You just don't UNDERSTAND!

[Skandelon]

There was a book read in past titled "Elect in the Son" by Robert Shank I believe...
is that still a good way to understand the Arminian 'classical" view on Biblical election than?

I'm not familiar with that book. But I'll try to give you a bit of a summary of my perspective:

Some Calvinist assume that non-Calvinist just ignore passages dealing with election or don't even know they exist. But the truth is that we do have a very coherent doctrine of election. With regard to election there are basically two ways to go:

(1) God has chosen (elected) certain individuals to be irresistibly called, to hear the gospel, and then believe unto salvation.

OR

(2) God has chosen (elected) groups of people (Jew and Gentiles: who yes are made up of individuals) to receive the gospel invitation granting them the opportunity to enter a covenant through faith with God, "first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles."

Either way, you could say election is the cause of faith. Either way, you could thank God for the election of other brethren. Either way, faith is still a condition for salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not familiar with that book. But I'll try to give you a bit of a summary of my perspective:

Some Calvinist assume that non-Calvinist just ignore passages dealing with election or don't even know they exist. But the truth is that we do have a very coherent doctrine of election. With regard to election there are basically two ways to go:

(1) God has chosen (elected) certain individuals to be irresistibly called, to hear the gospel, and then believe unto salvation.

OR

(2) God has chosen (elected) groups of people (Jew and Gentiles: who yes are made up of individuals) to receive the gospel invitation granting them the opportunity to enter a covenant through faith with God, "first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles."

Either way, you could say election is the cause of faith. Either way, you could thank God for the election of other brethren. Either way, faith is still a condition for salvation.

Think that the gist of the Book I sourced was that the author took "election" from Ephesians as meaning that God elected the "Plan" to redeem sinners through the cross, "elected" Christ as the mediator of that plan, so that Romans refers to the Plan of those who accept Jesus get predestined/glorified/etc, and that ALL happen after their make a "free will" decision to accept Jesus...

So he could say the "elect" was the Church of Christ, and election was what God already pedertined would happen to each one who chose to accept Christ...

Is that what you mean in point 2?

Also, have you ever heard the belief that in Cross of Christ, when God reconciled ALL back to himself, that Christ paid in full for all, so ALL manking was "conditionally elected" by God to have eternal life, but once they know their sinful condition and willfully reject it, lose their salvation than?

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I think there are some strong similarities if I'm understanding you correctly.

There maybe some overlap of the biblical references to "predestined" and "election" in your explanation. As I'm sure you know, the term "election" simply means "choice." God chose Israel through which to reveal himself and bring redemption to the world. God chose Paul to be a messenger to the Gentiles. God chose to "graft in" the Gentiles. God makes choices of nations and people to accomplish his overall redemptive purpose.

God has also predetermined what will happen to those who believe the gospel. He as predetermined to adopt them and to conform them to the image of his son. Nothing is said in scripture regarding God predetermining certain lost people to become believers.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast....

The problem that I am detecting with you is the same thing I have seen with other calvinists on here.

And that is that you are rejecting the scriptures as your truth standard, and replacing the scriptures with the doctrines of calvinism.

Its so apparent. Scriptures that are soo clear, incredibly clear, you simply can not comprehend them.

Its a very sad thing to see. I think you are decent guy and all, but you seem to be unable to understand Gods scriptural truth, because of your almost cult like allegience to Calvinism. Your not the only one, of course. Not by a long shot. Some other cavlinists on here have this same problem.

You need to take the blinders off, and let God start teaching you truth, rather than Calvin and his minions..

God..through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, is our teacher.

Not men. Not Calvin. Not the reformers

The Holy Spirit.

God bless you

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, I think there are some strong similarities if I'm understanding you correctly.

There maybe some overlap of the biblical references to "predestined" and "election" in your explanation. As I'm sure you know, the term "election" simply means "choice." God chose Israel through which to reveal himself and bring redemption to the world. God chose Paul to be a messenger to the Gentiles. God chose to "graft in" the Gentiles. God makes choices of nations and people to accomplish his overall redemptive purpose.

God has also predetermined what will happen to those who believe the gospel. He as predetermined to adopt them and to conform them to the image of his son. Nothing is said in scripture regarding God predetermining certain lost people to become believers.

So the Calvinist would say that God knows who are saved BECAUSE he is making it not only possible to save them, but will make sure they get saved, Election on on individual basis...

Arminian would say that God knows who are saved because He knows all things, and "sees" them believeing by free will upon Jesus, and see them as part of the elected Body of Christ?

So again the BIG difference is that both sides agrre pretty much from aspect of what saves, Cross, how to get saved, by faith in Christ, just differ IF someone "on their own" can decide to accept Jesus?

 

[Skandelon]

Arminian would say that God knows who are saved because He knows all things, and "sees" them believeing by free will upon Jesus, and see them as part of the elected Body of Christ?

The simplicity of the foresight faith view is not really fully representative of the scholarly non-Calvinistic view. I don't believe the scripture is attempting to say that God looks down the corridors of time to see who will have faith and then individual elects and predestines them to salvation. Though I don't deny God's foreknowledge, I just don't believe that is what Paul is attempting to communicate in passages such as Eph. 1 or Rom. 8. Instead, I believe he is attempting to communicate that God has predetermined to adopt and conform all who come to faith, even those who aren't of the Jewish lineage. Understand?

So again the BIG difference is that both sides agrre pretty much from aspect of what saves, Cross, how to get saved, by faith in Christ, just differ IF someone "on their own" can decide to accept Jesus?

Not exactly, neither side believes mankind can decide to accept Jesus "on their own." We both affirm the need of divine assistance. We just disagree as to the effectuality or irresistibility of the help God gives us in making that decision. Cals believe it is irresistible help, meaning that the grace is effectual or irresistible and will alway result in salvation. Non-Cals believe the means of grace are resistible and thus man is fully to blame for his rejection of those means. Understand?

 

[JesusFan]

The simplicity of the foresight faith view is not really fully representative of the scholarly non-Calvinistic view. I don't believe the scripture is attempting to say that God looks down the corridors of time to see who will have faith and then individual elects and predestines them to salvation. Though I don't deny God's foreknowledge, I just don't believe that is what Paul is attempting to communicate in passages such as Eph. 1 or Rom. 8. Instead, I believe he is attempting to communicate that God has predetermined to adopt and conform all who come to faith, even those who aren't of the Jewish lineage. Understand?


Not exactly, neither side believes mankind can decide to accept Jesus "on their own." We both affirm the need of divine assistance. We just disagree as to the effectuality or irresistibility of the help God gives us in making that decision. Cals believe it is irresistible help, meaning that the grace is effectual or irresistible and will alway result in salvation. Non-Cals believe the means of grace are resistible and thus man is fully to blame for his rejection of those means. Understand?

And because calvinist believe that way, is the main reason why tend to hold a limited atonement view of the Cross, as God was inthru Jesus JUST purchasing/redeeming back those He knew that would be elected, so NO need for unlimited atonement to even be offered?

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast....

The problem that I am detecting with you is the same thing I have seen with other calvinists on here.
AIC....what you are identfying as a problem with calvinists,might be your misunderstanding of it

And that is that you are rejecting the scriptures as your truth standard, and replacing the scriptures with the doctrines of calvinism.
It is the scriptures correctly understood that lead to calvinism
Its so apparent. Scriptures that are soo clear, incredibly clear, you simply can not comprehend them.
Ironically AIC...every calvinist on here thinks that of you!
Its a very sad thing to see. I think you are decent guy and all, but you seem to be unable to understand Gods scriptural truth, because of your almost cult like allegience to Calvinism. Your not the only one, of course. Not by a long shot. Some other cavlinists on here have this same problem.
Again what you see as a "problem" shared by calvinists...is rather scriptural truth that we understand and all are on the same page with,even though I have never met on of these brothers before! As far as cult like allegiance
if you look on any of my posts, you will not see me quote John Calvin anywhere You will see me quote Jesus quite a bit.
AIC...if I just bury you with scripture that you cannot really respond to, the next thing that happens is you will say.....Icon you are so rude, so proud, so arrogant.or there you go proof-texting, or you think you are smarter than me

No matter what, you are set to resist and rebel.
let me show you what i am talking about. Go over Jn 6;37-44 and explain to me how that does not indeed teach exactly what is taught in calvinism.
I guarentee you will look quite foolish trying to do that as several others in here have already posted foolish attempted responses.

You need to take the blinders off, and let God start teaching you truth, rather than Calvin and his minions..

God..through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, is our teacher.
Not men. Not Calvin. Not the reformersYou can despise gifts of pastors and teachers God has given to the church, but I will not despise what God has given to each of these persons.
That does not mean we blindly follow all said by these teachers, or we would be presbyterians. But i will not despise brothers who are more gifted than i am.......That to me reeks of pride, to say that we know so much more than all previous christians ,as if the Holy Spirit teaches us something much different than these men were given.
Do you despise your pastor and tell him you only follow what the Holy Spirit has given to you?

AIC...can you tell me if you have read anything by John Owen, Matthew Henry
Thomas Manton, John Murray John Flavel,Richard Sibbes, BB Warfield, Richard Baxter Charles Spurgeon???? Or are you so far above these men in your "spiritual" understanding:type:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

Here is the scripture you are presenting...

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Here is a more scripturally sound view of it than your calvinism offers...

After investigating “Big” Kittel’s definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul’s definition of draw.

Albrecht Oepke comments that in John’s usage of helkuo “force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element” (TDNT, 2:503). Yet for Sproul’s definition to hold up, John’s usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what “Little” Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel’s massive ten volume work) had to say on “draw,” I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul’s dogmatic assertions.

Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:
The basic meaning is “to draw,” “tug,” or, in the case of persons, “compel.” It may be used for “to draw” to a place by magic, for demons being “drawn” to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love.

This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/49

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast...

Here is the scripture you are presenting...



Here is a more scripturally sound view of it than your calvinism offers...



http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/49

AIC
this does not even begin to address the verses,,,,
start in verse 37
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

what does this teach? also I asked what you have read by that list of writers.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Well, I'll be darned.

I never knew arminianism had a little "catch phrase" like the calvinism does.


ARMINIANISM

Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, I'll be darned.

I never knew arminianism had a little "catch phrase" like the calvinism does.


ARMINIANISM

Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ

:smilewinkgrin:

does this mean that you cannot respond scripturally?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

AIC
this does not even begin to address the verses,,,,

Sure it does. And very well, I might add.

(your dancing again) :laugh:

start in verse 37
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

what does this teach?

You know full well what arminianists teach, just like I know what calvinists teach. (your doing the soft shoe!)

also I asked what you have read by that list of writers.

Thats not the topic of this thread. (Fred Astair is applauding!)

I;ve read lots and lots by lots of writers, just like you. :wavey:


Congratulations! You posted a lots and lots while completly ignoring the material in question.

Tip toe, through the tulips....

--------------------------------------------

Here is the material you ignored while dancing....

After investigating “Big” Kittel’s definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul’s definition of draw.

Albrecht Oepke comments that in John’s usage of helkuo “force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element” (TDNT, 2:503). Yet for Sproul’s definition to hold up, John’s usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what “Little” Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel’s massive ten volume work) had to say on “draw,” I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul’s dogmatic assertions.

Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:
The basic meaning is “to draw,” “tug,” or, in the case of persons, “compel.” It may be used for “to draw” to a place by magic, for demons being “drawn” to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love.

This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic

Are you going to adress it, or keep dancing?

AiC

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast...



Sure it does. And very well, I might add.



The supposed answer from this link proves exactly why you have a defective view of the cross; here are some quotes from your link;

1]Jesus' death on the cross removed forever the sins of all mankind
this is a lie

2]We are saved by His life, or faith in His resurrection, not by His death on the cross alone.????

3] Everybody is potentially saved, but nobody is actually saved until he

like I said earlier the bible teaches an actual atonement, not a potential one that does not save

recognizes that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt, believes that Jesus rose from the grave to make intercession for him with God and trusts Him completely for salvation.
4]the Apostle Paul at times also refers to all Gentiles, including unbelievers, as the elect.

unbelievers as the elect you are not serious with this garbage are you?

AIC ..If you read this nonsense and fill your mind with it, you will not come to truth

You know full well what arminianists teach,

I asked You to explain jn6:37...you cannot!

I;ve read lots and lots by lots of writers, just like you. :wavey:

The question I asked you was what have you read by these men in particular?

Congratulations! You posted a lots and lots while completly ignoring the material in question.

You have not responded to specific questions, because like the unsaved hearing the gospel...you cannot.
I asked you about jn 6:37....you cannot find anything to cut and paste,,so you ignore it,--------------------------------------------

Here is the material you ignored while dancing....



Are you going to adress it, or keep dancing?
Your lame dancing comments are not working!there is nothing to respond to in the useless quote that makes no substantial point....he jumps from jn 6 to jn 12 to take that verse out of context...and add some mush about Gods "love" that has nothing to do with jn 6 :37...-44
The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). Is this new age mush? it has nothing to do with the text!AiC

Lets work through Jn 6 :37 first,instead of hopping around like a JW

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast....

To this truth...

1]Jesus' death on the cross removed forever the sins of all mankind

You responded....

this is a lie

And you say that because...



CALVIN SAYS SO! :laugh::tonofbricks:

Iconoclast, It is imperitive that we go to the scriptures, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard. It is folly to turn to the doctrines and writings of Calvin as the truth standard, rather then the scriptures. And the same goes for the non/cal believers as well.

You have made the teachings of Calvin the truth standard, rather then Gods word.

According to scripture, Jesus died for everyone

◦John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'"

◦John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

◦John 4:42, "and they were saying to the woman, 'It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.'"

◦1 Tim. 4:10, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

◦1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

◦1 John 4:14, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

And there are so many more.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast....

To this truth...


You responded....



And you say that because...



CALVIN SAYS SO! :laugh::tonofbricks:

Iconoclast, It is imperitive that we go to the scriptures, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard. It is folly to turn to the doctrines and writings of Calvin as the truth standard, rather then the scriptures. And the same goes for the non/cal believers as well.

You have made the teachings of Calvin the truth standard, rather then Gods word.

According to scripture, Jesus died for everyone
this is a falsehood

◦John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'"
there is no other Savior
◦John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
everyone believing...not all
◦John 4:42, "and they were saying to the woman, 'It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.'"
the whole world is not saved, Jesus is the only Savior worldwide
◦1 Tim. 4:10, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
◦1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
Those in Israel, and those worldwide....who become saved. All men s sins are not propitiated
◦1 John 4:14, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
yes....any He intends to save
And there are so many more.

okay....you offer a nice list of scripture....mostly dealing with the word world, or all men.

Now we want to understand all the verses plus others you ignore.

Do you believe ALL MEN will be saved?.....yes would be the heresy of universalism.....I have not seen a consistent universalist in some time!

No would be the correct response.....so we both limit the scope of the atonement

So what makes the difference here?

you say it is man.....who must do or add something all by himself...

I say it is God who has a covenant purpose to save the elect given to Jesus

Along with jn 6:37 here is another group of scriptures you cannot answer;

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

this verse uses the word world also...yet i did not see it on your list...aic

Why did the Father select or elect "these men" out of the world?

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

another verse that uses world...Jesus says He did not pray for the world, but for those given.....
When were they given aic? Why were they given aic?

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are

looks like those given are in contrast to the world.....

14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

If the world loves its own....why does the world hate them?

What does it mean they are not of the world?

Who made them different? God? or themselves? What does the passage teach?

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world

They are not of the world, but being sent into the world.....interesting!

20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word

They are being sent out into the world, to gather those who believe...that would be the elect covenant children scattered througout the world.

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world

Explain or understand verse 24....and you will come to truth..if not remain in your error.

I did not even see what Calvin thought or taught on these verses aic, imagine that.....although you keep pushing that dead end idea.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

okay....you offer a nice list of scripture....mostly dealing with the word world, or all men.

Now we want to understand all the verses plus others you ignore.

No no no. Thats not the issue.

The issue is do YOU have the ability to understand this truth.
I have no outside authority telling me what a passage of scripture means.
You cant say that. John Calvin is your authority...not the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe ALL MEN will be saved?.....yes would be the heresy of universalism.....I have not seen a consistent universalist in some time!

Well. Now you are adding slander to your already magnificent *dancing* qualities. I have never advocated for the heretical "universalism" idea...and yet...you just throw that in there for the heck of it. Nice going.

So what makes the difference here?

you say it is man.....who must do or add something all by himself...

Error.

It is God who says man must add something.

And that something is Faith...in...Christ.God does not do that for us.

The choice is ours. If God did that for us, we would be robots. God does not concern Himself with, or create, automotron robots. He creates people with the ability to think, and make decisions.

And regarding eternal life. He gives us a choice to make.

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Those are the ones who decide for Christ, rather than reject Him.

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world

"Those whom thou hast given me" are those who have chosen to place their faith in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast...



No no no. Thats not the issue.

The issue is do YOU have the ability to understand this truth.
I have no outside authority telling me what a passage of scripture means.
You cant say that. John Calvin is your authority...not the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
You keep repeating this,I suspect because you really have no response to Jn6...or jn17


Well. Now you are adding slander to your already magnificent *dancing* qualities.

I asked a question....you consider that slander and dancing? If you cannot read a response properly,it is no wonder you are frustrated trying to respond.


I have never advocated for the heretical "universalism" idea...and yet...you just throw that in there for the heck of it. Nice going.

I did not say you did, or did not. The verses you listed when looked at and considered.....have to rule out certain wrong ideas. Maybe you do not understand how this takes place,so this adds to your confuscion.

Error.

It is God who says man must add something.

wrong....this is where you error


And that something is Faith...in...Christ.God does not do that for us.

The choice is ours. If God did that for us, we would be robots.

This wrong view of man,is why you are bound to error.
THe robot comment indicates you do not grasp God's grace

God does not concern Himself with, or create, automotron robots. He creates people with the ability to think, and make decisions.

You totally ignore the fall,and mans condition....you have a wounded adam, not a dead adam

And regarding eternal life. He gives us a choice to make.

Any choice is God's,not mans

Those are the ones who decide for Christ, rather than reject Him.

This error makes a god who is a victim of mans choice,not the biblical god. This idea is fatalism. The god you describe waits too see what man will do then he goes along with it as a reaction to it....this is fatalism,not grace

"Those whom thou hast given me" are those who have chosen to place their faith in Christ.

Completely avoiding the clear teaching and meaning of this text, which says nothing about man placing anything anywhere



Man is never said to be saved...because of faith,never....
He is saved, by or through faith......there is a world of difference here.
I notice that you insert this idea into verse 24....when it is not there at all...
but you must to maintain your false ideas..

Like I said you and those with your philosophy,cannot really come to truth on these verses.....scripture indicates there are some who have;

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

it is another of a different kind.....this might be what is here AIC....
I would like that to not be the case, but something is wrong with the picture my friend......sorry I cannot help you...I do not think you are following the thread too well.You are unable to come to grips with the scripture offered at this time....

Your over-reacting against Calvin, and calvinists are clouding your judgement....you cannot process these verses without mentioning these things....

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

I believe you have been completly indoctrinated into the theology of John Calvin. It seems to be very clear that you accept blindly John Calvin as your truth authority, rather then the scriptures and the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. Its almost like borderline brainwashing. Thats the only explanation I can think of for the *problems* inconsistantcies, and general >>weirdness<< in most of your posts

I'm not saying you are literally brainwashed, mind you. Not at all. But you are sort of in that "ball park" so to speak.

If I was in your spot, I would be thinking about maybe doing 2 things...

1) Spend more time in the scriptures alone, rather than calvinism material.
2) Engage in a scripture study on "humility"

God bless you

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

You said this to me...

"Like I said you and those with your philosophy,cannot really come to truth on these verses.....scripture indicates there are some who have;...

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

And now you are questioning my sure and eternal salvation, because I do not accept calvinism.

That is disgracefull.

My brother, I say this in love. You do not have a problem with arrogance.

You have an extreme and possibly dangerous problem with super-arrogance

Please deal with these issues, Iconoclast. I have found that it is much better when we deal with our personal issues of this sort...rather than have GOD deal with those issues further down the road.

Please. Be wise.