Chosen by God - A study in Election

[Bbrdrd]

Men like Paul? Rots of Ruck happy landings.

No, your out of context quotes do not demonstrate Paul taught what you have made a pretext of showing. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 has entirely to do with what Paul was immediately teaching prior and nothing to do with the Calvinist understanding of election. Your heritage begins with Augustine who distorted Paul and the rest of the Bible according to the same pessimistic gnosticism that drew him to Mani.

 

[cv5]

As do you...and when asked questions you dodge them like bullets.

Very perceptive of you.
I don't mind peevishness so much is long as I win the war.
And it really isn't much of a challenge. So far it's like taking candy from a baby.......tragically.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Your mindless bafflegab does nothing to support your's position with scripture that I have asked for for a dozen times.

Your shucking and jiving is becoming tiresome. Show us the scriptures that prove that men first choose God. You can look until your eyes bleed because they are not in there.

I've given you Scripture, I even predicted what you would do with it. You ignored them and moved the goal posts to exclude everything but Paul. Do you think Jesus was mistaken when He said "I stand out the door and knock?" Or "seek first the kingdom?" That somehow what He meant is to sit and wait for God to reveal you've been specially chosen for fabuloous prizes?

 

[cv5]

No, your out of context quotes do not demonstrate Paul taught what you have made a pretext of showing. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 has entirely to do with what Paul was immediately teaching prior and nothing to do with the Calvinist understanding of election. Your heritage begins with Augustine who distorted Paul and the rest of the Bible according to the same pessimistic gnosticism that drew him to Mani.

Nothing has nothing to do with nothing huh? Jesus never taught nor warned about belief huh? The gospels don't have as their central issue the fact of the necessity of belief in Jesus huh?

Rots of Ruck and happy landings. Say hello to Marcion and Jim Jones.

 

[49]

What have we here! I think we hit the lottery.

https://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/elect.htm

Just finished reading. The way he presented this, would seem difficult to refute, if the time is taken to read it in it's entirety and read slowly as to consider what he is saying, and not just skim over it and "pick and choose" parts of it in order to discredit it to conform to one's long standing belief(s). Hope that made sense.
Anyway, thanks for a great read!!

 

[Bbrdrd]

Nothing has nothing to do with nothing huh? Jesus never taught nor warned about belief huh? The gospels don't have as their central issue the fact of the necessity of belief in Jesus huh?

Rots of Ruck and happy landings. Say hello to Marcion and Jim Jones.

You speak of belief, but you forward a doctrine that makes belief meaningless. Under your system the individual doesn't believe, God believes for them. Of course you're simply obfuscating with a bunch of unrelated noise.

You got caught abusing proof texts and don't have a legitimate answer for the contextual meaning so you cloud the issue by bringing in a bunch of unrelated noise. How about we stick to what the context of John 6,8, and 10 makes the central question of those passages and how to understand the proof texts you put forth.

So how about you stop throwing mud and trying to distract the issue, prancing around like you've done something when all you're doing is throwing out tactics of deception.

 

[cv5]

I've given you Scripture, I even predicted what you would do with it. You ignored them and moved the goal posts to exclude everything but Paul. Do you think Jesus was mistaken when He said "I stand out the door and knock?" Or "seek first the kingdom?" That somehow what He meant is to sit and wait for God to reveal you've been specially chosen for fabuloous prizes?

All of those terms must be harmonized together WITH the consummate sweeping breathtaking doctrinal missives BY PAUL, that are for the most part the last and final word. Ephesians chapter 1 being the best example. Ironclad rock solid doctrine. The final word. No wiggle room.

Was Paul the one to whom was committed the revealing of mystery of the Church yes or no?

Are Pauls words gospel yes or no?

Was Paul the one who is laying down doctrine and rules for worship the Church yes or no?

 

[cv5]

Just finished reading. The way he presented this, would seem difficult to refute, if the time is taken to read it in it's entirety and read slowly as to consider what he is saying, and not just skim over it and "pick and choose" parts of it in order to discredit it to conform to one's long standing belief(s). Hope that made sense.
Anyway, thanks for a great read!!

I must get through that tonight thanks for the reminder!

 

[cv5]

You speak of belief, but you forward a doctrine that makes belief meaningless. Under your system the individual doesn't believe, God believes for them. Of course you're simply obfuscating with a bunch of unrelated noise.

You got caught abusing proof texts and don't have a legitimate answer for the contextual meaning so you cloud the issue by bringing in a bunch of unrelated noise. How about we stick to what the context of John 6,8, and 10 makes the central question of those passages and how to understand the proof texts you put forth.

So how about you stop throwing mud and trying to distract the issue, prancing around like you've done something when all you're doing is throwing out tactics of deception.

Irrelevant human philosophizing and carnal human rationalizations. Good for nothing.

Show us the scriptures.

 

[Bbrdrd]

All of those terms must be harmonized together WITH the consummate sweeping breathtaking doctrinal missives BY PAUL, that are for the most part the last and final word. Ephesians chapter 1 being the best example. Ironclad rock solid doctrine. The final word. No wiggle room.

Was Paul the one to whom was committed the revealing of mystery of the Church yes or no?

Are Pauls words gospel yes or no?

Was Paul the one who is laying down doctrine and rules for worship the Church yes or no?

The heart of your error, treating occasional letters as doctrinal missives. You fail to recognize Scripture for what it is, fail to recognize the documents according to their literature and original intent, and create doctrine based off of them that you then use to make yourself a judge of the rest of Scripture. You set yourself and your doctrine as a judge of Scripture by misinterpreting Paul and then setting his writings to ride roughshod over the entire rest of Scripture.

 

[cv5]

The heart of your error, treating occasional letters as doctrinal missives. You fail to recognize Scripture for what it is, fail to recognize the documents according to their literature and original intent, and create doctrine based off of them that you then use to make yourself a judge of the rest of Scripture. You set yourself and your doctrine as a judge of Scripture by misinterpreting Paul and then setting his writings to ride roughshod over the entire rest of Scripture.

What a bunch of hokie bafflegab. Total fail on your part buddy. Yet again.

 

[cv5]

The heart of your error, treating occasional letters as doctrinal missives. You fail to recognize Scripture for what it is, fail to recognize the documents according to their literature and original intent, and create doctrine based off of them that you then use to make yourself a judge of the rest of Scripture. You set yourself and your doctrine as a judge of Scripture by misinterpreting Paul and then setting his writings to ride roughshod over the entire rest of Scripture.

"occasional letters"
Ooohhhh OK.

 

[Bbrdrd]

What a bunch of hokie bafflegab. Total fail on your part buddy. Yet again.

It's quite clear when you take a doxology and force-fit it into the musings of a medieval lawyer while conveniently ignoring portions of it that run counter to the out-of-time salvation such as "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him" you're working on pretexts.
You fail to account for the contextual issues of Scripture and fail to ask the important questions like "What is the original purpose of this writing?" In so doing you place your philosophy over Scriptural truth and instead of looking to Scripture to conform yourself to it you twist it to prove yourself right. You make yourself Scriptures judge and place Paul at odds with the entire rest of the Word, even prioritizing him over Jesus.

 

[cv5]

It's quite clear when you take a doxology and force-fit it into the musings of a medieval lawyer while conveniently ignoring portions of it that run counter to the out-of-time salvation such as "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him" you're working on pretexts.
You fail to account for the contextual issues of Scripture and fail to ask the important questions like "What is the original purpose of this writing?" In so doing you place your philosophy over Scriptural truth and instead of looking to Scripture to conform yourself to it you twist it to prove yourself right. You make yourself Scriptures judge and place Paul at odds with the entire rest of the Word, even prioritizing him over Jesus.

Jesus and Paul and Moses harmonize together PERFECTLY.
If you have any idea of what they're talking about that is.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Jesus and Paul and Moses harmonize together PERFECTLY.
If you have any idea of what they're talking about that is.

You keep abusing the word "harmonize" when you've displayed exactly what you mean by that. Change word meanings where it doesn't suit your doctrine, insist on the "iron clad" nature of your doctrine, and take tidbits that can be twisted and force-fit to your doctrine out of context. You don't use a consistent approach because you seek to preserve your doctrine at all cost.

 

[EleventhHour]

Irrelevant human philosophizing and carnal human rationalizations. Good for nothing.

Show us the scriptures.

Here you go .. according to your definitions.

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the elect means enmity against God?
Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the elect becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4

 

[49]

I must get through that tonight thanks for the reminder!

Am enjoying his sermons!

 

[cv5]

You keep abusing the word "harmonize" when you've displayed exactly what you mean by that. Change word meanings where it doesn't suit your doctrine, insist on the "iron clad" nature of your doctrine, and take tidbits that can be twisted and force-fit to your doctrine out of context. You don't use a consistent approach because you seek to preserve your doctrine at all cost.

Lol. It seems to me that criticizing my posts is the best you can do at formalizing doctrine.
Anyhoo. Eph 1, Rom9, Rom 11,

Here you go .. according to your definitions.

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the elect means enmity against God?
Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the elect becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4

Rewriting the Bible are we? Let's hope you're not leading anybody astray.

 

[EleventhHour]

Rightly dividing the word ... Calvinism is outside Orthodox Christian doctrine

John 6:37 – this is an eternal security passage,it does not teach that God chooses only some for eternal life. It says ALL.
It means that anyone who believes (whosoever believes) has been given to Jesus.

Romans 8:29-30 – once someone becomes a believer, he is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and transformed into an immortal body when he goes to be with the Lord (like Jesus’ body in Luke 24:39).

Ephesians 1:11 – Christians are predestined for an inheritance. That is, those who believe in Christ as Savior will have an inheritance in heaven – 1 Peter 1:3-5, John 14:1-3, Romans 8:17.

 

[Nehemiah6]

John Calvin? Have I ever quoted John Calvin's commentaries even once? Never. I have never quoted any commentary so far, only quoted straight from the Bible. So far the election crowd is batting 1000 as far as I can see.

It does not matter whether you quoted Calvin or not since you hold to his doctrines. But you missed the point of my post altogether because you did not read what Calvin wrote.

HE ACTUALLY REFUTED YOU, AND HIMSELF, AND REFORMED THEOLOGY in those two short paragraphs. Did you get that?