P.S. The Greek word "Eklektos" is related to the word eclectic. You know what that means--you pick out and select the best. There IS a place for God making choices, separating sheep from Goats, and selecting out a particular people, In the OT, Israel is described as God' elect. With the Rapture Christ's angels go out to gather Christ's elect--those who are "counted worthy to escape all these things."
That has nothing to do with Calvin's twisted theology regarding "election."
Check out this video to see where I'm coming from:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
It's about the words Jesus and the apostles used being the same in meaning to the ones they read in their bible. Not the meaning given by translators of the Greek later.
I like your video, but sorry to say I can't agree with removing the word "elect" from the Bible. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken." To avoid calling him a liar it's best to accept Scripture as part of God's plan, then focus on how readers of the Bible are misinterpreting that Scripture--for instance the spiritually perverse theology that Calvin built up out of HIS own interpretations of words like election, predestination, regeneration, the Father drawing us to Christ, etc.
You have the right idea. One can interpret some passages from Paul in a way that supports Calvinism, but Calvinism stands in opposition to nearly everything else in the Bible! Which do you choose? It's a great test.
The quote from Chronicles was a good example. Why put man to a test if everything is already predetermined? The seductive notion that Calvinism gives God more credit or "sovereignty" is the sheepskin hiding the wolf underneath.
Check out my web site as I'm about to make available the core research that enables the removal of the word "elect" from the bible. I've been converting my latest book into an eBook and decided to make several chapters fully visible. So within a few days that evidence will be online as well as for the removal of "His" from Romans 8:28... The update will be mentioned in the "New" section.
Do you think that JWs or Mormons are all unintelligent?
Are they not all (mostly) sincere believers and view a whole load of passages different from orthodox christianity?
It is not a matter of intelligence, i.e. education that resolves deception. It is a combination of a heart truly searching for the truth whilst holding what you currently believe loosely enough to change it like the Bereans did in Acts 17 that enables one to learn away from deception.
"The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. How can man come to God on his own?
Romans 3:9-12:
"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that JEWS AND GENTILES ALIKE are ALL UNDER THE POWER OF SIN.
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is NO ONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. Knowing that God's prophecy will come true regardless of what choices we make - that's fatalism.
Things occuring as a result of our choice which is predetermined - thats determinism.
John 1:13 does not refute the possibility of determinism. Yes the right is given to those who believe, so the choice to believe means you have the right, but the choice could be predetermined.
Fatalism says that no matter what choices you make, the outcome will be exactly the same regardless.
If we apply fatalism to John 12, the outcome would be determined irrespective of choice. Therefore, they would be saved if they did choose to believe, but they would also be saved if they chose not to believe. This goes against Revelation 12:8.
Therefore fatalism in NOT predeterminism, as choice is irrelevant in fatalism.
In determinism choice makes a difference but is predetermined.
If man has no choice to do other than be like the following:
"cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone"
IF they had no choice but to be this way in the Calvinist predeterminism, THEN that is fatalism is it not?
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. I think "which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" means... " which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind [to command or speak such a thing]". This is supported by my examples of God appearing to decree sin with Pharaoh and the hate for Jesus.
Could u pls repeat your view on Jn 12:39 - "For this reason they COULD NOT believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: “HE has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts"?
To decree something is to command it to occur is it not?
He cannot have decreed something he knew not of to command.
The order as explained by John in his gospel is ALL are shown light 1:9 THEN any who receive are THEN given the right to become children of God [not B4 in some past decree!]. HOW birth occurs is without further aid 1:13. All who do not receive CANNOT believe are blinded and hardened 12:39.
If God has decreed all that comes to pass - is in total control - and has decided everything that comes to pass as Calvinism claims.
Then please expxain why God says He never agreed to this event or it even entered His mind to do that?
"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 I'm guessing you found Jeremiah 19:5 using the word "decreed" in the ESV. I've looked at 14 other translations of the verse and they all use the word "spake" or "spoke of". Decreed: 1) to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten, sing a) (Qal) to speak b) (Niphal) to speak with one another, talk c) (Piel) 1) to speak 2) to promise d) (Pual) to be spoken e) (Hithpael) to speak f) (Hiphil) to lead away, put to flight
@gracetruthguy Thus we can assume that the word "decreed" was not the best word, and decreed essentially means spoken in this context. Also there is a difference between what God decrees (makes happen) and what God commands. However in Calvinism God decrees everything, even that which he did not command. For example he commanded to love our enemies, but decreed that people should bear hate Jesus without reason (Psalm69:4). Thus he appears to decree sin, without being sinful.
Hi gracetruthguy, I'm pretty sure fivepointbaptist was being sarcastic!!! Of course God has self-control - He knows what's he's doing!
If people could harden their hearts by themselves without God, why would God need to get involved. Even if they have free will, if we say for the sake of argument that God is further hardening hearts, he still making the sin of unbelief stronger.
Continued. John 12:39 says "they COULD NOT believe". They were unable. It does not say "They did not" . Also see my comment on Matt 13:11-15.
Your analogy in this video concerning Isaiah 46 is a bad example. A writer crafts a story from start to finish, even if he knows the end from the beginning. A novel does not write itself - a writer has to do it all. That does not refute free will, but I'm just pointing out its a bad analogy
It is not a bad analogy to consider a play with the main parts written and adhered to and the limits within which ad lib (i.e. free will) is permitted to exercise.
So that the end is know beacuse the limits are in place to effect the end product desired in the 1st place.
But, ad lib (free will) is evident without the involvement of the writer whatsoever.
Total free will no one teaches from the bible.
Total control Calvinism teaches against the bible.
14-15: "Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“You will indeed hear but NEVER understand,and you will indeed see but NEVER perceive.For this people's heart has grown dull,and with their ears they can barely hear,and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyesand hear with their earsand understand with their heartand turn, and I would heal them.’ "
Therefore those without the gift ofknowledge given by God will never do those things
@gracetruthguy I think you have a misunderstanding of the Calvinist teaching concerning choices. Sorry if I have misled you in this respect. Calvinism does not say that we do not make choices. It says those choices taht we make have been predetermined. That's the difference between determinism (choices are important) and fatalism (choices are irrelevant). Calvinism is not in conflict with verses involving choice. However what we choose has already been decided - God changes our heart.
@gracetruthguy Determinism says that choices affect the outcome of an event, but the choices are predetermined. For example, people chose not to "believe in the light" John 12.
They couldn't believe because "he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts" = determined by God
Thus this verse seems to be saying that they chose not to believe, but this was because God determined their choice. If they chose to believe they'd be saved. They chose not to believe so they were not saved.
I don't see how Matthew 13 goes against Calvinism. Matt 13:11-13
11 And he answered them, “TO YOU IT HAS BEEN GIVEN to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but TO THEM IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
]Hi gracetruthguy. If God did not decree sin in Isaiah and Psalm concerning the death of Jesus, then wouldn't their prophecies have been false? If Jesus had not been crucified then God's plan would have been rather different! Therefore such events would not be left to free will. Besides, I'm pretty sure that you said that what God decrees he makes sure happens, otherwise his prophecy would have been false. Please see the link I sent you the other day.
No, their prophecies would not be false. It is a misunderstanding of how God works that suggests his direct will and influence on sin or evil being done. Indeed its a blasphemy to suggest God wants evil and at the same time says He does not.
For example Isaiah 42:8 is explicit!
"I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images."
Yet the Calvinist persists in saying God decrees that to happen!
@gracetruthguy You say " with Pharaoh his heart was ALREADY hard, God just strengthened it further to REMAIN in that state for his own ends. "
So you admit God "strengthened" the hardening Pharaoh's heart "further to remain in that state" so Pharaoh wouldn't let God's people go. Wasn't Pharaoh's action a sin, and didn't God ensure this by "strengthening" the hardness so he'd remain in the state, therefore further guaranteeing Pharaoh wouldn't let them go as he should have?
There is a world of difference between planning from the beginning someone to do somehting evil contrasted to the making use of someone who is already into evil to one's own purposes in the nations.
That is how the wicked praises God. By God making use of their evil to glorify His name.
Pharaoh, Judas and others are shown in the Scripture as already wicked and evil BEFORE their being in that state was being made use of.
Matt13:11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." Obviously more is given to those who have. But how is what they have given to them in the first place ? By God. Calvinism is not against this teaching. It says those given the gift by God (verse 11) will recieve more (vs 12).This teaching does not disprove the idea that noone has anything originally. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone has it from birth.
"Those who do not have [the gift mentioned in v. 11], even what they have will be taken away"
Why would Jesus say "Those who don't have the gift will have the gift they have taken away"?!
If they don't have the gift how can it be taken away? Therefore what they have must be something else, mustn't it? People without God still have other things until they die.
However it's obvious that SOME do have the gift mentioned in v. 11, and because they have the gift from God more will be given.
Calvinism does NOT say no one is ever given the gift. It just says man does not have it originally and cannot obtain it on its own. It's a gift from God.
If you mean make new decisions as per the preceding comments, then it is because he chose once at the beginning (or before the beginning) in Calvinism.
The Scripture reveals He makes new choices.
God is free to make new choices.
Calvinism says - I.e. Calvins's Institutes - everything is already decided by God
And that includes all the perverse sinful things too!!!
Hi again gracetruthguy. Didn't you contradict yourself early?
You said that 2 Samuel 6:21 "says nothing of when God chose David." even though it says "the LORD, who chose me"
Then you said later, "David was chosen to be king after Saul rebelled."
So, when you've looked at the other scriptures I posted could you please tell me, was David chosen by God or wasn't he? Because if he was chosen by God, then surely that undermines David's supposed "free will", doesn't it?
N.B. Lexicons are not inspired like the bible and yet we are reliant on them to understand the bible.
So that the Lord expects a measure of commen sense to prevail for us to discern.
Lexicons rely on other sources for the meaning of words. On learning that there was a different meaning to the usual 'translation' of EKLEKTOS I checked that out only to discover the very bible version that Jesus and the apostles quoted from - the Septuagint - its meaning there is QUALITY
@gracetruthguy Just wondering where you got your interpretation of eklektos from, especially since few other people hold to that view.
So David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the LORD. (2 Samuel 6:21)
I got it from the Septuagint. The Hebrew Scriptures - the Old Testament of our bibles - was translated into Greek c250BC and this is known as the Septuagint. Jesus and the apostles quoted from this version of the Scripture in our New Testaments giving credibility to its recognition as a source for the meaning of the words used in the New Testament as they share the same language. An undisputed 52 times the word EKLEKTOS is translated from Hebrew words that involve QUALITY.
I did not mean by that that eklektos never means quality or choice (adjective). What I meant was that few people seem to interpret passages in the New Testament epistles and elsehwere to mean "quality" instead of "elect".
Also what about 2 Samuel 6:21 which I posted earlier?
Yes there are numerous deliberate mistranslations in the New Testament slanted towards calvinism. But, with EKLEKTOS it may have been done as early as the Latin Vulgate when (soon after) Augustine introduced the whole doctrine of determinism: and then this false meaning was just repeated without checking.
Please explain your purpose in quoting 2 Samuel 6:21 so I can respond accurately.
@gracetruthguy The reason I quoted 2Sam 6:21 was because I thought it included the word "eklektos" after reading in a few sources that it was used there. Actually, I don't think it is.
But how do you explain this verse as a non-Calvinist?
Samuel is in the Old Testament and was penned in Hebrew. EKLEKTOS is Greek. in the Greek translation of that verse of the Septuagint EKLEKTOS is not used.
David was responding to Michal who criticised him for dancing in the streets before the Lord (in worship). So he tells her that her family was rejected by God in favour of him to rule over Israel and he would worship before God irrespective of what she or anyone else felt. It says nothing of when God chose David.
It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the LORD. (2 Samuel 6:21)
Most of the verse seems to revolve around the word "chose".
@gracetruthguy Already saw it. Got a number of problems with it:
1. If open theism is true, then aren't all Biblical prophecies invalid including those in 1 Samuel?! 2.I consulted with fivepointbaptist on Saturday. He pointed this out:
Where was the scepter from the time of the prophecy in all the centuries before Kind David?
Does it not say "it shall not depart from Judah"?
Or the ruler's staff in all that time?
This is why I read this to refer to rulers and lawmakers in Judah will always be there in its midst until Shiloh comes. It is not a reference therefore to David.
Continued. Fivepointbaptists says: "God had already "known" and decreed that David would be the future ruler based upon Sauls disobedience. Thus, Sauls disobedience was part of Gods plan the entire time because He decreed to place David as king over the people; Christ's forefather! IOW, How could God have known AND decreed that the Messiah would come from Judah, through David (Genesis 49:10), if there was a real possibility that Saul's kingdom could have been established "forever".
If God had decreed that Saul would fall and for David to be king fomr the beginning then when he says He " would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" in 1 Samuel 13:13 it is a lie!
If you assume that a disability is present and there by God's design, then do you really think He would express any mention of abilitiy which in fact was impossible to carry out?
That would equally place God's statements in the realm of deliberately false: lies.
So your view of God is pretty poor in his character if that's what you think.
So either God is being deceitful/lying OR He did not know Saul would rebel.
He is clearly speaking of a REDEEMED Israel, not ALL Isreal--or Israel the nation, as you say. "...Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee..." (Isa 43:1-2 KJV)
The very principle of how God deals with His elect never changes. Types change--e.g., national Israel, but God's character is unchanging.
As mentioned, since there is no pre-trib rapture there is only 1 return with the saints post trib.
But, I do see your point that those who separate what is only mentions of the same thing cause confusion not clarity. But equally where 2 events are distinct: they need to be taken note of as separate.
What is needful is our faithfulness to the Lord, each other and our witness: love being paramount.
*At the rapture of the Church, prior to the "tribulation".
*The judgment of the nations (Satan is "bound") at the return of Christ, at the end of the "tribulation" and the beginning of the "1000 year" millennium.
*The great white throne judgment, at the end of the "1000 year" millennium.
Yes, I concur there is no mention of a pre-trib rapture.
The nations are judged during Jesus reign is in many passages.
"You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’” Psalm 2:9
Or, "who is left of all the nations . . . whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship . . .they shall receive the plague" Zechariah 14:16-18
I agree the rapture Jesus explicitly said "AFTER the tribulation of those days . . . He will send His angels . . . they will gather together His elect from the four winds" Matthew 24:29-31
But that they are gathered before Jesus return so they return with Him is clear i.e. Jude 14 et al
As mentioned Jesus tells us of 2 resurrections:
"those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" John 5:29
I hate to use labels (but I only have a 500 character limit).
Pre-millenarians believe in MULTIPLE resurrections, MULTIPLE judgments, and MULTIPLE battles. This is separated by some sort of special treatment of national Israel, during the tribulation and the 1000 year millennium. That's utter and complete nonsense.
Instead, there will be ONE return of Christ (parousia)--The general resurrection, rapture, and final judgment--all one grand and climactic event when Christ comes in glory.
"...made me believe in a loving God...who...unconditional love was for everyone."
You've fashioned for yourself quite a beautiful god.
Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.
And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. (Jdg 17:4-5 KJV)
@gracetruthguy Thanks for the gracious reply. In the Greek text in Hebrews 2:9 the word "man" does not appear. " ...should taste death for every" is the better translation, in my opinion. If Christ tasted death for ONE soul, who in the end perishes in Hell, His death is ineffectual and meaningless. Propitiation and atonement actually accomplished something--the sure redemption of His elect.
Common grace is a fallacy. The non-elect benefit from God being gracious to the elect. Isaiah 43:3,4.
@gracetruthguy Thank you again. I would say Jesus died for a vast multitude, which no man can number, from EVERY tribe, people, tongue and nation, Rev 5:9; Rev 14:6.
The only reason the sun continues to shine on the non-elect, is because it shines on the elect.
"...Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." (Rev 7:3 KJV)
Once the last of God's elect are effectually called, Jesus will come again in glory, praise God!
Yes, as a 'Calvinist' you have been schooled (unknowingly by the enemy) to read so many texts out of context.
Jesus is explicit:
"He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" Matthew 5:45
There are no 'elect' that is to say: chosen or picked as that is a mistranslation of "eklektos". It appears you have not seen and taken in the video I recommended on that.
For me the term Calvinist is an all encompassing word for those who follow Augustinian theology which Calvin just re-presented. Augustine began monergism in the Church and what you clearly advocate e.g. "Once the last of God's elect are effectually called..."
C my vid
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Before Augi "conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek fathers" History of Christian Doctrine by GP Fisher
The King James translators used the word "elect" and its derivations 27 times in the Bible. I think I can speak on the term with some boldness and confidence. If you don't like the word "elect", how 'bout "choose", "chose", "chosen", "called"? Is there a fancy way to define those terms?
"eklektos" as defined in Bibleworks (no deletions or alterations):
eklektos {ek-lek-tos'}
Meaning:
1) picked out, chosen 1a) chosen by God, 1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ 1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God 1a2) the Messiah is called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable 1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians.
BTW, I would love to watch your video, but I'm afraid I may have to respond with another 19 comments to rebut your interpretation of scripture, and so time prohibits me from doing so.
"Yes, as a 'Calvinist' you have been schooled (unknowingly by the enemy) to read so many texts out of context."
I've already stated (just emphasizing again) that I'm not a Calvinist. I never said I was a Calvinist.
What texts am I taking out of context? I can't think of a single verse I've referred to that has been taken out of context. That's a stale argument that leads to an endless morass of debate which a 500 character Youtube comment won't allow.
@gracetruthguy I'm not sure what you mean by "Israel as a nation's pre-eminence is in view in Isaiah 43." Are you a pre-mil dispensationalist? You better be careful if you're going to start ripping up the Old Testament like that. Not to be a smart-aleck, but you're loosing me with your scholarship.
@gracetruthguy Once again I do appreciate your cordial response. You seem to be a genuinely nice person.
To answer your question--of course the Bible teaches that Jesus will return, gloriously, physically and visibly. What I don't believe is the nonsense about a literal 1000 year reign in Jerusalem with the temple sacrifices and the special treatment of national Israel. The number is symbolic, representing our day.
Book recommendation--More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen
1000 years is clear " they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:6)
Since it also mentions the devil's binding for that time and the Gog and Magog battle at the end, it is pretty specific of a time on earth ruling from Jerusalem.
I recommend my article "CHRISTIANS WILL REIGN, RULE AND JUDGE" on my web site in the bible prophecy section. C channel page for url
"Are you then saying that ALL numerology in the Book of Revelation is to be interpreted literally?"
Give me an example and I'll tell you.
With the 1000 I have prayed and sought to know what to think and that there is a reign on earth after Jesus' return is clear in numerous places. The length of that duration has not been set out anywhere before the mention ot the 1000 years. I take it literally as the 3½ years is literal and also told us also in termsof 42 months...
@gracetruthguy Dividing and subdividing scripture--i.e., this is for the Jews, that is for the gentiles, and that over there...now THAT is for Christians--is really a very unfortunate way to handle Bible interpretation. I used to be a pre-mil dispensationalist (everybody, and their dog, is today). Edward Irving would be proud. Historically, this type of interpretation has only been around for a little more than 100 years. (red flag!) Its a fable of a man's creative and mystical imagination.
@gracetruthguy Once again, (trying not to sound harsh) your dispensational method of Bible interpretation drains value out of these texts of scripture--because they are for "national Israel"--you can tear that page out of your bible...yeah, really--go ahead! Your Romans 9 reference...Paul's speaking of spiritual Israel--i.e. the Church, "the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16 KJV). I don't grasp what you're trying to tell me with the Acts 10 and 2 Samuel passages.
@gracetruthguy "But, not all Israel" (i.e., the Jews, or national Israel) "are of Israel" (the Church, God's elect) (Romans 9:6).
"...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel (i.e. the true Church, God's Elect, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) shall be saved..." (Rom 11:25-26 KJV)
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)
Funny I've always read it the other way "not all Israel" the righteous "are of Israel" The nation of Israel: Not all in Israel will make it.
There are no 'elect' in the sense of selected. Please see the evidence in the video: "Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
2nd time of asking?
All Israel will be saved in 1 day when Jesus returns as their Messiah when "they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him" Zec.12:10.
All Israel will be saved in 1 day when Jesus returns as their Messiah when "they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him" Zec.12:10. Any gentiles in that picture?
Of course, all the Gentile saints and Jew saints return with Jesus (having just been 'picked up')
And all the Gentile non-saints that remain alive are on the earth too.
It is the Jews that did not believe consciously as Jesus as the Christ but have survived the trib that are then saved from the attempt to destroy them by the Antichrist and the Armageddon.
Who cares what the Greek fathers or the Latin fathers or Calvin or Augustine believed?
Take the "his" (written in italics) out of the text. It doesn't change the import of the text one bit. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to purpose. For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, that HE might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Calvine just twisted the sound doctrine, sound teachings, for Calvin was a unique tool by satan himself, for by his teachings is what we many have adopted by many denominations.
Calvinism is not in your Bible, because is a Demonic Doctrine. Open Your Mind.
Why do you think of so many separations of denominations in the beginning of the reformation?
I was you, I would go deeper in to studies. For all I know, you are just confusing more people and making them separate from God- "People-Research."
I agree. Calvin's teachings are just a continuation of what Augustine began in the Church in the 5th century - and non existent before that - and it is false doctrine from the enemy.
T.U.L.I.P is only a start. And it cannot be taken to an extreme, if you do, it goes against Christ's simple plan of Salvation. Never forget verses, such as John 3:16, Romans 3:23, Romans 3:23, and Titus 2:11. Some people says that Calvin taught that God choose some to Go to Heaven and some to Hell, that is NOT true. God wishes that NONE perish (2 Peter 3:9). They have said Calvin was a very shy man, this can be told for his longing for God's Love and Grace to be with ALL people.
If TULIP is true then according to Calvin, God did choose to go to hell all who could not turn (to God), because they were not given faith to enable them to.
Calvin is explicit
"Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
& Calvin's treatment of those he saw as heretics shows he was not a "very shy man"
Yes, HERETICS were banned! And what you just read from the institutes means that God knows ALL things good and Evil, and allows them to happen for his perfect plan! And no, TULIP does not teach that!
"nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed"
U
"God . . . allows them to happen"
Calvin's a definite decision by God that these happen; Urs is a permission only
Do U C the difference?
Since T of TULIP is that none are able of themselves to turn to God without God's further input, how do U C it is not God who decides if they go to hell? And since Calvin says God decrees all things, how do you C Calvin is not in agreement with that?
No I believe that in this case you are making the difference. That in Calvins book means that God knows ALL things and allows ALL things that come to pass happen You are saying that you are not a HyperCalvinist because what you speak of is HyperCalvinism that goes and twists what the Bible says Historical Calvinism is that man cannot save himself God chooses to save him on no conditions God draws with his irresistible Grace Atonement is provided for all who believe then saints will persevere!
I agree that HyperCalvinism is against the Scripture, but I do not read what Calvin wrote as in the Bible either.
Of Course man cannot save Himself, the bible does not teach that. It teaches that Jesus is the Saviour. But it also teaches that faith is ours to practise: it is NOT a gift. Synergism not monergism is in the bible.
Take a look at this video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
Faith is a gift in the sense that if Christ was not the Saviour and the Christ, we would not have faith. And so if Christ is a free gift, so is the faith.
And for us to have any free gift, we have to choose to accept it, to make it our own.
But, if we have no capability to accept as per Calvin, then we are all lost.
If we are given something, and we cannot resist it, as per Calvin, then only those given it in this manner and therefore not free (for all) are saved. Thus God according to Calvin only wants those in heaven.
If election involves a 'choice of God' which means a division between one set of individuals as opposed to another, how does it refer to God choosing the world?
It is not the bible we are disagreeing about, it is Calvin who does not teach the bible except out of context as he regurgitates Augustine.
You cannot use the word 'election' which is about God choosing someone over another in regards to the whole world unless there is another world to differentiate with.
Listen, I am about finished fighting with you since you do not understand the teaching at all. God has chosen ALL of us for salvation. Thats why he provided the cross so that we may be saved!
Yes, Calvin did teach that. He said the gate of salvation is open unto ALL men! Until you listen to a Calvinist and read the Bible, I do not want anymore discussion with you!
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
It draws us to where we can make a choice on Christ, that does not mean that we will. Election, Depravity, Persevering, Grace, Atonement, Predestination, and Free-Will ALL go hand in hand!
Free Will does exist. Jesus said one who sins, is a slave to sin. We have free will, but when Eve sinned, we lost the freedom of the will, which means natural ally we are goin to choose sin. So God draws us the the point where we can choose Christ over sin!
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. ~John Calvin
This is where deception comes in Mr C, because Calvin means as clearly shown by his view of man's depravity/inability that everyone is born in unbelief.
It is by a gift of faith from God which is irresistible that man THEN can turn to God in Calvin. And that by some secret choice of God to the 'elect' only. This is not biblical.
Have a look at this video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
if no one seeks God (romans 3:11) how do men find God? show me a verse that says we choose grace, cause i can show u alot of verses that say otherwise.
P.S. The Greek word "Eklektos" is related to the word eclectic. You know what that means--you pick out and select the best. There IS a place for God making choices, separating sheep from Goats, and selecting out a particular people, In the OT, Israel is described as God' elect. With the Rapture Christ's angels go out to gather Christ's elect--those who are "counted worthy to escape all these things."
That has nothing to do with Calvin's twisted theology regarding "election."
inspiralight 2 months ago
Hi inspiralight,
Check out this video to see where I'm coming from:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
It's about the words Jesus and the apostles used being the same in meaning to the ones they read in their bible. Not the meaning given by translators of the Greek later.
gracetruthguy 2 months ago
I like your video, but sorry to say I can't agree with removing the word "elect" from the Bible. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken." To avoid calling him a liar it's best to accept Scripture as part of God's plan, then focus on how readers of the Bible are misinterpreting that Scripture--for instance the spiritually perverse theology that Calvin built up out of HIS own interpretations of words like election, predestination, regeneration, the Father drawing us to Christ, etc.
inspiralight 2 months ago
You have the right idea. One can interpret some passages from Paul in a way that supports Calvinism, but Calvinism stands in opposition to nearly everything else in the Bible! Which do you choose? It's a great test.
The quote from Chronicles was a good example. Why put man to a test if everything is already predetermined? The seductive notion that Calvinism gives God more credit or "sovereignty" is the sheepskin hiding the wolf underneath.
inspiralight 2 months ago
Hi inspiralight,
Thank you for your comment.
Check out my web site as I'm about to make available the core research that enables the removal of the word "elect" from the bible. I've been converting my latest book into an eBook and decided to make several chapters fully visible. So within a few days that evidence will be online as well as for the removal of "His" from Romans 8:28... The update will be mentioned in the "New" section.
gracetruthguy 2 months ago
Comment removed
GlennZim 11 months ago
Hi Bob,
Do you think that JWs or Mormons are all unintelligent?
Are they not all (mostly) sincere believers and view a whole load of passages different from orthodox christianity?
It is not a matter of intelligence, i.e. education that resolves deception. It is a combination of a heart truly searching for the truth whilst holding what you currently believe loosely enough to change it like the Bereans did in Acts 17 that enables one to learn away from deception.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Comment removed
GlennZim 11 months ago
Hi Bob,
I recommend my vid:
"not so Quick Answer to Calvinists John 15:16 (& John 6) - Jacques More"
The reason "in part" is mentioned is to make sure no allusion is given that no one reaps what they did not sow.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued from Ex4:21-23
Notice in verse 22 Moses says "the Lord told" (COMMANDED) Pharaoh to "Let my son go, so he may worship me."
However God already DECREED something different " But I WILL harden his heart so that he will not let the people go".
So doesn't this mean that God is making the Pharaoh disobey his orders to let His people go?
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Exodus4:21-23:
"The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. How can man come to God on his own?
Romans 3:9-12:
"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that JEWS AND GENTILES ALIKE are ALL UNDER THE POWER OF SIN.
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is NO ONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. Knowing that God's prophecy will come true regardless of what choices we make - that's fatalism.
Things occuring as a result of our choice which is predetermined - thats determinism.
John 1:13 does not refute the possibility of determinism. Yes the right is given to those who believe, so the choice to believe means you have the right, but the choice could be predetermined.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi grace truth guy.
Correcting my last comment: fatalism goes against Revelation 21:8. I made a typing error and accidently said 12:8.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Fatalism says that no matter what choices you make, the outcome will be exactly the same regardless.
If we apply fatalism to John 12, the outcome would be determined irrespective of choice. Therefore, they would be saved if they did choose to believe, but they would also be saved if they chose not to believe. This goes against Revelation 12:8.
Therefore fatalism in NOT predeterminism, as choice is irrelevant in fatalism.
In determinism choice makes a difference but is predetermined.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
If man has no choice to do other than be like the following:
"cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone"
IF they had no choice but to be this way in the Calvinist predeterminism, THEN that is fatalism is it not?
Of course it is.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy. Continued. I think "which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind" means... " which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind [to command or speak such a thing]". This is supported by my examples of God appearing to decree sin with Pharaoh and the hate for Jesus.
Could u pls repeat your view on Jn 12:39 - "For this reason they COULD NOT believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: “HE has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts"?
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
To decree something is to command it to occur is it not?
He cannot have decreed something he knew not of to command.
The order as explained by John in his gospel is ALL are shown light 1:9 THEN any who receive are THEN given the right to become children of God [not B4 in some past decree!]. HOW birth occurs is without further aid 1:13. All who do not receive CANNOT believe are blinded and hardened 12:39.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy. This supplements our discussion concerning God controlling people's wills "some of the time".
Go to the Youtube homepage and paste this link to the end of the adress
watch?v=phmBBG9e8MM
I posted some other comments below also.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
If God has decreed all that comes to pass - is in total control - and has decided everything that comes to pass as Calvinism claims.
Then please expxain why God says He never agreed to this event or it even entered His mind to do that?
"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
Does this agree God decreed everything?
Nope.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Nope, I did not.
The passage is clear God never planned or asked or thought for this evil to be carried out.
Period.
John Calvin states:
God "determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man"
Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5
Jeremiah 19:5 is in opposition.
to decree is the same as to plan and command it to happen
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy Thus we can assume that the word "decreed" was not the best word, and decreed essentially means spoken in this context. Also there is a difference between what God decrees (makes happen) and what God commands. However in Calvinism God decrees everything, even that which he did not command. For example he commanded to love our enemies, but decreed that people should bear hate Jesus without reason (Psalm69:4). Thus he appears to decree sin, without being sinful.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
When God makes plans and commands things He is not into opposing them at the same time. That is not just contradiction, it is confusion and deception.
It is such powerful deception because the enemy who is behind it is off the hook and "he" has pleasure in the Lord's name being tarnished.
God did not decree or plan for people to hate Jesus.
He knew and foresaw that the wicked that would be there would do so. He planned to make use of that. There is the difference.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Yes, I saw that and also made a comment below it.
fivepointbaptist then replied to me:
"God has self control? What will you people come up with next!"
To which I further replied:
"the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, SELF-CONTROL"
Galatians 5:22-23
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy, I'm pretty sure fivepointbaptist was being sarcastic!!! Of course God has self-control - He knows what's he's doing!
If people could harden their hearts by themselves without God, why would God need to get involved. Even if they have free will, if we say for the sake of argument that God is further hardening hearts, he still making the sin of unbelief stronger.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy
Continued. John 12:39 says "they COULD NOT believe". They were unable. It does not say "They did not" . Also see my comment on Matt 13:11-15.
Your analogy in this video concerning Isaiah 46 is a bad example. A writer crafts a story from start to finish, even if he knows the end from the beginning. A novel does not write itself - a writer has to do it all. That does not refute free will, but I'm just pointing out its a bad analogy
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
It is not a bad analogy to consider a play with the main parts written and adhered to and the limits within which ad lib (i.e. free will) is permitted to exercise.
So that the end is know beacuse the limits are in place to effect the end product desired in the 1st place.
But, ad lib (free will) is evident without the involvement of the writer whatsoever.
Total free will no one teaches from the bible.
Total control Calvinism teaches against the bible.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
14-15: "Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“You will indeed hear but NEVER understand,and you will indeed see but NEVER perceive.For this people's heart has grown dull,and with their ears they can barely hear,and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyesand hear with their earsand understand with their heartand turn, and I would heal them.’ "
Therefore those without the gift ofknowledge given by God will never do those things
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
See my explanation of Verse 12.
The explanation Jesus gives following "FOR" involves those who already made a choice by having already...
It is these who understand and the other who NEVER.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy I think you have a misunderstanding of the Calvinist teaching concerning choices. Sorry if I have misled you in this respect. Calvinism does not say that we do not make choices. It says those choices taht we make have been predetermined. That's the difference between determinism (choices are important) and fatalism (choices are irrelevant). Calvinism is not in conflict with verses involving choice. However what we choose has already been decided - God changes our heart.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
That is confusion.
Choices that are predetermined are not choices and that is fatalism.
If you do not see this then you are deceived.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy Determinism says that choices affect the outcome of an event, but the choices are predetermined. For example, people chose not to "believe in the light" John 12.
They couldn't believe because "he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts" = determined by God
Thus this verse seems to be saying that they chose not to believe, but this was because God determined their choice. If they chose to believe they'd be saved. They chose not to believe so they were not saved.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Have a look at my earlier response showing John's progressive report of HOW things happen.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy
I don't see how Matthew 13 goes against Calvinism. Matt 13:11-13
11 And he answered them, “TO YOU IT HAS BEEN GIVEN to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but TO THEM IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
That's the problem with picking and choosing texts out of context I'm sorry to say.
Jesus 5 mentioned times statement in the NT of Verse 12 is the basic truth:
For whoever has [chosen], to him MOREmore will be given, and he will have abundance...
THESE ARE THE ONES = TO YOU IT HAS BEEN GIVEN
...but whoever does not have [made a contrary choice], even what he has will be taken away from him.
But note against Calvinism EVERYONE has something to begin with!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
It is against calvinism to agree that more is given if they have something.
since Calvinism claims no one has anything to begin with.
WHY they COULD NOT is the issue. ie. HOW did they come to be in a state of inabiblity.
SINCE Mat.13:12 claims ALL have something.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy Yes God decrees sin without being sinful.
19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that HATE me without a cause.
John 15:24-25
25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They HATED me without a cause
Wasn't this hate sin? How about when God decreed that Jesus would be killed for doing nothing wrong (Murder)?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Where do these passages say or suggest that God decreed sin?
It is sin that is present that God THEN makes use of to his ends. Not that He decrees it in the 1st place.
Why do you think Paul very clearly uses 2 DIFFERENT GREEK VERBS in Romans 9:22-23?
Which is therefore clear THEREBY that NO ONE is afore prepared for destruction!
U C with Pharaoh his heart was ALREADY hard, God just strengthened it further to REMAIN in that state for his own ends.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
]Hi gracetruthguy. If God did not decree sin in Isaiah and Psalm concerning the death of Jesus, then wouldn't their prophecies have been false? If Jesus had not been crucified then God's plan would have been rather different! Therefore such events would not be left to free will. Besides, I'm pretty sure that you said that what God decrees he makes sure happens, otherwise his prophecy would have been false. Please see the link I sent you the other day.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
No, their prophecies would not be false. It is a misunderstanding of how God works that suggests his direct will and influence on sin or evil being done. Indeed its a blasphemy to suggest God wants evil and at the same time says He does not.
For example Isaiah 42:8 is explicit!
"I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images."
Yet the Calvinist persists in saying God decrees that to happen!
Pure blasphemy!
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy You say " with Pharaoh his heart was ALREADY hard, God just strengthened it further to REMAIN in that state for his own ends. "
So you admit God "strengthened" the hardening Pharaoh's heart "further to remain in that state" so Pharaoh wouldn't let God's people go. Wasn't Pharaoh's action a sin, and didn't God ensure this by "strengthening" the hardness so he'd remain in the state, therefore further guaranteeing Pharaoh wouldn't let them go as he should have?
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
There is a world of difference between planning from the beginning someone to do somehting evil contrasted to the making use of someone who is already into evil to one's own purposes in the nations.
That is how the wicked praises God. By God making use of their evil to glorify His name.
Pharaoh, Judas and others are shown in the Scripture as already wicked and evil BEFORE their being in that state was being made use of.
Paul does not say AFORE PREPARED for evil! R9
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy Forgot to say the first verse I quoted about hate was Psalm 35:19. Please see earlier comment.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Do you understand what the word "for" is about: you know , the 1st word of Verse 12?
It is there to show that what follows explains the preceding.
SO THAT, more is given to the one who has. This is the ones to whom it is given.
It cannot be given to those who do not have.
But, all have something. For those who do not have get to love something "he has" ALREADY.
THAT is what Calvinism teaches against since it claims no one has anything!
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Matt13:11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." Obviously more is given to those who have. But how is what they have given to them in the first place ? By God. Calvinism is not against this teaching. It says those given the gift by God (verse 11) will recieve more (vs 12).This teaching does not disprove the idea that noone has anything originally. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone has it from birth.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Total depravity or if you prefer total inability is a foundational tenet of Calvinism. Total means totalt.
Matthew 13:12 is clear that those who get more is because they have.
So these ALREADY have and then they are given more.
Those who do not have, even what They HAVE will be taken away.
So both types of persons HAVE something from the beginning.
The Scripture therefore is totally in opposition to Calvnism. Period.
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
"Those who do not have [the gift mentioned in v. 11], even what they have will be taken away"
Why would Jesus say "Those who don't have the gift will have the gift they have taken away"?!
If they don't have the gift how can it be taken away? Therefore what they have must be something else, mustn't it? People without God still have other things until they die.
However it's obvious that SOME do have the gift mentioned in v. 11, and because they have the gift from God more will be given.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Come on, be honest, don't be deceived any further, if you are a Calvinist then you believe no one has anything. Period.
The Scripture here says they have something taken away.
Calvinism says "O no, they dont; they have nothing"
That is my point. And Scripture's testimony.
Now please answer me this, IF Calvinism is true, why would someone have something that God would then take away?
If He decreed they should not end up with it in the 1st place, why is that?
gracetruthguy 11 months ago
Hi gracetruthguy.
Calvinism does NOT say no one is ever given the gift. It just says man does not have it originally and cannot obtain it on its own. It's a gift from God.
musicbox2345 11 months ago
@gracetruthguy Also, how is God not able to choose in Calvinism?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
If you mean make new decisions as per the preceding comments, then it is because he chose once at the beginning (or before the beginning) in Calvinism.
The Scripture reveals He makes new choices.
God is free to make new choices.
Calvinism says - I.e. Calvins's Institutes - everything is already decided by God
And that includes all the perverse sinful things too!!!
(As decided by God in Calvinism)
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi again gracetruthguy. Didn't you contradict yourself early?
You said that 2 Samuel 6:21 "says nothing of when God chose David." even though it says "the LORD, who chose me"
Then you said later, "David was chosen to be king after Saul rebelled."
So, when you've looked at the other scriptures I posted could you please tell me, was David chosen by God or wasn't he? Because if he was chosen by God, then surely that undermines David's supposed "free will", doesn't it?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Nope, since it is evident that 2 Sam.6:21 does not tell us when: my point.
It is evident that 1 Sam.13:13-14 does tell us when.
Yes, David was chosen by God. When?
At the rejection of Saul due to his rebellion.
There was no plan beforehand for David to be king the scripture reveals.
God is free to make new decisions in Scripture.
Calvinism does not give God that freedom.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD;
He turns it WHEREVER HE WISHES.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
You appear to be reading more into Prov.21:1 then the context gives you.
"Rivulets of waters [is] the heart of a king in the hand of Jehovah, Wherever He pleaseth He inclineth it" Young
The influence from the Lord is in proportion to the banks of a stream.
Should there be an overflow elsewhere - the context shows - it is not God's pleasure or will in play.
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice" V.3
And Saul disagreed!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
What "eklektos" really means according to a Greek Lexicon
studylight(dot)org/lex/grk/view(dot)cgi?number=1588
(Replace the (dot) in the link with a .)
Apparently the definitions of the Calvinist (chosen) and More (choice - adjective) are both correct. Check it out for yourself.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
N.B. Lexicons are not inspired like the bible and yet we are reliant on them to understand the bible.
So that the Lord expects a measure of commen sense to prevail for us to discern.
Lexicons rely on other sources for the meaning of words. On learning that there was a different meaning to the usual 'translation' of EKLEKTOS I checked that out only to discover the very bible version that Jesus and the apostles quoted from - the Septuagint - its meaning there is QUALITY
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy How do you know this? Where did you check it out?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Please clarify to which part your question relates.
The sources of info for lexicons or is it about the Septuagint?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Just wondering where you got your interpretation of eklektos from, especially since few other people hold to that view.
So David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the LORD. (2 Samuel 6:21)
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
I got it from the Septuagint. The Hebrew Scriptures - the Old Testament of our bibles - was translated into Greek c250BC and this is known as the Septuagint. Jesus and the apostles quoted from this version of the Scripture in our New Testaments giving credibility to its recognition as a source for the meaning of the words used in the New Testament as they share the same language. An undisputed 52 times the word EKLEKTOS is translated from Hebrew words that involve QUALITY.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Hi gracetruthguy
I did not mean by that that eklektos never means quality or choice (adjective). What I meant was that few people seem to interpret passages in the New Testament epistles and elsehwere to mean "quality" instead of "elect".
Also what about 2 Samuel 6:21 which I posted earlier?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Yes there are numerous deliberate mistranslations in the New Testament slanted towards calvinism. But, with EKLEKTOS it may have been done as early as the Latin Vulgate when (soon after) Augustine introduced the whole doctrine of determinism: and then this false meaning was just repeated without checking.
Please explain your purpose in quoting 2 Samuel 6:21 so I can respond accurately.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy The reason I quoted 2Sam 6:21 was because I thought it included the word "eklektos" after reading in a few sources that it was used there. Actually, I don't think it is.
But how do you explain this verse as a non-Calvinist?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Samuel is in the Old Testament and was penned in Hebrew. EKLEKTOS is Greek. in the Greek translation of that verse of the Septuagint EKLEKTOS is not used.
David was responding to Michal who criticised him for dancing in the streets before the Lord (in worship). So he tells her that her family was rejected by God in favour of him to rule over Israel and he would worship before God irrespective of what she or anyone else felt. It says nothing of when God chose David.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Hi gracetruthguy
Why then does the English use the word chose?
It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the LORD. (2 Samuel 6:21)
Most of the verse seems to revolve around the word "chose".
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
David was chosen to be king after Saul rebelled.
But, before he rebelled God's plan was to have Saul as king for He chose him to be king:
"Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen" 1 Samuel 10:24
"Saul, whom the LORD chose" 2 Samuel 21:6
God's plan was to establish Saul's kingdom over Israel forever, until he rebelled.
"For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" 1 Sam. 13:13
C my vid "1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Already saw it. Got a number of problems with it:
1. If open theism is true, then aren't all Biblical prophecies invalid including those in 1 Samuel?! 2.I consulted with fivepointbaptist on Saturday. He pointed this out:
Genesis 49:10
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes,
And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Where was the scepter from the time of the prophecy in all the centuries before Kind David?
Does it not say "it shall not depart from Judah"?
Or the ruler's staff in all that time?
This is why I read this to refer to rulers and lawmakers in Judah will always be there in its midst until Shiloh comes. It is not a reference therefore to David.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Continued. Fivepointbaptists says: "God had already "known" and decreed that David would be the future ruler based upon Sauls disobedience. Thus, Sauls disobedience was part of Gods plan the entire time because He decreed to place David as king over the people; Christ's forefather! IOW, How could God have known AND decreed that the Messiah would come from Judah, through David (Genesis 49:10), if there was a real possibility that Saul's kingdom could have been established "forever".
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
If God had decreed that Saul would fall and for David to be king fomr the beginning then when he says He " would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" in 1 Samuel 13:13 it is a lie!
So either it is a lie or God did not know.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy# If God gave us wings we could fly (Revelation)
But I did notgive us wings, so we can't. (Predestination)
1 Sam 13:13 seems to be about revelation not predestination, but that doesn't disprove predestination in all cases or prove open theism is correct.
See Proverbs 21:1
Also if nothing is predestined, isn't all prophecy therefore invalid, including that in 1 Samuel chapter 8?
Even if the Gen 49:10 was about lawmakers,doesn't that still prove God knows the future?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
If you assume that a disability is present and there by God's design, then do you really think He would express any mention of abilitiy which in fact was impossible to carry out?
That would equally place God's statements in the realm of deliberately false: lies.
So your view of God is pretty poor in his character if that's what you think.
So either God is being deceitful/lying OR He did not know Saul would rebel.
The choice is yours.
4 the rest ask again pls
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi gracetruthguy
How then do you explain John 12:39-40
Therefore they COULD NOT believe. For again Isaiah said,
"HE has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."
Doesn't this mean that He blinded or disabled them?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
It is important to note that Jn12:39-40 is in opposition to Calvinism as that says folk are already blind and hard in the 1st place.
What Jesus refers to is what he also said in the same vein in Mat.13:12 and context
"For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even WHAT HE HAS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM"
The blinding and hardening is a strengthening of the choice made = the bit in CAPS.
BUT he "had" 1st!!!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicbox2345 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Once again, if God doesn't know the future, isn't all prophecy invalid?
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Hi musicbox2345,
Thanks for the repeat.
No, only certain parts of the future is unknown.
Everything that is decided and made to come to pass God is able to declare in advance.
That is certain prophecy.
That is the full context of Isaiah 46:9-10
It is because He makes it happen that He knows it and declares it:
"Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it; I will also do it."
Isaiah 46:11
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
One additional thought on Isaiah 43.
He is clearly speaking of a REDEEMED Israel, not ALL Isreal--or Israel the nation, as you say. "...Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee..." (Isa 43:1-2 KJV)
The very principle of how God deals with His elect never changes. Types change--e.g., national Israel, but God's character is unchanging.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Pre-millennial dispensationalism is UTTER NONSENSE, and has damaging ramifications, in toto, to how a person interprets the whole of scripture.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
And last, but certainly not least, MULTIPLE returns of Christ:
*Being caught up with Him in the clouds, i.e., the rapture of the Church, prior to the "tribulation period".
*The return of Christ at the ushering in of the Millennial "1000 year reign of Christ on earth".
*At Christ's triumph at the end of the "1000 year" millennium, at the new heavens and the new earth.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
As mentioned, since there is no pre-trib rapture there is only 1 return with the saints post trib.
But, I do see your point that those who separate what is only mentions of the same thing cause confusion not clarity. But equally where 2 events are distinct: they need to be taken note of as separate.
What is needful is our faithfulness to the Lord, each other and our witness: love being paramount.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Multiple battles:
*Battle of Armageddon, at the end of the "tribulation", ushering in the "1000 year" millennium.
*The first "millennial battle", prior to Satan's little season.
*The battle of Gog and Magog.
*The second "millennial battle", prior to the ushering in of the new heavens and the new earth.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Yes, "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision" Armageddon in Joel 3:14
Never heard of the 1st mill battle.
And the final one is Gog and Magog as per Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20
So only 2.
(after the many as per Matthew 24:6-7
"wars and rumors of wars . . . nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom")
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Multiple judgments:
*At the rapture of the Church, prior to the "tribulation".
*The judgment of the nations (Satan is "bound") at the return of Christ, at the end of the "tribulation" and the beginning of the "1000 year" millennium.
*The great white throne judgment, at the end of the "1000 year" millennium.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Yes, I concur there is no mention of a pre-trib rapture.
The nations are judged during Jesus reign is in many passages.
"You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’” Psalm 2:9
Or, "who is left of all the nations . . . whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship . . .they shall receive the plague" Zechariah 14:16-18
Yes, there is a final judgment. Romans 2:16
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Multiple resurrections:
(quotations used throughout to emphasize the nonsensical nature of the position).
*Resurrection of the just, at the "rapture of the church" prior to the "tribulation".
*Resurrection of the "tribulation saints" at the return of Christ after the "tribulation", prior to the "1000 year" millennium.
*Resurrection of judgment after Satan's little season at the end of the "1000 years".
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
I agree the rapture Jesus explicitly said "AFTER the tribulation of those days . . . He will send His angels . . . they will gather together His elect from the four winds" Matthew 24:29-31
But that they are gathered before Jesus return so they return with Him is clear i.e. Jude 14 et al
As mentioned Jesus tells us of 2 resurrections:
"those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" John 5:29
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
I hate to use labels (but I only have a 500 character limit).
Pre-millenarians believe in MULTIPLE resurrections, MULTIPLE judgments, and MULTIPLE battles. This is separated by some sort of special treatment of national Israel, during the tribulation and the 1000 year millennium. That's utter and complete nonsense.
Instead, there will be ONE return of Christ (parousia)--The general resurrection, rapture, and final judgment--all one grand and climactic event when Christ comes in glory.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Yes the 500 limit is a challenge. I've messaged you to mention that is an alternative for you.
There are different kinds of premill beliefs.
I agree that some mentions occur rogether others do not.
I sent you my vid on the rapture to show my take is that it is post trib i.e. only just before the 2nd coming.
But 1000 years I do see as literal for a number of reasons including all the passages that mentions Jesus reign on earth.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
"...made me believe in a loving God...who...unconditional love was for everyone."
You've fashioned for yourself quite a beautiful god.
Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.
And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. (Jdg 17:4-5 KJV)
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
When Jesus tastes death for every man as per Hebrews 2:9
And we know the Father sends the rain and the sun on good and bad for all to benefit Matthew 5:45
So that only those who avail themselves of the free gift then benefit becomes clear.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Thanks for the gracious reply. In the Greek text in Hebrews 2:9 the word "man" does not appear. " ...should taste death for every" is the better translation, in my opinion. If Christ tasted death for ONE soul, who in the end perishes in Hell, His death is ineffectual and meaningless. Propitiation and atonement actually accomplished something--the sure redemption of His elect.
Common grace is a fallacy. The non-elect benefit from God being gracious to the elect. Isaiah 43:3,4.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
You are correct in the Greek the word 'man' is not used. the word 'pantos' is used meaning EVERY. So Jesus tasted death for every...
In context you could even include the angels.
Now for the word 'elect' I recommend my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
Common provision/grace is seen by the very practise of God with the sun and the rain as mentioned.
Israel as a nation's pre-eminence is in view in Isaiah 43.
Personal salvation is not.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Thank you again. I would say Jesus died for a vast multitude, which no man can number, from EVERY tribe, people, tongue and nation, Rev 5:9; Rev 14:6.
The only reason the sun continues to shine on the non-elect, is because it shines on the elect.
"...Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." (Rev 7:3 KJV)
Once the last of God's elect are effectually called, Jesus will come again in glory, praise God!
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Yes, as a 'Calvinist' you have been schooled (unknowingly by the enemy) to read so many texts out of context.
Jesus is explicit:
"He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" Matthew 5:45
There are no 'elect' that is to say: chosen or picked as that is a mistranslation of "eklektos". It appears you have not seen and taken in the video I recommended on that.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
I'm not a Calvinist. And what you say about the enemy does not bother me.
"But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self." (1Co 4:3 KJV)
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
For me the term Calvinist is an all encompassing word for those who follow Augustinian theology which Calvin just re-presented. Augustine began monergism in the Church and what you clearly advocate e.g. "Once the last of God's elect are effectually called..."
C my vid
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Before Augi "conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek fathers" History of Christian Doctrine by GP Fisher
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
The King James translators used the word "elect" and its derivations 27 times in the Bible. I think I can speak on the term with some boldness and confidence. If you don't like the word "elect", how 'bout "choose", "chose", "chosen", "called"? Is there a fancy way to define those terms?
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
23 times from the separate and different Greek word eklektos which is well shown in the Seputagint to mean "quality"
Young in his introduction to his Literal version of the bible also says when you see 'chosen' and 'elect' read "choice one" continuing that flavour.
The verb is not related, just as the adjective 'fat' is not related to "I eat" it looks similar that is all.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
"eklektos" as defined in Bibleworks (no deletions or alterations):
eklektos {ek-lek-tos'}
Meaning:
1) picked out, chosen 1a) chosen by God, 1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ 1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God 1a2) the Messiah is called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable 1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians.
Seems pretty clear to me.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Comment removed
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gracetruthguy
BTW, I would love to watch your video, but I'm afraid I may have to respond with another 19 comments to rebut your interpretation of scripture, and so time prohibits me from doing so.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
You say:
"Yes, as a 'Calvinist' you have been schooled (unknowingly by the enemy) to read so many texts out of context."
I've already stated (just emphasizing again) that I'm not a Calvinist. I never said I was a Calvinist.
What texts am I taking out of context? I can't think of a single verse I've referred to that has been taken out of context. That's a stale argument that leads to an endless morass of debate which a 500 character Youtube comment won't allow.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
I would be interested to know how you see your expressed words about the elect being different from your take on a Calvinist (on what a Calvinist is).
Isaiah 43:3,4 is a case in point. The nation of Israel is in view in context: you use it to refer to the elect.
I've already offered and suggested if you wish to use more than 500 words in response please message me.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I'm not sure what you mean by "Israel as a nation's pre-eminence is in view in Isaiah 43." Are you a pre-mil dispensationalist? You better be careful if you're going to start ripping up the Old Testament like that. Not to be a smart-aleck, but you're loosing me with your scholarship.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Israel the nation is in view in Isaiah 43. Not individuals to be saved.
But, not all Israel are of Israel (Romans 9:6).
And in every nation there are those who believe (Acts 10:35).
So that the nation is about the world of nations, but salvation is about the righteous believing. See 2 Samuel 22:26
The bible is clear that Jesus will reign for a 1000 years when he returns: Revelation 20:1-10.
Do you not believe Jesus will return physically and rule from Jerusalem?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Once again I do appreciate your cordial response. You seem to be a genuinely nice person.
To answer your question--of course the Bible teaches that Jesus will return, gloriously, physically and visibly. What I don't believe is the nonsense about a literal 1000 year reign in Jerusalem with the temple sacrifices and the special treatment of national Israel. The number is symbolic, representing our day.
Book recommendation--More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
I believe in Galatians 6:1 et al.
1000 years is clear " they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:6)
Since it also mentions the devil's binding for that time and the Gog and Magog battle at the end, it is pretty specific of a time on earth ruling from Jerusalem.
I recommend my article "CHRISTIANS WILL REIGN, RULE AND JUDGE" on my web site in the bible prophecy section. C channel page for url
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
You say:
"1000 years is clear... "
Are you then saying that ALL numerology in the Book of Revelation is to be interpreted literally?
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
U:
"Are you then saying that ALL numerology in the Book of Revelation is to be interpreted literally?"
Give me an example and I'll tell you.
With the 1000 I have prayed and sought to know what to think and that there is a reign on earth after Jesus' return is clear in numerous places. The length of that duration has not been set out anywhere before the mention ot the 1000 years. I take it literally as the 3½ years is literal and also told us also in termsof 42 months...
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
You say:
"I believe in Galatians 6:1 et al."
What does that have to do with anything?
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
You said how polite I was being.
I said why.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Dividing and subdividing scripture--i.e., this is for the Jews, that is for the gentiles, and that over there...now THAT is for Christians--is really a very unfortunate way to handle Bible interpretation. I used to be a pre-mil dispensationalist (everybody, and their dog, is today). Edward Irving would be proud. Historically, this type of interpretation has only been around for a little more than 100 years. (red flag!) Its a fable of a man's creative and mystical imagination.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Once again, (trying not to sound harsh) your dispensational method of Bible interpretation drains value out of these texts of scripture--because they are for "national Israel"--you can tear that page out of your bible...yeah, really--go ahead! Your Romans 9 reference...Paul's speaking of spiritual Israel--i.e. the Church, "the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16 KJV). I don't grasp what you're trying to tell me with the Acts 10 and 2 Samuel passages.
Dispensationalists ignore Romans 9
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "But, not all Israel" (i.e., the Jews, or national Israel) "are of Israel" (the Church, God's elect) (Romans 9:6).
"...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel (i.e. the true Church, God's Elect, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) shall be saved..." (Rom 11:25-26 KJV)
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Funny I've always read it the other way "not all Israel" the righteous "are of Israel" The nation of Israel: Not all in Israel will make it.
There are no 'elect' in the sense of selected. Please see the evidence in the video: "Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
2nd time of asking?
All Israel will be saved in 1 day when Jesus returns as their Messiah when "they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him" Zec.12:10.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
You say:
All Israel will be saved in 1 day when Jesus returns as their Messiah when "they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him" Zec.12:10. Any gentiles in that picture?
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
Of course, all the Gentile saints and Jew saints return with Jesus (having just been 'picked up')
And all the Gentile non-saints that remain alive are on the earth too.
It is the Jews that did not believe consciously as Jesus as the Christ but have survived the trib that are then saved from the attempt to destroy them by the Antichrist and the Armageddon.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
Yes Sir. It is the second time you asked (maybe the third). I will have a look when I have time to sufficiently respond.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Who cares what the Greek fathers or the Latin fathers or Calvin or Augustine believed?
Take the "his" (written in italics) out of the text. It doesn't change the import of the text one bit. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to purpose. For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, that HE might be the firstborn among many brethren.
You're too smart for your britches.
eleutheroo1 1 year ago
Hi eleutheroo1,
I agree our prime source for truth is the bible; no one else.
For the understanding of Romans 8 and Paul's conditional predestination teaching see my video:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Calvine just twisted the sound doctrine, sound teachings, for Calvin was a unique tool by satan himself, for by his teachings is what we many have adopted by many denominations.
Calvinism is not in your Bible, because is a Demonic Doctrine. Open Your Mind.
Why do you think of so many separations of denominations in the beginning of the reformation?
I was you, I would go deeper in to studies. For all I know, you are just confusing more people and making them separate from God- "People-Research."
JCCOUTINO 1 year ago
Hi Lic. J.C.C,
I agree. Calvin's teachings are just a continuation of what Augustine began in the Church in the 5th century - and non existent before that - and it is false doctrine from the enemy.
See my video
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
This guy has no idea what Calvinism teaches, he is talking about Hyper-Calvinism!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
I have read Calvin.
Perhaps you can tell us what Calvinism teaches?
Do you for example deny T.U.L.I.P as a full and fair representation of it?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
T.U.L.I.P is only a start. And it cannot be taken to an extreme, if you do, it goes against Christ's simple plan of Salvation. Never forget verses, such as John 3:16, Romans 3:23, Romans 3:23, and Titus 2:11. Some people says that Calvin taught that God choose some to Go to Heaven and some to Hell, that is NOT true. God wishes that NONE perish (2 Peter 3:9). They have said Calvin was a very shy man, this can be told for his longing for God's Love and Grace to be with ALL people.
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi M. Carter,
If TULIP is true then according to Calvin, God did choose to go to hell all who could not turn (to God), because they were not given faith to enable them to.
Calvin is explicit
"Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
& Calvin's treatment of those he saw as heretics shows he was not a "very shy man"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Yes, HERETICS were banned! And what you just read from the institutes means that God knows ALL things good and Evil, and allows them to happen for his perfect plan! And no, TULIP does not teach that!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
Calvin
"nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed"
U
"God . . . allows them to happen"
Calvin's a definite decision by God that these happen; Urs is a permission only
Do U C the difference?
Since T of TULIP is that none are able of themselves to turn to God without God's further input, how do U C it is not God who decides if they go to hell? And since Calvin says God decrees all things, how do you C Calvin is not in agreement with that?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
No I believe that in this case you are making the difference. That in Calvins book means that God knows ALL things and allows ALL things that come to pass happen You are saying that you are not a HyperCalvinist because what you speak of is HyperCalvinism that goes and twists what the Bible says Historical Calvinism is that man cannot save himself God chooses to save him on no conditions God draws with his irresistible Grace Atonement is provided for all who believe then saints will persevere!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
I agree that HyperCalvinism is against the Scripture, but I do not read what Calvin wrote as in the Bible either.
Of Course man cannot save Himself, the bible does not teach that. It teaches that Jesus is the Saviour. But it also teaches that faith is ours to practise: it is NOT a gift. Synergism not monergism is in the bible.
Take a look at this video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Faith is a gift in the sense that if Christ was not the Saviour and the Christ, we would not have faith. And so if Christ is a free gift, so is the faith.
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
And for us to have any free gift, we have to choose to accept it, to make it our own.
But, if we have no capability to accept as per Calvin, then we are all lost.
If we are given something, and we cannot resist it, as per Calvin, then only those given it in this manner and therefore not free (for all) are saved. Thus God according to Calvin only wants those in heaven.
Is that not so?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
That is not so. We 100% have to choose! Calvin taught free will. See this is where your mixed up, you misunderstand TULIP.
Total Depravity-man cannot save himself nor respond to the gospel because of his evil heart.
Unconditional Election-God chooses to save the world with no conditions.
Limited Atonement-Atonement is provided for ALL who believe and have faith in Christ!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
If election involves a 'choice of God' which means a division between one set of individuals as opposed to another, how does it refer to God choosing the world?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
John 3:16, God loves the world, so God chooses to save the world through Christ!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
It is not the bible we are disagreeing about, it is Calvin who does not teach the bible except out of context as he regurgitates Augustine.
You cannot use the word 'election' which is about God choosing someone over another in regards to the whole world unless there is another world to differentiate with.
What is the word 'election' to you?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Sir election is speaking of God choosing to save us and wanting us to be like Christ!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
Choosing 'us' as opposed to whom?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Listen, I am about finished fighting with you since you do not understand the teaching at all. God has chosen ALL of us for salvation. Thats why he provided the cross so that we may be saved!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
I believe the bible which tells us God desires all to be saved.
It is Calvin who does not teach that.
You appear not to be reading Calvin and suggest he teaches the bible.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Yes, Calvin did teach that. He said the gate of salvation is open unto ALL men! Until you listen to a Calvinist and read the Bible, I do not want anymore discussion with you!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
Calvin:
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
Institutes Bk3 Ch21 Para5
I do not read that in my bible, do you?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Irresistible Grace-God draws us to a point where we can make a decision on Christ, he does this against our evil will.
Perseverance of the Saints-True Christians will live a Holy life and who ever endures until the end will be saved!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
If God draws us "against our evil will", then it is not a choice is it?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
It draws us to where we can make a choice on Christ, that does not mean that we will. Election, Depravity, Persevering, Grace, Atonement, Predestination, and Free-Will ALL go hand in hand!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
If one is depraved and thus unable of themselves to turn to God - i.e. their will is disabled to choose - how does free will then exist?
Please explain your understanding of 'depravity'.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Free Will does exist. Jesus said one who sins, is a slave to sin. We have free will, but when Eve sinned, we lost the freedom of the will, which means natural ally we are goin to choose sin. So God draws us the the point where we can choose Christ over sin!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
Yes, God does this, but with whom does He not do this according to Calvin?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. ~John Calvin
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi Minister Carter,
And that unbelief, you have no power to change without God giving you a gift of faith, so you are quoting Calvin out of context here, are you not?
The will of man is not free to change that state, remember (In Calvin; not in the bible)
This is not hyper Calvnism, but basic core Calvinism teaching: which began with Augustine.
Please see the video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
No, this IS Hyper-Calvinism because it goes beyond scripture.
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
I agree that it goes against Scripture, but what is there of TULIP that is in Scripture?
Or do you not see TULIP as a representation of Calvin's writings?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
TULIP is ONLY a start. But you also need to know that Tulip does not go in that order.
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
Hi MC,
This is where deception comes in Mr C, because Calvin means as clearly shown by his view of man's depravity/inability that everyone is born in unbelief.
It is by a gift of faith from God which is irresistible that man THEN can turn to God in Calvin. And that by some secret choice of God to the 'elect' only. This is not biblical.
Have a look at this video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
if no one seeks God (romans 3:11) how do men find God? show me a verse that says we choose grace, cause i can show u alot of verses that say otherwise.
kilom113 2 years ago 2