Calvinism is Gospel !

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are creating a distinction that Paul’s grammar in Romans 8 simply does not allow. You are confusing a believer’s daily struggle with sin (sanctification) with an unregenerate person’s fundamental state of being (regeneration).

Look carefully at the sharp contrast Paul sets up in Romans 8:5–9. He divides humanity into two—and only two—absolute categories based on their nature, not their spiritual habits:
  1. The Carnal Category: Those who are "after the flesh" have a "carnal mind" which is "enmity against God" and "is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (v. 5-7). Paul concludes this category in verse 8: "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
  2. The Spiritual Category: Paul immediately shifts to the believer in verse 9: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."
Notice Paul’s absolute language. He does not say, "You are not in the flesh as long as you are fasting and praying today." He says you are not in the flesh "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Indwelling is a permanent identity, not a fluctuating daily performance.

If your argument were true—that a believer who neglects prayer or fasting steps back into the "carnal mind" of verse 7—then that believer would instantly become "enmity against God" and "cannot please God" (v. 8). That would mean their salvation is lost the moment they have a dry spiritual season.

Furthermore, Paul explicitly seals who belongs in the fleshly category in the very next sentence: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (v. 9).

The person who has a carnal mind that cannot obey God is the person who does not have the Spirit of Christ. The unregenerate man is permanently fixed in the flesh and cannot please God. Your comparison breaks down because a true believer, even when stumbling, possesses a renewed nature and the indwelling Spirit, making it impossible for them to ever return to the total, hostile spiritual death of the unregenerate.
If you compare Rom. 8:9 to Gal. 5:25, you can understand that Paul is not talking about unregenerate people when he speaks of a carnal mind. Therefore "living in the spirit" is different from "walking in the spirit".
Notice Paul’s absolute language. He does not say, "You are not in the flesh as long as you are fasting and praying today." He says you are not in the flesh "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Indwelling is a permanent identity, not a fluctuating daily performance.
You have to understand that Rom. 8 is an answer to the struggle Paul mentioned in Rom. 7. So, when the person struggled between his mind to do good and his actions that were contrary to his knowledge, he was not talking about two categories of people. It is the same person who is having struggle to keep up with what he knows he should be doing. I agree that the indwelling of the Spirit is permanent, but you are framing our spiritual walk with the Lord as "performance"? Do you mean to say that Rom. 8:26 is unnecessary to walk with the Lord?

If your argument were true—that a believer who neglects prayer or fasting steps back into the "carnal mind" of verse 7—then that believer would instantly become "enmity against God" and "cannot please God" (v. 8). That would mean their salvation is lost the moment they have a dry spiritual season.
Heb. 11:6 clearly says that a person not exercising faith cannot please God. It is the same case over here. A person not walking in the Spirit cannot please God. That does mean that the person loses his salvation, but he definitely loses fellowship with God. To reinstate that fellowship, the person must repent of his sins as mentioned in 1 John 1:9

Furthermore, Paul explicitly seals who belongs in the fleshly category in the very next sentence: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (v. 9).
This is not the fleshly category. This is the unregenerated category. If you look at Rom. 8:12-13, Paul is addressing to believers saying the following: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.". Does it look like two categories of unregenerated people and regenerated people. He is addressing it to believers.

The person who has a carnal mind that cannot obey God is the person who does not have the Spirit of Christ. The unregenerate man is permanently fixed in the flesh and cannot please God. Your comparison breaks down because a true believer, even when stumbling, possesses a renewed nature and the indwelling Spirit, making it impossible for them to ever return to the total, hostile spiritual death of the unregenerate.
With the evidences I provided above, your conclusion is wrong. If you are honest enough, you will not bypass any of my arguments and place your own.
 
If you compare Rom. 8:9 to Gal. 5:25, you can understand that Paul is not talking about unregenerate people when he speaks of a carnal mind. Therefore "living in the spirit" is different from "walking in the spirit".

You have to understand that Rom. 8 is an answer to the struggle Paul mentioned in Rom. 7. So, when the person struggled between his mind to do good and his actions that were contrary to his knowledge, he was not talking about two categories of people. It is the same person who is having struggle to keep up with what he knows he should be doing. I agree that the indwelling of the Spirit is permanent, but you are framing our spiritual walk with the Lord as "performance"? Do you mean to say that Rom. 8:26 is unnecessary to walk with the Lord?


Heb. 11:6 clearly says that a person not exercising faith cannot please God. It is the same case over here. A person not walking in the Spirit cannot please God. That does mean that the person loses his salvation, but he definitely loses fellowship with God. To reinstate that fellowship, the person must repent of his sins as mentioned in 1 John 1:9


This is not the fleshly category. This is the unregenerated category. If you look at Rom. 8:12-13, Paul is addressing to believers saying the following: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.". Does it look like two categories of unregenerated people and regenerated people. He is addressing it to believers.


With the evidences I provided above, your conclusion is wrong. If you are honest enough, you will not bypass any of my arguments and place your own.

A valiant effort and of course rightly divided, however, it will be of no avail to those who continually and unashamedly practice eisegesis,
 
Can we Preach Christ without preaching Election ?

When Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," we have to ask: which scriptures? He is pointing directly to Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 53—the same scripture Philip used to preach Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:32-35).

If we look at what Isaiah 53 actually says "according to the scriptures," it is impossible to separate the preaching of Christ from the preaching of election and particular redemption:
  • Isaiah 53:8: "...for the transgression of my people was he stricken."
  • Isaiah 53:11: "...by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."
  • Isaiah 53:12: "...and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Notice the precise language of the scriptures Paul is referencing. Christ was not stricken for a vague, universal population; He was stricken specifically for "my people"—God's covenant, elect people. He did not bear the iniquities of every single individual in human history; He bore the sins of "many" and successfully justified them.

Therefore, any expansion on the gospel "according to the scriptures" inevitably requires preaching election. To preach the Christ of Isaiah 53 is to preach a Savior who was stricken for a specific people, bore the sins of a specific many, and guaranteed their justification. You cannot truly preach the cross according to the scriptures without preaching the absolute sovereignty of God in saving His elect.


"my people" in Isa. 53:8 are those who would believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
"justify many" and "bore the sin of many" in Isa. 53:11,12 are those who responded to the call of God through the preaching of the gospel.
These are the "elect" people not through "predestination" as you describe, but the "faithful" who walk with the Lord.
 
The Christ Jesus of scripture is preached as Saviour and Lord.
That's all.
Reducing the gospel to the mere phrase "Savior and Lord, that's all" is a dangerous oversimplification. Merely using biblical vocabulary does not mean someone is preaching the biblical text.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons both explicitly preach that Jesus is "Savior and Lord." Yet, they do not preach the Christ of Scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses preach a "Savior" who is actually a created angel (Michael). Mormons preach a "Savior" who is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer. Their gospels are false precisely because they have a different definition of who Jesus is and what His work as Savior actually accomplished.

Titles mean nothing if you strip them of their biblical definitions:

1. What does it mean that He is "Lord"?

To be Lord means He possesses absolute dominion and sovereignty. If Jesus is "Lord," then His will is supreme. If man's free will can frustrate, veto, or defeat the purpose of Christ's death, then man is ultimately lord over his own destiny, and Christ is relegated to a hopeful bystander. You cannot preach Him as supreme Lord while denying His supreme sovereignty over salvation. [1]

2. What does it mean that He is "Savior"?

A savior actually saves; he does not merely make people salvable.
If Christ died for every single individual human without exception, but millions of those people still end up in hell, then Christ did not actually save them. He tried to save them, but failed. That does not make Him a "Savior"—it makes Him a well-meaning offerer of salvation whose blood was shed in vain for the damned. [1]
In contrast, the Scripture defines His role as Savior explicitly: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). He does not try to save everyone and fail; He successfully saves "his people"—the elect body given to Him by the Father.

When we preach Christ as Savior and Lord, we must preach how He saves and why He is Lord. To say "that's all" is to hide behind titles while denying the very power, scope, and efficacy of His substitutionary death on the cross.


 
"my people" in Isa. 53:8 are those who would believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
"justify many" and "bore the sin of many" in Isa. 53:11,12 are those who responded to the call of God through the preaching of the gospel.
These are the "elect" people not through "predestination" as you describe, but the "faithful" who walk with the Lord.
Your explanation completely collapses when you look at the actual timeline and verbs used in Isaiah 53. You are arguing that Christ’s identity as a Savior depends on human cooperation, but the text declares that His death successfully secured a specific, already-defined group of people. [1]

1. The Timeline of "My People" (Isa. 53:8)

You claim that "my people" only refers to those who would later choose to believe and become faithful.
But look at the tense of the verse: "For the transgression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken."

At the moment Christ was being stricken on the cross, God already called this group "my people." They did not become His people after they decided to walk with the Lord or respond to a preacher; they were already His people at the moment of the crucifixion. Christ was not dying for an abstract, empty category waiting for volunteers; He was dying for a distinct covenant people who already belonged to God. [1]

2. The Direct Effect of Justification (Isa. 53:11)

You argue that the "many" are simply those who choose to respond to the gospel. This completely reverses the cause-and-effect stated in the text.

Look at Isaiah 53:11:

"...by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; FOR he shall bear their iniquities."
The text does not say, "He shall bear the iniquities of all, and those who respond will be justified." It says He will justify the many BECAUSE (for) He bore their iniquities.

The bearing of iniquities is the direct, unfrustrated cause of their justification. If Christ bore the iniquities of an individual on the cross, that individual must and will be justified. If any person for whom Christ died ends up in hell, then Christ bore their iniquities in vain, and the word "for" in this verse becomes a lie. The "many" are justified precisely because the cross was an actual, successful substitution, not a conditional option.

3. The Condition of the Sheep (Isa. 53:6)

You claim the elect are simply "the faithful who walk with the Lord."

But Isaiah 53 does not describe the elect as faithful, obedient walkers. It describes them as completely helpless, rebellious, and lost:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)
We were not "walking with the Lord" when He died for us—we were walking away from Him in total rebellion. The only reason any "astray sheep" ever returns to become a faithful follower is because their specific iniquity was laid on Christ, and His sovereign grace tracks them down.

Faith and walking with the Lord are not the conditions that make you one of His people; they are the fruits of the fact that He already purchased you as His own on the cross.
 
Don't be quick to respond. I have already mentioned that if you look at Rom. 8:12-13, does it look like Paul is talking to two separate group of people?
I dont care what you mentioned, you carelessly overriding facts. The unregenerate are permanently in the flesh and permanently carnal So there disabilities stand Rom 8:7-8
 
You are creating a distinction that Paul’s grammar in Romans 8 simply does not allow. You are confusing a believer’s daily struggle with sin (sanctification) with an unregenerate person’s fundamental state of being (regeneration).

Look carefully at the sharp contrast Paul sets up in Romans 8:5–9. He divides humanity into two—and only two—absolute categories based on their nature, not their spiritual habits:
  1. The Carnal Category: Those who are "after the flesh" have a "carnal mind" which is "enmity against God" and "is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (v. 5-7). Paul concludes this category in verse 8: "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
  2. The Spiritual Category: Paul immediately shifts to the believer in verse 9: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."
Notice Paul’s absolute language. He does not say, "You are not in the flesh as long as you are fasting and praying today." He says you are not in the flesh "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Indwelling is a permanent identity, not a fluctuating daily performance.

If your argument were true—that a believer who neglects prayer or fasting steps back into the "carnal mind" of verse 7—then that believer would instantly become "enmity against God" and "cannot please God" (v. 8). That would mean their salvation is lost the moment they have a dry spiritual season.

Furthermore, Paul explicitly seals who belongs in the fleshly category in the very next sentence: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (v. 9).

The person who has a carnal mind that cannot obey God is the person who does not have the Spirit of Christ. The unregenerate man is permanently fixed in the flesh and cannot please God. Your comparison breaks down because a true believer, even when stumbling, possesses a renewed nature and the indwelling Spirit, making it impossible for them to ever return to the total, hostile spiritual death of the unregenerate.
Makes ya think dont it? If God is the one who causes you to obey as you view Ezekiel 36:25-27 how come He is doing such a lousy job at it that you and other reformed people admit you "struggle with sin" or sin daily in thought word and deed? If monergism was true everyone would be in perfect obedience and holiness since God caused it
 
Makes ya think dont it? If God is the one who causes you to obey as you view Ezekiel 36:25-27 how come He is doing such a lousy job at it that you and other reformed people admit you "struggle with sin" or sin daily in thought word and deed? If monergism was true everyone would be in perfect obedience and holiness since God caused it
Your argument completely misses the biblical distinction between regeneration (which is instant and monergistic) and sanctification (which is a progressive process).

Look carefully at the text of Ezekiel 36:26–27. God says:

"A new heart also will I give you... and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."
Notice what God actually promises to cause. He promises a change of nature ("a new heart") and a new direction ("cause you to walk in my statutes"). He does not promise flawless, sinless perfection the moment you are born again. Walking is a process, a journey. To "walk in His statutes" means the direction of a believer's life has permanently changed from a race toward hell into a pursuit of holiness.

If your logic were correct—that any struggle with sin disproves God’s sovereign work—then you would have to accuse the Apostle Paul of not being a true believer. In Romans 7:19–24, Paul explicitly describes his own intense, daily struggle with indwelling sin:

"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do... O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Was God doing a "lousy job" with the Apostle Paul? Absolutely not. The very fact that a believer struggles with sin, grieves over it, and fights against it is the ultimate proof of Ezekiel 36!

An unregenerate person with a stony heart does not truly struggle with sin against a holy God; they love it, walk in it, and are comfortable in it. It takes a sovereignly given "heart of flesh" inhabited by the Holy Spirit to hate sin and wage a lifelong war against it.

Monergism ensures that the dead heart is made alive. It guarantees that the believer will fight the good fight, persevere to the end, and finally be made perfectly holy in glory. To mock a believer's daily struggle with sin is to mock the very reality of Christian warfare that the New Testament repeatedly commands us to endure (Galatians 5:17).


 
I can't agree with any of that, as it contradicts everything God's Word reveals about salvation. You're suggesting that God fails to acheive what He sets out to do, so your view of God is unbiblical.
The God of the Bible cannot fail to acomplish anything because He is Almighty "see that"??

You reckon God tried to get some over the line, but they overpowered Him and caused Him to fail. That is not the God of the Bible.

Why do you think that way?
It is not what I think that you are attacking.
 
Your argument completely misses the biblical distinction between regeneration (which is instant and monergistic) and sanctification (which is a progressive process).

Look carefully at the text of Ezekiel 36:26–27. God says:


Notice what God actually promises to cause. He promises a change of nature ("a new heart") and a new direction ("cause you to walk in my statutes"). He does not promise flawless, sinless perfection the moment you are born again. Walking is a process, a journey. To "walk in His statutes" means the direction of a believer's life has permanently changed from a race toward hell into a pursuit of holiness.

If your logic were correct—that any struggle with sin disproves God’s sovereign work—then you would have to accuse the Apostle Paul of not being a true believer. In Romans 7:19–24, Paul explicitly describes his own intense, daily struggle with indwelling sin:


Was God doing a "lousy job" with the Apostle Paul? Absolutely not. The very fact that a believer struggles with sin, grieves over it, and fights against it is the ultimate proof of Ezekiel 36!

An unregenerate person with a stony heart does not truly struggle with sin against a holy God; they love it, walk in it, and are comfortable in it. It takes a sovereignly given "heart of flesh" inhabited by the Holy Spirit to hate sin and wage a lifelong war against it.

Monergism ensures that the dead heart is made alive. It guarantees that the believer will fight the good fight, persevere to the end, and finally be made perfectly holy in glory. To mock a believer's daily struggle with sin is to mock the very reality of Christian warfare that the New Testament repeatedly commands us to endure (Galatians 5:17).


I would not say that because I believe WE are responsible for our behavior. IF its 100% God then yes God did do a poor job on every single human being who even disobeyed once.

Salvation is God, sanctification is US working with God's grace, THAT is why sanctification CAN be really messy and unsuccesful! NOT GOD'S FAULT BUT OURS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royalty and maximc
Your explanation completely collapses when you look at the actual timeline and verbs used in Isaiah 53. You are arguing that Christ’s identity as a Savior depends on human cooperation, but the text declares that His death successfully secured a specific, already-defined group of people. [1]

1. The Timeline of "My People" (Isa. 53:8)

You claim that "my people" only refers to those who would later choose to believe and become faithful.
But look at the tense of the verse: "For the transgression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken."

At the moment Christ was being stricken on the cross, God already called this group "my people." They did not become His people after they decided to walk with the Lord or respond to a preacher; they were already His people at the moment of the crucifixion. Christ was not dying for an abstract, empty category waiting for volunteers; He was dying for a distinct covenant people who already belonged to God. [1]

2. The Direct Effect of Justification (Isa. 53:11)

You argue that the "many" are simply those who choose to respond to the gospel. This completely reverses the cause-and-effect stated in the text.

Look at Isaiah 53:11:


The text does not say, "He shall bear the iniquities of all, and those who respond will be justified." It says He will justify the many BECAUSE (for) He bore their iniquities.

The bearing of iniquities is the direct, unfrustrated cause of their justification. If Christ bore the iniquities of an individual on the cross, that individual must and will be justified. If any person for whom Christ died ends up in hell, then Christ bore their iniquities in vain, and the word "for" in this verse becomes a lie. The "many" are justified precisely because the cross was an actual, successful substitution, not a conditional option.

3. The Condition of the Sheep (Isa. 53:6)

You claim the elect are simply "the faithful who walk with the Lord."

But Isaiah 53 does not describe the elect as faithful, obedient walkers. It describes them as completely helpless, rebellious, and lost:


We were not "walking with the Lord" when He died for us—we were walking away from Him in total rebellion. The only reason any "astray sheep" ever returns to become a faithful follower is because their specific iniquity was laid on Christ, and His sovereign grace tracks them down.

Faith and walking with the Lord are not the conditions that make you one of His people; they are the fruits of the fact that He already purchased you as His own on the cross.
In Rom. 9:25, the prophecy of Hosea is mentioned where it says, "I will call them my people who were not my people". Now, NT was written centuries ago, and we are born centuries later. According to your argument, we are not God's people because when God declared that statement, we weren't born.
 
Satan knows a way to try to wear out genuinely growing believers.

:devilish: ...."Send in the retards!"

You can only laugh when you see what is going on.
Spiritual retards are real and exist.

Just leave it be!
;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.