This is an excellent video! Bravo! I wish there were more like it. What do you think about Open Theism, though? I am an Open Theist and I also embrace Atavist Biblicism, my web is a atavist biblical church. It would be great if I could get a Open Theist teacher to post articles and answer questions on an ongoing basis there. But the key is unity on eschatology, too.
While I definitely lean more towards open theism than fatalism, I would not classify myself completely as one. I'm not familiar with atavist biblicism, and on eschatology I am largely a preterist.
God restrains Satan. Men cannot resist sin. But God can restrain Satan and God can restrain sinners. God can, as the scripture states, put a hook in a man's jaw and lead that man where God wills. So, you see, a man who is a murderer by nature can "not murder" -- because God is restraining that man from murder. Not, that he's restraining himself from murder. No, the man by nature WOULD MURDER -- if God allowed that nature to manifest in fruition of it's nature.
But where is your scriptural proof that the reason why we don't see rampant total depravity is solely because God is restraining everybody? The theory has long lacked verses, even Spurgeon wrestled with it.
And furthermore, since you have placed the responsibility solely on God, have you not then made Him responsible? Even Paul refused to go there, and wrote a fair deal about man's own accountability, never crediting the modern day myth of 'God allows man to sin--sometimes'.
@RawChristianSuperman When the Holy Spirit who is restraining is taken out of the way, total depravity will fully manifest in full blasphemy of the Spirit of all reprobate on earth. Rampant total depravity. 2 Thessalonians 2: 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2 Thess, You are quoting eschatology (and theorizing at that). This does not show evidence for the here and now, only what you think will happen in the future. Please show scriptures stating that God is presently restraining sinners from sinning, and sometimes letting one loose to murder and rape.
Letting someone slip out here or there and commit heinous deeds has no exegesis. Spurgeon tried to reason through this on total depravity.
@RawChristianSuperman Crucifying Jesus was a great sin. There was no power to crucify Jesus except that given by Father's Sovereign predestinate will before the world. John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
@RawChristianSuperman When God gave Satan permission to assault Job, Satan immediately moved MEN, who Satan thus controlled, to kill Job's servants/livestock. 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD... 15And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
According to Job 2:3 it says that satan moved God against Job. It also says that Job was being destroyed without cause (by God) throwing a huge monkey wrench in the T of the tulip as well as certain ideas of original sin..
@RawChristianSuperman As we know, God is not the author of sin. As you see from the above scripture, Satan himself is the AGENT OF EVIL. God does allow persons to move by the evil within them -- Satan within them -- as God releases Satan personally and within men to do evil. Ephesians 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:2 does not say that God personally releases satan to make men sin. This is what Calvinism has taught you it says. Someone reading it outside of reformed theology does not come to that conclusion, because the interpretations have not been implanted.
There are alot of assumptions being made that only come from within Calvinism. It's like people who believe in the 'gap theory" of Creation. Nobody reads those verses and comes up with it. The idea must be put there first.
If a thief refuses to steal or a murderer refuses to murder, then they cannot be those things unless they commit them. A murderer is a murderer because he or she murders. A thief is a thief because he or she steals. How can someone who is a murderer not murder? How does the murderer choose not to murder? If they murder that makes them a murderer. If they choose not to murder then they cannot be a murderer.Murderers and thieves always choose according to their nature.
That is the classical false assumption that the committal of a single act therefore makes you that identity. Tell me, of you told the truth once in your life, would you then be declared honest? If you gave your spare change to a children's foundation are you now a philanthropist? If you ate too much once when you were 12, are you a glutton?
The Kirk Cameron/Ken Hamm evangelizing method is very poorly thought out.
Also if the 'nature' theory alone were true, we would all be murdering.
@RawChristianSuperman One sin by the first forefather of all mankind, and all mankind are made sinners. It only took one act of sin in Adam for all mankind to be made sinners. Break the law in one point, one is guilty of the whole law equal to murder, etc. Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I have no problem with the sound teaching of sin entering the world via Adam. James 2:10-11 absolutely does not say they if you break one law, you are also guilty of murder. They are not equated to eachother, neither in ancient Judaism, nor in the NT covenant, AD.
There are many verses showing some sins to be worse than others, just as some punishment is worse than others.
Jesuit because I stand against the nonsense of reformed theology in all it's heretical glory? You should do some more research into your conspiracy theories.
@hisfreewill I kind of favor the Dominicans or Franciscans myself, although I do like many of the Jesuits. I do not presume to speak for Rev. Anderson.
By the way, do you disagree that when Calvinists are asked almost any question about Christian doctrine or practice(such as Protestants have), the answer begins, Well, as Paul the Apostle wrote. . .
I give Rev. Anderson props as his Rosetta Stone analogy is totally correct and insightful.
@RawChristianSuperman Are you saying you reject the Word of God?? You reject what the apostle Paul wrote?? You reject the Bible?? Yes, we who are Christians do stand upon the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God.
I don't reject any of the word of God. I simply reject certain interpretations of Luther, Beza, Calvin, Owen, the Synod of Dort, and several other ancient idiocies who thought themselves to be wise at a time of vast ignorance and relative stupidity.
If there's any confusion, I can gladly throw the popes and other church 'fathers' into the mix of ill-repute as well.
@RawChristianSuperman It seems you have a different religion than Christianity. It seems a religion in which man is as god and is a free moral agent with power to do good in and of himself, power to make good choices, produce good fruit, do good works -- with no need of a Savior. Jesus would be just a person who validates man's goodness. That's not Christianity. So, perhaps that is why you consider the church fathers, the Reformers, as well as the popes idiots advancing Christianity??
I have a different religion than reformed theology. The things which I espouse are based on the Bible, not fallible man's antiquated dogma.
I consider those 'fathers' idiots because their knowledge of scriptures was very limited. We have access to more information within seconds than they had in their entire lives. Their research was by candle, travel was by horse, and it could take months to years just to cross reference a verse....and you trust them?
When someone preaches "Christ Crusified" and you hear it as "Foolishness", should you, at least, "pretend" to believe it, so that God will open your eyes enabling you to no longer "pretend to believe"?
Can you choose to believe that something is NOT foolishness to you, when in fact it is foolishness to you?
Wouldn't this be "pretending to believe" when in fact you don't believe?
I do not hear Christ crucified as being foolish at all. I hear loosely strung scriptures together as an excuse for a poor doctrine that cannot be solidly defended. Such as reformed theology and occasionally OSAS.
And yes, as I have addressed to another heckler here, you actually CAN believe something that you think is ridiculous....it's really not hard. People do it in relationships all the time.
The ones, in 1Cor.1:23, who heard it as foolishness, should they have,at least, pretended to believe so that God would have opened there eyes and made it where they did not have to pretend anymore?
“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? Was it Jesus Christ that makes them to differ or something else? If both had the same prevenient grace it wasn’t Jesus that made the to differ, so obviously one had a natural advantage over the other.
Grace doesn't force a person to believe. False Calvinist assumption. Some people simply choose to reject the message because they have not chosen to fear the Lord (something that all people have been given).
@RawChristianSuperman "Grace doesn't force a person to believe. False Calvinist assumption"
Calvinists don't believe Grace "Forces a person to believe"! False assumption about Calvinists!
So, What makes the difference between the two, if not Grace?
Was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other?
As I have said, their own decisions made the difference, probably based on their experiences or previous decisions in life. You should change your mind because there is no evidence of anything else at play.
Ye are saved by grace through faith, but this grace is not forced on you, nor does it shove you into salvation. It is only the means by which you can accept salvation. Grace by definition is giving you something you don't deserve (salvation). It is up to you to accept it.
Not only that, but your salvation is KEPT by faith+works, like it or not.
Yes, all are drawn by Christ as He said He would do should He be lifted up from the Earth. John 12:32 which was an amendment to John 6, after the prophecy was fulfilled. There are other verses as well.
This drawing does not force salvation onto anybody.
The person who, after receiving prevenient grace, chose NOT to repent, or believe and is ultimately condemned in the end,... To what do you CREDIT his condemnation to?
Just a note, verifying that I've not forgotten our little conversation. I'm back from vacation, & from my stepdaughter's wedding (see my video page), & have been utterly overwhelmed with my study into the Doctrine of the Trinity -- seeing God's sovereignty &/or the deity of Christ, & of the Holy Spirit call out, in trumpet blast, on nearly every page of Holy Scripture, that the series on this (necessary for salvation) Doctrine is going to be a bit longer than I'd previously expected. Be patient.
Still waiting. Can't take the suspense. Desperately want to see how ALL THREE persons of the trinity are co-equal, co-creators, co-eternal etc.....and any combo of verses strung together MANDATING you believe THIS in order to be saved.
Cause just repenting and trusting Jesus and putting your faith in Him as the only begotten Son of the living God just aint good enough. The gospel writers were so enigmatic only Tom Hanks and Dan Brown could solve such divine secrets.
@jls201 - I would be the Calvinist (spelled Biblical Christian), and RCS would be a non-Christian, Arian, deluding himself, and posing as a Christian, all the while denying the LORD Christ. Naturally, he will despise the Gospel (the Reformed Faith), as all dead men do. I hope this helps.
Freedom has many applications. I'm not talking about freedom in regards to Calvinism, unless you're asking about free will, which I think I have been over enough times, but maybe not.
What an amazingly moronic response. NO, it is NOT what you are saying about Total Depravity. You said that TD teaches that you do not have a choice. FALSE! You DO have a choice, but you will, BY YOUR NATURE only choose that which is in accordance to your heart, and NOT AGAINST THOSE DESIRES. Go ahead, CHOOSE that which you hate. Get it?
Do you need some lessons from your great reformers or basic logic?
If all you can do is sin, then you have no choice in life. No matter what you do is all evil and nothing but evil. Even things that appeal to the flesh as being pleasing and good are nothing but sin in the eyes of Calvinism.
You can try to put a spin on it and double-talk all you want, but once again my dear students, this is NOT having any kind of choice. In Calvinism, nothing can come from you but more depravity.
@RawChristianSuperman - The problem is that you're confusing a REAL CHOICE with the inability of the chooser to make the right choice. My comment stands. Your response was moronic. Oh, and in response to this: "No matter what you do is all evil and nothing but evil". Um, that would be the description Holy Scripture has of fallen mankind, which is why SOVEREIGN GRACE is necessary, else there would never be the RIGHT CHOICE made by the sinner. PWNED.
So since you, like all Calvinists, prefer talking out of both sides of your mouth (or both ends), then clearly you have no choice when all you can do is sin. Fess up and lick your wounds already.
By the way, the Holy Spirit said no such thing, one of your cohorts is failing badly at proving it, perhaps you can ignore multiple contexts more deftly than he. Even though we have examples in the Bible of the unsaved doing good and being acknowledged for it.
@RawChristianSuperman - Notice how you don't actually address the issue at hand. My comment stands. You've in no way refuted it, only dodged it: the inability (due to the unwillingness) of the sinner to choose that which is MORALLY good does not negate that the choice is real. And "good" has to be defined. The Scriptures say that the wicked are able to do "good" things such as properly care for their families, etc., but they are UNABLE because they are UNWILLING to do that which pleases God.
I did address it, it just took 2 posts. One to show that you are full of Calvinist lingo and double-talk, dropping claims that you can't back up with verses, and a second one to counter those said claims.
@RawChristianSuperman - No, you didn't address it. You seem to have a serious mental block in understanding very simple logic. Lemme try this way: The Bible -- do you believe it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God (of course not, which is a problem, but still, but let's pretend that you do). Men wrote the words, God didn't. YET it IS the Word of God -- down to every "jot and tittle". God didn't puppetize the men, they wrote in their own styles, etc., yet PRECISELY God's Word.
Funny thing about the Bible. Nowhere does it say you have to believe it in the way you have described. Funny other thing about the Bible, at one time it didn't exist as a complete book, what we call NT scriptures now were merely letters to churches and "scripture" was the Tanach. Personally though, I do believe it, and I don't cherry pick out convenient verses, I take the whole thing.
You trust also that the 2nd council of Nicea was inerrant in their compilation.
@RawChristianSuperman - I don't trust that anything outside of Holy Scripture is inerrant. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off of such comments, which you've been making, ad nauseum.
But more importantly, notice how you aren't actually addressing what I said?
Please address the issue, or as you said, step off.
IS the Bible the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God YET a the same time, the freely written words of men, in their own styles, etc.?
Well for saying you don't trust anything outside of holy scripture, you're actually trusting quite alot of people by that very sentence.
Or did you think the Bible just landed in our laps one day, whole and complete, right out the sky?
Your issue was asking me if I believed the entire Bible. To which I did answer extremely clearly if you READ my response. The Bible does not say you have to believe it in this way AT ALL, point blank. But personally I do.
@RawChristianSuperman - I think I've about had it with your crap. I know the history of the Scriptures, and of how we got them. And just for a note, your first (condescending) sentence was complete nonsense. Did you even think before you wrote? And you did NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION! The question FOR THE THIRD TIME: Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God YET a the same time, the freely written words of men, in their own styles, etc.?
You came back to posting on my videos, by all means, take a long walk off a short pie if it suits your fancy.
My first sentence is perfectly clear if you actually knew about how we came to a Bible. You have to trust countless monks and scribes changing hands since the first century.
And yes, I have answered you twice. The Bible does not require that I believe such a thing (as your question) but personally I do believe it. If you can't see a "yes" in that sentence then God help you
@RawChristianSuperman - I'm supposed to assume what you mean, when you aren't clear? Firstly, I never said that believing that the Bible is the precise, inspire, inerrant, and infallible Word, AND that it is the real, unforced, and freely written words of men (even though I do believe that to be the case). So then IF the Bible is thus, then there is no problem in your admitting that God can CAUSE something to happen PRECISELY and EXACTLY as it should, YET not actually PERFORM it Himself.
And no, God cannot cause something to happen precisely, perfectly at it should, without being responsible for it. I say this because the Bible doesn't support your idea that God is behind it all. That is your selective interpretation, the Bible doesn't support Calvinism.
Feel free to use the common examples where it seems God does and does not do something.
@RawChristianSuperman The Canon is a problem for all Protestants-not really for Catholics as we accept the teachings of the ecumenical councils on this--but how did the collection of books come together one day to be then and only then the "sole rule of faith"?
I don't know exactly the origin of sola scriptura. I'm sure it's out there, but I only bring it up when it's an issue for my opponent. The Bible itself doesn't state you must believe every word of every book (it can't because it was compiled long after the scriptures were written). So I reject certain aspects protestantism outright. This doesn't default me to being Catholic though, as I cannot accept that either.
Let me say as well that the Protestant Reformation is the obvious answer to the origin of sola scriptura, (5 solas etc) but where they came up with that idea is beyond me. Luther it seems elevated himself to the class of being a prophet of some sort and considered himself a divine authority.
It was more of a rebellion than just a disagreement. Back when politics and religions were more intertwined.
@stegokitty Does caring for their families please God-"Honor you father and your mother"? What exactly do you have in mind that the "unsaved" refuse to do?
@RPenta - The unrepentant refuse to repent and believe the Gospel. Justification is not by works. Therefore caring for your family will not earn favour in the sight of God. It will probably work to lessen their punishment in Hell, as opposed to that which they'd received if they were unrepentant AND mistreated their families, but it is not meritorious in any way, shape or form. All works outside of faith in Christ, outside of glorifying God, are considered as evil by God.
And if it were so simple as to say that man's nature is the only reason he sins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Man sins because God makes him sin. Man cannot actually be responsible if God truly ordained and controls all things as total sovereign.
Man has no control, God has already written the book and decided what each person would do, and chosen all heinous acts of evil they would perform. So who is really responsible to committing evil? In reformed theology, God must be
@RawChristianSuperman - And this is yet another reason why I am more and more convinced of my position, because all my opponents (especially not-so-bright ones, like you) must misrepresent my position in order to "refute" it. God doesn't MAKE anyone to sin. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, AND we are morally responsible agents. How that works, I have no idea, but the Bible teaches it CLEARLY. God FOREORDAINED the crucifixion, and those who performed it are culpable. Period.
SO you are denying that God makes anyone sin? Really? Then He did not actually ordain all things? (keyword there is "ordain").
What's wrong? Haven't you read the reformers and their conclusions on these issues? Either God is the sovereign in total omnipotence, or there are forces outside of His control--things that are not subject to Him.
But since He decided every minuscule detail of the history of the universe, then He has forced mankind to do all it has done.
@RawChristianSuperman - It appears you don't know the difference between God ordaining something and God actually DOING it. I'll try and help you out: "...this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23); and in Isaiah 53, in particular 4 & 10 (a passage that ALL Christians agree is prophetic of Christ, no matter the immediate context) say that God is the one who is pleased to crush/smite Him.
I can't believe you are reduced to making your defense like that.
If God ordains something come to pass, it is going to happen, and nothing can make it not happen. But you deny that He is the one who caused it?
If an elite computer programmer ordained that a virus will shut down the entire world, and sends it on it's merry unstoppable way. Who is responsible for what happened?
@RawChristianSuperman - If the Bible teaches that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, & if the Bible teaches that men are responsible for what they do, then it is true, whether we understand it or not. The Bible DOES teach it, & I've proven as much with examples from the Scriptures, especially that of the crucifixion, and from logic concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8), yet not ACTUALLY until some time 2K years ago. cont.
The Bible does teach men are responsible. The Bible does not teach that God has ordained everything. That is where Calvinism comes in with giant assumptions, directly in the face of God's absolute denial of such involvement.
@RawChristianSuperman - Please give Scriptural support for "God's absolute denial of such involvement", all the while remembering that we affirm that God is neither the author, nor approver of sin. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over whatsoever comes to pass: "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2Kings 19:25) is one. And again the crucifixion was foreordained.
Plain as day, crystal clear verses, where God denies any involvement whatsoever. Forever destroying any idea that God plans everything--even though scripture doesn't go so far as to say such a blatant phrase. Reformers assume it by default.
@RawChristianSuperman - If this weren't so sad, it'd be laughable. This only proves how you cherry pick your verses. All Hosea 8:4 is saying is that God's people Israel do not consult God in prayer before doing what they want. God already makes very clear who it is that sets up kings and takes them down, both good and evil: "... so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people." ;)
We see God word for word denying any involvement whatsoever. Anyone reading that comes to the exact same conclusion when their mind is not polluted with reformed dogmatism.
@RawChristianSuperman - Um, no. You equivocating terms. God's commands & God's decrees are two distinct things. God commands, & men disobey all the live-long day. God decrees that men shall disobey His commands, so that He can display his justice in punishing one group of sinners for their disobedience, & displays his mercy in rescuing the other group of equally guilty sinners, by bringing them to repentance and faith, & keeping them to the Last Day. His gift to the Son from eternity past.
@RawChristianSuperman - If we take it to your logical conclusion, then we'd have to assume that God blundered in contingency planning. Your god sez: "Dang. I never even thought of that. That's a remarkably brilliant sin you guys thought of, I don't know where my mind was. I should have figured on that one."
But as I've stated again & again this isn't the problem. I don't know why, but I guess I'm astonished that an adult cannot grasp the difference between a RULE & a DECREE. I can't help you.
My logical conclusion if you were to say it to someone would be interpreted as "This is preposterous, I never ever had such a horrendous thing in my mind! I would never even dream up such malarkey."
Since we know that God holds at least some sense of omniscience, this would be the only logical conclusion in His case as well. Remove the reformed goggles you walk through life wearing and you would see it too.
@RawChristianSuperman - and the rest of the verses are precisely the same -- God has ordained BY HIS LAW that certain things are not to be done. This is not God's eternal decree, but His revealed will, which men are commanded to obey, but which can and do resist, ACTIVELY. So this only shows that you aren't grasping what the doctrine is.
More reformed gobbledygook that requires it's own formulas to support within the tulip construct. A Calvinist must retreat to it every time things get sticky. I suppose there must be a mantra to go along with it.
You claim God personally ordains and is behind every minuscule act through the history of the universe, (while denying He is personally responsible). Yet here are 2 examples in different books forever destroying this notion.
@RawChristianSuperman - There's no retreating here at all. There's no contradiction. Only a beautiful, fluid revelation from God. And as stated above, you're equivocating terms, confusing two distinct things. I'll not repeat myself any further on that part -- only to say, that it is impossible that any prophecy could come true unless God were in absolute control over all things, even down the the inward thoughts of men. And He can do this without authoring evil. The Scriptures declare it.
The beautiful revelation from God is that He is an honest deity who does not speak to His people while crossing His fingers. When He says He had NOTHING to do with an event, there is no reason to think He really did. You worship a schizophrenic and deceitful deity otherwise.
@RawChristianSuperman - *** Well, this is fruitless. I can't break through the two things that are occurring in your person. The first (& most important) being a dead spirit. Without the Spirit of God, a man cannot understand the things of God, as they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned. And I'm guessing that the obstinacy built-into your natural rebellion is the reason for the bizarre lack of logical understanding. So this is where I get off. I cannot help you.
You claim that I am a dead spirit, yet I believe and declare Jesus to be the Son of God. I have repented of my sins, and I can openly declare that He is come in the flesh, died on the cross, was resurrected and sitting at the right hand of the Father.
So enough with the cheap ad hominems, I could just as easily say the same hogwash about you....if I ran out of verses and intelligent replies that is. Your ilk never goes the distance.
@RawChristianSuperman - I assure you I'm not looking for an exit. My daughter is getting married, & I need a vacation from my stressful job. I've every intention of responding, & can only guess that your own insecurities & (obvious) lack of real Scriptural support necessitate your slander. Your blatant & unrepentant heresy has inspired me to make an entire series on the necessity of belief in the Trinity. Thank the Lord for heretics! God uses them to cause His elect defend the truth. :)
I give you nothing but scripture and your brightest comebacks backfire and fizzle. Look at all these comments, you will see in my video comments, I'm usually the ONLY one giving verses, and when someone else actually does, I stick to it until they're exhausted, as is your case now.
I hope your trinity series will be jam-packed with scripture after scripture, on why believing in Jesus as the Son and Savior is not enough in the belief department anymore.
@RawChristianSuperman - Oh it will be Mr. Anderson. And simply throwing back a bunch of verses, when they are taken out of context, and not saying what you're claiming they're saying, is nothing short of charlatanism.
Yes, long ago in a galaxy far far away, get ready for a fairytale. I've heard it all before. If you can pull off your grandiose claims I would be the first person to thank you and beg for forgiveness for turning my beliefs away from the modern trinity model. I am always open to being proven wrong. Over a decade of practice has forged out any impurities, it rarely happens on any issues anymore.
Hey Superman, how does "Free Will" theology explain Daniel 4:35?
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
If God wills that all be saved but some resist, doesn't the resistance prove that man can stay Gods hand in willing all to be saved?
No, because God's will is disobeyed all over the Earth, every single day. He wants perfection, and He doesn't get it, but someday He will, as He always wins in the end. There are also times that God personally steps in with exception and forces something to happen. We see this from time to time in the Bible, sometimes between many generations of wickedness etc.
@RawChristianSuperman "No because Gods will is disobeyed all over the Earth, every single day."
This still doesn't answer the problem that "God does according to his Will" AND "none can stay his hand" but people reject, or stay his hand, when he wills that all be saved!
It seams as if man has the power to thort Gods Will and stay his hand from saving all!
You say it doesn't answer the problem...Frankly, there is no problem. Yes, God *can* do whatever He wants to do. I have never taken a position against this.
Were He to step in and take action, nobody could stop Him in the slightest. But He doesn't. He is quite passive compared to the way things were in the OT times. He wants obedience, He wants righteousness, but does He get it? No, the human race does not heed His words for the most part.
As for hardening hearts, it is God's doing across the board just because of a few misinterpreted verses between Pharaoh and Moses. There are other verses that nobody ever thinks of regarding that story.
God doesn't sit in heaven putting cast iron blocks around every soul prior to birth, personally ensuring they are on their way to eternal misery as they take their first breaths. That is not the way it works, or whatever twisted idea that original sin has become today in Christendom.
Adam does not "represent" the whole human race, per se. Every man was accountable for his own sins in Judaism (long before Christianity came around). What Adam did was brought sin into the world. He and Eve became corruptible and could only procreate corruptible offspring.
There is no teaching of 'original sin' in Judaism, and it's loosely threaded together in Christianity through few verses that have been blown up into more than they are. The modern day interpretation is unscriptural.
"What Adam did was brought sin into the world. He and Eve became corruptible and could only procreate corruptible offspring."
The important part is how does the 2nd half of Rom 5:19 relate. This is the only verse in the Bible where a Calvinist will change their definitions and ultimate context in the very same sentence.
"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. "
What do you think this means? Shall we see if you can be consistent through the whole verse? I can.
Simple question, does "many" mean every human being in 5:19? And when it says they were made sinners, will they be made righteous in the same manner?
Adam and Eve made corrupted offspring, and we are all accountable for our own sins. What's the problem? You have confused 'original sin' with some idea of 'total evil' and blended them together into an unscriptural modern church fallacy that points towards the T of the tulip.
What I'm saying is that the word "many" appears twice in the same verse and nothing indicates the definition would change in that same verse, just a few words apart. So what does "many" mean? Some? A lot? Most? All?
V17 is not a problem at all, only those who receive the abundance apply. But there is a difference between having something delivered to you, and receiving it. V18 shows it was in fact delivered to all, but not all accept the free gift.
Because of one man's trespass, death reigned (to the many who received) through that one man, much more (to the many who received) the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
It's staying consistent with the verse. The definition of "many" cannot change within just a few words apart. If only a few received the gift, then only a few were judged. If all were judged, then all have received the gift.
The whole point I have been trying to make is Calvinists selectively decide their own definitions depending on the verse. But you can't have it both ways, it must stay consistent between the sentences.
So since all received the judgment, then all must have also received the gift. You can't pick and choose terms, consistency is important between verses 17-19.
That's easy. It's in the wording of the verses in question. You cannot change the terms between just a few words. 17-19. Nothing indicates there is any change in tense.
....in case I also wasn't clear in quoting myself. Adam and Eve could only procreate corrupted offspring, but every man was in fact accountable for his own sins. These 2 concepts do not negate eachother, so I don't see any problem there.
@RawChristianSuperman - In order for God to necessitate the crucifixion of Christ (which Christ predicted, so it could not have been decaptiation or otherwise), then God had to also orchestrate ALL THINGS that lead up to it, including the actors, the scene, & the circumstances. God has indeed written the story, & there can be no other story. YET, we act freely, in accordance to the desires of our hearts. The Bible says so. That settles it. I believe it. Perish in your sins if you don't.
The crucifixion was part of God's plan. Jesus Himself tells us this. You then take a huge leap (or gap) in logic and assume based on a handful of verses that God must therefore be doing everything. In spite of EXPLICIT verses to the contrary.
And you have the audacity to say that if I don't believe as you do about THIS of all things, that I am unsaved? Verses, please, put up or shut up.
@RawChristianSuperman - Um, no I don't. I have said plenty of times, much to your grand ignorance of them, that God is not the direct cause of any sin. But God HAS foreordained both good and evil, for his own plans, for His own glory. And you have yet to provide a verse saying that God does not foreordain all things, including good and evil. Whereas I have shown there are verses saying that God HAS.
If you believe in a different god, then you cannot be saved.
You claim God is not the direct cause of sin, only because your admittance would mean severe consequences for you, but your denial of this makes equal contradiction in logic. If He foreordained everything that happens, then it has no choice not to happen, then He is the one responsible for it happening, or it would not happen.
Now take your obligatory way out of this by claiming "God laughs at mans logic, and His ways are higher, blah blah blah" because I have provided verses now.
@RawChristianSuperman - No, you provided verses having nothing to do with the doctrine of God's ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. God's revealed will is His LAW, which men can and do resist (and always will resist unless and until God changes the disposition of the heart). God's secret, decretive, eternal will, His foreordination of whatseover comes to pass is completely different. As shown previously, God ORDAINED that Christ should suffer, yet he COMMANDED not to murder.
God's secret, decretive, eternal will, and foreordination cannot be refused. Can it?
Then He is responsible for everything. I trimmed the fat right out of your paragraph, now you have to reconcile it again, while running for cover to Romans 9. Either He has forced everything that ever happens, or He doesn't.
@RawChristianSuperman - I've already shown that God can and does cause things to happen without performing the act Himself, with the illustration of the composition of the books of the Bible. I believe anyone being reasonable would see that as a, as you like to say "case closed". But again, as I've shown in Isaiah 10 God SENDS the Assyrian, yet the Assyrian goes of his own free will, doing his own wicked will, all the while doing God's will, which God decreed that He would do to Israel.
You haven't actually shown that. You've TRIED to show it, but you have failed at answering direct verses beyond your own personal interpretations.
It's one or the other. Plain obvious logic. Either He has personally caused everything, or He has not. Your Assyrian example flopped like a fish out of water when I proved by the very own next verse that He MADE the Assyrian do this. There was no free will involved.
@RawChristianSuperman - I'll be working on those videos concerning the deity of Christ, as well as those promoting the Biblical Doctrine of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, etc. This bantering back and forth isn't doing anything productive. You'll have to give me some time to begin the series, as my daughter is up from Georgia, & getting married next week, and then I go on vacation. So I'll be busy with real life for a while, but I won't forget you. I pray for you every day. So long.
Yes, yes, I've heard it all before from far too many armchair theologians.
In other words "I ran out of verses, my arsenal was abruptly emptied, and I've been upstaged by someone more experienced than a generic pew warmer. Time to make a quick escape, maybe I'll come back someday when I'm ready to face my fears."
@RawChristianSuperman - And do me a favour, and not tell me what I believe. I don't do that to you. Try reading the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 3 & 5 on God's Decree and of Providence. That is what I believe, supported with tiny smatterings of Scripture -- enough for any reasonable person, as being exhaustive would be in appropriate. God has ordained, decreed whatsoever comes to pass, but God has also ordained the FREE acts of men. I don't know HOW, but the Bible says He has.
I have read those, I actually have quite alot of Calvinist literature. I know what your personal heroes dealt with and made decisions on, and how they tried to rationalize and debate these problems. They were fallible men, you seem to forget that, or deliberately elevate them to divinity.
John Owens, for example, comes across as a blathering idiot who proves nothing of what he wrote, only builds more dogma upon dogma and provides no defense against criticisms. Very one-sided writer
@RawChristianSuperman - Your response has nothing to do with anything said. I asked you to read what the WCF says concerning my beliefs on a topic, so that you will stop acting like a dunce, accusing me of believing that which I do not. I am able to cheerfully say "I don't know how it works, but God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and men are responsible moral agents, and God is not the author or approver of sin, for the simple reason that the Bible says so, in its entirety.
You told me to read the Westminster confession....I answered, and then some. Clearly my response had quite alot to do with hogwash you've said, because I know what the people you look up to had to say as well.
You should be cheerfully saying "I dont know how it works, and I shouldn't believe it against all sense, but I'm too scared and indoctrinated to think anything else". That sums it up nicely. You believe in fallible men, as if they were infallible and their words divine.
@RawChristianSuperman - Well that was a pointless comment. I've said what I have to say, & have no reason to back down from it. Your god isn't a mystery because he's just a bigger version of yourself. My God is veiled in mystery. He's revealed enough about Himself to those whom He loved (foreknew) & to them He reveals the Son, & they are raised up on the Last Day. I've no where to brag. I didn't earn my salvation. But that's not your case. You have much to boast in your abilities.
You put your trust in the interpretations of fallible men. Do you deny this?
Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not interpret itself. The reader does. You've read fallible men's interpretations and you take their word for it.
@RawChristianSuperman - Yes, I do deny it. I read the Bible every day. I don't consult commentaries. I own one that my father (who wasn't a Calvinist at the time) gave me years ago. I think I've cracked it open a handful of times in my life. I've barely read anything by Calvin I've not even completed the Institutes.
No, it's really you who are taking to heart the interpretations of fallible men.
So your interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with lessons from the reformers? The works of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Owen, etc have in no way influenced you?
It's some kind of divine coincidence that you just happen to reiterate their positions? And the Westminster confession came down to you from heaven I suppose?
@RawChristianSuperman - Not a coincidence, but what happens when someone approaches the Scriptures humbly, prayerfully, in utter dependence upon God for understanding. The WCF is the work of many godly men, over a long period of time, putting together, under the same conditions described above, to communicate the Faith once delivered to the saints. We do not put it on part with Scripture. It's not a matter of being "influenced" or not. We're ALL influenced by the thinking of others. You as well.
It's a bold faced lie for you to try to deny any kind of external influence on your decisions, as if it was you and a Bible on a desert island, and you miraculously came to identical conclusions as the reformers--shortcomings and all.
I don't deny that I have influences, there's countless people I rely on, since scriptures don't interpret themselves--the reader does. Glad to see that you've come to terms with yours and what you are putting faith in.
@RawChristianSuperman - For anyone interested, please see my final response (use the search feature -- CTRL+F for PC; Command+F for Mac ... and type in *** ) where I am going to make my responses to RCS with videos. They'll take a little while to make as I have important real life things to which to attend. Blessings to anyone who has even read this far.
Thanks for the parting shot, and the blessings, I gave you one too, it's easy enough to find. Just do the same triple asterisk search. You've been refuted yet again by basic scripture.
@RawChristianSuperman I sent you a tape. On Matthew 7 in response to this vid. Please post it. The scripture plainly states that only evil fruit comes out of a corrupt tree. It is in Christianity, the Bible, the teaching of Jesus Christ -- that nothing can come out of an unregenerate sinner but sin - evil fruit. Your disagreement is not with "Calvinism" but Jesus Christ.
If your video was rebutting anything I said in my series I would have gladly posted it. I have no reason to post something akin to 'opening arguments' labeled as responses.
You are free to post it yourself on your own profile. If you want it as a response to my video it must be responding to me./
@RawChristianSuperman I was completely on topic and stated the Word of God. Perhaps you would prefer a discussion based upon something other than the Bible. I addressed what you stated with God's Word. There are many secular humanists in this world who think that man is good and capable of good works by which he can please God and earn his own salvation. I believe you are a secular humanist, not a Christian. God bless.
I laid the foundation in my own videos. If you want to come from a different perspective, you can post your own heresies to your heart's desire, but if you want it listed in RESPONSE to one of my own videos, it must actually be a comeback to my points. Else you are just preaching your own corruption, and have no reason to be labeled as any kind of rebuttal.
@RawChristianSuperman You're saying Jesus taught heresy?? I spoke directly to what you asserted on your tape. I spoke the Bible. I spoke what Jesus says. I did come directly back to your points. I don't believe you have the capacity to look inside your own heart to discover why you think Jesus is a heretic. You choose to believe man is good, can do good works, produce good fruits, make good choices all on his own. That's secular humanism not Christianity. What Jesus said is not heresy.
This is an excellent video! Bravo! I wish there were more like it. What do you think about Open Theism, though? I am an Open Theist and I also embrace Atavist Biblicism, my web is a atavist biblical church. It would be great if I could get a Open Theist teacher to post articles and answer questions on an ongoing basis there. But the key is unity on eschatology, too.
Aristobulus42 3 weeks ago
@Aristobulus42
While I definitely lean more towards open theism than fatalism, I would not classify myself completely as one. I'm not familiar with atavist biblicism, and on eschatology I am largely a preterist.
RawChristianSuperman 3 weeks ago
God restrains Satan. Men cannot resist sin. But God can restrain Satan and God can restrain sinners. God can, as the scripture states, put a hook in a man's jaw and lead that man where God wills. So, you see, a man who is a murderer by nature can "not murder" -- because God is restraining that man from murder. Not, that he's restraining himself from murder. No, the man by nature WOULD MURDER -- if God allowed that nature to manifest in fruition of it's nature.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
But where is your scriptural proof that the reason why we don't see rampant total depravity is solely because God is restraining everybody? The theory has long lacked verses, even Spurgeon wrestled with it.
And furthermore, since you have placed the responsibility solely on God, have you not then made Him responsible? Even Paul refused to go there, and wrote a fair deal about man's own accountability, never crediting the modern day myth of 'God allows man to sin--sometimes'.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman When the Holy Spirit who is restraining is taken out of the way, total depravity will fully manifest in full blasphemy of the Spirit of all reprobate on earth. Rampant total depravity. 2 Thessalonians 2: 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
2 Thess, You are quoting eschatology (and theorizing at that). This does not show evidence for the here and now, only what you think will happen in the future. Please show scriptures stating that God is presently restraining sinners from sinning, and sometimes letting one loose to murder and rape.
Letting someone slip out here or there and commit heinous deeds has no exegesis. Spurgeon tried to reason through this on total depravity.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman Crucifying Jesus was a great sin. There was no power to crucify Jesus except that given by Father's Sovereign predestinate will before the world. John 19:10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
I have no problem with 'who' crucified Jesus, it does not affirm reformed theology, and is held universally in Christendom.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman When God gave Satan permission to assault Job, Satan immediately moved MEN, who Satan thus controlled, to kill Job's servants/livestock. 1:12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD... 15And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
According to Job 2:3 it says that satan moved God against Job. It also says that Job was being destroyed without cause (by God) throwing a huge monkey wrench in the T of the tulip as well as certain ideas of original sin..
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman As we know, God is not the author of sin. As you see from the above scripture, Satan himself is the AGENT OF EVIL. God does allow persons to move by the evil within them -- Satan within them -- as God releases Satan personally and within men to do evil. Ephesians 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
Eph 2:2 does not say that God personally releases satan to make men sin. This is what Calvinism has taught you it says. Someone reading it outside of reformed theology does not come to that conclusion, because the interpretations have not been implanted.
There are alot of assumptions being made that only come from within Calvinism. It's like people who believe in the 'gap theory" of Creation. Nobody reads those verses and comes up with it. The idea must be put there first.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
If a thief refuses to steal or a murderer refuses to murder, then they cannot be those things unless they commit them. A murderer is a murderer because he or she murders. A thief is a thief because he or she steals. How can someone who is a murderer not murder? How does the murderer choose not to murder? If they murder that makes them a murderer. If they choose not to murder then they cannot be a murderer.Murderers and thieves always choose according to their nature.
rigbolo 5 months ago
@rigbolo
That is the classical false assumption that the committal of a single act therefore makes you that identity. Tell me, of you told the truth once in your life, would you then be declared honest? If you gave your spare change to a children's foundation are you now a philanthropist? If you ate too much once when you were 12, are you a glutton?
The Kirk Cameron/Ken Hamm evangelizing method is very poorly thought out.
Also if the 'nature' theory alone were true, we would all be murdering.
RawChristianSuperman 5 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman One sin by the first forefather of all mankind, and all mankind are made sinners. It only took one act of sin in Adam for all mankind to be made sinners. Break the law in one point, one is guilty of the whole law equal to murder, etc. Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
I have no problem with the sound teaching of sin entering the world via Adam. James 2:10-11 absolutely does not say they if you break one law, you are also guilty of murder. They are not equated to eachother, neither in ancient Judaism, nor in the NT covenant, AD.
There are many verses showing some sins to be worse than others, just as some punishment is worse than others.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@jls201
I make it consistent because all really does mean all. And when it says many, it means many.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "I make it consistent because all really does mean all. And when it says many, it means many."
I agree! And I also agree that the tense stays consistent also!
v.17 = who receive
v.18 = all men who receive
v.18 = many who receive
All really means all in the context of v.17's "who receive"!
Many really means many in the context of v.17's "who receive"!
I pray that God grants you repentance on this issue. - 2 Timothy 2:25
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
17. Death reigns over all
Life reigns over those who accept it (free gift)
18. Judgment came upon all
The free gift came upon all
19. So all were made sinners from Adams disobedience, (but all received the gift.)
So those who accept it will be righteous thanks to His obedience.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
Why do you twist v.17 to "who accept it" when it clearly says "who receive"?
jls201 7 months ago
You serve the Jesuit order well.
hisfreewill 7 months ago
@hisfreewill
Jesuit because I stand against the nonsense of reformed theology in all it's heretical glory? You should do some more research into your conspiracy theories.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@hisfreewill I kind of favor the Dominicans or Franciscans myself, although I do like many of the Jesuits. I do not presume to speak for Rev. Anderson.
By the way, do you disagree that when Calvinists are asked almost any question about Christian doctrine or practice(such as Protestants have), the answer begins, Well, as Paul the Apostle wrote. . .
I give Rev. Anderson props as his Rosetta Stone analogy is totally correct and insightful.
RPenta 7 months ago
@RPenta
Thank ye.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman Are you saying you reject the Word of God?? You reject what the apostle Paul wrote?? You reject the Bible?? Yes, we who are Christians do stand upon the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
I don't reject any of the word of God. I simply reject certain interpretations of Luther, Beza, Calvin, Owen, the Synod of Dort, and several other ancient idiocies who thought themselves to be wise at a time of vast ignorance and relative stupidity.
If there's any confusion, I can gladly throw the popes and other church 'fathers' into the mix of ill-repute as well.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman It seems you have a different religion than Christianity. It seems a religion in which man is as god and is a free moral agent with power to do good in and of himself, power to make good choices, produce good fruit, do good works -- with no need of a Savior. Jesus would be just a person who validates man's goodness. That's not Christianity. So, perhaps that is why you consider the church fathers, the Reformers, as well as the popes idiots advancing Christianity??
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
I have a different religion than reformed theology. The things which I espouse are based on the Bible, not fallible man's antiquated dogma.
I consider those 'fathers' idiots because their knowledge of scriptures was very limited. We have access to more information within seconds than they had in their entire lives. Their research was by candle, travel was by horse, and it could take months to years just to cross reference a verse....and you trust them?
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
When someone preaches "Christ Crusified" and you hear it as "Foolishness", should you, at least, "pretend" to believe it, so that God will open your eyes enabling you to no longer "pretend to believe"?
Can you choose to believe that something is NOT foolishness to you, when in fact it is foolishness to you?
Wouldn't this be "pretending to believe" when in fact you don't believe?
Which comes first Choice? Or Belief?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
I do not hear Christ crucified as being foolish at all. I hear loosely strung scriptures together as an excuse for a poor doctrine that cannot be solidly defended. Such as reformed theology and occasionally OSAS.
And yes, as I have addressed to another heckler here, you actually CAN believe something that you think is ridiculous....it's really not hard. People do it in relationships all the time.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "I do not hear Christ crucified as being foolish at all."
I did not say you did!
My point is;
The ones, in 1Cor.1:23, who heard it as foolishness, should they have,at least, pretended to believe so that God would have opened there eyes and made it where they did not have to pretend anymore?
Which comes first choice? Or belief?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
You can't fake out God. But if a person does pretend then they may at least be open to it, unless they are pretending and just trying to con people.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "You can't fake out God"
“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? Was it Jesus Christ that makes them to differ or something else? If both had the same prevenient grace it wasn’t Jesus that made the to differ, so obviously one had a natural advantage over the other.
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Grace doesn't force a person to believe. False Calvinist assumption. Some people simply choose to reject the message because they have not chosen to fear the Lord (something that all people have been given).
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "Grace doesn't force a person to believe. False Calvinist assumption"
Calvinists don't believe Grace "Forces a person to believe"! False assumption about Calvinists!
So, What makes the difference between the two, if not Grace?
Was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
What makes a difference is the persons own choice to fear the Lord or not, according to the scriptures.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "What makes a difference is the persons own choice to fear the Lord or not"
Two people
1) chose to fear the Lord
2) chose not to fear the Lord
Again, what made the difference between the two?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Their own thoughts. Possibly related to their past experiences or more likely previous decisions.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
Two people;
1) chose to fear the Lord
2) chose not to fear the Lord
I believe GRACE is what made the difference between the two!
Your philosophy states "both received SAME Grace" which means Grace DID NOT make the difference between the two! = NOT SOLA GRATIA
If It is NOT Grace that made the DIFFERENCE between the two, and you have no answer for the difference, then why should I change my mind?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
I do not care nor need the '5 solas'.
As I have said, their own decisions made the difference, probably based on their experiences or previous decisions in life. You should change your mind because there is no evidence of anything else at play.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "their own decisions made the difference, probably based on..."
If you end the statement "probably based on..." with anything but Grace, then it is no longer Grace alone!
Philippians 2:13 = "the difference is based on Grace"
Your philosophy = "You are saved by Grace...PLUS...their own decisions"
This is not "Grace alone" but "Grace PLUS"
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Ye are saved by grace through faith, but this grace is not forced on you, nor does it shove you into salvation. It is only the means by which you can accept salvation. Grace by definition is giving you something you don't deserve (salvation). It is up to you to accept it.
Not only that, but your salvation is KEPT by faith+works, like it or not.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@Superman
A Doctor creates a cure for the disease and says "Whosoever will, may come and take the cure freely"!
The Doctor gets credit for "CREATING" the cure!
Who gets credit for "Being Cured"?
ONLY the one who "WILLED" gets credit for being cured!
The Doctor gets NO credit for the ones "Being Cured", unless he had something to do with the will!
What made the difference between the ones who "Willed" and the ones who "Did not will"?
Who will you give credit for the "willing"?
Philippians 2:13
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Let me give you a better scenario.....
A doctor creates not just a cure, but is also the sole dispenser of this treatment. Anyone wanting it must come to him.
That would be a more accurate analogy of what I am saying.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "Anyone wanting it must come to him"
We both agree on this Superman! This is not where the problem is!
We disagree on the reason WHY they "wanted" or "didn't want" to come!
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
They want it because He draws all unto Him, they chose to fear God, and His creation is without excuse.
(3 distinct sets of scripture)
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "They want it because He draws all unto Him"
You believe He draws all, so does your quote mean all want it?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Yes, all are drawn by Christ as He said He would do should He be lifted up from the Earth. John 12:32 which was an amendment to John 6, after the prophecy was fulfilled. There are other verses as well.
This drawing does not force salvation onto anybody.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "As I have said, their decisions made the difference, probably based on their experience or previous decisions in life."
Just for the sake of clearing up the "PROBABLY based on" , what made the difference in your decision Superman?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
Because every decision in a persons life leads them to other decisions.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
The person who, after receiving prevenient grace, chose NOT to repent, or believe and is ultimately condemned in the end,... To what do you CREDIT his condemnation to?
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
His own decision.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
Just a note, verifying that I've not forgotten our little conversation. I'm back from vacation, & from my stepdaughter's wedding (see my video page), & have been utterly overwhelmed with my study into the Doctrine of the Trinity -- seeing God's sovereignty &/or the deity of Christ, & of the Holy Spirit call out, in trumpet blast, on nearly every page of Holy Scripture, that the series on this (necessary for salvation) Doctrine is going to be a bit longer than I'd previously expected. Be patient.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Still waiting. Can't take the suspense. Desperately want to see how ALL THREE persons of the trinity are co-equal, co-creators, co-eternal etc.....and any combo of verses strung together MANDATING you believe THIS in order to be saved.
Cause just repenting and trusting Jesus and putting your faith in Him as the only begotten Son of the living God just aint good enough. The gospel writers were so enigmatic only Tom Hanks and Dan Brown could solve such divine secrets.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
Can we, for clarification's sake, define, in the context of this debate, what freedom means?
Not a Free Willer defining Reformed Theology!
OR
A Calvinist defining Free Will theology!
Please define your own understanding!!!
I think this would be a great step in figuring out where the error is!
jls201 9 months ago
@jls201 - I would be the Calvinist (spelled Biblical Christian), and RCS would be a non-Christian, Arian, deluding himself, and posing as a Christian, all the while denying the LORD Christ. Naturally, he will despise the Gospel (the Reformed Faith), as all dead men do. I hope this helps.
stegokitty 9 months ago
@jls201
Freedom has many applications. I'm not talking about freedom in regards to Calvinism, unless you're asking about free will, which I think I have been over enough times, but maybe not.
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
What an amazingly moronic response. NO, it is NOT what you are saying about Total Depravity. You said that TD teaches that you do not have a choice. FALSE! You DO have a choice, but you will, BY YOUR NATURE only choose that which is in accordance to your heart, and NOT AGAINST THOSE DESIRES. Go ahead, CHOOSE that which you hate. Get it?
stegokitty 9 months ago
@stegokitty
Do you need some lessons from your great reformers or basic logic?
If all you can do is sin, then you have no choice in life. No matter what you do is all evil and nothing but evil. Even things that appeal to the flesh as being pleasing and good are nothing but sin in the eyes of Calvinism.
You can try to put a spin on it and double-talk all you want, but once again my dear students, this is NOT having any kind of choice. In Calvinism, nothing can come from you but more depravity.
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - The problem is that you're confusing a REAL CHOICE with the inability of the chooser to make the right choice. My comment stands. Your response was moronic. Oh, and in response to this: "No matter what you do is all evil and nothing but evil". Um, that would be the description Holy Scripture has of fallen mankind, which is why SOVEREIGN GRACE is necessary, else there would never be the RIGHT CHOICE made by the sinner. PWNED.
stegokitty 9 months ago
@stegokitty
So since you, like all Calvinists, prefer talking out of both sides of your mouth (or both ends), then clearly you have no choice when all you can do is sin. Fess up and lick your wounds already.
By the way, the Holy Spirit said no such thing, one of your cohorts is failing badly at proving it, perhaps you can ignore multiple contexts more deftly than he. Even though we have examples in the Bible of the unsaved doing good and being acknowledged for it.
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Notice how you don't actually address the issue at hand. My comment stands. You've in no way refuted it, only dodged it: the inability (due to the unwillingness) of the sinner to choose that which is MORALLY good does not negate that the choice is real. And "good" has to be defined. The Scriptures say that the wicked are able to do "good" things such as properly care for their families, etc., but they are UNABLE because they are UNWILLING to do that which pleases God.
stegokitty 9 months ago
@stegokitty
I did address it, it just took 2 posts. One to show that you are full of Calvinist lingo and double-talk, dropping claims that you can't back up with verses, and a second one to counter those said claims.
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - No, you didn't address it. You seem to have a serious mental block in understanding very simple logic. Lemme try this way: The Bible -- do you believe it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God (of course not, which is a problem, but still, but let's pretend that you do). Men wrote the words, God didn't. YET it IS the Word of God -- down to every "jot and tittle". God didn't puppetize the men, they wrote in their own styles, etc., yet PRECISELY God's Word.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Funny thing about the Bible. Nowhere does it say you have to believe it in the way you have described. Funny other thing about the Bible, at one time it didn't exist as a complete book, what we call NT scriptures now were merely letters to churches and "scripture" was the Tanach. Personally though, I do believe it, and I don't cherry pick out convenient verses, I take the whole thing.
You trust also that the 2nd council of Nicea was inerrant in their compilation.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I don't trust that anything outside of Holy Scripture is inerrant. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off of such comments, which you've been making, ad nauseum.
But more importantly, notice how you aren't actually addressing what I said?
Please address the issue, or as you said, step off.
IS the Bible the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God YET a the same time, the freely written words of men, in their own styles, etc.?
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Well for saying you don't trust anything outside of holy scripture, you're actually trusting quite alot of people by that very sentence.
Or did you think the Bible just landed in our laps one day, whole and complete, right out the sky?
Your issue was asking me if I believed the entire Bible. To which I did answer extremely clearly if you READ my response. The Bible does not say you have to believe it in this way AT ALL, point blank. But personally I do.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I think I've about had it with your crap. I know the history of the Scriptures, and of how we got them. And just for a note, your first (condescending) sentence was complete nonsense. Did you even think before you wrote? And you did NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION! The question FOR THE THIRD TIME: Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God YET a the same time, the freely written words of men, in their own styles, etc.?
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You came back to posting on my videos, by all means, take a long walk off a short pie if it suits your fancy.
My first sentence is perfectly clear if you actually knew about how we came to a Bible. You have to trust countless monks and scribes changing hands since the first century.
And yes, I have answered you twice. The Bible does not require that I believe such a thing (as your question) but personally I do believe it. If you can't see a "yes" in that sentence then God help you
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I'm supposed to assume what you mean, when you aren't clear? Firstly, I never said that believing that the Bible is the precise, inspire, inerrant, and infallible Word, AND that it is the real, unforced, and freely written words of men (even though I do believe that to be the case). So then IF the Bible is thus, then there is no problem in your admitting that God can CAUSE something to happen PRECISELY and EXACTLY as it should, YET not actually PERFORM it Himself.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Now you say I wasn't clear? That's rich.
And no, God cannot cause something to happen precisely, perfectly at it should, without being responsible for it. I say this because the Bible doesn't support your idea that God is behind it all. That is your selective interpretation, the Bible doesn't support Calvinism.
Feel free to use the common examples where it seems God does and does not do something.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman The Canon is a problem for all Protestants-not really for Catholics as we accept the teachings of the ecumenical councils on this--but how did the collection of books come together one day to be then and only then the "sole rule of faith"?
RPenta 7 months ago
@RPenta
I don't know exactly the origin of sola scriptura. I'm sure it's out there, but I only bring it up when it's an issue for my opponent. The Bible itself doesn't state you must believe every word of every book (it can't because it was compiled long after the scriptures were written). So I reject certain aspects protestantism outright. This doesn't default me to being Catholic though, as I cannot accept that either.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RPenta
Let me say as well that the Protestant Reformation is the obvious answer to the origin of sola scriptura, (5 solas etc) but where they came up with that idea is beyond me. Luther it seems elevated himself to the class of being a prophet of some sort and considered himself a divine authority.
It was more of a rebellion than just a disagreement. Back when politics and religions were more intertwined.
I won't start on the RCC.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@stegokitty -"God didn't puppetize the men, they wrote in there own styles, etc., yet PRECISELY God's Word."
I could not have made a better post my self! Amazing, Brother!
jls201 8 months ago
@stegokitty Does caring for their families please God-"Honor you father and your mother"? What exactly do you have in mind that the "unsaved" refuse to do?
RPenta 7 months ago
@RPenta - The unrepentant refuse to repent and believe the Gospel. Justification is not by works. Therefore caring for your family will not earn favour in the sight of God. It will probably work to lessen their punishment in Hell, as opposed to that which they'd received if they were unrepentant AND mistreated their families, but it is not meritorious in any way, shape or form. All works outside of faith in Christ, outside of glorifying God, are considered as evil by God.
stegokitty 7 months ago
@stegokitty
And if it were so simple as to say that man's nature is the only reason he sins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Man sins because God makes him sin. Man cannot actually be responsible if God truly ordained and controls all things as total sovereign.
Man has no control, God has already written the book and decided what each person would do, and chosen all heinous acts of evil they would perform. So who is really responsible to committing evil? In reformed theology, God must be
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - And this is yet another reason why I am more and more convinced of my position, because all my opponents (especially not-so-bright ones, like you) must misrepresent my position in order to "refute" it. God doesn't MAKE anyone to sin. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, AND we are morally responsible agents. How that works, I have no idea, but the Bible teaches it CLEARLY. God FOREORDAINED the crucifixion, and those who performed it are culpable. Period.
stegokitty 9 months ago
@stegokitty
SO you are denying that God makes anyone sin? Really? Then He did not actually ordain all things? (keyword there is "ordain").
What's wrong? Haven't you read the reformers and their conclusions on these issues? Either God is the sovereign in total omnipotence, or there are forces outside of His control--things that are not subject to Him.
But since He decided every minuscule detail of the history of the universe, then He has forced mankind to do all it has done.
RawChristianSuperman 9 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - It appears you don't know the difference between God ordaining something and God actually DOING it. I'll try and help you out: "...this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23); and in Isaiah 53, in particular 4 & 10 (a passage that ALL Christians agree is prophetic of Christ, no matter the immediate context) say that God is the one who is pleased to crush/smite Him.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
I can't believe you are reduced to making your defense like that.
If God ordains something come to pass, it is going to happen, and nothing can make it not happen. But you deny that He is the one who caused it?
If an elite computer programmer ordained that a virus will shut down the entire world, and sends it on it's merry unstoppable way. Who is responsible for what happened?
Come on now, this isn't hard.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - If the Bible teaches that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, & if the Bible teaches that men are responsible for what they do, then it is true, whether we understand it or not. The Bible DOES teach it, & I've proven as much with examples from the Scriptures, especially that of the crucifixion, and from logic concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8), yet not ACTUALLY until some time 2K years ago. cont.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
The Bible does teach men are responsible. The Bible does not teach that God has ordained everything. That is where Calvinism comes in with giant assumptions, directly in the face of God's absolute denial of such involvement.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Please give Scriptural support for "God's absolute denial of such involvement", all the while remembering that we affirm that God is neither the author, nor approver of sin. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over whatsoever comes to pass: "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2Kings 19:25) is one. And again the crucifixion was foreordained.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Hosea 8:4
Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35
Plain as day, crystal clear verses, where God denies any involvement whatsoever. Forever destroying any idea that God plans everything--even though scripture doesn't go so far as to say such a blatant phrase. Reformers assume it by default.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - If this weren't so sad, it'd be laughable. This only proves how you cherry pick your verses. All Hosea 8:4 is saying is that God's people Israel do not consult God in prayer before doing what they want. God already makes very clear who it is that sets up kings and takes them down, both good and evil: "... so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people." ;)
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
We see God word for word denying any involvement whatsoever. Anyone reading that comes to the exact same conclusion when their mind is not polluted with reformed dogmatism.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Um, no. You equivocating terms. God's commands & God's decrees are two distinct things. God commands, & men disobey all the live-long day. God decrees that men shall disobey His commands, so that He can display his justice in punishing one group of sinners for their disobedience, & displays his mercy in rescuing the other group of equally guilty sinners, by bringing them to repentance and faith, & keeping them to the Last Day. His gift to the Son from eternity past.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
So when God says "I did no such thing" in Hosea, and also in Jeremiah
"IT NEVER EVEN ENTERED MY MIND"
You mean to tell me He secretly KNOWS He made it happen just for giggles?
And you still think you got this conclusion absent of reformed dogmatism?
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - If we take it to your logical conclusion, then we'd have to assume that God blundered in contingency planning. Your god sez: "Dang. I never even thought of that. That's a remarkably brilliant sin you guys thought of, I don't know where my mind was. I should have figured on that one."
But as I've stated again & again this isn't the problem. I don't know why, but I guess I'm astonished that an adult cannot grasp the difference between a RULE & a DECREE. I can't help you.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
My logical conclusion if you were to say it to someone would be interpreted as "This is preposterous, I never ever had such a horrendous thing in my mind! I would never even dream up such malarkey."
Since we know that God holds at least some sense of omniscience, this would be the only logical conclusion in His case as well. Remove the reformed goggles you walk through life wearing and you would see it too.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - and the rest of the verses are precisely the same -- God has ordained BY HIS LAW that certain things are not to be done. This is not God's eternal decree, but His revealed will, which men are commanded to obey, but which can and do resist, ACTIVELY. So this only shows that you aren't grasping what the doctrine is.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
More reformed gobbledygook that requires it's own formulas to support within the tulip construct. A Calvinist must retreat to it every time things get sticky. I suppose there must be a mantra to go along with it.
You claim God personally ordains and is behind every minuscule act through the history of the universe, (while denying He is personally responsible). Yet here are 2 examples in different books forever destroying this notion.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - There's no retreating here at all. There's no contradiction. Only a beautiful, fluid revelation from God. And as stated above, you're equivocating terms, confusing two distinct things. I'll not repeat myself any further on that part -- only to say, that it is impossible that any prophecy could come true unless God were in absolute control over all things, even down the the inward thoughts of men. And He can do this without authoring evil. The Scriptures declare it.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
The beautiful revelation from God is that He is an honest deity who does not speak to His people while crossing His fingers. When He says He had NOTHING to do with an event, there is no reason to think He really did. You worship a schizophrenic and deceitful deity otherwise.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - *** Well, this is fruitless. I can't break through the two things that are occurring in your person. The first (& most important) being a dead spirit. Without the Spirit of God, a man cannot understand the things of God, as they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned. And I'm guessing that the obstinacy built-into your natural rebellion is the reason for the bizarre lack of logical understanding. So this is where I get off. I cannot help you.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You claim that I am a dead spirit, yet I believe and declare Jesus to be the Son of God. I have repented of my sins, and I can openly declare that He is come in the flesh, died on the cross, was resurrected and sitting at the right hand of the Father.
So enough with the cheap ad hominems, I could just as easily say the same hogwash about you....if I ran out of verses and intelligent replies that is. Your ilk never goes the distance.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I assure you I'm not looking for an exit. My daughter is getting married, & I need a vacation from my stressful job. I've every intention of responding, & can only guess that your own insecurities & (obvious) lack of real Scriptural support necessitate your slander. Your blatant & unrepentant heresy has inspired me to make an entire series on the necessity of belief in the Trinity. Thank the Lord for heretics! God uses them to cause His elect defend the truth. :)
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
I give you nothing but scripture and your brightest comebacks backfire and fizzle. Look at all these comments, you will see in my video comments, I'm usually the ONLY one giving verses, and when someone else actually does, I stick to it until they're exhausted, as is your case now.
I hope your trinity series will be jam-packed with scripture after scripture, on why believing in Jesus as the Son and Savior is not enough in the belief department anymore.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Oh it will be Mr. Anderson. And simply throwing back a bunch of verses, when they are taken out of context, and not saying what you're claiming they're saying, is nothing short of charlatanism.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Yes, long ago in a galaxy far far away, get ready for a fairytale. I've heard it all before. If you can pull off your grandiose claims I would be the first person to thank you and beg for forgiveness for turning my beliefs away from the modern trinity model. I am always open to being proven wrong. Over a decade of practice has forged out any impurities, it rarely happens on any issues anymore.
Did I mention I'm a partial preterist too?
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
Hey Superman, how does "Free Will" theology explain Daniel 4:35?
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
If God wills that all be saved but some resist, doesn't the resistance prove that man can stay Gods hand in willing all to be saved?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
No, because God's will is disobeyed all over the Earth, every single day. He wants perfection, and He doesn't get it, but someday He will, as He always wins in the end. There are also times that God personally steps in with exception and forces something to happen. We see this from time to time in the Bible, sometimes between many generations of wickedness etc.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "No because Gods will is disobeyed all over the Earth, every single day."
This still doesn't answer the problem that "God does according to his Will" AND "none can stay his hand" but people reject, or stay his hand, when he wills that all be saved!
It seams as if man has the power to thort Gods Will and stay his hand from saving all!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
You say it doesn't answer the problem...Frankly, there is no problem. Yes, God *can* do whatever He wants to do. I have never taken a position against this.
Were He to step in and take action, nobody could stop Him in the slightest. But He doesn't. He is quite passive compared to the way things were in the OT times. He wants obedience, He wants righteousness, but does He get it? No, the human race does not heed His words for the most part.
It's pretty basic.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
Superman, Does God have the ability to soften hearts?
If God desires all to be saved then why harden hearts at all?
Why doesn't He ONLY soften hearts?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
As for hardening hearts, it is God's doing across the board just because of a few misinterpreted verses between Pharaoh and Moses. There are other verses that nobody ever thinks of regarding that story.
God doesn't sit in heaven putting cast iron blocks around every soul prior to birth, personally ensuring they are on their way to eternal misery as they take their first breaths. That is not the way it works, or whatever twisted idea that original sin has become today in Christendom.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman
What was the point of Adam representing the whole human race?
Why couldn't each represent there own?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
Adam does not "represent" the whole human race, per se. Every man was accountable for his own sins in Judaism (long before Christianity came around). What Adam did was brought sin into the world. He and Eve became corruptible and could only procreate corruptible offspring.
There is no teaching of 'original sin' in Judaism, and it's loosely threaded together in Christianity through few verses that have been blown up into more than they are. The modern day interpretation is unscriptural.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "Adam does not "represent" the whole human
Race, per se."
Romans 5:19
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners...
What does Romans 5:19 mean if it doesn't mean made sinners by Adams disobedience?
It doesn't sound like he only brought sin in but also made us sinners also!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
"What Adam did was brought sin into the world. He and Eve became corruptible and could only procreate corruptible offspring."
The important part is how does the 2nd half of Rom 5:19 relate. This is the only verse in the Bible where a Calvinist will change their definitions and ultimate context in the very same sentence.
"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. "
What do you think this means? Shall we see if you can be consistent through the whole verse? I can.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "Rom5:19b "What do you think this means? Shall we see if you can be consistent through the whole verse? I can."
I can stay consistent, and NOT change the definition given in v17?
In v17 "those who receive" defines the next two verses!
SO if I am to be consistent and not change the definition then v18b, and v19b will follow suit in meaning "all who receive"!
So Superman your turn!
Shall we see if you can be consistent through the whole verse? I DID!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
Simple question, does "many" mean every human being in 5:19? And when it says they were made sinners, will they be made righteous in the same manner?
Adam and Eve made corrupted offspring, and we are all accountable for our own sins. What's the problem? You have confused 'original sin' with some idea of 'total evil' and blended them together into an unscriptural modern church fallacy that points towards the T of the tulip.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "does many mean every human being in 5:19?"
No, for in the context of v17 many would mean "every human being who received"! v17, v18, v19 can not say anything different from one another!
We must stay consistent, remember!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201
So by one mans disobedience only some were made sinners too? Stay consistent within the same verse.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "So by one man's disobedience only some were made sinners too? Stay consistent within the same verse."
Are you saying that v19 is explaining something different than v17?
I see what you are promoting by avoiding v17!
Superman, What does v17 mean, if not only those who receive?
You stay consistent!
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
What I'm saying is that the word "many" appears twice in the same verse and nothing indicates the definition would change in that same verse, just a few words apart. So what does "many" mean? Some? A lot? Most? All?
V17 is not a problem at all, only those who receive the abundance apply. But there is a difference between having something delivered to you, and receiving it. V18 shows it was in fact delivered to all, but not all accept the free gift.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman We can not be consistent if we try to change v.19 to mean anything other than v.17!
To be consistent, in regards to "receiving", the ones who received from Christ, "received", in the SAME WAY, as the ones who received from Adam!
To stay consistent, the receiving, from both Adam and Christ, must be in the same way!
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
So be consistent already. Is it all, many, or some?
Will only a few receive the gift? Then only a few received the judgment.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "So be consistent already."
Because of one man's trespass, death reigned (to the many who received) through that one man, much more (to the many who received) the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
So death only reigned to many people, but not all?
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman Will only a few receive the gift? Then only a few will received the judgment."
Your philosophy here is error! The GIFT does not have to be given nor received for anyone to "receive the judgment"!?!
If Christ NEVER DIED at all, ALL would still "receive the judgment."
Less then perfection demands judgment, gift or not!!!
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
It's staying consistent with the verse. The definition of "many" cannot change within just a few words apart. If only a few received the gift, then only a few were judged. If all were judged, then all have received the gift.
The whole point I have been trying to make is Calvinists selectively decide their own definitions depending on the verse. But you can't have it both ways, it must stay consistent between the sentences.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "Will only a few receive the gift? Then only a few received the judgment."
This is error for judgment is NOT received for failing to "receive the gift", but failing to keep the LAW!
Romans 3:19
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
So since all received the judgment, then all must have also received the gift. You can't pick and choose terms, consistency is important between verses 17-19.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman "So since all received the judgment, then all must have also received the gift."
Show, from scripture, where you get the philosophy that you must receive the gift in order to receive judgment???
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201
That's easy. It's in the wording of the verses in question. You cannot change the terms between just a few words. 17-19. Nothing indicates there is any change in tense.
RawChristianSuperman 7 months ago
@jls201
....in case I also wasn't clear in quoting myself. Adam and Eve could only procreate corrupted offspring, but every man was in fact accountable for his own sins. These 2 concepts do not negate eachother, so I don't see any problem there.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - In order for God to necessitate the crucifixion of Christ (which Christ predicted, so it could not have been decaptiation or otherwise), then God had to also orchestrate ALL THINGS that lead up to it, including the actors, the scene, & the circumstances. God has indeed written the story, & there can be no other story. YET, we act freely, in accordance to the desires of our hearts. The Bible says so. That settles it. I believe it. Perish in your sins if you don't.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
The crucifixion was part of God's plan. Jesus Himself tells us this. You then take a huge leap (or gap) in logic and assume based on a handful of verses that God must therefore be doing everything. In spite of EXPLICIT verses to the contrary.
And you have the audacity to say that if I don't believe as you do about THIS of all things, that I am unsaved? Verses, please, put up or shut up.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Um, no I don't. I have said plenty of times, much to your grand ignorance of them, that God is not the direct cause of any sin. But God HAS foreordained both good and evil, for his own plans, for His own glory. And you have yet to provide a verse saying that God does not foreordain all things, including good and evil. Whereas I have shown there are verses saying that God HAS.
If you believe in a different god, then you cannot be saved.
A non-sovereign god cannot save.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You claim God is not the direct cause of sin, only because your admittance would mean severe consequences for you, but your denial of this makes equal contradiction in logic. If He foreordained everything that happens, then it has no choice not to happen, then He is the one responsible for it happening, or it would not happen.
Now take your obligatory way out of this by claiming "God laughs at mans logic, and His ways are higher, blah blah blah" because I have provided verses now.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - No, you provided verses having nothing to do with the doctrine of God's ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. God's revealed will is His LAW, which men can and do resist (and always will resist unless and until God changes the disposition of the heart). God's secret, decretive, eternal will, His foreordination of whatseover comes to pass is completely different. As shown previously, God ORDAINED that Christ should suffer, yet he COMMANDED not to murder.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
God's secret, decretive, eternal will, and foreordination cannot be refused. Can it?
Then He is responsible for everything. I trimmed the fat right out of your paragraph, now you have to reconcile it again, while running for cover to Romans 9. Either He has forced everything that ever happens, or He doesn't.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I've already shown that God can and does cause things to happen without performing the act Himself, with the illustration of the composition of the books of the Bible. I believe anyone being reasonable would see that as a, as you like to say "case closed". But again, as I've shown in Isaiah 10 God SENDS the Assyrian, yet the Assyrian goes of his own free will, doing his own wicked will, all the while doing God's will, which God decreed that He would do to Israel.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You haven't actually shown that. You've TRIED to show it, but you have failed at answering direct verses beyond your own personal interpretations.
It's one or the other. Plain obvious logic. Either He has personally caused everything, or He has not. Your Assyrian example flopped like a fish out of water when I proved by the very own next verse that He MADE the Assyrian do this. There was no free will involved.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - I'll be working on those videos concerning the deity of Christ, as well as those promoting the Biblical Doctrine of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, etc. This bantering back and forth isn't doing anything productive. You'll have to give me some time to begin the series, as my daughter is up from Georgia, & getting married next week, and then I go on vacation. So I'll be busy with real life for a while, but I won't forget you. I pray for you every day. So long.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Yes, yes, I've heard it all before from far too many armchair theologians.
In other words "I ran out of verses, my arsenal was abruptly emptied, and I've been upstaged by someone more experienced than a generic pew warmer. Time to make a quick escape, maybe I'll come back someday when I'm ready to face my fears."
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - And do me a favour, and not tell me what I believe. I don't do that to you. Try reading the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 3 & 5 on God's Decree and of Providence. That is what I believe, supported with tiny smatterings of Scripture -- enough for any reasonable person, as being exhaustive would be in appropriate. God has ordained, decreed whatsoever comes to pass, but God has also ordained the FREE acts of men. I don't know HOW, but the Bible says He has.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
I have read those, I actually have quite alot of Calvinist literature. I know what your personal heroes dealt with and made decisions on, and how they tried to rationalize and debate these problems. They were fallible men, you seem to forget that, or deliberately elevate them to divinity.
John Owens, for example, comes across as a blathering idiot who proves nothing of what he wrote, only builds more dogma upon dogma and provides no defense against criticisms. Very one-sided writer
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Your response has nothing to do with anything said. I asked you to read what the WCF says concerning my beliefs on a topic, so that you will stop acting like a dunce, accusing me of believing that which I do not. I am able to cheerfully say "I don't know how it works, but God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and men are responsible moral agents, and God is not the author or approver of sin, for the simple reason that the Bible says so, in its entirety.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You told me to read the Westminster confession....I answered, and then some. Clearly my response had quite alot to do with hogwash you've said, because I know what the people you look up to had to say as well.
You should be cheerfully saying "I dont know how it works, and I shouldn't believe it against all sense, but I'm too scared and indoctrinated to think anything else". That sums it up nicely. You believe in fallible men, as if they were infallible and their words divine.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Well that was a pointless comment. I've said what I have to say, & have no reason to back down from it. Your god isn't a mystery because he's just a bigger version of yourself. My God is veiled in mystery. He's revealed enough about Himself to those whom He loved (foreknew) & to them He reveals the Son, & they are raised up on the Last Day. I've no where to brag. I didn't earn my salvation. But that's not your case. You have much to boast in your abilities.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
You put your trust in the interpretations of fallible men. Do you deny this?
Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not interpret itself. The reader does. You've read fallible men's interpretations and you take their word for it.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Yes, I do deny it. I read the Bible every day. I don't consult commentaries. I own one that my father (who wasn't a Calvinist at the time) gave me years ago. I think I've cracked it open a handful of times in my life. I've barely read anything by Calvin I've not even completed the Institutes.
No, it's really you who are taking to heart the interpretations of fallible men.
CG Finney is one of my guesses.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
So your interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with lessons from the reformers? The works of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Owen, etc have in no way influenced you?
It's some kind of divine coincidence that you just happen to reiterate their positions? And the Westminster confession came down to you from heaven I suppose?
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - Not a coincidence, but what happens when someone approaches the Scriptures humbly, prayerfully, in utter dependence upon God for understanding. The WCF is the work of many godly men, over a long period of time, putting together, under the same conditions described above, to communicate the Faith once delivered to the saints. We do not put it on part with Scripture. It's not a matter of being "influenced" or not. We're ALL influenced by the thinking of others. You as well.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
It's a bold faced lie for you to try to deny any kind of external influence on your decisions, as if it was you and a Bible on a desert island, and you miraculously came to identical conclusions as the reformers--shortcomings and all.
I don't deny that I have influences, there's countless people I rely on, since scriptures don't interpret themselves--the reader does. Glad to see that you've come to terms with yours and what you are putting faith in.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman - For anyone interested, please see my final response (use the search feature -- CTRL+F for PC; Command+F for Mac ... and type in *** ) where I am going to make my responses to RCS with videos. They'll take a little while to make as I have important real life things to which to attend. Blessings to anyone who has even read this far.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty
Thanks for the parting shot, and the blessings, I gave you one too, it's easy enough to find. Just do the same triple asterisk search. You've been refuted yet again by basic scripture.
RawChristianSuperman 8 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman I sent you a tape. On Matthew 7 in response to this vid. Please post it. The scripture plainly states that only evil fruit comes out of a corrupt tree. It is in Christianity, the Bible, the teaching of Jesus Christ -- that nothing can come out of an unregenerate sinner but sin - evil fruit. Your disagreement is not with "Calvinism" but Jesus Christ.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
If your video was rebutting anything I said in my series I would have gladly posted it. I have no reason to post something akin to 'opening arguments' labeled as responses.
You are free to post it yourself on your own profile. If you want it as a response to my video it must be responding to me./
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman I was completely on topic and stated the Word of God. Perhaps you would prefer a discussion based upon something other than the Bible. I addressed what you stated with God's Word. There are many secular humanists in this world who think that man is good and capable of good works by which he can please God and earn his own salvation. I believe you are a secular humanist, not a Christian. God bless.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion
I laid the foundation in my own videos. If you want to come from a different perspective, you can post your own heresies to your heart's desire, but if you want it listed in RESPONSE to one of my own videos, it must actually be a comeback to my points. Else you are just preaching your own corruption, and have no reason to be labeled as any kind of rebuttal.
RawChristianSuperman 4 months ago
@RawChristianSuperman You're saying Jesus taught heresy?? I spoke directly to what you asserted on your tape. I spoke the Bible. I spoke what Jesus says. I did come directly back to your points. I don't believe you have the capacity to look inside your own heart to discover why you think Jesus is a heretic. You choose to believe man is good, can do good works, produce good fruits, make good choices all on his own. That's secular humanism not Christianity. What Jesus said is not heresy.
graceexplosion 4 months ago