1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The main complaints - against...

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by BobRyan, Jan 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Anyone (Both Calvinists and Arminians) knows that "not everyone in church is saved".

    Anyone (Both Calvinists and Arminians) should know that the saved state is "Christ in you the hope of glory" and that the case in Rev 3 is "Christ NOT in you" and there is simply no such thing as the "Christless saved state" in all of scripture.

    Thus the lost state ALONE is the one where the person is alone on the inside - Christless - miserable, blind, poor, naked unclothed with the righteousness of Christ -- in need of opening the door and letting Christ in to be in fellowship with Christ,

    Gal 5:4 talks about those who are "severed from Christ" and states that this is the "fallen from Grace" state -- not the "saved saint state".

    Both Calvinists and Arminians know - there is no Gospel invitation to be "Christless - miserable, blind, poor, naked unclothed with the righteousness of Christ " as if this is the saved state to which the lost are called. It simply is not a description of the "saved state".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #21 BobRyan, Jan 13, 2014
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Luke, personal incredulity is simply shuck and jive to dodge the facts presented. Each of my views, I supported with scripture.

    1) Total Spiritual Inability is mistaken doctrine as shown by 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Men of flesh, i.e. unregenerates, can understand the milk of the gospel.

    2) Unconditional Election is mistaken doctrine as shown by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

    3) Limited Atonement is mistaken doctrine as shown by 2 Peter 2:1 where a false teacher was bought by the Master.

    4) Irresistible Grace is mistaken doctrine as shown by Matthew 23:13 where men "entering heaven" are blocked by false teachers.
     
    #22 Van, Jan 13, 2014
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Biggest problem with arminianism is that the theology tries to hard to try to find that balance between Free will of God and man, as many in it do not not hold to a penal substutionary atonement view, have only potential salvation being offerred, and have us to decide in the end whether God saves us or not!

    just pushes free will of man too far...
     
    #23 Yeshua1, Jan 13, 2014
  4. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One of the problems with Calvinism is that the theology tries too hard to nullify scripture after scripture, such as we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement is just another mistaken doctrine of Calvinism, a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. 2 Peter 2:1 says the false teacher, headed for destruction, had been bought by the Master, thus demonstrating the PSA doctrine is unbiblical.
     
    #24 Van, Jan 13, 2014
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The substitutionary atonement model in the Bible is "unlimited" as we see in the NIV statement for 1John 2:2 "he is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sin and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #25 BobRyan, Jan 13, 2014
  6. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    See, this makes it apparent that you are not familiar with actual Calvinism. Calvinists believe that God COULD save every person on earth if he wanted to. No Calvinist EVER has God saying "What more could I do."

    You don't know enough about Calvinism to have this discussion.


    Again, no Calvinist has God saying "What more could I do?"

    You do not know what you are talking about.


    You're obsessed with this "What more could I do" crud and its utter bunk.

    God could do more.

    BTW, that is true in both systems- Arminian and Calvinist.

    In Arminianism God lets people go to hell, too. The Arminian just thinks that God thinks the will of man is so important and sacred that God would never violate it to save men from hell.

    The Calvinist thinks "free will" is the most overrated thing in the world.


    Sure it does. There are numerous texts that say that.

    But even a moron could deduce it if the Bible did not say it.

    If God KNEW that sin would exist in this world before he made this world then he was willing for sin to exist SINCE HE WENT AHEAD AND MADE THIS WORLD!!

    A fifth grader could deduce that!


    Again, a fifth grader could read that verse and clearly see that God is talking about his own people- that God is not willing that ANY of his own people should perish.

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    The any refers back just four words to the "usward." A child can see that. You ought to know better if you are going to attack a theological system. It is unethical for you to do so until you ACTUALLY KNOW what you are talking about.


    I already showed you that "world" even "ALL THE WORLD" almost never means "every single person in the world."

    Again, I hate to have to keep doing this but a fifth grader can see that.

    Yep. And?

    First of all, it is not eisegesis unless you are ADDING something to the text. You need to learn your definitions.

    Secondly, it is stupid to make the word "world" mean every single person. It is just stupid. It makes no sense whatsoever. No thinking person would do that. You need a TEXTUAL REASON why the word must mean "every single person" since the word almost NEVER means every single person.


    "The whole world watched as the Prince of Camelot was shot dead in the streets of Texas."

    Only a man whose intellect barely breaks the vegetative state thinks that "whole world" in that statement means that the reporter is saying that every single person on planet earth watched the footage of Kennedy's assassination that day.

    And that is the way human beings have used that terminology throughout human history. It is stupid to all of the sudden demand that such terminology MUST MEAN every single person on earth.
     
    #26 Luke2427, Jan 14, 2014
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You say "God willed sin to exist" - no such text.

    By contrast - there actually is a text that says "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" and Calvinists choose to water the text down that actually does exist regarding what "God willed" while then making up something about "God willed sin to exist".

    There is a false hope in Calvinism that the pronoun class "We, Us, Our, Ours" will somehow enable a downsize of "all" and "World" so as to get them downsized to something compatible with Calvinism.

    Calvinism needs a convoluted restriction for "ALL" in 2Peter 3 by appealing to "us-ward" that is defined eisegetically as "us who are saved at the writing of this letter and none of the lost" which is pure nonsense since "waiting' is for the purpose of getting more of the lost - saved

    or else they need the extreme bend-and-wrench downsizing "ALL" via the "us ward" idea that ALL just means "us who are saved at the writing of this letter and all the lost today that will one day be saved" which also does not work because God waited long beyond the lives of the first century humanity

    -- so then it becomes an effort to downsize "ALL" via the "US ward" as being "All the saved as of the writing of this letter, all the lost as of the writing of this letter that would one day be saved, and all the unborn who though lost will one day be saved". Which puts Calvinism in a box for "US" and "OUR".

    Now notice that when their own eisegetical bend-and-wrench is used for "US" and "OUR" what happens in 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" then Calvinism does not survive the text because they have used up "All the saved as of the writing of this letter, all the lost as of the writing of this letter that would one day be saved, and all the unborn who though lost will one day be saved" as the "OUR" and "US" definition - leaving "WHOLE WORLD" undownsized!!

    So while you will find a lot of ad hominem ranting about who is "a child" or who is "unethical for noticing" etc - when it comes to complaining about those who do not downsize the "ALL" in 2Peter 3 - yet it is done without exposing the "details" that will so box-in Calvinism via 2Peter 3 that it will not survive 1John 2:2.

    [FONT=&quot]What is worse for Calvinism is that "ALL" is in the context of "YOU" which would exclude John himself (and all other churches that did not yet exist) as being one to whom God is patient if one were trying to use the extreme eisegetical model in Calvinism employed to get around "all" and "any".[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]NASB
    8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
    9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is     [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]patient toward you[/FONT][FONT=&quot], not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.[/FONT]

    KJV
    2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


    YLT
    2 to be mindful of the sayings said before by the holy prophets, and of the command of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour,
    9 the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation,

    Even worse in the King James -- since "us" is defined as just "the Apostles" -- and in theory even Calvinism could not tolerate such a downsize..[FONT=&quot](Thus “all” and “any” cannot be restricted to just “us apostles” since all the apostles were at that time already saved – obviously)[/FONT]

    2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
    ...
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    [FONT=&quot]Obviously the “any ol excuse for downsizing” model so often resorted to – does not work.[/FONT]

    And in theory "nobody was supposed to notice".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #27 BobRyan, Jan 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2014
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    One of my primary complaints against 4 and 5 pt Calvinism is that it cannot be stated by its own promoters in such a way that does not make God the "cause of His own lament". (I think many here would have guessed that one for my list by now).

    Ok well that would be the "logic" lament you expressed above. It is not logical to make God the cause of His own lament over the lost where God says "What more could I do?" feigning some sort of extent when Calvinism knows 'exactly what MORE he could do -- He is just not choosing to do it".

    Like a child that does not study for the upcoming test - then failing then saying "oh what more could I have done!".

    Or like the parent that does not feed the children - complaining that the children are unhealthy and then lamenting "o what more could I do".

    It makes total nonsense of the one speaking to construct such cases making the speaker the cause of their own lament. Obviously.

    God says of the lost "what more could I have done that I have not done" - a statement that Calvinism does not survive in my opinion.

    Turns out - both sides see that point clearly. Which is why the issue of making God the "cause of His own lament" is so much the worse for Calvinism.


    Turns out - both sides see that point clearly - which is why the issue of making God the "cause of His own lament" is so much the worse for Calvinism. That lament is simply "not supposed to be in scripture" according to Calvinists - and as you point out - they don't like to read it.

    True. Only God says it. And "apparently" only Arminians admit to those scriptures being in existence.

    So then in the OP I complain about two issues with Calvinism.

    God's Lament
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90797

    I thank Luke2427 for allowing me to illustrate both points in the OP in this single post.


    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT]

    Ezek 18
    [FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]



    Calvinism is left with the scenario of the parent who does not feed the children - complaining that the children are in poor health saying "o what more could have been done that I have not done!" - when Calvinists know exactly "what more" in Calvinism the "same more that WAS done for the elect!".

    In the Arminian model you have the parent that prepares food and sets it before all the children - some of which choose to eat and some of which refuse and then the parent says of those in poor health "what more could have been done that I have not done!". In Arminianism there is nothing more that is done for one group vs another - in Calvinism there is mind-zap reprogramming done for one group but not the other that fully explains the two different groups - the two different outcomes and as Luke2427 points out - negates the lament which "should not even exist".

    in Christ

    Bob
     
    #28 BobRyan, Jan 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2014
  9. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The translated propitiation or atoning sacrifice refers to the mechanism or means of salvation or forgiveness of sins.

    Thus 1 John 2:2 can be understood to say Christ became the means of forgiveness not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

    And "the whole world" refers to all mankind as demonstrated by 2 Peter 2:1 where the Master bought the false teacher, thus obtaining the right and power to forgive whoever God places spiritually in Christ, hence the circumcision of Christ where the body of sin (our sin burden) is removed.
     
    #29 Van, Jan 14, 2014
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed and the LLX uses that word in Ezek 45:20 "make Atonement" - so the NIV is on good grounds to refer to it as "Atoning sacrifice" - or as Is 53:10 says "Guilt offering"

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #30 BobRyan, Jan 14, 2014
  11. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    You're not discussing this with me. You're just regurgitating the same mess and ignoring the arguments that I have made that destroy that mess.

    Here are the facts-

    "World" almost NEVER means every single person on Earth.

    No Calvinist says that God ever says "What more could I have done."

    Peter was talking about "usward" when he said "all."

    Those facts destroy your premises.

    End of story.
     
    #31 Luke2427, Jan 14, 2014
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Total fiction. The word translated as "world" as used by John always refers to fallen mankind or the corrupt system of fallen mankind.

    Calvinism relies on redefining the meaning of words to rewrite scripture and pour their man-made invention into the text. That dog will not hunt.

    When Jesus came into the "world" He enlighten every man. Thus the "world" includes "every man."

    He made the "world" yet the "world" did not know Him. This refers not to an inanimate earth, but to fallen mankind.

    Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Gee fallen mankind is in view.

    Calvinism had its hay-day when those sitting in the pews could not read and study for themselves. It cannot stand up to study. John only uses "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind. Are we to treasure the things of the world or the things of heaven?
     
    #32 Van, Jan 14, 2014
  13. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So women were not enlighten? sounds reasonable
     
    #33 Salty, Jan 14, 2014
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah,he's not as universal as we once thought. He believes the translated word "world" means only adult males.
     
    #34 Rippon, Jan 14, 2014
  15. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    System- not every single person in the system.

    If John meant every single person then Christians, being persons, would be included in that and John would be saying that anyone who loves Christians does not have the love of the father in him.

    Wrong. The opposite is true. That is PRECISELY what you do.

    But many MILLIONS of individuals in "the world" had known him so your own statement disproves your claim.

    Eschatalogical in nature. He will have accomplished this by the end.

    SNIP

    Calvinism PUT Bibles in men's hands!!
     
    #35 Luke2427, Jan 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2014
  16. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My problem with the Non-cal is the constant inaccurate statements they make about the cal.

    Often when a Cal shows the exact meaning of the Scriptures in context, the non-cal still will try to make some grandiose claim that it is the Cal who is not using Scriptures accurately.

    Such is seen repeatedly on this thread.

    For instance: Look at the posts dealing with Rev 3.

    Which folk want to place inaccurate reading and therefore inaccurate application to the Scriptures? The Arminian thinking!

    On the other side, I realize that I am a bit odd in this matter of the blood sacrifice, because I am one of the few of Calvinistic thinking that does take 1 John as accurate to the whole world. My view is that the blood of Christ paid the price of not just the believer's sins, but that of every person that ever breathed air.

    It is a mater of reconciliation (the real definition of atonement) that is not accomplished but appointed to believers.

    When the lost stand at the judgment, not one is cast into the lake of fire because of sin(s).

    Every one that is cast into the lake of fire is lacking the reconciliation - the name written in the book of life.

    No reconciliation - no life.

    2 Corinthians 5:
    20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

    21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


    ​
    Another supporting passage is found in John 3: Those that do not believe are "condemned already." Not because their sin condemns them, but because they do not believe - there is no reconciliation.

    Note: It is true that John use of the Jewish term "whole world" was NOT the same as what the typical English speaking thinking folks would define. Rather, they used it as a term indicating the set of folks outside of the subset, but not including anyone outside of the set. Paul would do the same.

    For instance: Romans 8:1 uses the term "whole world" and nobody would rightly think that at that time the Native Americans nor the Japanese heard how the believers of the city of Rome were doing.
     
    #36 agedman, Jan 15, 2014
  17. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Folks, pay no attention to Salty and Rippon. I used the very words of scripture, and they interpreted those words to exclude women and children. I indicated "world" as used by John refers to fallen mankind, and that would include women and children, or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.
     
    #37 Van, Jan 15, 2014
  18. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree, when John refers to "world" i.e. the kosmos of mankind, any part of that group or system might be affected. However, the term encompasses all mankind, rather than just the elect or just the fallen.
    If you take away the sin of one fallen person, you have taken away the sin of the world. The phrase, sin of the world, excludes no one of the world.

    Calvinism seeks to redefine world to mean elect here, fallen there, and who knows what else. Thus they say John 3:16 does not refer to fallen mankind, but only to the elect. That is a redefinition, no matter their denial.

    My claim that in John 1:9-10 refers to mankind and not to the inanimate earth is valid.

    Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, then, now, and to the end of time.

    Pay no attention to doctrines built on speculation, redefinition, and shoddy bible study, i.e. Calvinism.
     
    #38 Van, Jan 15, 2014
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    True in the Calvinist view they know exactly "what more" God could do so Calvinists aren't the ones saying "what more could God do".

    Only God says it. And "apparently" only Arminians admit to those scriptures being in existence.

    So then in the OP I complain about two issues with Calvinism.

    God's Lament
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90797

    I thank Luke2427 for allowing me to illustrate both points in the OP in this single post.

    [FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT]

    Ezek 18
    [FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]


    Calvinism is left with the scenario of the parent who does not feed the children - complaining that the children are in poor health saying "o what more could have been done that I have not done!" - when Calvinists know exactly "what more" in Calvinism the "same more that WAS done for the elect!".

    In the Arminian model you have the parent that prepares food and sets it before all the children - some of which choose to eat and some of which refuse and then the parent says of those in poor health "what more could have been done that I have not done!". In Arminianism there is nothing more that is done for one group vs another - in Calvinism there is mind-zap reprogramming done for one group but not the other that fully explains the two different groups - the two different outcomes and as Luke2427 points out - negates the lament which "should not even exist".

    Hint: You can't destroy the scriptures listed above by simply ranting. Does not work that way. You need to deal with the points raised to refute them.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #39 BobRyan, Jan 15, 2014
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How does God get that grace of the death of Christ applied towards sinners though?

    How do spiriually dead sinners believe unto him, when their very natures are to hate.despise.run away and hide?

    bible states NONE are right with God, ALL gone astry, so how does God apply his grace towards them while they are in a state that contiunually refuses Him?
     
    #40 Yeshua1, Jan 15, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...