I believe if you had a site that was declaring Christ instead of defending Calvin you and I would be fellowshipping around the common salvation (Jude 1:3) we share in Jesus Christ the Lord. It's a shame that brethren spend time biting and devouring one another while the world perishes. No doubt Satan delights in these things. I'll trouble you no more and hope you will see what God has shown me about the need to have my focus on the gospel and it's declaration to lost men. See you at his throne.
Since you can't answer the truth you accuse me of pride. Where is the pride in knowing I wilfully hated and rejected the one who shed his precious blood to wash away my sins? Shall I boast of my shame my guilt or my hardness of heart? If you are truly born again you know this is not the case. Every time I look at what I am and what Jesus has done for me I am reduced to tears of gratitude and thankfulness. Faith is not works, I didn't receive Christ by works but by the hearing of faith. (Gal 3:2)
@DefendingCalvinism I have a number of post but forgot you can't see them unless addressed to you. Sorry about that. I will wait till you say your piece before I respond, just follow the thread and I"ll get back to you when you finish unless you indicate otherwise.
cont: Calvin offers no assurance of eternal life, for the historic understanding of his doctrine let's look to Thomas Manton, Puritan Divine 1620-1677 “I cannot say infallibly you shall have grace; but I can say to everyone, let him use the the means, and leave the success of his labor and his salvation to the good pleasure of God. I cannot say this infallibly, for there is no obligation upon God... hope for the best.” Weren't things written so you'd KNOW you have eternal life in I Jn 5:13?
cont: Calvin gives no certainty of salvation in this life, like Armenius he added the need to endure to the end. To quote Augustine on it “Therefore it is uncertain if any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. But how should he who has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that anyone shows himself persevering, and this he has not done.”
There are two J C's, John Calvin and Jesus Christ. Had you been content with the plain words of the Lord of glory John Calvin would have been nothing more than an "old dead dude" to you. Instead, you have allowed this protestant pope to dictate your beliefs to you. Man is saved by grace through faith. Grace is the gift of God not faith. (Eph 3:7) All who believe are kept by the power of God, through faith and shall never perish. Predestination is to the image of Christ never to salvation.
cont: In a tract bearing the Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York entitled “Heaven Opened by the Practice of the Three Hail Mary's” We find the following words.“One of the greatest means of salvation and one of the surest signs of predestination is unquestionably the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. All the holy doctors of the Church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus of Liguori; 'A devout servant of Mary shall never perish...” Need I go on? There's more.
The MOTHER OF HARLOTS? She has children, among them the reformers none of whom rejected their Catholic baptism. Rome didn't anthemize Augustine's election until the Council of Trent (1563) and then only in reaction to the reformers embrace of it. As all should well know the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church are considered as equal to the word of God in the view of the Catholic faithful. You can not separate Catholic doctrine from Augustine, he developed the foundational teachings.
John Calvin's religious life was rooted in Roman Catholic theology. Consequently his religious background tainted his conclusions. John Calvin, though estranged from the Mother of Harlots, never fully escaped her grip. It is certain that his high regard for Augustine and reliance upon his writings influenced Calvin's theology. The liturgical doctrines that he formulated did not come from a converted heart, they were appropriated from historic Catholic teachings developed by Augustine.
cont. Calvin says Augustine was the first to hold the doctrine he adopted. Calvinist Dr. B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) wrote “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” He also adds that Augustine was in reality “...the founder of Roman Catholicism.” see Calvin and Augustine, edited by S. G. Craig 1980, (pgs. 22 & 313). The 2 big C's, Calvin and Catholicism, have a common doctrinal source. And he got his doctrine from Plato.
cont. Calvin's own words prove your attempted deception of the gullible. "Moreover all of the Greek Fathers, above others, will, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings."(Institutes of the Christian Religion Book I Ch II -IV) In other words you lied. Augustine corrupted the true doctrine.
In your self serving quotes of Ignatius how did you miss Ch. 4 of his letter to the Ehesians? "Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son." This is clearly referring to James 2:17-26, tsk, tsk, you bad boy.
... going on in my head were not my thoughts. The thoughts in my head brought me to the conclusion of a rather mundane decision. Whose thoughts were they if they weren't mine? If God was utilizing His absolute sovereignty and controlling my decision on which dvd to buy, then the thoughts in my head are inevitably God's thoughts. That would mean that I am not an individual human being who has his own thoughts and emotions. I am God. According to Calvinism. He thinks; therefore I am.
If Calvinism is correct, then I am God. If He controls everything that humanity does, and if free will is just a myth, then I am not me, an individual human being with a soul. I want to go out to buy a dvd. I have to decide where to go and which movie to buy and how much I'm willing to spend. There's a whole thought process. My thoughts dictate what I am ultimately going to do. Now, if I have no free will, then I did not reach this decision on which dvd to buy. The thoughts that were ...
Your god is not sovereign... the Calvinist god is worse than satan. Satan was right in the garden if the Calvinist god were true, but praise the TRUE GOD and LORD Jesus Christ your god is false.
Your idolatry is calling a man made false theological system the gospel--that's wicked. Never would I dare call my Lord's Gospel that of a man's doctrine even if the man had it correct.
So then you are in charge of your destiny? Is that how your god is sovereign? I don't need to repent for worshiping the sovereign God. Calvinism is not a man made doctrine. It is the doctrine of salvation outlined in the bible. Whatever it is that you believe was at one time given a structure by someone, so don't get all righteous on me.
"Calvinism is not a man made doctrine"---find me the word "Calvinism" in the Bible. How are you so blind to your idolatry?
There's no salvation in Calvinism, it's likened to the Pharisees who called themselves Abraham's descendants and thought themselves saved because of that--you're no different, you think yourself elect from the foundation of the world and unable to be lost.
I'm a sinner who submitted to the true Lord's Gospel become saint, you're a pawn of a false system.
If you don't hold to Calvinistic doctrine, then you identify with Arminianism. There aren't many other doctrines of salvation. Like I said before these are man's interpretation of what the bible teaches.If I believe I'm elect from the foundation of the world it is because that is what the bible teaches. Read Ephesians. If anyone comes to Christ it is because God planned it that way. I commend you for being called out of atheism, you just need to do a bit more study.
Nope, I don't follow Arminians. They've got more correct than Calvinism---that's right, but they've got wrong doctrinal issues too they've made up to circumvent inconsistencies. Calvinism is full of extra-biblical trash, but so is Arminianism.
"I'm elect from foundation of the world...bible teaches. Read Ephesians"
Actually I think you should read Ephesians 1, because you have no idea what it's talking about.
You sound a bit confused. You reject Calvinism and Arminianism. Maybe you could explain how you think your salvation came about. Either God chose you and saved you(Calvinism), or you saved yourself and chose God(Arminianism). I've been a faithful Christian for twice as long as you've been alive, so don't be too sure you can teach me anything new.
Oh ultimately God chose us, because I submitted to His call. It's not like I came to Him and said "I choose you." God didn't have to do anything, yet He sent His Son to die for us... He ultimately made the choice, we submit.
Oh your age means nothing, Jesus was teaching the spiritual leaders at 12 years old... and don't twist that to say I'm claiming I am Him, but it's clear from Scripture that those who are obeying God are the truly wise, most Calvinists continue in sin.
God chose you BECAUSE you submitted to His call? So really God was held captive to your choice. You are more Arminian than you confess. As far as age goes I don't imply that age is everything, but it certainly counts for something, as seen in the appointment of elders which is self explanatory. The fact that Jesus taught as a 12 years old hardly counts as He is God and you're not.
Man you guys know how to twist words up as if God had to die for me or something...or anyone for that matter. In your view, God chose God. Hmmm...there's no glory in that. Anyways, side issue.
Oh I agree speaking about eldership also, but the point was--you can still be taught something. It wasn't long ago I learned where we go when we die... you didn't answer that question by the way.
This is not a side issue. This goes to the heart of the matter. God was not obliged to die for anyone. He chose to die in order to redeem his church. You think you can straddle the issue. Either God saved you with sovereign grace or you think you made the choice on your own. You haven't answered this basic question.
"Either God saved you with sovereign grace or you think you made the choice on your own. You haven't answered this basic question."
This is an illogical question, even for your theology. If you believe God controls all---even my thoughts, then I can't even "think I made the choice on my own." That alone proves I have autonomy to submit or to reject. You're speaking against your own view by asking this question. Does God decree all or not? Which is it?
Obviously I believe that God controls the outcome. I only ask the question to see if you will answer the question, which you seem to not be willing to do.
How can I answer the question? answering it only proves your theology wrong. I submitted to Christ by seeking Him out in repentance, the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and my condition deserving of hell and the wrath of God. Of course that's looking back knowing what I know now to explain the process, only then did I know I saw the truth in Him and it set me free.
"...God controls the outcome"
That's not what Calvinism teaches, it's all or nothing--do you know your beliefs?
I see where you are going here. You submitted, you sought God, you, you, you. By controlling the outcome I mean God plans the outcome which all Calvinists believe. He planned to save you if you are indeed saved, and he caused you to reject atheism, which you would not have been able to do on your own. I believe it was all controlled by God where you seem to imply that you co-operated with God in your salvation.
In your view, God saved God. There's no getting around that, so of course I reject it. It contradicts multiple Scriptures--just for example, what do you do with the Gentile woman in Matt 15:21-28... Jesus answered not at all first, rejected her twice, claiming He was not seeking her--and then marveled at her faith and gave her-her desire. And you think she had nothing to do with that? It was all God? So God made her do that to Jesus? Or did she seek and find?
Lol... "gentile woman...elect.. God...drew her irresistibly to Jesus.. her choice wasn't a factor" ---what a bunch of unbiblical jargon. Man, you really are deceived. None of that is anywhere in the passage, yet you just added it all there to make it fit your theology---so insane, you really don't believe the Bible.
"your claim of God saving God makes no sense"--EXACTLY! Now you realize it...
God made you, which He controls your actions(He's the puppeteer) and saved Himself.
You don't believe saved Gentiles are elect? Both Jews and Gentile are elect members of the kingdom of God. If not you have two classes of saved. This isn't what Paul taught. Just because we are elect doesn't mean we didn't need to be regenerated. We all are born in sin and separated from God. God chooses to save His church. Your God saves God argument is nonsense.
I never said Gentiles or Jews weren't elect--you are redefining the word "elect." It does not mean our modern day definition, define it biblically--I already gave you the explanation in an earlier comment.
"We are all born in sin and separated from God"
That logically means we're all born spiritually dead, you take an exaggeratory Psalm and make it doctrine.
What do you do with TEACHING from Jesus? the parable of prodigal son--go read it, the son was alive, then left the father..
@MrWinknod ...the father, its says he died(spiritually) and then was "alive again." Verbatim words used, alive again implies clearly he was alive BEFORE. Not possible in your unbiblical doctrine.
What about Romans 7? Paul's explaining his coming to the law--verse 9 he clearly states that he was "alive once without the law"(spiritually). That's NOT possible in Calvinism.. you're taking proof-texts and making them doctrine and ignoring teaching from Paul and Jesus.
Romans 9:16, So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans8:28-30, called, foreknew, predestined, conformed, justified, glorified.
Please don't try to say this is for nations, or that it only applies to Jews. Paul shows it's for all Christians in Romans 9:24. If you actually think that God is not in complete control of everything, and that He leaves anything to chance, including the choices of fallen men then you reject God.
Yes, proof-texts from Romans 8 and 9--knew those were coming. Again you take them out of their context of the entire argument and you ignore the OT Scriptures that Paul was quoting, are you not doing this again?
Romans 8, about encouraging the saints by claiming with God on their side--they're still the larger portion. Read it all, I truly think it's just about the past saints(because foreknow can mean just "past known", not always future knowledge) due to the context.
"So, most of God's word is either for past saints or Jews or whoever. Never about us"
Never said that, you just need to recognize context and history. There are some things that are clearly not about us--do you forget that these were letters(as Paul's, Peter's and John's) written to actual people(or churches) in the past. They were going through intense persecution and needed encouragement. You just need to discern properly, that's all. Real people--these were real events.
"clearly applicable to us" It can edify us--it's not always applicable. Just as you can read the Mosaic law in the OT and realize that was for the Jews, not us... it's spiritual to show us a shadow of things to come, but to literally apply it to us would be wrong. Do you understand what I mean by explaining it that way?
I realize the Mosaic law was for the Jews in the OT before the new covenant. You are claiming large parts of the new testament, words of Jesus and Paul, were limited to someone other than the church. This is where I think you go to far.
"...were limited to someone other than the church. This...too far"
This is just context and audience, that's all. Paul does this too, so you cannot claim I'm doing something Paul did not--read Romans 7:1 for one example--Paul clearly states he's speaking to those who know the law, that's the Jews. There are multiple examples of this that need to be discerned, some are clearer than others--such as Eph 1, you cannot deny all the evidence that shows he's describing Jewish past.
But either way, you're still imposing your doctrine on it--I agree there's predestination... predestined to what though? "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son"...whoa? So the predestination was to be conformed to Him, not predestined to heaven/hell. Nothing about your false teaching in there. But really anyways, I believe due to the text itself, being past tense--Paul is just exhorting the believers to look into the past believers and see their persecution.
If someone is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, this isn't speaking of salvation? These terms are synonymous. Who is conformed if it is not the saved?
Why not? That's what Paul was quoting, I really think you just hate the Old testament and the context/history. Period.
Look up what Paul's quoting in the OT--compare to Galatians 3/4 if you'd like. Romans 9:12 is
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.”
I mean, we can continue with Romans 9 if you'd like--but your assertions are all false when you actually interpret Scripture with Scripture. Paul is just contrasting Jews/Gentiles and how the Jews did not understand the covenants and how they were upset that they were supposed to be God's chosen people and the descendants of Abraham--but Paul's showing from the OT they really weren't His descendants. That God was seeking those who sought Him and righteousness by faith.
I've been called a semi-Pelagian before, doesn't bother me. I'd call you semi-Gnostic. It makes complete sense also, you really need to study the background views of Calvin--he spoke many of Augustine's doctrines, correct? Then you look into Augustine, and he was a Manichaean Gnostic for 9 years prior to his supposed conversion. Link the two, it's not difficult. You are aware that Augustine taught Mary was sinless right? Yikes, the father of Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
What Augustine believed before his conversion is meaningless, after all you were an atheist, yet I don't accuse you of carrying over those strongly held views to where you stand now.Most relevant theologians were won out of catholicism, this is not a big deal.
"What Augustines believed... meaningless... you were an atheist, I don't accuse you.."
Exactly, I don't judge him for his past--but his future. And you would accuse me of it if I had claimed I was a Christian and said the world was billions of years old. That is me carrying over my views from the past and not letting them go completely. Now I don't believe that, but that's just an example--it's clear Augustine carried over some Gnostic beliefs and meshed them with Christianity.
You are carrying some beliefs over. You think everyone is somehow good,and if they choose God they will go to heaven. Atheists believe that mankind is generally good,and everyone should strive to be the best person they can be.They don't believe in heaven or hell, but they believe their in control of their destiny, ultimately.
"you think everyone is somehow good, and if they choose God they will go to heaven"
I never said everyone is good, I just disagree with you on HOW they become bad. In order to be labeled a murderer, one must have murdered. In order to be a sinner, one must have sinned. I didn't carry a thing over, though I admit in my past(false conversion) I did, but I rejected all that when I started reading Scriptures. I gave you Scripture, both Paul/Jesus affirm born spiritually alive.
So then people are only considered sinners after they have actually sinned, not based on the fact that everyone is born a sinner and in need of a saviour? This to me is not what scripture teaches. In your view then some children will die and go to heaven based on the fact that they haven't sinned, regardless of their age. The bible seems to state that all have sinned.
"If you think God is not in complete control of everything and that He leaves anything to chance, including the choices of fallen men then you reject God"
I reject your definitions of sovereignty actually---that's all. Not God. I told the same thing to another highly esteemed Calvinist teacher--I reject your presuppositional definitions that you impose wrongly on the Scriptures. You make up unbiblical definitions, and you are making up false dichotomies. I give you Scripture.
I would really like to hear your definition of sovereignty actually. You seem to restrict it to what man chooses. This is really the only point worth discussing, and what I claimed in my initial post. The sovereignty of God as defined by Calvinism is correct.
Nope, your definition is proof-texted from Eph 1(having do with God's plan to bring about Christ and reveal the mystery) and from Isa 45:7(which the context clearly shows it's about peace/war(turmoil)). Where does it ever say in Scripture that God decrees everything? I mean every action, word, thought, and predestination to heaven/hell? Nowhere.
Hmm...for an example I could ask you a question, is a king in a nation on earth sovereign? If so, does it mean he controls everything?
Silly comparison, as God is not human as are all earthly kings. Earthly kings do control as much as their human ability allows, the same as God controls everything that His supernatural power allows. That would be everything.
"Silly comparison" Oh I'd agree He's not human--but a King can be sovereign and not in control of every single person's actions. This is the issue Calvinists do not recognize, just because God HAS all power doesn't mean He USES all power. We were made in Him image, and we have characteristics of Him--He has a freedom of will well beyond ours, but we have a degree of that freedom of will to choose or reject Him. He is holiness, we're commanded to be holy--doesn't mean we're God.
You miss the point. God is the only one who can have absolute control. Any comparison to human term is not applicable. No one who the Father gives to Jesus will reject Him. God works his plan to completion, and we only think our freedom has any cause on the outcome.
"No one who the Father gives to Jesus will reject Him"
Yeah, the context of John 6--you're ripping it out. It's to show that the people following Jesus were only after His signs, they weren't following Him for the proper reason--HIM. Read all of John 6 to get this clear, it's crystal.
To show it further, it just says it's God's will that none should be lost---but then later--Judas fell by transgression. John 17:12. Obviously Jesus lost one, or He wouldn't have said "except."
Judas was a chosen disciple not a child of God. He was never saved. He was chosen to do a job which he did. Jesus said He chose 12 and one was a devil. Obviously not a saved person. So Jesus didn't "lose" one as you imply.
Jesus was speaking of Judas' future, see Matthew 10:1--Jesus called all twelve disciples over and gave them power over demons/sickness. All twelve shows it was also Judas, if Judas was casting out demons--that means he was not casting them out by demonic power, but by God's power. He did lose one, or Jesus wouldn't have even mentioned it "but" in John 17:12. Judas was saved and then lost, otherwise to say he was "lost" is a lie when in your view he was never found.
@droptozro WInknod needs to hear Paul, Awake thou that sleepest, arise and Christ shall give thee light. It's madness that a calvinist view of God's sovereignty forbids God's sovereignty granting man free will isn 't it. Oh well, let Ephraim alopne, he's given to his idol.Have you noticed how they are always preaching Calvin, it's hard to find Jesus in their message. After reading countless post by these spiritual pigmies I've found gospel messages to be few and far between. Jesus saves sinners.
Never denied that Jesus saves sinners. Jesus saves all that the Father gives Him. All Christian giants believe this. Only spiritual pygmies claim that God has to wait on anyone to choose Him, not knowing who they may be.
@MrWinknod Who said God doesn't know who will be saved. Don't confuse foreknowledge with fore ordination. Things that are different are not the same.Your Christian giants relied on their Catholic baptism to save them as is evident from their own "catechisms". They had men beaten, imprisoned and in some cases put to death in the name of their reformed religion.Your spiritual giants were anything but spiritual they did the same things their Mother did, forced submission isn't very Christian is it?
@MrWinknod But the man you follow was, all of the reformers were and to a man retained Hellish Mother's doctine of baptismal regeneration.Seems to me that a man without enough insight to discern baptism is for believers and only after they receive Christ is hardly qualified to tell anyone what God was thinking in eternity past. Also which of the apostles ever said to intimdate people into subjection like the reformers did? Intellect and arrogance go hand in hand and the LORD hateth a proud look.
I don't follow a man I follow Christ. You on the other hand do follow a man and you don't realize it. You think you made the choice to "accept" Jesus, so you are following your own pride.
@MrWinknod I don't mean that in a proud way, read through Psalm 119. David says the same, that those who are obedient are wiser. Do you obey God from the heart? Most Calvinists I've met claim they sin every day in thought, word, and deed--is that you? If it is, no wonder you would not seek the truth but reject it.
Truth isn't found by years of study ultimately either, my 30 year elder Christian father still doesn't understand WHERE we go when we die, do you? Simple question, most..
I try to remain obedient to God in my everyday walk, but would never claim to be sinless. If we claim to have no sin we make God a liar, as all have sinned. You sin as well I would guess.
As far as where I go when I die, I believe that when I was regenerated I would never die but receive eternal life and after physical death be resurrected on the last day.
"If we claim to have no sin we make God a liar, as all have sinned."
Agreed--but that doesn't mean Christians continue in sin, go read 1 John 2:1-10 and 1 John 3:1-10... well, just read the whole book of 1st John. This really could get into discussion of Gnosticism, because that's what 1 John 1:8,10 is about.
Oh I just realized in this message you did answer the question, but you still didn't answer the question at the same time... but where are you go until the resurrection?
I've read 1John many times. I agree we cannot continue in sin as Paul explains as well, but he also explains the struggle we have between the flesh and the spirit. Are you suggesting that after regeneration you have never sinned? I believe we persevere in doing good despite the natural inclination of the flesh to sin.
Also I don't see how the question of what happens between physical death and final resurrection has any relevance to this discussion.
Nope, not suggesting after conversion I've never sinned. I'm saying if we abide in Christ, we will not sin. If you're sinning daily, you're probably not abiding in Him--because that would contradict 1 John 3. Christian life should be a rule of holiness with exception of sin, not vice versa.
Learning the difference between sin and temptation is also important, many Christians are deceived and think temptation is sin. It's a humble, but wrong--we live in victory over sin.
I agree with you here. I never said I sin daily. I try to live each day led by the spirit which is what is expected of us. I am also well aware of the difference between temptation and yielding to temptation. I think you are beating a dead horse here.
Now after I've left this thorough refutation of your bad interpretation of Ephesians 1(and I can show more, I really need to write myself a letter on this so I can just show you all the references quickly, these are just the ones off the top of my head by memory), we can move to Romans 9 in a message form if you'd like. But I suppose just like the other Calvinists my comments may end up being removed to cover up the truth.
@droptozro Hello brother. I have written a commentary on Roman's 9 you might find helpful when dealing with unreasonable men. Also you might scroll down on your conversation with Winknod and glean some useful imformation on the historical origins of Calvin's corruption of the gospel message from my post. I'm going to be doing a series of vids soon exposing the pagan sources of corruption in the early days of the church. Fight the good fight of faith. Calvininst praise the wrong JC. PM me.
@MrWinknod I can back up this assertion with multiple Scriptures if you're actually willing to see your error, but I doubt you are... most Calvinists are so blind to proof text and apply.
I'll give you one to start with, read verses 3-12..notice how it's always "we" and "us" Paul constantly uses... and then in verse 13 it switches to "you" and "our"
Who's the "we"? Jews, Paul was one--and the elders he wrote to "first" were likely Jewish Christians(v. 12)
How convenient. I've heard others claim passages are only for Jews. It's usually the verses that give them problems. The change in words has nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles, but with Paul referring to the saints at Ephesus as well as all others. Ephesus was a pagan city so for you to claim the saints there were Jewish makes little sense. Paul elsewhere removes the division between Jews and Gentiles and includes us all as spiritual Israel. Your argument doesn't hold water.
@MrWinknod .. but most professing Christians give the wrong answer, oddly enough they give the Gnostic answer not the Biblical answer.
Okay, so as for Ephesians, do you want more proof? I can give you plenty. Verses 3 - 12 is about the Jews. It was a pagan city, agreed, see Acts 19:1-10--who would John's disciples have been? Jews. What about Paul's initial preaching... where did He go first? As always, the synagogues(the Jews). But Paul did gain followers even after some hardened...
@MrWinknod ...so, after Paul left the synagogues when rejected, he then went to the Gentiles and taught for 3 years with those disciples he first had(who would have been Jews). It's customary that Paul always spoke to Jews first, even Romans is laid out like this in the letter... read it all you'd like, see the references Paul makes to the fact that his audience is to Jewish Christians(Rom 2:17, Rom 2:9, Rom 7:1)... then at Rom 11:13 Paul states he's now speaking to the Gentiles.
So now, do you want me to continue proving to you that Ephesians 1:3-12 is about Jews. And your assertion about the "we/us" vs "you/our" is false, it's quite important and it holds so much water--you're being corrected, don't fool yourself this is very important. Read Eph 1:4, "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"--read Deut 4:37, Deut 7:6, Isa 41:8-11, Psalm 33:12--and of course, Romans 11:1-7. Jews, clearly.
@MrWinknod ... so now "adoption"-- yet again--Jews. Read Romans 9:3, who does the adoption pertain to? Jews. The OT speaks volumes of this also, being that Israel was His nation He adopted before the foundation of the world they were His chosen people, He chose for them to be modeled after Christ even before Christ came to this earth. If you need references for that, I can do it--but most are aware of this common fact.
Now verse 7-9, "mystery of His will." Who knew that?...
Romans 9:24 Even us whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25,As He says also in Hosea "I will call those who were not My people, My people.
I agree with Rom 9:24... now I wish you guys would realize that's the context of all Romans 9 and then you'd be great to throw off the shackles of "U" in your TULIP. It's about nations, thanks for seeing that... now apply it to the rest of Romans 9. Jewish Christians didn't understand how the Gentiles were being added into the covenant, it's replete through-out Acts, Romans, Galatians, and slightly of Ephesians. Paul had to explain this often. God had mercy on the Gentiles.
I am not saying this has anything to do with nations. That is your Arminianism showing. The verses speak of individuals from among both Jewish and Gentile peoples. The bible is very clear that birth or nationality has no bearing on who the elect are. They are chosen according to the good pleasure of His will for His glory.
Romans 9 is about nations. It's the same misunderstanding that Paul was constantly dealing with--even in Ephesus. I'm not drawing the division--you're not recognizing the issues of the time period that Paul was dealing with then. Jews then did not understand how the Gentiles were being added into the covenant. I cannot make that more clear---Romans 1-10 is clearly THIS issue being explained in one large argument to Jewish Christians.
Exactly, Paul was stating that the ethnic division that the Jews were trying to make had no credibility. The Kingdom of God was made up of elect individuals from all groups of people. We are all predestinated to salvation according to His will and according to His sovereign grace.
"We are all predestined to salvation according to His will and according to His sovereign grace"
There is not a single verse that says you were predestined to your salvation. There's plenty of verses that speak about our METHOD of salvation being predestined(that is, in Christ--see Galatians 3/4).
Do you know what elect means? It means "beloved." Make sure you're defining the word biblically--because it seems you're not. Compare the prophecy of Matt 12:18 to Isaiah 42:1-4
The first 14 verses of Ephesians explains how we were chosen and predestined to adoption. The problem for you is you think this doesn't apply to non Jews. I on the other hand claim it aoolies to all of God's children,elect, beloved.
@MrWinknod I guess I should have said "then..." before the where you go when you die, said "if" in case He returns before we die, it's possible we may not die physically.
Anyways, you inherit that rest through Jesus Christ--He's the one who's predestined, not you. Didn't you read that in Gen 13:15? Since the promise was made to Abraham and Christ, we must be IN Him to inherit it--and He's going to share His reign with us... amazing, glory to God. This is all in there, just read it.
"The first 14 verses of Ephesians explains... chosen and predestined to adoption"
Show me a single verse that backs up anything you just said, I've already given you multiple others claiming my belief---I haven't seen anything to prove yours. We cannot just blindly assert a passage's meaning. Do you just ignore the "first trusted?" Who did Christ go to first?
Do you think Paul changed to "you" for no reason? And the fact that it aligns with Peter's account in Acts 10?
I already gave you a bunch of passages to show the meaning, I really shouldn't have to defend it again--it should be crystal clear that 3-12 is about the Jewish Christians and Paul giving glory to God for giving them all these things from the past to now... and then verse 13-14 says they also trusted(Gentiles) and were sealed into Christ with Jews. You're ignoring the clarity to defend your unbiblical doctrine. Show Scripture contextually with others to back it up.
"There is not a single verse that says you were predestined to your salvation" “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”
@MrWinknod I couldn't help but see this and just wanted to ask you, from the beginning of what? In neither 1st or 2nd Thes. is there a reference to eternity past. In I Thes. 1:9 Paul does write about his intitial contact with the Thessalonians. In II Thes. 2:13 ,14 he speaks of God calling them by the gospel to sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. He doesn't say they were foreordained to salvation as a matter of fact the only one foreordained in scripture is Christ I Peter 1:20
You can claim the beginning isn't the beginning if you choose. The fact remains that God chose individuals to salvation. That was the point I was making.
I wasn't trying to call you proud, just that you reserve an area of your will as a reason of your salvation, as opposed to admitting God chose you, as this verse states.
The covenant is unified and includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction. You still haven't answered my question as to the cause of your regeneration.
I don't see that question either? Maybe ask it again. You're ignoring much of my responses and questions also.
"co-operated with God"
God provided the atonement and call through His Spirit---we respond. If you don't believe that, then you must have to go around and tell people "There's nothing you can do to get saved, it's all God!" but there's not a single verse in Scripture where people were told that when asking how to be saved.
We only can respond when drawn by the Spirit and the grace of God. In the flesh we can't respond. The question you are avoiding is this. Did you of your own accord and in a sinful state choose God over atheism, or did God of His grace change your heart and convert you against your human will?
You left nothing to correct the Ephesians 1 passage also... you're still rejecting it on false suppositions. I'm just explaining the history and I even used Scripture to back it up. Read Acts 15 and Acts 19. The verse you quoted in Romans is about nations being united in Him(Jews and Gentiles). If you don't understand this issue of that time period, you won't understand the letter of Galatians or Romans 9(especially)--period.
The reason I ask where we go when we die is because this very clear doctrine in Scripture is laid out and makes perfect sense with Revelation---yet most Christians reject the Biblical doctrine of where we go when we die, and they accept and teach the Gnostic version. This is such a simple question of spiritual milk in the Scriptures yet most don't even have this correct... where do we go between death and the 1st resurrection?
I ask that question because this would aid me in proving that your age or age in Christ has nothing to do with you knowing the Scriptures better than me or being consistent with them. Which as a Calvinist, I can guarantee you--you're not consistent, the history shows it and so do the Scriptures--the Calvinist church(of the past at least) is just like the other man said in the comments... a son or daughter of the mother of Harlots(in Revelation 17-18, the Roman Catholic church).
This has nothing to do with age. When Paul wrote "absent from the body present with the Lord" I take it at face value. I believe we are spiritually with Jesus in Paradise while we await the resurrection and judgment and final destination in heaven. I have always felt that Jesus put far more importance in how we live this current life than in worrying about the afterlife.
I never said we weren't absent with the body and present with the Lord, David affirms that in the Psalm 139. The issue is, most professing Christians do not know WHERE or what Paradise is... and your final destination is not heaven(in the sky). It's Jerusalem. I agree that our fruit in this life is much more important, this is just fundamental because many believe the Gnostic version of where we go when we die. This would show you on one occasion that you're...
heavenly is an adjective. That doesn't mean it's your going to Heaven where the Father is... see, this is the issue. If you do not understand where you're going when you die, and what you're inheriting--you will not understand all the books I listed before. This is why Calvinists have perverted the truth--you don't understand the OT and the prophecies. Again, I'm just learning more about this--not attempting to make myself higher than I ought.
@MrWinknod ...I ought. The point is that it's making more and more sense why Calvinists believe their 5 points and reject what the Bible truly teaches.
Revelation 21 is quite clear, at Christ's return--God is coming to earth to dwell with us, not the other way around. He is inheriting the Kingdom and sharing it with us(Galatians 3)
Know the famous beatitudes? What's the third one..
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the EARTH" (my emphasis) Matt 5:5, Psalm 37:11
I agree, it's not of this world. This world/age is passing away. It's of the next age to come. I presume you're referring to Luke 17:20 and his response under Pilate--but that's clearly just to show it's not on earth at this moment(but being prepared in the heavens, John 14:2-3). Don't fool yourself... Christ is going to reign on this earth. If you don't understand that, then you unwittingly are asserting that God lied to Abraham and Paul also lied in Galatians. Don't think so
Christ is reigning now from the right hand of God. To Calvinists Christ is King, we don't await an earthly kingdom from which Christ can reign. You are preaching Dispensationalism.
Revelation 21:10 And He carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. The heavenly Jerusalem is in heaven not physical Jerusalem.
John 3:13 No one has ASCENDED into heaven but He who DESCENDED from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 14 Jesus speaks of "going" to prepare a place obviously in heaven for us. He then states He will return to take us to where He dwells, which is also obviously heaven.
John 3:13. I agree, Ascended means on His own power, Enoch and Elijah were "caught up"(not by their own power). I agree, He is going to prepare us a place---the whole meaning of it coming Rev 21:10 "From the sky" is to show God created the city, not man. That doesn't mean the city is literally in the sky. Amazing you take this one literally and not the clearly outlined 1000 year reign. There are countless quotes from the prophets and from Revelation that prove it'll be on earth.
@MrWinknod ...was Abraham promised forever? Genesis 13:15, compare that with Galatians 3:15-18.
This is all explainable from multiple Scriptures, but it's quite clear--from Scripture, you go to Hades(Acts 2:27-31, Eph 4:9-10, Luke 16:19-31 when(if) you die and you will await resurrection in either Paradise or torment.
Then if you endure to the end in the faith, not departing into sin as Israel did by unbelief(Hebrews 3).. you will inherit that REST(Sabbath), the 1000 year reign.
Well aware of Hades as well. That is why i said believers go to Paradise to await the resurrection.
You once again sound like a dispensationalist with your 1000 year reign on earth. Is this the same earth that Peter says will end at the second coming?
"sound dispensationalist...your 1000 year reign on earth"
I don't know what they teach, again--but the more I speak with you the more I feel like I'm speaking with someone who does not believe the Bible. My original assertions of idolatry in Calvinism constantly reveal themselves to be true in your words--that your system of doctrine is above what Jesus and the apostles taught and prophesied.
What do you do with the prophecy of "Immanuel"--it means "God with us", not the other way around
What do you do with Rev 21:3?--it clearly says God's going to make His tabernacle WITH US, not the other way around.
I don't disagree that Christ is at the right hand of the Father--but at this present moment, the nations are not under His feet)(Acts 2:35, Psalm 110:1) You are contradicting so much Scripture it's a wonder you call yourself a Bible believer, I mean it.
I looked into it slightly from the point of view of the person I learned most of this from, and he clearly states he's not a dispensationalist. In fact he's got debates against them, we don't believe in a pre-trib rapture--the true Rapture that's shown in the Bible from Matt 24, is Christ gathering His people(those alive and resurrected) in the air at His coming over Mt. Zion(Isa 24:23, Col 3:4, 1 Cor 15:51-52). Then we will descend with Him into the New Jerusalem and rule earth.
I also forgot, Revelation 11:15 also contradicts your view that Christ is presently reigning over the nations--because it's clear they won't be under His reign until then when He comes with a rod of Iron to Shepherd them. (Rev 19:15).
These things are literal, you also don't understand the Genesis 6 day creation and 1 day rest-- and the explanation in 2 Peter 3. The 7th day is the 7,000th year, the Sabbath. Do you just ignore that the law of Moses was a shadow of things to come?
I suggest you read the prophets and realize that Revelation(meaning "reveal") is meant to reveal more knowledge on what the prophets foretold by the Spirit. John had many of the same visions of the prophets, some are word-for-word. This is almost like talking to a Pharisee--I don't mean that in that you're self-righteous, but that you don't discern the prophets and that you don't believe what was written. It's clear as day if you study it. Amillenialism is a denial of Scripture.
You can condemn Calvinism all you like, but the fact remains that the most Godly theologians and evangelists of the last 500 years were virtually all calvinists. I had a debate with someone recently and he claimed all Calvinists worshipped Satan and none were Christian. This is such a ridiculous statement that it should make you realize how skewed the view is of Calvinists and their beliefs.
Calvinists who understand what they're worshipping---aren't worshipping the true God. That I would agree with, it's deception and Satanic. I've actually had a friend say he casted out a demon from someone and it named itself aloud "Calvinism." If you're teaching the limited atonement, I'd say you're not saved--you're teaching a false gospel and accursed per Paul's letter to Galatia.
Who cares bout last 500 years? My views go back to the Ante-Nicene church--yours don't.
Your friend supposedly casting out a demon calling itself calvinism is a nice try but I don't buy it for a second. The atonement is obviously a particular one as not all people are saved and have their sins atoned for. They will pay the atonement of those sins themselves in Hell. You think that Jesus atoned for everyone and because they choose not to accept it it was an ineffective atonement.
Oh yeah, and I didn't really finish the first response all the way--kind of got sidetracked into your Gnostic origins. But no, I believe some Calvinists are saved--except for the list I gave below. I think God is more willing from Scripture to overlook theological misunderstandings(to a degree) rather than Godly fruit. Most "doctrine" in Scripture when that word or "teaching" is used--has to do with righteousness and living holy, abiding in Christ rather than head knowledge.
"Not sure authority...compile a list" a false gospel is just that. I can compile it if Paul said we're to call any false gospel accursed either from angel or man. A false gospel cannot save. But most Calvinists have the same gospel presentation as myself--the issue is when one digs deeper into your views. To claim Christ only died for some and not all and make up extra-biblical reasons(such as God's not effective, or failed). This is semi-Gnosticism and a weak god at heart.
If Christ died for all then all would be saved- universalism. The bible clearly says that Jesus died for His people, His church, the sheep. Since not everyone is in His church, logic states that He did not die for all. This is not false gospel and not what Paul was referring to.
I agree that's not what Paul was referring to in that context, but Paul backed it up by stating ANY OTHER GOSPEL---yours is false and falls under that category.
Yes, you realize it--your view logically leads to universalism, that's what you hold the limited atonement. But that's not what the Bible teaches--it says Christ died for the church and the whole world(1 John 2:2, 1 Tim 4:10). It's only effective to those who believe, agreed-HOW you become elect--you are not defining..
One is elect by virtue of God writing his name in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Who we are as individuals or what we strive for has no bearing.God is the potter and we are the clay. Our belief in Jesus and our repentance are a result not a cause of our salvation.
@MrWinknod ...the word "elect" biblically. I already gave you one instance, it means "choice," as in a "choice product,"(like precious) or "beloved" according to Scripture comparison. It means those who are specially His, those who've received Him He gave the right to become the sons of God. You are defining elect unbiblically, show me it Biblically and maybe we'll have some ground to debate that. You haven't yet.
This is impossible to deny all the Scriptural parallels. You'll be on earth, you just deny it because it completely refutes your theology. You deny the Bible. It's unbelief is what it boils down to--read it all.
"heavenly Jerusalem is heavenly not earthly"--I already gave you multiple Scriptures to the contrary, it's clear Jesus will reign on earth. "heavenly" is just an adjective to describe this Kingdom was made by God and not by man's hands. I have a response for all of your single or couple verse proof-texts, I really haven't seen anything from you to defend your view--it really is a man-made system, and you have unbelief in the Bible and God's words.
"Is this the same earth that Peter says with end at the second coming?"
Yes, it's going to pass away and won't be remembered---God's going to remove the curse. That's exactly what Romans 8:18-25 teaches, and so does Rev 21 align with 2 Peter 3:15. Do you think "new" means replace? If so, are you a new creation in Christ? Do you still have your same body? It just means to make it new, to restore it to the original creation--no longer under the curse. Read Isaiah 65
@MrWinknod ... well I guess they do, yours go back, they're just semi-Gnostic in origin. If you believe you're going to the heavens when you die, it's Gnostic--if you believe you're predestined(fatalism) to heaven/hell, it's Gnostic... if you believe the flesh itself was corrupted by Adam and all corresponding generations alike, it's semi-Gnostic. This is all from debates in the early church, it's clear to see who believed what--the Gnostics cut out the prophecies and Scriptures, so do you.
Nonsense. All historic Christianity believed that heaven was not a physical place here on earth. Predestination is throughout scripture and can't seriously be denied. Do you not believe in original sin? Adam's sin was a curse to all mankind.
"nonsense. All historic Christianity believed that heaven was not a physical place"
Uh... I've got a book of quotes from the first 300 years of the church writers themselves that says you're wrong... I can quote them if you'd like, of course it's all available on the CCEL website. I guarantee you, you're wrong. It's almost laughable how wrong that statement is, the Kingdom of Heaven will be on the renewed earth back to the original creation pre-fall.
Oh yeah, and Total Inability is also semi-Gnostic. Since they were founded on secret knowledge, this knowledge had to be revealed and that's how you were saved and it only came by attaining it. Not faith.
Yes, the works of men will be burned up(buildings etc), the creation will be renewed. Replaced as in renewed according to Scripture--it doesn't mean that we're going to a different planet, and if we were going to the heavens--no need to have a new heaven(sky)/earth.
Total inability is simply the fact that man in his fallen corrupt state can't turn himself towards God unless repentance is granted him. He must be given a new heart and only then can he respond. You sound like a full blown Pelagian.
Agreed, the curse did occur because of his sin. But that's not original sin, no no--you teaching original sin is semi-Gnostic. I already stated this and gave you a few clear teaching verses contrary. Original sin says Adam's sin is transferred to me, that's not in the Bible--that'd be a pretty important thing to mention in Genesis, but it's not there. You think God forgot to mention that? I don't think so, I think men made it up.
And now you're going to mention Romans 5, guaranteed--but take a look again before you do--if you're going to claim that Adam's sin was unconditionally transferred to all of us(all humankind, remember that, ALL humans--even though it doesn't say "all," just "many") then you also have to be consistent with the other half of the verse---and state that ALL are now saved unconditionally for what Christ did--now you're a universalist? I don't think you are.
No not a universalist, although Origen originally believed that due to the way the scripture seems to imply. If you don't believe adams sin was passed to you and death follows, please tell me when sin actually was counted against you, or do you hold the Arminian claim that you were merely sick and hindered by sin, not rendered dead.
"Please tell me when sin actually was counted against you"-- just like Paul said in Romans 7, once I had full knowledge of the law and sinned against it in my conscience. For Paul this was around 12/13 probably since he became a Pharisee. I don't really think it's an age, but a state of accountability. The Jews did have the "bar mitzvah" though, which means "one to whom the commandments apply" which was 13 for boys and 12 for girls. I wasn't dead, see the Scriptures, Rom 7:9
Psalm 51:5---you take a Psalm, a poetic exaggeratory verse from David's penitent prayer after his horrendous sin and make it doctrine. That's twisted. Don't you understand the context of the whole Psalm--Psalm 139 David said he was fearfully and wonderfully made... so you think God made sinners in the womb? The context clearly shows it's an exaggeration of one's sinfulness... not a literal statement, and Romans 9:11 in your view, hurts this showing at conception--neutrality.
"...and death follows" Death is spiritual in that sense, obviously Adam didn't die physically on the day he ate. You also show no Scripture to show Adam's sin was literally passed to me, and that even contradicts God's justice(though physical) from Ezekiel 18.
We die physically because we were made to die from dust, and expelled from the garden, cut off from the tree of life.
I remember when I rebelled, total willful rejection against God--said I didn't want Him ruling over me.
I believe if you had a site that was declaring Christ instead of defending Calvin you and I would be fellowshipping around the common salvation (Jude 1:3) we share in Jesus Christ the Lord. It's a shame that brethren spend time biting and devouring one another while the world perishes. No doubt Satan delights in these things. I'll trouble you no more and hope you will see what God has shown me about the need to have my focus on the gospel and it's declaration to lost men. See you at his throne.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
Since you can't answer the truth you accuse me of pride. Where is the pride in knowing I wilfully hated and rejected the one who shed his precious blood to wash away my sins? Shall I boast of my shame my guilt or my hardness of heart? If you are truly born again you know this is not the case. Every time I look at what I am and what Jesus has done for me I am reduced to tears of gratitude and thankfulness. Faith is not works, I didn't receive Christ by works but by the hearing of faith. (Gal 3:2)
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@DefendingCalvinism I have a number of post but forgot you can't see them unless addressed to you. Sorry about that. I will wait till you say your piece before I respond, just follow the thread and I"ll get back to you when you finish unless you indicate otherwise.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
cont: Calvin offers no assurance of eternal life, for the historic understanding of his doctrine let's look to Thomas Manton, Puritan Divine 1620-1677 “I cannot say infallibly you shall have grace; but I can say to everyone, let him use the the means, and leave the success of his labor and his salvation to the good pleasure of God. I cannot say this infallibly, for there is no obligation upon God... hope for the best.” Weren't things written so you'd KNOW you have eternal life in I Jn 5:13?
mwilson70201 3 months ago
Praise Santa Claus. Praise Him!
CockSuckingChrist 3 months ago
cont: Calvin gives no certainty of salvation in this life, like Armenius he added the need to endure to the end. To quote Augustine on it “Therefore it is uncertain if any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. But how should he who has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that anyone shows himself persevering, and this he has not done.”
mwilson70201 3 months ago
There are two J C's, John Calvin and Jesus Christ. Had you been content with the plain words of the Lord of glory John Calvin would have been nothing more than an "old dead dude" to you. Instead, you have allowed this protestant pope to dictate your beliefs to you. Man is saved by grace through faith. Grace is the gift of God not faith. (Eph 3:7) All who believe are kept by the power of God, through faith and shall never perish. Predestination is to the image of Christ never to salvation.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
cont: In a tract bearing the Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York entitled “Heaven Opened by the Practice of the Three Hail Mary's” We find the following words.“One of the greatest means of salvation and one of the surest signs of predestination is unquestionably the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. All the holy doctors of the Church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus of Liguori; 'A devout servant of Mary shall never perish...” Need I go on? There's more.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
The MOTHER OF HARLOTS? She has children, among them the reformers none of whom rejected their Catholic baptism. Rome didn't anthemize Augustine's election until the Council of Trent (1563) and then only in reaction to the reformers embrace of it. As all should well know the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church are considered as equal to the word of God in the view of the Catholic faithful. You can not separate Catholic doctrine from Augustine, he developed the foundational teachings.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
John Calvin's religious life was rooted in Roman Catholic theology. Consequently his religious background tainted his conclusions. John Calvin, though estranged from the Mother of Harlots, never fully escaped her grip. It is certain that his high regard for Augustine and reliance upon his writings influenced Calvin's theology. The liturgical doctrines that he formulated did not come from a converted heart, they were appropriated from historic Catholic teachings developed by Augustine.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
cont. Calvin says Augustine was the first to hold the doctrine he adopted. Calvinist Dr. B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) wrote “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” He also adds that Augustine was in reality “...the founder of Roman Catholicism.” see Calvin and Augustine, edited by S. G. Craig 1980, (pgs. 22 & 313). The 2 big C's, Calvin and Catholicism, have a common doctrinal source. And he got his doctrine from Plato.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
cont. Calvin's own words prove your attempted deception of the gullible. "Moreover all of the Greek Fathers, above others, will, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings."(Institutes of the Christian Religion Book I Ch II -IV) In other words you lied. Augustine corrupted the true doctrine.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
In your self serving quotes of Ignatius how did you miss Ch. 4 of his letter to the Ehesians? "Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son." This is clearly referring to James 2:17-26, tsk, tsk, you bad boy.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
... going on in my head were not my thoughts. The thoughts in my head brought me to the conclusion of a rather mundane decision. Whose thoughts were they if they weren't mine? If God was utilizing His absolute sovereignty and controlling my decision on which dvd to buy, then the thoughts in my head are inevitably God's thoughts. That would mean that I am not an individual human being who has his own thoughts and emotions. I am God. According to Calvinism. He thinks; therefore I am.
roedtbeist 5 months ago
If Calvinism is correct, then I am God. If He controls everything that humanity does, and if free will is just a myth, then I am not me, an individual human being with a soul. I want to go out to buy a dvd. I have to decide where to go and which movie to buy and how much I'm willing to spend. There's a whole thought process. My thoughts dictate what I am ultimately going to do. Now, if I have no free will, then I did not reach this decision on which dvd to buy. The thoughts that were ...
roedtbeist 5 months ago
Calvinism is the gospel
MrWinknod 6 months ago
@MrWinknod
Repent of your idolatry!
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Why should I repent of worshiping the Sovereign LORD of the universe?
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Your god is not sovereign... the Calvinist god is worse than satan. Satan was right in the garden if the Calvinist god were true, but praise the TRUE GOD and LORD Jesus Christ your god is false.
Your idolatry is calling a man made false theological system the gospel--that's wicked. Never would I dare call my Lord's Gospel that of a man's doctrine even if the man had it correct.
Repent!
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
So then you are in charge of your destiny? Is that how your god is sovereign? I don't need to repent for worshiping the sovereign God. Calvinism is not a man made doctrine. It is the doctrine of salvation outlined in the bible. Whatever it is that you believe was at one time given a structure by someone, so don't get all righteous on me.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Calvinism is not a man made doctrine"---find me the word "Calvinism" in the Bible. How are you so blind to your idolatry?
There's no salvation in Calvinism, it's likened to the Pharisees who called themselves Abraham's descendants and thought themselves saved because of that--you're no different, you think yourself elect from the foundation of the world and unable to be lost.
I'm a sinner who submitted to the true Lord's Gospel become saint, you're a pawn of a false system.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
If you don't hold to Calvinistic doctrine, then you identify with Arminianism. There aren't many other doctrines of salvation. Like I said before these are man's interpretation of what the bible teaches.If I believe I'm elect from the foundation of the world it is because that is what the bible teaches. Read Ephesians. If anyone comes to Christ it is because God planned it that way. I commend you for being called out of atheism, you just need to do a bit more study.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Nope, I don't follow Arminians. They've got more correct than Calvinism---that's right, but they've got wrong doctrinal issues too they've made up to circumvent inconsistencies. Calvinism is full of extra-biblical trash, but so is Arminianism.
"I'm elect from foundation of the world...bible teaches. Read Ephesians"
Actually I think you should read Ephesians 1, because you have no idea what it's talking about.
Verses 3-12 are about the Jews---not you or I.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You sound a bit confused. You reject Calvinism and Arminianism. Maybe you could explain how you think your salvation came about. Either God chose you and saved you(Calvinism), or you saved yourself and chose God(Arminianism). I've been a faithful Christian for twice as long as you've been alive, so don't be too sure you can teach me anything new.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Oh ultimately God chose us, because I submitted to His call. It's not like I came to Him and said "I choose you." God didn't have to do anything, yet He sent His Son to die for us... He ultimately made the choice, we submit.
Oh your age means nothing, Jesus was teaching the spiritual leaders at 12 years old... and don't twist that to say I'm claiming I am Him, but it's clear from Scripture that those who are obeying God are the truly wise, most Calvinists continue in sin.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
God chose you BECAUSE you submitted to His call? So really God was held captive to your choice. You are more Arminian than you confess. As far as age goes I don't imply that age is everything, but it certainly counts for something, as seen in the appointment of elders which is self explanatory. The fact that Jesus taught as a 12 years old hardly counts as He is God and you're not.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"So really God was held captive to your choice."
Man you guys know how to twist words up as if God had to die for me or something...or anyone for that matter. In your view, God chose God. Hmmm...there's no glory in that. Anyways, side issue.
Oh I agree speaking about eldership also, but the point was--you can still be taught something. It wasn't long ago I learned where we go when we die... you didn't answer that question by the way.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
This is not a side issue. This goes to the heart of the matter. God was not obliged to die for anyone. He chose to die in order to redeem his church. You think you can straddle the issue. Either God saved you with sovereign grace or you think you made the choice on your own. You haven't answered this basic question.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Either God saved you with sovereign grace or you think you made the choice on your own. You haven't answered this basic question."
This is an illogical question, even for your theology. If you believe God controls all---even my thoughts, then I can't even "think I made the choice on my own." That alone proves I have autonomy to submit or to reject. You're speaking against your own view by asking this question. Does God decree all or not? Which is it?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Obviously I believe that God controls the outcome. I only ask the question to see if you will answer the question, which you seem to not be willing to do.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
How can I answer the question? answering it only proves your theology wrong. I submitted to Christ by seeking Him out in repentance, the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and my condition deserving of hell and the wrath of God. Of course that's looking back knowing what I know now to explain the process, only then did I know I saw the truth in Him and it set me free.
"...God controls the outcome"
That's not what Calvinism teaches, it's all or nothing--do you know your beliefs?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I see where you are going here. You submitted, you sought God, you, you, you. By controlling the outcome I mean God plans the outcome which all Calvinists believe. He planned to save you if you are indeed saved, and he caused you to reject atheism, which you would not have been able to do on your own. I believe it was all controlled by God where you seem to imply that you co-operated with God in your salvation.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
In your view, God saved God. There's no getting around that, so of course I reject it. It contradicts multiple Scriptures--just for example, what do you do with the Gentile woman in Matt 15:21-28... Jesus answered not at all first, rejected her twice, claiming He was not seeking her--and then marveled at her faith and gave her-her desire. And you think she had nothing to do with that? It was all God? So God made her do that to Jesus? Or did she seek and find?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
The Gentile woman was one of the elect. She sought God because He drew her irresistibly to Jesus. Her choice wasn't a factor in her regeneration.
Your claim of God saving God makes no sense.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Lol... "gentile woman...elect.. God...drew her irresistibly to Jesus.. her choice wasn't a factor" ---what a bunch of unbiblical jargon. Man, you really are deceived. None of that is anywhere in the passage, yet you just added it all there to make it fit your theology---so insane, you really don't believe the Bible.
"your claim of God saving God makes no sense"--EXACTLY! Now you realize it...
God made you, which He controls your actions(He's the puppeteer) and saved Himself.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You don't believe saved Gentiles are elect? Both Jews and Gentile are elect members of the kingdom of God. If not you have two classes of saved. This isn't what Paul taught. Just because we are elect doesn't mean we didn't need to be regenerated. We all are born in sin and separated from God. God chooses to save His church. Your God saves God argument is nonsense.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I never said Gentiles or Jews weren't elect--you are redefining the word "elect." It does not mean our modern day definition, define it biblically--I already gave you the explanation in an earlier comment.
"We are all born in sin and separated from God"
That logically means we're all born spiritually dead, you take an exaggeratory Psalm and make it doctrine.
What do you do with TEACHING from Jesus? the parable of prodigal son--go read it, the son was alive, then left the father..
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...the father, its says he died(spiritually) and then was "alive again." Verbatim words used, alive again implies clearly he was alive BEFORE. Not possible in your unbiblical doctrine.
What about Romans 7? Paul's explaining his coming to the law--verse 9 he clearly states that he was "alive once without the law"(spiritually). That's NOT possible in Calvinism.. you're taking proof-texts and making them doctrine and ignoring teaching from Paul and Jesus.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Romans 9:16, So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans8:28-30, called, foreknew, predestined, conformed, justified, glorified.
Please don't try to say this is for nations, or that it only applies to Jews. Paul shows it's for all Christians in Romans 9:24. If you actually think that God is not in complete control of everything, and that He leaves anything to chance, including the choices of fallen men then you reject God.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Yes, proof-texts from Romans 8 and 9--knew those were coming. Again you take them out of their context of the entire argument and you ignore the OT Scriptures that Paul was quoting, are you not doing this again?
Romans 8, about encouraging the saints by claiming with God on their side--they're still the larger portion. Read it all, I truly think it's just about the past saints(because foreknow can mean just "past known", not always future knowledge) due to the context.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
So, most of God's word is either for past saints or Jews or whoever. Never about us.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"So, most of God's word is either for past saints or Jews or whoever. Never about us"
Never said that, you just need to recognize context and history. There are some things that are clearly not about us--do you forget that these were letters(as Paul's, Peter's and John's) written to actual people(or churches) in the past. They were going through intense persecution and needed encouragement. You just need to discern properly, that's all. Real people--these were real events.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Agreed they were written to churches but the message is clearly applicable to us as the body of Christ is a single unified entity.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"clearly applicable to us" It can edify us--it's not always applicable. Just as you can read the Mosaic law in the OT and realize that was for the Jews, not us... it's spiritual to show us a shadow of things to come, but to literally apply it to us would be wrong. Do you understand what I mean by explaining it that way?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I realize the Mosaic law was for the Jews in the OT before the new covenant. You are claiming large parts of the new testament, words of Jesus and Paul, were limited to someone other than the church. This is where I think you go to far.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"...were limited to someone other than the church. This...too far"
This is just context and audience, that's all. Paul does this too, so you cannot claim I'm doing something Paul did not--read Romans 7:1 for one example--Paul clearly states he's speaking to those who know the law, that's the Jews. There are multiple examples of this that need to be discerned, some are clearer than others--such as Eph 1, you cannot deny all the evidence that shows he's describing Jewish past.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
But either way, you're still imposing your doctrine on it--I agree there's predestination... predestined to what though? "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son"...whoa? So the predestination was to be conformed to Him, not predestined to heaven/hell. Nothing about your false teaching in there. But really anyways, I believe due to the text itself, being past tense--Paul is just exhorting the believers to look into the past believers and see their persecution.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
If someone is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, this isn't speaking of salvation? These terms are synonymous. Who is conformed if it is not the saved?
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Please don't try...nations"
Why not? That's what Paul was quoting, I really think you just hate the Old testament and the context/history. Period.
Look up what Paul's quoting in the OT--compare to Galatians 3/4 if you'd like. Romans 9:12 is
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.”
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I mean, we can continue with Romans 9 if you'd like--but your assertions are all false when you actually interpret Scripture with Scripture. Paul is just contrasting Jews/Gentiles and how the Jews did not understand the covenants and how they were upset that they were supposed to be God's chosen people and the descendants of Abraham--but Paul's showing from the OT they really weren't His descendants. That God was seeking those who sought Him and righteousness by faith.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I've been called a semi-Pelagian before, doesn't bother me. I'd call you semi-Gnostic. It makes complete sense also, you really need to study the background views of Calvin--he spoke many of Augustine's doctrines, correct? Then you look into Augustine, and he was a Manichaean Gnostic for 9 years prior to his supposed conversion. Link the two, it's not difficult. You are aware that Augustine taught Mary was sinless right? Yikes, the father of Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
What Augustine believed before his conversion is meaningless, after all you were an atheist, yet I don't accuse you of carrying over those strongly held views to where you stand now.Most relevant theologians were won out of catholicism, this is not a big deal.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"What Augustines believed... meaningless... you were an atheist, I don't accuse you.."
Exactly, I don't judge him for his past--but his future. And you would accuse me of it if I had claimed I was a Christian and said the world was billions of years old. That is me carrying over my views from the past and not letting them go completely. Now I don't believe that, but that's just an example--it's clear Augustine carried over some Gnostic beliefs and meshed them with Christianity.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You are carrying some beliefs over. You think everyone is somehow good,and if they choose God they will go to heaven. Atheists believe that mankind is generally good,and everyone should strive to be the best person they can be.They don't believe in heaven or hell, but they believe their in control of their destiny, ultimately.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"you think everyone is somehow good, and if they choose God they will go to heaven"
I never said everyone is good, I just disagree with you on HOW they become bad. In order to be labeled a murderer, one must have murdered. In order to be a sinner, one must have sinned. I didn't carry a thing over, though I admit in my past(false conversion) I did, but I rejected all that when I started reading Scriptures. I gave you Scripture, both Paul/Jesus affirm born spiritually alive.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
So then people are only considered sinners after they have actually sinned, not based on the fact that everyone is born a sinner and in need of a saviour? This to me is not what scripture teaches. In your view then some children will die and go to heaven based on the fact that they haven't sinned, regardless of their age. The bible seems to state that all have sinned.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"If you think God is not in complete control of everything and that He leaves anything to chance, including the choices of fallen men then you reject God"
I reject your definitions of sovereignty actually---that's all. Not God. I told the same thing to another highly esteemed Calvinist teacher--I reject your presuppositional definitions that you impose wrongly on the Scriptures. You make up unbiblical definitions, and you are making up false dichotomies. I give you Scripture.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I would really like to hear your definition of sovereignty actually. You seem to restrict it to what man chooses. This is really the only point worth discussing, and what I claimed in my initial post. The sovereignty of God as defined by Calvinism is correct.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Nope, your definition is proof-texted from Eph 1(having do with God's plan to bring about Christ and reveal the mystery) and from Isa 45:7(which the context clearly shows it's about peace/war(turmoil)). Where does it ever say in Scripture that God decrees everything? I mean every action, word, thought, and predestination to heaven/hell? Nowhere.
Hmm...for an example I could ask you a question, is a king in a nation on earth sovereign? If so, does it mean he controls everything?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Silly comparison, as God is not human as are all earthly kings. Earthly kings do control as much as their human ability allows, the same as God controls everything that His supernatural power allows. That would be everything.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Silly comparison" Oh I'd agree He's not human--but a King can be sovereign and not in control of every single person's actions. This is the issue Calvinists do not recognize, just because God HAS all power doesn't mean He USES all power. We were made in Him image, and we have characteristics of Him--He has a freedom of will well beyond ours, but we have a degree of that freedom of will to choose or reject Him. He is holiness, we're commanded to be holy--doesn't mean we're God.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You miss the point. God is the only one who can have absolute control. Any comparison to human term is not applicable. No one who the Father gives to Jesus will reject Him. God works his plan to completion, and we only think our freedom has any cause on the outcome.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"No one who the Father gives to Jesus will reject Him"
Yeah, the context of John 6--you're ripping it out. It's to show that the people following Jesus were only after His signs, they weren't following Him for the proper reason--HIM. Read all of John 6 to get this clear, it's crystal.
To show it further, it just says it's God's will that none should be lost---but then later--Judas fell by transgression. John 17:12. Obviously Jesus lost one, or He wouldn't have said "except."
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Judas was a chosen disciple not a child of God. He was never saved. He was chosen to do a job which he did. Jesus said He chose 12 and one was a devil. Obviously not a saved person. So Jesus didn't "lose" one as you imply.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Jesus was speaking of Judas' future, see Matthew 10:1--Jesus called all twelve disciples over and gave them power over demons/sickness. All twelve shows it was also Judas, if Judas was casting out demons--that means he was not casting them out by demonic power, but by God's power. He did lose one, or Jesus wouldn't have even mentioned it "but" in John 17:12. Judas was saved and then lost, otherwise to say he was "lost" is a lie when in your view he was never found.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro WInknod needs to hear Paul, Awake thou that sleepest, arise and Christ shall give thee light. It's madness that a calvinist view of God's sovereignty forbids God's sovereignty granting man free will isn 't it. Oh well, let Ephraim alopne, he's given to his idol.Have you noticed how they are always preaching Calvin, it's hard to find Jesus in their message. After reading countless post by these spiritual pigmies I've found gospel messages to be few and far between. Jesus saves sinners.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@mwilson70201
Never denied that Jesus saves sinners. Jesus saves all that the Father gives Him. All Christian giants believe this. Only spiritual pygmies claim that God has to wait on anyone to choose Him, not knowing who they may be.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod Who said God doesn't know who will be saved. Don't confuse foreknowledge with fore ordination. Things that are different are not the same.Your Christian giants relied on their Catholic baptism to save them as is evident from their own "catechisms". They had men beaten, imprisoned and in some cases put to death in the name of their reformed religion.Your spiritual giants were anything but spiritual they did the same things their Mother did, forced submission isn't very Christian is it?
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@mwilson70201
I am not catholic.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod But the man you follow was, all of the reformers were and to a man retained Hellish Mother's doctine of baptismal regeneration.Seems to me that a man without enough insight to discern baptism is for believers and only after they receive Christ is hardly qualified to tell anyone what God was thinking in eternity past. Also which of the apostles ever said to intimdate people into subjection like the reformers did? Intellect and arrogance go hand in hand and the LORD hateth a proud look.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@mwilson70201
I don't follow a man I follow Christ. You on the other hand do follow a man and you don't realize it. You think you made the choice to "accept" Jesus, so you are following your own pride.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod I don't mean that in a proud way, read through Psalm 119. David says the same, that those who are obedient are wiser. Do you obey God from the heart? Most Calvinists I've met claim they sin every day in thought, word, and deed--is that you? If it is, no wonder you would not seek the truth but reject it.
Truth isn't found by years of study ultimately either, my 30 year elder Christian father still doesn't understand WHERE we go when we die, do you? Simple question, most..
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I try to remain obedient to God in my everyday walk, but would never claim to be sinless. If we claim to have no sin we make God a liar, as all have sinned. You sin as well I would guess.
As far as where I go when I die, I believe that when I was regenerated I would never die but receive eternal life and after physical death be resurrected on the last day.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"If we claim to have no sin we make God a liar, as all have sinned."
Agreed--but that doesn't mean Christians continue in sin, go read 1 John 2:1-10 and 1 John 3:1-10... well, just read the whole book of 1st John. This really could get into discussion of Gnosticism, because that's what 1 John 1:8,10 is about.
Oh I just realized in this message you did answer the question, but you still didn't answer the question at the same time... but where are you go until the resurrection?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I've read 1John many times. I agree we cannot continue in sin as Paul explains as well, but he also explains the struggle we have between the flesh and the spirit. Are you suggesting that after regeneration you have never sinned? I believe we persevere in doing good despite the natural inclination of the flesh to sin.
Also I don't see how the question of what happens between physical death and final resurrection has any relevance to this discussion.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Nope, not suggesting after conversion I've never sinned. I'm saying if we abide in Christ, we will not sin. If you're sinning daily, you're probably not abiding in Him--because that would contradict 1 John 3. Christian life should be a rule of holiness with exception of sin, not vice versa.
Learning the difference between sin and temptation is also important, many Christians are deceived and think temptation is sin. It's a humble, but wrong--we live in victory over sin.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I agree with you here. I never said I sin daily. I try to live each day led by the spirit which is what is expected of us. I am also well aware of the difference between temptation and yielding to temptation. I think you are beating a dead horse here.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Now after I've left this thorough refutation of your bad interpretation of Ephesians 1(and I can show more, I really need to write myself a letter on this so I can just show you all the references quickly, these are just the ones off the top of my head by memory), we can move to Romans 9 in a message form if you'd like. But I suppose just like the other Calvinists my comments may end up being removed to cover up the truth.
Read them all, see clearly. God bless
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro Hello brother. I have written a commentary on Roman's 9 you might find helpful when dealing with unreasonable men. Also you might scroll down on your conversation with Winknod and glean some useful imformation on the historical origins of Calvin's corruption of the gospel message from my post. I'm going to be doing a series of vids soon exposing the pagan sources of corruption in the early days of the church. Fight the good fight of faith. Calvininst praise the wrong JC. PM me.
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@MrWinknod I can back up this assertion with multiple Scriptures if you're actually willing to see your error, but I doubt you are... most Calvinists are so blind to proof text and apply.
I'll give you one to start with, read verses 3-12..notice how it's always "we" and "us" Paul constantly uses... and then in verse 13 it switches to "you" and "our"
Who's the "we"? Jews, Paul was one--and the elders he wrote to "first" were likely Jewish Christians(v. 12)
Those sealed in were Gentiles(v. 13)
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
How convenient. I've heard others claim passages are only for Jews. It's usually the verses that give them problems. The change in words has nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles, but with Paul referring to the saints at Ephesus as well as all others. Ephesus was a pagan city so for you to claim the saints there were Jewish makes little sense. Paul elsewhere removes the division between Jews and Gentiles and includes us all as spiritual Israel. Your argument doesn't hold water.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod .. but most professing Christians give the wrong answer, oddly enough they give the Gnostic answer not the Biblical answer.
Okay, so as for Ephesians, do you want more proof? I can give you plenty. Verses 3 - 12 is about the Jews. It was a pagan city, agreed, see Acts 19:1-10--who would John's disciples have been? Jews. What about Paul's initial preaching... where did He go first? As always, the synagogues(the Jews). But Paul did gain followers even after some hardened...
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...so, after Paul left the synagogues when rejected, he then went to the Gentiles and taught for 3 years with those disciples he first had(who would have been Jews). It's customary that Paul always spoke to Jews first, even Romans is laid out like this in the letter... read it all you'd like, see the references Paul makes to the fact that his audience is to Jewish Christians(Rom 2:17, Rom 2:9, Rom 7:1)... then at Rom 11:13 Paul states he's now speaking to the Gentiles.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
So now, do you want me to continue proving to you that Ephesians 1:3-12 is about Jews. And your assertion about the "we/us" vs "you/our" is false, it's quite important and it holds so much water--you're being corrected, don't fool yourself this is very important. Read Eph 1:4, "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"--read Deut 4:37, Deut 7:6, Isa 41:8-11, Psalm 33:12--and of course, Romans 11:1-7. Jews, clearly.
Now Eph 1:5 "predestined us to adoption as sons"
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ... so now "adoption"-- yet again--Jews. Read Romans 9:3, who does the adoption pertain to? Jews. The OT speaks volumes of this also, being that Israel was His nation He adopted before the foundation of the world they were His chosen people, He chose for them to be modeled after Christ even before Christ came to this earth. If you need references for that, I can do it--but most are aware of this common fact.
Now verse 7-9, "mystery of His will." Who knew that?...
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Romans 9:24 Even us whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25,As He says also in Hosea "I will call those who were not My people, My people.
There is no division in the Kingdom of God.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I agree with Rom 9:24... now I wish you guys would realize that's the context of all Romans 9 and then you'd be great to throw off the shackles of "U" in your TULIP. It's about nations, thanks for seeing that... now apply it to the rest of Romans 9. Jewish Christians didn't understand how the Gentiles were being added into the covenant, it's replete through-out Acts, Romans, Galatians, and slightly of Ephesians. Paul had to explain this often. God had mercy on the Gentiles.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I am not saying this has anything to do with nations. That is your Arminianism showing. The verses speak of individuals from among both Jewish and Gentile peoples. The bible is very clear that birth or nationality has no bearing on who the elect are. They are chosen according to the good pleasure of His will for His glory.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Romans 9 is about nations. It's the same misunderstanding that Paul was constantly dealing with--even in Ephesus. I'm not drawing the division--you're not recognizing the issues of the time period that Paul was dealing with then. Jews then did not understand how the Gentiles were being added into the covenant. I cannot make that more clear---Romans 1-10 is clearly THIS issue being explained in one large argument to Jewish Christians.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Exactly, Paul was stating that the ethnic division that the Jews were trying to make had no credibility. The Kingdom of God was made up of elect individuals from all groups of people. We are all predestinated to salvation according to His will and according to His sovereign grace.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"We are all predestined to salvation according to His will and according to His sovereign grace"
There is not a single verse that says you were predestined to your salvation. There's plenty of verses that speak about our METHOD of salvation being predestined(that is, in Christ--see Galatians 3/4).
Do you know what elect means? It means "beloved." Make sure you're defining the word biblically--because it seems you're not. Compare the prophecy of Matt 12:18 to Isaiah 42:1-4
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
The first 14 verses of Ephesians explains how we were chosen and predestined to adoption. The problem for you is you think this doesn't apply to non Jews. I on the other hand claim it aoolies to all of God's children,elect, beloved.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
applies obviously, not aoolies. :)
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod I guess I should have said "then..." before the where you go when you die, said "if" in case He returns before we die, it's possible we may not die physically.
Anyways, you inherit that rest through Jesus Christ--He's the one who's predestined, not you. Didn't you read that in Gen 13:15? Since the promise was made to Abraham and Christ, we must be IN Him to inherit it--and He's going to share His reign with us... amazing, glory to God. This is all in there, just read it.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"The first 14 verses of Ephesians explains... chosen and predestined to adoption"
Show me a single verse that backs up anything you just said, I've already given you multiple others claiming my belief---I haven't seen anything to prove yours. We cannot just blindly assert a passage's meaning. Do you just ignore the "first trusted?" Who did Christ go to first?
Do you think Paul changed to "you" for no reason? And the fact that it aligns with Peter's account in Acts 10?
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I already gave you a bunch of passages to show the meaning, I really shouldn't have to defend it again--it should be crystal clear that 3-12 is about the Jewish Christians and Paul giving glory to God for giving them all these things from the past to now... and then verse 13-14 says they also trusted(Gentiles) and were sealed into Christ with Jews. You're ignoring the clarity to defend your unbiblical doctrine. Show Scripture contextually with others to back it up.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
"There is not a single verse that says you were predestined to your salvation" “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”
2 Thessalonians 2:13
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod I couldn't help but see this and just wanted to ask you, from the beginning of what? In neither 1st or 2nd Thes. is there a reference to eternity past. In I Thes. 1:9 Paul does write about his intitial contact with the Thessalonians. In II Thes. 2:13 ,14 he speaks of God calling them by the gospel to sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. He doesn't say they were foreordained to salvation as a matter of fact the only one foreordained in scripture is Christ I Peter 1:20
mwilson70201 3 months ago
@mwilson70201
You can claim the beginning isn't the beginning if you choose. The fact remains that God chose individuals to salvation. That was the point I was making.
I wasn't trying to call you proud, just that you reserve an area of your will as a reason of your salvation, as opposed to admitting God chose you, as this verse states.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@droptozro
The covenant is unified and includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction. You still haven't answered my question as to the cause of your regeneration.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I don't see that question either? Maybe ask it again. You're ignoring much of my responses and questions also.
"co-operated with God"
God provided the atonement and call through His Spirit---we respond. If you don't believe that, then you must have to go around and tell people "There's nothing you can do to get saved, it's all God!" but there's not a single verse in Scripture where people were told that when asking how to be saved.
This is man's doctrine over Scripture
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
We only can respond when drawn by the Spirit and the grace of God. In the flesh we can't respond. The question you are avoiding is this. Did you of your own accord and in a sinful state choose God over atheism, or did God of His grace change your heart and convert you against your human will?
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
You left nothing to correct the Ephesians 1 passage also... you're still rejecting it on false suppositions. I'm just explaining the history and I even used Scripture to back it up. Read Acts 15 and Acts 19. The verse you quoted in Romans is about nations being united in Him(Jews and Gentiles). If you don't understand this issue of that time period, you won't understand the letter of Galatians or Romans 9(especially)--period.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
The reason I ask where we go when we die is because this very clear doctrine in Scripture is laid out and makes perfect sense with Revelation---yet most Christians reject the Biblical doctrine of where we go when we die, and they accept and teach the Gnostic version. This is such a simple question of spiritual milk in the Scriptures yet most don't even have this correct... where do we go between death and the 1st resurrection?
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I ask that question because this would aid me in proving that your age or age in Christ has nothing to do with you knowing the Scriptures better than me or being consistent with them. Which as a Calvinist, I can guarantee you--you're not consistent, the history shows it and so do the Scriptures--the Calvinist church(of the past at least) is just like the other man said in the comments... a son or daughter of the mother of Harlots(in Revelation 17-18, the Roman Catholic church).
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
This has nothing to do with age. When Paul wrote "absent from the body present with the Lord" I take it at face value. I believe we are spiritually with Jesus in Paradise while we await the resurrection and judgment and final destination in heaven. I have always felt that Jesus put far more importance in how we live this current life than in worrying about the afterlife.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I never said we weren't absent with the body and present with the Lord, David affirms that in the Psalm 139. The issue is, most professing Christians do not know WHERE or what Paradise is... and your final destination is not heaven(in the sky). It's Jerusalem. I agree that our fruit in this life is much more important, this is just fundamental because many believe the Gnostic version of where we go when we die. This would show you on one occasion that you're...
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Heavenly Jerusalem, as spoken of in Hebrews, not an earthly Jerusalem.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"heavenly Jerusalem... Hebrews"
heavenly is an adjective. That doesn't mean it's your going to Heaven where the Father is... see, this is the issue. If you do not understand where you're going when you die, and what you're inheriting--you will not understand all the books I listed before. This is why Calvinists have perverted the truth--you don't understand the OT and the prophecies. Again, I'm just learning more about this--not attempting to make myself higher than I ought.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...I ought. The point is that it's making more and more sense why Calvinists believe their 5 points and reject what the Bible truly teaches.
Revelation 21 is quite clear, at Christ's return--God is coming to earth to dwell with us, not the other way around. He is inheriting the Kingdom and sharing it with us(Galatians 3)
Know the famous beatitudes? What's the third one..
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the EARTH" (my emphasis) Matt 5:5, Psalm 37:11
What was...
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Jesus said many times that His Kingdom was not of this world. His kingdom is a spirtitual kingdom.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I agree, it's not of this world. This world/age is passing away. It's of the next age to come. I presume you're referring to Luke 17:20 and his response under Pilate--but that's clearly just to show it's not on earth at this moment(but being prepared in the heavens, John 14:2-3). Don't fool yourself... Christ is going to reign on this earth. If you don't understand that, then you unwittingly are asserting that God lied to Abraham and Paul also lied in Galatians. Don't think so
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Christ is reigning now from the right hand of God. To Calvinists Christ is King, we don't await an earthly kingdom from which Christ can reign. You are preaching Dispensationalism.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@droptozro
Revelation 21:10 And He carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. The heavenly Jerusalem is in heaven not physical Jerusalem.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@droptozro
John 3:13 No one has ASCENDED into heaven but He who DESCENDED from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 14 Jesus speaks of "going" to prepare a place obviously in heaven for us. He then states He will return to take us to where He dwells, which is also obviously heaven.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
John 3:13. I agree, Ascended means on His own power, Enoch and Elijah were "caught up"(not by their own power). I agree, He is going to prepare us a place---the whole meaning of it coming Rev 21:10 "From the sky" is to show God created the city, not man. That doesn't mean the city is literally in the sky. Amazing you take this one literally and not the clearly outlined 1000 year reign. There are countless quotes from the prophets and from Revelation that prove it'll be on earth.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
It also doesn't state literally it will be on earth.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"It also doesn't state literally it will be on earth"
How many Biblical references would you like that show you're wrong?
Compare Isaiah 54:1 with Gal 4:25-27, Isa 54:5-8 with Rev 21:2-3, Rev 21:9-10, and Isa 54:11-12 with Rev 21:18-21
Compare Isaiah 60:3 with Rev 21:24, Isaiah 60:11 with Rev 21:25-27, and Isa 60:19-21 with Rev 21:23-24 and Rev 21:27
Compare Isaiah 62:1-2 with Rev 21:24 and Rev 21:2-3, Isa 62:5 with Rev 21:9-10, Isa 62:11 with Rev 22:12
Compare Isa 65:17-19 with
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...was Abraham promised forever? Genesis 13:15, compare that with Galatians 3:15-18.
This is all explainable from multiple Scriptures, but it's quite clear--from Scripture, you go to Hades(Acts 2:27-31, Eph 4:9-10, Luke 16:19-31 when(if) you die and you will await resurrection in either Paradise or torment.
Then if you endure to the end in the faith, not departing into sin as Israel did by unbelief(Hebrews 3).. you will inherit that REST(Sabbath), the 1000 year reign.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Well aware of Hades as well. That is why i said believers go to Paradise to await the resurrection.
You once again sound like a dispensationalist with your 1000 year reign on earth. Is this the same earth that Peter says will end at the second coming?
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Okay so you know of Hades, great.
"sound dispensationalist...your 1000 year reign on earth"
I don't know what they teach, again--but the more I speak with you the more I feel like I'm speaking with someone who does not believe the Bible. My original assertions of idolatry in Calvinism constantly reveal themselves to be true in your words--that your system of doctrine is above what Jesus and the apostles taught and prophesied.
What do you do with Rev 11:15? Rev 20?
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You are putting literal meanings on things that weren't literal. The thousand year reign is a present reality.
I suggest you look into Dispensationalism. Your views are quite similar.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"You are putting literal meanings on things that weren't literal. The thousand year reign is a present reality"
Would you like to explain that, and how you use hermeneutics to explain why you subjectively claim it's only a metaphor and not literal?
Because multiple other Scriptures contradict you, have you read the prophets or not?
Do you really not understand that you're calling God a liar by the promise He made with Abraham? Gen 13:15, true or not?
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
What do you do with the prophecy of "Immanuel"--it means "God with us", not the other way around
What do you do with Rev 21:3?--it clearly says God's going to make His tabernacle WITH US, not the other way around.
I don't disagree that Christ is at the right hand of the Father--but at this present moment, the nations are not under His feet)(Acts 2:35, Psalm 110:1) You are contradicting so much Scripture it's a wonder you call yourself a Bible believer, I mean it.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I looked into it slightly from the point of view of the person I learned most of this from, and he clearly states he's not a dispensationalist. In fact he's got debates against them, we don't believe in a pre-trib rapture--the true Rapture that's shown in the Bible from Matt 24, is Christ gathering His people(those alive and resurrected) in the air at His coming over Mt. Zion(Isa 24:23, Col 3:4, 1 Cor 15:51-52). Then we will descend with Him into the New Jerusalem and rule earth.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I also forgot, Revelation 11:15 also contradicts your view that Christ is presently reigning over the nations--because it's clear they won't be under His reign until then when He comes with a rod of Iron to Shepherd them. (Rev 19:15).
These things are literal, you also don't understand the Genesis 6 day creation and 1 day rest-- and the explanation in 2 Peter 3. The 7th day is the 7,000th year, the Sabbath. Do you just ignore that the law of Moses was a shadow of things to come?
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I suggest you read the prophets and realize that Revelation(meaning "reveal") is meant to reveal more knowledge on what the prophets foretold by the Spirit. John had many of the same visions of the prophets, some are word-for-word. This is almost like talking to a Pharisee--I don't mean that in that you're self-righteous, but that you don't discern the prophets and that you don't believe what was written. It's clear as day if you study it. Amillenialism is a denial of Scripture.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
You can condemn Calvinism all you like, but the fact remains that the most Godly theologians and evangelists of the last 500 years were virtually all calvinists. I had a debate with someone recently and he claimed all Calvinists worshipped Satan and none were Christian. This is such a ridiculous statement that it should make you realize how skewed the view is of Calvinists and their beliefs.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Calvinists who understand what they're worshipping---aren't worshipping the true God. That I would agree with, it's deception and Satanic. I've actually had a friend say he casted out a demon from someone and it named itself aloud "Calvinism." If you're teaching the limited atonement, I'd say you're not saved--you're teaching a false gospel and accursed per Paul's letter to Galatia.
Who cares bout last 500 years? My views go back to the Ante-Nicene church--yours don't.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Your friend supposedly casting out a demon calling itself calvinism is a nice try but I don't buy it for a second. The atonement is obviously a particular one as not all people are saved and have their sins atoned for. They will pay the atonement of those sins themselves in Hell. You think that Jesus atoned for everyone and because they choose not to accept it it was an ineffective atonement.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Oh yeah, and I didn't really finish the first response all the way--kind of got sidetracked into your Gnostic origins. But no, I believe some Calvinists are saved--except for the list I gave below. I think God is more willing from Scripture to overlook theological misunderstandings(to a degree) rather than Godly fruit. Most "doctrine" in Scripture when that word or "teaching" is used--has to do with righteousness and living holy, abiding in Christ rather than head knowledge.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Not sure you have the authority to compile a list, but I agree that holy living and obedience is more important that theological differences
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Not sure authority...compile a list" a false gospel is just that. I can compile it if Paul said we're to call any false gospel accursed either from angel or man. A false gospel cannot save. But most Calvinists have the same gospel presentation as myself--the issue is when one digs deeper into your views. To claim Christ only died for some and not all and make up extra-biblical reasons(such as God's not effective, or failed). This is semi-Gnosticism and a weak god at heart.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
If Christ died for all then all would be saved- universalism. The bible clearly says that Jesus died for His people, His church, the sheep. Since not everyone is in His church, logic states that He did not die for all. This is not false gospel and not what Paul was referring to.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
I agree that's not what Paul was referring to in that context, but Paul backed it up by stating ANY OTHER GOSPEL---yours is false and falls under that category.
Yes, you realize it--your view logically leads to universalism, that's what you hold the limited atonement. But that's not what the Bible teaches--it says Christ died for the church and the whole world(1 John 2:2, 1 Tim 4:10). It's only effective to those who believe, agreed-HOW you become elect--you are not defining..
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
One is elect by virtue of God writing his name in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Who we are as individuals or what we strive for has no bearing.God is the potter and we are the clay. Our belief in Jesus and our repentance are a result not a cause of our salvation.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"elect... name in book of life...foundation of the world. ..what we strive for has no bearing."
That's not what God says, that's what you say. Read Psalm 69:28, "blotted out of the book of life."
Ex 32:33 "And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.""
Rev 3:5 "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,"
So you can be blotted OUT based on your response.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...the word "elect" biblically. I already gave you one instance, it means "choice," as in a "choice product,"(like precious) or "beloved" according to Scripture comparison. It means those who are specially His, those who've received Him He gave the right to become the sons of God. You are defining elect unbiblically, show me it Biblically and maybe we'll have some ground to debate that. You haven't yet.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ...Isaiah 65:17-19 with Rev 21:1-2.
Compare Ezek 43:7 with Rev 21:3-4 and Rev 22:3.
Compare Ezek 47:12 with Rev 21:1-2
Compare Ezek 48:30-35 with Rev 21:12-13
Even compare Ezek and John's visions--because you claim it's in the sky
Compare Ezek 40:2-3 with Rev 21:10-12
This is impossible to deny all the Scriptural parallels. You'll be on earth, you just deny it because it completely refutes your theology. You deny the Bible. It's unbelief is what it boils down to--read it all.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
I can't agree that the picture being painted here is an earthly picture.Heavenly Jerusalem is heavenly not earthly.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"heavenly Jerusalem is heavenly not earthly"--I already gave you multiple Scriptures to the contrary, it's clear Jesus will reign on earth. "heavenly" is just an adjective to describe this Kingdom was made by God and not by man's hands. I have a response for all of your single or couple verse proof-texts, I really haven't seen anything from you to defend your view--it really is a man-made system, and you have unbelief in the Bible and God's words.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Is this the same earth that Peter says with end at the second coming?"
Yes, it's going to pass away and won't be remembered---God's going to remove the curse. That's exactly what Romans 8:18-25 teaches, and so does Rev 21 align with 2 Peter 3:15. Do you think "new" means replace? If so, are you a new creation in Christ? Do you still have your same body? It just means to make it new, to restore it to the original creation--no longer under the curse. Read Isaiah 65
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Since the heavens and earth will be burnt up and the works of men will be consumed with fire. 2 Peter 3:7, yes It will be replaced
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod ... well I guess they do, yours go back, they're just semi-Gnostic in origin. If you believe you're going to the heavens when you die, it's Gnostic--if you believe you're predestined(fatalism) to heaven/hell, it's Gnostic... if you believe the flesh itself was corrupted by Adam and all corresponding generations alike, it's semi-Gnostic. This is all from debates in the early church, it's clear to see who believed what--the Gnostics cut out the prophecies and Scriptures, so do you.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Nonsense. All historic Christianity believed that heaven was not a physical place here on earth. Predestination is throughout scripture and can't seriously be denied. Do you not believe in original sin? Adam's sin was a curse to all mankind.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"nonsense. All historic Christianity believed that heaven was not a physical place"
Uh... I've got a book of quotes from the first 300 years of the church writers themselves that says you're wrong... I can quote them if you'd like, of course it's all available on the CCEL website. I guarantee you, you're wrong. It's almost laughable how wrong that statement is, the Kingdom of Heaven will be on the renewed earth back to the original creation pre-fall.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Oh yeah, and Total Inability is also semi-Gnostic. Since they were founded on secret knowledge, this knowledge had to be revealed and that's how you were saved and it only came by attaining it. Not faith.
Yes, the works of men will be burned up(buildings etc), the creation will be renewed. Replaced as in renewed according to Scripture--it doesn't mean that we're going to a different planet, and if we were going to the heavens--no need to have a new heaven(sky)/earth.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Total inability is simply the fact that man in his fallen corrupt state can't turn himself towards God unless repentance is granted him. He must be given a new heart and only then can he respond. You sound like a full blown Pelagian.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Adam's sin was a curse to all mankind"
Agreed, the curse did occur because of his sin. But that's not original sin, no no--you teaching original sin is semi-Gnostic. I already stated this and gave you a few clear teaching verses contrary. Original sin says Adam's sin is transferred to me, that's not in the Bible--that'd be a pretty important thing to mention in Genesis, but it's not there. You think God forgot to mention that? I don't think so, I think men made it up.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
And now you're going to mention Romans 5, guaranteed--but take a look again before you do--if you're going to claim that Adam's sin was unconditionally transferred to all of us(all humankind, remember that, ALL humans--even though it doesn't say "all," just "many") then you also have to be consistent with the other half of the verse---and state that ALL are now saved unconditionally for what Christ did--now you're a universalist? I don't think you are.
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
No not a universalist, although Origen originally believed that due to the way the scripture seems to imply. If you don't believe adams sin was passed to you and death follows, please tell me when sin actually was counted against you, or do you hold the Arminian claim that you were merely sick and hindered by sin, not rendered dead.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"Please tell me when sin actually was counted against you"-- just like Paul said in Romans 7, once I had full knowledge of the law and sinned against it in my conscience. For Paul this was around 12/13 probably since he became a Pharisee. I don't really think it's an age, but a state of accountability. The Jews did have the "bar mitzvah" though, which means "one to whom the commandments apply" which was 13 for boys and 12 for girls. I wasn't dead, see the Scriptures, Rom 7:9
droptozro 3 months ago
@droptozro
Strange theology if you don't think you were born in sin.I guess you were more fortunate than David.
MrWinknod 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
Psalm 51:5---you take a Psalm, a poetic exaggeratory verse from David's penitent prayer after his horrendous sin and make it doctrine. That's twisted. Don't you understand the context of the whole Psalm--Psalm 139 David said he was fearfully and wonderfully made... so you think God made sinners in the womb? The context clearly shows it's an exaggeration of one's sinfulness... not a literal statement, and Romans 9:11 in your view, hurts this showing at conception--neutrality.
droptozro 3 months ago
@MrWinknod
"...and death follows" Death is spiritual in that sense, obviously Adam didn't die physically on the day he ate. You also show no Scripture to show Adam's sin was literally passed to me, and that even contradicts God's justice(though physical) from Ezekiel 18.
We die physically because we were made to die from dust, and expelled from the garden, cut off from the tree of life.
I remember when I rebelled, total willful rejection against God--said I didn't want Him ruling over me.
droptozro 3 months ago