No Need To Cut Off?

[Rockson]

So I call this thread, No Need to Cut Off.......(If Calvinism were true) ...So let's read the below,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” Matt 18:8:10

So if Calvinism is true surely there would be no need to do any of this. You're going to be saved or not saved regardless for God has ordained you to be or .....he has not! Remember Jesus spoke of a danger of not doing something here. He was giving a warning! So wouldn't a Calvinist in the crowd be wondering why Jesus was saying these things? Maybe they'd be saying something like, " Surely we we don't need to take this seriously! I have no real danger of anything for I've been ordained with salvation."

And then we ask so what about the unsaved....if Calvinism were true? Could Matt 18: 8,10 apply to them? How could it?? For what need would there be to cut anything off to avoid a danger if they're slated to perish with no option of anything else because of limited atonement? So who was Jesus speaking to??

If Calvinism were true then Jesus was speaking to NO ONE so they would be meaningless words with no purpose. But I don't believe that so how about you? I believe Jesus warned everybody, I said EVERYBODY of the danger for what reason? SO THEY COULD AVOID IT! To actually deny this is an actual DANGEROUS thing in and of itself for one is taking away and subtracting from one taking seriously the mercy God will show one who is diligent against that which endangers the soul. (more could be said)

​

 

[praise_yeshua]

So I call this thread, No Need to Cut Off.......(If Calvinism were true) ...So let's read the below,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” Matt 18:8:10

So if Calvinism is true surely there would be no need to do any of this. You're going to be saved or not saved regardless for God has ordained you to be or .....he has not! Remember Jesus spoke of a danger of not doing something here. He was giving a warning! So wouldn't a Calvinist in the crowd be wondering why Jesus was saying these things? Maybe they'd be saying something like, " Surely we we don't need to take this seriously! I have no real danger of anything for I've been ordained with salvation."

And then we ask so what about the unsaved....if Calvinism were true? Could Matt 18: 8,10 apply to them? How could it?? For what need would there be to cut anything off to avoid a danger if they're slated to perish with no option of anything else because of limited atonement? So who was Jesus speaking to??

If Calvinism were true then Jesus was speaking to NO ONE so they would be meaningless words with no purpose. But I don't believe that so how about you? I believe Jesus warned everybody, I said EVERYBODY of the danger for what reason? SO THEY COULD AVOID IT! To actually deny this is an actual DANGEROUS thing in and of itself for one is taking away and subtracting from one taking seriously the mercy God will show one who is diligent against that which endangers the soul. (more could be said)

​

The typical Calvinist response is to deny that God intent in saying such was provoke sinners to accept Christ but rather to damn the reprobate.

It is a ridiculous argument but they will try to make it anyways......

 

[civic]

So I call this thread, No Need to Cut Off.......(If Calvinism were true) ...So let's read the below,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” Matt 18:8:10

So if Calvinism is true surely there would be no need to do any of this. You're going to be saved or not saved regardless for God has ordained you to be or .....he has not! Remember Jesus spoke of a danger of not doing something here. He was giving a warning! So wouldn't a Calvinist in the crowd be wondering why Jesus was saying these things? Maybe they'd be saying something like, " Surely we we don't need to take this seriously! I have no real danger of anything for I've been ordained with salvation."

And then we ask so what about the unsaved....if Calvinism were true? Could Matt 18: 8,10 apply to them? How could it?? For what need would there be to cut anything off to avoid a danger if they're slated to perish with no option of anything else because of limited atonement? So who was Jesus speaking to??

If Calvinism were true then Jesus was speaking to NO ONE so they would be meaningless words with no purpose. But I don't believe that so how about you? I believe Jesus warned everybody, I said EVERYBODY of the danger for what reason? SO THEY COULD AVOID IT! To actually deny this is an actual DANGEROUS thing in and of itself for one is taking away and subtracting from one taking seriously the mercy God will show one who is diligent against that which endangers the soul. (more could be said)

​

Great point my friend and like it has been pointed out many of Jesus parables teach the exact opposite of tulip. If they think we are anti-calvinists then Jesus takes the cake.

 

[Rockson]

The typical Calvinist response is to deny that God intent in saying such was provoke sinners to accept Christ but rather to damn the reprobate.

It is a ridiculous argument but they will try to make it anyways......

If this is what they'd say it's interesting to see though that Jesus told them what they needed to do so as not to be considered reprobate. And any way we look at it if Calvinism were true then Jesus statements really weren't given to anybody, which means they were useless empty words for no purpose.

 

[Frank Russell]

So I call this thread, No Need to Cut Off.......(If Calvinism were true) ...So let's read the below,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” Matt 18:8:10

So if Calvinism is true surely there would be no need to do any of this. You're going to be saved or not saved regardless for God has ordained you to be or .....he has not! Remember Jesus spoke of a danger of not doing something here. He was giving a warning! So wouldn't a Calvinist in the crowd be wondering why Jesus was saying these things? Maybe they'd be saying something like, " Surely we we don't need to take this seriously! I have no real danger of anything for I've been ordained with salvation."

And then we ask so what about the unsaved....if Calvinism were true? Could Matt 18: 8,10 apply to them? How could it?? For what need would there be to cut anything off to avoid a danger if they're slated to perish with no option of anything else because of limited atonement? So who was Jesus speaking to??

If Calvinism were true then Jesus was speaking to NO ONE so they would be meaningless words with no purpose. But I don't believe that so how about you? I believe Jesus warned everybody, I said EVERYBODY of the danger for what reason? SO THEY COULD AVOID IT! To actually deny this is an actual DANGEROUS thing in and of itself for one is taking away and subtracting from one taking seriously the mercy God will show one who is diligent against that which endangers the soul. (more could be said)

​

Yus, take the bible literally until it disagrees with what makes sense, just like the liberal christians do.

Oh wait, this is about calvinists. haha

 

[Rockson]

Yus, take the bible literally until it disagrees with what makes sense, just like the liberal christians do.

Oh wait, this is about calvinists. haha

Could you clarify your meaning?

 

[Frank Russell]

Could you clarify your meaning?

Calvinists tend to be part of conservative churches. The conservative way of interpreting the bible tends to involve examining the immediate context. However, since the immediate context in Matthew 5:28 implies masturbation juxtaposed immediately to an instruction to cut off the offending member .. They take the route of the 60 disciples who left when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They don't leave the faith, but assume the meaning is figurative and use it as an excuse to remove people from fellowship with different ideas.

So it is amusing that in this context, they really don't take the Pauline recommendation in Galatians 5:12 and take the liberal way out.

It is for this reason that I tend to reject what is called a literal interpretation, since it tends to be only literal when convenient.

 

[Rockson]

Calvinists tend to be part of conservative churches. The conservative way of interpreting the bible tends to involve examining the immediate context. However, since the immediate context in Matthew 5:28 implies masturbation juxtaposed immediately to an instruction to cut off the offending member .. They take the route of the 60 disciples who left when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They don't leave the faith, but assume the meaning is figurative and use it as an excuse to remove people from fellowship with different ideas.

So it is amusing that in this context, they really don't take the Pauline recommendation in Galatians 5:12 and take the liberal way out.

It is for this reason that I tend to reject what is called a literal interpretation, since it tends to be only literal when convenient.

I see.