only christianity predicts the rise of a one world religious leader, who will have white skin and red eyes; if anyone worships him, they'll burn in hell. also, if anyone takes the chip and green electronic skin tattoo with sixes (that will be given when one stretches their hand to receive a new small grey world passport), they'll burn in hell too. also, it's important to note that if anyone will go into a ufo ship to be healed, they're in trouble. why?'cause ufo aliens are demons.research this
Brother, your response IS her problem! She hates the superior logic and reason of God's word as revealed by men like Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, the Puritans and now yourself..... all of which point to the Christ of the Bible. I understand how she feels, my flesh has been rebelling against truth since I can remember, so I empathize with her struggle and confusion.
I have watched every single YT vid from M Den. and its clear she begins with the Bible, quoting scripture, then takes scripture out of context, uses it as a pre-text to form a teaching that is her own. She sometimes quotes the original Greek, with no apparent scholarship therefore rendering it useless. Its a pity the passion she displays is not of "The Teacher" or Yeshua.
She has convinced herself with her lies,based solely on her own interpretation of the Bible. This is the clear result of someone not being led by The HS, and not using their brain. It cannot be stressed enough that to study the Bible we need to be taught Godly, qualified individuals that regard The Word above their own motives and desires. Faith In Christ Alone By The Grace of God Alone. But, unfortunately, M Den's delusion is for the deluded.
Monica is bound into darkness. I do not recall her ever being right generally in proper In context of the word of God. Its sad to see her fame as it is with so many hereesies she propagates. TBN and purpose driven life and the harold campings and joel olsteins, this list is Long. so the wide road certainly is being populated. I really wonder if they ever realized they are given the very kingdoms of the world here and now instead of a heavenly one. A bad bad trade!
Good response however, although you where probably not aware of it, you should not use God's name in vain. "Oh my gosh" and "jeez" is nothing more than shortcuts for "oh my God" and "Jesus". This is the 3rd commandment of God. I think you would agree that His commands are more heavily weighted than cursing.
She qualifies as one of the shrill and obnoxious Christians (aka Paul Washer) who just launch their odious zealotry in your face. Such people cannot be reasoned with; they are sly, illusive and insulate themselves so they are difficult to respond. But when you do get a chance, they need to be told off as loudly and aggressively as they are---for ultimately they are cowards and are afraid of opposition.
Paul did say that some were saying "I follow Paul"...Calvinists say that they follow Calvin. Calvinist, & Calvinism are legit words. Her point was to say that "I follow Jesus". Paul's point was "don't give me the glory", such as don't give Calvin the glory. Calvinism has five points that many Christians disagree with. God does not choose who goes to hell. That is individual responsibility. "I came to God & He won't forgive me cuz he didn't choose me"??? Does that sound Biblical?
@chapmaned But you see, you already misrepresent Calvinism yourself, and the Bible even by saying that God will reject one who comes to him. Jesus Clearly says that the one who comes to him he will never cast out but he equally says, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44;65). Ms. Dennington only wishes to uphold the first statement while denying Jesus' other words which just will not do my friend. The Bible should be taught in all its teachings, not just...
@prchdaword "NO ONE can come to me unless the father draw him". Oh...I know this one! How does the Father draw you? By the word of God, which is scripture. But those people that are drawn still have a choice to reject. It is still therefore human autonomy. Jesus did not say that all those who are drawn. Case in point is the Parable of the Good seed and what ground it was planted on.
@chapmaned but the word for "drawn" there doesn't leave room for a "choice". The same Greek word is used for "drag" in other context as well as for 'drawing" water out of a well....water doesn't have a choice to obey being "drawn'. Now, jesus did say "ALL that the FAther gives to me WILL come to me..." John 6:37....again. Their coming to Christ is the result of first having been giving. says that Fathers giving is based on the autonomy of the Creature which you must demonstrate.
@chapmaned the burden of proof is also on you to demonstrate, then from this text that the fAther draws by the word (which I do not disagree with, but it is just not explicit in this text) and that God's decretive will can be disobeyed. That is, that God' s word may come back to him void contrary to Isaiah 55:11....
The parable is NOT the explanation of the John 6 text....stay in the text for proper exegesis and don't run to other text that are different topically.
@prchdaword Since the burden of proof is on me, I will get back to you shortly. In the mean time, I leave you with God's will: 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
God wants ALL of his creation to be saved...not just a portion. Lastly, water does not have a soul. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is a legit argument. Your argument is also legit (John 6:37).
@prchdaword Before I reply more, I am in total agreement that God toyed with people so that they would DO certain things; such as the Pharaoh, King Saul, others, and more specifically, Judas. The Pharaoh wanted to let the children of Israel go, but God kept hardening his heart so that he wouldn't. God Chose the devil (Judas John 6:70) SO THAT he would betray Jesus, SO THAT Jesus would get to the cross. But in regards to SALVATION, that is man's choice based on FAITH, not the deeds of flesh.
@chapmaned so curious, you believe that God can "toy with people" to DENY THEM SALVATION, but he cannot do anything to give salvation ??? For clarification, I do not agree that God "toys with" people. I do believe he ordains things and uses secondary causes such as a persons own depravity. But not "toys with'...
Curious, but where do you believe that faith is produced in man? Is it an act of his own will and flesh or is faith something that God grants to a person through the work of the Spirit?
@prchdaword You are making an assumption that I stated that Jesus denied salvation. How do you know that the Pharaoh is NOT saved? King Saul went to be with Samuel in Abraham's bosom. And I don't know about Judas, as his body was possessed of the devil. I have heard from the Jehovah's Witnesses that they think that Adam is burning in Hell. Based on what? God covered their sins and they did sacrifices to God. I don't judge in that regard, when scripture clearly shows God toyed with them.
@prchdaword Example of Adam: Revelation shows that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the Earth. That means that before Adam sinned, God knew it. How did he toy with Adam about it? He put a chocolate bar in the middle of his bedroom and told him not to eat it. Well, a tree in the Garden that looked wonderful to eat from. Would you do that to your children with a chocolate bar? How would scripture look then? Would Jesus need to die on the cross if ADAM could resist sin? No.
@chapmaned I'm not arguing that God made Abraham believe.....I'm simply asking if the carnal and unregenerate man is able to produce saving faith of his own fallen, sinful, corrupted, idolatrous heart? Romans 8:7-8 says that the carnal mind is not able to please God.....is saving faith pleasing to God? if it isn't how is it that man is able to produce saving faith of his own fallen nature? Saving faith is a the product of a freed heart...a product of the new birth. And there is evidence for this
@prchdaword I have to first admit that I have not fully debated a Calvinist before, although I have debated an ex-Calvinist. With him, I have touched on those things which, to me, make sense. Such as Ephesians 1:4. To me, Ephesians 1:4 is discussing the ACTIONS of Christians as a whole, rather than choosing people individually. In other words, he for-ordained what a Christian is to do, which is obviously after salvation. This does not show that he chose me personally to be a Christian/Saved.
@prchdaword I have also debated the ex-Calvinist in regards to every-time I hear him say, "God's gonna do what God's gonna do" phrase. I am like, did not Abraham talk to God? Did not Moses talk to God? Does not the Bible show that events can be changed? It makes no sense to me that God would choose who goes to Hell. That does not make God a just God. Which would make me say to my friend, then God has a lot of apologizing to do, as it was NOT the individuals fault that he is burning in hell.
@prchdaword Now, normally when I debate, I am well prepared with scripture to back myself up. I debate the Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Filipino church called Church of Christ in English), and others. I consider all of those OUTSIDE of Christianity. But I don't find Calvinism outside of Christianity. I just find Calvinism has some strange interpretations in choose/chosen/predestination and sovereignty of God, so I never pursued it.
@chapmaned That's great, but this is still a red herring answer to the text that I have provided in support of my position.
I would also challenge your understanding of "strange interpretations" if they are "strange" based on your traditions or on the text itself. There are plenty of exegetical works down to the Greek, the grammar, the syntax, etc...that demonstrate the Reformed understanding of predestination is correct. have you ever interacted with those kinds of sources?
@prchdaword And would you agree that the translations into English took into account exegetical grammar? I took English in school. I know sentence structure. I know what nouns, verbs, adjectives, antecedents, etc. are. I got good grades in English in school.
@chapmaned thats great, but English is still not Koine Greek.....if you read Koine Greek, you will find that things are not ordered like they are in english and portraying certain tenses is sometimes difficult and translators have to do the best they can to convey that. NOw, based on your English skills, in I John 5:1 which event came first : the believing or the being born again?
@prchdaword I think that the translators took those things into account, however. I use a concordance, too. KJV Bible with a Strong's. But I usually leave it up to the translators, and the linguists to determine the language laws in order for the translators to pen what they did pen.
@chapmaned soooooooooooo.....I john 5:1.....which came first: the being born again or the belief? If i remember correctly, the "has been born again" is a perfect tense in the Greek and believing is present tense....is it not the case that the "has been born again" precedes and is the basis for "believing that Jesus is the Christ"?
@prchdaword Without getting into the English lessons, born again means that you once spiritually died. You died when you learned the law (Romans 7). This severed your relationship with God. Born again brings back the holy spirit in your body that it once was. It brings again that relationship that was once severed. Adams death date was when he ate of that tree, which gave him knowledge. It wasn't talking death of the body (1 Corinthians 15). Adam was going to die in the body anyway.
@chapmaned yes i know what born again means....but what order does the text give to it here in regards to faith? Is the new birth before saving faith or does faith result in being born again?
no more red herrings......the answer is right on the text
@prchdaword Faith is believing, is it not? Is believing a choice? Believing is what justified Abraham, and believing is equated to faith. Faith is (Hebrews 11:1) Sorry for red herrings, but I am being logical.
@chapmaned we believe through choice, but choice itself is not belief. one is a means to the other. Red herrings are fallacies of ambiguity, which is hardly being logical at all. It is a tactic to avoid the argumentation that is being directed at you (I studied philosophy when i was in school).
So help me understand your view....since no one was born again in the old Testament, is it your position 1)that they were saved apart from being born again ?...........
@prchdaword1. I think you are misunderstanding my words. I did not say that no one was born again in the Old Testament. I said that they were not born again UNTIL Jesus died on the cross. I am going at this from memory of scriptures, rather than quoting you exact scripture in order for a quick response. Jesus took them with him to paradise. Born again meant to restore God with man, and that is what he did. He released the prisoners from Abraham's bosom.
@chapmaned so just to be clear, did the holy Spirit have a role in producing faith in the saints of the Old Testament? Or did the Holy Spirit have no involvement in the salvation of anybody until the death of Christ as you suggest?
@prchdaword I will say this. God's Word had the role. It is a choice to believe God's word. How does God work? Through the Holy Spirit. First God speaks, and it is up to you to believe what God speaks. God speaks though the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit is God. I don't quite get what you are getting at. No matter how you try to explain it, belief/faith came first.
@prchdaword Who was 1 John 5:1 to? Christians, right? When a baby is born in the flesh, he/she is also born of God. Then comes KNOWLEDGE of the law, and they are now dead in their trespasses. Born again is the process of being born of God....AGAIN.
@chapmaned still avoiding the text....."anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...." Which came first: Faith or being born again?
@prchdaword You keep avoiding mine. In order to be born of God...AGAIN, you must first be dead in your trespasses. You can't be dead in your trespasses unless you first have KNOWLEDGE of the law, therefore, you are born of God originally when you were conceived in the flesh. There is an order of events. Born again still means born of God, and the topic is Born Again.
@prchdaword In other words, Abraham sinned, but Abraham did not fall under the law. The law is a barrier to faith. This is why Christians do not fall under the law. It is not law plus faith. It is faith alone, without the law.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
The just shall live by faith is Old Test. First came faith, from Adam to Moses, then came law from Moses to Jesus, then from Jesus it is faith again. From Faith...to law...to faith. Faith to faith.
@prchdaword Adam was guilty of sin based on conscience, not the law of Moses, as the law did not exist. Adam felt guilt. Guilt convicted him of sin. That was conscience.
@prchdaword Saved BY Grace THROUGH faith. It is by grace that we are saved, but before grace, we had to have faith, as it is THRU faith UNTO grace. Faith first, then comes the grace.
@prchdaword I think it strange that you would believe that all of existence before Jesus came on the scene to give the gospel is burning in hell, that the only ones that can be saved are those from about 2000 years ago on.
@chapmaned ummmmmmmm....I don't believe that at all....to the contrary, I believe that in the OT, the Holy Spirit was just as operative then as he was in the NT but his person and ministry was not as clearly revealed in the OT because the revelation of the son had not occurred either. In other words, in the OT, God was not clearly revealed as a Trinity;we only see dim hints at it. I do believe that people were saved before Christ actual sacrifice and on the same basis of Christ sacrifice to come
@prchdaword But you previously stated that those who haven't heard the gospel is burning in hell. How do you reconcile this, since those people never heard the gospel? How were those people "saved" as you put it, without HEARING the Gospel, as you condemn those who never heard the gospel to hell? You also indicated that these people are dead in there trespasses, therefore, their final judgment is indeed hell by that claim. Reconcile this please. Again, can the book of life be modified by God?
@prchdaword So, only a few Jews got saved (as it was only the Jews that knew anything about God, and they were forbidden by law to mingle with the Gentiles), and everyone else is burning in hell, except those who heard the gospel from 2000 yrs ago on?
@prchdaword Remember now, that you had made it abundantly clear to me that I should completely understand that NO ONE, that is, NO ONE can be saved without hearing and believing the Gospel. And yet, SOME of those who never heard the Gospel ARE saved, based on ignorance of trinity? Did I get that right? It is shocking that it went from NO ONE, to SOME.
@chapmaned my friend, the Gospel is in the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation....the Gospel is not something "new" that jesus did, its something that was promised in Genesis 3:15 that Jesus finally fulfilled. Adam and Eve heard the Gospel in seeing God slaughter an animal to clothe them....Abraham heard it and it was accounted to him as righteousness....it is in Joseph's life, In the Exodus, the prophets, you name it in the OT and Jesus is there....always has been.
@prchdaword You are wrong to assert that I am making any assumptions about Calvinism in any regard. I was making notice of your own words, that NO ONE could be saved without hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and that those who didn't hear were damned. Therefore, as you put in your OWN words, there was NO gentile saved prior to Jesus commissioning his Apostles to spread the gospel, therefore, ONLY a few "SELECT" Jews got saved, and no one else. Am I right in that conclusion of your own words?
@chapmaned God's eternal decrees cannot be modified cause that would mean that God's infinite and eternal wisdom was somehow flawed from all eternity, or that God changed, which he cannot change in his essential being at all. If Book of Life is those who have been elected from all eternity unto salvation, then no it cannot be modified. If it is understood as a cultural idiom for being alive as in the OT, then of course we percieve change but God's eternal decrees do not change.
@prchdaword There is NO SUCH THING as God choosing whom he is going to send to hell. The book of life can indeed be modified, as he can BLOT OUT NAMES, and the Bible so states.
@chapmaned Technically your right but Yahweh chose his adopted children or elect (both are in the Bible, free will isn't). In not choosing some He is rejecting others. Anyone who reads Romans 9, Eph. 1, John 6, on and on and on, and doesn't see that it is God who chooses just as he always has (Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul (against his own will even)) is willingly ignorant of God's nature set forth in his word
@Ebeneezerable When I use "exegesis" I don't see what you see in Romans 9 or Ephesians 1, or John 6, or on and on. We do have free will to choose this day! God does choose the CLAY, which is the body, but the soul is a different story. Do you really believe that the Pharaoh is in hell? I am sure that God spared his soul from hell, as my God is a God of Mercy and Grace (Not the Grace that Calvinist's define).
@chapmaned you're clearly not exegeting the passage of Scripture in the original language or following the arguments at all. In John 6, Jesus has a clear mission from God the Father to "not lose any of those whom the Father has given"....the giving of the father is basis for the "coming to the Son" or believing. That is fairly straight forward. So in order to "come to Christ" you have to be first given to Christ by the Father....6:44 and 65 are clear that not all come because not all are given.
@prchdaword Oh, you are so wrong, because the translators already took care of that. Basically, you are saying that the translators did not. If the original language meant what you said, then different wording would have been used to make it abundantly clear your point of view. You have your talking points, and I have mine, which is 'CHOOSE THIS DAY', as well as Deuteronomy 1:39, which you skirt that issue, and Romans chapter 4 thru 7. Your exegesis is not the same as non-Calvinist exegesis.
@chapmaned If you dont see it u dont see it. I see your point and I know its the standard human emotional response. God is spirit not flesh like us. He doesnt think like us. Thats why we have His Word and His word uses terms like adoption and election to describe our (if we're born again) position. now if the orphan could adopt himself to a father and make him love him there wouldnt be any orphans. Likewise politicians dont elect themselves. The meaning of these words is clear. To me anyway.
@Ebeneezerable Standard human emotional response? Tell me about Deuteronomy 1:39 and put it into "exegesis" on the SPIRITUAL interpretation. Does that show total depravity? Does that show original sin? Does that show any sign of the Calvinist interpretation of election? How about Romans Chapters 4-7, showing ALIVE first, then Death, rather than dead in sins first, then life after becoming a Christian. What is sin and is it possible for sin to NOT be IMPUTED to people? Emotional? Hmmm.
@prchdaword Yes, the spiritual. Do you not know that the things written in the OT are shadows? What is the promised land CARNALLY? The physical land of Israel. What is the promised land SPIRITUALLY? What are the feasts of God CARNALLY? What are the FEASTS of God SPIRITUALLY? What is the TEMPLE of God, CARNALLY? What is the Temple of God, SPIRITUALLY? What is circumcision CARNALLY? What is circumcision SPIRITUALLY? What is Noah's Ark Carnally, What is Noahs Ark Spiritually? Etc., Etc.
@chapmaned I think you are misunderstanding how that works....not everything is a "shadow" or "type". The only things that are considered those are those that are designated as such by the NT. historically speaking the "spiritual" interpretation is considered an allegorization which is an interpretation that is not governed by the text itself giving free reign to the interpreter to assign meaning as he/she wills which is obviously dangerous. Do you mean what are the fulfillment of those?
@prchdaword I've never seen the word allegory, or any "type" word in the Bible. But I have seen the word "spiritual". For example, the story of Noah's Ark, spiritually speaking, is about the RAPTURE. The FEAST OF PASSOVER is about the Death of Jesus, not about a feast of food and drink. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life. How quickly you dismiss the spiritual, just to be focused on the carnal. Therefore, I ask again, what is the spiritual land of promise?
@chapmaned I hate to say it but that is precisely why you have no business in this conversation. Romans 5:14 states that Adam was a "type" of Christ because just as Adam's sin represent more than just Adam, even so Christ's righteousness represented more than must righteousness for Christ. Hebrews is also very saturated with "shadows" (Heb. 8:5; 10:1). Noah's Ark is not about the Rapture, but about Christ and all who are "in Christ" will be saved. you're method is scripture twisting.
@prchdaword My Bible doesn't use the word TYPE. However, I've every business in this conversation, as I read the Bible for SPIRITUAL food, not that of CARNAL food. In other words, I don't just look to the Old Testament as a history book. I look to the spiritual meanings. Here is a mystery. God said that he writes the END from the beginning. The future was written in Genesis. Noah's Ark IS INDEED about the Rapture. The souls of the righteous will be above the earth, destruction beneath.
@prchdaword I feel sorry for "religions" such as yours that dismiss spiritual meanings of things. You don't search the treasures. You make it sound as though every prophesy as come to pass from the Old Testament. The FEASTS of God have a prophetic meaning. Somehow you don't see that, except for maybe the Passover, and maybe Pentecost. There are more FEASTS that have prophetic meanings. You don't look into those things, however. I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge.
@chapmaned my friend, we don't reject anything....we just govern our understandings by Scripture. I don't have a problem believing that the feasts and festivals all pointed to a greater reality but I acknowledge that the greater reality of all those was is and always will be the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews is very clear that all the things of Judaism were but shadows and the reality is in Christ. Colossians 2 makes the same argument my friend. I don't feel sorry for that at all.
@chapmaned the land of promise is the whole earth, the recreated earth. "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the EARTH"..the land of Israel is but a small SHADOW the true and fuller sense of the promise. But I dont need a "spiritual" sense but only to look to Scripture to interpret that correctly....in other words, my interpretation is guided by Scripture, not by a "allegorizing" that can be used without restraint to make any words of thing into anything then there is no "interpretation"
@chapmaned the fallacy you are making is thinking that I believed no one before Jesus was saved (which you can read my comments and I never state that at all, which is your false conclusion, not my belief). Secondly, you err in thinking that Jesus and the Gospel is not in the OT . Its all there....Jesus, for all practical purposes, was not a "surprise"....John 5:29 and Luke 24:27 demonstrate that Jesus is in ALL of Scripture. instead of jumping to conclusions...ask me what I believe next time
@chapmaned But then again, that is the fundamental problem with Monica Dennington, and now with you, as you have just demonstrated. You willfully, maliciously and pridefully choose to misrepresent by jumping to your own conclusions about what you think Reformed theology believes and teaches rather than seek clarification or actually do some studying.....THAT is the major fallacy in this whole conversation my friend.
@chapmaned 2) that there are two plans of salvation: one in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament? 3) that fallen men are able to produce that which is pleasing to God contrary to Romans 8:7-8?
As a further question, what purpose does the new birth play for salvation if it was entirely possible to be saved and have faith apart from it?
@prchdaword 2. The only way that I can answer this is to bring in other scripture. What is sin? 1 John 3:4 (Transgression of the law). Who is accountable to the Law? Those who know it. For before the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed (COUNTED) where there is no law (Romans). The only way that a person could die spiritually is KNOWLEDGE (Romans 7) of the law. Paul said that before the law, he was alive. When he knew it, he died. Gentiles don't have the law, but they do sin.
@prchdaword All the prophets of the Old Test had faith, but NO ONE was saved/Born again until AFTER Jesus died on the cross. Their faith came before their salvation. Those old time prophets waited for their salvation. Their faith came first.
@prchdaword In addition, Romans chapter 2 describes those things that pertain to the ignorant about Jesus/God. God gave us a conscience, and it is the conscience that judges for those who are not under the law, who know not the law. They didn't have faith in anything, except their own conscience. Therefore, those primitive tribes in jungles that walk around naked with spears who never heard of Jesus, born again, etc, are saved, or not saved, based on their conscience.
@chapmaned I would also challenge your understanding of romans 2....these are not "saved" at all by their conscience. This would mean that salvation is possible apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Scripture is clear that one must believe in the Gospel to be saved and faith comes by hearing. Rather, Romans 2 demonstrates the sufficiency of the conscience as knowledge of the law of God already in them and its sufficiency to condemn them apart from the law that israel had been given fully
@prchdaword 3. 3. Are you making the argument that those naked tribes with spears go to hell automatically if someone did not preach to them the Gospel?
@chapmaned yes, I am clearly making that argument that those who do not hear and believe the Gospel are damned. Romans 2 is clear that their own heart has enough of a conscience inthem to condemn them. Further, in Romans 3:10-18 ALL are guilty of sin, all are corrupt, they are idolatrous, etc....there are no "innocent natives" who are just "dying to be saved in God's way"...rather, they are corrupted in their own religions. See Eph. 2:1-3 and how it describes Gentiles in darkness.
@prchdaword Well, I hold the EXACT opposite position. Your version of Romans 2 deletes the word excuse. All are guilty of sin, as you say with Romans 3. BUT, SIN IS NOT IMPUTED where there is no law. For before the law (Moses) Sin was in the world, but sin is NOT imputed (COUNTED) where there is no law.
@chapmaned Romans 2:12 "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." How does "my version" delete the word "excuse" if I have not even exegeted the passage for you? "There is NO EXCUSE...." and Romans 2 goes on to demonstrate that - law or no law - all are guilty before God. Paul's argument peaks in Romans 3:10-18....
in Romans 5:14, v12-13 show that since all died all were clearly guilty of sin . "death spread to all men BECAUSE ALL SINNED"...the sin 'in the likeness of Adam" is a sin against a clearly revealed word/law of God....not all sinned in such a way after Adam or even after Moses because God's law/will was only revealed ot certain people, namely the people of Israel. ALL ARE UNDER DEATH THEREFORE ALL ARE UNDER SIN...even the "naked tribe" who hasn't heard the gospel my friend.
@chapmaned There is nothing at all in Scripture that you will find that a person can be saved through keeping the law, even the law of their own conscience. There is no place in Scripture that will support any notion of being saved apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And there is no place in Scripture that you will find to suppoprt any sort of "post mortem evangelism" teaching to say that a person can choose Christ after death. They get this one life and then judgment (heb 9:27)
@prchdaword That is absolutely right...no one can keep the law. But in the case of Romans 2, God gave everyone a conscience, but he didn't give everyone the law. What these people do with their conscience is what judges them. If they steal, what did they do about it? Etc. God judges them based on their conscience, not the law. They are judged without the law.
@chapmaned ....those tribes that have not heard are not Innocent or "neutral' in any respects my friend. They are dead in trespasses and sin, they are corrupt, they are in darkness, they are rebellious and idolatrous even as we were before Christ. The wages of sin is death as Scripture clearly teaches. Why do you think it is IMPERATIVE that we do missions? That we reach as many as we can with the Gospel? We cannot be lax about that AT ALL! It is our COMMISSION from Christ himself
@chapmaned not sure how you arrived at thinking that I don't believe that the OT is not the word of God....rather, I believe that we believe the word of God because of hte work of the Holy Spirit of God to enable us to believe it. In our fallen nature, we are dead in our trespasses and sins and we need to be born again in order to believe it. hence, regeneration PRECEDES faith as I John 5:1 clearly teaches.
@chapmaned ok, so help me understand your position....so you're saying that the ones who have never heard the law of God are not sinners? Are they righteous?
@chapmaned Thats not even in question that faith precedes justificaiton......but going back to I John 5:1.....which one comes first? Faith/Belief or the being born again?
@prchdaword I keep answering this with the example of Hebrews 11. Faith came first. The Old Test followers of God had faith before being born again. What is justification?
YOu said: "Before I reply more, I am in total agreement that God toyed with people so that they would DO certain things; such as the Pharaoh, King Saul, others, and more specifically, Judas. The Pharaoh wanted to let the children of Israel go, but God kept hardening his heart so that he wouldn't. God Chose the devil (Judas John 6:70)"
now, when God "toyed" with these people....were they things they did sin?
@prchdaword My example of Adam, would Adam had sinned if that candy bar wasn't there? Which came first, the candy bar, or Adam? Which came even before that? Adam or the fact that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth? Jesus wouldn't die on a cross if Adam didn't sin. Adam had to sin. God uses the devil for his purpose. Look at Job.
@chapmaned So you would say that God had planned for the sin to occur but he was able to use it for his own purposes unto salvation and even damnation? For if sin had not occurred there would be no hell, no judgment, and no lost souls right?
@prchdaword All I would say to this, is to understand everything about Adam, and Romans chapter 7. Hell was created long before man's sin. As I see it, earth is a testing ground for us to choose this day whom serve.
hope that last part didn't come of too strong....my point is simply what is your objection based on? Is it really based on ALL OF SCRIPTURE or merely selected portions of Scripture? Most of my experiences, this one included, people who argue against Reformed theology do not actually understand it and hence they engage in caricatures against it, Monica Dennington is a prime example of that. If you see all my video responses to her, I am offering her correction in this.
@prchdaword Well, Monica deserved rebuke, as she is a teacher. And she is way off base to basic Christianity. In any case, I love research. I love to especially research things that SEEM to be contradictions, but are not. The deductions are sometimes hard to see right away, so one verse here and there is not enough. Researching takes time. Some of us don't "willfully" choose to misinterpret. But yes, I can't see a God that "willfully" created those who he determined ahead of time to burn.
@chapmaned God's people should be people of truth should they not? So it bothers me when Christian willfully choose to misrepresent their so called brothers or sisters, or even when we are not considered brothers and sister in the Lord by some, the fact remains that they are willfully choosing ignorance and to lie to their own audience. Is God glofiried by that? Is it not rather the person seeking glory when they are able to destroy their own strawman argument?
@chapmaned ...1 John 5:1 is clear that the one who is believing (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (past tense).....grammatically undeniable is that the "being born of God" PRECEDES the "believing that jesus is the Christ" which is the saving confession of the church (Matt 16...Peter's confession).
@chapmaned ....but still you have not answered how it is that you believe that God can "toy with" people in regards to their damnation but will not assist any in their belief? I find that terribly inconsistent on your part
@prchdaword Now, I love debates, and in this case, not out of contention. But I would like the opportunity to have you present your case, so that I may fully search the scriptures to see if those things are so. I understand, however, that Calvinists give a different definition to the word ALL. I posted on another YouTube site a comment that if I am a robber, and I say give me all your money, I certainly don't mean 75% of it, and that I would shoot you for the remaining 25%, equaling all.
@prchdaword To answer one of your questions, again, I never said that God toys with people for damnation. He toys with people to have them do certain things for which he planned. Damnation/Salvation had nothing to do with it. But in order for scripture to be true, that Jesus is the lamb slain from before Adam, then Adam had to sin. That isn't damnation.
@chapmaned So when Scripture describes Judas as "the son of perdition" God didn't know from all eternity that Judas was going perish as a result of God's "toying"?
@chapmaned I think the Scripture will allow for both understandings in the case of Pharaoh and Judas...each died they way they did because they were under God's judgment
@prchdaword death of the body does not prove damnation. God has MERCY on those that he blinded. God blinded the Jews. Moses even said so, that God hasn't given them a mind that understands...TO THIS DAY.
@chapmaned ...the ones that we feel make "more responsible". Calvinism does not deny human responsibility but it does not base it on the unbiblical teaching of human autonomy. As sure as this is God's world and we are his creatures, we are never free from our Creator. This video is a response to Ms Dennington's inconsistency to say she wants to uphold all SCripture but when her claims are examined she really doesn't...in fact she rejects clear teachings from it. Hope that helps.
@prchdaword On the contrary. God gave us a soul, which means that we have human autonomy. Choose this day whom ye will serve. That is a human choice. If what Calvinism states is true, then there is no need to pray, as it wouldn't do any good, as God has already determined the outcome, and therefore you are wasting your time in praying. Didn't you know that events can be changed by praying? God can be negotiated with. Abraham did it! Moses did it! Predestination? Can't buy into it. Sorry.
She is saying that only she can argue and no one can argue back because her argument is extremely weak. When you make ridiculous claims that are not supported by scripture you dont want to be called on it so you argue while not allowing anyone else to argue back and if they do you block them (ignore them).
@droptozro what do you mean by "auto-forgiven"? As in Calvinist believe that life can be lived out anyway we please and we are going to be forgiven anyways? That is not Calvinism at all if you think that....
Calvinist do believe in a life of ongoing repentance and constantly asking God for forgiveness for any and all sin that God does and will continue to reveal to the believer. The faith that justifiies is not a one time faith but a continuing and abiding faith; a living faith that is always..
It means Calvinists believe all future sins are pre-forgiven, from Calvary for every elect person by God. There isn't one place that says future sins in the believers time frame are already forgiven. I didn't say you believed they could live however they please, but in your perspective a truly elect Christian could live righteously all through their life and then commit heinous sins at the end of their life and they will still inherit heaven. This goes against Ezekiel 18
TicToc ministries and Monica Dennington are a cult in the making. She teaches that the Holy Spirit is female and after I replied to somoeone who commented on one of her vid's stating she should stay away from her channel I recived serveral emails from Monica asking if I was a pastor or prophet and where I lived I then got a scathing letter from Gary Dennington her husband. He said after viewing my channel that I held to the homosexual model of the pastor, being male, and also hated women.
Thank you soooooooooooooo much for posting this video it is very comforting to know that there are others in the world who are standing against deceipt teaching! GOD BLESS!
I am no calvinist but I find Dennington's arrogance completely contemptible.
what she wants is a church unified around everything that she agrees with, but only what she agrees with.
she will deny this but that is the real outcome.
no one is so spiritual as to have sound doctrine alone ; so we all overlay the pure gospel. so calvinists are as christian as the rest of us are, if they have core doctrine, which they do
@Strefanasha "calvinists are as christian as the rest of us are, if they have core doctrine, which they do"
No. They use the same terms, but like all cults, they pour completely different meanings into them. Their doctrines of Justification, Sanctification, Election, Predestination, Grace, Free Will, Sovereignty, etc, & God's nature & attributes are all different from orthodox Christianity - their gospel is totally different & their "Limited" pillar blasphemes God's nature. It's a heresy.
@nextluther Monica's only mistake was using 1Cor1:10 - it's inadequate. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians not to divide over one ORTHODOX teacher vs another - it doesn't apply to a heretical belief like Calvinism. There can be no genuine fellowship between the A's & C's, they're completely irreconcilable belief systems with different gospels, different Gods, & a different Savior. Merely charging Calvinists with being divisive is like only arresting a murderer for discharging a gun in the city
Wow- this is bonkers. Look at how the body is acting...
This is division. I understand where everyone here is coming from, defending their points of view.
Question to Armenians: Just ask as you argue; is it for the purpose of edification? Or sheer strife?
Calvinist: Is it possible that in God's sovereign will He ALLOWED man to chose Him? I mean, of course the work of grace belongs to God alone; but is it possible that He simply allowed man to have a choice? Hence "in our own image..."?
@RyouNtheFaith Calvinism is heresy & is long overdue to be labeled as such by mainstream Christians. It has a different gospel than the bible's (Repent, for Christ MIGHT have died for you) & blasphemes God by claiming he creates helpless people, without recourse, for the sole purpose of casting them into hell in order to glofify himself. These doctrines can't be reconciled with the bible - Christians are under an obligation to oppose heresy not to tolerate it for the sake of a false "unity"
I do not disagree with you that Calvinism must be put away with. That wasn't my question. My question was directed to EACH individual as they get involved in this argument: are you doing it for strife with out even CONSIDERING where the other is coming from (because it is IMPORTANT to understand how one thinks before you try to change their mind) or are you doing it TRULY in the name of edification?
Also: even if God DID create some to be "helpless and without recourse" for the sole purpose of casting them to hell: GLORY TO HIS NAME. Because His word is true and we have all fallen short of His glory. Who would WE be to question His standing? Again: I don't AGREE with Calvinism, but even if it were true- He can do whatever He wants: He is GOD. And it would be an act of mercy to save ANY.
@RyouNtheFaith "even if God DID create some to be "helpless & without recourse" for the sole purpose of casting them to hell: GLORY TO HIS NAME. Because His word is true & we have all fallen short of His glory. Who would WE be to question His standing? Again: I don't AGREE with Calvinism"
If you profess such unbiblical garbage then you ARE a Calvinist whether you know it or not. God's nature is love - it's against His nature to create helpless people only to destroy them in hell. Wake up.
No sir, I'd like you to wake up, because you're dividing where division isn't needed. You must have decided not to hear the part where I agreed with you. I simply said whatever God decides to do should be glorified because of WHO HE IS. If you don't agree with that, you don't have to worry about being Calvinist: you wouldn't even be Christian. God's nature is love? God's nature is HOLY- and all else stems from that. Why? Because he needed PAYMENT for sin, He didn't just forgive.
@RyouNtheFaith Again, if you think there's no reason to divide over Calvinism then you're ignorant of the issues involved. They're completely opposite belief systems that can't be reconciled with each other & no genuine fellowship can possibly exist between the 2 camps. CBAllen, the reprobate who just interrupted, is a perfect example - his apostasy has reached the point of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. He says that anyone who claims that Christ loved & died for all men is speaking by a demon.
@RyouNtheFaith Jack here is an Open Theist,they deny God being all powerful and all knowing.They teach that God is purely reactionary,that He must wait and see what man will do so he will know how to react to the situation.Open Theism is purely man centered,they teach that God exists to glorify men and not Himself.
@prchdaword... the Scriptures teach Conditional Eternal Security because Free Will exists! In Philemon 1:24 and Col.4:14, Demas is described as being a co-worker of Paul. But in 2 Tim.4:10, Paul says that he "has deserted me." The reason- "Because he loved this world". In Rom.11:22...continue in His kindness otherwise, you TOO WILL BE cut-off." And in John 15, Jesus said, "I am the True Vine... EVERY branch IN ME that does NOT bear fruit HE CUTS AWAY... he is THROWN AWAY...gathered and Burned."
@apollos6640 ever considered that his conversion was false if htat is what the Scriptures were teaching? That Dimas heart was of that soil that showed some growth but when hard times came or the love of the world it choked out the seed? Every considered that those who left the church were never truly of us (I john 2:18)?
1 John 2:18 is about Gnostic teachers/believers, so yes of course---they had the wrong "Jesus" from the beginning... so of course they were never saved to begin with, they thought Jesus didn't come in the flesh.
Either way---the choked out seed still says they believed--just like those who continue until the end. They received the same salvation--some just fell away.
Monica is a false teacher--but Calvinism is also a heresy in it's own.
@droptozro well historically, the theology of the Gnostics wasn't fully developed yet, so John may have had these proto-Gnostics in mind, but by the time you get to 1 John 4, it is clear that ANY who deny Jesus' divinity are "anti-christ". In a broader application, any false teacher that teaches a false gospel based on a false jesus is "anti Christ"; this is not a wrong application of the text at all.
What exactly about Calvinism is not in Scripture that you deem as heresy?
Well it would be an applicable option in another theology, but in Calvinism it's the only option--according to a 5 pointer, you're either saved and sealed into eternity without a chance of falling away, or you were never saved to begin with.
I still addressed a huge issue, the parable of the sower says the latter 3 all received the Word(seed) and 2 types fell away.. that's not possible in Calvinism.
"Future" sins being auto-forgiven is heresy also, that's not in Scripture.
@droptozro Why is it not possible in Calvinism to experience a false conversion? Could it be that you are reading "regeneration" into "recieving the word" when it doesn't necessarily mean that? Calvinist do believe that people experience a "conversion" that is without saving faith and repentance. Isn't Judas the prime example of that? He followed the Lord jesus yet with an evil and greedy heart looking only for what money he could gain? Calvinist do believe in the parable of the sower...
I didn't say it wasn't possible to experience a false conversion---that falls into the second category(never saved to begin with). There is no true "falling away" in Calvinism and not inheriting the Kingdom--because you would view that as a failure by God's sovereign will.
There are double-examples of both sides in Scriptures--Peter/Judas, David/Saul---both fell away, one repented from godly sorrow and one didn't.
@droptozro looking to Jesus Christ, and his work alone, for salvation.
I'm a full 5 pointer, but I'm not sure where you are getting that Calvinist believe the way that you describe here....I have read and continue to read many Reformed works on salvation and the Christian life and have yet to read a Calvinist who believes anything described here. Perhaps you could point me to the source that you used to find out what Calvinist believe? That might be helpful in clarifying these misconceptions.
I don't think we have misconceptions, I think you're just mis-understanding my claims. I trust Christ's work for salvation too--for faith in the grace offered is what God gave as salvation, but I don't believe future sins are already forgiven irregardless of my actions. This is not in the Bible--anywhere, but 2 Peter 1:9 mentions "past sins" have been wiped out. The Christian is not under the law, but if they fulfill the lusts of the flesh they won't inherit the Kingdom.
Yes..don't mis-understand me and think that if you sin after conversion you cannot be forgiven. 1 John teaches if you confess your sins He is faithful and just to forgive, and 1 John 2 also mentions how Jesus is our advocate if we sin. This is a part of abiding in Christ, as one MUST abide in Him in order to live holy and bear proper fruit. If we aren't abiding, we sin and can fall away to death. 1 Cor 6:9-10 are sins, warning that Christians can die if they continue in also.
@droptozro But isn't this exactly what I said above about a living and abiding faith that is lived in a life of constant repentance, and constantly asking for forgiveness?
argue in a calm (debate) way yes, quarrel no.
jspankin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
only christianity predicts the rise of a one world religious leader, who will have white skin and red eyes; if anyone worships him, they'll burn in hell. also, if anyone takes the chip and green electronic skin tattoo with sixes (that will be given when one stretches their hand to receive a new small grey world passport), they'll burn in hell too. also, it's important to note that if anyone will go into a ufo ship to be healed, they're in trouble. why?'cause ufo aliens are demons.research this
goodinfotoknow 3 months ago
Comment removed
froberts7 4 months ago
Amen!
Brother, your response IS her problem! She hates the superior logic and reason of God's word as revealed by men like Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, the Puritans and now yourself..... all of which point to the Christ of the Bible. I understand how she feels, my flesh has been rebelling against truth since I can remember, so I empathize with her struggle and confusion.
slurp503 5 months ago
I have watched every single YT vid from M Den. and its clear she begins with the Bible, quoting scripture, then takes scripture out of context, uses it as a pre-text to form a teaching that is her own. She sometimes quotes the original Greek, with no apparent scholarship therefore rendering it useless. Its a pity the passion she displays is not of "The Teacher" or Yeshua.
dragonlee1bfed 5 months ago
She has convinced herself with her lies,based solely on her own interpretation of the Bible. This is the clear result of someone not being led by The HS, and not using their brain. It cannot be stressed enough that to study the Bible we need to be taught Godly, qualified individuals that regard The Word above their own motives and desires. Faith In Christ Alone By The Grace of God Alone. But, unfortunately, M Den's delusion is for the deluded.
dragonlee1bfed 5 months ago
Monica is bound into darkness. I do not recall her ever being right generally in proper In context of the word of God. Its sad to see her fame as it is with so many hereesies she propagates. TBN and purpose driven life and the harold campings and joel olsteins, this list is Long. so the wide road certainly is being populated. I really wonder if they ever realized they are given the very kingdoms of the world here and now instead of a heavenly one. A bad bad trade!
ashqelonsunset 7 months ago
Good response however, although you where probably not aware of it, you should not use God's name in vain. "Oh my gosh" and "jeez" is nothing more than shortcuts for "oh my God" and "Jesus". This is the 3rd commandment of God. I think you would agree that His commands are more heavily weighted than cursing.
ukiews 7 months ago
Comment removed
JackMWolfe 7 months ago
She qualifies as one of the shrill and obnoxious Christians (aka Paul Washer) who just launch their odious zealotry in your face. Such people cannot be reasoned with; they are sly, illusive and insulate themselves so they are difficult to respond. But when you do get a chance, they need to be told off as loudly and aggressively as they are---for ultimately they are cowards and are afraid of opposition.
socksumi 8 months ago
Paul did say that some were saying "I follow Paul"...Calvinists say that they follow Calvin. Calvinist, & Calvinism are legit words. Her point was to say that "I follow Jesus". Paul's point was "don't give me the glory", such as don't give Calvin the glory. Calvinism has five points that many Christians disagree with. God does not choose who goes to hell. That is individual responsibility. "I came to God & He won't forgive me cuz he didn't choose me"??? Does that sound Biblical?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned But you see, you already misrepresent Calvinism yourself, and the Bible even by saying that God will reject one who comes to him. Jesus Clearly says that the one who comes to him he will never cast out but he equally says, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44;65). Ms. Dennington only wishes to uphold the first statement while denying Jesus' other words which just will not do my friend. The Bible should be taught in all its teachings, not just...
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword "NO ONE can come to me unless the father draw him". Oh...I know this one! How does the Father draw you? By the word of God, which is scripture. But those people that are drawn still have a choice to reject. It is still therefore human autonomy. Jesus did not say that all those who are drawn. Case in point is the Parable of the Good seed and what ground it was planted on.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned but the word for "drawn" there doesn't leave room for a "choice". The same Greek word is used for "drag" in other context as well as for 'drawing" water out of a well....water doesn't have a choice to obey being "drawn'. Now, jesus did say "ALL that the FAther gives to me WILL come to me..." John 6:37....again. Their coming to Christ is the result of first having been giving. says that Fathers giving is based on the autonomy of the Creature which you must demonstrate.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned the burden of proof is also on you to demonstrate, then from this text that the fAther draws by the word (which I do not disagree with, but it is just not explicit in this text) and that God's decretive will can be disobeyed. That is, that God' s word may come back to him void contrary to Isaiah 55:11....
The parable is NOT the explanation of the John 6 text....stay in the text for proper exegesis and don't run to other text that are different topically.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Since the burden of proof is on me, I will get back to you shortly. In the mean time, I leave you with God's will: 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
God wants ALL of his creation to be saved...not just a portion. Lastly, water does not have a soul. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is a legit argument. Your argument is also legit (John 6:37).
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Before I reply more, I am in total agreement that God toyed with people so that they would DO certain things; such as the Pharaoh, King Saul, others, and more specifically, Judas. The Pharaoh wanted to let the children of Israel go, but God kept hardening his heart so that he wouldn't. God Chose the devil (Judas John 6:70) SO THAT he would betray Jesus, SO THAT Jesus would get to the cross. But in regards to SALVATION, that is man's choice based on FAITH, not the deeds of flesh.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned so curious, you believe that God can "toy with people" to DENY THEM SALVATION, but he cannot do anything to give salvation ??? For clarification, I do not agree that God "toys with" people. I do believe he ordains things and uses secondary causes such as a persons own depravity. But not "toys with'...
Curious, but where do you believe that faith is produced in man? Is it an act of his own will and flesh or is faith something that God grants to a person through the work of the Spirit?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword You are making an assumption that I stated that Jesus denied salvation. How do you know that the Pharaoh is NOT saved? King Saul went to be with Samuel in Abraham's bosom. And I don't know about Judas, as his body was possessed of the devil. I have heard from the Jehovah's Witnesses that they think that Adam is burning in Hell. Based on what? God covered their sins and they did sacrifices to God. I don't judge in that regard, when scripture clearly shows God toyed with them.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword God toyed with them to accomplish his will, but what does that have to do with salvation of God choosing who will go to hell?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Example of Adam: Revelation shows that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the Earth. That means that before Adam sinned, God knew it. How did he toy with Adam about it? He put a chocolate bar in the middle of his bedroom and told him not to eat it. Well, a tree in the Garden that looked wonderful to eat from. Would you do that to your children with a chocolate bar? How would scripture look then? Would Jesus need to die on the cross if ADAM could resist sin? No.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword In regards to the faith issue: Mark 4:40
And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? (NO fatih?) HOW????
Abraham believed God. It doesn't say that God made Abraham believe.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned I'm not arguing that God made Abraham believe.....I'm simply asking if the carnal and unregenerate man is able to produce saving faith of his own fallen, sinful, corrupted, idolatrous heart? Romans 8:7-8 says that the carnal mind is not able to please God.....is saving faith pleasing to God? if it isn't how is it that man is able to produce saving faith of his own fallen nature? Saving faith is a the product of a freed heart...a product of the new birth. And there is evidence for this
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword I have to first admit that I have not fully debated a Calvinist before, although I have debated an ex-Calvinist. With him, I have touched on those things which, to me, make sense. Such as Ephesians 1:4. To me, Ephesians 1:4 is discussing the ACTIONS of Christians as a whole, rather than choosing people individually. In other words, he for-ordained what a Christian is to do, which is obviously after salvation. This does not show that he chose me personally to be a Christian/Saved.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword I have also debated the ex-Calvinist in regards to every-time I hear him say, "God's gonna do what God's gonna do" phrase. I am like, did not Abraham talk to God? Did not Moses talk to God? Does not the Bible show that events can be changed? It makes no sense to me that God would choose who goes to Hell. That does not make God a just God. Which would make me say to my friend, then God has a lot of apologizing to do, as it was NOT the individuals fault that he is burning in hell.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Now, normally when I debate, I am well prepared with scripture to back myself up. I debate the Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Filipino church called Church of Christ in English), and others. I consider all of those OUTSIDE of Christianity. But I don't find Calvinism outside of Christianity. I just find Calvinism has some strange interpretations in choose/chosen/predestination and sovereignty of God, so I never pursued it.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned That's great, but this is still a red herring answer to the text that I have provided in support of my position.
I would also challenge your understanding of "strange interpretations" if they are "strange" based on your traditions or on the text itself. There are plenty of exegetical works down to the Greek, the grammar, the syntax, etc...that demonstrate the Reformed understanding of predestination is correct. have you ever interacted with those kinds of sources?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword And would you agree that the translations into English took into account exegetical grammar? I took English in school. I know sentence structure. I know what nouns, verbs, adjectives, antecedents, etc. are. I got good grades in English in school.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned thats great, but English is still not Koine Greek.....if you read Koine Greek, you will find that things are not ordered like they are in english and portraying certain tenses is sometimes difficult and translators have to do the best they can to convey that. NOw, based on your English skills, in I John 5:1 which event came first : the believing or the being born again?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword I think that the translators took those things into account, however. I use a concordance, too. KJV Bible with a Strong's. But I usually leave it up to the translators, and the linguists to determine the language laws in order for the translators to pen what they did pen.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned soooooooooooo.....I john 5:1.....which came first: the being born again or the belief? If i remember correctly, the "has been born again" is a perfect tense in the Greek and believing is present tense....is it not the case that the "has been born again" precedes and is the basis for "believing that Jesus is the Christ"?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Without getting into the English lessons, born again means that you once spiritually died. You died when you learned the law (Romans 7). This severed your relationship with God. Born again brings back the holy spirit in your body that it once was. It brings again that relationship that was once severed. Adams death date was when he ate of that tree, which gave him knowledge. It wasn't talking death of the body (1 Corinthians 15). Adam was going to die in the body anyway.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned yes i know what born again means....but what order does the text give to it here in regards to faith? Is the new birth before saving faith or does faith result in being born again?
no more red herrings......the answer is right on the text
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Faith is believing, is it not? Is believing a choice? Believing is what justified Abraham, and believing is equated to faith. Faith is (Hebrews 11:1) Sorry for red herrings, but I am being logical.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned we believe through choice, but choice itself is not belief. one is a means to the other. Red herrings are fallacies of ambiguity, which is hardly being logical at all. It is a tactic to avoid the argumentation that is being directed at you (I studied philosophy when i was in school).
So help me understand your view....since no one was born again in the old Testament, is it your position 1)that they were saved apart from being born again ?...........
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword1. I think you are misunderstanding my words. I did not say that no one was born again in the Old Testament. I said that they were not born again UNTIL Jesus died on the cross. I am going at this from memory of scriptures, rather than quoting you exact scripture in order for a quick response. Jesus took them with him to paradise. Born again meant to restore God with man, and that is what he did. He released the prisoners from Abraham's bosom.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned so just to be clear, did the holy Spirit have a role in producing faith in the saints of the Old Testament? Or did the Holy Spirit have no involvement in the salvation of anybody until the death of Christ as you suggest?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword I will say this. God's Word had the role. It is a choice to believe God's word. How does God work? Through the Holy Spirit. First God speaks, and it is up to you to believe what God speaks. God speaks though the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit is God. I don't quite get what you are getting at. No matter how you try to explain it, belief/faith came first.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned have you examined I John 5:1 at all? Cause you really do keep avoiding that text and the question i have been asking with that....
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Who was 1 John 5:1 to? Christians, right? When a baby is born in the flesh, he/she is also born of God. Then comes KNOWLEDGE of the law, and they are now dead in their trespasses. Born again is the process of being born of God....AGAIN.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned still avoiding the text....."anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...." Which came first: Faith or being born again?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword You keep avoiding mine. In order to be born of God...AGAIN, you must first be dead in your trespasses. You can't be dead in your trespasses unless you first have KNOWLEDGE of the law, therefore, you are born of God originally when you were conceived in the flesh. There is an order of events. Born again still means born of God, and the topic is Born Again.
chapmaned 8 months ago
Saved means that you are unsaved. You can only be unsaved sin is IMPUTED to you.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword In other words, Abraham sinned, but Abraham did not fall under the law. The law is a barrier to faith. This is why Christians do not fall under the law. It is not law plus faith. It is faith alone, without the law.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword See, the Catholics believe that babies go to hell, that they are unsaved. I show them Deuteronomy 1:39 to refute that.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword The order of events are 1. Alive, 2. Dead, 3. Alive AGAIN.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword At what point was Abraham dead in his trespasses? He wasn't.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Romans 1:17
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
The just shall live by faith is Old Test. First came faith, from Adam to Moses, then came law from Moses to Jesus, then from Jesus it is faith again. From Faith...to law...to faith. Faith to faith.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Adam was guilty of sin based on conscience, not the law of Moses, as the law did not exist. Adam felt guilt. Guilt convicted him of sin. That was conscience.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Can THE BOOK OF LIFE be modified by God?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Saved BY Grace THROUGH faith. It is by grace that we are saved, but before grace, we had to have faith, as it is THRU faith UNTO grace. Faith first, then comes the grace.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword I think it strange that you would believe that all of existence before Jesus came on the scene to give the gospel is burning in hell, that the only ones that can be saved are those from about 2000 years ago on.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned ummmmmmmm....I don't believe that at all....to the contrary, I believe that in the OT, the Holy Spirit was just as operative then as he was in the NT but his person and ministry was not as clearly revealed in the OT because the revelation of the son had not occurred either. In other words, in the OT, God was not clearly revealed as a Trinity;we only see dim hints at it. I do believe that people were saved before Christ actual sacrifice and on the same basis of Christ sacrifice to come
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword But you previously stated that those who haven't heard the gospel is burning in hell. How do you reconcile this, since those people never heard the gospel? How were those people "saved" as you put it, without HEARING the Gospel, as you condemn those who never heard the gospel to hell? You also indicated that these people are dead in there trespasses, therefore, their final judgment is indeed hell by that claim. Reconcile this please. Again, can the book of life be modified by God?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword So, only a few Jews got saved (as it was only the Jews that knew anything about God, and they were forbidden by law to mingle with the Gentiles), and everyone else is burning in hell, except those who heard the gospel from 2000 yrs ago on?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Remember now, that you had made it abundantly clear to me that I should completely understand that NO ONE, that is, NO ONE can be saved without hearing and believing the Gospel. And yet, SOME of those who never heard the Gospel ARE saved, based on ignorance of trinity? Did I get that right? It is shocking that it went from NO ONE, to SOME.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned my friend, the Gospel is in the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation....the Gospel is not something "new" that jesus did, its something that was promised in Genesis 3:15 that Jesus finally fulfilled. Adam and Eve heard the Gospel in seeing God slaughter an animal to clothe them....Abraham heard it and it was accounted to him as righteousness....it is in Joseph's life, In the Exodus, the prophets, you name it in the OT and Jesus is there....always has been.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword You are wrong to assert that I am making any assumptions about Calvinism in any regard. I was making notice of your own words, that NO ONE could be saved without hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and that those who didn't hear were damned. Therefore, as you put in your OWN words, there was NO gentile saved prior to Jesus commissioning his Apostles to spread the gospel, therefore, ONLY a few "SELECT" Jews got saved, and no one else. Am I right in that conclusion of your own words?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Again...Can the Book of LIFE Be Modified by God?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned God's eternal decrees cannot be modified cause that would mean that God's infinite and eternal wisdom was somehow flawed from all eternity, or that God changed, which he cannot change in his essential being at all. If Book of Life is those who have been elected from all eternity unto salvation, then no it cannot be modified. If it is understood as a cultural idiom for being alive as in the OT, then of course we percieve change but God's eternal decrees do not change.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword There is NO SUCH THING as God choosing whom he is going to send to hell. The book of life can indeed be modified, as he can BLOT OUT NAMES, and the Bible so states.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned Technically your right but Yahweh chose his adopted children or elect (both are in the Bible, free will isn't). In not choosing some He is rejecting others. Anyone who reads Romans 9, Eph. 1, John 6, on and on and on, and doesn't see that it is God who chooses just as he always has (Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul (against his own will even)) is willingly ignorant of God's nature set forth in his word
Ebeneezerable 7 months ago
@Ebeneezerable When I use "exegesis" I don't see what you see in Romans 9 or Ephesians 1, or John 6, or on and on. We do have free will to choose this day! God does choose the CLAY, which is the body, but the soul is a different story. Do you really believe that the Pharaoh is in hell? I am sure that God spared his soul from hell, as my God is a God of Mercy and Grace (Not the Grace that Calvinist's define).
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned you're clearly not exegeting the passage of Scripture in the original language or following the arguments at all. In John 6, Jesus has a clear mission from God the Father to "not lose any of those whom the Father has given"....the giving of the father is basis for the "coming to the Son" or believing. That is fairly straight forward. So in order to "come to Christ" you have to be first given to Christ by the Father....6:44 and 65 are clear that not all come because not all are given.
prchdaword 7 months ago
@prchdaword Oh, you are so wrong, because the translators already took care of that. Basically, you are saying that the translators did not. If the original language meant what you said, then different wording would have been used to make it abundantly clear your point of view. You have your talking points, and I have mine, which is 'CHOOSE THIS DAY', as well as Deuteronomy 1:39, which you skirt that issue, and Romans chapter 4 thru 7. Your exegesis is not the same as non-Calvinist exegesis.
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned If you dont see it u dont see it. I see your point and I know its the standard human emotional response. God is spirit not flesh like us. He doesnt think like us. Thats why we have His Word and His word uses terms like adoption and election to describe our (if we're born again) position. now if the orphan could adopt himself to a father and make him love him there wouldnt be any orphans. Likewise politicians dont elect themselves. The meaning of these words is clear. To me anyway.
Ebeneezerable 7 months ago
@Ebeneezerable Standard human emotional response? Tell me about Deuteronomy 1:39 and put it into "exegesis" on the SPIRITUAL interpretation. Does that show total depravity? Does that show original sin? Does that show any sign of the Calvinist interpretation of election? How about Romans Chapters 4-7, showing ALIVE first, then Death, rather than dead in sins first, then life after becoming a Christian. What is sin and is it possible for sin to NOT be IMPUTED to people? Emotional? Hmmm.
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned "The SPIRITUAL intepretation"???
prchdaword 7 months ago
@prchdaword Yes, the spiritual. Do you not know that the things written in the OT are shadows? What is the promised land CARNALLY? The physical land of Israel. What is the promised land SPIRITUALLY? What are the feasts of God CARNALLY? What are the FEASTS of God SPIRITUALLY? What is the TEMPLE of God, CARNALLY? What is the Temple of God, SPIRITUALLY? What is circumcision CARNALLY? What is circumcision SPIRITUALLY? What is Noah's Ark Carnally, What is Noahs Ark Spiritually? Etc., Etc.
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned I think you are misunderstanding how that works....not everything is a "shadow" or "type". The only things that are considered those are those that are designated as such by the NT. historically speaking the "spiritual" interpretation is considered an allegorization which is an interpretation that is not governed by the text itself giving free reign to the interpreter to assign meaning as he/she wills which is obviously dangerous. Do you mean what are the fulfillment of those?
prchdaword 7 months ago
@prchdaword I've never seen the word allegory, or any "type" word in the Bible. But I have seen the word "spiritual". For example, the story of Noah's Ark, spiritually speaking, is about the RAPTURE. The FEAST OF PASSOVER is about the Death of Jesus, not about a feast of food and drink. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life. How quickly you dismiss the spiritual, just to be focused on the carnal. Therefore, I ask again, what is the spiritual land of promise?
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned I hate to say it but that is precisely why you have no business in this conversation. Romans 5:14 states that Adam was a "type" of Christ because just as Adam's sin represent more than just Adam, even so Christ's righteousness represented more than must righteousness for Christ. Hebrews is also very saturated with "shadows" (Heb. 8:5; 10:1). Noah's Ark is not about the Rapture, but about Christ and all who are "in Christ" will be saved. you're method is scripture twisting.
prchdaword 7 months ago
@prchdaword My Bible doesn't use the word TYPE. However, I've every business in this conversation, as I read the Bible for SPIRITUAL food, not that of CARNAL food. In other words, I don't just look to the Old Testament as a history book. I look to the spiritual meanings. Here is a mystery. God said that he writes the END from the beginning. The future was written in Genesis. Noah's Ark IS INDEED about the Rapture. The souls of the righteous will be above the earth, destruction beneath.
chapmaned 7 months ago
@prchdaword I feel sorry for "religions" such as yours that dismiss spiritual meanings of things. You don't search the treasures. You make it sound as though every prophesy as come to pass from the Old Testament. The FEASTS of God have a prophetic meaning. Somehow you don't see that, except for maybe the Passover, and maybe Pentecost. There are more FEASTS that have prophetic meanings. You don't look into those things, however. I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge.
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned my friend, we don't reject anything....we just govern our understandings by Scripture. I don't have a problem believing that the feasts and festivals all pointed to a greater reality but I acknowledge that the greater reality of all those was is and always will be the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews is very clear that all the things of Judaism were but shadows and the reality is in Christ. Colossians 2 makes the same argument my friend. I don't feel sorry for that at all.
prchdaword 7 months ago
@prchdaword So again, I ask, what is the spiritual land of promise? Do you refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing?
chapmaned 7 months ago
@chapmaned the land of promise is the whole earth, the recreated earth. "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the EARTH"..the land of Israel is but a small SHADOW the true and fuller sense of the promise. But I dont need a "spiritual" sense but only to look to Scripture to interpret that correctly....in other words, my interpretation is guided by Scripture, not by a "allegorizing" that can be used without restraint to make any words of thing into anything then there is no "interpretation"
prchdaword 7 months ago
@chapmaned the fallacy you are making is thinking that I believed no one before Jesus was saved (which you can read my comments and I never state that at all, which is your false conclusion, not my belief). Secondly, you err in thinking that Jesus and the Gospel is not in the OT . Its all there....Jesus, for all practical purposes, was not a "surprise"....John 5:29 and Luke 24:27 demonstrate that Jesus is in ALL of Scripture. instead of jumping to conclusions...ask me what I believe next time
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned But then again, that is the fundamental problem with Monica Dennington, and now with you, as you have just demonstrated. You willfully, maliciously and pridefully choose to misrepresent by jumping to your own conclusions about what you think Reformed theology believes and teaches rather than seek clarification or actually do some studying.....THAT is the major fallacy in this whole conversation my friend.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword The law is the knowledge of sin.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned 2) that there are two plans of salvation: one in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament? 3) that fallen men are able to produce that which is pleasing to God contrary to Romans 8:7-8?
As a further question, what purpose does the new birth play for salvation if it was entirely possible to be saved and have faith apart from it?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword 2. The only way that I can answer this is to bring in other scripture. What is sin? 1 John 3:4 (Transgression of the law). Who is accountable to the Law? Those who know it. For before the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed (COUNTED) where there is no law (Romans). The only way that a person could die spiritually is KNOWLEDGE (Romans 7) of the law. Paul said that before the law, he was alive. When he knew it, he died. Gentiles don't have the law, but they do sin.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword So which came first, Abraham believing, or his justification?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword All the prophets of the Old Test had faith, but NO ONE was saved/Born again until AFTER Jesus died on the cross. Their faith came before their salvation. Those old time prophets waited for their salvation. Their faith came first.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword In addition, Romans chapter 2 describes those things that pertain to the ignorant about Jesus/God. God gave us a conscience, and it is the conscience that judges for those who are not under the law, who know not the law. They didn't have faith in anything, except their own conscience. Therefore, those primitive tribes in jungles that walk around naked with spears who never heard of Jesus, born again, etc, are saved, or not saved, based on their conscience.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned I would also challenge your understanding of romans 2....these are not "saved" at all by their conscience. This would mean that salvation is possible apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Scripture is clear that one must believe in the Gospel to be saved and faith comes by hearing. Rather, Romans 2 demonstrates the sufficiency of the conscience as knowledge of the law of God already in them and its sufficiency to condemn them apart from the law that israel had been given fully
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword 3. 3. Are you making the argument that those naked tribes with spears go to hell automatically if someone did not preach to them the Gospel?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned yes, I am clearly making that argument that those who do not hear and believe the Gospel are damned. Romans 2 is clear that their own heart has enough of a conscience inthem to condemn them. Further, in Romans 3:10-18 ALL are guilty of sin, all are corrupt, they are idolatrous, etc....there are no "innocent natives" who are just "dying to be saved in God's way"...rather, they are corrupted in their own religions. See Eph. 2:1-3 and how it describes Gentiles in darkness.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Well, I hold the EXACT opposite position. Your version of Romans 2 deletes the word excuse. All are guilty of sin, as you say with Romans 3. BUT, SIN IS NOT IMPUTED where there is no law. For before the law (Moses) Sin was in the world, but sin is NOT imputed (COUNTED) where there is no law.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned Romans 2:12 "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." How does "my version" delete the word "excuse" if I have not even exegeted the passage for you? "There is NO EXCUSE...." and Romans 2 goes on to demonstrate that - law or no law - all are guilty before God. Paul's argument peaks in Romans 3:10-18....
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword You didn't read the whole thing. Emphasis on verse 14. But continue to 16.
chapmaned 8 months ago
in Romans 5:14, v12-13 show that since all died all were clearly guilty of sin . "death spread to all men BECAUSE ALL SINNED"...the sin 'in the likeness of Adam" is a sin against a clearly revealed word/law of God....not all sinned in such a way after Adam or even after Moses because God's law/will was only revealed ot certain people, namely the people of Israel. ALL ARE UNDER DEATH THEREFORE ALL ARE UNDER SIN...even the "naked tribe" who hasn't heard the gospel my friend.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned There is nothing at all in Scripture that you will find that a person can be saved through keeping the law, even the law of their own conscience. There is no place in Scripture that will support any notion of being saved apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And there is no place in Scripture that you will find to suppoprt any sort of "post mortem evangelism" teaching to say that a person can choose Christ after death. They get this one life and then judgment (heb 9:27)
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword That is absolutely right...no one can keep the law. But in the case of Romans 2, God gave everyone a conscience, but he didn't give everyone the law. What these people do with their conscience is what judges them. If they steal, what did they do about it? Etc. God judges them based on their conscience, not the law. They are judged without the law.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned can a person be saved by following their conscience?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned ....those tribes that have not heard are not Innocent or "neutral' in any respects my friend. They are dead in trespasses and sin, they are corrupt, they are in darkness, they are rebellious and idolatrous even as we were before Christ. The wages of sin is death as Scripture clearly teaches. Why do you think it is IMPERATIVE that we do missions? That we reach as many as we can with the Gospel? We cannot be lax about that AT ALL! It is our COMMISSION from Christ himself
prchdaword 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prchdaword The only way that sin is IMPUTED are when you are UNDER THE LAW. They are not under the law.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword Faith comes by hearing WHAT? The Word of God. Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is not the word of God?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned not sure how you arrived at thinking that I don't believe that the OT is not the word of God....rather, I believe that we believe the word of God because of hte work of the Holy Spirit of God to enable us to believe it. In our fallen nature, we are dead in our trespasses and sins and we need to be born again in order to believe it. hence, regeneration PRECEDES faith as I John 5:1 clearly teaches.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Dead in your trespasses means that you fall under the law. Sin is only imputed to you when you are under the law.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned ok, so help me understand your position....so you're saying that the ones who have never heard the law of God are not sinners? Are they righteous?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Abraham heard the word of God, literally, and he believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. The belief came first.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned Thats not even in question that faith precedes justificaiton......but going back to I John 5:1.....which one comes first? Faith/Belief or the being born again?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword I keep answering this with the example of Hebrews 11. Faith came first. The Old Test followers of God had faith before being born again. What is justification?
chapmaned 8 months ago
YOu said: "Before I reply more, I am in total agreement that God toyed with people so that they would DO certain things; such as the Pharaoh, King Saul, others, and more specifically, Judas. The Pharaoh wanted to let the children of Israel go, but God kept hardening his heart so that he wouldn't. God Chose the devil (Judas John 6:70)"
now, when God "toyed" with these people....were they things they did sin?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword My example of Adam, would Adam had sinned if that candy bar wasn't there? Which came first, the candy bar, or Adam? Which came even before that? Adam or the fact that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth? Jesus wouldn't die on a cross if Adam didn't sin. Adam had to sin. God uses the devil for his purpose. Look at Job.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned So you would say that God had planned for the sin to occur but he was able to use it for his own purposes unto salvation and even damnation? For if sin had not occurred there would be no hell, no judgment, and no lost souls right?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword All I would say to this, is to understand everything about Adam, and Romans chapter 7. Hell was created long before man's sin. As I see it, earth is a testing ground for us to choose this day whom serve.
chapmaned 8 months ago
hope that last part didn't come of too strong....my point is simply what is your objection based on? Is it really based on ALL OF SCRIPTURE or merely selected portions of Scripture? Most of my experiences, this one included, people who argue against Reformed theology do not actually understand it and hence they engage in caricatures against it, Monica Dennington is a prime example of that. If you see all my video responses to her, I am offering her correction in this.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Well, Monica deserved rebuke, as she is a teacher. And she is way off base to basic Christianity. In any case, I love research. I love to especially research things that SEEM to be contradictions, but are not. The deductions are sometimes hard to see right away, so one verse here and there is not enough. Researching takes time. Some of us don't "willfully" choose to misinterpret. But yes, I can't see a God that "willfully" created those who he determined ahead of time to burn.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned God's people should be people of truth should they not? So it bothers me when Christian willfully choose to misrepresent their so called brothers or sisters, or even when we are not considered brothers and sister in the Lord by some, the fact remains that they are willfully choosing ignorance and to lie to their own audience. Is God glofiried by that? Is it not rather the person seeking glory when they are able to destroy their own strawman argument?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned ...1 John 5:1 is clear that the one who is believing (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (past tense).....grammatically undeniable is that the "being born of God" PRECEDES the "believing that jesus is the Christ" which is the saving confession of the church (Matt 16...Peter's confession).
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned ....but still you have not answered how it is that you believe that God can "toy with" people in regards to their damnation but will not assist any in their belief? I find that terribly inconsistent on your part
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Now, I love debates, and in this case, not out of contention. But I would like the opportunity to have you present your case, so that I may fully search the scriptures to see if those things are so. I understand, however, that Calvinists give a different definition to the word ALL. I posted on another YouTube site a comment that if I am a robber, and I say give me all your money, I certainly don't mean 75% of it, and that I would shoot you for the remaining 25%, equaling all.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@prchdaword To answer one of your questions, again, I never said that God toys with people for damnation. He toys with people to have them do certain things for which he planned. Damnation/Salvation had nothing to do with it. But in order for scripture to be true, that Jesus is the lamb slain from before Adam, then Adam had to sin. That isn't damnation.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned So when Scripture describes Judas as "the son of perdition" God didn't know from all eternity that Judas was going perish as a result of God's "toying"?
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword Now, when you say perish, are you discussing dying, or judgment?
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned I think the Scripture will allow for both understandings in the case of Pharaoh and Judas...each died they way they did because they were under God's judgment
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword death of the body does not prove damnation. God has MERCY on those that he blinded. God blinded the Jews. Moses even said so, that God hasn't given them a mind that understands...TO THIS DAY.
chapmaned 8 months ago
@chapmaned granted....but then the burden of proof remains to prove that those who die in their sins are NOT eternally damned.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@chapmaned ...the ones that we feel make "more responsible". Calvinism does not deny human responsibility but it does not base it on the unbiblical teaching of human autonomy. As sure as this is God's world and we are his creatures, we are never free from our Creator. This video is a response to Ms Dennington's inconsistency to say she wants to uphold all SCripture but when her claims are examined she really doesn't...in fact she rejects clear teachings from it. Hope that helps.
prchdaword 8 months ago
@prchdaword On the contrary. God gave us a soul, which means that we have human autonomy. Choose this day whom ye will serve. That is a human choice. If what Calvinism states is true, then there is no need to pray, as it wouldn't do any good, as God has already determined the outcome, and therefore you are wasting your time in praying. Didn't you know that events can be changed by praying? God can be negotiated with. Abraham did it! Moses did it! Predestination? Can't buy into it. Sorry.
chapmaned 8 months ago
She is saying that only she can argue and no one can argue back because her argument is extremely weak. When you make ridiculous claims that are not supported by scripture you dont want to be called on it so you argue while not allowing anyone else to argue back and if they do you block them (ignore them).
Ebeneezerable 8 months ago
@Ebeneezerable yup!!!!
prchdaword 8 months ago
@droptozro what do you mean by "auto-forgiven"? As in Calvinist believe that life can be lived out anyway we please and we are going to be forgiven anyways? That is not Calvinism at all if you think that....
Calvinist do believe in a life of ongoing repentance and constantly asking God for forgiveness for any and all sin that God does and will continue to reveal to the believer. The faith that justifiies is not a one time faith but a continuing and abiding faith; a living faith that is always..
prchdaword 9 months ago
@prchdaword
It means Calvinists believe all future sins are pre-forgiven, from Calvary for every elect person by God. There isn't one place that says future sins in the believers time frame are already forgiven. I didn't say you believed they could live however they please, but in your perspective a truly elect Christian could live righteously all through their life and then commit heinous sins at the end of their life and they will still inherit heaven. This goes against Ezekiel 18
droptozro 9 months ago
TicToc ministries and Monica Dennington are a cult in the making. She teaches that the Holy Spirit is female and after I replied to somoeone who commented on one of her vid's stating she should stay away from her channel I recived serveral emails from Monica asking if I was a pastor or prophet and where I lived I then got a scathing letter from Gary Dennington her husband. He said after viewing my channel that I held to the homosexual model of the pastor, being male, and also hated women.
GreggDuncanMcLean1 9 months ago
Thank you soooooooooooooo much for posting this video it is very comforting to know that there are others in the world who are standing against deceipt teaching! GOD BLESS!
ul2356 9 months ago
@ul2356 glad that you were blessed =)
prchdaword 9 months ago
very good response bro
semajgnik 9 months ago
I am no calvinist but I find Dennington's arrogance completely contemptible.
what she wants is a church unified around everything that she agrees with, but only what she agrees with.
she will deny this but that is the real outcome.
no one is so spiritual as to have sound doctrine alone ; so we all overlay the pure gospel. so calvinists are as christian as the rest of us are, if they have core doctrine, which they do
Strefanasha 10 months ago
@Strefanasha "calvinists are as christian as the rest of us are, if they have core doctrine, which they do"
No. They use the same terms, but like all cults, they pour completely different meanings into them. Their doctrines of Justification, Sanctification, Election, Predestination, Grace, Free Will, Sovereignty, etc, & God's nature & attributes are all different from orthodox Christianity - their gospel is totally different & their "Limited" pillar blasphemes God's nature. It's a heresy.
JackMWolfe 10 months ago
This is a good refutation of Monica Dennington. Keep up the good work!
nextluther12 10 months ago
Comment removed
JackMWolfe 10 months ago
Comment removed
JackMWolfe 10 months ago
@nextluther Monica's only mistake was using 1Cor1:10 - it's inadequate. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians not to divide over one ORTHODOX teacher vs another - it doesn't apply to a heretical belief like Calvinism. There can be no genuine fellowship between the A's & C's, they're completely irreconcilable belief systems with different gospels, different Gods, & a different Savior. Merely charging Calvinists with being divisive is like only arresting a murderer for discharging a gun in the city
JackMWolfe 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calvinists worship the devil.
If you are not Christian then you are of the devil.
you say you are a Christian ? Oh really why do you call yourself Calvinist ?
wellsbranchdude 11 months ago
Wow- this is bonkers. Look at how the body is acting...
This is division. I understand where everyone here is coming from, defending their points of view.
Question to Armenians: Just ask as you argue; is it for the purpose of edification? Or sheer strife?
Calvinist: Is it possible that in God's sovereign will He ALLOWED man to chose Him? I mean, of course the work of grace belongs to God alone; but is it possible that He simply allowed man to have a choice? Hence "in our own image..."?
IDK
RyouNtheFaith 11 months ago
@RyouNtheFaith Calvinism is heresy & is long overdue to be labeled as such by mainstream Christians. It has a different gospel than the bible's (Repent, for Christ MIGHT have died for you) & blasphemes God by claiming he creates helpless people, without recourse, for the sole purpose of casting them into hell in order to glofify himself. These doctrines can't be reconciled with the bible - Christians are under an obligation to oppose heresy not to tolerate it for the sake of a false "unity"
JackMWolfe 11 months ago
@JackMWolfe
I do not disagree with you that Calvinism must be put away with. That wasn't my question. My question was directed to EACH individual as they get involved in this argument: are you doing it for strife with out even CONSIDERING where the other is coming from (because it is IMPORTANT to understand how one thinks before you try to change their mind) or are you doing it TRULY in the name of edification?
Vain strife is stupid. Edification is mandated.
RyouNtheFaith 11 months ago
@JackMWolfe
Also: even if God DID create some to be "helpless and without recourse" for the sole purpose of casting them to hell: GLORY TO HIS NAME. Because His word is true and we have all fallen short of His glory. Who would WE be to question His standing? Again: I don't AGREE with Calvinism, but even if it were true- He can do whatever He wants: He is GOD. And it would be an act of mercy to save ANY.
RyouNtheFaith 11 months ago
@RyouNtheFaith "even if God DID create some to be "helpless & without recourse" for the sole purpose of casting them to hell: GLORY TO HIS NAME. Because His word is true & we have all fallen short of His glory. Who would WE be to question His standing? Again: I don't AGREE with Calvinism"
If you profess such unbiblical garbage then you ARE a Calvinist whether you know it or not. God's nature is love - it's against His nature to create helpless people only to destroy them in hell. Wake up.
JackMWolfe 11 months ago
@JackMWolfe
No sir, I'd like you to wake up, because you're dividing where division isn't needed. You must have decided not to hear the part where I agreed with you. I simply said whatever God decides to do should be glorified because of WHO HE IS. If you don't agree with that, you don't have to worry about being Calvinist: you wouldn't even be Christian. God's nature is love? God's nature is HOLY- and all else stems from that. Why? Because he needed PAYMENT for sin, He didn't just forgive.
RyouNtheFaith 11 months ago
@RyouNtheFaith Again, if you think there's no reason to divide over Calvinism then you're ignorant of the issues involved. They're completely opposite belief systems that can't be reconciled with each other & no genuine fellowship can possibly exist between the 2 camps. CBAllen, the reprobate who just interrupted, is a perfect example - his apostasy has reached the point of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. He says that anyone who claims that Christ loved & died for all men is speaking by a demon.
JackMWolfe 11 months ago
@JackMWolfe
So, my friend- I am very staunchly stating I disagree with Calvinism, but if it were so, GLORY TO GOD for WHATEVER He wants to do.
RyouNtheFaith 11 months ago
@RyouNtheFaith Jack here is an Open Theist,they deny God being all powerful and all knowing.They teach that God is purely reactionary,that He must wait and see what man will do so he will know how to react to the situation.Open Theism is purely man centered,they teach that God exists to glorify men and not Himself.
CBALLEN 11 months ago
crap
Yusha1965 1 year ago
@prchdaword... the Scriptures teach Conditional Eternal Security because Free Will exists! In Philemon 1:24 and Col.4:14, Demas is described as being a co-worker of Paul. But in 2 Tim.4:10, Paul says that he "has deserted me." The reason- "Because he loved this world". In Rom.11:22...continue in His kindness otherwise, you TOO WILL BE cut-off." And in John 15, Jesus said, "I am the True Vine... EVERY branch IN ME that does NOT bear fruit HE CUTS AWAY... he is THROWN AWAY...gathered and Burned."
apollos6640 1 year ago
@apollos6640 ever considered that his conversion was false if htat is what the Scriptures were teaching? That Dimas heart was of that soil that showed some growth but when hard times came or the love of the world it choked out the seed? Every considered that those who left the church were never truly of us (I john 2:18)?
A very viable option.....
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword
1 John 2:18 is about Gnostic teachers/believers, so yes of course---they had the wrong "Jesus" from the beginning... so of course they were never saved to begin with, they thought Jesus didn't come in the flesh.
Either way---the choked out seed still says they believed--just like those who continue until the end. They received the same salvation--some just fell away.
Monica is a false teacher--but Calvinism is also a heresy in it's own.
droptozro 9 months ago
@droptozro well historically, the theology of the Gnostics wasn't fully developed yet, so John may have had these proto-Gnostics in mind, but by the time you get to 1 John 4, it is clear that ANY who deny Jesus' divinity are "anti-christ". In a broader application, any false teacher that teaches a false gospel based on a false jesus is "anti Christ"; this is not a wrong application of the text at all.
What exactly about Calvinism is not in Scripture that you deem as heresy?
prchdaword 9 months ago
@prchdaword
Well it would be an applicable option in another theology, but in Calvinism it's the only option--according to a 5 pointer, you're either saved and sealed into eternity without a chance of falling away, or you were never saved to begin with.
I still addressed a huge issue, the parable of the sower says the latter 3 all received the Word(seed) and 2 types fell away.. that's not possible in Calvinism.
"Future" sins being auto-forgiven is heresy also, that's not in Scripture.
droptozro 9 months ago
@droptozro Why is it not possible in Calvinism to experience a false conversion? Could it be that you are reading "regeneration" into "recieving the word" when it doesn't necessarily mean that? Calvinist do believe that people experience a "conversion" that is without saving faith and repentance. Isn't Judas the prime example of that? He followed the Lord jesus yet with an evil and greedy heart looking only for what money he could gain? Calvinist do believe in the parable of the sower...
prchdaword 9 months ago
@prchdaword
I didn't say it wasn't possible to experience a false conversion---that falls into the second category(never saved to begin with). There is no true "falling away" in Calvinism and not inheriting the Kingdom--because you would view that as a failure by God's sovereign will.
There are double-examples of both sides in Scriptures--Peter/Judas, David/Saul---both fell away, one repented from godly sorrow and one didn't.
droptozro 9 months ago
@droptozro looking to Jesus Christ, and his work alone, for salvation.
I'm a full 5 pointer, but I'm not sure where you are getting that Calvinist believe the way that you describe here....I have read and continue to read many Reformed works on salvation and the Christian life and have yet to read a Calvinist who believes anything described here. Perhaps you could point me to the source that you used to find out what Calvinist believe? That might be helpful in clarifying these misconceptions.
prchdaword 9 months ago
@prchdaword
I don't think we have misconceptions, I think you're just mis-understanding my claims. I trust Christ's work for salvation too--for faith in the grace offered is what God gave as salvation, but I don't believe future sins are already forgiven irregardless of my actions. This is not in the Bible--anywhere, but 2 Peter 1:9 mentions "past sins" have been wiped out. The Christian is not under the law, but if they fulfill the lusts of the flesh they won't inherit the Kingdom.
droptozro 9 months ago
@droptozro so help me to understand your position, you believe that Christ only atoned for our past sins?
prchdaword 9 months ago
@prchdaword
Yes..don't mis-understand me and think that if you sin after conversion you cannot be forgiven. 1 John teaches if you confess your sins He is faithful and just to forgive, and 1 John 2 also mentions how Jesus is our advocate if we sin. This is a part of abiding in Christ, as one MUST abide in Him in order to live holy and bear proper fruit. If we aren't abiding, we sin and can fall away to death. 1 Cor 6:9-10 are sins, warning that Christians can die if they continue in also.
droptozro 9 months ago
@droptozro But isn't this exactly what I said above about a living and abiding faith that is lived in a life of constant repentance, and constantly asking for forgiveness?
prchdaword 9 months ago