Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- 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.
First address my two examples. Show why my sentences cannot be true, if the person had been competent but had become incompetent. Show why my sentence cannot be true, if the person had had a fear of spiders but had overcome that fear?
Merely repeating your inaccurate claim, will not make it true.
For the same reason that, if three friends are caught in a snowstorm and Mike becomes completely frozen, I could say, "Michael alone is frozen", but it can still be true that John and Mike have some fingers and toes that are frozen. God is completely good. But that does not mean humans cannot be partially good.
Merely repeating your inaccurate claim, will not make it true.
For the same reason that, if three friends are caught in a snowstorm and Mike becomes completely frozen, I could say, "Michael alone is frozen", but it can still be true that John and Mike have some fingers and toes that are frozen. God is completely good. But that does not mean humans cannot be partially good.
-
1
- Show all
yeah I'm just gonna respond to this one sentence here
you are not being truthful. also the mark of a Calvinist who cannot respond to scripture
I am not at all deceived since I do not think that God does not know all things
quite making up things other people are supposed to have said and you cannot read minds either
get a life
you are not being truthful. also the mark of a Calvinist who cannot respond to scripture
I am not at all deceived since I do not think that God does not know all things
quite making up things other people are supposed to have said and you cannot read minds either
get a life
-
1
- Show all
It is interesting that Calvinists believe that anyone who is not a Calvinist must be an Arminian be default and will proudly display all their helpful little aids; charts and videos and what have you
totally missing the point that their choice does not mean that everyone else must be Arminian
totally missing the point that their choice does not mean that everyone else must be Arminian
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Your example are equally as absurd because scripture often uses present to describe objective existence of a thing or person. When scripture says "God is love", according to you that means God WAS love only at the moment the writer spoke or penned those words.
Or when God revealed his Name to Moses by saying "I AM", we're supposed to understand God came into existence only at that moment, and then went out of existence in the next?
Or when Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Life and the Truth", he meant only at that moment he said that?
In Romans 3 Paul is also telling his readers why the people spoken of in the first two chapters responded to Natural and Intuitive Revelation the way they have throughout history. One of the reasons is that there IS "no one righteous, no not one". But that has always been the case. There is no man inherently righteous in God's sight! Paul said, all men are under sin." "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and this is why there IS no one righteous!
Or when God revealed his Name to Moses by saying "I AM", we're supposed to understand God came into existence only at that moment, and then went out of existence in the next?
Or when Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Life and the Truth", he meant only at that moment he said that?
In Romans 3 Paul is also telling his readers why the people spoken of in the first two chapters responded to Natural and Intuitive Revelation the way they have throughout history. One of the reasons is that there IS "no one righteous, no not one". But that has always been the case. There is no man inherently righteous in God's sight! Paul said, all men are under sin." "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and this is why there IS no one righteous!
I know that I am not the one you addressed this to but this is a public forum
The adjectives such as 'absurd' and the sarcasim such as we're supposed to understand God came into existence only at that moment, and then went out of existence in the next? actually give evidence of the total lack of many Calvinists to actually exchange in a manner that suggests said Calvinist has any interest in the other person's explanation whatsoever; or, they got it and cannot deal with the scripture because it is not a part of their understanding according to reformed beliefs.
Many passages of scripture are dealt with in this way by their doctrine. Cannot respond to plain scripture? No problem...just call it a mystery and tell the non-Calvie that they are the ones who are wrong
In case anyone is wondering what I mean by the word mystery, it is the word used by Calvinists when they cannot explain something having to do with their doctrine
Are you lazy that you cannot disagree with someone with an explanation rather than suggesting that person has given you an 'absurd' response? You take people's words and twist them in order to make it seem they are just plain dumb.
This is all part and parcel of the endoctrinatetd Calvinist's worldview. That worldview dictates that everyone but the Calvinist is either too stupid or a liar.
Things not allowed to be said on this forum is the answer you actually should receive and I will leave it there
The adjectives such as 'absurd' and the sarcasim such as we're supposed to understand God came into existence only at that moment, and then went out of existence in the next? actually give evidence of the total lack of many Calvinists to actually exchange in a manner that suggests said Calvinist has any interest in the other person's explanation whatsoever; or, they got it and cannot deal with the scripture because it is not a part of their understanding according to reformed beliefs.
Many passages of scripture are dealt with in this way by their doctrine. Cannot respond to plain scripture? No problem...just call it a mystery and tell the non-Calvie that they are the ones who are wrong
In case anyone is wondering what I mean by the word mystery, it is the word used by Calvinists when they cannot explain something having to do with their doctrine
Are you lazy that you cannot disagree with someone with an explanation rather than suggesting that person has given you an 'absurd' response? You take people's words and twist them in order to make it seem they are just plain dumb.
This is all part and parcel of the endoctrinatetd Calvinist's worldview. That worldview dictates that everyone but the Calvinist is either too stupid or a liar.
Things not allowed to be said on this forum is the answer you actually should receive and I will leave it there
Absurd is as absurd does (or wrote). The logical inference to PT's use and understanding of the verb "is" in Rom 3:18 is that Paul meant that at the time of his writing there was no fear of God before their eyes. But prior to that and subsequent to that point in time...well...that's anyone's guess. 
So, since that's case, then when scripture says that "God is love", it must mean, again, at the the point in time the words were penned. And...God only know what He was before or after that time. So, yes, contrary to your ill-conceived objection, I did explain why PT's understanding is absurd by providing various examples of how present tense verbs are often used to denote time points prior and subsequent to the present tense.
Re your last paragraph: You said it; I did not! And since you think you're always right, who am I to argue with you?
As far as sarcasm goes, scripture is loaded with it-- in case you haven't noticed.
So, since that's case, then when scripture says that "God is love", it must mean, again, at the the point in time the words were penned. And...God only know what He was before or after that time. So, yes, contrary to your ill-conceived objection, I did explain why PT's understanding is absurd by providing various examples of how present tense verbs are often used to denote time points prior and subsequent to the present tense.Re your last paragraph: You said it; I did not! And since you think you're always right, who am I to argue with you?
As far as sarcasm goes, scripture is loaded with it-- in case you haven't noticed.
Our newest poster to this thread (Mr. Studier) has frequently appealed to the existence of OT saints as some kind of "iron-clad proof" (?) that the doctrine of Total Depravity cannot be true, since OT saints "obviously" came to saving faith apart from God's effectual grace. Effectual or Irresistible Grace, if that exists at all, is only confined to the New Covenant (NC) age, and is never spoken of in the context of OT saints and how they came by their faith and repentance. So, the implication to this kind OT soteriology is that since saving/effectual grace wasn't necessary for the OT saints to come to faith and repentance, then this proves that the nature and hearts of those saints could not have been "totally depraved". Easy peasy, open-and-shut case! Or is it? I think not and for two reasons.
The first reason is that this is basically an argument from silence. Just because the OT does not lay out in NC-like detail all the various details and nuances of grace, doesn't necessarily mean that all God's elect haven't always been saved one way throughout both Testament periods. Nor does it prove, for that matter, that God did not always sovereignly choose, according to his own purpose and good pleasure, whom he would save and whom he would pass over -- and in either case always for His Glory!
Secondly, since Studier appeals to the OT as, apparently, his best evidence or proof for the falsehood of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, I have decided to meet this gentleman on his chosen turf of preference. I, too, will use the OT to make my case for the Doctrines of Grace instead of refuting them. (Of course, months ago I did this very thing to prove the "U" in TULIP with the post-fall account in Genesis -- with a comprehensive, although probably not exhaustive, 15-point argument which no one here has bothered to refute.) But be that as it may, I will now choose a major soteriological motif that runs throughout the bible to make my case for the Doctrines of Grace. This recurring, central thematic soteriological element is commonly known as The Exodus, which is uber-rich in typological lessons that all point to the Greater Exodus by the Greater Moses that is based on Better Promises.
More to follow...
The first reason is that this is basically an argument from silence. Just because the OT does not lay out in NC-like detail all the various details and nuances of grace, doesn't necessarily mean that all God's elect haven't always been saved one way throughout both Testament periods. Nor does it prove, for that matter, that God did not always sovereignly choose, according to his own purpose and good pleasure, whom he would save and whom he would pass over -- and in either case always for His Glory!
Secondly, since Studier appeals to the OT as, apparently, his best evidence or proof for the falsehood of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, I have decided to meet this gentleman on his chosen turf of preference. I, too, will use the OT to make my case for the Doctrines of Grace instead of refuting them. (Of course, months ago I did this very thing to prove the "U" in TULIP with the post-fall account in Genesis -- with a comprehensive, although probably not exhaustive, 15-point argument which no one here has bothered to refute.) But be that as it may, I will now choose a major soteriological motif that runs throughout the bible to make my case for the Doctrines of Grace. This recurring, central thematic soteriological element is commonly known as The Exodus, which is uber-rich in typological lessons that all point to the Greater Exodus by the Greater Moses that is based on Better Promises.
More to follow...
So, once again we move way from specific Scripture(s) in order to favor long narratives with a few unanalyzed proof texts.
Wouldn't it be more productive to just analyze the Scriptures that purportedly prove the theory of Total Depravity? Can "T" not stand on it's own so it needs "U" or other letters to prop it up? I thought "T" was firmly foundational and the rest of the letters were based upon it. I guess not.
Based upon the Total Inability graphic supplied by @maxamir, here are the Scriptures provided as purported proof of the theory. Which of these Scriptures in context prove that unregenerate man is incapable of understanding any spiritual information about God? Other than the discussions so far with @Rufus re: Rom1-3, I haven't even looked at any of them in any detail with a view for or against the theory. Please, anyone, make your case.
Rom8:5-8
Eph2:3
Rom14:23
1Cor2:14
John14:17
Jer17:9
Titus3:3
Rom7:14
1Cor1:18
John3:3
John8:43
2Cor4:4
Eph2:1
Rom3:9-12
Wouldn't it be more productive to just analyze the Scriptures that purportedly prove the theory of Total Depravity? Can "T" not stand on it's own so it needs "U" or other letters to prop it up? I thought "T" was firmly foundational and the rest of the letters were based upon it. I guess not.
Based upon the Total Inability graphic supplied by @maxamir, here are the Scriptures provided as purported proof of the theory. Which of these Scriptures in context prove that unregenerate man is incapable of understanding any spiritual information about God? Other than the discussions so far with @Rufus re: Rom1-3, I haven't even looked at any of them in any detail with a view for or against the theory. Please, anyone, make your case.
Rom8:5-8
Eph2:3
Rom14:23
1Cor2:14
John14:17
Jer17:9
Titus3:3
Rom7:14
1Cor1:18
John3:3
John8:43
2Cor4:4
Eph2:1
Rom3:9-12
It's not a theory, it's right here in the Word.
Romans 6:6-8 Impossible to understand with our carnal minds. We are simply unable.
Romans 3:11 We do not seek him on our own. We cannot understand him with our carnal minds, only by the Holy Spirit.
Does the Bible Teach Calvinism? A Look at ”the Five Points of Calvinism” (opc.org)
Romans 6:6-8 Impossible to understand with our carnal minds. We are simply unable.
Romans 3:11 We do not seek him on our own. We cannot understand him with our carnal minds, only by the Holy Spirit.
Does the Bible Teach Calvinism? A Look at ”the Five Points of Calvinism” (opc.org)
It's best to see if any of those who believe the theory is truth can explain it. Look for consistency in explanations. Ask them why some call it Total Depravity and some call it Total Inability. Ask them what spiritual death means and includes. Ask them if they know the arguments against it. This is a start.
Yes, I know that. Read some of my recent posts. …but what’s the theory? That we’re depraved…and that’s it? No solution?
…but we know better than that. “There is now no condemnation… Jesus totally destroyed this total depravity through His shed blood on the cross. So now when we sin and upon our repentance, our merciful Father promises to forgive. —Selah
Read some of my recent posts. …but what’s the theory? That we’re depraved…and that’s it? No solution? …but we know better than that. “There is now no condemnation… Jesus totally destroyed this total depravity through His shed blood on the cross. So now when we sin and upon our repentance, our merciful Father promises to forgive. —Selah
Did you see the chart here? It explains part of the Total Depravity explanation.
