Your comment does not reflect what you believe on the 'Calvi' issue.
May I recommend my video
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
Please note the information below the video gives a link to a chapter that demonstrates the adding of "His" to Romans8:28 shows calvis who inserted it are not into sola scriptura but wish all to divert from it.
Get off the lithium dude, it might help you think more clearly and get away from Greek humanistic philosophy. The Bible is true. Open theism is only philosophically based and is not supported through any explicit verses in Scripture. Where in the Bible does is say God knows all "counter-factuals" That is a man made theory invented by the Jesuits not taught ANYWHERE in Scripture OR in the Church fathers. Heresy? Which council/synod supported synergism?
"the LORD your God . . . these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." Deuteronomy 8:2
I recommend my vid "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy Hmmm. I don't see the word "counter-factual" anywhere in those verses. Telling Saul what He would have done doesn't prove anything, it didn't happen because it wasn't supposed to happen. FROM Him and through Him and to Him are ALL THINGS. I KNOW the end from the beginning.
I have never mentioned "counter-factuals" anywhere, so why bring it up at all?
I replied to you assertion that there was no explicit verses supporting of open theism.
Answers this question:
Would God have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
[I know the end from the beginning is context specific and is applied according to verse 11 - It is only the end He "declares" that is relevant and that in advance]
As to "FROM Him" do you believe evil comes from Him?
@gracetruthguy Saul question. The only thing we have to go with is REALITY. In reality the answer is NO. The outcomes in reality are from God, we could all play the "what if" game, but it doesn't matter. God knows the end from the beginning. The end doesn't change. Neither do the acts in between.
Evil is adjectival. It is not a "thing". It is a moral measure of INTENT. God intending that sin be was a Holy Act. The intention was good. The intention IN the act of sin is evil. 2 intentions 1 act.
@gracetruthguy A boy cleans the house for mom. Good or evil? The INTENTION is what determines whether or not it is good or evil (adjectives by the way). Out of love for mom- good. To get some money that his mom might give him to buy drugs - evil. Same act, intention determines the ADJECTIVE.
God's intention that Adam would sin was good and Holy, Adams intention to do the sinful Act was evil because of His intention. God decreeing that evil be is not an EVIL intent but a Holy one.
So to you everything that happens has been decreed. Right?
Have you not read:
"they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5
@gracetruthguy Therefore FROM Him and through Him and To Him stands and means what it says. It is nothing less that VERY explicit. You have to deal with it.
@gracetruthguy I didn't say that, The darkness came from Adam (and Satan also) because of their INTENTIONS. God's intention in the same act is Holy and true. You have to have the capacity to see there are different intentions in the same act. You continually see Evil as an entity rather than an adjective. Two intentions can be good and evil from one event. Gen. 50:15 explains the same ACT. EVIL comes from the the brothers. IT (the EVIL act) God meant (purposed) for GOOD, therefore a GOOD act.
@gracetruthguy I don't agree with all of Calvin, I take him in light of Scripture. God doesn't "Make use" of evil, He INTENDS or MEANS/purposes Evil (didn't answer my Gen 50:15 quote) You ignore the CONTEXT of Rom 9. The difference is to destroy the error of equal ultimacy in his decree. He has to be active is salvation (regeneration to the elect), he didn't have to do anything for those whom He passed over. The prepared is in the perfect tense. It happened in the PAST.
Jer. 19:5 Your problem in analyzing these passages is this: you overlooked the difference between the Revealed Will (what one should do) and the Secret Will (what one will do). All these types of passages are talking about God's decrees relative to the revealed will: his commandments, not his decrees of Providence.
"Mind" by the way is "HEART" It is a moral issue, not God's "knowing".
@gracetruthguy You are. It didn't enter his... what? Better look at the Hebrew (I doubt you know it though). Nope, God wouldn't command it. He commands the opposite. But again, God has His Will for us to follow, (that which we can't) and His Decreeing Will, that which WILL be done in order to perfect accomplish His purpose. Who can stay his hand?
I'm glad U read God would not command it, but Calvin says God decreed everything that comes to pass, so U disagree with Calvin here since these things happened which God did not command.
Unless you wish to say God decrees things He does not command. (illogical)
God does not ask of us what we cannot do
He does require us to work with Him to make it so, but that is part of the ability we are given: i.e. to ask.
Draw near to God and He will draw near. He can't if you won't.
God foreordained that the Jews would deliver up Jesus to Pilate and yet the Jews had not just sin, but a greater sin than Pilate's sin in executing Christ unjustly. That's a greater sin than the rape of a child, as shocking as that might sound. So, are you going to "blame" God for the crucifixion? Or are you going to justify God although he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass?
HOW God uses people to do evil things, tells us the righteousness of God.
It is AFTER they have already themselves shown their denial of the light which all men receive (John1:9).
Which is why Paul says no one is AFORE PREPARED (1 Greek Verb) in R9:22-23 to evil. It isthose who show themselves FIT for that who are then used in the deception of God's choice (for His purposes to be carried out). See 2 Thess.2:10-12 for the cause and effect. That is how Judas was picked.
@gracetruthguy Bad understanding of light in John 1:9. The light here in the Greek is a revealing the true NATURE of man, it shows who they really are, in their natural state all they can do and WANT to do is suppress it. They are still PREPARED of destruction and it is not an ACTIVE or self acted upon verb (Ro 9:22) It is a PASSIVE done by God. Judas didn't pick himself by his actions LOL He was prophesied and chosen. Jo 6:70/71 and Luke 22:3. Refer to Job, he can only do what God wants.
"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" John 1:9
You said: "The light here in the Greek is a revealing the true NATURE of man, it shows who they really are, in their natural state all they can do and WANT to do is suppress it."
TO PHÓS is just "the light"
Seriously do you know the definition of eisegesis?
@gracetruthguy LOL save me the transliteration. I read Koine Greek by sight.
You are the one practicing eisegesis not I. Light only shows what is TRULY there that is HIDDEN in the darkness. It reveals mans true nature. There is the "light" NOUN/Jesus and "gives light" "revealing"... and you ASSUME (eisegesis) that Judas.. etc... rejected the LIGHT, but I was referring to what the lighting (the verb) reveals. Natural man thinks he is good denying what the lighting is revealing about himself.
And, as Dr. John Gill (d.1771) rightly states about the consistency of Rom.9:6 with v.7: "...(Rom.9:7) as in the former verse (v.6), he explains in what sense they were Israelites..."
No Greek grammarian I know of would assert that Paul is not speaking of the same subject (in v.7) as in v.6. He is simply further explaining his meaning of v.6 in v.7.
How pathetic! Now we have to REDEFINE" Responsibility" so that Calvins FALSE theology can hold water? They've already redefined "Dead, Regenerated, Sovereignty, Calling, Election, Chosen, All, Forknew, World, Faith, Will, Appointed, Draw, Purpose", and so forth... Calvinism is UNBLIBICAL.
gracetruthguy makes the same mistake Erasmus and Pighius made when they came to the false conclusion that when God gives a command, it must therefore indicate man's inherent ability to carry it out. And as Luther and Calvin (and many others) pointed out, God's commands (prescriptive will) were not meant to teach man about his abilities; rather, they are to teach man his utter inability and impotence to carry out God's commands in fullness. In other words, "ought" does not imply "can".
@4:00, "..if the Father is being 'blamed' for evil in the world..."
As if Calvinists are asserting that God is to be blamed for evil. As the word "blame" implies "responsibility", the Calvinist simply responds: "what is your definition of responsibility?"
Generally, those who assert that Calvinists "blame" God for evil, don't have a proper definition of "responsibility". But, first, a proper definition needs to be established ;)
"single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance.” Institutes of Christian Religion Bk I, Ch.16, Sct. 4
Bible:
"they . . . burn their sons with fire . . . which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5
Did God decree that act or is the Bible true in saying He never did?
btw, Calvinists tend to be genuine Christians, but they are deceived in much. e.g. C above.
@g.t.g.. I noticed you didn't bother to give a definition of "responsibility"; please do so ;) Are not God's decree, and His prescriptive will distinct things? (Acts.4:27-28, for example). Therefore, is the prophet (Jer.19:5) not pointing out that fact that the Israelites were breaking God's prescriptive will (Law)?
I would go on to read sec.5-9, in ch.16, Bk.I of Calvin's Institutes, where he refutes the idea of "chance".
"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" Acts 4:27-28
You are not told here HOW God does it.
Paul tells us how in Romans 9:22-23 those who sin show themselves fit for 'bad' tasks that glorify God in the nations. No one is aforeprepared to that.
@gracetruthguy Acts.4:28-- If God "determined beforehand" what was done to Jesus, was there any possibility of the event not happening? Of course not. Divine determinism stands above man's will, and overrules it.
Rom.9:22-23--Paul is not even addressing "sin" in Rom.9! His whole argument is about divine election vs. reprobation. Only someone who is so wedded to their traditions can't see it.
I'm sorry, Sir, but you are teetering on "will worship" (which is idolatry).
Determined beforehand gives no explanation of HOW God does it.
And it certainly does not mean God overrules a man's will.
You seem not to understand the link with Romans 9:22-23
It is those who are seen to sin who show themselves 'fitted' for the purposes: that are then 'used' to do 'bad' things.
Since God foresaw there would always be a group of bad people about, He ensured they were moved into play for His purposes. Nothing was done against their will.
@gracetruthguy "Determined beforehand gives no explanation of HOW God does it."
You're right. That is actually stressed in vs. 16-21, not vs. 22-23.
"And it certainly does not mean God overrules a man's will."
I believe that no violence is ever done to man's will. This is the position of the historic Confessions of Faith (Westminster, and 1689 London Baptist).
God simply changed the will of His elect; gave them a new one...a will to love Him, rather than hate Him ;)
@gracetruthguy "Are you cutting out vs 22-23 from the context of 16-21?"
Please don't bear false witness, you lose credibility when you do.
"You see in context R9 is not as it is regularly expounded by calvis (sic)."
In fact, it is open theism, and Arminian synergism that MUST (in order to maintain their idolatrous notion of the "free will" of man) who must twist the consistent message of Romans 9.
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:6 "...not all Israel, which are of Israel"
You asked, "Do you agree that this is a reference to the saved "the Israel of God" (the elect as calvis call them) within the nation "of Israel"?"
A. Yes. As long as you can acknowledge that the Apostle is speaking about individuals within the corporate nation of Israel, who are believers. In other words, it is clear that Paul is making a distinction between corporate Israel, and individual believers within it. Correct, or no?
Yes, the word "nor", or "neither" (Gk. οὐδ’, oud) does not mean "also".
v.7 (with exposition): "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (physical descendants), are they (corporate Israel) all children: but in Isaac (based not on physical descendancy, but upon the "spiritual" promise: v.8) shall thy seed be called".
Since "nor/neither" means "not ALSO" then Paul in introducing in his discussion Ishmael and Isaac and then to continue with Esau and Jacob, he is - since it is NOT ALSO - he is introducing the issue of separate nations into his discourse as DISTINCT FROM the issue of the saved (the calvi 'elect) among the nations of Israel.
Do you agree?
If you don't agree, please explain why Paul is using the word "Nor"
@gracetruthguy "...he [Paul] is introducing the issue of separate nations into his discourse [Rom.9:7]..."
So here we see your fallacious assertion: you are already presupposing that Paul is talking about "nations". He is most certainly not (he doesn't even mention Ishmael in his discourse). He is talking about physical descendants vs. "spiritual seed" (which has to do with individuals, not nations). Notice his use of individuals: Abraham, Isaac..etc.?
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:7-- the "nor/neither" is in reference to the last part of v.6, is it not?
v.6: "they are not all Israel ("spiritual"), which are of Israel (corporate nation)" The text goes on:
v.7: "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (physical descendants; contrasted with spiritual descents), are they all children (spiritual descendants)..."
"Neither (Gk. οὐδ’, oud)", is a negative, conjunctive adverb. Meaning, it "conjoins" the antecedent statement of v.6.
Paul, using the word "neither" (v.7) is conjoining the antecedent statement (v.6). He is denying (with a "negative conjunction") that the physical seed of Abraham (corporate Israel) are the true seed; but the children of promise (spiritual seed) are Abraham's true descendants.
Paul is constantly contrasting the corporate nation with individuals (the true faithful) within the corporate nation.
Perhaps you simply need further grammatical education...
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:6,7-- The "A", and "B", as you put it (it seems that one of us actually exegetes the text, while the other doesn't even seem to bother quoting it).
Yes! "B" (v.7), is the SAME SUBJECT as "A" (v.6). That is the whole point of a "conjunction", Sir. And, since it is a negative conjunction, it means that Paul is going deeper (in v.7) to deny the same thing he denied in v.6.
The negative conjunction does NOT mean Paul is changing subjects, he is simply expounding upon v.6.
And you quoted a grammatical source that defined the word "nor", but you persist in denying what it contained.
Please explain the word "negative" and how it DOES mean somethirng different than what preceded (it is part of a conjunction, remember?)
If you do not, then every other comment you make that continues to deny this simple English language truth and the truth of Scripture will be removed.
We know they are cojoined, but this does not mean they are exactly about the same subject.
For those Israel (the circumcised in heart) who are of Israel (the circumcised in the flesh) to mean the same as the children of promise, the promise uttered needs to be about them as individuals and not the nations which they are elected to be the heads of.
So that see for yourself - for example - that Esau never served Jacob and yet that was promised.
What will you tell God was the reason you denied Him for?Because you didn't like how He chose people for Heaven and let others go to Hell? Do you think He will be sympathetic to you?
You are free to believe the doctrine that Augustine began in the 5th century as much as you like.
The Lord is not inconsistent and cannot choose anyone to go to hell and play act as if he did not:
"Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” Ezekiel 18:31-32
When reading the whole chapter and not just one verse in 2 Peter 2 seems not much of the bible is being followed by this person as not even angels would bring accusations against Calvinists according to the chapter which means A: he does not really understand what the bible teaches or B: understands the bible and wilfully disobeys what the bible teaches. Unable to cease from sin in adultery-is not how I would describe Calvinists I know.
@gracetruthguy First I do appreciate your generosity as often times-I am a bit brash at times but with this I honestly think it is warranted. No matter what one thinks-to judge a belief or a population of people holding this belief I see as somehow a bit off to be using this one passage when it isevident to Peter that if one is attributed to this judgement-you should not be in opposition or even allow one such as me to speak according to 2nd Peter 2. My point is using a passage not in context.
I will probably trake alook at that video as I tend to appeal tothese as they make a bit more sense. Psalms 14 and 53 quoted by Paul in Romans 3 describing simnners as those who do not seek after God. If Paul states this in Romans 3 as the conclusion and in the Psalms the question is there be any who understand or seek after God-that conclusion is that which Paul begins with-there is none righteous no not one leaves one conclusion for us all-not one seen having faith and we all reject Christ!
what are you saying '' He ( GOD ) had no comprehension of how wickedness and evil worked until it came into being & he had to learn '' - i think you are so wrong - so deceived. ive felt uncomfortable using the term '' calvinist '' to help describe my believe/faith because of professing christian being upset about it. i now know that i would far rather have professing christians upset with me than my Lord God upset
we will all give a account before Christ - for what we have said and done
If you wish to see bible evidence for the open view of God then I recommend my video entitled "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
Perhaps you can tell me whether you believe God would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
Would be simpler to begin the discussion with the Scriptural doctrine of Original Sin. The other matters will then take their proper place. You mention fruits. A very apt and Scriptural observation. My reading of history shows that at times of reformation or spiritual awakening, which is real fruit, the doctrine of Original Sin, which causes man to desperately seek a Saviour, was clearly taught. Satan said, Thou shalt not surely die. He now says, "Thou hast not surely and completely died." Liar.
I agree - original sin is a leveller that settles what follows.
I disagree that historically it is the sound doctrine of the Church: the opposite is true. It is that very lie that Satan introduced with Augustine and was thereby absent for 400 years preceding.
See my video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
And look out for the quote from HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE by GP Fisher
@gracetruthguy Hi, I read history a bit differently. The Apostles taught Original Sin. The heresy of free-will crept in and in time was quantified by Pelagius. It was then Augustine who labored to remedy the error and recover the ancient truth. Same happened in time of Luther after RC church obscured truth. Just wondering what you think of the fruit of the Reformation.
You are not alone in reading history differently. All the holocasut deniers need do is go and see the films and the places where it all happened to see the truth.
All you need do is read the early church fathers before Augustine and see he began the "freewill is not" theology. Pelagius THEN spoke up against Augustine is the order of events...
If you see the evidence, you see Augustine is a departing point contrary to the preceding orthodoxy.
@gracetruthguy I guess we'll simply disagree. Bottom line for me is that Grace is not that which gives me an opportunity to be saved, but rather Grace is that which has saved me. BTW I'm no Calvinist.
@gracetruthguy One who adheres to the tulip doctrines. Frankly, I've read Calvin's Institutes, and his book on Predestination, and I disagree with him only on the Lord's Supper. He answers the charge that Christ did not die for all the world by saying, "It is incontestible that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. Continued
@gracetruthguy For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed." end quote. I'm no student of Calvin, but I wonder if some have applied reason to Calvin's doctrines and came up with limited atonement. Christ died for all, yet not all are saved. Why some and not others? I leave that completely to God, and simply preach to all, knowing that we are made partakers by grace alone.
If Calvinism is just a term to cover all unconditional predestination dogma (whether limited atonement is held or not) then is it unfair to think of you as a Calvinist?
I use the name in that way as it is better than saying Augustinianism which would be truer technically as per my previous comments, but confusing in general.
Have you considered my video entitled:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More" ?
GTG, You truly are the Open theist heretic. This is not a open letter to Calvinists, it's a delusional expression of your own personal madness. You truly are a man of a sick mind. I recommend psychiatric evaluation. Open theism was never taught in the church. Hell awaits you Jacques, if God does not grant you repentance, you will truly face the wrath of God.
Westminter Confession clearly says 'God is NOT the author of sin'. Don't pretend to be a scholar when your not Jacques.
@gtg, There's no point in having a discussion with you as you are obviously mentally ill. for example, your quotes of Calvin do not imply that God engages or is morally responsible for sin. As the Westminster confession states they are the results of the liberty and contingencies of secondary causes. Yet, because God is sovereign in all things, He alone can establish what ultimately results. Open theism is Gnostic paganism & I will not even bother debating it with one who is insane like you.
Calvin did not write the Westminster Confession which is an attempt to cover up the explicit in Calvin that "single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will"
Calvin's words are an honest outcome of the whole theology Augustine began.
= not biblical
Bible is clear that God "would have established" Saul's "kingdom over Israel forever" 1 Samuel 13:13
So up till then there were not plans for David to be king!
@gtg Do you really think I would be so ignorant not to know that Calvin did not write the Westminster Confession? Do you enjoy insulting people's intelligence? Yes, it's part and parcel of your insanity.
If you're understanding of modern Calvinists, you would know that they do not revolve their doctrine around John Calvin. The term Calvinist refers primarily to soteriology,TULIP,& 5 Sola's.
Gen49:10 is clear. Rulership would be of Judah, not Benjamin. Saul was temporary as God intended.
So, since the Westminster Confession clearly deviates from Calvin are you happy to say Calvin is not biblical?
There is no reference to David in G49:10 and if the scepter was in Benjamin's hand then is it the same thing? Equally if any law came from Levi whom Moses came from, then the mention of lawgivers is not indicative of the rule of David.
Tell me, who is more likely to be deceived, the one who throws insults or the one who is apt to teach & patiently?
@gtg You're insane, & I will prove it so long as you keep replying. This is not an insult, as your video insults Calvinists, & as you have already insulted me by insinuating I did not know Calvin did not write the West.Conf. Either you're insane or insulting or both.
Now, to further the fact you are insane, the 'Ruling Scepter' was determined for the House of Judah. This is a fact you can't refute. Nor is Benj. the same as Judah.
I smile at your ref. "Rom 16:17,18" since historically all forms of Calvinism are a departure from the sound doctrine persistently taught for 400 years.
See my vid
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Of course we can read the coming of Jesus' rule in G49:10, but to backtrack it to David is to ignore the lawgivers and rulers from the other tribes. It is eisegesis to suggest all you have for saying David was planned by God to be king B4 Saul from this solitary passage.
@gtg Calvinism has been the default doctrine since the Reformation, it wasn't until the mid 1800's , Arminianism & most other predominant heretical denominations emerged. Amazing how you can make statements that you can never substantiate with fact = insane. For an open theist, who builds his entire theology upon esisegesis, you should welcome any alleged eisegesis on my part.
Lawgivers 'from between his feet' means under his authority. This proves you don't know what you're talking about.
If U had looked at the vid I pointed to then you would have seen:
“In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.”
History of Christian Doctrine page 165 by George
Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark
As well as the many quotes proving the point.
If you wish to reply do so intelligently and in context.
Any comments already replied to and therefore repeated will be deleted.
@gtg 'conditional predestination'? Greek fathers? What's your point. What does that have to do with the default reformation doctrines that were clearly established in the many Confessions of Faith of the time? And what would they say of 'open theism'? You know, the God who is the 'alpha and omega'.
As I continue to prove, you are insane. You're are a heretic. You may happily delete any reply you want. I don't care. You are anathema. If God does not grant you repentance you will burn in hell.
Do you not believe that God decreed the death of His Son,by the very people who killed Him?To say that anything is hidden from God is naive at best and hearsay at worst.
Do you want to know what the MAJOR problem is with applying 2Ti 1:9 to the "group" of believers and not to individuals?
Relationship.
If we understand 2Ti. 1:9 applying to the "group" then this implies that God never had a PERSONAL relationship with believers from before the founding of the world, but only a "group" relationship.
Faith as a gift and faith as an action. I agree with both statements.
Faith is a gift according to Paul at 2Ti.1:5-6. There Paul reminds Timothy of his "sincere faith" which was in his grandmother and mother. Paul then reminds Timothy to kindle afresh the gift of God that is in you.
This gift must be put in action or it will be taken away as per Ro.11:20
The gift Paul mentions was that given Timothy by Paul laying his hands on him. Faith was already in Timothy before that gift mentioned.
As for R11:20 all faith is unreal if not producing fruit James makes that clear.
For R11:35 see my earlier comment: free will is a gift of God to man: his exercise of it is not a work or else breathing or eating is a work and sin... But the fruit of that decision its full fruit, if evil is sin and thus a work.
I don't know if I can agree with you on what the gift is here. Faith or the laying on of hands.
vs 6 states stir up the gift BY the putting on of my hands. vs 5 clearly teaches that Timonth and his mother and grandmother had the gift of faith, Paul FLAMED or KINDLED that gift through the laying on of hands.
"I read here that the gift was in Timothy through the laying on of hands by Paul. "
Then what "gift" was Paul referring to as being in Timothy's grandmother and mother?? As I asked before did Paul "lay hands" on them two also to impart the gift? What scripture do you rely on for that belief?
I believe you are guilty of attempting to "know" how God judges when Ro.11:33 reads this as unsearchable.
Ro.11:35 teaches "who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again"? You claim a work based salvation, if you show mercy God is OBLIGATED to return mercy, contrary to what Paul teaches here.
1Co. 4:7 asks "For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive?....why do you boast as if you have not received it?"
I believe - you are guilty - of forcing an understanding of God's judgment not mentioned by Paul.
Take a look at this video and see that the Greek Paul uses, accurately shows salvation as a free gift, but leaves faith as an action on the part of the one to receive that salvation:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
Hi gracetruthguy, ok we're both guilty, God bless us :)
I'm not forcing anything, I'm just bringing examples of God's judgements. In David's case "the soul that sins" did not die. Sorry. YOU are the one who is dogmatic with Ezek 18.
Actually I think faith is a gift per Eph. 2. because the text there and at 2Ti. 1:9 clealrly states such. If it weren't men could boast.
Your "faith as an action" contradicts Pauls teaching at Ro.11:35, who has given first?
Ezek18 does not say that the one who sins dies straighaway, but explicit is time to repent and to see if they coninue in that sin BEFORE the judgment on them.
Babies die all the time that has nothign to do with the sin of their parents or not.
If you saw the vid then Eph2 PROVES faith is not a gift.
2 Tim.1:9 makes no mention of faith. Period.
Rom.11:35 tells me: God gave free-will and its exercise means faith is an action of choice (as is to sin): choosing is not a work
I believe David did repent but the child died anyway. Please stick with the facts of 2Sa. 12.
Faith is a gift 2Ti. 1:5-6 and Eph. 2:8 proves it.
Faith wasn't what we were talking about when we read 2 Tim 1:9 God's purpose is, you insisted that "His" was not in the greek text at Ro. 8:28 and actually built a doctrine around this text. But "His" is found at 2Ti. 1:9 so what do you think ?
God's purpose in us is acheived through the gift of faith so no one may boast.
"The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die" " Sam. 12:13-14
David was fully forgiven.
The child's death is indirectly related only. It is to prevent further blasphemy against the Lord. e.g. as he grew up anyone could call him a bustard! And bring shame on the lad and the Lord...
I've also already explained the difference between R8:28 and 2 Ti.1:9
It appears you are not prepared to engage with my replies: watch the video on Eph.2:8-9 or re-read R8:28 and 2 Tim. to see for yourself what I have mentioned.
Let me ask you this:
Since God says
"I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
Your explanation I believe was that 2Ti. 1:9 applies to the group? But we're not really talking about that are we, we're talking about WHO'S PURPOSE, not our own, but God's.
It appears you just plainly misread 2Ti. 1:5-6 to the point of insulting intelligence.
Paul did not lay hands on Timothy's grandma and mother did he?
I'm sorry you have trouble with God being in control, it is difficult and Paul did call it a "mystery" at Ro.11:25 but the fact is God calls according to His purpose.
I've been away for at least 3 months so was unable to reply and I am slowly responding to comments since.
If you have seen my other videos that cover a multitude of bible passages used to support Calvinism and the ones that you hold to are not there, please do tell me which ones to address?
To suggest having the knowledge of good and evil which God too holds at the same time, means we are not 'upright' is to suggest God is not 'upright' also.
When you were little and you walked naked, did you know you were?
In the sense of not feeling the clothes on you or the blanket, yes, but not in the sense that this was shameful in any way, no.
So it is with us all, we are all innocent of these things until a little later.
I hope you understand that the "offspring of vipers" DON'T CARE if what they have is taken, and DON'T CARE what they are "given" because they doubt the Father exists at all.
They just TAKE what they want, without any conscience objections.
It all comes down to whether you are a son of the kingdom or a son of the evil one.
One will do works of faith, the other, works of law.
I'm gonna move now to Ga.4:28 and 2Ti 1:9 because you think 2Ti applies to the group ONLY.
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
That is from the KJV
This verse should harmonize with what we've been discussing in Ro 8 and Ro 9 it should also harmonize with Eph 2:8-9
The Greek reads "according to His own purpose"..."before the world began".
Before we talk about groups and individuals, remember the issue under conflict.
You stated that Ro.8:28 shows that God works by viewing the persons heart, is that person or group? You based your position on there being no "His" in the Greek.
I now show you 2Ti. 1:9 where "His" is clearly in the Greek and it's making the same statement as Ro.8:28 with "His" inserted. Now you believe it's a group?
In R8: 27 the heart searched out is in view. V.28 is a continuation of that. Paul is explaining how God does the business of salvation. It is not a group matter; it is an individual heart and how matter.
In 2 Tim.1:9 just as in Eph.1 as per the vid I mentioned the multittude of plural pronouns show us the group is in view.
God's foreknowledge is explicitly limited to the lifetime of the individual in R8
God's knowledge of the group is not with all those in it thereby.
Edom had the characteristics of Esau. It was a warlike people but failed to acquire the promised land, so it did not share in the inheritance just as God decreed.
Heirs and inheritance is not about the FLESHLY nations but the spiritual nation.
I believe the example of nations is to show the God is not tied to any particular nation like the FLESHLY Jews believed.
I believe in a spiritual sense it does not matter what nation you are in, if you are of a faith, your an heir.
To help join Ro. 4 and Ro. 9 together Gal 3:7-9 sums it all up nicely.
"Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying "All the nations shall be blessed in you". So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer."
This applies of course to Rom.9:6 and those who have come to faith.
It does not apply to God's choice of nations in their entirety for all of Israel is not part of Israel: Jacob represents all the nation of Israel in Rom.9:11 not part of it as per Rom.9:6 (before the 'NOR').
Just as Esau represents all of Edom and not all are lost, because the Lord has believers in every nation (cf. Acts 10:35)
I agree but what's important is to learn WHY the Lord has believers in every nation it is because He declared it.
"Those not my people shall be called My people." Not by our choice, but His.
I believe Jacob ALSO represents children of promise and descendants of Abraham. Just as it states in Galatians 4:28,, "like Isaac, you are children of promise".
Galatians 4 is a good read for me as it differentiates between the flesh and the promise, old and new covenants.
But also note WHY those who belong to Him, BELIEVE.
I think your putting to much emphasis on Nation building. Paul expanded the application of God's calling, according to His purpose, also to those who inherit the promises given to Abraham.
The fact that God calls and this is independent of our "will" in the flesh, causes debaters to reason "why does God still find fault?" "who can resist His will?"
If this was not the thrust of Paul's argument, why is this a logical question to ask?
No, you are to give the passages in Ro.8 that teach how this happens, like I asked. You claimed that Paul explained how children of the promise are chosen in Ro.8.
I see Ro.8:5-6 (according to flesh/spirit), verse 11 (which states according to His purpose) this ties in with Ro.9:6-11 verse 11 speaking of God's purpose and then Ga.4:28-29..verse verse 28 "like Isaac.." 29 mentions born according to flesh and spirit.
God declared "through Isaac your descendants shall be." Ro.9:7
Well if you saw the vids you would see how Rom.8:26-30 is about conditional predestination.
R9.11 speaks of God's purpose according to election: which is, elected to be head of one nation or another: nothing else
Isaac and Ishmael were heads of separate nations, but only Isaac was promised. The illustration in R9 is about being called i.e. promised to that purpose. Since sons of Ishmael get saved too, we know this part of the illustration cannot be stretched to be about salvation
you stated "R9.11 speaks of God's ..election: which is, elected to be head of one nation or another: nothing else" See Ro.9:24
How do you feel about Ro.11:5-6?
Isaac was born of faith, Ishmael was born of works, (Sarah's lack of faith)
What do you think of Gal 4:5, 28
Isn't being redeemed among the Jews, salvation?
Seems too me that Ga.4: 22 - 31 divides between old covenant and new covenant and that only children of promise are in the new covenant. Isn't that about salvation?
We agree here then, we are children of promise due to God's call, this coincides with our choice then right?
Ishmael like fleshly Israel are not lost yet, but they certainly aren't saved. They will be present during judgment day after which they may receive eternal life.
When Jesus died, He went to Sheol to release the righteous souls there, those that adhered to faith b4 His coming.
However those who accept Jesus now, do not come into judgment but have passed from death to life. Jo.5:24
We are children of promise through faith in Christ: through receiving Him who revealed Himself to us as per John 1:9 and 1:12 but note what 'even to those who believe in His name' means:
It is all who desire righteousness - believing in the revelation of righteousness God imparts to all.
believing in the name = believing in God's character
Ishmael's descendants like Israel's descendants have the righteous and the wicked in their midst: period
"It does not apply to God's choice of nations in their entirety for all of Israel is not part of Israel:"
I think you might be saying that the promise applies to SPIRITUAL Israel, which is what I have been trying to convey by quoting "..it is the remnant that will be saved".
I do need to put the word ALSO in my statements, the chapter is about declaring nations but it has a broader application also as seen with "even us" and Pharaoh (who is not Esau)
The issue is where the illustration begins and stops.
It is like the parables, we can only use them so far. It is wrong to impart a meaning in them that is not there and also contradicts the rest of Scripture.
I agree that we are not upright to the point of attaining salvation. This is why it is synergism the bible teaches: you draw near to God and He will draw near to you. God is always calling us, but we harden our hearts too often.
This is not law. This is faith in action, choosing to call on God for help. And faith is a choice. Making use of the abilty to choose God gave us all: i.e. God also gets the glory for us using that right.
James Moffatt's New translation of the bible renders Ro.4:16 "That is why all turns upon faith; it is to make the promise a matter of favour" where other translations state a matter of grace or sheer grace.
I don't see how scripture/Paul can be any more clear.
Yeah your gonna ban me because I repeat myself, when I feel I am just asserting God's word. You repeat yourself why be a hypocrite?
You already admitted you do not know why God chose Jacob over Esau, ignoring the scripture in question Ro. 9:11
Please read Ro. 4:13-16, the promise (eternal life) to Abraham and his heirs is not through the Law (our choice) but through the righteousness of faith..it is by faith so that it might be in accordance with grace (God's choice)
If I do restrict your commenting, yes it will be because I have fully reponded to a point you keep returning to; due to your desiring to harass and not face up to the response as valid.
'grace' is not a word that relates to God's choice, but to God's love.
Grace is not choice, neither is faith. God's love? Ok God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Is that choice?
You must realize my way of debating is intelligent and too the point. I'm used to dealing with people of no faith and atheists who demand straight to the point logic.
sola scriptura
jwoodell3 1 month ago
Hi jwoodell3,
I believe in sola scriptura.
Your comment does not reflect what you believe on the 'Calvi' issue.
May I recommend my video
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
Please note the information below the video gives a link to a chapter that demonstrates the adding of "His" to Romans8:28 shows calvis who inserted it are not into sola scriptura but wish all to divert from it.
gracetruthguy 1 month ago
Get off the lithium dude, it might help you think more clearly and get away from Greek humanistic philosophy. The Bible is true. Open theism is only philosophically based and is not supported through any explicit verses in Scripture. Where in the Bible does is say God knows all "counter-factuals" That is a man made theory invented by the Jesuits not taught ANYWHERE in Scripture OR in the Church fathers. Heresy? Which council/synod supported synergism?
ronathanedwards 10 months ago
Hi Ron,
U:
"not supported through any explicit verses in Scripture"
Me:
"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart"
2 Chronicles 32:31
"now I know" Genesis 22:12
"the LORD your God . . . these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." Deuteronomy 8:2
I recommend my vid "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Hmmm. I don't see the word "counter-factual" anywhere in those verses. Telling Saul what He would have done doesn't prove anything, it didn't happen because it wasn't supposed to happen. FROM Him and through Him and to Him are ALL THINGS. I KNOW the end from the beginning.
ronathanedwards 10 months ago
Hi Ron,
I have never mentioned "counter-factuals" anywhere, so why bring it up at all?
I replied to you assertion that there was no explicit verses supporting of open theism.
Answers this question:
Would God have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
[I know the end from the beginning is context specific and is applied according to verse 11 - It is only the end He "declares" that is relevant and that in advance]
As to "FROM Him" do you believe evil comes from Him?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Saul question. The only thing we have to go with is REALITY. In reality the answer is NO. The outcomes in reality are from God, we could all play the "what if" game, but it doesn't matter. God knows the end from the beginning. The end doesn't change. Neither do the acts in between.
Evil is adjectival. It is not a "thing". It is a moral measure of INTENT. God intending that sin be was a Holy Act. The intention was good. The intention IN the act of sin is evil. 2 intentions 1 act.
ronathanedwards 10 months ago
Hi Ron,
So you are you saying God lied when He says HE "would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever"
Are you not?
Next, you're going to say that God has had plans or decrees for idols to be worshipped?
And He is a liar when He says,
"I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images"
Isaiah 42:8
The enemy really has you in his pocket and deceived (1 Timothy 4:1)
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy A boy cleans the house for mom. Good or evil? The INTENTION is what determines whether or not it is good or evil (adjectives by the way). Out of love for mom- good. To get some money that his mom might give him to buy drugs - evil. Same act, intention determines the ADJECTIVE.
God's intention that Adam would sin was good and Holy, Adams intention to do the sinful Act was evil because of His intention. God decreeing that evil be is not an EVIL intent but a Holy one.
ronathanedwards 10 months ago
Hi Ron,
So to you everything that happens has been decreed. Right?
Have you not read:
"they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5
But He did decree it, you say?
Is God really such a liar in your theology?
Apparently so.
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy Therefore FROM Him and through Him and To Him stands and means what it says. It is nothing less that VERY explicit. You have to deal with it.
ronathanedwards 10 months ago
Hi Ron,
"God is light and in Him is no darkness at all" 1 John 1:5
You are saying darkness is "FROM Him"
Who is true?
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy I didn't say that, The darkness came from Adam (and Satan also) because of their INTENTIONS. God's intention in the same act is Holy and true. You have to have the capacity to see there are different intentions in the same act. You continually see Evil as an entity rather than an adjective. Two intentions can be good and evil from one event. Gen. 50:15 explains the same ACT. EVIL comes from the the brothers. IT (the EVIL act) God meant (purposed) for GOOD, therefore a GOOD act.
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
Do you agreee with Calvin's Intitutes?
Yes or no?
If you do then you are twisting what he is saying.
And you are contradicting Jeremiah 19:5 I quoted above.
God making use of evil that already exists for good is not the same as Him planning it or wanting it to occur in the 1st place.
Have you not read Romans 9:22-23 and noted TWO DIFFERENT Greek verbs?
i.e. NO ONE is "afore prepared" for destruction.
That is a SIGNIFICANT SCRIPTURE and I challenge you to observe it
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy I don't agree with all of Calvin, I take him in light of Scripture. God doesn't "Make use" of evil, He INTENDS or MEANS/purposes Evil (didn't answer my Gen 50:15 quote) You ignore the CONTEXT of Rom 9. The difference is to destroy the error of equal ultimacy in his decree. He has to be active is salvation (regeneration to the elect), he didn't have to do anything for those whom He passed over. The prepared is in the perfect tense. It happened in the PAST.
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
Your G50:5 is answered in the R9 response. As to the R9 context I disagree.
If you understood R8 as I do, then, and then only, can you begin to approach R9
C my vid:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
Jer. 19:5 Your problem in analyzing these passages is this: you overlooked the difference between the Revealed Will (what one should do) and the Secret Will (what one will do). All these types of passages are talking about God's decrees relative to the revealed will: his commandments, not his decrees of Providence.
"Mind" by the way is "HEART" It is a moral issue, not God's "knowing".
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
God says it never entered His mind and He did not command it, yet you say Yes He did?
Who is being deceived?
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy You are. It didn't enter his... what? Better look at the Hebrew (I doubt you know it though). Nope, God wouldn't command it. He commands the opposite. But again, God has His Will for us to follow, (that which we can't) and His Decreeing Will, that which WILL be done in order to perfect accomplish His purpose. Who can stay his hand?
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
I'm glad U read God would not command it, but Calvin says God decreed everything that comes to pass, so U disagree with Calvin here since these things happened which God did not command.
Unless you wish to say God decrees things He does not command. (illogical)
God does not ask of us what we cannot do
He does require us to work with Him to make it so, but that is part of the ability we are given: i.e. to ask.
Draw near to God and He will draw near. He can't if you won't.
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy ENLIGHTENED HUMANIST
patriotsfan1379 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy Acts 2:23-24; John 19:10
God foreordained that the Jews would deliver up Jesus to Pilate and yet the Jews had not just sin, but a greater sin than Pilate's sin in executing Christ unjustly. That's a greater sin than the rape of a child, as shocking as that might sound. So, are you going to "blame" God for the crucifixion? Or are you going to justify God although he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass?
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
HOW God uses people to do evil things, tells us the righteousness of God.
It is AFTER they have already themselves shown their denial of the light which all men receive (John1:9).
Which is why Paul says no one is AFORE PREPARED (1 Greek Verb) in R9:22-23 to evil. It isthose who show themselves FIT for that who are then used in the deception of God's choice (for His purposes to be carried out). See 2 Thess.2:10-12 for the cause and effect. That is how Judas was picked.
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy Bad understanding of light in John 1:9. The light here in the Greek is a revealing the true NATURE of man, it shows who they really are, in their natural state all they can do and WANT to do is suppress it. They are still PREPARED of destruction and it is not an ACTIVE or self acted upon verb (Ro 9:22) It is a PASSIVE done by God. Judas didn't pick himself by his actions LOL He was prophesied and chosen. Jo 6:70/71 and Luke 22:3. Refer to Job, he can only do what God wants.
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
Hi Ron,
"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" John 1:9
You said: "The light here in the Greek is a revealing the true NATURE of man, it shows who they really are, in their natural state all they can do and WANT to do is suppress it."
TO PHÓS is just "the light"
Seriously do you know the definition of eisegesis?
gracetruthguy 9 months ago
@gracetruthguy LOL save me the transliteration. I read Koine Greek by sight.
You are the one practicing eisegesis not I. Light only shows what is TRULY there that is HIDDEN in the darkness. It reveals mans true nature. There is the "light" NOUN/Jesus and "gives light" "revealing"... and you ASSUME (eisegesis) that Judas.. etc... rejected the LIGHT, but I was referring to what the lighting (the verb) reveals. Natural man thinks he is good denying what the lighting is revealing about himself.
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
And, as Dr. John Gill (d.1771) rightly states about the consistency of Rom.9:6 with v.7: "...(Rom.9:7) as in the former verse (v.6), he explains in what sense they were Israelites..."
No Greek grammarian I know of would assert that Paul is not speaking of the same subject (in v.7) as in v.6. He is simply further explaining his meaning of v.6 in v.7.
rkg62976 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How pathetic! Now we have to REDEFINE" Responsibility" so that Calvins FALSE theology can hold water? They've already redefined "Dead, Regenerated, Sovereignty, Calling, Election, Chosen, All, Forknew, World, Faith, Will, Appointed, Draw, Purpose", and so forth... Calvinism is UNBLIBICAL.
apollos6640 11 months ago
gracetruthguy makes the same mistake Erasmus and Pighius made when they came to the false conclusion that when God gives a command, it must therefore indicate man's inherent ability to carry it out. And as Luther and Calvin (and many others) pointed out, God's commands (prescriptive will) were not meant to teach man about his abilities; rather, they are to teach man his utter inability and impotence to carry out God's commands in fullness. In other words, "ought" does not imply "can".
rkg62976 11 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
I'm not sure I've replied to this.
When Samuel said that God "would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" 1 samuel 13:13
What kind of will is that?
Is it a true statement from God?
Would He?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@4:00, "..if the Father is being 'blamed' for evil in the world..."
As if Calvinists are asserting that God is to be blamed for evil. As the word "blame" implies "responsibility", the Calvinist simply responds: "what is your definition of responsibility?"
Generally, those who assert that Calvinists "blame" God for evil, don't have a proper definition of "responsibility". But, first, a proper definition needs to be established ;)
rkg62976 11 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
John Calvin:
"single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance.” Institutes of Christian Religion Bk I, Ch.16, Sct. 4
Bible:
"they . . . burn their sons with fire . . . which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" Jeremiah 19:5
Did God decree that act or is the Bible true in saying He never did?
btw, Calvinists tend to be genuine Christians, but they are deceived in much. e.g. C above.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@g.t.g.. I noticed you didn't bother to give a definition of "responsibility"; please do so ;) Are not God's decree, and His prescriptive will distinct things? (Acts.4:27-28, for example). Therefore, is the prophet (Jer.19:5) not pointing out that fact that the Israelites were breaking God's prescriptive will (Law)?
I would go on to read sec.5-9, in ch.16, Bk.I of Calvin's Institutes, where he refutes the idea of "chance".
I believe you are also sincere, but are deceived.
rkg62976 11 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
I'm not sure if I've replied to this.
"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" Acts 4:27-28
You are not told here HOW God does it.
Paul tells us how in Romans 9:22-23 those who sin show themselves fit for 'bad' tasks that glorify God in the nations. No one is aforeprepared to that.
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Acts.4:28-- If God "determined beforehand" what was done to Jesus, was there any possibility of the event not happening? Of course not. Divine determinism stands above man's will, and overrules it.
Rom.9:22-23--Paul is not even addressing "sin" in Rom.9! His whole argument is about divine election vs. reprobation. Only someone who is so wedded to their traditions can't see it.
I'm sorry, Sir, but you are teetering on "will worship" (which is idolatry).
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976<
Determined beforehand gives no explanation of HOW God does it.
And it certainly does not mean God overrules a man's will.
You seem not to understand the link with Romans 9:22-23
It is those who are seen to sin who show themselves 'fitted' for the purposes: that are then 'used' to do 'bad' things.
Since God foresaw there would always be a group of bad people about, He ensured they were moved into play for His purposes. Nothing was done against their will.
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy "Determined beforehand gives no explanation of HOW God does it."
You're right. That is actually stressed in vs. 16-21, not vs. 22-23.
"And it certainly does not mean God overrules a man's will."
I believe that no violence is ever done to man's will. This is the position of the historic Confessions of Faith (Westminster, and 1689 London Baptist).
God simply changed the will of His elect; gave them a new one...a will to love Him, rather than hate Him ;)
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Are you cutting out vs 22-23 from the context of 16-21?
You see in context R9 is not as it is regularly expounded by calvis.
Take a look at this vid
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:17-23 - Jacques More"
There are no 'elect' group in the sense of selected:
See my vid
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy "Are you cutting out vs 22-23 from the context of 16-21?"
Please don't bear false witness, you lose credibility when you do.
"You see in context R9 is not as it is regularly expounded by calvis (sic)."
In fact, it is open theism, and Arminian synergism that MUST (in order to maintain their idolatrous notion of the "free will" of man) who must twist the consistent message of Romans 9.
Very Sad. :(
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
It appears you have not taken into account the significant symbol "?"
i.e. IT IS A QUESTION
And it appears you have not looked at the videos I've mentioned.
Then, perhaps you will see how in context calvis are?
See the symbol again?
;0)
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy 1) Your question asserts something fallacious about my response. That is simply dishonest.
2) If you keep pointing people to "other videos", it shows your lack of respect for those engaged in the current dialogue.
3) Romans 9 is consistent, is it not? It seems that it is you who must rip it apart into sections to be dissected.
Calvinists view Romans 9 as one, consistent message/teaching. Proper exegesis.
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Ok then, let's see.
Let's start at R9 verse 6
"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel"
Do you agree that this is a reference to the saved "the Israel of God" (the elect as calvis call them) within the nation "of Israel"?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:6 "...not all Israel, which are of Israel"
You asked, "Do you agree that this is a reference to the saved "the Israel of God" (the elect as calvis call them) within the nation "of Israel"?"
A. Yes. As long as you can acknowledge that the Apostle is speaking about individuals within the corporate nation of Israel, who are believers. In other words, it is clear that Paul is making a distinction between corporate Israel, and individual believers within it. Correct, or no?
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Ok, we are agreed that R9:6b isabout the saved among Israel (the nation).
Now Paul then continues with V.7
"Nor..."
Do you agree that "nor" translated from OUDEN means "neither" i.e. NOT ALSO ?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:7
Yes, the word "nor", or "neither" (Gk. οὐδ’, oud) does not mean "also".
v.7 (with exposition): "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (physical descendants), are they (corporate Israel) all children: but in Isaac (based not on physical descendancy, but upon the "spiritual" promise: v.8) shall thy seed be called".
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Since "nor/neither" means "not ALSO" then Paul in introducing in his discussion Ishmael and Isaac and then to continue with Esau and Jacob, he is - since it is NOT ALSO - he is introducing the issue of separate nations into his discourse as DISTINCT FROM the issue of the saved (the calvi 'elect) among the nations of Israel.
Do you agree?
If you don't agree, please explain why Paul is using the word "Nor"
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy "...he [Paul] is introducing the issue of separate nations into his discourse [Rom.9:7]..."
So here we see your fallacious assertion: you are already presupposing that Paul is talking about "nations". He is most certainly not (he doesn't even mention Ishmael in his discourse). He is talking about physical descendants vs. "spiritual seed" (which has to do with individuals, not nations). Notice his use of individuals: Abraham, Isaac..etc.?
Your presupposition is false.
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Of course, you are free to believe that.
But, if you do, then you need to be able to answer what Paul is using the word "nor" for.
You haven't.
On my part, it is not a presupposition, but an observation as obtained BECAUSE the word "nor" is there.
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:7-- the "nor/neither" is in reference to the last part of v.6, is it not?
v.6: "they are not all Israel ("spiritual"), which are of Israel (corporate nation)" The text goes on:
v.7: "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (physical descendants; contrasted with spiritual descents), are they all children (spiritual descendants)..."
"Neither (Gk. οὐδ’, oud)", is a negative, conjunctive adverb. Meaning, it "conjoins" the antecedent statement of v.6.
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
Conjoins yes, but negatively, is it not?
So it is not the SAME topic added in - conjoined - but another.
Is that not what the word "negative" stands for?
i.e. NOT the same?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy
Paul, using the word "neither" (v.7) is conjoining the antecedent statement (v.6). He is denying (with a "negative conjunction") that the physical seed of Abraham (corporate Israel) are the true seed; but the children of promise (spiritual seed) are Abraham's true descendants.
Paul is constantly contrasting the corporate nation with individuals (the true faithful) within the corporate nation.
Perhaps you simply need further grammatical education...
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
So you are saying B is the same subject as A when Paul does not use "ALSO" but "NOT ALSO" as his conjunction?
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy Rom.9:6,7-- The "A", and "B", as you put it (it seems that one of us actually exegetes the text, while the other doesn't even seem to bother quoting it).
Yes! "B" (v.7), is the SAME SUBJECT as "A" (v.6). That is the whole point of a "conjunction", Sir. And, since it is a negative conjunction, it means that Paul is going deeper (in v.7) to deny the same thing he denied in v.6.
The negative conjunction does NOT mean Paul is changing subjects, he is simply expounding upon v.6.
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
I quoted R9:6 thank you very much!
And you quoted a grammatical source that defined the word "nor", but you persist in denying what it contained.
Please explain the word "negative" and how it DOES mean somethirng different than what preceded (it is part of a conjunction, remember?)
If you do not, then every other comment you make that continues to deny this simple English language truth and the truth of Scripture will be removed.
I am exegeting and you are in denial.
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
@gracetruthguy This is the last time I will respond to you, as you seem to lack grammatical knowledge (especially of Koine Greek).
v.6 "they are not (Gk. οὐ, ou, "not") all Israel who are of Israel...
(v.7)..neither (Gk. οὐδ’, oud, "neither/nor"), because they are the seed..." (Rom.9:6-7).
The "not" of v.6 is "conjoined" with the "neither/nor" of v.7, which means these two verses are speaking of the same subject, not different ones.
Grammar really helps.
rkg62976 10 months ago
Hi rkg62976,
We know they are cojoined, but this does not mean they are exactly about the same subject.
For those Israel (the circumcised in heart) who are of Israel (the circumcised in the flesh) to mean the same as the children of promise, the promise uttered needs to be about them as individuals and not the nations which they are elected to be the heads of.
So that see for yourself - for example - that Esau never served Jacob and yet that was promised.
But Edom served Israel.
gracetruthguy 10 months ago
What will you tell God was the reason you denied Him for?Because you didn't like how He chose people for Heaven and let others go to Hell? Do you think He will be sympathetic to you?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
Hi CBALLEN,
You are free to believe the doctrine that Augustine began in the 5th century as much as you like.
The Lord is not inconsistent and cannot choose anyone to go to hell and play act as if he did not:
"Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” Ezekiel 18:31-32
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
When reading the whole chapter and not just one verse in 2 Peter 2 seems not much of the bible is being followed by this person as not even angels would bring accusations against Calvinists according to the chapter which means A: he does not really understand what the bible teaches or B: understands the bible and wilfully disobeys what the bible teaches. Unable to cease from sin in adultery-is not how I would describe Calvinists I know.
daveme7 1 year ago
Hi Dave,
Perhaps you might find it more helpful to look at where Calvinism began. See this video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Or, if you have a particular text that you hold to as supporting Calvinism please feel free to look at the relevant video.
How about removing a false foundation that God knows all the furture exhaustively and be done with the whole 5th century dogma?
for that I recommend my vid:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy First I do appreciate your generosity as often times-I am a bit brash at times but with this I honestly think it is warranted. No matter what one thinks-to judge a belief or a population of people holding this belief I see as somehow a bit off to be using this one passage when it isevident to Peter that if one is attributed to this judgement-you should not be in opposition or even allow one such as me to speak according to 2nd Peter 2. My point is using a passage not in context.
daveme7 1 year ago
I will probably trake alook at that video as I tend to appeal tothese as they make a bit more sense. Psalms 14 and 53 quoted by Paul in Romans 3 describing simnners as those who do not seek after God. If Paul states this in Romans 3 as the conclusion and in the Psalms the question is there be any who understand or seek after God-that conclusion is that which Paul begins with-there is none righteous no not one leaves one conclusion for us all-not one seen having faith and we all reject Christ!
daveme7 1 year ago
Hi Dave,
For Romans 3 I recommend this video of mine:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 3 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
what are you saying '' He ( GOD ) had no comprehension of how wickedness and evil worked until it came into being & he had to learn '' - i think you are so wrong - so deceived. ive felt uncomfortable using the term '' calvinist '' to help describe my believe/faith because of professing christian being upset about it. i now know that i would far rather have professing christians upset with me than my Lord God upset
we will all give a account before Christ - for what we have said and done
vizulfun 1 year ago
Hi vizulfun,
Thank you for commenting.
If you wish to see bible evidence for the open view of God then I recommend my video entitled "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
Perhaps you can tell me whether you believe God would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
[question as per the video]
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Would be simpler to begin the discussion with the Scriptural doctrine of Original Sin. The other matters will then take their proper place. You mention fruits. A very apt and Scriptural observation. My reading of history shows that at times of reformation or spiritual awakening, which is real fruit, the doctrine of Original Sin, which causes man to desperately seek a Saviour, was clearly taught. Satan said, Thou shalt not surely die. He now says, "Thou hast not surely and completely died." Liar.
Gleaningz 1 year ago
Hi Gleaningz,
I agree - original sin is a leveller that settles what follows.
I disagree that historically it is the sound doctrine of the Church: the opposite is true. It is that very lie that Satan introduced with Augustine and was thereby absent for 400 years preceding.
See my video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
And look out for the quote from HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE by GP Fisher
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Hi, I read history a bit differently. The Apostles taught Original Sin. The heresy of free-will crept in and in time was quantified by Pelagius. It was then Augustine who labored to remedy the error and recover the ancient truth. Same happened in time of Luther after RC church obscured truth. Just wondering what you think of the fruit of the Reformation.
Gleaningz 1 year ago
Hi Gleaningz,
You are not alone in reading history differently. All the holocasut deniers need do is go and see the films and the places where it all happened to see the truth.
All you need do is read the early church fathers before Augustine and see he began the "freewill is not" theology. Pelagius THEN spoke up against Augustine is the order of events...
If you see the evidence, you see Augustine is a departing point contrary to the preceding orthodoxy.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I guess we'll simply disagree. Bottom line for me is that Grace is not that which gives me an opportunity to be saved, but rather Grace is that which has saved me. BTW I'm no Calvinist.
Gleaningz 1 year ago
Hi Gleaningz,
What's your definition of a Calvinist?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy One who adheres to the tulip doctrines. Frankly, I've read Calvin's Institutes, and his book on Predestination, and I disagree with him only on the Lord's Supper. He answers the charge that Christ did not die for all the world by saying, "It is incontestible that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. Continued
Gleaningz 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed." end quote. I'm no student of Calvin, but I wonder if some have applied reason to Calvin's doctrines and came up with limited atonement. Christ died for all, yet not all are saved. Why some and not others? I leave that completely to God, and simply preach to all, knowing that we are made partakers by grace alone.
Gleaningz 1 year ago
Hi Gleaningz,
If Calvinism is just a term to cover all unconditional predestination dogma (whether limited atonement is held or not) then is it unfair to think of you as a Calvinist?
I use the name in that way as it is better than saying Augustinianism which would be truer technically as per my previous comments, but confusing in general.
Have you considered my video entitled:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More" ?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
GTG, You truly are the Open theist heretic. This is not a open letter to Calvinists, it's a delusional expression of your own personal madness. You truly are a man of a sick mind. I recommend psychiatric evaluation. Open theism was never taught in the church. Hell awaits you Jacques, if God does not grant you repentance, you will truly face the wrath of God.
Westminter Confession clearly says 'God is NOT the author of sin'. Don't pretend to be a scholar when your not Jacques.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RefutingSkellyism,
John Calvin
"Everything is controlled by God’s secret purpose, and nothing can happen except by his knowledge and will.”
Institutes of Christian Religion, Bk. 1, Ch. 16, Sect. 3
“What we must prove is that single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance.”
Institutes Bk I, Ch. 16, Sect. 4
As for Open theism I recommend my vid:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gtg, There's no point in having a discussion with you as you are obviously mentally ill. for example, your quotes of Calvin do not imply that God engages or is morally responsible for sin. As the Westminster confession states they are the results of the liberty and contingencies of secondary causes. Yet, because God is sovereign in all things, He alone can establish what ultimately results. Open theism is Gnostic paganism & I will not even bother debating it with one who is insane like you.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RefutingSkellyism,
Calvin did not write the Westminster Confession which is an attempt to cover up the explicit in Calvin that "single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will"
Calvin's words are an honest outcome of the whole theology Augustine began.
= not biblical
Bible is clear that God "would have established" Saul's "kingdom over Israel forever" 1 Samuel 13:13
So up till then there were not plans for David to be king!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gtg Do you really think I would be so ignorant not to know that Calvin did not write the Westminster Confession? Do you enjoy insulting people's intelligence? Yes, it's part and parcel of your insanity.
If you're understanding of modern Calvinists, you would know that they do not revolve their doctrine around John Calvin. The term Calvinist refers primarily to soteriology,TULIP,& 5 Sola's.
Gen49:10 is clear. Rulership would be of Judah, not Benjamin. Saul was temporary as God intended.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RefutingSkellyism,
So, since the Westminster Confession clearly deviates from Calvin are you happy to say Calvin is not biblical?
There is no reference to David in G49:10 and if the scepter was in Benjamin's hand then is it the same thing? Equally if any law came from Levi whom Moses came from, then the mention of lawgivers is not indicative of the rule of David.
Tell me, who is more likely to be deceived, the one who throws insults or the one who is apt to teach & patiently?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gtg You're insane, & I will prove it so long as you keep replying. This is not an insult, as your video insults Calvinists, & as you have already insulted me by insinuating I did not know Calvin did not write the West.Conf. Either you're insane or insulting or both.
Now, to further the fact you are insane, the 'Ruling Scepter' was determined for the House of Judah. This is a fact you can't refute. Nor is Benj. the same as Judah.
Your patience is charlatanism. Rom 16:17,18
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RS,
I smile at your ref. "Rom 16:17,18" since historically all forms of Calvinism are a departure from the sound doctrine persistently taught for 400 years.
See my vid
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Of course we can read the coming of Jesus' rule in G49:10, but to backtrack it to David is to ignore the lawgivers and rulers from the other tribes. It is eisegesis to suggest all you have for saying David was planned by God to be king B4 Saul from this solitary passage.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gtg Calvinism has been the default doctrine since the Reformation, it wasn't until the mid 1800's , Arminianism & most other predominant heretical denominations emerged. Amazing how you can make statements that you can never substantiate with fact = insane. For an open theist, who builds his entire theology upon esisegesis, you should welcome any alleged eisegesis on my part.
Lawgivers 'from between his feet' means under his authority. This proves you don't know what you're talking about.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RS,
If U had looked at the vid I pointed to then you would have seen:
“In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.”
History of Christian Doctrine page 165 by George
Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark
As well as the many quotes proving the point.
If you wish to reply do so intelligently and in context.
Any comments already replied to and therefore repeated will be deleted.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gtg 'conditional predestination'? Greek fathers? What's your point. What does that have to do with the default reformation doctrines that were clearly established in the many Confessions of Faith of the time? And what would they say of 'open theism'? You know, the God who is the 'alpha and omega'.
As I continue to prove, you are insane. You're are a heretic. You may happily delete any reply you want. I don't care. You are anathema. If God does not grant you repentance you will burn in hell.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
Hi RS,
My point - clearly in context - is:
'all forms of Calvinism are a departure from the sound doctrine persistently taught for 400 years.
See my vid
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More" '
"Free- will is not" and the whole foundation for all forms of Calvinism began with Augustine in the 5th century.
The persistent doctrine before that was conditional predestination = synergism.
Romans 16:17, 18 applied in that context therefore says what?
4 Open theism C vid
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just upload four videos with nothing but Historical Facts
proving Calvin tortured and murdered people,,its all documented!
openairpreacher 1 year ago
Who is the Father of lies? Is it God the Father or is it the Devil? (John 8:44)
AhoSenpai 1 year ago
Do you not believe that God decreed the death of His Son,by the very people who killed Him?To say that anything is hidden from God is naive at best and hearsay at worst.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Hi CBALLEN,
There is a world of difference in making use of people's sinning habits to His own purposes and Him planning them to sin in the 1st place.
Please tell me, where does God's self-control that we read of in the bible - Gal.5:23 - fit into your theology?
Please give me an example of it in the bible?
As for God wanting to know something, the Scripture - fit for doctirne as per 2 Tim.3:16 - is explicit in 2 Chronicles 32:31
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi GTG,
I must say that what you are saying is true,the problem is,it's you who are being deceived and then you go out deceiving.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Hi CBALLEN,
When you get round to it take a look at this video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Then, perhaps you can see when the devation began historically and that for 4 centuries this 'Calvinism' was not taught and is the deception.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello gracetruthguy,
Do you want to know what the MAJOR problem is with applying 2Ti 1:9 to the "group" of believers and not to individuals?
Relationship.
If we understand 2Ti. 1:9 applying to the "group" then this implies that God never had a PERSONAL relationship with believers from before the founding of the world, but only a "group" relationship.
Is that what you believe?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
There is no relationship with anyone before they are born.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello again gracetruthguy,
Faith as a gift and faith as an action. I agree with both statements.
Faith is a gift according to Paul at 2Ti.1:5-6. There Paul reminds Timothy of his "sincere faith" which was in his grandmother and mother. Paul then reminds Timothy to kindle afresh the gift of God that is in you.
This gift must be put in action or it will be taken away as per Ro.11:20
This is agreeable with Ro.11:35
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
The gift Paul mentions was that given Timothy by Paul laying his hands on him. Faith was already in Timothy before that gift mentioned.
As for R11:20 all faith is unreal if not producing fruit James makes that clear.
For R11:35 see my earlier comment: free will is a gift of God to man: his exercise of it is not a work or else breathing or eating is a work and sin... But the fruit of that decision its full fruit, if evil is sin and thus a work.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Peace gracetruthguy,
I don't know if I can agree with you on what the gift is here. Faith or the laying on of hands.
vs 6 states stir up the gift BY the putting on of my hands. vs 5 clearly teaches that Timonth and his mother and grandmother had the gift of faith, Paul FLAMED or KINDLED that gift through the laying on of hands.
I agree with your view on R.11:20
R.11:35 simply teaches to give the glory to whom it is due. No boasting, no conceit.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
"Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands" 2 Tim.1:6
I read here that the gift was in Timothy through the laying on of hands by Paul. Paul here is calling on Timothy to stir it up.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
On 2Ti. 1:5-6 you state
"I read here that the gift was in Timothy through the laying on of hands by Paul. "
Then what "gift" was Paul referring to as being in Timothy's grandmother and mother?? As I asked before did Paul "lay hands" on them two also to impart the gift? What scripture do you rely on for that belief?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
There is no gift mentioned in the passage as being in Tim's gran or mum, only faith.
There is no link in the text to the faith being the gift.
For an explicit view that faith is not a gift from Paul's greek grammar I recommend my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
Please watch it and take it in.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello gracetruthguy.
So the point about Ez.18 cannot be made DOGMATICALLY, it's has to be applied in context and that context is God's purpose.
You don't have to die, if you sin. Scripture has demonstrated this with David.
Your position can't pass the Ro.11:33-35 test 'who has first given that He may give back'
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
You don't make sense here. Ezekiel 18 is categoric in emphasis and thereby CAN be used dogmatically.
E.g. Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father" useful?
Yes, like this: no man is blamed or held guilty for Adam's sin. Period.
And God having no pleasure in one who dies? (Verse 32)
Why? If He planned it that way as per Calvis?
God is not a masochist you know.
No, Calvinism is heresy
It distorts the whole picture the bible gives us of the living God.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello Gracetruthguy.
I believe you are guilty of attempting to "know" how God judges when Ro.11:33 reads this as unsearchable.
Ro.11:35 teaches "who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again"? You claim a work based salvation, if you show mercy God is OBLIGATED to return mercy, contrary to what Paul teaches here.
1Co. 4:7 asks "For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive?....why do you boast as if you have not received it?"
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
I believe - you are guilty - of forcing an understanding of God's judgment not mentioned by Paul.
Take a look at this video and see that the Greek Paul uses, accurately shows salvation as a free gift, but leaves faith as an action on the part of the one to receive that salvation:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy, ok we're both guilty, God bless us :)
I'm not forcing anything, I'm just bringing examples of God's judgements. In David's case "the soul that sins" did not die. Sorry. YOU are the one who is dogmatic with Ezek 18.
Actually I think faith is a gift per Eph. 2. because the text there and at 2Ti. 1:9 clealrly states such. If it weren't men could boast.
Your "faith as an action" contradicts Pauls teaching at Ro.11:35, who has given first?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Ezek18 does not say that the one who sins dies straighaway, but explicit is time to repent and to see if they coninue in that sin BEFORE the judgment on them.
Babies die all the time that has nothign to do with the sin of their parents or not.
If you saw the vid then Eph2 PROVES faith is not a gift.
2 Tim.1:9 makes no mention of faith. Period.
Rom.11:35 tells me: God gave free-will and its exercise means faith is an action of choice (as is to sin): choosing is not a work
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy.
I believe David did repent but the child died anyway. Please stick with the facts of 2Sa. 12.
Faith is a gift 2Ti. 1:5-6 and Eph. 2:8 proves it.
Faith wasn't what we were talking about when we read 2 Tim 1:9 God's purpose is, you insisted that "His" was not in the greek text at Ro. 8:28 and actually built a doctrine around this text. But "His" is found at 2Ti. 1:9 so what do you think ?
God's purpose in us is acheived through the gift of faith so no one may boast.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
"The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die" " Sam. 12:13-14
David was fully forgiven.
The child's death is indirectly related only. It is to prevent further blasphemy against the Lord. e.g. as he grew up anyone could call him a bustard! And bring shame on the lad and the Lord...
I have replied to Eph.2:8! etc.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi MB,
I've also already explained the difference between R8:28 and 2 Ti.1:9
It appears you are not prepared to engage with my replies: watch the video on Eph.2:8-9 or re-read R8:28 and 2 Tim. to see for yourself what I have mentioned.
Let me ask you this:
Since God says
"I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
Isaiah 42:8
Do you believe God planned or decreed
someone other than Himself to receive
worship?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Your explanation I believe was that 2Ti. 1:9 applies to the group? But we're not really talking about that are we, we're talking about WHO'S PURPOSE, not our own, but God's.
It appears you just plainly misread 2Ti. 1:5-6 to the point of insulting intelligence.
Paul did not lay hands on Timothy's grandma and mother did he?
I'm sorry you have trouble with God being in control, it is difficult and Paul did call it a "mystery" at Ro.11:25 but the fact is God calls according to His purpose.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Yeap, the group is in view in 2Ti.
Yes, we are talking about God's purpose for all.
I agree Paul did not lay hands that we know of on Tim's gran or Mum.
You see he already believed.
I have no trouble with God being in control. I also know He has self-control - Galatians 5:23 - but that is anathema to Calvinists dogma, isn't it?
God calls according to His purpose differently in terms of the group and the individual. See my R8 video (but will you?)
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
On Calvinism being heresy, it may very well be. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura may be heresy also for it begat Calvinism.
Maybe we should both return to Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Funny that then, why is it no one taught Calvinism from the reading of the Greek before Augustine for over 400 years?
See my video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
There is thereby no problem with Sola Scriptura, but with many translations since Augustine.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi Gracetruthguy, I'm not a Presbytarian, yet I came to a "Calvanistic" position through self study.
Of course there are many problems with Sola Scriptura, you and I are demonstrating one of them.
Here you go bringing bad translations up again, your zeal for Youngs may be misplaced.
Does Paul make sense when we compare Ro. 8:28 and 2Ti.2:9 with your precious Young translation?
Young's doesn't have "His" regarding purpose at Ro.8:28 but it does at 2Ti. 1:9, what do you think?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Gracetruthguy, my first reference to 2Ti.2:9 is a typo, I ment 2Ti 1:9 as in the second reference. Sorry
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
The difference between R8:28 and 2 Ti1:9 is that in Romans 8 the individual is in view whilst in 2 Timothy the group is in view.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Are you kidding me look at the debates and stay with the facts.
tnt31084 2 years ago
Hi tnt31084,
I'm not sure I follow you.
Which of the videos on my channel do not address the 'debate' in question?
Do they not give you ample facts that Calvinism is heresy - began by Augustine and untaught prior to him?
I think so.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Well that was posted a while back but i don't think you have given enough scripture or facts to change my view. Thank for your response.
tnt31084 2 years ago
Hi tnt31084,
I've been away for at least 3 months so was unable to reply and I am slowly responding to comments since.
If you have seen my other videos that cover a multitude of bible passages used to support Calvinism and the ones that you hold to are not there, please do tell me which ones to address?
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy.
We are not born "upright" because we have the knowledge of good and evil passed on to us from Adam in our conscience.
Like I said, when you walk around naked because you think your not naked then you will be innocent in God's eyes.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
To suggest having the knowledge of good and evil which God too holds at the same time, means we are not 'upright' is to suggest God is not 'upright' also.
When you were little and you walked naked, did you know you were?
In the sense of not feeling the clothes on you or the blanket, yes, but not in the sense that this was shameful in any way, no.
So it is with us all, we are all innocent of these things until a little later.
Upright until later.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy.
Oh please. Man does not have the NATURE to RIGHTEOUSLY wield that knowledge. Why do you think it was originally withheld?
We grow up and began to feel ashamed of being naked. That's part of the taking on of knowledge which was originally banned.
Society doesn't teach this too you, your CONSCIENCE does.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
All the time you deny the bible mention that man has an ability from the start you are stuck to the doctrine of unconditional predestination.
Whatever man has, it is not complete and not without the need for God's help. But, it is enough to call on Him to help. And He gladly does to all.
This is why Jesus said,
To he who has more shall be given and he will have abundance.
But, those who do not use what they have - for good - then even their abilrty gets removed...
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello gracetruthguy.
I hope you understand that the "offspring of vipers" DON'T CARE if what they have is taken, and DON'T CARE what they are "given" because they doubt the Father exists at all.
They just TAKE what they want, without any conscience objections.
It all comes down to whether you are a son of the kingdom or a son of the evil one.
One will do works of faith, the other, works of law.
I'm gonna move now to Ga.4:28 and 2Ti 1:9 because you think 2Ti applies to the group ONLY.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy,
Lets take it a step further.
If knowing good and evil killed man, it should kill God also.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Where does it say that knowing good and evil killed?
It is sin that kills and that only to the individual who carries it out, not all from thereon:
Ezekiel 18:20 is explicit "the soul who sins shall die"
It is how you use the knowledge that can kill, not the holding of that knowledge.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello gracetruthguy.
I quoted 2Ti. 1:9 below
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
That is from the KJV
This verse should harmonize with what we've been discussing in Ro 8 and Ro 9 it should also harmonize with Eph 2:8-9
The Greek reads "according to His own purpose"..."before the world began".
This agrees with Ro. 9:6-11
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
You forget that the group is in view in 2 Tim.1:9
See my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 1 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Before we talk about groups and individuals, remember the issue under conflict.
You stated that Ro.8:28 shows that God works by viewing the persons heart, is that person or group? You based your position on there being no "His" in the Greek.
I now show you 2Ti. 1:9 where "His" is clearly in the Greek and it's making the same statement as Ro.8:28 with "His" inserted. Now you believe it's a group?
It's complicated :)
Do you agree it's according to HIS purpose
group or not?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
In R8: 27 the heart searched out is in view. V.28 is a continuation of that. Paul is explaining how God does the business of salvation. It is not a group matter; it is an individual heart and how matter.
In 2 Tim.1:9 just as in Eph.1 as per the vid I mentioned the multittude of plural pronouns show us the group is in view.
God's foreknowledge is explicitly limited to the lifetime of the individual in R8
God's knowledge of the group is not with all those in it thereby.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy.
Edom had the characteristics of Esau. It was a warlike people but failed to acquire the promised land, so it did not share in the inheritance just as God decreed.
Heirs and inheritance is not about the FLESHLY nations but the spiritual nation.
I believe the example of nations is to show the God is not tied to any particular nation like the FLESHLY Jews believed.
I believe in a spiritual sense it does not matter what nation you are in, if you are of a faith, your an heir.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hello again gracetruthguy :)
To help join Ro. 4 and Ro. 9 together Gal 3:7-9 sums it all up nicely.
"Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying "All the nations shall be blessed in you". So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer."
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
This applies of course to Rom.9:6 and those who have come to faith.
It does not apply to God's choice of nations in their entirety for all of Israel is not part of Israel: Jacob represents all the nation of Israel in Rom.9:11 not part of it as per Rom.9:6 (before the 'NOR').
Just as Esau represents all of Edom and not all are lost, because the Lord has believers in every nation (cf. Acts 10:35)
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
I agree but what's important is to learn WHY the Lord has believers in every nation it is because He declared it.
"Those not my people shall be called My people." Not by our choice, but His.
I believe Jacob ALSO represents children of promise and descendants of Abraham. Just as it states in Galatians 4:28,, "like Isaac, you are children of promise".
Galatians 4 is a good read for me as it differentiates between the flesh and the promise, old and new covenants.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Yes, God declares that in every nation there will be those who belong to Him.
Note however that always the group within each nation is in view.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
But also note WHY those who belong to Him, BELIEVE.
I think your putting to much emphasis on Nation building. Paul expanded the application of God's calling, according to His purpose, also to those who inherit the promises given to Abraham.
The fact that God calls and this is independent of our "will" in the flesh, causes debaters to reason "why does God still find fault?" "who can resist His will?"
If this was not the thrust of Paul's argument, why is this a logical question to ask?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Please tell me where you get "according to His purpose" from?
It is nowhere in the Greek!
God calls according to Paul in Romans 8, conditionally. PLease DO see my videos:
"Paul's Conditional Predestination Explained - Jacques More"
And,
"not so Quick Answer to Calvinists Romans 8:29-30 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hello GTG,
No, you are to give the passages in Ro.8 that teach how this happens, like I asked. You claimed that Paul explained how children of the promise are chosen in Ro.8.
I see Ro.8:5-6 (according to flesh/spirit), verse 11 (which states according to His purpose) this ties in with Ro.9:6-11 verse 11 speaking of God's purpose and then Ga.4:28-29..verse verse 28 "like Isaac.." 29 mentions born according to flesh and spirit.
God declared "through Isaac your descendants shall be." Ro.9:7
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Well if you saw the vids you would see how Rom.8:26-30 is about conditional predestination.
R9.11 speaks of God's purpose according to election: which is, elected to be head of one nation or another: nothing else
Isaac and Ishmael were heads of separate nations, but only Isaac was promised. The illustration in R9 is about being called i.e. promised to that purpose. Since sons of Ishmael get saved too, we know this part of the illustration cannot be stretched to be about salvation
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi GTG
you stated "R9.11 speaks of God's ..election: which is, elected to be head of one nation or another: nothing else" See Ro.9:24
How do you feel about Ro.11:5-6?
Isaac was born of faith, Ishmael was born of works, (Sarah's lack of faith)
What do you think of Gal 4:5, 28
Isn't being redeemed among the Jews, salvation?
Seems too me that Ga.4: 22 - 31 divides between old covenant and new covenant and that only children of promise are in the new covenant. Isn't that about salvation?
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
"election of grace" works according to Paul's explicit working in Rom8:26-30 (have seen my vids on this yet?)
Ishmael is not told us as lost.
We are children of promise due to the calling of God as explained in Rom.8
As Paul says in Gal.4:24 these are "symbolic" Ishmael is not told us as lost whatsoever.
The picture is about being called = becoming a child of promise.
As per Paul's conditional predestination in R8:26-30
See the vids on R8
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
We agree here then, we are children of promise due to God's call, this coincides with our choice then right?
Ishmael like fleshly Israel are not lost yet, but they certainly aren't saved. They will be present during judgment day after which they may receive eternal life.
When Jesus died, He went to Sheol to release the righteous souls there, those that adhered to faith b4 His coming.
However those who accept Jesus now, do not come into judgment but have passed from death to life. Jo.5:24
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
We are children of promise through faith in Christ: through receiving Him who revealed Himself to us as per John 1:9 and 1:12 but note what 'even to those who believe in His name' means:
It is all who desire righteousness - believing in the revelation of righteousness God imparts to all.
believing in the name = believing in God's character
Ishmael's descendants like Israel's descendants have the righteous and the wicked in their midst: period
Jesus is the light to all Jn 1:9
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
hello again gracetruthguy
You wrote:
"It does not apply to God's choice of nations in their entirety for all of Israel is not part of Israel:"
I think you might be saying that the promise applies to SPIRITUAL Israel, which is what I have been trying to convey by quoting "..it is the remnant that will be saved".
I do need to put the word ALSO in my statements, the chapter is about declaring nations but it has a broader application also as seen with "even us" and Pharaoh (who is not Esau)
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
The issue is where the illustration begins and stops.
It is like the parables, we can only use them so far. It is wrong to impart a meaning in them that is not there and also contradicts the rest of Scripture.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Also...:)
God told Abraham that in him all the nations shall be blessed (Ga. 3:8-9)..this is why we find believers among gentiles and even among Edomites.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Amen and Hallelujah!
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi Gracetruthguy
"God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" Ecclesiastes 7:29
I was of the understanding that this meant before Man was murdered (the fall in Ge. 3).
The text reads "made man" not "men" or "all men".
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
If you observe the immediate context the comment is made after observation in life: in his lifetime.
Therefore, it is that man in general everywhere is in his view when he says "God made man upright..."
Take a look at the context.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Hi gracetruthguy,
God made man ONCE. Adam was the image of God, we're the image of man.
We are not upright to the point of attaining salvation. That's why Christ had to die
No one is saved by the law.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
I agree that we are not upright to the point of attaining salvation. This is why it is synergism the bible teaches: you draw near to God and He will draw near to you. God is always calling us, but we harden our hearts too often.
This is not law. This is faith in action, choosing to call on God for help. And faith is a choice. Making use of the abilty to choose God gave us all: i.e. God also gets the glory for us using that right.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
James Moffatt's New translation of the bible renders Ro.4:16 "That is why all turns upon faith; it is to make the promise a matter of favour" where other translations state a matter of grace or sheer grace.
I don't see how scripture/Paul can be any more clear.
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
Thank you for pointing out which side Moffatt's bread is buttered.
There is nothing in the Greek that points to 'charin' meaning God's choice - period.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
Yeah your gonna ban me because I repeat myself, when I feel I am just asserting God's word. You repeat yourself why be a hypocrite?
You already admitted you do not know why God chose Jacob over Esau, ignoring the scripture in question Ro. 9:11
Please read Ro. 4:13-16, the promise (eternal life) to Abraham and his heirs is not through the Law (our choice) but through the righteousness of faith..it is by faith so that it might be in accordance with grace (God's choice)
Compare with Eph 2:8-9
mcfallb 2 years ago
Hi MB,
If I do restrict your commenting, yes it will be because I have fully reponded to a point you keep returning to; due to your desiring to harass and not face up to the response as valid.
'grace' is not a word that relates to God's choice, but to God's love.
gracetruthguy 2 years ago
You'll never ban me, you love me too much :)
Grace is not choice, neither is faith. God's love? Ok God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Is that choice?
You must realize my way of debating is intelligent and too the point. I'm used to dealing with people of no faith and atheists who demand straight to the point logic.
I don't mean any disrespect with my demeanor.
mcfallb 2 years ago