-
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.
G
I think, lilC, that IammiHis is saying that he just wants someone who believes like him. Of course, this will be controversial, as some think that another's denomination is off-limits, as far as dating goes, i.e., a Calvanist dating a Armanian.
They do BOTH believe in the sure foundation, who is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3 explains this well), and, they both are 'co-workers' of God's 'service in the kingdom on Earth, His Kingdom, too, once they die believing in Him. But.....
IammiHis is wanting someone who believes in doctrine like he does, that's important to him, and, I'm giving no-comment because that de-rails the thread if I lend my opinion. Others have done threads on this topic, like zeroturbulence, and, so, go there
But, Hisbucketsgirl said things very well for what IammiHis' intentions were in doing this thread, which, again, as I stated in my page 1 post, I think, this type of 'looking' makes others want to do the same kind of threads that can "infiltrate"--for no lack of a better word--the c.c. singles forum . I bold-faced buckets' words that most say what IammiHis' thoughts were for this thread, they weren't for controversy either, as I saw it, I only mentioned my corrective ask to post somewhere else because of what reasons I aforementioned in this paragraph. The Lord leads.
Buckets:
as the daughter of a Presbyterian minister gotta kinda say ole Calvin was a pretty smart fella
I would still focus on the words in red
Calvin was just a disciple like all of us not a prophet or anything of the like
My pops is a more hard core Calvinist but he'd agree with me
I don't think what he said is bad though well unless he does mean only Calvinists live in truth
I think it was a more me wants some girl whos thinketh as thow
I would like some bacon Maxwell quit hogin the bacon
They do BOTH believe in the sure foundation, who is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3 explains this well), and, they both are 'co-workers' of God's 'service in the kingdom on Earth, His Kingdom, too, once they die believing in Him. But.....
IammiHis is wanting someone who believes in doctrine like he does, that's important to him, and, I'm giving no-comment because that de-rails the thread if I lend my opinion. Others have done threads on this topic, like zeroturbulence, and, so, go there
But, Hisbucketsgirl said things very well for what IammiHis' intentions were in doing this thread, which, again, as I stated in my page 1 post, I think, this type of 'looking' makes others want to do the same kind of threads that can "infiltrate"--for no lack of a better word--the c.c. singles forum . I bold-faced buckets' words that most say what IammiHis' thoughts were for this thread, they weren't for controversy either, as I saw it, I only mentioned my corrective ask to post somewhere else because of what reasons I aforementioned in this paragraph. The Lord leads.
Buckets:
as the daughter of a Presbyterian minister
gotta kinda say ole Calvin was a pretty smart fellaI would still focus on the words in red
Calvin was just a disciple like all of us
not a prophet or anything of the likeMy pops is a more hard core Calvinist but he'd agree with me
I don't think what he said is bad though well unless he does mean only Calvinists live in truth
I think it was a more
me wants some girl whos thinketh as thow I would like some bacon Maxwell
quit hogin the bacon
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Proverbs 16:4
I think our refusal shouldn't be an emotional one, this idea that we are uncomfortable with, but rather whether it is scriptural or not. I oppose false gospels such as mormonism not because i'm uncomfortable, but because it is false.
Also,
What say you of this?
Hosea 9:15
It's a verse most people are uncomfortable with, and will refuse to acknowledge it.
I think our refusal shouldn't be an emotional one, this idea that we are uncomfortable with, but rather whether it is scriptural or not. I oppose false gospels such as mormonism not because i'm uncomfortable, but because it is false.
Also,
What say you of this?
Hosea 9:15
It's a verse most people are uncomfortable with, and will refuse to acknowledge it.
I'm a Calvinist and I once dated an Arminian woman. The relationship didn't last long though, because she put a pile of John Wesley's sermons on top of my pile of John Calvin's sermons - and you "NEVER" put anything written by Wesley above the writings of Calvin. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!!!
On a related note, do any Arminians here want my ex-girlfriend's sermons from Wesley, which I feel predestined to give away? Since y'all are fond of things "FREE", I'll give them out at no cost!!!
On a related note, do any Arminians here want my ex-girlfriend's sermons from Wesley, which I feel predestined to give away? Since y'all are fond of things "FREE", I'll give them out at no cost!!!
T
I have no problems with Hosea.
I do have problems with people changing the meaning of verses like John 3:16-18.
It does not say:
For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that those elected may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the elected, but in order that the elected might be saved through him. Those elected are not condemned; but those who are not elected are condemned already, because they are not elected in the name of the only Son of God.
But this:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
I do have problems with people changing the meaning of verses like John 3:16-18.
It does not say:
For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that those elected may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the elected, but in order that the elected might be saved through him. Those elected are not condemned; but those who are not elected are condemned already, because they are not elected in the name of the only Son of God.
But this:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a chicken-or-egg thing... do we believe in God because he has saved us, or does he save us because we have believed? Which comes first? That's really all it boils down to. Are we DEAD in our trespasses? Or do we have the strength within ourselves to believe?
Many people believe in multiple points of TULIP, without believing in all of them. Your issue with Limited Atonement isn't uncommon, and I can understand it on an emotional level, even though I feel Romans 9 supports it solidly. I know that it seems unjust from a human perspective. What I have to remind myself of is the fact that God doesn't send people to hell. We send ourselves to hell. He intercedes on behalf of some, which I'm so grateful for.
My humble .02 for what it's worth.
Many people believe in multiple points of TULIP, without believing in all of them. Your issue with Limited Atonement isn't uncommon, and I can understand it on an emotional level, even though I feel Romans 9 supports it solidly. I know that it seems unjust from a human perspective. What I have to remind myself of is the fact that God doesn't send people to hell. We send ourselves to hell. He intercedes on behalf of some, which I'm so grateful for.
My humble .02 for what it's worth.
If God has the power to reach down and save the entire world (and he does), why didn't he? It's not a simple thing...
Romans 9... what thoughts on this? The word World used in the passage you mentioned means many things. Kosmos. In some places it means the entire human race. Sometimes it means the human race MINUS believers ("in the world but not OF the world"). In some places it means believers only. In places it means the earth, or the universe. To know what the passage means, we must know what the meaning of kosmos means in John 3:16. Definitely not simple...
Romans 9... what thoughts on this? The word World used in the passage you mentioned means many things. Kosmos. In some places it means the entire human race. Sometimes it means the human race MINUS believers ("in the world but not OF the world"). In some places it means believers only. In places it means the earth, or the universe. To know what the passage means, we must know what the meaning of kosmos means in John 3:16. Definitely not simple...