What's Wrong with Calvinism?

..but not at our creation, yours and mine,
Yes God designated Adam as the Federal representative of all mankind, he is that one blood Paul preached here Acts 17:26

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/17-26.htm

And hath made of one blood,.... That is, of one man's blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, "of one"; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, "of one man"; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: hence the Jews (u) say,
"the first man was , "the blood of the world";''

all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; for from Adam sprung a race of men, which multiplied on the face of the earth, and peopled the world before the flood; these being destroyed by the flood, and Noah and his family saved, his descendants were scattered all over the earth, and repeopled it: and this is the original of all the nations of men, and of all the inhabitants of the earth; and stands opposed to the fabulous accounts of the Heathens
 
Thats because Rom 5 is about the elect. Its there experience in their natural head Adam, verse their experience in there spiritual head Christ. Rom 5 isnt about the non

lol the phantom elect

You do know the Jews were Gods elect and chosen people right ?

How did that work out for all those idolators , unfaithful chosen/ elect people ?
 
You do know the Jews were Gods elect and chosen people right ?
Some of them, a remnant according to the elect of grace, the rest were not Gods chosen, the rest apart from the election are not chosen Rom 11:5-7

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

So the elect in national israel and the rest obviously are two separate groups

Then there was an elect remnant out from the Gentiles Acts 15:14

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Do you know what " to take out of them" mean ?
 
Some of them, a remnant according to the elect of grace, the rest were not Gods chosen, the rest apart from the election are not chosen Rom 11:5-7

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

So the elect in national israel and the rest obviously are two separate groups

Then there was an elect remnant out from the Gentiles Acts 15:14

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Do you know what " to take out of them" mean ?
Oh wait there is the elect/ chosen who are in elect lol
 
Okay but it baffles me why you posted this
Same reason I posted this:

Romans 5:15 explains that while one person's sin (Adam's) brought condemnation and death to many, the free gift of God's grace through Jesus Christ is far more abundant, leading to justification and life for many. The verse contrasts the devastating impact of Adam's trespass with the overwhelming blessing of God's grace and the gift of Jesus, emphasizing that salvation in Christ offers a far superior and more abundant outcome than what was lost in the fall to ll who believe.
 
Same reason I posted this:

Romans 5:15 explains that while one person's sin (Adam's) brought condemnation and death to many, the free gift of God's grace through Jesus Christ is far more abundant, leading to justification and life for many. The verse contrasts the devastating impact of Adam's trespass with the overwhelming blessing of God's grace and the gift of Jesus, emphasizing that salvation in Christ offers a far superior and more abundant outcome than what was lost in the fall to ll who believe.
okay
 
To answer that question, I'll deep dive the doctrine of total depravity that is defined as total inability.
Words cannot express how underwhelmed I feel every time someone that openly rejects a belief or point of view - any belief or point of view - announces that they are going to pontificate ad nauseum on that which they do not believe.

(This is as far as I got in your rail against a belief.)
 
Back
Top Bottom