Loss of salvation???

[Jordon]

You're asking a question that has no bearing upon anything that has transpired. You keep throwing in "hate," to which I have no response given that hatred had nothing to do on a personal level with the discussion over a doctrinal topic.

So long as you keep throwing in "hate" into the mix as being on a personal level in the opponents, that only poisons the well of discussion. Leave that tactic to the race-bating crowd who themselves are the haters and racists and bigots. We who are of Israel are experiencing a heightened level of hated all across this country, and I'm not going to let it get me down. The haters are actually a minority in every sense of the word. Jesus instructed that the evil enemies we encounter, we are to bless them, which then heaps up burning coals upon their heads rather than ours.

Do I hate? Yes. I hate false doctrines and I hate the corruptions of what the scriptures actually say as opposed to all the eisegetical injections so many false beliefs individuals harbor and false religions trying to force into the texts what isn't there, such as sacramentalism and rituals that have no merits apart from evolving traditions known to have been rooted in paganism.

Those out there who translate disagreement with them into hate, that's their problem, and to them I offer no apologies for my disagreement and labeling of the origins of their beliefs as to where they truly originated. Most false beliefs people harbor were taught to them by someone given that most people almost never read and accept scripture for what it says without injecting their own personality formulated by someone else influences.

So, if another asks me who influenced me, I now point to Holy Spirit on the basis of the promise made in 1 John 2:27. Many people claim Holy Spirit taught them this or that or the other, and when those people claim polar opposites of a doctrine they claim was given them by the same Spirit, then either one or both are wrong. They cannot both be right as that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

MM

How many holes has God dug you out of a hole

If you can think of one please let me know, you see its just no Good that you can't admit your error.

But anyway I could just let you let you dig a bigger hole for yourself, but thats not how God works. Regarding using the holy spirit by means to warrant your truth being good, that can only be determined heart to heart.

 

[Jordon]

Under these circumstances @Musicmaster theres.no need to carry on this discussion publicly,

Because publicly the public people can get the wrong ideas.

So moving on I don't demand that you should publicly respond, you can always go to lord privately and speak to him about your error.

The word of God says as much.
The lord says you must be willing to give your life for me.
So concerning you, it was a hard thing for me to ignore your comments for 3 days before I responded.

What angered.me more was most was that you called a lady a troll and a coward for not engaging with you.

Which annoyed me for 3 days.
So as for you calling me those names no I'm not bothered, I then gave you a chance to respond accordingly and you still chose to spit out your garbage


You can call me what you like.
I don't care what you've got to say about me.

 

[Jordon]

God doesn't hate anyone , Jesus doesn't hate anyone and neither should we . Hate pushes people away from us and as Christians , thats not what we should b doing .

I don't always reply straight away ,m.

I generally contemplated people beliefs and take them to the lord, most of time, I don't even look to the bible to get answers as I've read it hundreds of times, and very rarely do i use Google, but my heart tells me that God not hating people is primarily down to people choosing to love sin more than God.

It's people who love sin more than God, are actually loving the devil more who hates God, and also it's the fact that Satan has a hold on them that there soul is taken captive and if stays captive there gone.
I believe this no doubt would start to happen more so after the age of accountability, that simply put in human nature where all born innocent, at some stage we will start to act a bit selfishly maybe
I never known a child that doesn't start to not so much hate but act selfishly,.

At this point God still has control over them, but it's all bit sad really that somehow they don't learn and carry on, is it selfishness that leads to hate.
Is this what satan take of advantage of,.

I mean its something that can effect a person from childhood to adulthood, so I guess they could still break those chains.

But I wonder mostly really here shouldn't we only be talking about loss of salvation as in never gained it in the first place.

 

[Musicmaster]

@Suze

Tulip
T
either seen as totally depraved but should also be seen
as no one is worthy not one

U

Unconditional election should only be seen as God will try to change your nature, as a child growing up. And that includes every single child on the face of the earth. Also it includes when children start to hate, God will still loves them and care for them

L
Limited atonement seen as when people have been Sent to hell there sins where never atoned for. They did not listen to God. But should also be seen as

God the father has a eunique experience with all children before handing them over to son, first come the Jew then the gentile so to speak.

I

Irresistible grace

Seen as. as God tries to change your nature people will love him more,


P

Seen as once your saved your preserved in Faith. You can't be lost.

Tulips intimate goal by the saints, to help people understand God's sovereign will.


That no one can save themselves and all need saving.


Bye

Your redefinitions of those specifics is a little refreshing because they are a far cry from the traditional definitions known by most people who have studied Calvin's works along with others from his time until the present.

MM

 

[Jordon]

Your redefinitions of those specifics is a little refreshing because they are a far cry from the traditional definitions known by most people who have studied Calvin's works along with others from his time until the present.

MM

yep I gave her the milk version

You wouldn't want me to overpower her would you ?

 

[Jordon]

Your redefinitions of those specifics is a little refreshing because they are a far cry from the traditional definitions known by most people who have studied Calvin's works along with others from his time until the present.

MM

well thats the good thing about reformation.

 

[Musicmaster]

no so you said we where cowards and trolls for running away from you.

Are you denying you said this

The cowardice I was speaking of was your lack in answering questions and addressing what I actually said. That's all behind us now...or so I hope.

MM

 

[Jordon]

The cowardice I was speaking of was your lack in answering questions and addressing what I actually said. That's all behind us now...or so I hope.

MM

it was behind me ages ago, just move on.
So do you want to talk about tulip now

 

[Musicmaster]

I have heard your view espoused before and simply chose not to debate the issue. This will be my only response, as I am sure you are firm in your conviction. We simply view the Gospel differently;

Your view interprets certain passages as indicating a fundamentally different gospel message for Jews versus Gentiles. I will offer a respectful alternative interpretation of the key passages:

Regarding Galatians 2:7 - The phrase “gospel of the circumcision/uncircumcision” likely refers to the audience or sphere of ministry rather than different gospel content. Paul is describing how he and Peter had different missionary assignments - Paul primarily to Gentiles, Peter primarily to Jews - but preaching the same essential message. The Greek construction supports this reading, as it’s about the gospel “to” or “for” these groups rather than fundamentally different messages.

On Galatians 1:8-9 - Paul’s strong language about being “accursed” appears directed at those adding requirements (like circumcision for salvation) to the gospel, not at Peter preaching to Jews. Throughout Galatians, Paul’s concern is with Judaizers who were telling Gentile converts they needed to follow Jewish law for salvation. Peter wasn’t doing this - he was simply ministering primarily to Jewish audiences.

Several passages suggest gospel unity:
• Acts 15 shows the apostles agreeing on one gospel for both Jews and Gentiles
• Ephesians 2:11-22 describes Jews and Gentiles being united in “one body”
• Romans 1:16 says the gospel is “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” - same gospel, different order of proclamation

Different emphasis, same core - While the apostles may have emphasized different aspects (Peter focusing on Jesus as Messiah to Jews, Paul on justification by faith to Gentiles), the core message of salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection is seen by me as remaining consistent.

With a Jewish background I can see how your conclusion may be a natural view for yourself and many Jews. I have spoken to Messianic Jews who view the Gospel as fundamentally the same.

Ditto for having heard what you presented here.

So, let's look at this from a different perspective: If it were all one gospel, then why would Paul have had any problems with the Judaisers, Peter or anyone else preaching the same Gospel? Was Paul anti-Jewish, himself being a Jew?

Also, the convenient ignoring of "of" that lingually differentiates two different Gospels OF two different groupings. That's just too convenient for me to accept given the clear language of what I quoted from the KJV. Yes, there are other versions that water down that distinction to the point of its non-existence. Again, I find that suspect on the basis of many other examples of corruptions and omissions throughout, but that's another topic for now.

What you also did not address yet is the diminishing of Israel, thus bringing to an end the Kingdom Gospel that clearly required water baptism for the remission of sins, as was preached by Peter and never preached as a requirement by Paul. The idea that the apostles somehow agreed upon a gospel for both groups at the exclusion of the Lord's own command, that's also highly suspect. Yes, the gospel came to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile after the diminishing of Israel. Even Jesus and the twelve did not preaching anything about the cross before that event. What did they preach then? It was only about repentance and water baptism with no mention of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on the third day. His disciples were even too afraid to ask in Mark 9.

So, no. Believing what you want at the exclusion of the clear language of scripture in how it is written, that's what has taken hold of modern Evangelicalism in order to feed the elemental dragon of replacement theology. Salvation came unto the Jews, which clearly shows to us that they did not have it nor access to it apart from joining with Israel, so yes, there were two different gospels because there was a time when Gentiles could only join with Israel to share in salvation and the promises and blessing of Abraham. Evangelicals today don't like that, and they certainly don't like it that Israel will once again be center stage in God's future plans in the Millennial Kingdom. Israel will rule this world in those days, with Christ on the Throne of the Kingdom. That causes many an Evangelical to experience epileptic conniptions.

Who's right and who's wrong about all this doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that Christ is right all the time and all men are liars by comparison. With that I think we can agree.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

it was behind me ages ago, just move on.
So do you want to talk about tulip now

You did spell out your redefinitions of it, and with those I don't take much issue with so long as the deeper, unspoken things of your understanding about TULIP don't go to the extremes that others harbor to this very day...extremes that make God out to be a moral monster and perpetrator of a warped system of justice, and thus trying to justify those things behind the contrived banner of "Sovereignty." The hardliners have whipped that dead horse into a pile of ground horse meat, trying to make God look like He's Right-by-Might. That's not at all the portraiture the Lord painted of Himself in His inspired word.

I hope that brings some measure of understanding about the subject from my understanding.

MM

 

[Jordon]

You did spell out your redefinitions of it, and with those I don't take much issue with so long as the deeper, unspoken things of your understanding about TULIP don't go to the extremes that others harbor to this very day...extremes that make God out to be a moral monster and perpetrator of a warped system of justice, and thus trying to justify those things behind the contrived banner of "Sovereignty." The hardliners have whipped that dead horse into a pile of ground horse meat, trying to make God look like He's Right-by-Might. That's not at all the portraiture the Lord painted of Himself in His inspired word.

I hope that brings some measure of understanding about the subject from my understanding.

MM

ok before I can discuss this further with you, what does God's sovereign will mean to you in terms of value and importance

And How do you understand it.

 

[Musicmaster]

ok before I can discuss this further with you, what does God's sovereign will mean to you in terms of value and importance

And How do you understand it.

Fair question.

Given that the Bible assigns no such descriptor to God, we're left with looking to the English definition of that term from dictionary.com:

1. the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.
2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royal rank or position; royalty.
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5. a sovereign or independent state, community, or political unit.

We're left, then, with having to pick and choose which apples to God, which is a subjective practice, at least to some extent, given that there are things the Lord cannot do. That fact alone shows to us that the common beliefs among the more extreme followers of TULIP are at fault for assuming upon the Lord any measure of injustice and even tyranny.

So, if it were demanded of me to at least align my understanding of that term to the Lord in how it fits in with who and what He is, the only real answer that conforms to scripture is to allow for the limitations the scriptures not only identify to us those items, but also allowing for the demonstrated character of the Lord to enter into the mix for placement of limitations to that term as it apples to the Most High.

So, I do not at all believe God ever, nor ever could, exercise the extent of totality for sovereignty that some apply to Him, therefore the term doesn't at all apply as some seem to think. He is indeed all-powerful in all that pleases Him and that is within the constraints of His nature. If He could exercise that extent of sovereignty those things that are against His nature and His abilities, the Bible would certainly have assigned that to Him. He cannot steal given that it is all His and given that there is no other Deity from whom to steal.

As stated before, some trying to use sovereignty as a shield for their assumptions about God choosing who will go to Hell and whom to Heaven, the New Earth and the New Jerusalem, no. The Lord inspired it to be written that He has and will draw ALL men to Him, so that drawing is there upon all. The idea of enablement being withheld on the basis of sovereignty, that's an invention of men.

Does that answer your question?

MM

 

[Jordon]

Fair question.

Given that the Bible assigns no such descriptor to God, we're left with looking to the English definition of that term from dictionary.com:

1. the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.
2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royal rank or position; royalty.
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5. a sovereign or independent state, community, or political unit.

We're left, then, with having to pick and choose which apples to God, which is a subjective practice, at least to some extent, given that there are things the Lord cannot do. That fact alone shows to us that the common beliefs among the more extreme followers of TULIP are at fault for assuming upon the Lord any measure of injustice and even tyranny.

So, if it were demanded of me to at least align my understanding of that term to the Lord in how it fits in with who and what He is, the only real answer that conforms to scripture is to allow for the limitations the scriptures not only identify to us those items, but also allowing for the demonstrated character of the Lord to enter into the mix for placement of limitations to that term as it apples to the Most High.

So, I do not at all believe God ever, nor ever could, exercise the extent of totality for sovereignty that some apply to Him, therefore the term doesn't at all apply as some seem to think. He is indeed all-powerful in all that pleases Him and that is within the constraints of His nature. If He could exercise that extent of sovereignty those things that are against His nature and His abilities, the Bible would certainly have assigned that to Him. He cannot steal given that it is all His and given that there is no other Deity from whom to steal.

As stated before, some trying to use sovereignty as a shield for their assumptions about God choosing who will go to Hell and whom to Heaven, the New Earth and the New Jerusalem, no. The Lord inspired it to be written that He has and will draw ALL men to Him, so that drawing is there upon all. The idea of enablement being withheld on the basis of sovereignty, that's an invention of men.

Does that answer your question?

MM

no, all you write is again on the bases of what it means to somebody else, and then trying to make sense of all somebody elses reasoning.

Its where God's sovereign will can be though as Just a coin, which is not good,

It's the plague of isms, so there you where feeling empathy for a child of God one day,

As she was saying beautiful thing about God's sovereignty, and out of blue came this person, who unbeknown to you was plagued with if isms of his own.

He decided to call that a person a calvinist, and unbeknown to you, you didn't know there was no such thing as a Calvinist, and so you went away and you decided I like this faith and I'm going to become a Calvinist, to help this poor Calvinist being attacked

The reality of that is now you have become plagued by isms, but you don't know, because theres still no such thing as a calvinist with a Calvinistic nature

So you now have two sides plagued with isms willfully unaware. One side attacking one side defending.

And then they both decide to talk about God's sovereignty.

And it just becomes an endless ding dong.

 

[Musicmaster]

no, all you write is again on the bases of what it means to somebody else, and then trying to make sense of all somebody elses reasoning.

Its where God's sovereign will can be though as Just a coin, which is not good,

It's the plague of isms, so there you where feeling empathy for a child of God one day,

As she was saying beautiful thing about God's sovereignty, and out of blue came this person, who unbeknown to you was plagued with if isms of his own.

He decided to call that a person a calvinist, and unbeknown to you, you didn't know there was no such thing as a Calvinist, and so you went away and you decided I like this faith and I'm going to become a Calvinist, to help this poor Calvinist being attacked

The reality of that is now you have become plagued by isms, but you don't know, because theres still no such thing as a calvinist with a Calvinistic nature

So you now have two sides plagued with isms willfully unaware. One side attacking one side defending.

And then they both decide to talk about God's sovereignty.

And it just becomes an endless ding dong.

I can't say that you understood what I said about my thoughts on the matter, but that I also encompassed what is very much alive and thriving in the Evangelical arena all around us, you've made clear that none of that phases nor concerns you.

I answered your question in the midst of a more broad comparative. You didn't like that. The well is once again poisoned with rhetorical accusation and groundless hubbub and bad grammar that makes it hard to understand where you're meandering. Clarity please, and then perhaps we can continue...or not.

MM

 

[Jordon]

I can't say that you understood what I said about my thoughts on the matter, but that I also encompassed what is very much alive and thriving in the Evangelical arena all around us, you've made clear that none of that phases nor concerns you.

I answered your question in the midst of a more broad comparative. You didn't like that. The well is once again poisoned with rhetorical accusation and groundless hubbub and bad grammar that makes it hard to understand where you're meandering. Clarity please, and then perhaps we can continue...or not.

MM

no I never I answer on a very broad horizon

So what does God's sovereign will mean to you.

Ok well first thing is Gods sovereign will is known only in him.

So now What is God's sovereign will for you.

So now what does God's sovereign will mean to you.

What value does it have.
What importance does it have.
How do you understand it.

 

[Jordon]

What does Gods sovereign will mean to him, well one clear message is he is the supreme authority over all creation,

But seeing as he has a sovereign will for each and every person.
What it means to me is everything.
Because he has a plan for all of creation. He also has plans for me to walk with him talk with him.
To find peace in my soul and rest in his ways and his kingdom,

He has a plan for me to cope to be healed.

 

[Jordon]

I can't say that you understood what I said about my thoughts on the matter, but that I also encompassed what is very much alive and thriving in the Evangelical arena all around us, you've made clear that none of that phases nor concerns you.

I answered your question in the midst of a more broad comparative. You didn't like that. The well is once again poisoned with rhetorical accusation and groundless hubbub and bad grammar that makes it hard to understand where you're meandering. Clarity please, and then perhaps we can continue...or not.

MM

You see i asked you a question what Gods sovereign will means to you, and i guess the thought must have crossed your mind it meant a lot to me

But Then what you did was to answer, with, well the first thing you have to do is look to the Oxford dictionary then pick and choose.

So i Imagined , that today perhaps God needs to dig you out of another hole, as laying traps to offend is also a plague of isms

So then i thought about it some more and maybe this poor chap is plagued by the plague of isms, that has invested the whole community.


But what happens when somebody has been invested with isms especially from the Armenian church of worshiping false idols, is they say they I can only pick and choose.

What a shame that is, that they can't answer what God sovereign will means to them.

I find that very sad.

On the other hand someone plagued with isms can decide to not answer, and lay a trap for you in order that you give an answer in which they can plagiarism you further

So then once again God has come and dug me out of another hole

Where if I hadn't of seen your ill mannered attempt to plague me further,.as it's quite obvious your faith is extremely personal to you.

Its what happens.people grow a faith out of being attacked.

Honestly these things happen its so sad, and you don't realise it's happend but it has.
You see you wouldn't be so offended if it hadn't

Bye for now

 

[Musicmaster]

no I never I answer on a very broad horizon

So what does God's sovereign will mean to you.

Ok well first thing is Gods sovereign will is known only in him.

So now What is God's sovereign will for you.

So now what does God's sovereign will mean to you.

What value does it have.
What importance does it have.
How do you understand it.

If you don't mind, please define YOUR understanding of the term "sovereign" when applying that to God, which the Bible never does.

MM

 

[Jordon]

If you don't mind, please define YOUR understanding of the term "sovereign" when applying that to God, which the Bible never does.

MM

oh really ok I suppose he doesn't no.
He doesn't ever define his authority.

I must of reading a comic book one of those stories that just made use his sovereignty is power and authority, of the highest and the greatest just to imagine it more than what it is and let it go my head claiming it for myself.

Yeah I guess I should live by hope I guess instead, and err become a cherry picker.

Honestly you where told it meant a lot to me and once Gain you try to poke me,..

Well sir happy prodding

Bye for now.

 

[Jordon]

You did spell out your redefinitions of it, and with those I don't take much issue with so long as the deeper, unspoken things of your understanding about TULIP don't go to the extremes that others harbor to this very day...extremes that make God out to be a moral monster and perpetrator of a warped system of justice, and thus trying to justify those things behind the contrived banner of "Sovereignty." The hardliners have whipped that dead horse into a pile of ground horse meat, trying to make God look like He's Right-by-Might. That's not at all the portraiture the Lord painted of Himself in His inspired word.

I hope that brings some measure of understanding about the subject from my understanding.

MM

This is totally absurd here you are explaining everything you know about God's sovereignty and now your telling me that you don't know .

I mean wow

Yeah it's quite disturbing really to see this. It seems your quite involved in a spiritual warfare battle, but one really is born out of imaginary false idols and madness, which stems from churches preaching free will as well as other sources.

These free will hate speeches they just get a hold on people, where by they create all these false idles that these people of tulip must be worshiping.

I mean its ridiculous that you could still believe this,

I don't want you to keep digging a hole for yourself, but come back to reality, what your in battle against and believing is the worship of false idols

You've been duped deceived, you've let the plague of isms get a hold on you.