No, like a few on this board you just disparage what you can't refute.Like many on this thread you enjoy babbling but not getting down to serious business.
I don't. :)So please don't expect anymore responses from me.
Grace and peace to you.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, like a few on this board you just disparage what you can't refute.Like many on this thread you enjoy babbling but not getting down to serious business.
I don't. :)So please don't expect anymore responses from me.
yes, the truthAnd there you have it.
JesusWe're all just sinners....
So what differentiates us from non-believers?
You have no sin? Your perfect?I am NOT A SINNER.
Then by definition you are a sinner.I am a child of God who may/can sin at times because we don't have our glorified bodies yet.
Yes, Amen.But John made provision for us:
Children of God.
1 John 2:1
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
I am a child of God.There you have it in a nutshell EG:
John called the believers CHILDREN OF GOD....
He did NOT call them sinners.
Sinners live a life of sin....
Do you still sin? I am not understanding your line of question. I admit i still sin yet you seem to be attacking me, I am confused.John is writing so that WE MAY NOT SIN.....
He exhorts us NOT TO SIN...
BUT
IF we do sin, Jesus is our advocate.
Whats amazing, is you are the one who is against the security we have in Christ. My security is completely in Christ.1 John 3:1 states AGAIN that we are CHILDREN OF GOD.
1See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.
So if you want to call yourself A SINNER....
go right ahead...
but speak for yourself.
I'm hoping most on this thread are children of God.
Who said anything about giving up?Oh for goodness sake.
Stop already.
So you can't be perfect...
so you just give up and call us all sinners?
You want to ignore you sin and say you are sinless. feel freeNo sir.
Yes he was, He cursed people who liked game of thrones and said they could not be saved or following God. do you believe this also?He was legalistic?
No. Legalism comes in many forms, That is just one form of legalism.Legalistic is when someone says we have to live by the LAW OF MOSES as in the OT.
It is also when someone reads a bood. and people says they can not be a child of God because they read the book. Or when they say a man who has long hair or a woman does not wear a dress,..or if you drink cuss or smoke, you can't be a christian.Legalistic is when a teen is brought to the edge of town because he misbehaved and the village
stones him to death.
Legalism is when that same adultress is being told she can't be saved, because she commited such a grave sin she could not be a child of God.Legalistic is when an adulterous woman gets stoned to death.
I did not see this, I saw him admit like I do that we still sin. and God does not kick us out of his family because we sin.The other member stated plainly and clearly that we could live A SINFUL LIFE
and STILL BE SAVED.
you saw what you want to see.. And you do not see what you do not want to see.This is an abhorant teaching and is not found anywhere in the NT and anyone who teaches this will incur the wrath of
God.
James 3:1
1Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
I think I would put it in the words of the great Simon and Garfunkel (not profits, but mere bards... :)), from The Boxer in 1968... "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."you saw what you want to see.. And you do not see what you do not want to see.
@GodsGrace I just reread the post you are talking about.yes, the truth
We have Gods standard (perfection) Even Jesus said no one is GOOD but God. so when we all stand in front of God with our nakedness of everything we have done in our lifetime, we are standning in front Guilty, not just accused, but guilty.
So the question is, God wants to cover your nakedness (your sin) by the innocence of his son, being slain on that cross.. will you come to him having your sin covered, Or come to him guilty and uncovered.
if anyone thinks they are not guilty. I worry for their very soul
Jesus
He who believes is not condemned
he who does not believe is condemned already because they have not believed.
The sin debt was paid on the cross. for everyone, (even though the calvinist will disagree, they do not understand the truth)
Rejection of his son will never be forgiven
You have no sin? Your perfect?
Then by definition you are a sinner.
God does not see your sin if you are covered (saved) but you admit you still sin.
And you only sin at times? Wow. Wish I could be that mature of a believer I only mess up every now and then.
Like paul. I see my sin for what it is, oh what a wretched man I am, who will save me from this body of sin.
Of course he had the answer. the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of Gods righteousness
Yes, Amen.
But the fact we even need to confess or state or acknowledge our sins to God shows we are still by definition sinners
I am a child of God.
I also still sin, so by defenition I am still a sinner. When I think I am no longer a sinner, I am in danger because I think I have arrived.
Do you still sin? I am not understanding your line of question. I admit i still sin yet you seem to be attacking me, I am confused.
Whats amazing, is you are the one who is against the security we have in Christ. My security is completely in Christ.
I am A Child of God, and am secure because of it, because I am gods son, I am secure in him. I have not been given the spirit of fear, but a sound mind, I can come to the throne of grace because I am his son.. not in fear. but he is my Abba Father.
But because I admit I still sin, I am wrong?
shaking my head.
Who said anything about giving up?
You stop already, stop assuming you know what I am saying and my frame of mind
me admitting I am not perfect is not me giving up. It is me admitting like paul did, There are times I want to do good. but struggle. there are times I do not want to do bad. yet still struggle. You do not have this war in your soul? Like I said, if you have this, please share. because paul could not even get to where you are at
You want to ignore you sin and say you are sinless. feel free
I will look to God and lay my sin before him and not ignore it like it is not there.
Yes he was, He cursed people who liked game of thrones and said they could not be saved or following God. do you believe this also?
No. Legalism comes in many forms, That is just one form of legalism.
It is also when someone reads a bood. and people says they can not be a child of God because they read the book. Or when they say a man who has long hair or a woman does not wear a dress,..or if you drink cuss or smoke, you can't be a christian.
I have witnessed and been part of it all.
Legalism is when that same adultress is being told she can't be saved, because she commited such a grave sin she could not be a child of God.
Yet the person who is judging her has his or her own sin issue. when they reject or deny or make little of it, because they have not done this bad of a sin
I did not see this, I saw him admit like I do that we still sin. and God does not kick us out of his family because we sin.
you saw what you want to see.. And you do not see what you do not want to see.
PINSEEKER,No, like a few on this board you just disparage what you can't refute.
I don't. :)
Grace and peace to you.
yes, the truth
We have Gods standard (perfection) Even Jesus said no one is GOOD but God. so when we all stand in front of God with our nakedness of everything we have done in our lifetime, we are standning in front Guilty, not just accused, but guilty.
So the question is, God wants to cover your nakedness (your sin) by the innocence of his son, being slain on that cross.. will you come to him having your sin covered, Or come to him guilty and uncovered.
if anyone thinks they are not guilty. I worry for their very soul
He who believes is not condemned
he who does not believe is condemned already because they have not believed.
Here's what Paul said:The sin debt was paid on the cross. for everyone, (even though the calvinist will disagree, they do not understand the truth)
Rejection of his son will never be forgiven
You have no sin? Your perfect?
Then by definition you are a sinner.
God does not see your sin if you are covered (saved) but you admit you still sin.
And you only sin at times? Wow. Wish I could be that mature of a believer I only mess up every now and then.
Like paul. I see my sin for what it is, oh what a wretched man I am, who will save me from this body of sin.
Of course he had the answer. the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of Gods righteousness
Yes, Amen.
But the fact we even need to confess or state or acknowledge our sins to God shows we are still by definition sinners
I am a child of God.
I also still sin, so by defenition I am still a sinner. When I think I am no longer a sinner, I am in danger because I think I have arrived.
Do you still sin? I am not understanding your line of question. I admit i still sin yet you seem to be attacking me, I am confused.
Whats amazing, is you are the one who is against the security we have in Christ. My security is completely in Christ.
I am A Child of God, and am secure because of it, because I am gods son, I am secure in him. I have not been given the spirit of fear, but a sound mind, I can come to the throne of grace because I am his son.. not in fear. but he is my Abba Father.
But because I admit I still sin, I am wrong?
shaking my head.
Who said anything about giving up?
You stop already, stop assuming you know what I am saying and my frame of mind
Never said that.me admitting I am not perfect is not me giving up. It is me admitting like paul did, There are times I want to do good. but struggle. there are times I do not want to do bad. yet still struggle. You do not have this war in your soul? Like I said, if you have this, please share. because paul could not even get to where you are at
You want to ignore you sin and say you are sinless. feel free
I will look to God and lay my sin before him and not ignore it like it is not there.
Yes he was, He cursed people who liked game of thrones and said they could not be saved or following God. do you believe this also?
No. Legalism comes in many forms, That is just one form of legalism.
It is also when someone reads a bood. and people says they can not be a child of God because they read the book. Or when they say a man who has long hair or a woman does not wear a dress,..or if you drink cuss or smoke, you can't be a christian.
I have witnessed and been part of it all.
Legalism is when that same adultress is being told she can't be saved, because she commited such a grave sin she could not be a child of God.
The other member plainly said that for years Christians watched whatever program on TV and were STILL saved.Yet the person who is judging her has his or her own sin issue. when they reject or deny or make little of it, because they have not done this bad of a sin
I did not see this, I saw him admit like I do that we still sin. and God does not kick us out of his family because we sin.
you saw what you want to see.. And you do not see what you do not want to see.
Read it again....@GodsGrace I just reread the post you are talking about.
What I meant about people seeing what they want to see. I did not see him say we could live in sin and still be saved, I do not know how you could get that from what he said.
I did see him say people who do certain things are not walking with God. which I disagree with
But I did not see him say we could live in sin, and still be saved
What happened to you not responding to me anymore, GodsGrace?PINSEEKER,
Let me make this perfectly clear to you....
Woodenly speaking, yes, but not with any validity or credibility.I can refute anything you send my way...
Yes, and so does the OT, which is why I presented you with various passages over and over and over again that your statements and assertions clearly contradicted or conflicted with in irresolvable ways. And then, when presented with the opportunity to resolve those irresolvable assertions, there was silence... except for, "Oh, you're just babbling, and I don't respond to babbling." But thank you for testifying as to the truth of Scripture, that, in the words of Paul, "(a)ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Thank you for that, GodsGrace.The NT contains TRUTH.
But assertions can conflict with truth, and assertions even with other assertions.TRUTH cannot conflict with itself ...
'Easily' and 'validly'/'credibly' are two very different concepts, GodsGrace. So yes, you tried to fit them with your narrative, but unsuccessfully. And to that point, we should strive to fit our "narrative" with Scripture, not the other way around.and thus ANY verse or verses you post could be explained very easily....
Well no, John Calvin was not even born until 1509. But even so, John Calvin himself credits Augustine with having championed his understanding of Scripture (Calvin quoted Augustine once in every four pages of his two-volume Institutes of the Christian Religion, and even stated, "Augustine is so much at one with me that, if I wished to write a confession of my faith, it would abundantly satisfy me to quote wholesale from his writings." Augustine, GodsGrace, lived from 354 A.D to 430. So no, the line of Christian thought propagated by John Calvin was "invented" ~ a poor word choice; rather, goes back at least about 1100 years prior to John Calvin's birth. Now, certainly you can continue to say what you're saying, but every time you do... <smile>Calvinism was INVENTED in 1,500AD.
Nothing, because the assertion itself is... well, dumb (sorry), an idiotic revision of history itself.That means...
That's... not my problem... <smile>Now you smirk and smile and giggle and I find it very difficult to deal with that.
That makes two of us.I'm rather serious about my faith...
Again, anyone can ~ woodenly speaking ~ refute anything, but can certainly still do so without validity or credibility. And in the conversation... well, exchange, at least... we have had, in your case, such has... repeatedly <smile>... proven true,This DOES NOT MEAN that I can't refute your INCORRECT BELIEF SYSTEM.
See....you're babbling again.What happened to you not responding to me anymore, GodsGrace?
Not with any validity you can't...
Yes, and so doe the OT, and that is why I presented you with various passages over and over and over again that your statements contradicted or conflicted with in irresolvable ways. And then, when presented with the opportunity to resolve those irresolvable assertions, there was silence... except for, "Oh, you're just babbling, and I don't respond to babbling." But thank you for testifying as to the truth of Scripture, that, in the words of Paul, tjat "(a)ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Thank you for that, GodsGrace.
But assertions can conflict with truth, and assertions can conflict with other assertions.
Which you did very badly. So yes, you tried to fit them with your narrative, but unsuccessfully.
Well no, John Calvin was not even born until 1509. But even so, John Calvin himself credits Augustine with having championed his understanding of Scripture (Calvin quoted Augustine once in every four pages of his two-volume Institutes of the Christian Religion, and even stated, "Augustine is so much at one with me that, if I wished to write a confession of my faith, it would abundantly satisfy me to quote wholesale from his writings." Augustine, GodsGrace, lived from 354 A.D to 430. So no, the line of Christian thought propagated by John Calvin was "invented" ~ a poor word choice; rather at least goes back to about 1100 years prior to John Calvin's birth. Now, ertainly you can continue to say what you're saying, but every time you do... <smile>
Nothing, because the assertion itself is... well, dumb. An idiotic revision of history itself.
I don't care. <smile>
That makes two of us.
Again, anyone can ~ woodenly speaking ~ refute anything, but can certainly still do so without validity or credibility. And in the conversation... well, exchange, at least... we have had, in your case, such has... repeatedly <smile>... proven true,
Grace and peace to you, GodsGrace.
Yes, I agree, but lets finish what Paul said and not just cut him shortHere's the truth in case you missed it:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
So will I,I'll be standing in front of God blameless:
1 Thessalonians 3:
12and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you;
13so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
agreed, 100%Those that are NOT children of God will not be seeing heaven...
Agree 100 %, those who sin have never seen or known God. those who are born of God can not live in sin, because they have been born of God.Revelation 21:27
27and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Well, what exactly does it mean TO BELIEVE?
Does it mean with your mind?
Like the demons?
Or do you think it means something more?
The believe there is one God. they did nto believe in Jesus, if they did, they would not have followed Satan.John 1:12
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
The demons believe in Jesus.
Maybe, maybe not.Are they saved?
NO.
If you believe in Jesus you will trust Him.
See, you did it againIf you trust Him you will follow His teachings.
His teachings MUST be obeyed or you will not be a disciple of His.
You have been discussing with me for how long now? I have stated this to you quite a few times, and said this is WHY I can not continue in sin and why I am secure in christ. and you ask me again? I am offended that you have not heard me..2 Corinthians 5:17
17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Are you not a new creature?
Oh I agreeHere's what Paul said:
Romans 6:1-2
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
and
Romans 13:13-14
13Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
This is a misapplication and misunderstandingCan't be both.
You're eithe a SINNER
or
You're a CHILD OF GOD.
How is it still confusing?Make up your mind.
So now you're a child of God?
This is confusion EG.
I am,I'm replying to what you post.
You admit that you're a sinner.
A habitual sinner (he who sins according to John) lives in sin, every thought and every attention is sin, It is how those who do not believe in Christ live, because every thought and emotion is about selfHave you read 1 John?
What's the difference between sinning and being a sinner?
Your the one who says you are no longer a sinner, I am just using your words.. And asking a question. so you can understand what people hear you sayNever said that.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I do not understadn your question, or why you would think I thought thisReally? So the NT is wrong and persons cannot be forgiven of sin?
Well if you think so thats fine, But I disagree. I grew up in that church, and that form of legalism is dangerous.That is not legalism.....
That is INCORRECT teaching of what God wants us to know.
lol. OkThe other member plainly said that for years Christians watched whatever program on TV and were STILL saved.
HE stated the program was sinful, not me.
So IOW, we can do whatever we want to do and still be saved.
No.You deny there are persons like this - just as you said when I first started to post to you.
Now I've proven that there are and you still deny it.
I didRead it again....
I replied to this above.
LOL! Okay, so, by your own definition, you are too, then... Wow.See....you're babbling again.
Oh, you mean as I've done so extensively (and repetitively) previous to now? <smile> I'll just stand by what I have said (quoting over and over again from various parts of the Old and New Testaments alike)... But now we're just talking about refuting things, which is kind of silly, really...How about some scripture?
Oh, well, does that mean starting with your misperceptions of it? Or the actual real thing?Let's start where Calvinism starts (or reformed theology as some prefer).
Well, to that question, what parts of Calvinism point to man not having free will? :) The answer to that ~ as well as the answer to your question here, is, "None."What verses point to the fact that man has no free will?
And this is what I've told you over and over again, GodsGrace, that total depravity really has nothing directly to with the will. However, you might take a look at what Paul says in Romans 6 again, that any one man, at any time in his life, is either a slave to unrighteousness or a slave to righteousness; there is no "middle ground" or "neutral." The proper (valid, credible) way of restating what you have said here is, "Due to total depravity (which is the state of the natural man's heart, the "heart of stone," as God puts it in Ezekiel 11 and 36), he will not use his free will as he should and turn to God, but rather will always ~ of his own free will ~ do the opposite.No free will is required because, due to total depravity man cannot turn to God....
One misstatement follows another... No, since the natural man will always, because of this depraved, sinful nature, use his free will poorly and choose the wrong, God places no conditions of man on His election unto salvation, because man is unable to meet any condition of God, much less to "be perfect as (He) is perfect." God's election has to be unconditional for two reasons, if there were any condition, no one would be saved, and God's grace, if man were to meet any condition, would not be grace at all, but somehow merited by man.so since God has to make the choice of whom to save, there can be no condition - only what God deems applicable, but which we cannot now.
Interesting that you make no attempt to define it... Christ's atonement can be understood as unlimited in one sense, and limited in another, different sense. His atonement for sin was and is indeed sufficient to accomplish the redemption and salvation of all, so in this sense is unlimited. But not all will be called by God and thus born again of the Spirit, only according to His purpose of election, so only His elect; therefore, Christ's atonement is limited in the sense that it was and is effectual only for God's elect.Limited Atonement....so radical even some Calvinists cannot agree with it.
Well, at least an attempt this time, but another clumsy way to... well, mischaracterize the concept in question... God's grace of salvation, of the second birth by the Spirit, is given by grace certainly of God's volition, even before the foundation of the world, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, according to His purpose of election, before anyone has done anything either good or bad, as Paul says in Romans 9, If and when this is effected in the person, his or her heart is changed from stone to flesh, he or she is given a new spirit, and God puts His Spirit into the person, giving him or her a new nature. And because of this new heart, this new nature, he or she then can and will, in and of himself or herself, because he or she is this "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5), of his or her own free will choose the right. After having the "eyes of the heart" opened, he or she will not fail to do so.God chooses, so we MUST accept grace, which makes grace irresistible.
Rubbish.Again, no free will.
LOL! <eyeroll>And, after having done all that choosing, of course God will keep Calvinists saved until the end...
Quite the opposite, as previously demonstrated, but nowhere clearer than:...even though the NT is chock full of verses that state salvation can be forfeited.
Now that's true; I agree. As J.I. Packer so eloquently put it in his introductory essay of John Owen's great work, Death of Death in the Death of Christ:It IS difficult to discuss with calvinists because one concept will always run into the next.
But anyone's doing so or not in the opinion of another is just that, a matter of opinion. <smile>That's why it's necessary to keep to the topic and not babble too much.
Ah, another thing we disagree on. I would certainly say both are important, but the latter far more than the first. <smile>...a person's opinion is not important, only what the bible teaches.
I give up Pin Seeker.LOL! Okay, so, by your own definition, you are too, then... Wow.
Oh, you mean as I've done so extensively (and repetitively) previous to now? <smile> I'll just stand by what I have said (quoting over and over again from various parts of the Old and New Testaments alike)... But now we're just talking about refuting things, which is kind of silly, really...
Oh, well, does that mean starting with your misperceptions of it? Or the actual real thing?
Well, to that question, what parts of Calvinism point to man not having free will? :) The answer to that ~ as well as the answer to your question here, is, "None."
And this is what I've told you over and over again, GodsGrace, that total depravity really has nothing directly to with the will. However, you might take a look at what Paul says in Romans 6 again, that any one man, at any time in his life, is either a slave to unrighteousness or a slave to righteousness; there is no "middle ground" or "neutral." The proper (valid, credible) way of restating what you have said here is, "Due to total depravity (which is the state of the natural man's heart, the "heart of stone," as God puts it in Ezekiel 11 and 36), he will not use his free will as he should and turn to God, but rather will always ~ of his own free will ~ do the opposite.
One misstatement follows another... No, since the natural man will always, because of this depraved, sinful nature, use his free will poorly and choose the wrong, God places no conditions of man on His election unto salvation, because man is unable to meet any condition of God, much less to "be perfect as (He) is perfect." God's election has to be unconditional for two reasons, if there were any condition, no one would be saved, and God's grace, if man were to meet any condition, would not be grace at all, but somehow merited by man.
Interesting that you make no attempt to define it... Christ's atonement can be understood as unlimited in one sense, and limited in another, different sense. His atonement for sin was and is indeed sufficient to accomplish the redemption and salvation of all, so in this sense is unlimited. But not all will be called by God and thus born again of the Spirit, only according to His purpose of election, so only His elect; therefore, Christ's atonement is limited in the sense that it was and is effectual only for God's elect.
Well, at least an attempt this time, but another clumsy way to... well, mischaracterize the concept in question... God's grace of salvation, of the second birth by the Spirit, is given by grace certainly of God's volition, even before the foundation of the world, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, according to His purpose of election, before anyone has done anything either good or bad, as Paul says in Romans 9, If and when this is effected in the person, his or her heart is changed from stone to flesh, he or she is given a new spirit, and God puts His Spirit into the person, giving him or her a new nature. And because of this new heart, this new nature, he or she then can and will, in and of himself or herself, because he or she is this "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5), of his or her own free will choose the right. After having the "eyes of the heart" opened, he or she will not fail to do so.
Rubbish.
LOL! <eyeroll>
Quite the opposite, as previously demonstrated, but nowhere clearer than:
Ohhhhh... but I'm repeating myself. Ohhhh dear... LOL!
- Romans 8, where Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1-2) and "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:37-39).
- Philippians 1, where he says, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."
- 1 Peter 1, where Peter says, "God... has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:3-5).
Now that's true; I agree. As J.I. Packer so eloquently put it in his introductory essay of John Owen's great work, Death of Death in the Death of Christ:
"...the very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all..."
And he goes on to say (probably babbling, in your opinion <smile>):
"For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God—the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves—does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners—men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners—and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to Whom be glory for ever; amen."
But anyone's doing so or not in the opinion of another is just that, a matter of opinion. <smile>
Ah, another thing we disagree on. I would certainly say both are important, but the latter far more than the first. <smile>
Grace and peace to you, GodsGrace.
Good call.I give up Pin Seeker.
I'll respect your wishes, GodsGrace, but if I feel compelled to respond to anything you say, I will do so. I... you know... have... free will... <smile>Please don't post to me anymore.
Ah. Well. <smile>You're a waste of time...
As I have said, suit yourself.and I will not reply to you.
Well, okay. You know, I haven't said this before, but I used to think about these things pretty much precisely as you do. But, thanks be to God, I came to realize just how amazing God's grace actually is. And that's... kind of why I think your moniker... well, your use of it, anyway... is... Well, I mean it's great, but to use it and then really kind of short-change it is... an interesting juxtaposition, I guess.I tried again....
Oh, well... yes, I can, and I have been and am very serious. I would say to you, GodsGrace, that my <smiles> and <chuckles> are not meant to be flippant or conveying of whimsicalness or lack of seriousness.but you just can't be serious.
LOL! I was poking a bit of fun at you, GG. Yes. We all do. <smile>You THINK you have free will?
Hmmm, well, God's complete sovereignty over His creation is not restrictive or coercive in any way regarding of our free will. As I have said, GG, the issue is not free will, or whether we have it or not. Salvation is a matter of the heart, which, as you should know, "is deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). The issue is really one of autonomy, which I'll elaborate upon here...That's compatibilist free will
<smile> Think of it in these ways, GodsGrace:Learn PS....
No, you're mistaken, both as to what Calvinists believe and in your Arminian beliefs. But, it's okay. You're not "less Christian" or "less saved" or inferior in any way to any other Christian. Your personally disparaging remarks are a bit troubling, not because I'm offended, but just because... well, I think Christians shouldn't try to tear down other Christians. But, so it goes...You're all mixed up as most calvinists are.
I would only add, except some of Paul's documented thoughts. They were man's (Paul's) words, not the Lord's.The men who wrote it certainly spoke/wrote in and of themselves, but the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture ~ all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3) ~ so much so that it is God's Word and not man's
Yet for some reason, the Holy Spirit kept it as part of His inspired Word.I would only add, except some of Paul's documented thoughts. They were man's (Paul's) words, not the Lord's.
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
So then, the born again are "in Christ".. "One with God".. "Seated in Heavenly Places", and Jesus has become their "One time ETERNAL sacrifice for Sin"..
You apply your false religious interpretation to those scriptures, and God hates those who do that to His Word. Because it makes God a liar
I didn't say God is lying, I said you make God a liar by claiming that He said something that He didn't say. I'm glad I helped you see that, now you can study those verses to find out what they mean.Please point out in these verses where you believe God is lying?
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6
Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24
JLB