|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Mar 20, 2023 19:43:54 GMT -8
It has long amazed me how the Calvinist will tell you that they don't know who the elect are .... and don't pretend to know..... And... .then insist they know that Judas was not part of the elect. Does anyone else notice this silliness? Can I ask that all Calvinists be consistent in their claims? And every Calvinist I have talked with who upholds their doctrines of grace will admit they cannot tell the person whom they share the gospel with these two basic things. 1- God really loves them 2- Jesus died for their sins. If the person is not one of the elect then God actually hates them, not loves them and the atonement was only for the elect. So the honest 5 point Calvinist cannot tell everyone they share the gospel with God loves them and Jesus died for their sins. and they are wonder why they only find people just like themselves...... One of the great aspects of Christian is the work of Jesus Christ in the individual. While we are all similar, we are all gifted in unique ways. The BODY fits TOGETHER...... |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Mar 21, 2023 4:32:14 GMT -8
And every Calvinist I have talked with who upholds their doctrines of grace will admit they cannot tell the person whom they share the gospel with these two basic things. 1- God really loves them 2- Jesus died for their sins. If the person is not one of the elect then God actually hates them, not loves them and the atonement was only for the elect. So the honest 5 point Calvinist cannot tell everyone they share the gospel with God loves them and Jesus died for their sins. and they are wonder why they only find people just like themselves...... One of the great aspects of Christian is the work of Jesus Christ in the individual. While we are all similar, we are all gifted in unique ways. The BODY fits TOGETHER...... ditto |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Mar 27, 2023 19:55:54 GMT -8
You no doubt have seen where Paul talks to churches as though there were not tares among the wheat. Nothing you showed there, if it was about the elect, can be said to apply to Judas, if he was not among the elect. And of course, and as usual, there is the problem to get around, that the mind of the flesh cannot do anything to please God, but must first be born again. It has long amazed me how the Calvinist will tell you that they don't know who the elect are .... and don't pretend to know..... And... .then insist they know that Judas was not part of the elect. Does anyone else notice this silliness? Can I ask that all Calvinists be consistent in their claims? Really? Where do you see me being inconsistent? I don't pretend to know who is and who isn't. But: If Judas went to hell, he was not of the elect. Simple. Read my statement there. Did I say whether Judas was among the elect? Did I say he was not? Notice the word, "IF". I didn't say, "SINCE". |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Mar 27, 2023 20:03:06 GMT -8
And every Calvinist I have talked with who upholds their doctrines of grace will admit they cannot tell the person whom they share the gospel with these two basic things. 1- God really loves them 2- Jesus died for their sins. If the person is not one of the elect then God actually hates them, not loves them and the atonement was only for the elect. So the honest 5 point Calvinist cannot tell everyone they share the gospel with God loves them and Jesus died for their sins. and they are wonder why they only find people just like themselves...... One of the great aspects of Christian is the work of Jesus Christ in the individual. While we are all similar, we are all gifted in unique ways. The BODY fits TOGETHER...... Ha! Is that an admission that there is a place in Christ's Body for the Calvinist? But as to your remarks concerning what you apparently think to be basic to the Gospel, in that it is for "whosoever will", 1- God really loves them
2- Jesus died for their sins.—Why would you assume that #1 there is necessary, and that #2 is accurate? —Why do you think they are necessary for evangelism? |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Mar 28, 2023 12:28:41 GMT -8
It has long amazed me how the Calvinist will tell you that they don't know who the elect are .... and don't pretend to know..... And... .then insist they know that Judas was not part of the elect. Does anyone else notice this silliness? Can I ask that all Calvinists be consistent in their claims? Really? Where do you see me being inconsistent? I don't pretend to know who is and who isn't. But: If Judas went to hell, he was not of the elect. Simple. Read my statement there. Did I say whether Judas was among the elect? Did I say he was not? Notice the word, "IF". I didn't say, "SINCE". So... you've NEVER made a statement relative to his position among the elect? I can't remember a single Calvinist that hasn't. You may not have done it here but your must realize that it is done constantly among Calvinists. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Mar 28, 2023 12:34:37 GMT -8
and they are wonder why they only find people just like themselves...... One of the great aspects of Christian is the work of Jesus Christ in the individual. While we are all similar, we are all gifted in unique ways. The BODY fits TOGETHER...... Ha! Is that an admission that there is a place in Christ's Body for the Calvinist? But as to your remarks concerning what you apparently think to be basic to the Gospel, in that it is for "whosoever will", 1- God really loves them
2- Jesus died for their sins.—Why would you assume that #1 there is necessary, and that #2 is accurate? —Why do you think they are necessary for evangelism? Yes. I don't draw lines among denominations. God has people.... EVERYWHERE. Out of all nations. All tongues. All tribes. I'm going to recognize the obvious here. You're selectively answering what I say. You're "pecking" around the edges. Do you want to have a group discussion on the topic? I'd look forward to it. I'm busy but I'll make time. 1. God has a love for humanity. He partook of humanity. We all share the same humanity. Elect or not. 2. Yes. Christ died for ALL sin. That doesn't mean everyone is forgive. That means that Christ has become/is the arbitrator of forgiveness. The death of Christ both CONDEMNS and FREES.. I suspect you've never heard this before. I gave up fight over silly things a long time ago. I went looking for what is important. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Just like I've told you before. It is often "BOTH". Not "either/or...." |
|
|
|
Post by Unmerited on Mar 29, 2023 14:56:40 GMT -8
Ha! Is that an admission that there is a place in Christ's Body for the Calvinist? But as to your remarks concerning what you apparently think to be basic to the Gospel, in that it is for "whosoever will", 1- God really loves them
2- Jesus died for their sins.—Why would you assume that #1 there is necessary, and that #2 is accurate? —Why do you think they are necessary for evangelism? Yes. I don't draw lines among denominations. God has people.... EVERYWHERE. Out of all nations. All tongues. All tribes. I'm going to recognize the obvious here. You're selectively answering what I say. You're "pecking" around the edges. Do you want to have a group discussion on the topic? I'd look forward to it. I'm busy but I'll make time. 1. God has a love for humanity. He partook of humanity. We all share the same humanity. Elect or not. 2. Yes. Christ died for ALL sin. That doesn't mean everyone is forgive. That means that Christ has become/is the arbitrator of forgiveness. The death of Christ both CONDEMNS and FREES.. I suspect you've never heard this before. I gave up fight over silly things a long time ago. I went looking for what is important. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Just like I've told you before. It is often "BOTH". Not "either/or...." It's a classic no-win debate that trivializes the issue and leaves the masses who watch the fight from the sidelines confused, polarized, or worst of all, bored. Grace was meant to be received and lived out to the fullest, not dissected and analyzed by those who would rather argue than eat. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8 I would like to see grace awakened and released, not denied . . . to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated. Grace received but unexpressed is dead grace. If we spend our time debating how grace is received or how much commitment is necessary for salvation, without getting into what it means to live by grace and enjoy the magnificent freedom it provides, quickly leads to a ton of counterproductive arguments. It becomes little more than another tedious trivial pursuit where the majority of God’s people spend days looking back and asking, “How did we receive it?” instead of looking ahead and announcing, “Grace is ours . . . let’s live it!” Deny it or debate it and we kill it. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Mar 31, 2023 6:18:46 GMT -8
Yes. I don't draw lines among denominations. God has people.... EVERYWHERE. Out of all nations. All tongues. All tribes. I'm going to recognize the obvious here. You're selectively answering what I say. You're "pecking" around the edges. Do you want to have a group discussion on the topic? I'd look forward to it. I'm busy but I'll make time. 1. God has a love for humanity. He partook of humanity. We all share the same humanity. Elect or not. 2. Yes. Christ died for ALL sin. That doesn't mean everyone is forgive. That means that Christ has become/is the arbitrator of forgiveness. The death of Christ both CONDEMNS and FREES.. I suspect you've never heard this before. I gave up fight over silly things a long time ago. I went looking for what is important. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Just like I've told you before. It is often "BOTH". Not "either/or...." It's a classic no-win debate that trivializes the issue and leaves the masses who watch the fight from the sidelines confused, polarized, or worst of all, bored. Grace was meant to be received and lived out to the fullest, not dissected and analyzed by those who would rather argue than eat. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8 I would like to see grace awakened and released, not denied . . . to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated. Grace received but unexpressed is dead grace. If we spend our time debating how grace is received or how much commitment is necessary for salvation, without getting into what it means to live by grace and enjoy the magnificent freedom it provides, quickly leads to a ton of counterproductive arguments. It becomes little more than another tedious trivial pursuit where the majority of God’s people spend days looking back and asking, “How did we receive it?” instead of looking ahead and announcing, “Grace is ours . . . let’s live it!” Deny it or debate it and we kill it. There may have been a time this would work. I don't believe it will now. There is too much to be considered and human beings are a curious sort. We definitely want to know more than we can ever actually know. |
|
|
|
Post by Unmerited on Mar 31, 2023 6:46:31 GMT -8
praiseyeshua Exactly! Makes me think of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. And look where that got us. Then you have the Tower of Babel, that didn't work out so well either. I think the main thing is to be led and guided and taught by the Holy Spirit. Hey that's in the Bible! 1 Corinthians 2:12–13 12 Now we have not received the spirit [that belongs to] the world, but the [Holy] Spirit Who is from God, [given to us] that we might realize and comprehend and appreciate the gifts [of divine favor and blessing so freely and lavishly] bestowed on us by God. 13 And we are setting these truths forth in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the [Holy] Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual truths with spiritual language [to those who possess the Holy Spirit]. Here is a good book on this topic: Recovering the unity of the Bible: one continuous story, plan, and purpose / Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Short excerpt The Unity of the Bible Diversity as an Accompanying Reality [There are] three approaches to the question. One … different viewpoints are appropriate to different contexts, another that they reflect different levels of insight, and a third that they are all expressions of one underlying theology. —John Goldingay The case for diversity in the Bible seems more apparent to most readers in our day than the case for the unity of the Scriptures. However, since these sixty-six books function as the Holy Scriptures for Christians, several ways have been suggested for upholding the case for diversity while still acknowledging the presence of some type of unity. Moreover, different approaches have been taken to the claims of an overriding presence of diversity. For example, we begin by seeing diversity either as a problem, which possibly could be answered by a number of explanations, or as a virtue, wherein the various books of the Bible are regarded as a complex but interrelated set of documents, instead of a rather simple and uncomplicated text, with a decided emphasis on an internal unity. But any religion worth its salt could not remain indifferent or oblivious to what could be viewed as outright internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the books described as being “scriptural” or having a normative status if it makes a claim to their truth, consistency, and authority. Therefore, the problem is worth investigating in a more detailed manner. The Numerous Types of Diversity If the Bible did not evidence a common theme and continuing thread throughout its extended library, its diverse features would not be worth noticing, for that would be what we would expect given the plurality of writers, times, and cultures. Diversity is only worthwhile noting where it is somehow expected to exhibit an ongoing coherence, consistency, or unified plan. Nevertheless, at least seven rather elementary types of diversity can be seen immediately upon getting a general overview of the Bible and its contents. They are: (1) a diversity in language, (2) a diversity in human authorship, (3) a diversity of the writers’ qualifications and backgrounds, (4) a diversity of place, of both where the written material emanated from and where the events originally took place, (5) a diversity of literary form, (6) a diversity of matter or substance, and (7) a diversity of times the material covers and in which it was written. Each of these types of diversity needs to be discussed in more detail. 1. Diversity of language. Three main languages were used in bringing to us the divine revelation of God. The Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, the language of Canaan, while the New Testament was composed in Koine Greek, the language of the common people. Another portion of the Old Testament was composed in Aramaic, the trade language of the day. Those texts include Daniel 2:4–7:28 and Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26. Genesis also has a sprinkling of Aramaic expressions. 2. Diversity of authorship. At least forty men were employed in the writing of the Bible, thirty-one in the Old Testament and about eight or nine in the New. To have so many over such a long stretch of time putting their hands to a work, now bound into one volume, yet arriving at a continuity of theme and goal, is nothing short of astonishing unless some guiding hand was at work. Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Recovering the Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 25–26.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Apr 11, 2023 4:28:03 GMT -8
and they are wonder why they only find people just like themselves...... One of the great aspects of Christian is the work of Jesus Christ in the individual. While we are all similar, we are all gifted in unique ways. The BODY fits TOGETHER...... Ha! Is that an admission that there is a place in Christ's Body for the Calvinist? But as to your remarks concerning what you apparently think to be basic to the Gospel, in that it is for "whosoever will", 1- God really loves them
2- Jesus died for their sins.—Why would you assume that #1 there is necessary, and that #2 is accurate? —Why do you think they are necessary for evangelism? In Calvinism God only loves the elect sinner who was chosen/predestined before the foundation of the world. These alone are the ones Jesus died for and and made atonement for their sins alone. That is what TULIP clearly teaches along with double predestination, Calvinist distinctives.
So if the Calvinist is being honest to any sinner he cannot say with sincerity, honesty and integrity that :
1- Jesus loves you 2- Jesus died for your sins
You/We are most often are sharing the gospel with those who will never come to Christ and will remain lost.
hope this helps !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Apr 30, 2023 5:06:06 GMT -8
Calvinism holds Christ shed his blood only for the elect - those unconditionally chosen for Salvation. The doctrine is known as limited atonement. It is a false doctrine as scripture shows Christ shed his blood even for Judas. Luke 22:14–23 (KJV) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Judas was included among the twelve. He partook of the bread - the symbol of Christ's body which was broken even for him. He partook of the cup - The symbol of Christ's blood which was shed even for him refuting limited atonement I would think you will need a better argument. Judas, the son of perdition, Jesus said. Eternally dammed. I wouldnt die on that hill. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Apr 30, 2023 6:34:26 GMT -8
Calvinism holds Christ shed his blood only for the elect - those unconditionally chosen for Salvation. The doctrine is known as limited atonement. It is a false doctrine as scripture shows Christ shed his blood even for Judas. Luke 22:14–23 (KJV) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Judas was included among the twelve. He partook of the bread - the symbol of Christ's body which was broken even for him. He partook of the cup - The symbol of Christ's blood which was shed even for him refuting limited atonement I would think you will need a better argument. Judas, the son of perdition, Jesus said. Eternally dammed. I wouldnt die on that hill. I agree. The Bible clearly indicates that Judas was not saved. Jesus Himself said of Judas, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). God had, from ages past, determined that Christ would be betrayed by Judas, die on the cross for our sins, and be resurrected. This is what Jesus meant when He said He would “go just as it is written about him.” Nothing would stop the plan of God to provide salvation for mankind. |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Apr 30, 2023 8:21:54 GMT -8
I would think you will need a better argument. Judas, the son of perdition, Jesus said. Eternally dammed. I wouldnt die on that hill. I agree. The Bible clearly indicates that Judas was not saved. Jesus Himself said of Judas, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). God had, from ages past, determined that Christ would be betrayed by Judas, die on the cross for our sins, and be resurrected. This is what Jesus meant when He said He would “go just as it is written about him.” Nothing would stop the plan of God to provide salvation for mankind. Couldnt part of the plan as far as salvation goes, not include Judas? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Apr 30, 2023 8:34:05 GMT -8
I agree. The Bible clearly indicates that Judas was not saved. Jesus Himself said of Judas, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). God had, from ages past, determined that Christ would be betrayed by Judas, die on the cross for our sins, and be resurrected. This is what Jesus meant when He said He would “go just as it is written about him.” Nothing would stop the plan of God to provide salvation for mankind. Couldnt part of the plan as far as salvation goes, not include Judas? The Plan of salvation, The gospel, yes it includes everybody. John 3:16 but you have to have faith in Jesus and believe in him For salvation. I've been taught that Judas wanted Jesus to defeat the Romans and restore the Israeli Empire. I don't think being around Jesus ever changed him as the Bible says that he was the thief from the beginning. And when he betrayed Jesus it was for money. In other words he was out for himself, he was his own savior. He got upset when the expensive perfume was poured on Jesus's feet. To him it was a waste he could have sold it and come up and had a big piece of change in his pocket. So salvation was there walking around with him everyday in the bodily form of Jesus Christ but he just didn't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Apr 30, 2023 12:53:40 GMT -8
Couldnt part of the plan as far as salvation goes, not include Judas? The Plan of salvation, The gospel, yes it includes everybody. John 3:16 but you have to have faith in Jesus and believe in him For salvation. I've been taught that Judas wanted Jesus to defeat the Romans and restore the Israeli Empire. I don't think being around Jesus ever changed him as the Bible says that he was the thief from the beginning. And when he betrayed Jesus it was for money. In other words he was out for himself, he was his own savior. He got upset when the expensive perfume was poured on Jesus's feet. To him it was a waste he could have sold it and come up and had a big piece of change in his pocket. So salvation was there walking around with him everyday in the bodily form of Jesus Christ but he just didn't see it. thank you for your reply but I'm unconvinced. Parden me but it sounds kinda Catholic. |
|
