Calvinists: The Just Shall Live BEFORE Having Faith
- Thread starter DevotiontoBible
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You're so full of nonsense it isn't worth talking to you but I'm going to expose you anyhow for the sake of others.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
I ignore it because I cannot understand it no matter how hard I try and if I keep trying to understand it you wind up getting perturbed.
We should stop. I don't want to be the cause of your further perturbation.
I will never understand a man believing God but not trusting God. Its not going to happen. I can understand believing and trusting God but have some AREAS of unbelief while his faith is being grown by God, but I have never met anyone who believed Gods word to be truth and yet they didn't want to have anything to do with God. I can't comprehend it.
We should stop. I don't want to be the cause of your further perturbation.
I will never understand a man believing God but not trusting God. Its not going to happen. I can understand believing and trusting God but have some AREAS of unbelief while his faith is being grown by God, but I have never met anyone who believed Gods word to be truth and yet they didn't want to have anything to do with God. I can't comprehend it.
E
I am not talking about different areas of our lives, I am talking about salvation.
In the gospel. People believe in jesus,. Yet reject his gospel all the time. That is the context of our conversation. Always has been. If you misunderstood that,. Then forgive me, I thought i made that clear.
I have always maintained a persons faith must grow in different areas of our lives.. I do nto need to trust God that fornication is a sin and I should stop to have faith in the gospel and be saved. So why you would think I thought otherwise, I again, can not explain.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're so full of nonsense it isn't worth talking to you but I'm going to expose you anyhow for the sake of others.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
You're so full of nonsense it isn't worth talking to you but I'm going to expose you anyhow for the sake of others.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
You're one of the best Scripture twisters I've ever witnessed, that's a fact.
Whether or not "to be" is in there, it makes zero difference, but now you're trying another avenue since the former failed. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't say "to be" in my ESV, nor in the KJV so you're offering a straw man. Basically you're lying, implying I've added it. Why not be a Christian and tell the truth instead of doing this?????
The bottom line is he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is laughable that you want to remove the "us" from the context, and tell us it isn't in there. That is willfully dishonest of you and mishandling of the word, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2. That is of whom Paul is both speaking and addressing, they are in the context, he refers to them as "us" which would include himself, his contemporaneous audience, and all saints.
Scripture there is clear, and this is for anyone else who wants to see. The us being referred to are the elect, it is showing that the heavenly blessings belong to us, and, that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. john146 must remove us from the context because he does not believe and/or like what the passage says as it goes against his tradition of free will idolatry.
john146 also doesn't believe he was chosen by God so go figure how he twists the context and meaning. No bias there at all, right?
Scripture stands and it is plain, we were chosen(ELECTED!!!!!!)in Christ before the foundation of the world. I accept that and believe the witness of Scripture.
I absolutely believe I was chosen by God. God chose me because I trusted in His elect(Isaiah 42), Jesus Christ. Now that I am in Him, I am part of the elect.
If God elected people from the foundation of the world to be saved, then there was never a time when they were objects of His wrath. There was never a time when they were unsaved sinners.
D
A couple of weeks ago, I did a little snooping about who were hearing the apostles in their own language. Never did learn what languages those people were, but learned where they were from. The most northern spot was Crimea. That same bit of land Putin was trying to steal from the Ukraine a few years ago. The most eastern spot was India. Western? West of Egypt! (I think Jerusalem might have already been the most southern spot, since the nations named were never more-south.) Add to that, Judea was part of the Roman Empire by then, so that means the religious influences also had some Roman and Greek in there.
Sure. Most believed in gods, but not GOD! Yahweh wasn't even a big hit in Egypt or Syria. (Syria was also present in that group. Back then it was called Mesopotamia.) You cannot say they all knew about Yahweh! Jerusalem was an important trade center at the time. They hosted the known world. Given the list included people from that whole very large area (most of the Mediterranean Sea, clear up to close to Russia, and all the way over to India), nope. They weren't all Jews. Most of them weren't, or Luke wouldn't have listed ten non-Jewish nations.
My mind is still spinning on how large an area those nations encompassed, so hope you don't mind if I copy-paste what I learned of who they were and where they were from. Truly amazing because that whole area is besiege by such turmoil 2000 years later still!
Parthians -- Between the Tigris and India. They were the trade routes between the Grecco-Roman Empire and Asia. (Iran and Iraq today.)
Medes -- The real Aryans. S.W. and S. of the Caspian, N.W. and N. of Persia, W. of Parthia and the salt desert of Iram, E. of Armenia and Assyria. (Iran today.)
Elamite -- A district southeast of Babylon, on Persian Gulf. (Iran today.)
Mesopotamia -- Syria. Situated within the Tigris–Euphrates river system, in modern days roughly corresponding to most of Iraq plus Kuwait, the eastern parts of Syria, Southeastern Turkey, and regions along the Turkish–Syrian and Iran–Iraq borders.
Judea -- Home turf, so I expected them to be there that day.
Cappadocia -- An extensive province in eastern Asia Minor, bounded by the Taurus mountains on the South, the Anti-Taurus and the Euphrates on the East, and, less definitely, by Pontus and Galatia on the North and West. Highest mountain, Argaeus, over 13,000 ft. above sea-level; chief rivers, the Pyramus now Jihan, Sarus now Sihon, and Halys now the Kuzul; most important cities, Caesarea Mazaca, Comana, Miletene now Malatia, and Tyana now Bor. At Malatia the country unrolls itself as a fertile plain; elsewhere the province is for the most part composed of billowy and rather barren uplands, and bleak mountain peaks and pastures. (Now Turkey and beyond.)
Pontus -- North of Cappadocia. Actually, it sounds like it's sometimes considered a part of Cappadocia. The area was named after the river, Pontus River. Which then became the Euxine River. Which we now know today as Kerch Straits. That's toward the top of the Black Sea, (which used to be called The Euxine Sea.) It's that little body of water separating Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine. And, a few years ago, Russia tried to steal it back, because it's still strategic for its ability to ship cargo all around the Black Sea. I'm not sure of the historical era, but these people were, at one time, known for something else. The Amazon women were from Pontus. (Ukraine today.)
Asia -- Not the continent we think of today, but definitely part of that continent. At the time the NT was being written, Asia was the most affluent providence of the Roman Empire. The largest cities sound familiar -- Adramyttium, Assos, Cnidus, Ephesus, Laodicea, Miletus, Pergamos, Philadelphia, Sardis, Smyrna, Thyatira, and Troas. (The boundaries changed often, but much of it is Turkey today.)
Phrygia -- Now Western Turkey
Pamphylia -- A small region in the southern part of Turkey.
Egypt -- Which is the same Egypt, but now part of the Roman Empire.
Sure. Most believed in gods, but not GOD! Yahweh wasn't even a big hit in Egypt or Syria. (Syria was also present in that group. Back then it was called Mesopotamia.) You cannot say they all knew about Yahweh! Jerusalem was an important trade center at the time. They hosted the known world. Given the list included people from that whole very large area (most of the Mediterranean Sea, clear up to close to Russia, and all the way over to India), nope. They weren't all Jews. Most of them weren't, or Luke wouldn't have listed ten non-Jewish nations.
My mind is still spinning on how large an area those nations encompassed, so hope you don't mind if I copy-paste what I learned of who they were and where they were from. Truly amazing because that whole area is besiege by such turmoil 2000 years later still!
Parthians -- Between the Tigris and India. They were the trade routes between the Grecco-Roman Empire and Asia. (Iran and Iraq today.)
Medes -- The real Aryans. S.W. and S. of the Caspian, N.W. and N. of Persia, W. of Parthia and the salt desert of Iram, E. of Armenia and Assyria. (Iran today.)
Elamite -- A district southeast of Babylon, on Persian Gulf. (Iran today.)
Mesopotamia -- Syria. Situated within the Tigris–Euphrates river system, in modern days roughly corresponding to most of Iraq plus Kuwait, the eastern parts of Syria, Southeastern Turkey, and regions along the Turkish–Syrian and Iran–Iraq borders.
Judea -- Home turf, so I expected them to be there that day.
Cappadocia -- An extensive province in eastern Asia Minor, bounded by the Taurus mountains on the South, the Anti-Taurus and the Euphrates on the East, and, less definitely, by Pontus and Galatia on the North and West. Highest mountain, Argaeus, over 13,000 ft. above sea-level; chief rivers, the Pyramus now Jihan, Sarus now Sihon, and Halys now the Kuzul; most important cities, Caesarea Mazaca, Comana, Miletene now Malatia, and Tyana now Bor. At Malatia the country unrolls itself as a fertile plain; elsewhere the province is for the most part composed of billowy and rather barren uplands, and bleak mountain peaks and pastures. (Now Turkey and beyond.)
Pontus -- North of Cappadocia. Actually, it sounds like it's sometimes considered a part of Cappadocia. The area was named after the river, Pontus River. Which then became the Euxine River. Which we now know today as Kerch Straits. That's toward the top of the Black Sea, (which used to be called The Euxine Sea.) It's that little body of water separating Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine. And, a few years ago, Russia tried to steal it back, because it's still strategic for its ability to ship cargo all around the Black Sea. I'm not sure of the historical era, but these people were, at one time, known for something else. The Amazon women were from Pontus. (Ukraine today.)
Asia -- Not the continent we think of today, but definitely part of that continent. At the time the NT was being written, Asia was the most affluent providence of the Roman Empire. The largest cities sound familiar -- Adramyttium, Assos, Cnidus, Ephesus, Laodicea, Miletus, Pergamos, Philadelphia, Sardis, Smyrna, Thyatira, and Troas. (The boundaries changed often, but much of it is Turkey today.)
Phrygia -- Now Western Turkey
Pamphylia -- A small region in the southern part of Turkey.
Egypt -- Which is the same Egypt, but now part of the Roman Empire.
D
She's not trying to discredit you. You really did say three words weren't the same, and then at different times said two of those three words were the same, (intermittent which of the two words were.)
Honest. Go back and just read everything you said -- skipping anything else anyone else said all together and just focusing on your side of talking to Stunned -- and you will see what she's talking about.
We're not out to get you. We're out to try and figure out why we cannot agree. And given each one here, (even Devo) can say "I believe the Bible," it's how we see what we see in the Bible that changes everything, not the Bible.
Do you get me? Obviously not. Is that the same thing as you're out to get me? Usually not! Stunned hasn't been out to get you from the beginning.
Honest. Go back and just read everything you said -- skipping anything else anyone else said all together and just focusing on your side of talking to Stunned -- and you will see what she's talking about.
We're not out to get you. We're out to try and figure out why we cannot agree. And given each one here, (even Devo) can say "I believe the Bible," it's how we see what we see in the Bible that changes everything, not the Bible.
Do you get me? Obviously not. Is that the same thing as you're out to get me? Usually not! Stunned hasn't been out to get you from the beginning.
John Calvin was a RCC priest who was taught extreme doctrines by another RCC priest named Jerome. Jerome made this stuff up not Calvin. It should be called Jeromeism. John Calvin ran a mini-papal state in Geneva Switzerland.
John Calvin quote: "The fall of Adam and Eve in all it's consequences was ordained by the admirable counsel of God."
What John Calvin is clearly saying is that God is the author of sin.
John Calvin quote: "The fall of Adam and Eve in all it's consequences was ordained by the admirable counsel of God."
What John Calvin is clearly saying is that God is the author of sin.