This "Atonement" Doctrine is not a chatolic heresy?
The atonement or the "penal substitution" ( as it is sometimes called) doctrine was never taught in the Early Church, it is a man-made doctrine that has developed gradually since 1098.
This doctrine is the main reason, of which the Christian are leaving the church.
What position is correct?
The one that comes from tradition Atonement was not present in church tradition for 1000 years.
If God wills everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-6) then why are all not saved? Man's will doesn't override God's will. In addition, in 1 Tim 4:10, if God is the Saviour of all men, why are not all saved? You may say that they rejected salvation but nowhere is man's response, yes or no, mentioned in either verse. That interpretation is supplied only by the Arminian so he can boast in his decision making and isn't biblical. Both verses speak on Limited Atonement, not Unlimited Atonement.
yes Jesus died for all men out of every nation, but only those whom the Father gives to him get saved and that's election and limited atonement. very simple and the Gospel teaches it John 6:37-45 (only those given to the Son have saving faith) and God draws the distinction not man.
"Damned to hell without ever even doing anything?" I though "all have sinned!" I also thought that the "penalty for sin is death." However, I don't find in scripture where the bible says that God owes anyone atonement or a "chance" to believe. So are you saying that if God in fact chose to passover the non-elect and "have mercy on whom HE would have mercy" and allow the rest to receive what they deserve (justice) that God is unjust?
And now you have withdrew all your baseless comments but the one calling me a troll, so no one can see why I responded the way I did. You Weasel you. :D
Calvinism is NOT heresy. Calvinism is 100% accurate in time. God is 100% Sovereign and in complete and entire control of all things. It's heresy to try to put man in the place of God, and put man in control. God is in control. It's absolute heresy to declare that God is not in control -- and it's insulting the Spirit of grace to say that God is not in control. So, please don't be so hard on others when there are things you don't see... yet. God bless.
1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't say Jesus merely "died for" all men. The scripture says that Jesus is the SAVIOR of all men (meaning all will be saved - He's their Savior -- they're saved in Him)... but especially those who believe. The proper comprehension is the contradiction between "in time" and "in eternity". Jesus is the Savior in this life of those who believe -- but is still the Savior of all. You're trying to "lump in" what happens on the Last Day in this life. It doesn't fit there.
The atonement is limited in time. Jesus died to save only certain persons from God's wrath. Yes, it is effective only for those who believe. But, only the elect are given to believe in Christ. Those who Jesus did not saved, were already condemned as the scripture states. But, you miss TRIPLE PREDESTINATION. On the last day, Catholics who believe in purgatory would be correct... with others. The fire will destroy all evil and all will be saved on the Last Day.
@graceexplosion OH my, after all that talk about logical progression you made a big logical mistake. You used an example verse that shows it is God and not man doing the choosing. I think you method of logical progression in discussion of theological matters needs some very serious review. You Bozo the Clowned on that one big time. :P
@graceexplosion Uh... you have failed to argue from the text. What I am seeing is a simple arguement from feelings. This makes you a clown. You would do your cause better by dropping the subject until you learn a bit on how to debate. Brutal truth, but you need to hear it.
@RedSun875 A better way to sum this up is you attack calvinism yet at the same time supposedly "believe" it is God that does the choosing. Your arguements are based on feelings and inconsestent with your claim to logic. If God does the choosing, then he also does, the non choosing as well. Your logic sucks and you fail to use scripture as the foundation for even your rantings... Feelings, not text is the foundation of your faith.
@graceexplosion I'm simply pointing out your unbalenced appeal to feelings and counter attacking your slander.Even now you appeal to things not by text but on emotions. Carnal Christian, take your own medecine with cheer. :D
@RedSun875 A better way to put it. Your so bold as to call calvinists heritics that play the satan card when I call your approach to that claim as clownish and call me a troll. You must love double standards. :P
@RedSun875 So, basically, you are a troll who seeks to attack people. I state a text showing that Jesus chooses not man. You mock me becuz, uh, it states that God chooses not man.... as you correctly state that's what Jesus says. Then, when I tell you that I did indeed intend to state that God chooses not man -- after previously agreeing that's what Jesus said -- now you turn and say the opposite and continue baseless attacks. Thanks for the heads up you're a troll!! I will now ignore u.
How can you refute one unproven side by citing another unproven side? Oh, because it's all made up bullshit, it would seem, so you can say whatever you want. "Did Christ die for all men, or for the elect?" Well to answer that question you must first answer "Did he even exist at all?" or "If he did, was he divine?
The only evidence that your video provided was the evidence that religion is divisive.
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
@bullawaya Just like your false Pope believes,a man dead in his sins can choose Christ,when the Bible says NO HE CAN'T,we must be quickened to life by God before anyone can or will turn to Christ.
@bullawaya Nope,you think God chose you because of good works just like they believe.A work is something a man can do when he can do differently,in other words if God asked you why He should let you in His Heaven you can tell Him I chose Jesus when I didn't have to,making yourself the ultimate decider of your fate,so this means if you had done anything to facilitate your salvation,you can surly take credit for doing something.,just like those who'll hear
@bullawaya It's just that Hillbilly preachers have been duped by the Catholics,and this guy believes just like you,or you like him.Arminians are Catholic with just a few less bells and whistles and that makes your Pope smile.
@bullawaya Nope,it means He died for Jews and Gentile,but specifically for believers.Only after Jesus came could Gentiles be saved as Gentiles,all men had to be said for the sake of the Jewish believers to know that they were to accept Gentile brothers,I can't believe you didn't even know that.
@CBALLEN God died for all men(meaning Jews and Gentiles),but particularly believers out of both groups.So it's not saying Jesus took everyone's sins away or everyone would be saved.
@bullawaya Isiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Can you understand what this is saying?The reality is that not all who hear the gospel become believers,but God's word still accomplishes everything it was intended to do,meaning,God's word saves His sheep and reprobates the goats at the very same time.
@bullawaya Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
This means God only saved Jews in the O.T.,but we find out in the New testament all who are or were saved ,were the children of promise,so you really make no sense,even the children of promise in the O.T. WERE COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THE LAWS OF MOSES,maybe God will open your eyes someday,since you still are breathing.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Arminians try to turn this verse around and make it as many as believed were appointed to eternal life,but God has put certain words in a certain order to declare the truth.It is God who has chosen His own before time, for His good purpose Eph.1 :4-11,and has appointed these to believe unto eternal life at some point in their life.
When someone preaches "Christ Crusified" and you hear it as "Foolishness", should you, at least, "pretend" to believe it, so that God will open your eyes first enabling you to no longer "pretend to believe"?
Can you choose to believe that something is NOT foolishness to you, when in fact it is foolishness to you? Wouldn't this be "pretending to believe" when in fact you don't believe?
@jls201 - Common Calvinist practice to take "proof text" snippets and create a doctrine out of them.
Someone could ask "Which one is correct according to Mark 16:16?
1) You believe BECAUSE you are saved
OR
2) You are saved BECAUSE you believe"
There are individual verses that can be held aloft to support Calvinism, but a comprehensive acceptance of the entirety of scripture reveals how the "doctrines of grace" are contrary to the character/example/pattern/principles of God as revealed.
@jls201 - I think you're missing my point (and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say "not intentionally so").
To quickly answer, yes #1 of your question correctly quotes the words of John 10:26. With regard to the question of the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", I don't believe John 10:26 is the "be all" answer to the question.
Similarly, I could "word for word" quote Luke 14:26 as proof positive that Jesus DEMANDS that we hate everyone in order to be His disciple.
@jls201 - and in the words of Luke 14:26 alone, you can't prove to me in any way that Jesus isn't requiring my hatred of "father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and self" in order to be His disciple.
However, I don't know ANYONE that professes to be a Bible-believing Christian to take this verse as proof positive that Jesus preached hate. Rather, that verse must be interpreted in light of the entire, comprehensive record of scripture. Making it clear that He certainly was NOT.
@jls201 - In much the same way, those who claim that Jesus died ONLY for the elect, to the point that He doesn't even WANT anyone else to be saved - is in STARK contradiction with the character/pattern/declaration of God as recorded throughout scripture.
Calvinists seem to have this aberrant view of God's sovereignty - and think that if He was to ever have an unfulfilled desire then His throne would come crumbling down, it's so fragile. Yet if He ALLOWS us free will, it's by His SOVEREIGN will
@jls201 - now before there's any attempts at setting up some false dichotomy between free will and "the fallen nature of man", let me clear something up right off the bat...
I firmly believe that no man CAN come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), and that the power to become a son of God does not originate with the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
Once we are drawn and given the ability to believe, God REQUIRES us to make a free will choice to surrender to Him & accept.
@jls201 - I'd have to say that yes we have free will before being drawn (assuming that the "drawing" isn't perpetual). But free will does have to have an object/choice on which to be exerted.
For example, until I received an invitation to attend a university, obviously my "free will" wouldn't allow me to just start attending class as an official student. Much the same way with salvation, prior to being "drawn", salvation isn't something I have the "free will" to choose.
@gwposey - But once I have been drawn, I do have the free will to resist the Holy Spirit and reject the gift of Salvation (as many do). Thank God I didn't STAY obstinate in my resistance to His loving grace.
And I pray that all others who are still dead in their trespasses and sins would humbly accept God's invitation to be no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints of God as we are (assuming you're also saved).
@jls201 - Well, as I wrote "assuming that the "drawing" isn't perpetual". I can't speak for what the "drawing" experience is for anyone else. According to the Word, it can be an experience of being "pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37), having a "heart the Lord opened" (Acts 16:14), being "reproved of sin" (John 16:8), and others.
It actually IS quite simple IMHO. We, human beings, often try to complicate things that need not be complex. Jesus said He'd draw all unto Him, and He has. Simple
@jls201 - For me, it was multiple experiences that drew me to Christ. A "knowing" (for lack of a better term). Conviction for my sin. Recognition of my helplessness. The Word that had been preached/taught to me as a child. It wasn't just a ONE time event that I got to say yes or no to.
It was a pretty much constant awareness of His presence (though often WAY in the background) that I resisted on numerous occasions until I finally gave in.
@jls201 - You asked "Once the options are on the table, what would cause someone to chose (sic) what they chose?" My answer is "free will". You say a person loves blue, and hates red, and that may be so. Even so, I'm still able (and willing) to choose the red gumball.
I've heard this argument that people always choose X or Y based on some underlying predetermined cause. That is NOT free will (and I strongly suspect that Calvinists simply don't believe in free will).
@jls201 - and if this blue/ocean red/wasp type of thing is what you've experienced throughout life, then I am truly sad for you - to not have ever exercised the prerogative that God has singularly blessed mankind with, among all of His creations (and some say "cursed" us with, given that we can do so much wrong with it).
Even in the face of predispositions for/against blue and red (or any other such available choice), we who were created in the image of God have the ability to choose contrary.
@gwposey - and this is not some haughty overestimation of mankind. This is the readily evident (both Biblically, and through natural observation) truth. And I suppose this "ability" that God has given us is of utmost importance to Him. To be loved by those who have no inability to not love Him wouldn't please Him in the least.
To have a being that can respond to His love with either acceptance or rejection, and CHOOSE acceptance is what brings God joy.
@jls201 - The person himself/herself is the "cause" of their choice. Even if I have some predisposition AGAINST red, that doesn't DETERMINE that I MUST take the blue gumball. Though that predisposition may (and probably will) INFLUENCE my decision-making process, I'm still capable of choosing AGAINST my predisposition.
That is a part of what makes us so UNIQUE in all of God's creation. Much like Him only, we have the ability (though nowhere near His extent) to be our own causes.
@jls201 - No this would not be correct. I am not REQUIRED (not even by my nature and predisposition) to choose blue, even though nothing's stopping me fro choosing blue. I still have the ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to pick whichever gumball I want. That "want" is not predetermined by my love/hate/fear/etc.
@jls201 - Does that concept scare you? It often HAS scared me. So many times I've wished/prayed that God take that ability out of my hands, but the truth of the matter is - those to whom much is given, much is required. God has given us the ability to make free will decisions, then burdened us with the REQUIRED RESPONSIBILITY to use it in accordance with His will, or suffer the dire consequences.
I can't use the excuse "Oh, my sin nature caused me to do such and such", even though it exists.
@jls201 - and now I see the point of contention and disagreement between us. The love and hate are most definitely NOT "me". They are "part of me". Ultimately I have the ability (not just the opportunity) to choose OTHER than my proclivities. My "urges" don't rule me. It's not a matter of "whichever urge happens to be strongest at the time wins out" in my decisions.
The real ME (my will) acts as arbiter of all the competing interests/urges, and I'm responsible for which I choose.
@jls201 - as for "Why would anyone choose to reject Christ?", I would hazard to guess that "pride" is most often the answer. Throw in selfishness, and succumbing to deception.
You seem to be stating (by asking) that nobody WOULD reject Christ if they were truly free to accept Him (perhaps a leap by me). But that holds no water, because Adam and Eve were NOT "fallen beings with a sin nature, subject to 'Total Depravity' " and they FREELY chose to reject God (and side with Satan).
@jls201 - Well, since Adam and Eve didn't have the sin nature, and they operated in pride and selfishness - I'd have to say that the potential for pride and selfishness preceded the sin nature. And that's where the Calvinist theory of mankind falls apart. Those who knew no sin, still chose sin (and not because of the enslavement of their wills to sin).
@jls201 - When did I say "So sin nature after, Adam and Eve, is really pointless?" ?
I also didn't state that "we are EXACTLY as Adam and Eve were in there (sic) free will state". I think you presume too much in your attempt to "win" / "be right". I notice you're just skipping over the fact that Adam and Eve went into sin WITHOUT having a sin nature, and I understand - because that FACT brings Calvinism crumbling down. You DO have an alternative to Calvinism though. Biblical Christianity.
@jls201 - the part/role of sin nature since Adam and Eve puts us in need of something that they didn't need (before they sinned). A Savior. It's all in Romans 5 (death passed on all by one man's disobedience, and life much more because of Jesus' obedience).
OK, I've answered every question you've asked up to this point. Time for you to answer a couple. Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin, given that they had no sin nature? Do you really believe man is incapable of rejecting God once saved?
@jls201 - Now we're getting somewhere. YES, the only conclusion we can come to about why Adam sinned was, as you said "he wanted to!". He made the free will decision to choose to reject God. And that's where the fragile T.U.L.I.P. "house of cards" starts to tumble down...
Once we're reconciled, we're back in the state of FREEDOM that Adam was in (and we see that he died spiritually, as the result of his free choice) - so there goes I. and P. from the "flower".
@jls201 - So accepting/rejecting God is NOT a matter of God's choice, He's already chosen that He WANTS us back. He requires US to choose, and that's a CONDITION of Salvation. Goodby U. in the flower. And the fact that there are those who ARE called/drawn, and yet refuse the gift of Salvation does away with the L.
Actually the T (Total Depravity) is the closest thing Calvinism has to the truth (as long as it only means we're totally incapable of coming to God without His intervention).
@jls201 - Uhh, NO. God WANTS all of us, yet we're not all the ELECT. It's right there in Romans 8:29, the ones He predestinated are the ones he FOREKNEW. Also in 1 Peter 1:2, the author clearly states that we are the Elect ACCORDING to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God the Father.
He foreknew who would choose to obey, and His election was according to that knowledge. That most certainly IS a condition for election.
@jls201 - Just because he knows ahead of time who would and who wouldn't doesn't remove the requirement (condition) of belief/obedience in order to receive Salvation. What do you think differentiates the many who are called, from the few who are chosen? Do you think God "calls" those He doesn't want? Of course not.
@jls201 - Is this a serious question? Of course there's "a reason why God would create the ones he (sic) foreknew would reject and ultimately end up in Hell?". Are you denying that He DOES foreknow who will end up in Hell? Or are you denying that He is the Creator of those who end up in Hell?
Even a Calvinist must acknowledge that God has created (and continues to create) people that He knows will end up in Hell. Don't you acknowledge that?
@jls201 - OK, now I see you're being silly, with the "double predestination" nonsense. You can use whatever label you want - call it triple predestination, quadruple predestination, etc. All you're accusing me of is believing that God knows everything. And I GLADLY admit that.
There is no "FW theology", I'm talking BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.
@jls201 - Your last question (and its obvious answer) begs the answer to this one. God's reasoning for "calling" those He foreknows will reject may be very similar to His "creating" those He foreknows will go to Hell (even in the Calvinist ontology of Limited Atonement this second assertion must be held true).
As for what that reasoning is - now you're questioning God as to His methods? I suggest you read Isaiah 55:6-9 for some humbling. And Romans 11:33-34 might clear up your confusion.
@jls201 - Now if you're questioning IF God ever WOULD (or HAS) called those He foreknew would reject, there's no need to speculate on either of our parts. Let's look for EVIDENCE in the scriptures...
Zechariah 1:1-4, "...the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, ... saying The LORD has been sore displeased with your fathers. Therefore say you unto them, Thus says the LORD of hosts; Turn you unto me says the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, says the LORD of hosts...
@jls201 - There's only one "calling" in verses 23 and 24 (if we're referring to "the preaching of Christ crucified"). The "but to the called" isn't a separate calling.
When Paul wrote "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" is still referring to (DESCRIBING) "the preaching of Christ crucified".
He's describing the preaching of the cross as: a "stumbling block", "foolishness", and "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God".
@jls201 When Jesus spoke of" sheep not of this fold" it meant Gentiles and not just Jews.In the O.T. God only saved Jews and the few Gentiles He did save had to become Jews first.Now Gentiles can be saved as Gentiles,through the gift of Grace and Faith.We find out that it is the children of Promise that are the elect and that includes men from every nation,tribe and tongue.These had their name written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.
@CBALLEN "When Jesus spoke of"sheep not of this fold" it ment Gentiles and not just Jews."
First, Thank you for the response!
I was mainly curious for why anything "not in the fold" would be considered sheep?
Could these be sheep that have not heard the gospel yet, but when they hear, sense they have been given the ability to believe (v.26), they WILL believe and follow (.v27), and by following, be in the fold?
@jls201 Amen,God's sheep were known before time.In the O.T.only Jews could be saved and any of the few Gentiles that were saved had to become Jews,but once Jesus came,His salvation became effective through Grace by faith for both Jew and Gentile.
@jls201 - you can't just do a "word search" on the word "call" or "called" in the Bible, and think it's going to bolster your point. That one doesn't even take guidance by the Holy Spirit to comprehend. It's simply literacy.
But as I mentioned before with reference to Titus 3:10-11, if I go on with this and not obey the admonishment to "avoid foolish questions" that "are unprofitable and vain" (v9), then I'm the one in disobedience.
For someone to speak of "literacy" as you did you sure butchered the word "BUT" in 1cor1:23-24 in your explanation!
The placing, and the use, of the word "BUT" is very unique! It falls between the three responses as a separation of the ones who heard it as "Stumbling Block", "Foolishness"
FROM
the ones who heard it as "Power", "Wisdom"!
Your explanation disregards the meaning of the word "BUT"!
@jls201 - (Zechariah 1:1-4 continued with verse 4)... "Be you not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried, saying, Thus says the LORD of hosts; Turn you now from your evil ways and your evil doings: BUT THEY DID NOT HEAR, NOR HEARKEN UNTO ME, says the LORD."
Hmm, so we have here - GOD Himself saying that he had "called" unto "your fathers" to turn and they rejected Him.
Did He NOT know they wouldn't hearken when He sent His prophets to call unto them? If He did, WHY?
@jls201 - you're being THOROUGHLY ridiculous now. Whether they heard or not is NOT the point. God CALLED them, and your claim is that God DOESN'T CALL anyone that will reject Him. Done and done - you (and Calvinism) are WRONG.
I know you don't want to admit it, and I can now see that you REFUSE TO HEAR the truth as well. So this is sadly just another Titus 3:10-11 situation. I'll continue to pray for you and all the rest of the deceived to come to the Way, Truth, Life & Light of Christ.
@jls201 - Now ONE reason might be, He wants to give everyone the OPTION of accepting or rejecting His call, by their own free will (even knowing ahead of time how they'll respond to His call). This is demonstrated in Ezekiel 18, that God is provide fair chance to all by affirming that His way IS EQUAL (vs 25).
@jls201 - as for "No need to really have it in the system..." and "What's the point of sin nature passed down?" - you make it seem like the sin nature is a GOOD thing, that God WANTS. Almost like "uh oh, don't take away sin nature, we NEED that". And this is the perspective that makes me so sad for Calvinists. I hope you all are still saved even with the twisted view of scripture and God's sovereignty. You all DO seem to be quite sincere, with zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
@jls201 - WOW. I hope you're not saying that it was always God's PERFECT will and desire for Lucifer to rebel, Adam and Eve to fall, and for the devil to become the god of this world. Like that's something He's happy about.
Because if you are, then what I suspected is true. The god of Calvinism is NOT the God of the Bible. If you believe that, then your god is some hideous, sadistic, lying monster - and you can never know what to trust or believe.
@jls201 - Of course He did. Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to (and I suspect you know that I'm aware of the same)? And why are you refusing to answer any of the questions I've asked you?
@jls201 - It does NOT necessarily follow that "If He did not prevent it then it must have been part of a bigger plan!". This is the sad "pseudo-reverence" of the Calvinist that makes God responsible for abortions as "part of a bigger plan". Evil occurs because WE exercise our free will to the benefit of Satan, rather than God, NOT because God's PLAN is for evil to dominate the world.
Just because God PLANNED for what He knew would happen, doesn't mean he PLANNED to make it happen. Get it?
@jls201 - Of course God desired Christ to be crucified, as He knew that would provide for the redemptive reconciliation of man back to Himself. He also always knew it would be necessary. None of that means that the rebellion of Satan, Fall of man, and Reign of sin were His desire.
No more than my having a spare tire means that I desire to get a flat.
@jls201 - God ALWAYS knew that Christ's sacrifice would be necessary (and imagine ME having the foresight to know that there will be a blowout driving down I-75 from Detroit to Atlanta). That STILL doesn't mean I DESIRE to get a flat tire, but since I'm letting my child drive, and I KNOW he's going to get the flat - I included the spare from the beginning of the journey.
Could I have STOPPED the flat tire from happening? Sure I could. But I let my son do it anyway, because he INSISTED on it.
@jls201 - Are you trying to "catch" me in my words, like a Pharisee? If so, you should probably go ahead and give up. Your attempts will continue to be as fruitless as theirs were.
@jls201 - Wait, are you saying you're a Jehovah's Witness? Why didn't you say so? I would have known long ago that you don't believe in the Bible.
And yes, I'm all for seeing people "not lean on there (sic) own understanding!" (or the understanding of others) and simply rather Trust in the LORD with all their/our heart, in all our ways acknowledging Him and He WILL direct our paths. That way doctrinal errors like Calvinism would never have come about.
@jls201 - To be honest, I don't know that I've ever come across even ONE self-professed Arminian. And I haven't studied much of what they believe. But I have noticed that what Calvinists CLAIM Arminians believe and what Arminians themselves claim to believe (in some articles on the Internet) are NOT the same thing.
@jls201 - On the other hand, I've run across quite a few Calvinists, both on YouTube and on Christian radio (and every time they mention "losing salvation", for example, they sound ridiculous as they try to come up with RE-interpretations of passages that clearly demonstrate the danger of losing salvation).
As for "free will errors", anyone stating that "God would NEVER usurp a person's free will" is clearly ignorant of scripture (or practices similar "mental/verbal gymnastics" to avoid truth).
@jls201 - Also a potential "free will error" would be claiming that fallen man can simply choose to come to God on his own, with no divine intervention on the part of God (beyond the normal - "He continues to let me breathe everyday" miracle that He pulls off daily). Again, this is in clear contradiction to scripture.
We're fully dependent on God for salvation and life (eternal and otherwise). The only "work" we have to do is "surrender helplessly" when drawn by God (and that's NOT a "work").
@jls201 - Seriously, rather than engage in all of these mental gymnastics to adhere to your heretical doctrine, how about you just accept the Bible, and accept the responsibility of letting God work through you to be used as a blessing to others, preach the Gospel, make disciples of all nations, plant & water as He leads you, allow others to hear the Word by which faith comes, and watch God give the increase.
@jls201 - Because the God of the Bible has restrained Himself, even (or especially) when things are happening that He DOESN'T want. That's no reflection on His power or capability. Evidently He so values free will that He'll let us be totally destructive (to self, others and our environment), even to the point of consigning ourselves to everlasting fire (which was prepared for the devil and his angels, NOT US).
@jls201 - The God of the Bible has already done exceeding abundantly above all we could ask or think in making a way for us to be reconciled to Him. And YET He requires us to choose whether or not to accept it. He gives us ALL we could ever need to make the right choice(s), even His Spirit living within us, yet we're still responsible for continually surrendering (and thankfully He STILL forgives us when we stubbornly don't, then confess our sins and repent AGAIN).
@jls201 - But a god that WANTS man to be in sin, and wants the devil to rule this world system. That god would be responsible for every abortion, every rape, every murder, every lie, and would be the "father of lies".
The God of the Bible has done more than could ever be expected to redeem all of mankind, while still allowing the majority of us to reject His love, and choose to be our own gods - much to our detriment. This isn't because He CAN'T make us do different. He just doesn't.
@jls201 - all I can suggest for you at this point is to find a "non-Calvinist" church, where the Word of God is taught, as opposed to any man-made doctrines (Reformed, or otherwise). Don't allow some non-divinely inspired author jade your reading/understanding of the Word as led by the Holy Spirit. Ask Him to come and guide you to the TRUTH of His Word, and accept it. Put your trust in Him and what He has inspired to be written, NOT man's traditions.
It did scare me when I put my faith in my own ability. But now I realize that it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. - Phil2:13
If this is true then I have confidence that God is the one who will keep me believing, not me!
@jls201 - It most certainly IS God who works in me (and I am SO grateful that He HAS given us all things that pertain to life and godliness). Even with all of that - He requires that we actively and continually surrender to Him. But whenever we draw back, His soul has no pleasure in us. Once we get saved, it's not just "auto pilot" on the way to glory because God "does it all". He STILL requires us to CHOOSE until the end.
@jls201 - This exposes another lie in the T.U.L.I.P. acrostic. Perseverance of the saints is NOT a guarantee of it being impossible to lose salvation, because there is NO guarantee of never falling into unbelief again. Not to mention the lie of irresistible grace (we certainly can resist saving grace - that whole free will thing again), and so on. Just because God makes STAYING power AVAILABLE doesn't mean we're not free to neglect His gifts IN us, and His Salvation (1 Tim 4:14, Heb 2:3).
@jls201 - First off, please let me apologize for my initial "Common Calvinist practice" statement, in that I recognize that it was prejudicial and not in accordance with "speaking the truth in LOVE". I hope that you can forgive me.
That being said, I do stand by the truth of my statements (just not the way I presented them). Where have I taken the scripture and tried to "redefine it to fit [my] theology!"? I don't see where I did that at any point.
@jls201 - Again, I offer the example of Luke 14:26. Taken "word for word" one could build a doctrine of "Jesus requires hatred for discipleship". Of course that's ludicrous, as Jesus commands us to love one another as He loves us (John 15:12). These two (along with many others) must be reconciled because I don't believe the Bible is self-contradictory.
So, in light of the ENTIRE record of scripture, Jesus does NOT actually desire us to HATE, but to put adherence to HIM above all else.
Calvinism in this sense is opposed to free will God had given to all men. Because it is through our free will that we choose whether we will accept Christ's sacrifice and take our cross on His liking or whether we will turn our back on Him. All men are included in this plan, God knows some will refuse it, but it is not Him who denies salvation to those who do.
One thing that Arminians forget is that God has an elect people no matter how they believe He chose them and this also means God created men who He knew weren't elect and that they would never receive salvation,so scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9 can't mean God is willing that goats be saved and is being patient towards them,it has to mean He is being patient waiting for all the elect to be born and converted.So even Arminians can't deny God made some PEOPLE for HELL.
You people make me rather sick to my stomach. I see a lot of time wasted here regarding useless squabble over petty details of convoluted man-made religious doctrine that really has no real meaning in the grand scheme of things. Stop worrying about who has salvation or not and just live the life that you have been given THIS VERY MOMENT.
I find it sad that the proponents of limited atonement making comments on this video insist on stating the logical fallacy that, "If God provides a gift to all, requires them to choose to accept it, and if anyone chooses to reject it - that makes the gift worthless, and God weak".
1 Timothy 4:10 DOES totally refute the teachings of hyper-Calvinism. It has come to my attention that John Calvin himself also finally believed that Salvation is made available to ALL, though (relatively) few accept.
@gwposey1 - to those who espouse such a response to the concept of Christ dying for ALL (really meaning EVERYONE) - and that response is "if Jesus died for everyone, and some people still go to Hell, then that makes His sacrifice useless (for those people) and God weak (incapable of doing what He says)", as the reason for denying the concept...
When God gives Israel a choice in Deuteronomy 30:19, does their choosing to reject His offer amount to His failure/weakness or theirs? Please answer.
I'm the one limiting the power of God? You are the one LIMITING the atonement, therefore limiting the power of God.
Yes Jesus died for Judas, Hitler, Hussein even heretics like Luther and Calvin who you follow.
How does this make the blood of Christ useless? Jesus died on the cross and his blood is available to all men but he only applies it to thoes accept his faith.
Your JESUS is different from my JESUS because your GOD is POWERLESS and USELESS.
Wow! You don't know the DOCTRINE of LIMITED ATONEMENT.
If CHRIST died for JUDAS ISCARIOT the SON of PERDITION, then the BLOOD of CHRIST has no EFFECT to him because he is now condemned to HELL. Do you think that is not USELESS? If you still tell me that the POWER of the BLOOD of CHRIST is so POWERFUL though it can't save JUDAS ISCARIOT, then you have a big problem with the word "POWER".
If Jesus died for all men and not just the elect, then he fails in his atonement for all that go to hell. I don't consider the triune God, the same one that created the ENTIRE universe in six days to be that weak.
Do you realize how loaded a word like heresy is? It is probably the strongest word you could possibly use, which connects Calvinism to damnable sin. I hope you realize the caliber of men which you are calling heretics: Edwards, Luther, Calvin, and modern faithful pastors MacArthur, Piper, and Sproul. Although I see Arminianism as Biblically inaccurate, man-centered, and opposite to the teachings of Paul, Jesus, Peter, and the prophets, if you love Jesus I would not use such a word to describeyou
If you're consistent you would call anyone against Calvin's teaching heretical. It's the "soft-hearted" teachings of the world that claim no one can make such claims---but I've got 2 Lutheran churches across the street from where I live, and a Catholic literally next door. If they truly believe they have it right, they'd believe each other are going to hell. I'm no Arminian--but have you read the writings of the first 300 years of the church---they're completely anti-Calvinist...
@droptozro No, I would not call Arminians like John Wesley, Lenard Ravenhill, etc. heretics. Heresy is the denial of a fundamental Christian doctrine which is necessary for salvation while claiming to be Christian. Being reformed, though I believe is important, is not necessary to be saved. The guy who's channel this is is highly confused and inconsistent with the scriptures, but if he repents of his sin and believes on Jesus Christ, he is saved.
oh wow I guess there is no more Calvinism... Let's look at something you said.
2:26 - 2:31 "so their pretty much doomed to hell, without ever doing anything"
So would you say "God can have the glory, but I have the control"? Or would you confess to to people that you can't do it without Him, but He can't do it without you? Do you really believe Jesus is interceding for those who will spend an eternity in Hell and failing in his intercession?
@JustinCHickman - How do you come to the conclusion that he's stating "God can have the glory, but I have the control"? I'm no Catholic, but how does the paradigm of "God does all the work for Salvation, offers it as a GIFT to ALL men, and REQUIRES man to make a choice in response to His calling" as being man in control? If God REQUIRES men to choose, then it's Him that's in control, not us.
I just really don't get the "Calvinist" response arguments that he's trying to "elevate man".
This "Atonement" Doctrine is not a chatolic heresy?
The atonement or the "penal substitution" ( as it is sometimes called) doctrine was never taught in the Early Church, it is a man-made doctrine that has developed gradually since 1098.
This doctrine is the main reason, of which the Christian are leaving the church.
What position is correct?
The one that comes from tradition Atonement was not present in church tradition for 1000 years.
VyckRo 1 month ago
If God wills everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-6) then why are all not saved? Man's will doesn't override God's will. In addition, in 1 Tim 4:10, if God is the Saviour of all men, why are not all saved? You may say that they rejected salvation but nowhere is man's response, yes or no, mentioned in either verse. That interpretation is supplied only by the Arminian so he can boast in his decision making and isn't biblical. Both verses speak on Limited Atonement, not Unlimited Atonement.
Calvinism101 2 months ago
yes Jesus died for all men out of every nation, but only those whom the Father gives to him get saved and that's election and limited atonement. very simple and the Gospel teaches it John 6:37-45 (only those given to the Son have saving faith) and God draws the distinction not man.
orionifo 2 months ago
"Damned to hell without ever even doing anything?" I though "all have sinned!" I also thought that the "penalty for sin is death." However, I don't find in scripture where the bible says that God owes anyone atonement or a "chance" to believe. So are you saying that if God in fact chose to passover the non-elect and "have mercy on whom HE would have mercy" and allow the rest to receive what they deserve (justice) that God is unjust?
rolysantos 3 months ago
And now you have withdrew all your baseless comments but the one calling me a troll, so no one can see why I responded the way I did. You Weasel you. :D
RedSun875 4 months ago
Calvinism is NOT heresy. Calvinism is 100% accurate in time. God is 100% Sovereign and in complete and entire control of all things. It's heresy to try to put man in the place of God, and put man in control. God is in control. It's absolute heresy to declare that God is not in control -- and it's insulting the Spirit of grace to say that God is not in control. So, please don't be so hard on others when there are things you don't see... yet. God bless.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't say Jesus merely "died for" all men. The scripture says that Jesus is the SAVIOR of all men (meaning all will be saved - He's their Savior -- they're saved in Him)... but especially those who believe. The proper comprehension is the contradiction between "in time" and "in eternity". Jesus is the Savior in this life of those who believe -- but is still the Savior of all. You're trying to "lump in" what happens on the Last Day in this life. It doesn't fit there.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
The atonement is limited in time. Jesus died to save only certain persons from God's wrath. Yes, it is effective only for those who believe. But, only the elect are given to believe in Christ. Those who Jesus did not saved, were already condemned as the scripture states. But, you miss TRIPLE PREDESTINATION. On the last day, Catholics who believe in purgatory would be correct... with others. The fire will destroy all evil and all will be saved on the Last Day.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
You don't understand TRIPLE destination. You're whole argument is crumbled. Sorry. But, Limited in time, Unlimited outside of time.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
I'm going to throw something out here and see if I get a bite. What if the bible is neither calvinism or armeanism?
RedSun875 5 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion Why are you so sure about that? :P
RedSun875 4 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion Simple logic alone does not make christianity. There is a textboox and I do not see you citing it. :O
RedSun875 4 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion OH my, after all that talk about logical progression you made a big logical mistake. You used an example verse that shows it is God and not man doing the choosing. I think you method of logical progression in discussion of theological matters needs some very serious review. You Bozo the Clowned on that one big time. :P
RedSun875 4 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion Uh... you have failed to argue from the text. What I am seeing is a simple arguement from feelings. This makes you a clown. You would do your cause better by dropping the subject until you learn a bit on how to debate. Brutal truth, but you need to hear it.
RedSun875 4 months ago
@RedSun875 A better way to sum this up is you attack calvinism yet at the same time supposedly "believe" it is God that does the choosing. Your arguements are based on feelings and inconsestent with your claim to logic. If God does the choosing, then he also does, the non choosing as well. Your logic sucks and you fail to use scripture as the foundation for even your rantings... Feelings, not text is the foundation of your faith.
RedSun875 4 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion LOL. I would like to know how you justify that claim. :P
RedSun875 4 months ago
Comment removed
graceexplosion 4 months ago
@graceexplosion I'm simply pointing out your unbalenced appeal to feelings and counter attacking your slander.Even now you appeal to things not by text but on emotions. Carnal Christian, take your own medecine with cheer. :D
RedSun875 4 months ago
@RedSun875 A better way to put it. Your so bold as to call calvinists heritics that play the satan card when I call your approach to that claim as clownish and call me a troll. You must love double standards. :P
RedSun875 4 months ago
@RedSun875 Hi, how are you? :-)
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@RedSun875 So, basically, you are a troll who seeks to attack people. I state a text showing that Jesus chooses not man. You mock me becuz, uh, it states that God chooses not man.... as you correctly state that's what Jesus says. Then, when I tell you that I did indeed intend to state that God chooses not man -- after previously agreeing that's what Jesus said -- now you turn and say the opposite and continue baseless attacks. Thanks for the heads up you're a troll!! I will now ignore u.
graceexplosion 4 months ago
How can you refute one unproven side by citing another unproven side? Oh, because it's all made up bullshit, it would seem, so you can say whatever you want. "Did Christ die for all men, or for the elect?" Well to answer that question you must first answer "Did he even exist at all?" or "If he did, was he divine?
The only evidence that your video provided was the evidence that religion is divisive.
Bayview05 6 months ago
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
motibi 6 months ago
@bullawaya Just like your false Pope believes,a man dead in his sins can choose Christ,when the Bible says NO HE CAN'T,we must be quickened to life by God before anyone can or will turn to Christ.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Nope,you think God chose you because of good works just like they believe.A work is something a man can do when he can do differently,in other words if God asked you why He should let you in His Heaven you can tell Him I chose Jesus when I didn't have to,making yourself the ultimate decider of your fate,so this means if you had done anything to facilitate your salvation,you can surly take credit for doing something.,just like those who'll hear
"I NEVER KNEW YOU"
CBALLEN 7 months ago
Anything you do for salvation when you could have done contrary is a work.If you claim that people can take salvation or leave it,then that's a work.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya It's just that Hillbilly preachers have been duped by the Catholics,and this guy believes just like you,or you like him.Arminians are Catholic with just a few less bells and whistles and that makes your Pope smile.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Face it Bull,you're as Catholic as the guy who made this video,that's what you get from listening to Hillbilly preachers.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Nope,it means He died for Jews and Gentile,but specifically for believers.Only after Jesus came could Gentiles be saved as Gentiles,all men had to be said for the sake of the Jewish believers to know that they were to accept Gentile brothers,I can't believe you didn't even know that.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Nope,I gave the proper interpretation.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya You are too hung up on your Arminian tradition for any human to make you understand the truth,that's the Holy Spirit job.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@CBALLEN God died for all men(meaning Jews and Gentiles),but particularly believers out of both groups.So it's not saying Jesus took everyone's sins away or everyone would be saved.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Isiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Can you understand what this is saying?The reality is that not all who hear the gospel become believers,but God's word still accomplishes everything it was intended to do,meaning,God's word saves His sheep and reprobates the goats at the very same time.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@bullawaya Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
This means God only saved Jews in the O.T.,but we find out in the New testament all who are or were saved ,were the children of promise,so you really make no sense,even the children of promise in the O.T. WERE COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THE LAWS OF MOSES,maybe God will open your eyes someday,since you still are breathing.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Arminians try to turn this verse around and make it as many as believed were appointed to eternal life,but God has put certain words in a certain order to declare the truth.It is God who has chosen His own before time, for His good purpose Eph.1 :4-11,and has appointed these to believe unto eternal life at some point in their life.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@CBALLEN
Amen Brother!
jls201 7 months ago
When someone preaches "Christ Crusified" and you hear it as "Foolishness", should you, at least, "pretend" to believe it, so that God will open your eyes first enabling you to no longer "pretend to believe"?
Can you choose to believe that something is NOT foolishness to you, when in fact it is foolishness to you? Wouldn't this be "pretending to believe" when in fact you don't believe?
Which comes first Choice? Or Belief?
jls201 8 months ago
Comment removed
jls201 8 months ago
So...you must believe in "unlimited" atonement. Dare I unpack that phrase?
skoobalon 8 months ago
Which one is correct according to John10:26?
1) you do not believe BECAUSE you are not part of my flock.
OR
2) you are not part of my flock BECAUSE you do not believe.
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Common Calvinist practice to take "proof text" snippets and create a doctrine out of them.
Someone could ask "Which one is correct according to Mark 16:16?
1) You believe BECAUSE you are saved
OR
2) You are saved BECAUSE you believe"
There are individual verses that can be held aloft to support Calvinism, but a comprehensive acceptance of the entirety of scripture reveals how the "doctrines of grace" are contrary to the character/example/pattern/principles of God as revealed.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Mark 16:16
We would both agree on #2 in your scenario for no one is saved without believing!
My question is not a theological question for one matches the bible word-for-word
And
The other is diametrically opposite!
If theology has anything to do with it then Reformed theology would simply say #1 is correct and #2 is thrown out as error!
Which is correct according to the bible?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - I think you're missing my point (and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say "not intentionally so").
To quickly answer, yes #1 of your question correctly quotes the words of John 10:26. With regard to the question of the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", I don't believe John 10:26 is the "be all" answer to the question.
Similarly, I could "word for word" quote Luke 14:26 as proof positive that Jesus DEMANDS that we hate everyone in order to be His disciple.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - and in the words of Luke 14:26 alone, you can't prove to me in any way that Jesus isn't requiring my hatred of "father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and self" in order to be His disciple.
However, I don't know ANYONE that professes to be a Bible-believing Christian to take this verse as proof positive that Jesus preached hate. Rather, that verse must be interpreted in light of the entire, comprehensive record of scripture. Making it clear that He certainly was NOT.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - In much the same way, those who claim that Jesus died ONLY for the elect, to the point that He doesn't even WANT anyone else to be saved - is in STARK contradiction with the character/pattern/declaration of God as recorded throughout scripture.
Calvinists seem to have this aberrant view of God's sovereignty - and think that if He was to ever have an unfulfilled desire then His throne would come crumbling down, it's so fragile. Yet if He ALLOWS us free will, it's by His SOVEREIGN will
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Can you give me a definition of "Free Will"?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 -
1) The power of making free choices that are not completely constrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
2) Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
I think those two will suffice.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - now before there's any attempts at setting up some false dichotomy between free will and "the fallen nature of man", let me clear something up right off the bat...
I firmly believe that no man CAN come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), and that the power to become a son of God does not originate with the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
Once we are drawn and given the ability to believe, God REQUIRES us to make a free will choice to surrender to Him & accept.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey When does this "Free Will" start?
In John 6:44 do you have "FW" before being drawn?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - I'd have to say that yes we have free will before being drawn (assuming that the "drawing" isn't perpetual). But free will does have to have an object/choice on which to be exerted.
For example, until I received an invitation to attend a university, obviously my "free will" wouldn't allow me to just start attending class as an official student. Much the same way with salvation, prior to being "drawn", salvation isn't something I have the "free will" to choose.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey - But once I have been drawn, I do have the free will to resist the Holy Spirit and reject the gift of Salvation (as many do). Thank God I didn't STAY obstinate in my resistance to His loving grace.
And I pray that all others who are still dead in their trespasses and sins would humbly accept God's invitation to be no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints of God as we are (assuming you're also saved).
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "But once I have been drawn"
You make it sound so simple! Is this drawing like a message you say yes or no to?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Well, as I wrote "assuming that the "drawing" isn't perpetual". I can't speak for what the "drawing" experience is for anyone else. According to the Word, it can be an experience of being "pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37), having a "heart the Lord opened" (Acts 16:14), being "reproved of sin" (John 16:8), and others.
It actually IS quite simple IMHO. We, human beings, often try to complicate things that need not be complex. Jesus said He'd draw all unto Him, and He has. Simple
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - For me, it was multiple experiences that drew me to Christ. A "knowing" (for lack of a better term). Conviction for my sin. Recognition of my helplessness. The Word that had been preached/taught to me as a child. It wasn't just a ONE time event that I got to say yes or no to.
It was a pretty much constant awareness of His presence (though often WAY in the background) that I resisted on numerous occasions until I finally gave in.
Do you think it SHOULD be complex?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "But free will does have to have an object/choice on which to be exerted."
Once the options are on the table, what would cause someone to chose what they chose?
Example
If a person
Loved blue, because it reminds them of the ocean!
Hated red, because they were stung by a wasp!
Now they are offered a choice of gumballs, one blue, one red!
The choice is no longer the problem for they have red and blue to choose from!
The choice is free but there willingness to chose is not!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - You asked "Once the options are on the table, what would cause someone to chose (sic) what they chose?" My answer is "free will". You say a person loves blue, and hates red, and that may be so. Even so, I'm still able (and willing) to choose the red gumball.
I've heard this argument that people always choose X or Y based on some underlying predetermined cause. That is NOT free will (and I strongly suspect that Calvinists simply don't believe in free will).
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - and if this blue/ocean red/wasp type of thing is what you've experienced throughout life, then I am truly sad for you - to not have ever exercised the prerogative that God has singularly blessed mankind with, among all of His creations (and some say "cursed" us with, given that we can do so much wrong with it).
Even in the face of predispositions for/against blue and red (or any other such available choice), we who were created in the image of God have the ability to choose contrary.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey - and this is not some haughty overestimation of mankind. This is the readily evident (both Biblically, and through natural observation) truth. And I suppose this "ability" that God has given us is of utmost importance to Him. To be loved by those who have no inability to not love Him wouldn't please Him in the least.
To have a being that can respond to His love with either acceptance or rejection, and CHOOSE acceptance is what brings God joy.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey I think you missed the question.
Once the options are on the table, what would cause a person to choose what they choose?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - The person himself/herself is the "cause" of their choice. Even if I have some predisposition AGAINST red, that doesn't DETERMINE that I MUST take the blue gumball. Though that predisposition may (and probably will) INFLUENCE my decision-making process, I'm still capable of choosing AGAINST my predisposition.
That is a part of what makes us so UNIQUE in all of God's creation. Much like Him only, we have the ability (though nowhere near His extent) to be our own causes.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "I'm still capable of choosing AGAINST my predisposition."
Yes you are correct, for the option to choose red is present!
But if you choose red when blue is present then it would be against the will for nothing stoped you from choosing blue!
Is this correct?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - No this would not be correct. I am not REQUIRED (not even by my nature and predisposition) to choose blue, even though nothing's stopping me fro choosing blue. I still have the ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to pick whichever gumball I want. That "want" is not predetermined by my love/hate/fear/etc.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Does that concept scare you? It often HAS scared me. So many times I've wished/prayed that God take that ability out of my hands, but the truth of the matter is - those to whom much is given, much is required. God has given us the ability to make free will decisions, then burdened us with the REQUIRED RESPONSIBILITY to use it in accordance with His will, or suffer the dire consequences.
I can't use the excuse "Oh, my sin nature caused me to do such and such", even though it exists.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "I can't use the excuse "Oh, my sin nature caused to do such and such""
My hatred for red caused me to choose blue!
Something stoped me from choosing red!
Was it the love for blue or the hatred for red!
The love and the hate are not a part of me they ARE me!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - and now I see the point of contention and disagreement between us. The love and hate are most definitely NOT "me". They are "part of me". Ultimately I have the ability (not just the opportunity) to choose OTHER than my proclivities. My "urges" don't rule me. It's not a matter of "whichever urge happens to be strongest at the time wins out" in my decisions.
The real ME (my will) acts as arbiter of all the competing interests/urges, and I'm responsible for which I choose.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Why would anyone choose to reject Christ?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - as for "Why would anyone choose to reject Christ?", I would hazard to guess that "pride" is most often the answer. Throw in selfishness, and succumbing to deception.
You seem to be stating (by asking) that nobody WOULD reject Christ if they were truly free to accept Him (perhaps a leap by me). But that holds no water, because Adam and Eve were NOT "fallen beings with a sin nature, subject to 'Total Depravity' " and they FREELY chose to reject God (and side with Satan).
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Is "Pride and selfishness" part of the sin nature?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Well, since Adam and Eve didn't have the sin nature, and they operated in pride and selfishness - I'd have to say that the potential for pride and selfishness preceded the sin nature. And that's where the Calvinist theory of mankind falls apart. Those who knew no sin, still chose sin (and not because of the enslavement of their wills to sin).
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey So sin nature after, Adam and Eve, is really pointless?
No need to really have it in the system, sense we are exactly as Adam and Eve were in there free will state?
What's the point of sin nature passed down?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - When did I say "So sin nature after, Adam and Eve, is really pointless?" ?
I also didn't state that "we are EXACTLY as Adam and Eve were in there (sic) free will state". I think you presume too much in your attempt to "win" / "be right". I notice you're just skipping over the fact that Adam and Eve went into sin WITHOUT having a sin nature, and I understand - because that FACT brings Calvinism crumbling down. You DO have an alternative to Calvinism though. Biblical Christianity.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey What part does sin nature play after Adam and Eve?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - the part/role of sin nature since Adam and Eve puts us in need of something that they didn't need (before they sinned). A Savior. It's all in Romans 5 (death passed on all by one man's disobedience, and life much more because of Jesus' obedience).
OK, I've answered every question you've asked up to this point. Time for you to answer a couple. Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin, given that they had no sin nature? Do you really believe man is incapable of rejecting God once saved?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin?"
I'm not sure exactly why Adam sinned! The bible doesn't specify why Adam sinned. The only thing we know is that he was not deceived like Eve.
I don't see where there sinning, without sin nature, goes against Total Depravity!
Do you know why Adam sinned? Other than he wanted to!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Now we're getting somewhere. YES, the only conclusion we can come to about why Adam sinned was, as you said "he wanted to!". He made the free will decision to choose to reject God. And that's where the fragile T.U.L.I.P. "house of cards" starts to tumble down...
Once we're reconciled, we're back in the state of FREEDOM that Adam was in (and we see that he died spiritually, as the result of his free choice) - so there goes I. and P. from the "flower".
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - So accepting/rejecting God is NOT a matter of God's choice, He's already chosen that He WANTS us back. He requires US to choose, and that's a CONDITION of Salvation. Goodby U. in the flower. And the fact that there are those who ARE called/drawn, and yet refuse the gift of Salvation does away with the L.
Actually the T (Total Depravity) is the closest thing Calvinism has to the truth (as long as it only means we're totally incapable of coming to God without His intervention).
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "He requires US to choose and that's a CONDITION of salvation"
This is true but choice is NOT a condition of ELECTION!
God chooses who he wants to call and that is UNCONDITIONAL!
1Cor1:24
Romans 8:28-30
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Uhh, NO. God WANTS all of us, yet we're not all the ELECT. It's right there in Romans 8:29, the ones He predestinated are the ones he FOREKNEW. Also in 1 Peter 1:2, the author clearly states that we are the Elect ACCORDING to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God the Father.
He foreknew who would choose to obey, and His election was according to that knowledge. That most certainly IS a condition for election.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Just because he knows ahead of time who would and who wouldn't doesn't remove the requirement (condition) of belief/obedience in order to receive Salvation. What do you think differentiates the many who are called, from the few who are chosen? Do you think God "calls" those He doesn't want? Of course not.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Is there a reason why God would create the ones he foreknew would reject and ultimately end up in Hell?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Is this a serious question? Of course there's "a reason why God would create the ones he (sic) foreknew would reject and ultimately end up in Hell?". Are you denying that He DOES foreknow who will end up in Hell? Or are you denying that He is the Creator of those who end up in Hell?
Even a Calvinist must acknowledge that God has created (and continues to create) people that He knows will end up in Hell. Don't you acknowledge that?
If not, who created them? Or doesn't He know?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Of course there is a reason why God would create the ones he foreknew would reject and ultimately end up in Hell"
I just wanted to see if you would agree with double predestination!
They were created knowing that they would reject, and that is predestination in "FW" theology!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - OK, now I see you're being silly, with the "double predestination" nonsense. You can use whatever label you want - call it triple predestination, quadruple predestination, etc. All you're accusing me of is believing that God knows everything. And I GLADLY admit that.
There is no "FW theology", I'm talking BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Do you think God "calls" those He doesn't want?"
No!
Does God call those he foreknew would reject? If so, Why?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Your last question (and its obvious answer) begs the answer to this one. God's reasoning for "calling" those He foreknows will reject may be very similar to His "creating" those He foreknows will go to Hell (even in the Calvinist ontology of Limited Atonement this second assertion must be held true).
As for what that reasoning is - now you're questioning God as to His methods? I suggest you read Isaiah 55:6-9 for some humbling. And Romans 11:33-34 might clear up your confusion.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Now if you're questioning IF God ever WOULD (or HAS) called those He foreknew would reject, there's no need to speculate on either of our parts. Let's look for EVIDENCE in the scriptures...
Zechariah 1:1-4, "...the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, ... saying The LORD has been sore displeased with your fathers. Therefore say you unto them, Thus says the LORD of hosts; Turn you unto me says the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, says the LORD of hosts...
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey As long as "Called" is in the open! What is your understanding on the called in 1cor1:23-24?
It seams as though there is a general call in v23 and a "but to the called" in v24 which seams to state two separate things!
Is the preaching of Christ crucified a separate call from the one in v.24 "but to the called"?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - There's only one "calling" in verses 23 and 24 (if we're referring to "the preaching of Christ crucified"). The "but to the called" isn't a separate calling.
When Paul wrote "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" is still referring to (DESCRIBING) "the preaching of Christ crucified".
He's describing the preaching of the cross as: a "stumbling block", "foolishness", and "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God".
gwposey 8 months ago
If I was to say;
I used a new feed in my pond and some got sick and some died BUT the ones I had given a vaccine to, the feed is like miracle grow!
Everything after the "BUT" is a unique situation within the bigger group!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Give it up kid. Just accept the fact that Calvinism is wrong, and just accept the Bible.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey In Jn10:16 what does "sheep not of this fold" mean?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 When Jesus spoke of" sheep not of this fold" it meant Gentiles and not just Jews.In the O.T. God only saved Jews and the few Gentiles He did save had to become Jews first.Now Gentiles can be saved as Gentiles,through the gift of Grace and Faith.We find out that it is the children of Promise that are the elect and that includes men from every nation,tribe and tongue.These had their name written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.
CBALLEN 8 months ago
@CBALLEN "When Jesus spoke of"sheep not of this fold" it ment Gentiles and not just Jews."
First, Thank you for the response!
I was mainly curious for why anything "not in the fold" would be considered sheep?
Could these be sheep that have not heard the gospel yet, but when they hear, sense they have been given the ability to believe (v.26), they WILL believe and follow (.v27), and by following, be in the fold?
John 10:16,26,27
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201 Amen,God's sheep were known before time.In the O.T.only Jews could be saved and any of the few Gentiles that were saved had to become Jews,but once Jesus came,His salvation became effective through Grace by faith for both Jew and Gentile.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@jls201 - It's NOT two separate "callings", it's THREE different reactions to the preaching of the cross.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - you can't just do a "word search" on the word "call" or "called" in the Bible, and think it's going to bolster your point. That one doesn't even take guidance by the Holy Spirit to comprehend. It's simply literacy.
But as I mentioned before with reference to Titus 3:10-11, if I go on with this and not obey the admonishment to "avoid foolish questions" that "are unprofitable and vain" (v9), then I'm the one in disobedience.
So I'll sign off, and continue in prayer for you.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey
For someone to speak of "literacy" as you did you sure butchered the word "BUT" in 1cor1:23-24 in your explanation!
The placing, and the use, of the word "BUT" is very unique! It falls between the three responses as a separation of the ones who heard it as "Stumbling Block", "Foolishness"
FROM
the ones who heard it as "Power", "Wisdom"!
Your explanation disregards the meaning of the word "BUT"!
Continued...
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - since this has become a grammar lesson, I'll go ahead and set you straight on this...
"Lebron James is a villain to the people of Cleveland, a disappointment to the people of Miami, BUT to his kids he's daddy"
The word "BUT" is not some magical, mystical word. It's simply a contrasting conjunction.
How VASTLY different is this sentence than the one above?
"Lebron James is a villain to the people of Cleveland, a disappointment to the people of Miami, AND to his kids he's daddy".
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey
Yes, to his kids he was something unique!
The message was taken three different ways but to the called it was something unique!
I see no problem with your analogy!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - (Zechariah 1:1-4 continued with verse 4)... "Be you not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried, saying, Thus says the LORD of hosts; Turn you now from your evil ways and your evil doings: BUT THEY DID NOT HEAR, NOR HEARKEN UNTO ME, says the LORD."
Hmm, so we have here - GOD Himself saying that he had "called" unto "your fathers" to turn and they rejected Him.
Did He NOT know they wouldn't hearken when He sent His prophets to call unto them? If He did, WHY?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Zechariah 1:1-4.."BUT THEY DID NOT HEAR..."
They must not have been His sheep!
Jn10:16 I have other sheep that are NOT OF THIS FOLD. I must bring them also, AND THEY WILL LISTEN TO MY VOICE.
v26,27 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, and I know them, and they follow me.
They were not sheep first OR THEY WOULD HAVE HEARD!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - you're being THOROUGHLY ridiculous now. Whether they heard or not is NOT the point. God CALLED them, and your claim is that God DOESN'T CALL anyone that will reject Him. Done and done - you (and Calvinism) are WRONG.
I know you don't want to admit it, and I can now see that you REFUSE TO HEAR the truth as well. So this is sadly just another Titus 3:10-11 situation. I'll continue to pray for you and all the rest of the deceived to come to the Way, Truth, Life & Light of Christ.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Before you go, can you answer this for me?
In Jn10:16 "I have other sheep that are not of this fold."
There are sheep of the fold
and
sheep not of the fold
What's the difference between the sheep "of this fold" and "NOT of this fold"?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Now ONE reason might be, He wants to give everyone the OPTION of accepting or rejecting His call, by their own free will (even knowing ahead of time how they'll respond to His call). This is demonstrated in Ezekiel 18, that God is provide fair chance to all by affirming that His way IS EQUAL (vs 25).
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - as for "No need to really have it in the system..." and "What's the point of sin nature passed down?" - you make it seem like the sin nature is a GOOD thing, that God WANTS. Almost like "uh oh, don't take away sin nature, we NEED that". And this is the perspective that makes me so sad for Calvinists. I hope you all are still saved even with the twisted view of scripture and God's sovereignty. You all DO seem to be quite sincere, with zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "You make it seem like the sin nature is a GOOD thing, that God WANTS."
It is what it is and we can't explain it out of the bible, so we have to deal with it!
As far as God WANTING sin nature;
Could God have prevented it at any one point?
Did God not have the power to stop it at any point... Satins fall, Eve Fall, Adams fall?
Does Satan have power over God that stoped God from sending him to earth instead of another planet?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - WOW. I hope you're not saying that it was always God's PERFECT will and desire for Lucifer to rebel, Adam and Eve to fall, and for the devil to become the god of this world. Like that's something He's happy about.
Because if you are, then what I suspected is true. The god of Calvinism is NOT the God of the Bible. If you believe that, then your god is some hideous, sadistic, lying monster - and you can never know what to trust or believe.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey I'm not saying he is happy about it! I'm just asking the question "Did He have the power to prevent it at the start?"!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Of course He did. Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to (and I suspect you know that I'm aware of the same)? And why are you refusing to answer any of the questions I've asked you?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey If He did not prevent it then it must have been part of a bigger plan!
If Satan would have fell to Mars then Adam and Eve would have never been tempted by him!
For some reason it happened to be earth, the one place where Adam and Eve were living just fine with there choice!
Why, if not a type of desire, would God allow Satan to further tempt them?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - It does NOT necessarily follow that "If He did not prevent it then it must have been part of a bigger plan!". This is the sad "pseudo-reverence" of the Calvinist that makes God responsible for abortions as "part of a bigger plan". Evil occurs because WE exercise our free will to the benefit of Satan, rather than God, NOT because God's PLAN is for evil to dominate the world.
Just because God PLANNED for what He knew would happen, doesn't mean he PLANNED to make it happen. Get it?
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey Did God desire Christ to be crucified?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Of course God desired Christ to be crucified, as He knew that would provide for the redemptive reconciliation of man back to Himself. He also always knew it would be necessary. None of that means that the rebellion of Satan, Fall of man, and Reign of sin were His desire.
No more than my having a spare tire means that I desire to get a flat.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "of course God desired Christ to be crucified"
Was Christ a Plan-B, a Just-In-Case, or a spare tire as you call it?
Or did God originally design sin into his plan?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - God ALWAYS knew that Christ's sacrifice would be necessary (and imagine ME having the foresight to know that there will be a blowout driving down I-75 from Detroit to Atlanta). That STILL doesn't mean I DESIRE to get a flat tire, but since I'm letting my child drive, and I KNOW he's going to get the flat - I included the spare from the beginning of the journey.
Could I have STOPPED the flat tire from happening? Sure I could. But I let my son do it anyway, because he INSISTED on it.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Are you trying to "catch" me in my words, like a Pharisee? If so, you should probably go ahead and give up. Your attempts will continue to be as fruitless as theirs were.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Are you trying to"catch" me in my words, like a Pharisee?"
Not like a Pharisee! More like a Christian and a "Jehovah Witness"!
Wouldn't it be amazing if they did not lean on there own understanding!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - Wait, are you saying you're a Jehovah's Witness? Why didn't you say so? I would have known long ago that you don't believe in the Bible.
And yes, I'm all for seeing people "not lean on there (sic) own understanding!" (or the understanding of others) and simply rather Trust in the LORD with all their/our heart, in all our ways acknowledging Him and He WILL direct our paths. That way doctrinal errors like Calvinism would never have come about.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey No, I'm not a "JW"!
jls201 8 months ago
@gwposey "That way doctrinal errors like Calvinism would never have come about"
What about Armenian errors or free will errors? Or do they have any?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - To be honest, I don't know that I've ever come across even ONE self-professed Arminian. And I haven't studied much of what they believe. But I have noticed that what Calvinists CLAIM Arminians believe and what Arminians themselves claim to believe (in some articles on the Internet) are NOT the same thing.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - On the other hand, I've run across quite a few Calvinists, both on YouTube and on Christian radio (and every time they mention "losing salvation", for example, they sound ridiculous as they try to come up with RE-interpretations of passages that clearly demonstrate the danger of losing salvation).
As for "free will errors", anyone stating that "God would NEVER usurp a person's free will" is clearly ignorant of scripture (or practices similar "mental/verbal gymnastics" to avoid truth).
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Also a potential "free will error" would be claiming that fallen man can simply choose to come to God on his own, with no divine intervention on the part of God (beyond the normal - "He continues to let me breathe everyday" miracle that He pulls off daily). Again, this is in clear contradiction to scripture.
We're fully dependent on God for salvation and life (eternal and otherwise). The only "work" we have to do is "surrender helplessly" when drawn by God (and that's NOT a "work").
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Seriously, rather than engage in all of these mental gymnastics to adhere to your heretical doctrine, how about you just accept the Bible, and accept the responsibility of letting God work through you to be used as a blessing to others, preach the Gospel, make disciples of all nations, plant & water as He leads you, allow others to hear the Word by which faith comes, and watch God give the increase.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Because the God of the Bible has restrained Himself, even (or especially) when things are happening that He DOESN'T want. That's no reflection on His power or capability. Evidently He so values free will that He'll let us be totally destructive (to self, others and our environment), even to the point of consigning ourselves to everlasting fire (which was prepared for the devil and his angels, NOT US).
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - The God of the Bible has already done exceeding abundantly above all we could ask or think in making a way for us to be reconciled to Him. And YET He requires us to choose whether or not to accept it. He gives us ALL we could ever need to make the right choice(s), even His Spirit living within us, yet we're still responsible for continually surrendering (and thankfully He STILL forgives us when we stubbornly don't, then confess our sins and repent AGAIN).
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - But a god that WANTS man to be in sin, and wants the devil to rule this world system. That god would be responsible for every abortion, every rape, every murder, every lie, and would be the "father of lies".
The God of the Bible has done more than could ever be expected to redeem all of mankind, while still allowing the majority of us to reject His love, and choose to be our own gods - much to our detriment. This isn't because He CAN'T make us do different. He just doesn't.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey If "Free Will" is the big deal with Adam and Eve then why Satan?
Why didn't God simply leave it at Gen2:16-17?
The so called "Free Will" is there!
The Choice is there!
So why bring Satan into it?
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - So now you're going to tell God how to do His job? Awfully presumptuous of you.
By the way, you STILL haven't answered even ONE of my direct questions to you.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - all I can suggest for you at this point is to find a "non-Calvinist" church, where the Word of God is taught, as opposed to any man-made doctrines (Reformed, or otherwise). Don't allow some non-divinely inspired author jade your reading/understanding of the Word as led by the Holy Spirit. Ask Him to come and guide you to the TRUTH of His Word, and accept it. Put your trust in Him and what He has inspired to be written, NOT man's traditions.
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Does that concept scare you?"
It did scare me when I put my faith in my own ability. But now I realize that it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. - Phil2:13
If this is true then I have confidence that God is the one who will keep me believing, not me!
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - It most certainly IS God who works in me (and I am SO grateful that He HAS given us all things that pertain to life and godliness). Even with all of that - He requires that we actively and continually surrender to Him. But whenever we draw back, His soul has no pleasure in us. Once we get saved, it's not just "auto pilot" on the way to glory because God "does it all". He STILL requires us to CHOOSE until the end.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - This exposes another lie in the T.U.L.I.P. acrostic. Perseverance of the saints is NOT a guarantee of it being impossible to lose salvation, because there is NO guarantee of never falling into unbelief again. Not to mention the lie of irresistible grace (we certainly can resist saving grace - that whole free will thing again), and so on. Just because God makes STAYING power AVAILABLE doesn't mean we're not free to neglect His gifts IN us, and His Salvation (1 Tim 4:14, Heb 2:3).
gwposey 8 months ago
@gwposey "Common Calvinist practice to take "proof text" snippets and create a doctrine out of them."
Common "Free Willer" practice to take word-for-word bible and redefine it to fit there theology!
Which one is not word-for-word bible according to Jn10:26?
1) you do not believe BECAUSE you are not part of my flock.
OR
2) you are not part of my flock BECAUSE you do not believe.
jls201 8 months ago
@jls201 - First off, please let me apologize for my initial "Common Calvinist practice" statement, in that I recognize that it was prejudicial and not in accordance with "speaking the truth in LOVE". I hope that you can forgive me.
That being said, I do stand by the truth of my statements (just not the way I presented them). Where have I taken the scripture and tried to "redefine it to fit [my] theology!"? I don't see where I did that at any point.
gwposey 8 months ago
@jls201 - Again, I offer the example of Luke 14:26. Taken "word for word" one could build a doctrine of "Jesus requires hatred for discipleship". Of course that's ludicrous, as Jesus commands us to love one another as He loves us (John 15:12). These two (along with many others) must be reconciled because I don't believe the Bible is self-contradictory.
So, in light of the ENTIRE record of scripture, Jesus does NOT actually desire us to HATE, but to put adherence to HIM above all else.
gwposey 8 months ago
Heresy? That's a strong word.
skoobalon 8 months ago
Went to your channel page and saw a picture of Jesus. Do you thinks that's what he looks like?
skoobalon 8 months ago
Calvinism in this sense is opposed to free will God had given to all men. Because it is through our free will that we choose whether we will accept Christ's sacrifice and take our cross on His liking or whether we will turn our back on Him. All men are included in this plan, God knows some will refuse it, but it is not Him who denies salvation to those who do.
NovaGub 9 months ago
One thing that Arminians forget is that God has an elect people no matter how they believe He chose them and this also means God created men who He knew weren't elect and that they would never receive salvation,so scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9 can't mean God is willing that goats be saved and is being patient towards them,it has to mean He is being patient waiting for all the elect to be born and converted.So even Arminians can't deny God made some PEOPLE for HELL.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
You people make me rather sick to my stomach. I see a lot of time wasted here regarding useless squabble over petty details of convoluted man-made religious doctrine that really has no real meaning in the grand scheme of things. Stop worrying about who has salvation or not and just live the life that you have been given THIS VERY MOMENT.
GUITARdan22 1 year ago
I find it sad that the proponents of limited atonement making comments on this video insist on stating the logical fallacy that, "If God provides a gift to all, requires them to choose to accept it, and if anyone chooses to reject it - that makes the gift worthless, and God weak".
1 Timothy 4:10 DOES totally refute the teachings of hyper-Calvinism. It has come to my attention that John Calvin himself also finally believed that Salvation is made available to ALL, though (relatively) few accept.
gwposey1 1 year ago
@gwposey1 - to those who espouse such a response to the concept of Christ dying for ALL (really meaning EVERYONE) - and that response is "if Jesus died for everyone, and some people still go to Hell, then that makes His sacrifice useless (for those people) and God weak (incapable of doing what He says)", as the reason for denying the concept...
When God gives Israel a choice in Deuteronomy 30:19, does their choosing to reject His offer amount to His failure/weakness or theirs? Please answer.
gwposey1 1 year ago
You are LIMITING THE POWER of GOD and the POWER of the BLOOD of GOD to save sinners.
DID Christ die in behalf of JUDAS ISCARIOT? ADOLF HITLER? SADDAM HUSSEIN?
If the BLOOD of CHRIST is only EFFECTIVE to the ELECT, THEREFORE, the POWER of the BLOOD of CHRIST is USELESS.
UNLIMITED ATONEMENT is SATAN's DOCTRINE!!!
KOMIKO007 1 year ago
@KOMIKO007
I'm the one limiting the power of God? You are the one LIMITING the atonement, therefore limiting the power of God.
Yes Jesus died for Judas, Hitler, Hussein even heretics like Luther and Calvin who you follow.
How does this make the blood of Christ useless? Jesus died on the cross and his blood is available to all men but he only applies it to thoes accept his faith.
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch
Your JESUS is different from my JESUS because your GOD is POWERLESS and USELESS.
Wow! You don't know the DOCTRINE of LIMITED ATONEMENT.
If CHRIST died for JUDAS ISCARIOT the SON of PERDITION, then the BLOOD of CHRIST has no EFFECT to him because he is now condemned to HELL. Do you think that is not USELESS? If you still tell me that the POWER of the BLOOD of CHRIST is so POWERFUL though it can't save JUDAS ISCARIOT, then you have a big problem with the word "POWER".
KOMIKO007 1 year ago
If Jesus died for all men and not just the elect, then he fails in his atonement for all that go to hell. I don't consider the triune God, the same one that created the ENTIRE universe in six days to be that weak.
voted4bush 1 year ago
Do you realize how loaded a word like heresy is? It is probably the strongest word you could possibly use, which connects Calvinism to damnable sin. I hope you realize the caliber of men which you are calling heretics: Edwards, Luther, Calvin, and modern faithful pastors MacArthur, Piper, and Sproul. Although I see Arminianism as Biblically inaccurate, man-centered, and opposite to the teachings of Paul, Jesus, Peter, and the prophets, if you love Jesus I would not use such a word to describeyou
habsfan170 1 year ago
@habsfan170
If you're consistent you would call anyone against Calvin's teaching heretical. It's the "soft-hearted" teachings of the world that claim no one can make such claims---but I've got 2 Lutheran churches across the street from where I live, and a Catholic literally next door. If they truly believe they have it right, they'd believe each other are going to hell. I'm no Arminian--but have you read the writings of the first 300 years of the church---they're completely anti-Calvinist...
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro No, I would not call Arminians like John Wesley, Lenard Ravenhill, etc. heretics. Heresy is the denial of a fundamental Christian doctrine which is necessary for salvation while claiming to be Christian. Being reformed, though I believe is important, is not necessary to be saved. The guy who's channel this is is highly confused and inconsistent with the scriptures, but if he repents of his sin and believes on Jesus Christ, he is saved.
habsfan170 1 year ago
@habsfan170
I believe he has.
ChristianEastern 11 months ago
oh wow I guess there is no more Calvinism... Let's look at something you said.
2:26 - 2:31 "so their pretty much doomed to hell, without ever doing anything"
So would you say "God can have the glory, but I have the control"? Or would you confess to to people that you can't do it without Him, but He can't do it without you? Do you really believe Jesus is interceding for those who will spend an eternity in Hell and failing in his intercession?
Romans 8:31-34
JustinCHickman 1 year ago
@JustinCHickman - How do you come to the conclusion that he's stating "God can have the glory, but I have the control"? I'm no Catholic, but how does the paradigm of "God does all the work for Salvation, offers it as a GIFT to ALL men, and REQUIRES man to make a choice in response to His calling" as being man in control? If God REQUIRES men to choose, then it's Him that's in control, not us.
I just really don't get the "Calvinist" response arguments that he's trying to "elevate man".
gwposey1 1 year ago
I belive you, he died for all man romans 5 :17
blessedwithoutmeasur 1 year ago
In John 6:37 Christ said "All that the Father gives me will come to me." If the Father gave all men to Jesus then all men would come to Jesus.
Jesus also told us what the will of the Father is: "that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life." John 6:40.
Not everyone looks on the Son and believes in Him. Why? Because "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:44.
Please reconcile the verses I just gave with the verses you cited.