Gods elects

[stonesoffire]

You are right of course, my opinion is of no more value than that of Murray or anyone else. I suppose the question before us is what separates truth from mere opinion and how do we determine the difference? Can the doctrine of unconditional election be defended from scripture?

I think it can. Wouldn't the fact that no one can come unless drawn prove this?

But, then this is off topic? Which we don't really know unless we watch, huh?

It does go with the title though.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think it can. Wouldn't the fact that no one can come unless drawn prove this?

But, then this is off topic? Which we don't really know unless we watch, huh?

It does go with the title though.

No, I do not think that proves this, but may be a good topic

 

[Nehemiah6]

I notice celib asked to talk about scriptures. And for you to offer a point of discussion.

And I did provide Scripture. This one verse is sufficient to demolish unconditional election.

4. Does the Bible say this or not :For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.?

Those who will not accept the plain literal meaning of this try to avoid the significance of what the Lord Jesus Christ said by putting a spin on the word "world". But the Concordance and lexicons won't allow that, and neither will the rest of Scripture.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Haven't read this entire thread. Who are you talking about?

Someone who got mad when oldhermit made an opinion of what he thought of a group of people. Even though that group of people make the same opinion of those who disagree with them/

 

[Nehemiah6]

So...you are not an opinionated poster?

You are here to judge another mans servants?

As anyone will note in my posts, I simply deal with the issues and topics by backing up my statements with Scripture. And I did back up my comments on unconditional election with this:

4. Does the Bible say this or not :For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.?

 

[oldhermit]

Someone who got mad when oldhermit made an opinion of what he thought of a group of people. Even though that group of people make the same opinion of those who disagree with them/

Just so we are clear on this, I was not attacking a group of people. I was challenging a doctrine which I believe to be in error.

 

[preacher4truth]

I do hope you will respond. I prefer to discuss with someone who can give a response, not to a bunch of dead guys.

I'm "Calvinist" and never became one by reading a bunch of "dead guys" so I never got it from reading Calvin or any other Reformed books. Wait, never mind, you're right, I did. I read it in Scripture. One of them actually rose from the dead, and he's alive!

I know that much has been written in defense of this doctrine and I have read many of these works but still, these authors are merely offering a string of opinions on scripture.

Unsubstantiated broad brushing. Also, anything you offer is now only your opinion on Scripture. Not exegesis, not proper interpretation, just plain opinion. Just leveling the playing field.

The Jews did the same thing to the Law of Moses and Jesus summed up centuries of their collective rabbinic opinions in one sentence - "You make the Law God of no effect."

Ah, there you go. It's apples and oranges, and doesn't make your case unless your case was to call others just merely religious, namely Calvinists. I bet that's it right there, I mean why else make the comparison? Right?

I would like to hear how you think scripture defends the doctrine of unconditional election. Since the Calvinist rely so much on Romans 9 to defend this doctrine perhaps we could look at this chapter together.

Yes, we rely on Scripture for certain, and in Paul's magnum opus, Romans 9 is one of the heavy hitters.

But, let's not be disingenuous my friend.

This doctrine is taught throughout Scripture and can be proven elsewhere because God being immutable has always saved this way.

But I digress, I've not witnessed even one anti-Calvinist properly interpret Romans 9. It is always done in an anti-election free will mindset. All it proves is the person has a serious issue with God's decree to elect and save whom he wills. That said, please note this attitude described in Romans 9:20. God has it handled, all of it. Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Romans 9 is in fact a much abused chapter to support an untenable doctrine -- unconditional election. Any Bible doctrine must take ALL Scripture into account, particularly all Gospel truth when it applies to the salvation of souls.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that God would elect some for salvation and condemn the majority to damnation. But that is precisely what Reformed Theology teaches. So the questions to ask Calvinists (which should be answered from Scripture) are these:

1. Are all human beings sinners by birth and by choice?

2. Knowing this did God have a plan of salvation for mankind even before creation?

3. Did that plan include the necessity of the Lamb of God taking away THE SIN OF THE WORLD?

4. Does the Bible say this or not :For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.?

5. Should that one statement by the Savior not be sufficient to NULLIFY unconditional election?

I started a new topic on Ro 9 for anyone interested.

 

[preacher4truth]

Someone who got mad

Now, now, no one got mad, that's your cup of tea. You're probably already mad, like right this moment already. Keep censuring God, bro.

 

[oldhermit]

I'm "Calvinist" and never became one by reading a bunch of "dead guys" so I never got it from reading Calvin or any other Reformed books. Wait, never mind, you're right, I did. I read it in Scripture. One of them actually rose from the dead, and he's alive!



Unsubstantiated broad brushing. Also, anything you offer is now only your opinion on Scripture. Not exegesis, not proper interpretation, just plain opinion. Just leveling the playing field.



Ah, there you go. It's apples and oranges, and doesn't make your case unless your case was to call others just merely religious, namely Calvinists. I bet that's it right there, I mean why else make the comparison? Right?



Yes, we rely on Scripture for certain, and in Paul's magnum opus, Romans 9 is one of the heavy hitters.

But, let's not be disingenuous my friend.

This doctrine is taught throughout Scripture and can be proven elsewhere because God being immutable has always saved this way.

But I digress, I've not witnessed even one anti-Calvinist properly interpret Romans 9. It is always done in an anti-election free will mindset. All it proves is the person has a serious issue with God's decree to elect and save whom he wills. That said, please note this attitude described in Romans 9:20. God has it handled, all of it. Soli Deo Gloria!

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to show us how chapter 9 defends the doctrine of unconditional election. I am sure we would all be interested to see how you handle this text.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to show us how chapter 9 defends the doctrine of unconditional election. I am sure we would all be interested to see how you handle this text.

I can guarantee that he will talk about almost every verse in the Bible EXCEPT that which is written in Ro 9 to show us what he thinks Ro 9 is about.

 

[oldhermit]

I can guarantee that he will talk about almost every verse in the Bible EXCEPT that which is written in Ro 9 to show us what he thinks Ro 9 is about.

Well, let's give the man the benefit of a doubt. He has been given the opportunity to defend his position on that chapter.

 

[preacher4truth]

I can guarantee that he will talk about almost every verse in the Bible EXCEPT that which is written in Ro 9 to show us what he thinks Ro 9 is about.

Nope. I'm not Leighton Flowers or the Romans 9:20 man.

 

[preacher4truth]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to show us how chapter 9 defends the doctrine of unconditional election. I am sure we would all be interested to see how you handle this text.

Certainly you've been around this mulberry bush before. I don't see anything profitable in engaging you in your anti-Calvinist and Romans 9:20 mind set, do you?

 

[Speak2Me]

Notice, if it is her groupies who are telling people they have no idea of scripture. Or tells them they need to study, She is all over it, and likes all their posts and defends them. (See the gods will s freewill thread)

But since you have done it against her, It is a Major sin, and you are pretty much hated on.

hypocricy at its finest.

And how would you know so much about these "groupies" that back each other?

Maybe because you have so much groupie experience in the "Not By Works" thread?

 

[oldhermit]

Certainly you've been around this mulberry bush before. I don't see anything profitable in engaging you in your anti-Calvinist and Romans 9:20 mind set, do you?

Do you think your position is worth defending? Who knows but what you may be able to teach me more perfectly the word of God. Here is your opportunity.

 

[Speak2Me]

Nope. I'm not Leighton Flowers or the Romans 9:20 man.

Certainly you've been around this mulberry bush before. I don't see anything profitable in engaging you in your anti-Calvinist and Romans 9:20 mind set, do you?

Naaaw, I didn't think you would.

To me, that's admitting defeat in advance, because you love a good argument.

 

[OneFaith]

Because of this.

You just said Calvinists have no real grasp of scripture.

You really need to learn how to be friends better. It's as if "my opinion is so much more important than anyone else about anything else." And that's all it is to you -- your almighty opinion.

He said “Well I still consider you a friend.”- which shows that his intention is not disrespect. The Calvinist didn’t have a clear understanding of scripture- that’s true. So you either see how he didn’t match what the Bible says, or you disagree with old hermit and say “Well I think he did match scripture and has a clear understanding.”

If someone said to you “God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit, but they didn’t- therefore God lies.” It would not be disrespectful to reply “You are not understanding this clearly. Adam and Eve did die spiritually and immediately needed a Savior. They also died physically later on. God said they would die, but He didn’t say when. Therefore God is not a liar.”

When Jesus was asked if He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, He had no choice but to say yes. Not because He is bragging, but because it is the truth. And it is the truth that this Calvinist does not have a clear understanding of scripture- therefore you shouldn’t follow his teaching.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Nope. I'm not Leighton Flowers or the Romans 9:20 man.

I started a topic on Ro 9. Would you care to discuss it?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Hi, One of those dead guys is Christ and he is the author of the Bible, why don't you study that book, did you know there was an earth age before this one where satan rebelled? did you know that there was a judgment after the rebellion and satan was sentenced to parish.Eze.28, did you know everyone else was judged and some were found to be righteous. Romans.8, did you know that rather then destroy 2 third of his children God said let us make man in our image, and here we are trying to save some of those 2 third. Where in the Scripture does it say there are no elects? I would like to debate you on the subject from the Scripture, not what Calvin said or Murray said but what the Bible says. God bless

you might want to word that differently...