Scriptural Authority .

Well hopefully know one would pick Arian.

The Denomination I grew up in did not deal with the Calvin vs Arminian debate.
We just had a simple view of things.
1. God knows the Ending (Great White Throne Judgement) from the Beginning (In the Beginning). That means He knew who would accept Him and who would deny Him before He ever knocks upon their heart. He will equally invite everyone while simultaneously knows who was already going to be with Him and away from Him forever.

Now, within that short paragraph (^), we can find [Predestination].

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

I mean, it's a good thing [there are no Verses] claiming we are Predestined or God Predestined us!

So you interpret those verses in light of what you think about God's knowledge? Instead of the context of those verses ? That is the heart of this topic . And its the issue at hand.

I would say the issue is worse than most realise . Because most traditions and denominations have been permeated by calvinistic thinking .
This is a good video on the topic at hand .

🙄🙄

Hopefully, that other option to which you referred is CHRISTIAN.

Whenever anybody starts associating themselves with any other name than the name of Christ (Acts 4:12), they are basically announcing to the world that, at best, they are CARNAL, and, at worst, they are in a cult.

I Corinthians chapter 3

[1] And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
[2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
[3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
[4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
[5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
[6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
[7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
[8] Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
[9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
[10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
[11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

P.S.

Calvin was not only a heretic, but an arch-heretic.

There, I said it.

If he were still alive today, then I'd personally tell him where he could put his TULIPs (two lips).

Amen to that there is no other name.

Sola Christus

but what does it mean, "appointed to salvation" ? you didn't say.

it seems that the assertion that reformed doctrine has no scriptural authority is false; it does -- so that the argument is about interpretation rather than lack of substantiating scripture.


we had a thread maybe a year or more ago by another gung-ho Pelagian dispensationalist, who warned "beware! one of the strategies of Calvinists is to quote lots of scripture! don't listen to it!"
the irony of that person's topic was lost on him.

Actually, a careful reading of the Five Articles of Remonstrance published by the Arminians shows that they were agreeing with Calvinism to a large degree. But non-Calvinists are not necessarily Arminian, and this is a common mistake made by Calvinists.

ARTICLE I
(a) That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus...

Both groups refer to an eternal and unchangeable decree (or purpose) for predestination unto salvation. The difference is that Calvinists do not make faith in Christ a part of that decree, but Arminians do. Yet, this is not really what predestination is about. Predestination is for the perfection and glorification of those who believe the Gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

(b)...and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end...

Both groups teach the perseverance of the saints (but with different emphases), rather than the preservation of God (since we are "kept by the power of God"). Our salvation is not based upon our perseverance, but is purely a gift of God's grace. That does not mean that God has given His children a license to sin. But it does mean that salvation is entirely of the Lord.

(c) ...and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ...

This resembles the teaching of Total Depravity by the Calvinists. But God does not "leave anyone" under wrath. They condemn themselves by failing to obey the Gospel.

That they themselves disposed themselves to believe. In contrast with the jews in two verses before it .
46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48¶And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

i have read that this word huiothesia is not found in other ancient texts at all and is peculiar to Paul -- that it seems to be a contraction of hyiós ((son)) and títhēmi ((to put or place)), so a literal reading alongside the way its used in context makes our word 'adoption' with all the connotation of it a very accurate rendition.

can you point me at any 1st century or earlier secular Greek text that uses this word? especially in the sense you're claiming it was "commonly used" ? maybe i heard wrong.
because if you can't, then the argument that "everyone back then would know it means coming of age as an adult and already part of the family, not being adopted as part of a family you had no birthright to" seems to have no validity. you're kind of suggesting that it means exactly the opposite of how it is translated, so it's a bit of an important point.

so you're Pelagian.

you believe we predestine/appoint ourselves;
that in the case of ourselves, God only has mercy on who we choose Him to have mercy on?

I just want to make a quick statement:

In all honesty, with the exception of Calvin (because I've personally met and debated many Calvinists over the years and almost every church near where I live is Calvinist), I honestly know almost nothing (I know a little about Tyndale, Hus, John Wesley, Luther) or absolutely nothing about "the Reformers".

At the same time however, by the grace of God, I know plenty about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible because that's where my emphasis has primarily been since I first got saved.

I said "primarily" because I did, for a very brief period of time, start examining the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses (in order to refute them), and God reproved the pants off of me for doing so. Basically, he told me what Paul told the saints at Rome:

"For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. " (Rom. 16:19)

How many people today can honestly say that they are "wise unto that which is good, AND simple (as in a simpleton) concerning evil"?

In other words, God told me that by studying the false teachings of men, even though I was only doing so in order to later refute the same, I was literally "fellowshipping with devils" (I Cor. 10:20) in that the teachings that I was studying were demonically-inspired.

The same principle applies with "the Reformers", "the early church fathers", etc., etc. in the sense that their teachings should never be the basis for any of our beliefs unless they totally align with the rightly-divided word of God.

Perhaps this illustration will help you to better understand what I'm attempting to say here.

Many years ago (I'm pretty old), I had a job as a bank teller. Back in those days, they didn't have the pens or machines which are commonly used nowadays to detect counterfeit money. Instead, the way that we were trained as tellers to spot a counterfeit bill WAS BY CONSISTENTLY HANDLING GENUINE MONEY. In other words, we were so familiar with the feel, the look, the smell, etc, of the true that we could easily spot a counterfeit.

THIS is how it's supposed to be with God. We're supposed to be so familiar with his word that when anybody speaks anything contrary to it we will immediately recognize it as being false.

From my own observations as someone who has been a Christian for more than 32 years, the vast, vast majority of "Christians" I've met haven't even read the entire Bible once, and, yet, they're well versed in the teachings of their pastor, their favorite Bible teacher, their favorite evangelist, the writings of the Reformers, the writings of the early church fathers, etc., etc., etc.

This is the total opposite of how things should be.

Anyhow, just my two cents worth...

Sure.

We don't need to look any further than Paul's epistle to the Galatians to answer your question.

We read:

Galatians chapter 4

[1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
[2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
[3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Here, Paul was using the commonly known example of a Roman "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony as the basis of his comparison to the law's purpose in the life of a believer. I've explained that more fully in my first response on this thread, so please refer back to that if you need further clarification concerning the actual comparison.

Furthermore, many years ago, when I was living in New Jersey, I went to my local library and went into their "History" section. I looked to see if I could find a book in relation to old Roman customs, and I did find one. Not only that, but it described the custom of Roman "adoption" in the same manner in which I've described it here. I actually printed out a copy of that page and I used to have it with many other documents of mine. However, I had a problem with toxic mold in a previous home of mine, and all of my paper documents needed to be destroyed, so I no longer have that with me. If I'm ever back in that part of New Jersey again, and if that library still has that book (this was about 30 years ago), then I'll gladly copy that page again and share it with you.

Even though this comment wasn't directed towards me, I want to say something just to further make a point:

I honestly have no idea whatsoever what a "Pelagian" is, AND I DON'T CARE.

My beliefs are derived from the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures, and from nowhere else.

Anyhow, apparently, you (and Phil) and I presently have some different beliefs, and I just want you to know that I'm fine with that. I may or may not enter into civil discussions with either or both of you (or others), but I want you both to know this for now:

I've already interacted with both of you quite a bit, even though I've only been here for a couple of weeks, and I not only like both of you, but also believe that both of your hearts are towards God.

For whatever that's worth...

One last thing before I go...

Several years ago, I was visiting my friend's uncle in a hospital in NYC. As it turned out, his roommate was a Jehovah's Witness. Apparently, he overheard me talking about Jesus to my friend's uncle, and he sprung up in his bed and spewed out about a 20 minute scripted Jehovah's Witness sermon. I didn't say a single word while he was speaking. However, when he finished, without even addressing or refuting a single word that he said, I preached the gospel to him. When I finished, he was literally sitting there with his mouth dropped open. When he regained his composure, he said to me:

"All that I can say is that if what you just told me is true, then I'm doomed."

My point?

I didn't need to know a thing about his "theology" (remember: being simple towards that which is evil).

Instead, I just needed to know about the gospel (remember: that which is good).

what i asked for is a secular source, outside of the Bible, that confirms the interpretation you suggest for this word.
because what i have heard is that this word is only found in Paul's writings -- not just that the other authors of the NT did not use it, but that other people outside of the church didn't appear to ever use this word.

that is -- i have been told that there is no evidence in ancient Greek/Roman texts that this was a common word or even a word at all.
you are telling me it was a common word everyone knew and that it doesn't mean what the contracted word literally means, and that everyone knew that.
can you give evidence from any source outside of Paul's writings that this was a commonly used Greek word explicitly having the meaning 'becoming an adult' ?
that it doesn't mean "adopt as a son" ?

but you haven't established that this word translated as "adoption" really doesn't mean adoption, so you are arguing circularly by using Galatians as evidence that it means what it says it means, aren't you?

look, Paul says we are become sons rather than servants.
are children servants? anyone under 14 treated as a slave rather than a member of the family?
no?
then you're eisegeting with this argument. you're forcing a particular interpretation of the word "placed as sons" onto the text, and then using that interpretation to justify the interpretation, claiming "placed as sons" doesn't mean "placed as sons" but "become an adult"
but if i agree with the literal meaning "placed as son" then i can use the same text to say that a man who was a slave, becoming now a son, is not an example of 'becoming of age' -- because children aren't slaves. so i can argue that your interpretation of this word is wrong.

so do you understand what i'm asking? and why?
if it is true that "placed as son" does not mean "adopted" -- since you are saying it doesn't, and you also claimed it was 'common knowledge' that everyone would have immediately known -- then to prove that you need to establish that people outside of Paul used this word, that they never used this word to refer to adoption of a person outside of a family into the family, and that people used this word all the time to refer to a person becoming a teenager or adult.

can you find this word in any ancient Greek text that isn't the Bible and isn't some early church father quoting Paul?
secular Greek use in the time period will either falsify or validate your claim. that's what i want to see, if there is any. i've never heard anyone say what you're saying -- what i have heard is that it's not a common word, it's kind of Paul making up his own words ((like 'concision')).
maybe i heard wrong, maybe you are right, i don't know -- so i kind of want to look into it and see, which means, i need external evidence. make sense?