If People Would Rightly Divide Gods Word By The Covenants, Then And Only Then Can It Be Understood. Mathew-John B4 The Cross Is OLD TESTAMENT For Jews Only Mathew 1:21 Mathew 10:5-6 Mathew 15:24 Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Acts 2-Revelation 22 Is The Complete New Testament Of Jesus.Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6. You Cannot Be Justified By The Law Of Moses B4 The Cross. Galatians 5:4.People Always Teach The False Doctrine That Jesus Taught New Testament B4 The Cross, No Way. Acts 1:1-3 After.
Let me ask you a question: Did Calvin see to it that those who violate Geneva's laws receive their due punishment, or did he brandish a butcher's knife, as it were, and prowl the streets slaying those whom he disliked?
Second question, were the key figures in the OT evil for stoning lawbreakers and heretics?
'Respecter of persons'is irrelevant to Election as a it deals with the appearances of one's face or effort. Election is 'unconditional' which means it is NOT based upon appearances or effort.So,you're argument does not apply at all.Yet,the Scriptures,you merely 'say' you heed,contradicts your specious notions.You're problem is not with John Calvin,it's with the Bible you say you follow,but you don't! Ephesians 1:4-11.You have not taken the position of 'The Bible Says So'.You deceive yourself.
@clearedtoengage The Election of the Church is a collection of INDIVIDUALS! So, your point is meaningless. Why even bother making that point? What difference does it make to Election, and Predestination. BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, if it's the Church in it's entirety, or the individuals that make up the Church. The argument is utterly spurious.
@clearedto The Church is a collection of individuals.Eph.5 speaks not about election. Eph 4:16,Clearly describes the Body of Christ, as a fitly joined & compacted by that which EVERY JOINT supplies, according to....the measure of EVERY PART! You see, every PART contributes to the growth of the whole.God dispenses faith & Gifts INDIVIDUALLY Rom12:3,&1Cor12:11(respt).God Elects individuals as Parts of His Body. Eph1 shows distinctions between Apostles & the Ephesians v12-15, yet both are Elect.
Premil is false. Jesus is coming in flaming fiery judgment to take vengeance on all who don't OBEY the gospel, and there will be NO second chance for anyone who was not already ready at the second coming/last day/second resurrection/judgment day. Anyone who had not already been risen from the old man by faith in Christ (the first resurrection) may CALL Him Lord, but be told "depart from Me, you workers of iniquity" when He comes with His angels to separate the sheep from the goats.
I find it funny that Calvanists would complain about someone disagreeing with John Calvin. Why would they complain? Are they trying to convince those that disagree to change their mind? How can anyone change their mind if they do not have free will as John Calvin says? Just by complaining they are acknowledging the fact that we all have free will!
AMEN! Calvinism contradicts both itself AND scripture. If no one is free to choose right from wrong, as Calvinism teaches, then to what purpose do Calvinists attempt to convince anyone of anything, right or wrong? Calvinists, though they often deny it, believe "once saved always saved", and those who will hear such a doctrine and agree subject themselves to a fall like Eve did when she agreed with Satan that she would not surely die if she CHOSE to disobey God.
Carnal knowledge is a major reason for the denial of Biblical truth - clearly take Eph 2:1 as an example - B4 God makes us alive in v.5 there is no denying that we are spiritually dead in v.1 - when was the last time U saw a dead man make an assist - did Lazarus assist Christ in rising from physical death? Obviously not! So use your carnal knowledge and deny the truth because U have yet to understand that His ways are not our ways - the same for his thoughts and yours - as for me I'll take His.
Nice video! I am more of a 5point Spurgeonist myself, LOL! I borrowed that joke from brother Paul Washer. My feelings toward Calvin are the same towards Jacob Arminian, I am not concerned who was more christian than the other. Im all about proving all things and holding fast that which is good. I believe to be "elected" or saved, there is nothing a man can do to merit salvation, lest ye repent.(Luke 13:3,5, Acts2:38)
Calvin was NO MURDERER - he warned the man NOT to return to Geneva because he would tied for apostasy - his warning was ignored. When called to testify against him, Calvin only spoke the truth recorded in scripture - he could do nothing less. After his conviction Calvin pleaded that they NOT burn him at the stake - he begged them to choose some other form of execution.....so why do you perpetuate A LIE because you disagree with Calvin's theology?
Friend, if you are a member of the C of C denomination it is indeed laughable that you would accuse someone else of "dismissing" some scripture while "hanging" onto others! No group has more used that method to build such an ugly and errant theology than has the C of C.
I have never heard a C of C preacher speak on Eph. 2 without running to find some verse on water baptism. It's no wonder that you guys can't understand the Holy Spirit, Grace, Baptism, Election, or Assurance of Salvation.
Name one thing we believe in or practice that isn't found in the scriptures. I can name several scriptures that go against each point in TULIP. Imagine that.
I have heard preachers read Ephesians 2 without referring to water baptism. It is unfortunate that there are people that hang their hat only on Ephesians 2 without taking the rest of the scriptures to expose the meaning in those verses. Scripture interprets itself so it's important to take all of it together.
Imagine that - no reference to baptism in Eph 2? Why should there be a reference it? Paul wrote the entire letter to the church at Ephesus and never mentioned baptism once in the entire 6 chapters - I wonder why? Could it be he was trying to play "Hide & Seek"? Maybe he really hated the Ephesians and did not want them to know about the import of baptism?
OR could it be that baptism is not essential, except for those who adhere to your denomination's limited theology?
Why should there be a reference to baptism in Ephesians 2? I guess it depends on the subject of the lesson being presented.
So baptism is never mentioned in all of Ephesians, huh? Not even once? What does it say in Ephesians 4:5 then? Oops, looks like I gotcha. You really should be more careful about what you say.
I see you couldn't name one thing that I believe in that isn't found in the scriptures. Imagine that.
Oh and you might want to check the context of 1 Cor 1:17. Yep.
"...Paul wrote the entire letter to the church at Ephesus and never mentioned baptism once in the entire 6 chapters....and did not want them to know the import of baptism?" - Dixiebow
Shameful....Ephesians 4:5 ring a bell? Of course not, because like most of the truths of God's word you choose to remain ignorant.....and by the way, Acts 19 records the Ephesians being baptized twice...You must be a real scholar to think baptism was never mentioned to the Ephesians....sad
#1. I was referring to Paul leaving out any reference to the need for baptism associated with salvation and/or regeneration anywhere in Ephesians, especially in chapter 2 - your least favorite chapter in the Bible, and #2 I was having an intelligent exchange with another poster which would obviously necessitate excluding a white-washed tomb, law-keeping, ceremonial Pharisee like yourself!
I had had an interesting dialog with an Athiest who observed your comments.
From: CheesesPeaks2U
I read the comment from studyjesus - Seems a little un-christianlike, don't you think?
Very interesting StudyJesus....not only do Christians find you to be UN-Christian, but athiests seem to recognize that fact as well - seems to speak volumes about you huh?
Could be my mistake, I just assumed you studied Jesus Christ, maybe its Jesus Alou the former PM of Peru you study instead?
"...who observed your comments....Could be my mistake...."
Huh? What comments? Ummmmmm....Truthchamp here....NOT StudyJesus....Are you really this lame or is it an act? Unreal, but totally believable that you are in fact that far off the reservation....
As for your previous comment....your QUOTE was that Paul NEVER mentioned baptism in 6 chptrs.....I merely pointed out (again) how shameful your biblical integrity is and as usual you crayfish and make excuses and ramble on childishly...
Pardon my confusing you TruthChamp (not likely) with StudyJesus, another Pharisee and work/righteous salvation proponent . Alas the same comments apply to him work just as well for you I'm sure.
dickibow, where are all the scriptures that say baptisim is not necessary for salvation. I see alot of opinions coming from you in this thread with no scripture to back it. Why is that? Why are you attacking peoples character with words from an Athiest? Is that supposed to prove that your opinions are the truth. The truth is in the Word of God... the Holy Spirit not in man. Show me where the Holy Spirit says anything close to "baptism is not necessary for salvation"!
False teachers often preach "another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit" 2Cor 11:3,4,13-15. Many today have been bewitched as the once-believing Galatians were Gal 3:1-3...by seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, which cause their followers to depart FROM the faith they once had and to "speak lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron" 1Tim 4:1,2. Paul knew he could become a castaway if he failed to keep himself in subjection to God. 1Cor 9:27. So Gal 1:8,9!
John 1:12 (NIV) "to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children born NOT of natural descent, NOR OF HUMAN DECISION, or a husband's will, BUT born OF GOD."
If you prefer the KJ "not of blood, NOR of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.
As you supposedly "take all of it together" "to expose the meaning", how do you reconcile your DECISION to follow Christ with that verse. My guess is you ignore it.
Reconcile it? Easy, you just quoted it. "To all who receive him." Verse 13 is talking about the right to become children of God, which is God's will, but it is clearly our choice to receive him. As my brother, rotary57, quotes in this video, Joshua 24:15, "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve."
Or you can continue to believe in your partial god that has already saved the elect before they've even had a chance to believe. It's your c-h-o-i-c-e either way. :-)
Amen, brother. I hate the whole "Campbellite" attack. They can't name one thing that we practice that isn't supported in the Bible. Calvin and Luther, while being right to turn their backs on Catholicism, swung to the entire opposite end of the spectrum. All of TULIP is proven wrong by scripture anyway.
Absurd - how is TULIP proven wrong I scripture - I have scripture that proves it is true - just because you have been instructed in the most supreme level of legalism since the Pharisees does not make it so - rediculous!
You have to bend scripture all over the place to "prove" TULIP. There are so many verses that disprove TULIP, that you guys have to go to great lengths to dismiss those passages of scripture and hang on to dear life to the scriptures you believe prove TULIP, while those scriptures are misunderstood by you. Instructed in the most supreme level of legalism? LOL! Yeah, I'm a legalist, do what the Bible says and that makes me a legalist. Okay, fine by me.
Candle lighting and incense burning are fund in the Wicca en church the satanic church and in the catholic church.
1 John.5:21, Mar 12:38; who likes to walk in long clothes ? or should I say who does walk in long clothes and or say robes? People in the Wicca en church, in the satanic church, the kkk, the catholic church popes and so called father's read Mat 23:9-14 but you and keep reading if you want to. Remember to got right doctrine you need the right bible not a Alexandrian false bible.
Yea Evangelism is the means by which God calls his elect to faith in Christ. Anyways, you should install Paltalk, my name is Kainos1987. Hope to hear from ya.
Another thing I would like to point out is what made Cornelius call for Peter in the first place? It was an Angel of God, not Cornelius. You also say there are no verses proving individual predestination. Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
But we can conclude from the verse you posted acts 11:13-14, that he was saved at the end of acts chapter 10. Notice though, in acts 11:9 it says God is the one who makes us clean. acts 11:18, actually proves first God must grant the act of repentance. because if you compare with the rest of the bible like ephesians 2 and john 6, no sinner will ever freely choose christ unless he is first effectually called(born again). Like in this story of Cornellius that we have been studying together.
I agree with you on the fact that Cornellius in acts 10:1-2 was not a saved individual. He was at this time a near-proselyte to Judaism, a Gentile who worshipped God but rejected circumcision. Acts (13:16,26)
I would rephrase the second statement you made and say not only can God cleanse Jews, but also Gentiles. The point I was trying to make was that God is the one who makes us clean, not us. Since you're argument was acts 10:1-2 disproves total depravity. Compare with Ephesians chapter 2.
Now jrutled, notice what was said in verse 15. Now Look at Peter says to the men later on in verse 28 when he meets them, Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (end of part 6)
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. (end of part 5)
Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (end of part 3)
It seems to be that the argument presented here is to disprove the doctrine of total depravity by using the passage found in acts 10 about a man named Cornelius, it says that he was a God-fearing man, yet not just him, but his whole family. It indicates he was also generous and prayed to God regularly. end of part 1
I would like to say, using a verse here or there and not taking the whole chapter in context to disprove a doctrine is not a very good idea, though we have all probably have done this. So with that being said, lets go look at the vision of Peter later on in the same chapter (end of part 2)
And the reason God shows mercy to some and not others is to show his justice. I think Romans chapter 9 is pretty clear on that. When God says hes not a respector of person, it means nations, peoples, tribes, and tounges. God does'nt just save one race of people, he saves all, Revelation 5:9 says this.
What would you call a judge that randomly sent some people to jail and released others, regardless of what they had done? Would "justice" be the right word here?
Well the thing is none of us are worthy of heaven. We have all sinned against a Holy God. God simply does this. He Foreknows Us, He Predestines Us, He calls Us, He Justifies Us, then he glorifes US. Romans 8:28-30. Notice God is the one doing all of this.
Calvinism doesnt say man doesnt have a will or that he cant make choices. Calvinism teaches that man prior to being born again are slaves to sin. Just read Genesis 4:7 and Proverbs 1:29. Calvinism does deny free will, which means that you can only choose according to you're nature.
Choice is defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" - if you can only choose one thing, it's not a choice.
I agree and sinful men make choices all the time. Free will says you can choose things without any external influences. If you have free will rotary then never sin again.
Notice the choice Joshua gave them Rotary, where did Joshua say you can choose the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. or the God of Israel, or Yahweh? Answer me why Joshua never gave them that choice. Notice the choices Joshua gave them.
He does, Kainos - Joshua 24:14-16.... The choice is made in vs 16, and confirmed in vs 22.
22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
Yea they did say that, but my point was look at the choices Joshua gave them, he never gave them the choice to choose the LORD. Only those heathen Gods because unless you're born again you cant choose the LORD the right way. They did say we would choose the LORD, but notice what Joshua tells them. Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, and read the parable of the sower too.
See Look. Jos 24:19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he [is] an holy God; he [is] a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
Luke 2:14, that "first hymn of the incarnation": "if salvation glorifies God, glorifies him in the highest degree, and makes the highest creatures praise him, this one reflection may be added—then, that doctrine, which glorifies man in salvation cannot be the gospel. For salvation glorifies God. The angels were no Arminians, they sang, "Glory to God in the highest." They believe in no doctrine which uncrowns Christ, and puts the crown upon the head of mortals.
The only glad tidings that made the angels sing, are those that put God first, God last, God midst, and God without end, in the salvation of his creatures, and put the crown wholly and alone upon the head of him that saves without a helper. "Glory to God in the highest," is the angels' song."
They believe in no system of faith which makes salvation dependent upon the creature, and, which really gives the creature the praise, for what is it less than for a man to save himself, if the whole dependence of salvation rests upon his own free will? No, my brethren; they may be some preachers, that delight to preach a doctrine that magnifies man; but in their gospel angels have no delight.
Don't worship a book, but worship the word of Christ. In the beginning Grace was nescessary for the salvation of souls. Accepted by the faith. The faith went to work. and finally into a book, the Bible.
Those who believes they are saved without work is a presumption sin. The ignorance also considered to be sin since you have not look for God in truth with all your heart, mind, and soul. Presumption is a branches of Pride.
The pride is the sin committed by Lucifier,(Satan), The pride is a father of all sin.
Adam and Eve also committed this sin. We are their children.
Lucifer? The bringer of the morning light is the Devil?
That name is mentioned once in the Bible - in Isaiah 14. Read it and see who it's talking about.
What does the fact that we are physically descended from Adam and Eve have to do with anything?
Eze 18:20 "...The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Your comment about the pope is incorrect. The pope is sucessor of Peter. Jesus said,"Peter I will give you the key of kindom of heaven,.... Catholic doctrine is infallible.
If Catholic doctrine is infallible, then why does it changed around so much? You guys believed that unbaptized babies were going to hell until a few months ago.
And Peter wasn't infallible, so why do you think the supposed successor of Peter would be? Paul had to rebuke him to his face because he was afraid of what some Jews would think.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
no, I forget where, It is better if you don't marry but it is better to be married if you are going to sin, and the life of trail will follow it. Something like that.
A)The Protestant Bible is missing seven books. (Tibet, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees) Martin Luther changed the Bible. First, he took 7 books (Tobit, Judith,Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1&2 Maccabees) out of the Old Testament because they caused problems for his new theology. The Catholic Bible contains all the books of the Old Testament that Christ read from and therefore is correct.
Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure shoThe one Scripture verse Protestants never seem to find in the Bible is ( 1 Cor 4:4-5). It destroys their idea of proclaiming themselves saved.
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." (2 peter 20-21)
Catholicism, not Calvinism, is the great false religion. Reformed protestant religion is the true gospel. The Roman Catholic Church is a false religion that worships engraven images, statues, gold and riches. A pope will be the anti-Christ in revelations. Flee from the harlot while you can.
You are the offshoot of Catholics and offshoot of original Luther's. Do you know how many different denomination of proestants today? 40,000, and growing. In case your founder,Luther is excommunicated Catholic priest.
If you chose God then "while you were dead in your sins" there would have been something good within you to choose God. The Reformed concept of "Total Depravity" is completely Biblical. Christ made you alive while you were dead (completely dead--not part dead). If you're dead in sin then how do you have the "goodness" necessary to decide to choose Him? 1. Regeneration 2. Justification 3. Sanctification. In that order.
Though man has no good in them, it is true that man has free will(If one may disagree with that then they may try to dispute)with that said men may.Though I see what SLutherG says back there i do not agree. Man does not always want sin, man wants what is best for himself which is usually sin. But if eating is a sin then I will die of starvation. Eating (I'm sure you may agree) is not a sin but it is also a part of free will.
"Free will" is an illusion in our own minds. People are generally quite predictable. They will always respond based on their imput. And God is sovereign, when God calls you you will willingly go to Christ. Who among you thinks they can confound the will of the creator of the universe? You must be joking. I'm always amused at how many Christians think they choose God, when in fact, God does the choosing.
Only the Catholic that has not changed her doctrines to suit the prevailing winds of culture for 2000 years. Protestant churches do change. The reason they don't think they do is because when their church starts going down the road of accommodating the culture and compromising Truth, a remnant will leave the decadent church and start a new one. But, because there is no final authority that speaks for God it is just a matter of time before the new and faithful church will be corrupted by Enemy
If they were, everyone who ever read them would all come to exactly the same conclusion as to their meaning. However, after 500 years of Protestants believing that every individual is able, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to read Scripture and come to all truth, the fact is, there is NO UNITY. There are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations. And every single one of them proclaim their church to be led by the Holy Spirit. But, since God is not a God of confusion something is wrong
I highly recommend a great book called "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink. It is a wonderful biblical exegesis of exactly God's ability and actions in his sovereignty.
At 6:10 your presuming that God would not ever tell us to do something that we could not do. But I don't believe that is a valid assumption, is that any different than telling us to "keep the law" when we are unable to?Human beings do have a choice to choose between good and evil, they just always choose evil,unless God intervenes.
oh please there is not one verse in the N.T. that says that we have the ability to choose God, man is dead in sins, he does have a freewill, but only to do evil. Man can not do good
And John 10 verses 37 and 38 means? And Acts 2:41 means? Please explain these verses as a starter and then John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9. I don't see how Calvinism can stand in light of these verses let alone others. If you can show me that I'm wrong I'd be pleased to know.
Also consider John 10 verses 26 - 29. Jesus says "... you are not of my sheep ...". Strong for Calvinism? Carry on reading John 10 (again) verses 37 - 38. If there is no free will and an ability to choose then what the Lord says in verses 37 and 38 are utter nonsense. What Paul wrote is inspired scripture but it has to fit in with what John quotes the Lord as saying. It can't be the other way around! There is much more but not enough space here.
No good of his own self that will qualify him or her for salvation. Only One is good that is God. Your point is? What say you on John 10 verses 37 -38?
No good of his own self that will qualify him or her for salvation. Only One is good that is God. Your point is? What say you on John 10 verses 37 -38?
Are there any absolute statements in the Bible that causes Calvinism to be unsustainable? John 3:16, "That God so loved ... that whoever believes in Him should not perish ..." If Calvinism is correct then this verse is meaningless. Next look at 2 Peter 3:9 "... not wanting that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". How can Cavinism stand with that scripture? It can't whilst Arminianism certainly can and does (Google +Arminian +predestination if you don't know).
The question is not did God die for everybody in the world. But did Christ's blood pour out for all or just those who would believe. Read John 6:37, John 1:10-13, the Bible totally teaches calvinism. Pre-mill is wrong thank you brother for making this video. Reformed theogly is back
His blood was poured out for all. After you have read John 6:37 you should continue reading and you will come to ".. therefore everyone who has heard AND learned from the Father comes to me." (verse 45). So those who God draws and gives to the Son are the ones who have heard and learned - not compelled. What about John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9?
Re John 1:10-13. Man has no ability to bring him/herself to New Birth. That's all down to God. All we can do is respond to the Saviours call or reject it. If I am drowning and someone throws me a lifeline and I grab it in what way can I boast? Yet I made a choice to grab the lifeline. Christ offers all the lifeline.
I don't understand how Jesus' death can be divorced from his shedding His blood. In dying he shed His precious blood but he shed much blood when he was scourged but if he had stopped there and not died on the cross as well there would be no salvation for anyone. Please explain to me the distinction you are making.
Re "choose ye this day". You need to read Luther's book "Bondage of the Will". Exhortation does not equal ability. And it's not pronounced peh LOG ee us, but peh LAY jee us. And Servetus was teaching heresy (modalism). He was doing harm, and was given many opportunities to stop his idiocy.
I see your "logic" in not wanting to read Luther,but it is arrogance to think that you can gain nothing from men who devoted their lives to reading,studying and translating the scriptures.God is not doing something pointless if he exhorts where there is no ability because He is showing inability.I think you should study more about the relationship between Calvin and the man he had executed. Calvin ruled a theocracy.
That's nonsense - a theocracy is government ruled by God, so if Calvin ruled a theocracy, then Calvin was a god. You would be well advised to study history - Geneva was ruled by a city council, not John Calvin.
If all you can do is sin, then there's nothing free about it. That's like saying you're free to do A or B, but you can only do B - it doesn't make any sense.
Your statement is clearly contradicted by Joshua 24:22:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
The Josh. 24 passage is speaking to the Children of Israel the "chosen people of God." Look at what the Bible says about the nature of unregenerate man Eph. 2, Romans 1-3.
Sorry friend, I had another thought. Martin Luther wrote a book called the Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards wrote a book the Freedom of the Will. These titles seem to be contradicting but both believed in Predestination. The will is both free and in bondage. Man has the option of A and B but only the ability to do A. The scriptures I listed earlier may clarify. Have a good day brother.
Or can we just choose fail and rechoose at our own will?? I just have one question is freewill in the Bible? I sure wish it was, but I dont think so. Speaking Life sounds great! But speaking truth shakes the vine of the weak. "To some He will say, away with you! I never knew you!!" Sounds like Old Testament God may still be the same eh??
This is a great discussion... I really think that through humility, the best conclusion to this Un-Solvable age old fight is this.. We must accept that there are 2 different messages in the Bible. Through Pride elimination and truwe God inspired humility, we realize that perhaps the chosen are the ones that have eyes to see the sovereign God deciding all?? Could it be a test of the elect? Who will realize that the Elect are slaves to the Lord unaccepting of any Sins!!
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.
(Rom.5:6, Rom. 8:7, John 15:5) As a natural man, being altogether averse from good (Rom. 3:10,12), and dead in sin (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13), is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (1 Cor. 2:14, Tit. 3:3-5)
Is salvation totally dependent upon man, God, or a combination of the two?
If you had to choose one, which comes first faith or regeneration? Can you prove it scripturally without contradicting, not simply by proof-texting, but using the entire context of the Bible both Old and New Testaments.
Go all the way back to Adam after he sinned. Who called for him in the garden? Remember Adam (as now fallen man) was hiding from God.
Me too! However, inasmuch as Calvin's writings adhere to Scripture, we can agree with them. I don't worship Calvin, and I don't believe him to be infallible. He was a mere mortal like the rest of us, although extremely gifted in intellect and understanding.
I've never said that Calvin was uneducated or less than intelligent, I've said that he was wrong. You admit that about instruments, so doesn't that prove the whole point of the video? Rather then talk about Calvin's Institutes (which I *do* have), why don't we talk about the scriptures I brought up? There are other brilliant men who have written books over 600 pages as well, and who would disagree with Calvin, so I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
His decision is made on the basis of the person, not what he does, so he is not a respecter of persons? Not a respecter means anyone who does "x" will be saved, regardless of who you are. Calvinism is a message of doom and gloom - you have been assigned you fate beforehand, and if you are bound for hell, there is nothing you can do.
How many unbelievers do you know who are actually walking around with their head hanging low because they are not one of the elect? Again, God must quicken one's heart before he/she even realizes the state of their souls before a Holy God.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Why was the young man sad? If he was not one of the elect, he wouldn't care because he didn't believe, and if he was, he would do what Jesus asked. Instead, we see a tortured soul who knows what is right, but loved his possessions too much to do it - he knew the consequences of his actions, did God quicken him to realize this?
I considered that as well before I posted it, but I think it is clear from the phrasing "And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved" (Mar 10:22) and from the words of the Lord "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" that the ruler did not come back.
He was a rich man, and loved his riches, and therefore went away. He did not like eternal life upon these terms. Many a one is ruined by the sin he commits with reluctance; leaves Christ sorrowfully, and yet is never truly sorry for leaving him, for, if he were, he would return to Him.
If he did sell his possessions, would it not be fair to say it would be done grudgingly, an act not commended by Scripture? In book 2, chapter 2 of Calvin's Institutes he rejects the idea that man is the "master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil" and has "no remaining good in himself" so what is occurring here?
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil. Matthew 17: 12, James 1:14, Deut. 30:19
The good this man displays in the seeking after eternal life, following all the commandments since a child, running to and kneeling before Jesus, proves according to Calvin that God is working in him "no remaining good" - and thus a member of the elect. Yet the work is somehow left incomplete, and the man has a heart that is not right with God. If God was working in him up to this point, why would he not cause the man to joyfully renounce his riches and follow Christ?
The rich young ruler loved his riches more than eternal life. He was unwilling to part with them. That is what the story demonstrates. He was not one of the elect. I am a little confused as to the "no remaining good" part. Could you clarify?
I was referring to the earlier quote from Calvin's institutes - basically that man can't do anything good on his own. Youtube has gotten the comments all out of whack, so it's a little confusing. I'm going to wait a bit and see if it sorts itself out - if not I'll post again.
I am totally lost in these comments...I did find this one.
Paul says that anything done not in faith is sin... So the unbelieving father playing ball in the yard, is counted as sin, even though we would probably say it was his duty and a "good" thing. The rich young ruler, even if he had sold his possessions, had he not faith, it would have been sin.
Romans 14:23: But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for WHATEVER is not from FAITH is SIN.
Mat 27:3-4 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.
Judas knew that he had sinned, and repented! Will you affirm that he was one of the elect, and quickened by God because of his knowledge?
No, Judas was definitely not one of the elect. His repentance was not one unto life. He was sorry that he had betrayed innocent blood. Lost people feel guilt. To me Judas proves election. Judas was created to be the "son of perdition" (Acts 1:16). His betrayal was prophesied about in the OT. God elected Judas for eternal damnation.
This is an excellent point. Whether you are a king or a peasant, an adult or a child, a Jew or a Gentile, a male or a female, God saves all kinds of people.
When you evangelize, do you beg the person to just "make a decision" for Christ? Or, do you pray to God and ask Him to grant the person repentance?
Most Arminians pray like Calvinists. Ultimately, all believers know that God is the one responsible for converting souls. For man to add anything to it makes it a "works" salvation which the Bible repudiates.
Servetus was more than a simple heretic. He was a scholar who, WHILE PRETENDING TO BE A CHRISTIAN, attacked the foundations of Christianity. During Servetus' trial, Calvin refused to decide a single detail, yet he is still blamed for his death. Servetus was a forerunner of Unitarianism, a pioneer in the 'historical school' of Biblical criticism, a spreader of Judaic criticisms of Christianity and one of the great theological disturbers of all time.
It doesn't matter if he was Satan himself - what matters is that he was killed because of a religious disagreement, which we have no right to do. Christians are to withdraw from and dispute with false teachers, not hunt them down with sword in hand. Capital punishment belongs to the state, not the church.
I totally agree with you that capital punishment belongs to the state and not the church. Servetus was justly tried in court, and found guilty of teaching antitrinitarian, heretical idolatry. He was sentenced to death by burning. Calvin didn't have anything to do with that sentence. The propagation of idolatrous heresy is a capital crime according to the Bible(Lev. 24:16, Deut. 12:1-11).
Servetus was only one of the tens of thousands who went to their deaths in Calvin's time, and none of their judge ever received the denunciations heaped upon Calvin—who had no civil authority, and was not a judge in Geneva. Men and women of the Twentieth Century, who have witnessed without moving a finger the arbitrary murders of tens of millions have no ground upon which to stand and judge John Calvin.
Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, yet everything to do with the bible. Calvinism has never been defeated because you cannot defeat the scriptures.
How about the book of Romans (especially chapter 9)....
If Jesus Christ had died for ALL, then ALL would be saved. His blood is that effectual. I have a hard time imagining Jesus sitting at God's right hand, with his fingers crossed, just hoping that someone would choose Him. If that were the case, then we have God bound to man's decision. God would then cease being God. God is sovereign over all, including salvation.
Deuteronomy 10:14-15; Psalm 33:12; Psalm 65:4; Psalm 106:5; Haggai 2:23; Matthew 11:27; Matthew 22:14; Matthew 22:22; Matthew 22:24; Matthew 24:31; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:28-30; Romans 8:33; Romans 11:28; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:8-9; Revelation 17:14
Yes I can. 2 Pet 3:9. Context means everything. Who is the promise made to? Only believers.(Rom 9:8)The "US" are believers. He is not willing that any of "us", the church should perish. But that "all" the church should come to repentence. Let me guess. I'm reading into the text?
I agree that context is important, and it is context that tells us that the promise of 2 Pet 3:9 is not the promise of Rom 9:8.
Rom 9:8 speaks of the "children of the promise" and Rom 9:9 states "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son." This is the promise that God made to Abraham, and yes, the children of it are believers - I'm glad you admit that we have to believe to receive that promise of God.
Notice vs 7 - it speaks of the ungodly whom God will judge. Are they recipients of the promise of his coming? Surely they are, or they would have nothing to worry about. So if after referring to the ungodly, it is mentioned that God waits to return because he wishes that none should perish, but should repent, who else could he be speaking of? Those in the church have already repented! God is giving them a chance to do the same.
If you take this to mean just the church, then you are admitting (1) that Christians can fall (because those spoken of here need to repent), and (2) that if they die in such a state, their souls will perish in hell, neither of which are consistent with Calvinism.
I agree. The "all" is the elect. If God meant for everyone who ever existed to be saved, all would. He is God the Creator who spoke the world and all that is in it into existence. Jesus' blood is so effectual that all whom the Father has GIVEN Him, He shall not lose one.
If People Would Rightly Divide Gods Word By The Covenants, Then And Only Then Can It Be Understood. Mathew-John B4 The Cross Is OLD TESTAMENT For Jews Only Mathew 1:21 Mathew 10:5-6 Mathew 15:24 Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Acts 2-Revelation 22 Is The Complete New Testament Of Jesus.Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6. You Cannot Be Justified By The Law Of Moses B4 The Cross. Galatians 5:4.People Always Teach The False Doctrine That Jesus Taught New Testament B4 The Cross, No Way. Acts 1:1-3 After.
Love6653 1 week ago
Calvin is a bum...1500 years of church and Christ movement prior to this clown...
Lets ask Calvin's followers about his killings...was this imitating Christ?
crustomatic16 6 months ago
@crustomatic16
Let me ask you a question: Did Calvin see to it that those who violate Geneva's laws receive their due punishment, or did he brandish a butcher's knife, as it were, and prowl the streets slaying those whom he disliked?
Second question, were the key figures in the OT evil for stoning lawbreakers and heretics?
AgApE010 6 months ago
'Respecter of persons'is irrelevant to Election as a it deals with the appearances of one's face or effort. Election is 'unconditional' which means it is NOT based upon appearances or effort.So,you're argument does not apply at all.Yet,the Scriptures,you merely 'say' you heed,contradicts your specious notions.You're problem is not with John Calvin,it's with the Bible you say you follow,but you don't! Ephesians 1:4-11.You have not taken the position of 'The Bible Says So'.You deceive yourself.
RefutingSkellyism 1 year ago
@RefutingSkellyism Eph. 1 is not individual election but group election of the church to salvation.
clearedtoengage 10 months ago
@clearedtoengage The Election of the Church is a collection of INDIVIDUALS! So, your point is meaningless. Why even bother making that point? What difference does it make to Election, and Predestination. BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, if it's the Church in it's entirety, or the individuals that make up the Church. The argument is utterly spurious.
RefutingSkellyism 10 months ago
@RefutingSkellyism No, sorry. You can be in the church and out of the church. The CHURCH is elected, not the individual members therein. Eph. 5
clearedtoengage 10 months ago
@clearedto The Church is a collection of individuals.Eph.5 speaks not about election. Eph 4:16,Clearly describes the Body of Christ, as a fitly joined & compacted by that which EVERY JOINT supplies, according to....the measure of EVERY PART! You see, every PART contributes to the growth of the whole.God dispenses faith & Gifts INDIVIDUALLY Rom12:3,&1Cor12:11(respt).God Elects individuals as Parts of His Body. Eph1 shows distinctions between Apostles & the Ephesians v12-15, yet both are Elect.
RefutingSkellyism 10 months ago
Sorry bro I accidently rated one star for this video. But this is 5 star material.
AaronM144000 2 years ago
Premil is false. Jesus is coming in flaming fiery judgment to take vengeance on all who don't OBEY the gospel, and there will be NO second chance for anyone who was not already ready at the second coming/last day/second resurrection/judgment day. Anyone who had not already been risen from the old man by faith in Christ (the first resurrection) may CALL Him Lord, but be told "depart from Me, you workers of iniquity" when He comes with His angels to separate the sheep from the goats.
LivingFaith2 2 years ago
I find it funny that Calvanists would complain about someone disagreeing with John Calvin. Why would they complain? Are they trying to convince those that disagree to change their mind? How can anyone change their mind if they do not have free will as John Calvin says? Just by complaining they are acknowledging the fact that we all have free will!
PeterCornstalk 2 years ago
AMEN! Calvinism contradicts both itself AND scripture. If no one is free to choose right from wrong, as Calvinism teaches, then to what purpose do Calvinists attempt to convince anyone of anything, right or wrong? Calvinists, though they often deny it, believe "once saved always saved", and those who will hear such a doctrine and agree subject themselves to a fall like Eve did when she agreed with Satan that she would not surely die if she CHOSE to disobey God.
LivingFaith2 2 years ago
Carnal knowledge is a major reason for the denial of Biblical truth - clearly take Eph 2:1 as an example - B4 God makes us alive in v.5 there is no denying that we are spiritually dead in v.1 - when was the last time U saw a dead man make an assist - did Lazarus assist Christ in rising from physical death? Obviously not! So use your carnal knowledge and deny the truth because U have yet to understand that His ways are not our ways - the same for his thoughts and yours - as for me I'll take His.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
whatever
you guys are just trying to make calvin look good
he's as bad as luther was
quit changing the facts
JESUS nor any of the disciples were calvinist
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
Nice video! I am more of a 5point Spurgeonist myself, LOL! I borrowed that joke from brother Paul Washer. My feelings toward Calvin are the same towards Jacob Arminian, I am not concerned who was more christian than the other. Im all about proving all things and holding fast that which is good. I believe to be "elected" or saved, there is nothing a man can do to merit salvation, lest ye repent.(Luke 13:3,5, Acts2:38)
zmode82 2 years ago
what did you believe before calvin the murderer was born?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
Calvin was NO MURDERER - he warned the man NOT to return to Geneva because he would tied for apostasy - his warning was ignored. When called to testify against him, Calvin only spoke the truth recorded in scripture - he could do nothing less. After his conviction Calvin pleaded that they NOT burn him at the stake - he begged them to choose some other form of execution.....so why do you perpetuate A LIE because you disagree with Calvin's theology?
For God's sake do you think that is fair?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Friend, if you are a member of the C of C denomination it is indeed laughable that you would accuse someone else of "dismissing" some scripture while "hanging" onto others! No group has more used that method to build such an ugly and errant theology than has the C of C.
I have never heard a C of C preacher speak on Eph. 2 without running to find some verse on water baptism. It's no wonder that you guys can't understand the Holy Spirit, Grace, Baptism, Election, or Assurance of Salvation.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Name one thing we believe in or practice that isn't found in the scriptures. I can name several scriptures that go against each point in TULIP. Imagine that.
I have heard preachers read Ephesians 2 without referring to water baptism. It is unfortunate that there are people that hang their hat only on Ephesians 2 without taking the rest of the scriptures to expose the meaning in those verses. Scripture interprets itself so it's important to take all of it together.
Concatenate 2 years ago
Imagine that - no reference to baptism in Eph 2? Why should there be a reference it? Paul wrote the entire letter to the church at Ephesus and never mentioned baptism once in the entire 6 chapters - I wonder why? Could it be he was trying to play "Hide & Seek"? Maybe he really hated the Ephesians and did not want them to know about the import of baptism?
OR could it be that baptism is not essential, except for those who adhere to your denomination's limited theology?
1 Cor 1:17
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Why should there be a reference to baptism in Ephesians 2? I guess it depends on the subject of the lesson being presented.
So baptism is never mentioned in all of Ephesians, huh? Not even once? What does it say in Ephesians 4:5 then? Oops, looks like I gotcha. You really should be more careful about what you say.
I see you couldn't name one thing that I believe in that isn't found in the scriptures. Imagine that.
Oh and you might want to check the context of 1 Cor 1:17. Yep.
Concatenate 2 years ago
"...Paul wrote the entire letter to the church at Ephesus and never mentioned baptism once in the entire 6 chapters....and did not want them to know the import of baptism?" - Dixiebow
Shameful....Ephesians 4:5 ring a bell? Of course not, because like most of the truths of God's word you choose to remain ignorant.....and by the way, Acts 19 records the Ephesians being baptized twice...You must be a real scholar to think baptism was never mentioned to the Ephesians....sad
TruthChamp 2 years ago
#1. I was referring to Paul leaving out any reference to the need for baptism associated with salvation and/or regeneration anywhere in Ephesians, especially in chapter 2 - your least favorite chapter in the Bible, and #2 I was having an intelligent exchange with another poster which would obviously necessitate excluding a white-washed tomb, law-keeping, ceremonial Pharisee like yourself!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
I had had an interesting dialog with an Athiest who observed your comments.
From: CheesesPeaks2U
I read the comment from studyjesus - Seems a little un-christianlike, don't you think?
Very interesting StudyJesus....not only do Christians find you to be UN-Christian, but athiests seem to recognize that fact as well - seems to speak volumes about you huh?
Could be my mistake, I just assumed you studied Jesus Christ, maybe its Jesus Alou the former PM of Peru you study instead?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
"...who observed your comments....Could be my mistake...."
Huh? What comments? Ummmmmm....Truthchamp here....NOT StudyJesus....Are you really this lame or is it an act? Unreal, but totally believable that you are in fact that far off the reservation....
As for your previous comment....your QUOTE was that Paul NEVER mentioned baptism in 6 chptrs.....I merely pointed out (again) how shameful your biblical integrity is and as usual you crayfish and make excuses and ramble on childishly...
TruthChamp 2 years ago
Pardon my confusing you TruthChamp (not likely) with StudyJesus, another Pharisee and work/righteous salvation proponent . Alas the same comments apply to him work just as well for you I'm sure.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
"Pardon my confusing...."
Dixie....I would almost believe your sincere sarcarsm were you not so pathetic in your false accusations and Biblical integrity....
TruthChamp 2 years ago
blah, blah, blah....end of thread.....adios Pharisee! How's that for sincerity?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
".....adio Pharisee!"
lol....more humor from the highly unlikely apostate calvinistic true believer....
Your demoninationalism is pure comedy....an illness even
TruthChamp 2 years ago
dickibow, where are all the scriptures that say baptisim is not necessary for salvation. I see alot of opinions coming from you in this thread with no scripture to back it. Why is that? Why are you attacking peoples character with words from an Athiest? Is that supposed to prove that your opinions are the truth. The truth is in the Word of God... the Holy Spirit not in man. Show me where the Holy Spirit says anything close to "baptism is not necessary for salvation"!
PeterCornstalk 2 years ago
False teachers often preach "another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit" 2Cor 11:3,4,13-15. Many today have been bewitched as the once-believing Galatians were Gal 3:1-3...by seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, which cause their followers to depart FROM the faith they once had and to "speak lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron" 1Tim 4:1,2. Paul knew he could become a castaway if he failed to keep himself in subjection to God. 1Cor 9:27. So Gal 1:8,9!
LivingFaith2 2 years ago
My guess is you are referring to Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone?
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
John 1:12 (NIV) "to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children born NOT of natural descent, NOR OF HUMAN DECISION, or a husband's will, BUT born OF GOD."
If you prefer the KJ "not of blood, NOR of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.
As you supposedly "take all of it together" "to expose the meaning", how do you reconcile your DECISION to follow Christ with that verse. My guess is you ignore it.
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
Reconcile it? Easy, you just quoted it. "To all who receive him." Verse 13 is talking about the right to become children of God, which is God's will, but it is clearly our choice to receive him. As my brother, rotary57, quotes in this video, Joshua 24:15, "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve."
Or you can continue to believe in your partial god that has already saved the elect before they've even had a chance to believe. It's your c-h-o-i-c-e either way. :-)
Concatenate 2 years ago
Amen, brother. I hate the whole "Campbellite" attack. They can't name one thing that we practice that isn't supported in the Bible. Calvin and Luther, while being right to turn their backs on Catholicism, swung to the entire opposite end of the spectrum. All of TULIP is proven wrong by scripture anyway.
Concatenate 2 years ago
Absurd - how is TULIP proven wrong I scripture - I have scripture that proves it is true - just because you have been instructed in the most supreme level of legalism since the Pharisees does not make it so - rediculous!
dickiebow2003 2 years ago
You have to bend scripture all over the place to "prove" TULIP. There are so many verses that disprove TULIP, that you guys have to go to great lengths to dismiss those passages of scripture and hang on to dear life to the scriptures you believe prove TULIP, while those scriptures are misunderstood by you. Instructed in the most supreme level of legalism? LOL! Yeah, I'm a legalist, do what the Bible says and that makes me a legalist. Okay, fine by me.
Concatenate 2 years ago
dear Jeff
thanks for putting this up.
check out you tube video of Baptist pastor behaving badly on our new you tube site Bible Says Tv
BibleSaysTV 2 years ago
Candle lighting and incense burning are fund in the Wicca en church the satanic church and in the catholic church.
1 John.5:21, Mar 12:38; who likes to walk in long clothes ? or should I say who does walk in long clothes and or say robes? People in the Wicca en church, in the satanic church, the kkk, the catholic church popes and so called father's read Mat 23:9-14 but you and keep reading if you want to. Remember to got right doctrine you need the right bible not a Alexandrian false bible.
TheSearcher24 3 years ago
Yea Evangelism is the means by which God calls his elect to faith in Christ. Anyways, you should install Paltalk, my name is Kainos1987. Hope to hear from ya.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, God Bless
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Another thing I would like to point out is what made Cornelius call for Peter in the first place? It was an Angel of God, not Cornelius. You also say there are no verses proving individual predestination. Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Kainos1987 3 years ago
But we can conclude from the verse you posted acts 11:13-14, that he was saved at the end of acts chapter 10. Notice though, in acts 11:9 it says God is the one who makes us clean. acts 11:18, actually proves first God must grant the act of repentance. because if you compare with the rest of the bible like ephesians 2 and john 6, no sinner will ever freely choose christ unless he is first effectually called(born again). Like in this story of Cornellius that we have been studying together.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
I agree with you on the fact that Cornellius in acts 10:1-2 was not a saved individual. He was at this time a near-proselyte to Judaism, a Gentile who worshipped God but rejected circumcision. Acts (13:16,26)
Kainos1987 3 years ago
I would rephrase the second statement you made and say not only can God cleanse Jews, but also Gentiles. The point I was trying to make was that God is the one who makes us clean, not us. Since you're argument was acts 10:1-2 disproves total depravity. Compare with Ephesians chapter 2.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
So jrutled, Acts 10 actually proves God first makes things "clean", Compare this to Ephesians 2. Thank you bro, and I hope this helps out.
FINAL. Of course theres a whole of hosts of other things that I noticed while reading this chapter, but I wont type them all out God bless.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Now jrutled, notice what was said in verse 15. Now Look at Peter says to the men later on in verse 28 when he meets them, Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (end of part 6)
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Act 10:15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. (end of part 5)
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Act 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (end of part 3)
Kainos1987 3 years ago
It seems to be that the argument presented here is to disprove the doctrine of total depravity by using the passage found in acts 10 about a man named Cornelius, it says that he was a God-fearing man, yet not just him, but his whole family. It indicates he was also generous and prayed to God regularly. end of part 1
Kainos1987 3 years ago
I would like to say, using a verse here or there and not taking the whole chapter in context to disprove a doctrine is not a very good idea, though we have all probably have done this. So with that being said, lets go look at the vision of Peter later on in the same chapter (end of part 2)
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Calvinism is a cult
calvinismisacult 3 years ago
And the reason God shows mercy to some and not others is to show his justice. I think Romans chapter 9 is pretty clear on that. When God says hes not a respector of person, it means nations, peoples, tribes, and tounges. God does'nt just save one race of people, he saves all, Revelation 5:9 says this.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
What would you call a judge that randomly sent some people to jail and released others, regardless of what they had done? Would "justice" be the right word here?
rotary57 3 years ago 4
Well the thing is none of us are worthy of heaven. We have all sinned against a Holy God. God simply does this. He Foreknows Us, He Predestines Us, He calls Us, He Justifies Us, then he glorifes US. Romans 8:28-30. Notice God is the one doing all of this.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Calvinism doesnt say man doesnt have a will or that he cant make choices. Calvinism teaches that man prior to being born again are slaves to sin. Just read Genesis 4:7 and Proverbs 1:29. Calvinism does deny free will, which means that you can only choose according to you're nature.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Choice is defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" - if you can only choose one thing, it's not a choice.
rotary57 3 years ago 4
I agree and sinful men make choices all the time. Free will says you can choose things without any external influences. If you have free will rotary then never sin again.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Notice the choice Joshua gave them Rotary, where did Joshua say you can choose the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. or the God of Israel, or Yahweh? Answer me why Joshua never gave them that choice. Notice the choices Joshua gave them.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
He does, Kainos - Joshua 24:14-16.... The choice is made in vs 16, and confirmed in vs 22.
22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
rotary57 3 years ago
Yea they did say that, but my point was look at the choices Joshua gave them, he never gave them the choice to choose the LORD. Only those heathen Gods because unless you're born again you cant choose the LORD the right way. They did say we would choose the LORD, but notice what Joshua tells them. Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, and read the parable of the sower too.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
See Look. Jos 24:19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he [is] an holy God; he [is] a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
Kainos1987 3 years ago
Good video this stuff isnt a game its very serious.
michaelflat 3 years ago
Luke 2:14, that "first hymn of the incarnation": "if salvation glorifies God, glorifies him in the highest degree, and makes the highest creatures praise him, this one reflection may be added—then, that doctrine, which glorifies man in salvation cannot be the gospel. For salvation glorifies God. The angels were no Arminians, they sang, "Glory to God in the highest." They believe in no doctrine which uncrowns Christ, and puts the crown upon the head of mortals.
flamingtiger123456 3 years ago
The only glad tidings that made the angels sing, are those that put God first, God last, God midst, and God without end, in the salvation of his creatures, and put the crown wholly and alone upon the head of him that saves without a helper. "Glory to God in the highest," is the angels' song."
flamingtiger123456 3 years ago
They believe in no system of faith which makes salvation dependent upon the creature, and, which really gives the creature the praise, for what is it less than for a man to save himself, if the whole dependence of salvation rests upon his own free will? No, my brethren; they may be some preachers, that delight to preach a doctrine that magnifies man; but in their gospel angels have no delight.
flamingtiger123456 3 years ago
Don't worship a book, but worship the word of Christ. In the beginning Grace was nescessary for the salvation of souls. Accepted by the faith. The faith went to work. and finally into a book, the Bible.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Those who believes they are saved without work is a presumption sin. The ignorance also considered to be sin since you have not look for God in truth with all your heart, mind, and soul. Presumption is a branches of Pride.
The pride is the sin committed by Lucifier,(Satan), The pride is a father of all sin.
Adam and Eve also committed this sin. We are their children.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Lucifer? The bringer of the morning light is the Devil?
That name is mentioned once in the Bible - in Isaiah 14. Read it and see who it's talking about.
What does the fact that we are physically descended from Adam and Eve have to do with anything?
Eze 18:20 "...The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
rotary57 3 years ago
John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Your comment about the pope is incorrect. The pope is sucessor of Peter. Jesus said,"Peter I will give you the key of kindom of heaven,.... Catholic doctrine is infallible.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
If Catholic doctrine is infallible, then why does it changed around so much? You guys believed that unbaptized babies were going to hell until a few months ago.
rotary57 3 years ago
And Peter wasn't infallible, so why do you think the supposed successor of Peter would be? Paul had to rebuke him to his face because he was afraid of what some Jews would think.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
rotary57 3 years ago
Catholics say: "Bishops must NOT be married"
The Bible says: "a bishop must be married"
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
vs 4 "having children"
vs 5 "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Catholic doctrine infallible? Their bishops don't even have a family of their own to rule, so how can they rule the family of God?
rotary57 3 years ago
So Bishops can concentrate the salvations of soul. Jesus was unmarried. They imitate him.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
So the Bible was wrong to say that they must be married?
rotary57 3 years ago
no, I forget where, It is better if you don't marry but it is better to be married if you are going to sin, and the life of trail will follow it. Something like that.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me."
Jesus, Also said,"The gate of hell will not prevail over my church."
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Unbapized babies go to Limbo not hell.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
A)The Protestant Bible is missing seven books. (Tibet, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees) Martin Luther changed the Bible. First, he took 7 books (Tobit, Judith,Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1&2 Maccabees) out of the Old Testament because they caused problems for his new theology. The Catholic Bible contains all the books of the Old Testament that Christ read from and therefore is correct.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
Please show me where Christ read from any of those.
rotary57 3 years ago
Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure shoThe one Scripture verse Protestants never seem to find in the Bible is ( 1 Cor 4:4-5). It destroys their idea of proclaiming themselves saved.
uld take care not to fall" (1 Cor 10: 11)
teresasfsol 3 years ago
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." (2 peter 20-21)
teresasfsol 3 years ago
My brother Jeff, I'm sorry I never commented on your video here; lemme do that now. Amen! And thanks.
ParodyKnaveBob 3 years ago
Catholicism, not Calvinism, is the great false religion. Reformed protestant religion is the true gospel. The Roman Catholic Church is a false religion that worships engraven images, statues, gold and riches. A pope will be the anti-Christ in revelations. Flee from the harlot while you can.
JDtheMusicMan 3 years ago
JDtheMusicMan, they're both false. Please study them out more.
ParodyKnaveBob 3 years ago
jdthemusci, you are another misguided, misinfomed children of many. Do you even know where you Bible come from? Calvinsim is heresy.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
You are the offshoot of Catholics and offshoot of original Luther's. Do you know how many different denomination of proestants today? 40,000, and growing. In case your founder,Luther is excommunicated Catholic priest.
teresasfsol 3 years ago
poor explanation
daqlon 3 years ago
of what point in particular?
rotary57 3 years ago
Short. No, it isn't wrong. Calvin was a great hypocrite.
rebelwhitedalmat 3 years ago 2
Great Video!
tlthe5th 3 years ago
which one free will teached by John Calvin or someone?
praiselordgrace 3 years ago
If you chose God then "while you were dead in your sins" there would have been something good within you to choose God. The Reformed concept of "Total Depravity" is completely Biblical. Christ made you alive while you were dead (completely dead--not part dead). If you're dead in sin then how do you have the "goodness" necessary to decide to choose Him? 1. Regeneration 2. Justification 3. Sanctification. In that order.
idsman75 4 years ago
Though man has no good in them, it is true that man has free will(If one may disagree with that then they may try to dispute)with that said men may.Though I see what SLutherG says back there i do not agree. Man does not always want sin, man wants what is best for himself which is usually sin. But if eating is a sin then I will die of starvation. Eating (I'm sure you may agree) is not a sin but it is also a part of free will.
jrp7808 3 years ago
"Free will" is an illusion in our own minds. People are generally quite predictable. They will always respond based on their imput. And God is sovereign, when God calls you you will willingly go to Christ. Who among you thinks they can confound the will of the creator of the universe? You must be joking. I'm always amused at how many Christians think they choose God, when in fact, God does the choosing.
JDtheMusicMan 3 years ago
Only the Catholic that has not changed her doctrines to suit the prevailing winds of culture for 2000 years. Protestant churches do change. The reason they don't think they do is because when their church starts going down the road of accommodating the culture and compromising Truth, a remnant will leave the decadent church and start a new one. But, because there is no final authority that speaks for God it is just a matter of time before the new and faithful church will be corrupted by Enemy
teresasfsol 3 years ago
If they were, everyone who ever read them would all come to exactly the same conclusion as to their meaning. However, after 500 years of Protestants believing that every individual is able, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to read Scripture and come to all truth, the fact is, there is NO UNITY. There are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations. And every single one of them proclaim their church to be led by the Holy Spirit. But, since God is not a God of confusion something is wrong
teresasfsol 3 years ago
I highly recommend a great book called "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink. It is a wonderful biblical exegesis of exactly God's ability and actions in his sovereignty.
larrywalkerntbi 4 years ago
At 6:10 your presuming that God would not ever tell us to do something that we could not do. But I don't believe that is a valid assumption, is that any different than telling us to "keep the law" when we are unable to?Human beings do have a choice to choose between good and evil, they just always choose evil,unless God intervenes.
larrywalkerntbi 4 years ago
At 5:02ish you sound almost like you are quoting romans 9 and then you say this can't be...Basically, just read all or Romans 9.
larrywalkerntbi 4 years ago
oh please there is not one verse in the N.T. that says that we have the ability to choose God, man is dead in sins, he does have a freewill, but only to do evil. Man can not do good
hehas100 4 years ago
And John 10 verses 37 and 38 means? And Acts 2:41 means? Please explain these verses as a starter and then John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9. I don't see how Calvinism can stand in light of these verses let alone others. If you can show me that I'm wrong I'd be pleased to know.
tommymech 4 years ago
Also consider John 10 verses 26 - 29. Jesus says "... you are not of my sheep ...". Strong for Calvinism? Carry on reading John 10 (again) verses 37 - 38. If there is no free will and an ability to choose then what the Lord says in verses 37 and 38 are utter nonsense. What Paul wrote is inspired scripture but it has to fit in with what John quotes the Lord as saying. It can't be the other way around! There is much more but not enough space here.
tommymech 4 years ago
Do you believe that Man can do good?
hehas100 4 years ago
No good of his own self that will qualify him or her for salvation. Only One is good that is God. Your point is? What say you on John 10 verses 37 -38?
tommymech 4 years ago
No good of his own self that will qualify him or her for salvation. Only One is good that is God. Your point is? What say you on John 10 verses 37 -38?
tommymech 4 years ago
Are there any absolute statements in the Bible that causes Calvinism to be unsustainable? John 3:16, "That God so loved ... that whoever believes in Him should not perish ..." If Calvinism is correct then this verse is meaningless. Next look at 2 Peter 3:9 "... not wanting that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". How can Cavinism stand with that scripture? It can't whilst Arminianism certainly can and does (Google +Arminian +predestination if you don't know).
tommymech 4 years ago
The question is not did God die for everybody in the world. But did Christ's blood pour out for all or just those who would believe. Read John 6:37, John 1:10-13, the Bible totally teaches calvinism. Pre-mill is wrong thank you brother for making this video. Reformed theogly is back
hehas100 4 years ago
His blood was poured out for all. After you have read John 6:37 you should continue reading and you will come to ".. therefore everyone who has heard AND learned from the Father comes to me." (verse 45). So those who God draws and gives to the Son are the ones who have heard and learned - not compelled. What about John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9?
tommymech 4 years ago
Re John 1:10-13. Man has no ability to bring him/herself to New Birth. That's all down to God. All we can do is respond to the Saviours call or reject it. If I am drowning and someone throws me a lifeline and I grab it in what way can I boast? Yet I made a choice to grab the lifeline. Christ offers all the lifeline.
tommymech 4 years ago
I don't understand how Jesus' death can be divorced from his shedding His blood. In dying he shed His precious blood but he shed much blood when he was scourged but if he had stopped there and not died on the cross as well there would be no salvation for anyone. Please explain to me the distinction you are making.
tommymech 4 years ago
Re "choose ye this day". You need to read Luther's book "Bondage of the Will". Exhortation does not equal ability. And it's not pronounced peh LOG ee us, but peh LAY jee us. And Servetus was teaching heresy (modalism). He was doing harm, and was given many opportunities to stop his idiocy.
CAndiron 4 years ago
1: I don't need to read Luther - you need to read the Bible
2: If God exhorts where there is no ability, he is doing something pointless.
3: God does not allow Christians to execute heretics.
rotary57 4 years ago
I see your "logic" in not wanting to read Luther,but it is arrogance to think that you can gain nothing from men who devoted their lives to reading,studying and translating the scriptures.God is not doing something pointless if he exhorts where there is no ability because He is showing inability.I think you should study more about the relationship between Calvin and the man he had executed. Calvin ruled a theocracy.
larrywalkerntbi 4 years ago
That's nonsense - a theocracy is government ruled by God, so if Calvin ruled a theocracy, then Calvin was a god. You would be well advised to study history - Geneva was ruled by a city council, not John Calvin.
rotary57 4 years ago
Concerning "Free will" this is not the ability to choose God, but the ability to choose what you want and all the natural man wants is sin.
SLutherG 3 years ago
If all you can do is sin, then there's nothing free about it. That's like saying you're free to do A or B, but you can only do B - it doesn't make any sense.
Your statement is clearly contradicted by Joshua 24:22:
And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
rotary57 3 years ago
The Josh. 24 passage is speaking to the Children of Israel the "chosen people of God." Look at what the Bible says about the nature of unregenerate man Eph. 2, Romans 1-3.
SLutherG 3 years ago
Sorry friend, I had another thought. Martin Luther wrote a book called the Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards wrote a book the Freedom of the Will. These titles seem to be contradicting but both believed in Predestination. The will is both free and in bondage. Man has the option of A and B but only the ability to do A. The scriptures I listed earlier may clarify. Have a good day brother.
SLutherG 3 years ago
Or can we just choose fail and rechoose at our own will?? I just have one question is freewill in the Bible? I sure wish it was, but I dont think so. Speaking Life sounds great! But speaking truth shakes the vine of the weak. "To some He will say, away with you! I never knew you!!" Sounds like Old Testament God may still be the same eh??
riley7 4 years ago
This is a great discussion... I really think that through humility, the best conclusion to this Un-Solvable age old fight is this.. We must accept that there are 2 different messages in the Bible. Through Pride elimination and truwe God inspired humility, we realize that perhaps the chosen are the ones that have eyes to see the sovereign God deciding all?? Could it be a test of the elect? Who will realize that the Elect are slaves to the Lord unaccepting of any Sins!!
riley7 4 years ago
The order of these comments is hard to follow.
Did you ever answer which comes first:
regeneration or the exercising of faith
In other words, can a fallen man, cry out in repentance without the Holy Spirit first regenerating him so that he can see his sinful state?
That is crucial to this discussion.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.
(Rom.5:6, Rom. 8:7, John 15:5) As a natural man, being altogether averse from good (Rom. 3:10,12), and dead in sin (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13), is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (1 Cor. 2:14, Tit. 3:3-5)
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Is salvation totally dependent upon man, God, or a combination of the two?
If you had to choose one, which comes first faith or regeneration? Can you prove it scripturally without contradicting, not simply by proof-texting, but using the entire context of the Bible both Old and New Testaments.
Go all the way back to Adam after he sinned. Who called for him in the garden? Remember Adam (as now fallen man) was hiding from God.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Isn't the Holy Spirit necessary for salvation?
Here is the question:
Do we exercise faith because we have been regenerated? or
Are we regenerated because we exercise faith?
One is God-centered, the other man-centered.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Me too! However, inasmuch as Calvin's writings adhere to Scripture, we can agree with them. I don't worship Calvin, and I don't believe him to be infallible. He was a mere mortal like the rest of us, although extremely gifted in intellect and understanding.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Here again: Christ said that all who the Father had GIVEN Him would be saved... Doesn't this imply predestination?
theonomicgal 4 years ago
I've never said that Calvin was uneducated or less than intelligent, I've said that he was wrong. You admit that about instruments, so doesn't that prove the whole point of the video? Rather then talk about Calvin's Institutes (which I *do* have), why don't we talk about the scriptures I brought up? There are other brilliant men who have written books over 600 pages as well, and who would disagree with Calvin, so I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
rotary57 4 years ago
His decision is made on the basis of the person, not what he does, so he is not a respecter of persons? Not a respecter means anyone who does "x" will be saved, regardless of who you are. Calvinism is a message of doom and gloom - you have been assigned you fate beforehand, and if you are bound for hell, there is nothing you can do.
rotary57 4 years ago
How many unbelievers do you know who are actually walking around with their head hanging low because they are not one of the elect? Again, God must quicken one's heart before he/she even realizes the state of their souls before a Holy God.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Why was the young man sad? If he was not one of the elect, he wouldn't care because he didn't believe, and if he was, he would do what Jesus asked. Instead, we see a tortured soul who knows what is right, but loved his possessions too much to do it - he knew the consequences of his actions, did God quicken him to realize this?
rotary57 4 years ago
That is a great point. I hadn't thought of the rich young ruler, but I think that I can explain it.
Was he sad because he didn't have eternal life? or Was he sad because he had great possessions and they were required?
theonomicgal 4 years ago
I considered that as well before I posted it, but I think it is clear from the phrasing "And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved" (Mar 10:22) and from the words of the Lord "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" that the ruler did not come back.
rotary57 4 years ago
Here is some of what Matthew Henry says:
He was a rich man, and loved his riches, and therefore went away. He did not like eternal life upon these terms. Many a one is ruined by the sin he commits with reluctance; leaves Christ sorrowfully, and yet is never truly sorry for leaving him, for, if he were, he would return to Him.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
If he did sell his possessions, would it not be fair to say it would be done grudgingly, an act not commended by Scripture? In book 2, chapter 2 of Calvin's Institutes he rejects the idea that man is the "master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil" and has "no remaining good in himself" so what is occurring here?
rotary57 4 years ago
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil. Matthew 17: 12, James 1:14, Deut. 30:19
theonomicgal 4 years ago
The good this man displays in the seeking after eternal life, following all the commandments since a child, running to and kneeling before Jesus, proves according to Calvin that God is working in him "no remaining good" - and thus a member of the elect. Yet the work is somehow left incomplete, and the man has a heart that is not right with God. If God was working in him up to this point, why would he not cause the man to joyfully renounce his riches and follow Christ?
rotary57 4 years ago
The rich young ruler loved his riches more than eternal life. He was unwilling to part with them. That is what the story demonstrates. He was not one of the elect. I am a little confused as to the "no remaining good" part. Could you clarify?
theonomicgal 4 years ago
I was referring to the earlier quote from Calvin's institutes - basically that man can't do anything good on his own. Youtube has gotten the comments all out of whack, so it's a little confusing. I'm going to wait a bit and see if it sorts itself out - if not I'll post again.
rotary57 4 years ago
I am totally lost in these comments...I did find this one.
Paul says that anything done not in faith is sin... So the unbelieving father playing ball in the yard, is counted as sin, even though we would probably say it was his duty and a "good" thing. The rich young ruler, even if he had sold his possessions, had he not faith, it would have been sin.
Romans 14:23: But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for WHATEVER is not from FAITH is SIN.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Or how about Judas?
Mat 27:3-4 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.
Judas knew that he had sinned, and repented! Will you affirm that he was one of the elect, and quickened by God because of his knowledge?
rotary57 4 years ago
No, Judas was definitely not one of the elect. His repentance was not one unto life. He was sorry that he had betrayed innocent blood. Lost people feel guilt. To me Judas proves election. Judas was created to be the "son of perdition" (Acts 1:16). His betrayal was prophesied about in the OT. God elected Judas for eternal damnation.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
This is an excellent point. Whether you are a king or a peasant, an adult or a child, a Jew or a Gentile, a male or a female, God saves all kinds of people.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
I have found that most who disagree with Calvin, have never read his Institutes. I agree with your assessment.
Calvin was one of the greatest theologians ever to walk on this earth. Sadly, he is often one of the most despised and misrepresented as well.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
When you evangelize, do you beg the person to just "make a decision" for Christ? Or, do you pray to God and ask Him to grant the person repentance?
Most Arminians pray like Calvinists. Ultimately, all believers know that God is the one responsible for converting souls. For man to add anything to it makes it a "works" salvation which the Bible repudiates.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Servetus was more than a simple heretic. He was a scholar who, WHILE PRETENDING TO BE A CHRISTIAN, attacked the foundations of Christianity. During Servetus' trial, Calvin refused to decide a single detail, yet he is still blamed for his death. Servetus was a forerunner of Unitarianism, a pioneer in the 'historical school' of Biblical criticism, a spreader of Judaic criticisms of Christianity and one of the great theological disturbers of all time.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
It doesn't matter if he was Satan himself - what matters is that he was killed because of a religious disagreement, which we have no right to do. Christians are to withdraw from and dispute with false teachers, not hunt them down with sword in hand. Capital punishment belongs to the state, not the church.
rotary57 4 years ago
I totally agree with you that capital punishment belongs to the state and not the church. Servetus was justly tried in court, and found guilty of teaching antitrinitarian, heretical idolatry. He was sentenced to death by burning. Calvin didn't have anything to do with that sentence. The propagation of idolatrous heresy is a capital crime according to the Bible(Lev. 24:16, Deut. 12:1-11).
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Servetus was only one of the tens of thousands who went to their deaths in Calvin's time, and none of their judge ever received the denunciations heaped upon Calvin—who had no civil authority, and was not a judge in Geneva. Men and women of the Twentieth Century, who have witnessed without moving a finger the arbitrary murders of tens of millions have no ground upon which to stand and judge John Calvin.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, yet everything to do with the bible. Calvinism has never been defeated because you cannot defeat the scriptures.
Oct31st1517 4 years ago
If Calvinism = the Bible, could you please share a verse with us that says God does not desire everyone to repent and be saved?
rotary57 4 years ago
How about the book of Romans (especially chapter 9)....
If Jesus Christ had died for ALL, then ALL would be saved. His blood is that effectual. I have a hard time imagining Jesus sitting at God's right hand, with his fingers crossed, just hoping that someone would choose Him. If that were the case, then we have God bound to man's decision. God would then cease being God. God is sovereign over all, including salvation.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
I found some more:
A Chosen People:
Deuteronomy 10:14-15; Psalm 33:12; Psalm 65:4; Psalm 106:5; Haggai 2:23; Matthew 11:27; Matthew 22:14; Matthew 22:22; Matthew 22:24; Matthew 24:31; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:28-30; Romans 8:33; Romans 11:28; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:8-9; Revelation 17:14
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Yes I can. 2 Pet 3:9. Context means everything. Who is the promise made to? Only believers.(Rom 9:8)The "US" are believers. He is not willing that any of "us", the church should perish. But that "all" the church should come to repentence. Let me guess. I'm reading into the text?
Oct31st1517 4 years ago
I agree that context is important, and it is context that tells us that the promise of 2 Pet 3:9 is not the promise of Rom 9:8.
Rom 9:8 speaks of the "children of the promise" and Rom 9:9 states "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son." This is the promise that God made to Abraham, and yes, the children of it are believers - I'm glad you admit that we have to believe to receive that promise of God.
rotary57 4 years ago
2 Pet 3 refers to the promise that the Lord will return - notice
vs 3 "in the last days"
vs 4 "where is the promise of his coming?"
vs 7 "reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"
vs 10 "the heavens shall pass away"
vs 11 "all these things shall be dissolved"
vs 12 "the elements shall melt"
vs 13 "according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth"
rotary57 4 years ago
Notice vs 7 - it speaks of the ungodly whom God will judge. Are they recipients of the promise of his coming? Surely they are, or they would have nothing to worry about. So if after referring to the ungodly, it is mentioned that God waits to return because he wishes that none should perish, but should repent, who else could he be speaking of? Those in the church have already repented! God is giving them a chance to do the same.
rotary57 4 years ago
If you take this to mean just the church, then you are admitting (1) that Christians can fall (because those spoken of here need to repent), and (2) that if they die in such a state, their souls will perish in hell, neither of which are consistent with Calvinism.
rotary57 4 years ago
I agree. The "all" is the elect. If God meant for everyone who ever existed to be saved, all would. He is God the Creator who spoke the world and all that is in it into existence. Jesus' blood is so effectual that all whom the Father has GIVEN Him, He shall not lose one.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Election Based on Sovereign Mercy:
Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Matthew 20:15; Romans 9:10-24; Romans 11:4-6; Romans 11:33-36; Ephesians 1:5.
theonomicgal 4 years ago
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I asked you to provide a verse which states that God does not desire everyone to repent and be saved.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
rotary57 4 years ago