In my opinion you are
I dont see it, I believe you deceived into thinking that.
Its so easy to find
Reconciled to God while enemies !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- 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.
“I’m not denying that God may work inwardly in people. What I’m denying is that the passages you cited actually say that. The texts literally say that God ‘grants’ or ‘gives’ repentance; they do not say, ‘this means an inward change of heart,’ nor do they define how God grants it. When you say, ‘this means an inward change,’ you’re bringing in a theological framework from somewhere else and reading it back into those verses. That framework might be true, but it isn’t stated or argued for in the passages you quoted. My point is simply: let’s not confuse what the text explicitly says with the theological conclusions we build on top of it.”
Roger 316. These are the competing foundations upon Protestantism was founded. The contention between the Frenchman John Calvin and 3 other Christian frameworks. Use Google to look at Calvinism (TULIP) Arminianism (DAISY) Free Gracers (LOTUS) Molinism (ROSES) Provisionism (PROVIDE) Much of the conversations on this forum are more or less a continuing discussion of these concepts.
Yes, I agree that we live it out and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My point was cause not effect, which cause I believe is God.
Anyway, I think we've pretty much exhausted this particular topic, so I'm out.
Its called the New birth, that brings the conversion. So really giving repentance is synomous to giving conversion. Jesus does the work of turning us from our sins Acts 3:26
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Thats giving repentance/conversion
Thats what it suppose to say !
Go by what it says, not by what it doesnt say. It says He gives repentance duh, its automatically a inward work. Its a change of mind, s the mind inward ? The mind and heart are interconnected. The word for heart kardia means:
So you just deny the truth.
Protestant Frameworks
The Arminian DAISY is a theological acronym used to summarize the core tenets of Arminianism, serving as a direct contrast to the Calvinist "TULIP" acronym. It highlights a theology centered on human free will and God's desire to save all.
The five points of the DAISY acronym represent the following:
• Diminished (or Conditional) Depravity: Humanity is corrupted by sin, but God uses "prevenient grace" to restore humanity's ability to freely respond to His offer of salvation.
•A - Abrogated (or Conditional) Election: God's choice of the "elect" is based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to accept Him, rather than an arbitrary, predetermined decree.
•I - Impersonal (or Unlimited) Atonement: Christ died for all of humanity, making the potential for salvation available to everyone, not just a select group.
•S - Sedentary (or Resistible) Grace: God genuinely calls and draws all people to salvation, but because humans possess free will, this grace can be actively resisted and rejected.
•Y - Yieldable (or Conditional) Justification: Believers retain the free will to turn away from God, meaning a genuinely saved person can fall from grace and ultimately lose their salvation.
Calvinism
is a Protestant theological tradition emphasizing the absolute sovereignty of God and the total inability of humans to save themselves. It is heavily based on the teachings of the 16th-century reformer John Calvin. Its foundational beliefs are often summarized by the acronym TULIP.
Total Depravity: Human nature is inherently corrupted by sin, meaning people are spiritually dead and incapable of choosing God on their own.
Unconditional Election: God has chosen (or "elected") specific individuals to receive salvation before the creation of the world. This choice is based entirely on God's grace and will, not on any merit or foreseen faith in the individual.
Limited Atonement: Also known as Definite Atonement, this is the belief that Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross was intended specifically to save the "elect," rather than every individual person.
Irresistible Grace: When God extends His grace and calls His chosen ones to salvation, they cannot and will not reject it. The Holy Spirit overcomes their resistance, leading them to willingly accept faith.
Perseverance of the Saints: Those whom God has saved are eternally secure. They cannot lose their salvation or completely fall away from faith, as God will keep them until the end.
Broader Theological Emphases Beyond the specific doctrines of salvation, Calvinism emphasizes:The Authority of Scripture: Adheres to Sola Scriptura, viewing the Bible as the final and ultimate authority for faith, worship, and practice. God's Sovereignty: A conviction that God is in total control of the entire universe, directing all things for His ultimate glory. The "Five Solas": Along with the rest of Reformed theology, it champions the core Protestant principles: salvation by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solus Christus), to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).
In Free Grace Theology,
The acronym LOTUS outlines the five core points of salvation as a direct, biblical counter-response to the Calvinist acronym TULIP. Popularized by theologians Daniel Weierbach and Shawn Lazar, it reclaims a simple "faith-alone" framework, emphasizing that eternal life is an unconditional, free gift.
The 5 Points of LOTUSL – Liable Depravity: Humans are deeply affected by sin and liable to spiritual death, but they still retain the free will to accept or reject God's free gift of salvation. (Counters Total Depravity).
O – Occupational Election: God's election chooses individuals or groups for a specific purpose, service, or "occupation" rather than selecting who gets eternally saved or damned. (Counters Unconditional Election)
Total / Tiered Atonement: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world without exception, though Free Grace highlights a distinction between eternal salvation and rewards. (Counters Limited Atonement).
U – Unlimited / Undeserved Grace: God offers his saving grace freely to all people, and it can be resisted; a person is justified by faith alone, not by human effort. (Counters Irresistible Grace).
S – Security of the Saints: Once a person believes in Jesus Christ, they are permanently, eternally secure and can never lose their salvation, regardless of future actions. (Counters Perseverance of the Saints)
Molinism
Molinism is a theological and philosophical system designed to reconcile absolute divine sovereignty with genuine human free will. It asserts that God perfectly orchestrates all of human history while preserving humanity's ability to make uncoerced, libertarian choices.The entire framework rests on a specific concept of divine knowledge divided into three logical moments:
1. Natural KnowledgeThis is God's foundational knowledge of all necessary truths, logic, and all things that can possibly exist. In this stage, God knows everything that is naturally possible before He decides to create anything.
2. Middle Knowledge (Scientia Media). This is the cornerstone of Molinism, coined by the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It is God's infallible knowledge of counterfactuals—what any free creature would freely choose to do in any given set of
circumstances. For example, God knows exactly how you would react if you had been born in a different country, or if you had won the lottery yesterday.
3. Free Knowledge. This is God's knowledge of the actual world that He chose to create. Armed with Middle Knowledge, God knew exactly which "possible world" would result in His desired outcomes while allowing humans to act freely. He then decreed this specific world into existence.
How it Works in Practice - Because God has Middle Knowledge, He does not have to force human beings to make certain choices, nor does He guess what they will do. Instead, God simply places people in the specific circumstances where He already knows they will freely choose to do what He wants. Molinists often point to biblical moments, such as Jesus' declaration in Matthew 11:21 that the cities of Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had seen His miracles, as evidence for divine middle knowledge.
Common Critiques. Molinism faces pushback from both sides of the theological aisle:Calvinists argue that if humans have ultimate libertarian free will, God’s sovereignty is compromised and contingent upon human choices.
Arminians/Open Theists argue that if God already knows exactly how we will act in every situation, our free will is largely an illusion or effectively predetermined by the circumstances God places us in.
The Arminian DAISY is a theological acronym used to summarize the core tenets of Arminianism, serving as a direct contrast to the Calvinist "TULIP" acronym. It highlights a theology centered on human free will and God's desire to save all.
The five points of the DAISY acronym represent the following:
• Diminished (or Conditional) Depravity: Humanity is corrupted by sin, but God uses "prevenient grace" to restore humanity's ability to freely respond to His offer of salvation.
•A - Abrogated (or Conditional) Election: God's choice of the "elect" is based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to accept Him, rather than an arbitrary, predetermined decree.
•I - Impersonal (or Unlimited) Atonement: Christ died for all of humanity, making the potential for salvation available to everyone, not just a select group.
•S - Sedentary (or Resistible) Grace: God genuinely calls and draws all people to salvation, but because humans possess free will, this grace can be actively resisted and rejected.
•Y - Yieldable (or Conditional) Justification: Believers retain the free will to turn away from God, meaning a genuinely saved person can fall from grace and ultimately lose their salvation.
Calvinism
is a Protestant theological tradition emphasizing the absolute sovereignty of God and the total inability of humans to save themselves. It is heavily based on the teachings of the 16th-century reformer John Calvin. Its foundational beliefs are often summarized by the acronym TULIP.
Total Depravity: Human nature is inherently corrupted by sin, meaning people are spiritually dead and incapable of choosing God on their own.
Unconditional Election: God has chosen (or "elected") specific individuals to receive salvation before the creation of the world. This choice is based entirely on God's grace and will, not on any merit or foreseen faith in the individual.
Limited Atonement: Also known as Definite Atonement, this is the belief that Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross was intended specifically to save the "elect," rather than every individual person.
Irresistible Grace: When God extends His grace and calls His chosen ones to salvation, they cannot and will not reject it. The Holy Spirit overcomes their resistance, leading them to willingly accept faith.
Perseverance of the Saints: Those whom God has saved are eternally secure. They cannot lose their salvation or completely fall away from faith, as God will keep them until the end.
Broader Theological Emphases Beyond the specific doctrines of salvation, Calvinism emphasizes:The Authority of Scripture: Adheres to Sola Scriptura, viewing the Bible as the final and ultimate authority for faith, worship, and practice. God's Sovereignty: A conviction that God is in total control of the entire universe, directing all things for His ultimate glory. The "Five Solas": Along with the rest of Reformed theology, it champions the core Protestant principles: salvation by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solus Christus), to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).
In Free Grace Theology,
The acronym LOTUS outlines the five core points of salvation as a direct, biblical counter-response to the Calvinist acronym TULIP. Popularized by theologians Daniel Weierbach and Shawn Lazar, it reclaims a simple "faith-alone" framework, emphasizing that eternal life is an unconditional, free gift.
The 5 Points of LOTUSL – Liable Depravity: Humans are deeply affected by sin and liable to spiritual death, but they still retain the free will to accept or reject God's free gift of salvation. (Counters Total Depravity).
O – Occupational Election: God's election chooses individuals or groups for a specific purpose, service, or "occupation" rather than selecting who gets eternally saved or damned. (Counters Unconditional Election)
Total / Tiered Atonement: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world without exception, though Free Grace highlights a distinction between eternal salvation and rewards. (Counters Limited Atonement).
U – Unlimited / Undeserved Grace: God offers his saving grace freely to all people, and it can be resisted; a person is justified by faith alone, not by human effort. (Counters Irresistible Grace).
S – Security of the Saints: Once a person believes in Jesus Christ, they are permanently, eternally secure and can never lose their salvation, regardless of future actions. (Counters Perseverance of the Saints)
Molinism
Molinism is a theological and philosophical system designed to reconcile absolute divine sovereignty with genuine human free will. It asserts that God perfectly orchestrates all of human history while preserving humanity's ability to make uncoerced, libertarian choices.The entire framework rests on a specific concept of divine knowledge divided into three logical moments:
1. Natural KnowledgeThis is God's foundational knowledge of all necessary truths, logic, and all things that can possibly exist. In this stage, God knows everything that is naturally possible before He decides to create anything.
2. Middle Knowledge (Scientia Media). This is the cornerstone of Molinism, coined by the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It is God's infallible knowledge of counterfactuals—what any free creature would freely choose to do in any given set of
circumstances. For example, God knows exactly how you would react if you had been born in a different country, or if you had won the lottery yesterday.
3. Free Knowledge. This is God's knowledge of the actual world that He chose to create. Armed with Middle Knowledge, God knew exactly which "possible world" would result in His desired outcomes while allowing humans to act freely. He then decreed this specific world into existence.
How it Works in Practice - Because God has Middle Knowledge, He does not have to force human beings to make certain choices, nor does He guess what they will do. Instead, God simply places people in the specific circumstances where He already knows they will freely choose to do what He wants. Molinists often point to biblical moments, such as Jesus' declaration in Matthew 11:21 that the cities of Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had seen His miracles, as evidence for divine middle knowledge.
Common Critiques. Molinism faces pushback from both sides of the theological aisle:Calvinists argue that if humans have ultimate libertarian free will, God’s sovereignty is compromised and contingent upon human choices.
Arminians/Open Theists argue that if God already knows exactly how we will act in every situation, our free will is largely an illusion or effectively predetermined by the circumstances God places us in.
Go ahead if you think they are relevant to the discussion of TULIP vs. MFW.
I thank you both for your answers and I appreciate it. I know the traditional definitions of the words, but over the past couple of months, I have read claims about these various systems that I know the original authors would not endorse. So I find myself a bit lost at times.
I often feel like I’m being misread through someone else’s theological framework, rather than heard on my own terms. I try not to approach biblical discussions as if I’m wearing a team jersey. Sometimes it feels as though my comments are being filtered through a particular set of systematic‑theology lenses, which makes it hard to communicate what I’m actually saying. Some of us have been wrestling with these questions for a long time and have worked through many of the common objections. It becomes difficult to express those thoughts when the conversation assumes a position I’m not taking.
Anyway, thank you both for helping me.
@biblestudent78
More on Reconciliation explained ! cont 5
1 Pet 3:18 teaches Subjective Reconciliation by Christ's death !
1 Pet 3:18
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
The phrase here " That He might bring us to God" denotes Subjective Reconciliation, for His suffering and being put to death in the flesh, His dying on the Cross, was for the Purpose of bringing the Elect of God to God, and He did accomplish that. This bringing to God means to draw near, it means to render one acceptable to God !
This denotes that the enmity they had has been dealt with by the death of Christ as well and now they come into communion and fellowship with God !
Now this vital Truth of Reconciliation is important because when properly understood as it is taught in scripture, there is no room for the false teaching of Jesus Christ having died for everyone without exception, simply because, everyone without exception shall not be saved by His Life, as it is promised to all that were reconciled by His Death !
Jesus tells us that there are many who shall not see life Jn 3:36- This statement cannot apply to any for whom Christ died, and thereby reconciled them to God by His Death.
Also those who falsely teach that no one was actually reconciled to God objectively solely by the Death of His Son, but only they are given a basis for Reconciliation to God, if they believe, those are teaching lies and a false Gospel, for scripture is plain that all for whom Christ died were objectively Reconciled , and that the same shall be subjectively reconciled in time by a communication of Christ's Life to them by the Spirit of God ! 3
1 Pet 3:18 teaches Subjective Reconciliation by Christ's death !
1 Pet 3:18
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
The phrase here " That He might bring us to God" denotes Subjective Reconciliation, for His suffering and being put to death in the flesh, His dying on the Cross, was for the Purpose of bringing the Elect of God to God, and He did accomplish that. This bringing to God means to draw near, it means to render one acceptable to God !
This denotes that the enmity they had has been dealt with by the death of Christ as well and now they come into communion and fellowship with God !
Now this vital Truth of Reconciliation is important because when properly understood as it is taught in scripture, there is no room for the false teaching of Jesus Christ having died for everyone without exception, simply because, everyone without exception shall not be saved by His Life, as it is promised to all that were reconciled by His Death !
Jesus tells us that there are many who shall not see life Jn 3:36- This statement cannot apply to any for whom Christ died, and thereby reconciled them to God by His Death.
Also those who falsely teach that no one was actually reconciled to God objectively solely by the Death of His Son, but only they are given a basis for Reconciliation to God, if they believe, those are teaching lies and a false Gospel, for scripture is plain that all for whom Christ died were objectively Reconciled , and that the same shall be subjectively reconciled in time by a communication of Christ's Life to them by the Spirit of God ! 3
What do you think “bring us to God” means in Peter’s own usage, not in a theological system?
The phrase “that He might bring us to God” (προσαγάγῃ) means granting access, not performing repentance on our behalf.
Paul uses the same verb in Romans 5:2 and Ephesians 2:18 to describe access to God.
It is not a synonym for “subjective reconciliation.”
It does not mean Christ repents for us, believes for us, or removes our hostility for us.
Yes, I am right there with you having been a teen in the 1960s.
I encourage you to develop and save the best/clearest way of stating your view,
so that you can c&p to CC regarding continual topics such as tulip.
(My jersey says "Truthseeker" :^)
I just posted it
Another misrerepensataion
Yeah but that presupposes regeneration first. Jesus death provided the regeneration in pursuit of giving them access to God by Faith
Thats still what it is, Jesus provides the spiritual internal properties to approach God. Thats why I say you are unlearned in the things of God, and what Christ did in saving a sinner, He is responsible for legal and subjective reconciliation, you deny it
Never said He did, that's more of what I was talking about earlier, your false misreprentation of folk, thats a evil quality to have friend on a christian discussion site
You posted an interpretation based on a particular systematic theology. You brought that system with you. You didn't find it there.
How so?
Not really. Peter isn’t discussing reconciliation in 1 Peter 3:18. He’s using Christ’s suffering as the model for Christian suffering. The atonement language is present, but it’s supporting the pastoral point, not defining a doctrine of reconciliation.
Peter’s point in 1 Peter 3:18 is not that the atonement is subjective or legal, but that Christ’s unjust suffering provides the pattern for Christian endurance. Reading legal or subjective categories into the text goes beyond what Peter is actually arguing.”
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. What I’m doing is responding to the logical implications of the position you’ve stated. When we examine an idea, part of honest dialogue is tracing out where that idea leads, even if those conclusions weren’t explicitly stated. That isn’t the same as creating a strawman; it’s simply testing the internal coherence of the view being presented. My goal is to engage with your actual position by following its implications, not to misrepresent it.
Our goal is to hear what Peter is saying and your view adds to it.