Okay, let's talk about predestination

[MoreCoffee]

What Presbyterian do you know?

I know four Presbyterian ministers. One was a close friend and we still keep in contact another was a close friend but age and ill health has made our contact sporadic recently.

I was a Presbyterian for many years.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Now, take those verses and make the "all" universal. If you are true to your hermaneutics you will promote universalism. All humanity is saved, no matter what.
But, you won't do that. You will want your cake and eat it to.

I leave "all" as it is when I read scripture.

 

[Albion]

Now, take those verses and make the "all" universal. If you are true to your hermaneutics you will promote universalism. All humanity is saved, no matter what.
But, you won't do that. You will want your cake and eat it to.

Well, that's the problem with Bible literalists. They invariably are strictly literal with some parts of the Bible but not at all with others--as you have done yourself.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, that's the problem with Bible literalists. They invariably are strictly literal with some parts of the Bible but not at all with others--as you have done yourself.

Nobody is consistently "literal" for what their English bible says.

 

[user1234]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

No, a typical Presbyterian would share the gospel using something like this - Hi, when you die and God asks you "why should I let you into my heaven?" what will you say?

(gosh, so fun)

Anyways, okay, not to worry, Imalive , He's not gonna ask us.
He'll just let us in. He's good that way. † :hearts:

(backup answer, just in case) :
Her? Because she's Dutch.
Me? Because I'm with her.
We go together. Oh, plus...
...we're osas. :cheer:
Praise the Lord!

 

[Lamb]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

I love this post and the reason is because it is spot on...how do you share the Gospel with others if it isn't meant for them maybe according to those who don't believe in universal atonement. They can't. Not in all its fullness and glory at least. They can hint about it though but that isn't what Jesus said to do. He told the disciples to preach the Gospel. We see evidence of that in scriptures and in the early church where Jesus, the lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. As the disciples went out "into the world" they could openly proclaim that good news without worry.

 

[user1234]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

I love this post and the reason is because it is spot on...how do you share the Gospel with others if it isn't meant for them maybe according to those who don't believe in universal atonement. They can't. Not in all its fullness and glory at least. They can hint about it though but that isn't what Jesus said to do. He told the disciples to preach the Gospel. We see evidence of that in scriptures and in the early church where Jesus, the lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. As the disciples went out "into the world" they could openly proclaim that good news without worry.

Yeah... But my answer was funner! :cheer:

 

[MennoSota]

IMO, this is EXACTLY what you have tried to do to defend your new theory of LIMITED grace and Christ.

It's not new...no matter how much you say it.

And I think you are essentially admitting there is a "flip side" - other verses - that make your position incredible (you just choose to ignore them).

I am stating that people abuse the Bible by using a couple sentences to create a doctrine rather than having the context and whole of scripture be the teacher.

IMO, the exact opposite is true. In your model, it is LIKELY that faith is in vain, grasping thin air containing nothing... so the only recourse the uber-Calvinist has for why HIS faith actually is apprehending SOMETHING is that he "feels" it.

This is an unsupported opinion by yourself. How can a gift, given by God, be in vain?

I don't have to "feel" that my faith is grasping Sola Gratia - Solus Christus because it's universally present, in my theology, my feeling about that is entirely irrelevant but in yours, the ONLY assurance that faith is actually grasping/trusting/apprehending something is his FEELING.

In your theology faith is universally present in all humanity because all humanity has had their sins atoned for.
Faith is given by God. I don't have to feel anything. I simply trust God's word. God is not a liar.

Your claiming that I'm a synergist and Arminian is laughably absurd - and everyone here at CH knows it.

You are therefore blind to the contradiction of your position. You realize that it is the synergist's and Arminians who are backing you in this discussion...don't you?

But you are confirming what I posted before: Calvinist apologists play this game, insisting all are pigeon holed into TWO (and only TWO) camps: Uber Calvinists OR Uber Arminians. They ignore any other position (because they can't deal with them). THEN they attack Arminianism (which is certainly easy to do) which to them "proves" Calvinism correct. It's silly, it's absurd, it's illogical and it's desperate. But we see it at nearly all Calvinist/Reformed websites and Calvinist apologists echo it. For a group that prides itself on logic, it's amazing to behold.

I admit there are other positions. I explain how you get to your position. I reject the narrow scope of your argument as non-representative of the entire work of scripture.

Your attempt to cast ME as a synergistic Armininian (and then try to prove I'm wrong because synergism and Arminius are wrong) is just silly. Everyone here knows your claim and your argument is laughable. I'm not synergistic, I'm NO fan of Arminius, and Calvinism is NOT correct simply because you show that Arminius is wrong....

The proof is in your misinterpretation of scripture. Deny all you wish, but you hold a distinctly synergistic view on the atonement of God through Jesus shed blood.

[/QUOTE]
No. It's an invention of Calvin - developed by his followers.
[/QUOTE]
Did Calvin and others invent the Bible? The scriptures, from start to finish, present God's atonement for the elect, not for mankind, universal.

There are a FEW verses - which if pulled out of context, spun uniquely, and then the VAST MAJORITY of Scripture on the topic are ignored or "spun" so as to say the opposite of what they say - might be CLAIMED to support this new theory. But Calvin invented this NOT because of Scripture but because of his human, fallen, limited "logic" which he mandates God agrees with and submits to . He invented this new invention as part of HIS theory as to why some are saved and not others (see http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4669-Why-are-Some-Saved-and-Not-Others ) but he just invented a monster and clearly invents something not found in Scripture but from the "mind" of Calvin, inspired by the Greek concept of Fate. But there's another thread on that topic.

In my last post I pointed you to all of Romans 6-8 to express God's atonement for the elect.
Calvin never invented predestination. He never invented particular atonement for those who are predestined and elect. The scripture is clear.

Wrong. Until Calvin, virtually ALL Christians accepted unlimited atonement and EVER accepted universalism.

Link? Also, I assume you meant to say, never.

IMO, it's actually Calvinism that's more likely to lead to universalism, and I remind you that universalism DID (in fact) arise out of Calvinism. Go to Plymouth MA and visit the two congregations founded by the Calvinist Pilgrims - they both became Universalist churches; indeed, look at nearly every Universalist church in the Eastern USA and you'll find nearly all of them were once Calvinist. Some knowledge of history will show you that universalism actually came out of Calvinism. But that's another subject for another day.

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4669-Why-are-Some-Saved-and-Not-Others

- Josiah

.

No correlation between scripture and congregational drift. Shall I point out the Lutheran drift and say that Martin Luther's doctrine caused it? That would be absurd, just as your claim above is absurd.

Let's stick with scripture where limited atonement, predestination, election, unmerited favor and perseverance of the saints stands firm.

 

[Albion]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

I'm sorry that I cannot accept that logic. There is an answer to what you are asking, however.

It is that God chose his Elect, but he did not choose them with no relationship to the church of Christ, the religion of the Bible, and everything else we believe. He chose them to receive Faith and so be saved through it.

There has to be some means by which the Elect are made believers. They aren't just born knowing Christ. That's where you and I and other believers come in. And if you preach to someone who is not among the Elect, you still want them to be convinced to live lives that are in harmony with Gods will, dont you?

 

[MennoSota]

Well, that's the problem with Bible literalists. They invariably are strictly literal with some parts of the Bible but not at all with others--as you have done yourself.

The Bible should be read like other books. When imagery is present, read it as such. When poetic prose is used, read it as such. When historical data is used, read it as such.
The rules of literature apply.
Where problems persist is when people use literary devices that are not present in the context or when people take a couple sentences and remove them from their context. It's like cutting flowers from a garden...the flowers look great in the vase, but if you really observe, the flowers are dead and have no root to them. They produce nothing and die.

 

[Josiah]

I love this post and the reason is because it is spot on...how do you share the Gospel with others if it isn't meant for them maybe according to those who don't believe in universal atonement. They can't. Not in all its fullness and glory at least. They can hint about it though but that isn't what Jesus said to do. He told the disciples to preach the Gospel. We see evidence of that in scriptures and in the early church where Jesus, the lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. As the disciples went out "into the world" they could openly proclaim that good news without worry.

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]


IMO, there's an even bigger problem with this new uber-Calvinist theory.....

IF Sola Gratia - Solus Christus ONLY exists for the Elect, and if the Elect are the "few", then for most people, there is no grace, no Savior (they have been limited so much as to be excluded entirely for most people). Thus.... for most..... faith is grasping at nothing (because there's nothing THERE for them). They may FEEL like they are trusting/relying/believing.... and from their perspective they are... but there's NOTHING THERE for that faith to cling to, to grasp, to apprehend: all they have is their sincere, honest FEELING created on THEIR end. This (added to the horror of OSAS) destroys any assurance and insures a "terror of the conscience." Limiting God, limiting Christ does that.

For traditional, orthodox theology - God is a constant, His love is unconditional, Jesus' work is sufficient... Sola Gratia - Solus Christus are REAL and PRESENT, always. The difference is whether we have faith. And if we do, then we ARE grasping onto something REAL and PRESENT because it's real and present - universally. I don't have to FEEL that I'm believing in SOMETHING that actually exists for ME because it exists for ALL. I don't have to FEEL that Jesus died specifically for ME (although NOT for most people) because He died for all (thus, I'm included) - so my trusting that is trusting something that actually exists. Sola Fide is meaningless unless Sola Gratia - Solus Christus actually exists, is really there for faith to apprehend. For those who propose this new theory, most of the time - it's not. And how can you know if your faith is actually embracing something available to it? Only by how you FEEL (and they claim that's totally unreliable so..... you CAN'T.... odds are you are among the majority whom God desires to see fry in hell, your faith meaning NOTHING because there's NOTHING for it to grasp, to claim, to cling to, to apprehend). Follow me?


The extreme followers of Calvin invented this theory as PART of their "logical" (not biblical!) new theory as to why some don't come to faith, their "theory" to answer the question of "Why some and not others?" While they agreed with traditional, orthodox theology (and Lutherans) on why some DO believe, their theory as to why some don't created this monster. I began a thread to discuss that age old question (best left as a question!) here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4669-Why-are-Some-Saved-and-Not-Others It includes a 32 minute long video which I realize is FAR too long for most to take in, but it very well addresses that issue (and exposes the error of both 16th Century invented theories) but I realize, few will watch it (not a complaint, it's just how it is).



- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

Lol ... Josiah ... The HORROR of osas? Really?
I mentioned at least twice, that EVERYONE in heaven is osas. Prove that wrong.
And everyone here that is saved is saved once for all forever, just as the bible says.
If your're saved, now, but not ALWAYS saved, how saved are you, and what is it that will unsave you?

I find it ironic that ppl in the bible were wanting to know how to be saved.
2000 years later, ppl are on chatforums arguing about how to LOSE salvation.

Lets see...Jesus died for your sins, right?
How many? All? Most? Some?

Just the past ones but not any future ones?
(Ive actually heard that nonsense, lol)

Okay, ALL, right?
And a man must be born again, right?

And we call it being adopted into the family of God, by God, right?
And that happened ONCE, right?
And whether you know exactly when or not, or whether or not you had some profound experience, or felt something nothing at all (faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God) is secondary. If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and believe in your heart that He rose from the dead, you're saved, right? because no one can do that except that God gave Him the faith to believe, no one can call Jesus Lord except by the Spirit, so we have the witness within ourselves that we are the children of God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Saved, right?

Now, in a sort of reverse conversation like Nicodemus had, lol .....
Can a man be UNborn again?
Can a man UNadopt who God adopted?
Can a man out-sin God's grace? (Dont try, God forbid)
But no, except the sin of rejecting Jesus and Gods only way of salvation,
our sins were paid for in full. At the cross. I know you know that.
So if you're saved now, what is it that will cause God to say to you,
'Whoops, nevermind, I must've made a mistake, picked a lemon, got a clunker, nm.' ?

No, if you're saved, you're saved ... That's the good news.
He's our Good Shepherd. He's not going to lose us!
He's a perfect and perfectly capable God and Saviour
Willing and able to save to the uttermost, all who trust in Jesus.
He who began a good work in us shall complete it.

Gtg, ttyl, ok?

 

[Josiah]

IMO, there's an even bigger problem with this new uber-Calvinist theory.....

IF Sola Gratia - Solus Christus ONLY exists for the Elect, and if the Elect are the "few", then for most people, there is no grace, no Savior (they have been limited so much as to be excluded entirely for most people). Thus.... for most..... faith is grasping at nothing (because there's nothing THERE for them). They may FEEL like they are trusting/relying/believing.... and from their perspective they are... but there's NOTHING THERE for that faith to cling to, to grasp, to apprehend: all they have is their sincere, honest FEELING created on THEIR end. This (added to the horror of OSAS
) destroys any assurance and insures a "terror of the conscience." Limiting God, limiting Christ does that.

For traditional, orthodox theology - God is a constant, His love is unconditional, Jesus' work is sufficient... Sola Gratia - Solus Christus are REAL and PRESENT, always. The difference is whether we have faith. And if we do, then we ARE grasping onto something REAL and PRESENT because it's real and present - universally. I don't have to FEEL that I'm believing in SOMETHING that actually exists for ME because it exists for ALL. I don't have to FEEL that Jesus died specifically for ME (although NOT for most people) because He died for all (thus, I'm included) - so my trusting that is trusting something that actually exists. Sola Fide is meaningless unless Sola Gratia - Solus Christus actually exists, is really there for faith to apprehend. For those who propose this new theory, most of the time - it's not. And how can you know if your faith is actually embracing something available to it? Only by how you FEEL (and they claim that's totally unreliable so..... you CAN'T.... odds are you are among the majority whom God desires to see fry in hell, your faith meaning NOTHING because there's NOTHING for it to grasp, to claim, to cling to, to apprehend). Follow me?


The extreme followers of Calvin invented this theory as PART of their "logical" (not biblical!) new theory as to why some don't come to faith, their "theory" to answer the question of "Why some and not others?" While they agreed with traditional, orthodox theology (and Lutherans) on why some DO believe, their theory as to why some don't created this monster. I began a thread to discuss that age old question (best left as a question!) here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sho...and-Not-Others It includes a 32 minute long video which I realize is FAR too long for most to take in, but it very well addresses that issue (and exposes the error of both 16th Century invented theories) but I realize, few will watch it (not a complaint, it's just how it is).



.

Lol ... Josiah ... The HORROR of osas? Really?

I don't want to derail this thread (more than it already is, lol). If you want to start a thread on the Calvinist theory of OSAS, I invite you to start one. I'd be glad to share my view and also why I think this invention is a horror (it is related to why the associated invention of limiting God's grace and Savior are also a horror but a different subject).

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I don't want to derail this thread (more than it already is, lol). If you want to start a thread on the Calvinist theory of OSAS, I invite you to start one. I'd be glad to share my view and also why I think this invention is a horror (it is related to why the associated invention of limiting God's grace and Savior are also a horror but a different subject).

" Once Saved Always Saved" is a Calvinist theory? Interesting.. I thought it was some sort of Free Church Pietistic sort of thing. Good call. The Great Awakening in the early years of the United States was truly a disaster in more ways than one, and tent- meeting " revivals" that lead to this " making a decision, o.s.a.s., burning in the bosom, etc., etc." kind of pop theology was certainly a part of that disaster.

 

[psalms 91]

" Once Saved Always Saved" is a Calvinist theory? Interesting.. I thought it was some sort of Free Church Pietistic sort of thing. Good call. The Great Awakening in the early years of the United States was truly a disaster in more ways than one, and tent- meeting " revivals" that lead to this " making a decision, o.s.a.s., burning in the bosom, etc., etc." kind of pop theology was certainly a part of that disaster.

Yet many miracles took place in those meetings and thousands were saved if not 100's of thousands and while you may not accept many things from that much good theology came from that. Even Wesley talked of a heat, wonder what he was feeling?

 

[user1234]

I don't want to derail this thread (more than it already is, lol). If you want to start a thread on the Calvinist theory of OSAS, I invite you to start one. I'd be glad to share my view and also why I think this invention is a horror (it is related to why the associated invention of limiting God's grace and Savior are also a horror but a different subject).

I dont know Calvin or his theory, I only know the gospel.
I heard of a Calvin guy ppl keep talkin about, whats that got to do with the gospel?

 

[user1234]

" Once Saved Always Saved" is a Calvinist theory? Interesting.. I thought it was some sort of Free Church Pietistic sort of thing. Good call. The Great Awakening in the early years of the United States was truly a disaster in more ways than one, and tent- meeting " revivals" that lead to this " making a decision, o.s.a.s., burning in the bosom, etc., etc." kind of pop theology was certainly a part of that disaster.

Those guys with their catagories and judgementalism and lumping this with that and the other and putting things into neat packages and labelling everybody as if they MUST fit into whatever it is they've decided ... Its so cute.
I'm glad Jesus saved us from all that religionism and fruit inspecting, it's such a downer, dontcha think? ... Much better to be free to worship and serve Jesus the true and living God in spirit and truth, yes?

 

[MennoSota]

" Once Saved Always Saved" is a Calvinist theory? Interesting.. I thought it was some sort of Free Church Pietistic sort of thing. Good call. The Great Awakening in the early years of the United States was truly a disaster in more ways than one, and tent- meeting " revivals" that lead to this " making a decision, o.s.a.s., burning in the bosom, etc., etc." kind of pop theology was certainly a part of that disaster.

That's the 2nd Great Awakening led by the heretic, Charles Finney. Not the 1st Great Awakening led by Whitfield and Edwards. The 1st was an amazing work of God's grace. The 2nd was a charlatans circus fed by ungodly emotions.

 

[psalms 91]

That's the 2nd Great Awakening led by the heretic, Charles Finney. Not the 1st Great Awakening led by Whitfield and Edwards. The 1st was an amazing work of God's grace. The 2nd was a charlatans circus fed by ungodly emotions.

Way to bash peoples faith, I am sure that I can find things about yours and you wouldnt like it any moe than I do that characterization.

 

[user1234]

That's the 2nd Great Awakening led by the heretic, Charles Finney. Not the 1st Great Awakening led by Whitfield and Edwards. The 1st was an amazing work of God's grace. The 2nd was a charlatans circus fed by ungodly emotions.

Well PHOOEY on them, then!:juggle: :groupheads::jester: