Calvinism is Gospel !
- 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.
- Status
Limited, yes, but not as the Calvinist says it is. The limit is set by mans decision, not from God randomly choosing who to elect and who to damn from the foundations of the world. Therefore it is not limited as the typical Calvinist system says it is. God knew from the foundations of the world, but positively allowed. John 3:16 is a promise to those who would believe, not a promise for those who are chosen to believe.
John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
But Scripture is clear, the indwelling is a result of believing. I've shown this already.
Do I need to show you again? Why?
You're flippant replies have shown me quite clearly that you do not want a fruitful discussion. You only want to use other people as a soundboard to push your agenda. I will no longer give voice to you. I won't chase you any more.
Have a nice day.
That was my earlier point, which you seemed to disagree with.
I don't remember reading that part.
I'm not sure what you mean by "caused" in this instance since you already claimed that she didn't need anyone's help to sin. The Bible claims that Eve was deceived by Satan. That seems wholly different than Satan causing her to sin.
Could Eve have rejected Satan's reasoning?
I don't see that anywhere in the text or the Bible at large. Federal Headship is a philosophical concept imposed on the Bible isn't it?
LOL Actually your spokesperson stands on Calvinism. And you stand on him. His shoulders must be hurting by now. You know there are other proponents of your favorite religious doctrinal error that are actually better known and not a century old
No matter how many times you post this, it is still not true. I will give you credit for your undying determination to repeat things until most people would get a coffee and watch the news or something
The op identifies Calvinism as the gospel and quotes extensively from Prof. David J. Engelsma. The professor does not believe
that the lineage regarding Christ is as defined in scripture and has gone to great lengths to prove his beliefs.
I have absolutely not one single iota of hope that the recognizing of such an error by any Calvinist adherent or parrallel belief systen, will in any way move those persuaded to question how this 'expert' could decide differently than scholars far advanced in understanding than is he. Still, I think it's a little more than interesting that this great man of Calvinism could be found to be so
far removed from what is actually the record as found in scripture.
In plain English, the guy is off in a world of his own which probably results from believing Calvinism is the gospel.
With reference to my post 4486
In an article in the Standard Bearer of December 15, 1991, Prof. Engelsma called attention to the genealogy of Jesus (or, Jesus the Son of Nathan). In this article the writer contends that Jesus and Mary were not in the royal line of David but that Joseph was a physical descendant of Solomon, Rehoboam, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Jehoiachin.
bear in mind that it is Prof. Engelsma’s contention that Mary was not of David’s royal line but that Joseph did belong to that line. If this be true, then we cannot escape the conclusion that David’s royal line runs dead in Joseph without bringing forth the Christ, inasmuch as Mary was not of David’s royal line but Joseph was. However, Joseph was not the father of Jesus; hence, David’s line comes to an end in Joseph without bringing forth the Christ. Now Prof. Engelsma attributes this failure of David’s royal line to bring forth the Christ to the, sins of Jehoiachin, to the fact, that David’s royal line had become unfaithful, disobedient and apostate, that the judgment of God upon it was that it would not produce the everlasting King who establishes the kingdom of God. source
that the lineage regarding Christ is as defined in scripture and has gone to great lengths to prove his beliefs.
I have absolutely not one single iota of hope that the recognizing of such an error by any Calvinist adherent or parrallel belief systen, will in any way move those persuaded to question how this 'expert' could decide differently than scholars far advanced in understanding than is he. Still, I think it's a little more than interesting that this great man of Calvinism could be found to be so
far removed from what is actually the record as found in scripture.
In plain English, the guy is off in a world of his own which probably results from believing Calvinism is the gospel.
With reference to my post 4486
In an article in the Standard Bearer of December 15, 1991, Prof. Engelsma called attention to the genealogy of Jesus (or, Jesus the Son of Nathan). In this article the writer contends that Jesus and Mary were not in the royal line of David but that Joseph was a physical descendant of Solomon, Rehoboam, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Jehoiachin.
bear in mind that it is Prof. Engelsma’s contention that Mary was not of David’s royal line but that Joseph did belong to that line. If this be true, then we cannot escape the conclusion that David’s royal line runs dead in Joseph without bringing forth the Christ, inasmuch as Mary was not of David’s royal line but Joseph was. However, Joseph was not the father of Jesus; hence, David’s line comes to an end in Joseph without bringing forth the Christ. Now Prof. Engelsma attributes this failure of David’s royal line to bring forth the Christ to the, sins of Jehoiachin, to the fact, that David’s royal line had become unfaithful, disobedient and apostate, that the judgment of God upon it was that it would not produce the everlasting King who establishes the kingdom of God. source
No need. The meaning of Rom. 9:14-15 and 2:5-16 in context is obvious to those who have eyes to see:
God will have mercy on those who have faith in Christ, and those who ignore or pervert that Gospel will experience just wrath.
TULIP makes the drawing of God overpowering and irresistible.
That the term "draw" means (to the Calvinist I have listened to) is like a fisherman dragging in fish in a net.
Yet?
We find this in Scripture Jeremiah 31:3 to counter that interpretation...
The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying:
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.
......
Moral free will is the result of God's grace giving a soul free space to think within without the flesh being in complete domination over that soul.
All men are granted this aspect of God's grace.
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men"... Titus 2:11
Moral free will seems to be a naturally occurring reality for many, because the silent and invisible qualities of the way in which God's grace works, goes consciously undetected.
Haven't you ever said something that you had no way of knowing?
And, afterward, to your surprise, it turned out to be true?
In that manner God's grace can work undetected in our thinking at times...
In such a manner, God's grace establishes in depraved humanity the ability to have a moral free will.
................
- Status