Calvinism is Gospel !

[Roger316]

Amazing the appeal to the same file deck of responses...sorry but is it true.

Regeneration preceding faith is not supported by scripture.

Well, if I am teaching from scripture, and I am, then one would expect the "same deck of responses." I try not to be repentative, but it all comes down to same thing -- the activity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[HeIsHere]

I understand and agree with all of that. But it doesn't defeat what I said earlier.

Paul is not merely saying, “God ordained Jacob and Esau differently.” That is true, but it is not his argument. Paul is answering the charge of injustice: “Is God unfair to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were born?” His answer is not that God looked ahead at their choices, nor that He applied a set of conditions, nor even that He simply decreed their destinies. Paul’s answer is that God is a Creator, not a responder. The potter does not wait to see what the clay will become; the potter forms the clay into what he intends. Jacob’s role in redemptive history was not selected from a shelf of possible outcomes—it was crafted. Esau’s role was not the result of foreseen unbelief—it was formed. Paul’s point is that God’s choice is not reactive but creative. Election is not God picking from what exists; it is God determining what will exist.

This is why Paul uses the potter analogy. A potter does not choose between finished pots based on conditions; he shapes the pot according to his purpose. In Paul’s logic, Jacob was created to display God’s mercy, and Esau was created to display God’s displeasure. Their destinies were not the result of their actions but the result of God’s design. This is why Paul says their differentiation occurred “before they had done anything good or bad.” He is not arguing that God made an early selection; he is arguing that God made an early creation. The distinction between the brothers is not grounded in foreseen faith or foreseen unbelief but in God’s intention to reveal aspects of His character through the narrative of their lives. God’s justice is upheld because He is not judging two equal agents; He is crafting two different vessels for two different purposes. The potter’s right is not the right to evaluate but the right to form.

All this predicated on the false doctrine of "regeneration preceding faith" or unconditional election for individual salvation, nowhere taught in scripture.

 

[HeIsHere]

Well, if I am teaching from scripture, and I am, then one would expect the "same deck of responses." I try not to be repentative, but it all comes down to same thing -- the activity of the Holy Spirit.

It is actually called TULIP, which is not supported by scripture, but it is developed by using the same out of context verses over and over again.

 

[Roger316]

So god creates people he does not intend to redeem, born to suffer and die because god hates them, they are Esau, not Jacob.

The short answer is yes -- and it is a simple matter of accepting the uncomfortable truth that we are creatures. Paul highlights this point in his argument when he says, "Who are you O man?" He is not scolding the reader. He is asking the reader an honest question. WHO ARE YOU? In our idiom we would say, "WHAT ARE YOU?" Am I a created thing or not?

If we are willing to admit, "Okey, yes, I am a created thing." Then Paul's next question is this. Will the thing created say to the creator, "Why did you make me like this?"

Reading all the chapters of Romans will do me no good unless I can be honest enough to answer those two questions truthfully.

I am not sure how you can have TUL without the I but seems you do think grace is resistible theoretically, but it seems in reality you do not.

I hear you. When I say I am not a TULIP person, I am rejecting the system's philosophical underpinnings. What I am telling you in this thread is not coming from a system. It is coming from what Paul taught. To the degree that I understand Paul, then believe me, but if I haven't understood Paul, then don't believe me.

The foundational basis for what I believe about salvation begins with those two questions: Who am I? and Will I talk back to God and ask, "why did you make me like this?"

 

[Roger316]

All this predicated on the false doctrine of "regeneration preceding faith" or unconditional election for individual salvation, nowhere taught in scripture.

The issue isn't whether regeneration precedes faith or vice versa. According to Jesus, all kinds of people believe God's word. The question is whether what they heard will have a lasting effect.

In Ephesians, Paul does not invite us to dissect the mechanics of whether faith comes before regeneration or regeneration before faith. Instead, he directs our attention to the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Ephesians heard the gospel, believed, and were sealed with the Spirit as the earnest of their inheritance—and that sealing is the defining mark of the saints. Paul’s emphasis is not on the order of operations but on the reality that salvation is the Spirit’s work from beginning to end. The Spirit opens the heart to believe, grants the seal of sonship, and guarantees the future inheritance. When we focus on the Spirit’s role, the debate over sequencing becomes secondary; the central truth is that salvation is a divine act of the Spirit, not a human achievement.

We often divide salvation into justification, sanctification, and glorification, and while these categories are useful for teaching, they can mislead us into thinking of salvation as a series of disconnected mileposts—places where one could theoretically “exit” the process. But Scripture never treats them that way. For Paul, these are not separate stages but one unified work of God expressed in different dimensions. The same Spirit who justifies also sanctifies, and the same Spirit who sanctifies also guarantees glorification. They are not three roads but one road; not three acts but one movement of divine grace. When we see salvation as a single Spirit‑driven reality, the question of sequencing fades, and the unity of God’s saving work comes into view.

 

[pinebeach]

I did NOT think that you thought God was not in the Bible!
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
I apologize for my part of the confusion.

I am not going to bother with posting the exchange in the order they came about.

You exactly thought you were reprimanding me. You are simply trying to 'save face' where it does not even matter but for your own highly thought of 'self' you must do so. You must be perfect in your own eyes and while you admitted at first that you misunderstood what I wrote, you have since seen nothing that resembles that. I have found in any exchange with you, that you do not understand often enough and as a result, you throw scripture hoping that something will stick.

Someone said to you that you do not understand salvation and I tend to agree with that observation.

I am under no obligation to accept a false apology especially since the reason given, is not at all the truth of the matter. You manage to insert yourself into almost every thread and try to sound like a teacher of some kind. I don't think anyone is convinced you are any kind of teacher at all and that goes for both the Calvinists here and the non-Calvinists here.

Actually, I'm not exactly convinced you understood what I wrote concerning how some people write G-d. That's because you do not view anyone else's view or understanding as valid since your own is without doubt, the pinacle of understanding and truth. (not)

 

[GWH]

I am not going to bother with posting the exchange in the order they came about.

You exactly thought you were reprimanding me. You are simply trying to 'save face' where it does not even matter but for your own highly thought of 'self' you must do so. You must be perfect in your own eyes and while you admitted at first that you misunderstood what I wrote, you have since seen nothing that resembles that. I have found in any exchange with you, that you do not understand often enough and as a result, you throw scripture hoping that something will stick.

Someone said to you that you do not understand salvation and I tend to agree with that observation.

I am under no obligation to accept a false apology especially since the reason given, is not at all the truth of the matter. You manage to insert yourself into almost every thread and try to sound like a teacher of some kind. I don't think anyone is convinced you are any kind of teacher at all and that goes for both the Calvinists here and the non-Calvinists here.

Actually, I'm not exactly convinced you understood what I wrote concerning how some people write G-d. That's because you do not view anyone else's view or understanding as valid since your own is without doubt, the pinacle of understanding and truth. (not)

Actually, Jesus does obligate you to forgive.
I urge you not to project your personality onto others.

My understanding of salvation is this:

The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6) or “Love Jesus as Messiah and Lord” (John 8:42). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in these statements can be explained or elaborated as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.

2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).

3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).

4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).

5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.

6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).

 

[pinebeach]

I never said "a 5 yr old cannot be saved because they are not capable of understanding". You just made that nonsense up, and that reveals that you're a liar

Well you did say that. You said exactly that so either you have a faulty memory or you hope everyone else does.

A 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to understand what being born again means. Your testimony is more like a Fairy-tale. But it sounds like you were quite capable of sin. If you weren't born dead in your trespasses and sin, then Gods Word is not true.

So you put me in a terrible position where I'm forced to choose between your private opinion and Gods Word.

You don't even hold to systematic theology, your theology is all fragmented, inconsistent and incoherent. Those of us who rightly divide the Word of God, never struggle with all of these contradictions and inconsistencies, our theology is in perfect harmony with the whole counsel of God.

We don't need to twist any scripture to make it fit our narrative, as you do.

So there it is. You put yourself in a terrible position and you are quite good at it. You and a few others here lie without any fear which tells me something I won't write down but perhaps some here know what lying that often means. It does not bode well for you or anyone else that is committed to that practice.

Jesus is not a system and God, who is also our Father if we have accepted his final offering for sin, did not send Him to this planet to be or create a system. You would know that if you were not following a system that is not biblical and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. You are following a dead man who did not even make mention of all you say you believe, but that still bears his name.

You do not have to choose a thing bub. You have already chosen and so have I.

 

[-Lutheran]

The issue isn't whether regeneration precedes faith or vice versa.

That difference is synergism (doctrines of works) or monergism (doctrines of grace). And if logically sound or consistent, each leads to either Pelagianism or Reformation theology. Pelagianism sounds rational (to short-sighted illiterates) but is based on a false premise. I won't bother addressing your opponents about the timing of regeneration from scripture. The timing is addressed in both canons.
Also, from me to you, "Irresistible" Grace isn't how the opponents to orthodoxy here understand it.
And before any of them bother responding, they ought to question any desire to respond and its origin, let alone how that will of theirs is applied against orthodoxy.

 

[pinebeach]

Actually, Jesus does obligate you to forgive.
I urge you not to project your personality onto others.

You have not asked for forgiveness, which I never withold and I promise you that I know far better what is expected of a believer than you will have any clue about.

You are the one that tries to force your divided personality on others by misquoting scripture and using it like a club as you are doing it here.

I reject your false humility and your false teaching and your false so called apology and for your info, I forgave you a long time ago and more than once because of what you do and how you project and I forgive you in Jesus name because you do not know what you are doing...NOT because I think for one moment that you in any way shape or form have any expectancy from me to kow tow
to your false gospel.

No one is under any obligation to continue being involved with a person they have forgiven because that person continually abuses or lies about them. So go in Jesus name but be none the wiser apparently.

BTW, check out Paul. He had a problem with the behavior of someone, forgave them, but did not want to be involved with them again. He did finally accept them, but I doubt things were ever the same. If we can know a child by their ways, as scripture tells us, how much more an adult who often gaslights others, uses scripture as a tool for his own purposes and never ever lets anything go. Ever.

I am putting you on ignore...again...where I think you will do me the most good.

 

[pinebeach]

My theology is based on the Bible, yours is based on your own private unbiblical opinions. You haven't found any faults in my theology, so you resort to slander

You are welcome to your theology. I will be content with and continue to fellowship with Jesus, the Father and be inspired by and taught by the Holy Spirit...by study, inspiration and the teaching of those who are equally inspired by the Holy Spirit and acknowledge that we can only know of God what He graciously allows and some more than others.

Obviously I have not resorted to slander. You are a false accuser and that does not bring you into good company.

 

[-Lutheran]

You have not asked for forgiveness, which I never withold and I promise you that I know far better what is expected of a believer than you will have any clue about.

You are the one that tries to force your divided personality on others by misquoting scripture and using it like a club as you are doing it here.

I reject your false humility and your false teaching and your false so called apology and for your info, I forgave you a long time ago and more than once because of what you do and how you project and I forgive you in Jesus name because you do not know what you are doing...NOT because I think for one moment that you in any way shape or form have any expectancy from me to kow tow
to your false gospel.

No one is under any obligation to continue being involved with a person they have forgiven because that person continually abuses or lies about them. So go in Jesus name but be none the wiser apparently.

BTW, check out Paul. He had a problem with the behavior of someone, forgave them, but did not want to be involved with them again. He did finally accept them, but I doubt things were ever the same. If we can know a child by their ways, as scripture tells us, how much more an adult who often gaslights others, uses scripture as a tool for his own purposes and never ever lets anything go. Ever.

I am putting you on ignore...again...where I think you will do me the most good.

That false humility reminds me of some church altar calls or pulpit testimonial time. When traveling about, I try to find any church to attend on the Lord's Day. What is the definition of worship? On any given Sunday, sometimes somebody steps up behind the pulpit and declares how they got saved! Counting every "I," "me," and "myself" in the individual's testimony about what they had done, usually while erring dirty laundry, keeps me awake.

 

[pinebeach]

Paul makes the same theological move in Romans 11 that Peter makes in his teaching about the apparent “delay” of the Lord’s return. Peter says the Lord is patient, holding back the Day until He has brought all whom He intends to repentance; Paul frames that same logic in terms of Israel’s present condition. In Romans 11 he explains that a partial hardening has come upon Israel—not total, not final—until the full number of Gentiles has come in. In other words, God is orchestrating history toward a redemptive fullness, and the present delay is not evidence of divine slackness but of divine purpose. Just as Peter says God waits so that all may reach repentance, Paul says God waits until His Gentile ingathering is complete, after which He will remove Israel’s hardening and bring about their restoration. Both apostles interpret the “delay” not as an interruption in God’s plan but as the very means by which God completes it.

Uh huh. Only that is not what the exchange was actually about. Honestly, some of you must think myself and others have amnesia.

In your own words: I understand your emotional reaction to what I said and why you didn't present a rational rebuttal.

 

[pinebeach]

That false humility reminds me of some church altar calls or pulpit testimonial time. When traveling about, I try to find any church to attend on the Lord's Day. What is the definition of worship? On any given Sunday, sometimes somebody steps up behind the pulpit and declares how they got saved! Counting every "I," "me," and "myself" in the individual's testimony about what they had done, usually while erring dirty laundry, keeps me awake.

It seems most churches advertise their morning service as 'worship service'. It is not.

 

[Roger316]

Uh huh. Only that is not what the exchange was actually about. Honestly, some of you must think myself and others have amnesia.

In your own words: I understand your emotional reaction to what I said and why you didn't present a rational rebuttal.

You didn't present a rational rebuttal. That is a fact. I'm not saying you tried to make a rational rebuttal and failed. I'm saying that you didn't even try. As I said before and I say again, your argument was basically in this form : "You can't be right because if you are, I would need to give up my perspective." This is like the Baptist minister who upon hearing God's sovereignty taught from Romans, he says, "If that is what Paul is saying, I couldn't be a Baptist." And to that I say, "Well, maybe you shouldn't be a Baptist then."

This is a typical argument from those who believe a particular paradigm as a matter of course, but haven't thought it all the way through. You just "know" what you believe but since you didn't arrive at your position through reason, you can't give reasons for why you believe what you believe.

I know what the discussion was about. And I gave you good reasons for why Peter isn't talking about each and every person as you think. You don't have any reason to think he means "everyone" when he says "all". You simply hear what you want to hear.

Sad to say, but it's true. I suggest you examine the passage again and take the requisite time to understand what Peter actually meant by his words.

 

[GWH]

You have not asked for forgiveness, which I never withold and I promise you that I know far better what is expected of a believer than you will have any clue about.

You are the one that tries to force your divided personality on others by misquoting scripture and using it like a club as you are doing it here.

I reject your false humility and your false teaching and your false so called apology and for your info, I forgave you a long time ago and more than once because of what you do and how you project and I forgive you in Jesus name because you do not know what you are doing...NOT because I think for one moment that you in any way shape or form have any expectancy from me to kow tow
to your false gospel.

No one is under any obligation to continue being involved with a person they have forgiven because that person continually abuses or lies about them. So go in Jesus name but be none the wiser apparently.

BTW, check out Paul. He had a problem with the behavior of someone, forgave them, but did not want to be involved with them again. He did finally accept them, but I doubt things were ever the same. If we can know a child by their ways, as scripture tells us, how much more an adult who often gaslights others, uses scripture as a tool for his own purposes and never ever lets anything go. Ever.

I am putting you on ignore...again...where I think you will do me the most good.

Apologizing is the equivalent of wanting forgiveness. Sorry you did not understand that.

I have no idea what Scripture you think I misquote or use like a club; nor do I understand what part of my creed you think is false.
I suspect you realize you also are wrong (it takes two) but don't want to apologize for your part.

 

[-Lutheran]

Apologizing is the equivalent of wanting forgiveness. Sorry you did not understand that.

I have no idea what Scripture you think I misquote or use like a club; nor do I understand what part of my creed you think is false.
I suspect you realize you also are wrong (it takes two) but don't want to apologize for your part.

"YOU" are about as passive-aggressive as can be.
Where are the men?
Oh no, nobody wants to be here while "YOU" swing to the other extreme.
What day of the month is it?

 

[pinebeach]

You didn't present a rational rebuttal.

Right. You mean rational according to your interpretation of scripture ie: those who do not see what my obviously (cough cough) superior ability to teach everyone here can lead to. I am trying to so hard to make little 'mes'....people just like me who understand how much I am able to create the same things I believe in others.

Your false superiority with a pop psychology twist, is about the only thing that keeps you going in this forum. I'm not a believer though. You continue to paint me as a sad little waif who has just got things wrong and needs help.

Yeah, takes a real man to fall back on such tactics. Kind of disgusting actually.

 

[GWH]

You didn't present a rational rebuttal. That is a fact. I'm not saying you tried to make a rational rebuttal and failed. I'm saying that you didn't even try. As I said before and I say again, your argument was basically in this form : "You can't be right because if you are, I would need to give up my perspective." This is like the Baptist minister who upon hearing God's sovereignty taught from Romans, he says, "If that is what Paul is saying, I couldn't be a Baptist." And to that I say, "Well, maybe you shouldn't be a Baptist then."

This is a typical argument from those who believe a particular paradigm as a matter of course, but haven't thought it all the way through. You just "know" what you believe but since you didn't arrive at your position through reason, you can't give reasons for why you believe what you believe.

I know what the discussion was about. And I gave you good reasons for why Peter isn't talking about each and every person as you think. You don't have any reason to think he means "everyone" when he says "all". You simply hear what you want to hear.

Sad to say, but it's true. I suggest you examine the passage again and take the requisite time to understand what Peter actually meant by his words.

Yes, unfortunately, instead of friendly discussion pb's gift/curse seems to be judgmentalism and projecting one's own self onto others instead of looking in the mirror.

 

[-Lutheran]

Yes, unfortunately, instead of friendly discussion pb's gift/curse seems to be judgmentalism and projecting one's own self onto others instead of looking in the mirror.

"YOU" gotta like vampire movies because "YOU" haven't any reflection.
Oh, mighty immortal! And @pinebeach actually conveyed that worldly psychobabble passed off as wisdom.