would be nice,) the one I posted, and prove it yourself. The only person here that has an incorrect understanding would be you Mr. Tom.
 
Last edited:
Wow Red, I did not see that coming :(

1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1John 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
1John 2:5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:
1John 2:6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

What more can I say, I am flabbergasted, maybe John the Baptist?

John 1:28 - These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John 1:29 - The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
@ProDeo

Brother, the world in John's teaching, included the Gentiles as well as the Jews, all without distinction, not all without exception.

The same for the apostle John who was the minister to the circumcision.
Galatians 2:9
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”
 
@ProDeo

Brother, the world in John's teaching, included the Gentiles as well as the Jews, all without distinction, not all without exception.

The same for the apostle John who was the minister to the circumcision.
Galatians 2:9
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

???

My question was - Do you believe Jesus only died for the elect ?

You answered - It is very clear that he died for his sheep, aka, the elect of God.

I replied with 2 Scripture passages that Christ died for the sins of the whole world for believers and unbelievers, for believers to salvation, for unbelievers to punishment.

Why do you change the subject?
 
Back
Top Bottom