Featured Are you Supralapsarian Infralapsarian Amyraldian?

Where does it not. Calvinists must redefine scripture to say that man cannot respond to the gospel.
Jesus plainly said:

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus never qualified his statements--not one time by saying "according to the deep dark tenets of Mr. Calvin."
He that believeth not is condemned already.

He that believeth on him is not condemned.

Obviously, according to Jesus, one can come to Him and believe on Him,
Or, Yeshua, was Jesus lying?

 

You forgot verse 19:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Jesus did not need to condemn the world.

The world already stood condemned.

They stood condemned in Adam, their carnal forefather.

Irrefutable proof of the universal guilt of unbelief by men was the crucifixion of Jesus.

All men naturally love darkness (Satan the Prince of Darkness) rather than Christ, the Light of the World.

However, the Pelagian contingency on this board refuses to admit this sound fundamental orthodox biblical principle.

 

So in this verse the word "men" means ALL MEN, but in other places it only means some men (the Elect)?

Is this another case of Calvinism picking and choosing the times when words like the World, or Men, or All Men refer only to the Elect? It's getting tough to keep up with the cherry-picked definitions.

I will grant that man is fallen in sin and is incapable of saving himself by his own devices, thereby requiring the grace and Love of God to gain salvation...but doesn't "Love" require an affection for something? How many people do you know actively profess a love for Satan?

Well, as I'm not Pelagian I can't comment on that. But the truth is what the Calvinist sees as "fundamental orthodox biblical principle" won't be what the non-Calvinist sees. Likewise, what the non-Calvinist sees as "fundamental orthodox biblical principle" won't be what the Calvinist sees.

 

Context is necessary for correct interpretation.

Please prove that this verse means 'some' men.

Are you willing to declare that had Christ been ministering in another part of the world He would have been welcomed and embraced?

Millions.

How do you define Pelagian?

Ergo, it is impossible to know truth?

 

I didn't forget verse 19 just as I didn't forget the rest of the chapter.

And so it did.
Notice that for that reason that "Light came into the world, not to the elect, but to the entire world and to the world for ages to come--to all the world.

And that is why Christ, the Light of the Word came. Isn't it?
That whosoever should believe on His name should be saved--not that whosoever should believe on the tenets of Calvin should be saved. Quite frankly I don't find that written in the Bible.

--Can you point me to this "Pelagian contingency"?
I haven't seen one.
The Bible makes no mention of Calvinism, therefore I don't put it within "sound fundamental orthodox Biblical principles. Sorry!

 

Oh, so I have to provide proof? Calvinism continually offers cherry-picked definitions of these terms to fit their chosen theology, and the moment someone questions that practice, they suddenly have to prove Calvinism's practice...

Let's keep digging in John 3:

If verse 19 is representative of ALL MEN, then verse 20 is a greater detailing of the condition of all men. All men, then, doeth evil and hate the light. They detest even approaching the light because they don't want to be reproved. If all men are evil, and doing evil, and hating light, then who is verse 21 talking about? Verse 19 cannot mean ALL MEN, otherwise verse 21 becomes a meaningless verse.

So people putting on "devil horns" makes them lovers of Satan? Does that mean everyone who wears a crucifix is a lover of Jesus? No, it doesn't.

I can't see whatever it is you linked. I tried to copy the URL and got a FORBIDDEN page, so I'm not sure, therefore I can't comment on this.

To my knowledge, Pelagius taught that we could, of our own ability and will, live a sinless life. I do not believe this. I do believe that we have a free will capable of accepting or rejecting God (thus I disagree with the Calvinistic idea of Irresistible Grace), but I also believe our salvation requires God's grace given to us through faith. But I don't agree with Pelagius in many aspects.

Not at all what I said. The fact that we have various differing views and interpretations of scripture proves that we are all flawed. For either camp to act as though their interpretation is the final, unmoveable truth is wrong. Both sides of the discussion are guilty of a lot of arrogant grandstanding in trying to say only their way is the right way.

 

PreachTony

Since you have repeated this idea several times now.....could you answer this that I asked you in another thread, but it is essentially the same question;

PT......what do you think this verse is saying?

what is the free gift?

what does it mean that it came to all men?

Notice....it does not say it potentially comes to all men.... what ever the gift is, it ACTUALLY COMES to those it is supposed to.


Ps... It might help to quote the whole verse;

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
In light of the whole verse being quoted.....explain what it means now....
[/QUOTE]

It is Calvinists understanding the differences according to the context as Protestant has explained to you:wavey: if you see not difference in word usage, you are not understanding correctly.:thumbsup:

It is not cherry picking...it is getting it right.

John Murray;

.......

 

:wavey::wavey: Some are not allowed to see it:thumbsup:

 

It's just more and more verbal occasional absolutism from Calvinism. One word in a sentence means exactly what it says while two words later a word does NOT mean what it says. Since we don't share similar soteriological beliefs, we'll never look at these verses the same in this life. So really, it doesn't matter how I interpret this verse and how you interpret it. You won't agree with me and I won't agree with you.

In other words, the Calvinists have figured out Biblical interpretation and the non-Calvinist just don't get it. I know you think that Calvinism requires some special revelation from God, so it's likely you don't believe non-Cals are truly revelated in their studies. After all, since God shows Calvinism to people, He obviously hasn't shown it to us yet. Perhaps one day we will be shown just how obvious Calvinism is in the scripture.

 

PT

you cannot answer what was asked of you because your statement does not agree with scripture....

anything you post will have to be made up or invented on the fly...

so you try and depart from the discussion rather than face what is obvious.

the whole passage is a unit.......in adam.....or in Christ........

all men are in Adam......and are in the realm of spiritual death

only those in Christ......who are there by new birth have the gift of justification unto life........you cannot twist it or deny it by making it conditional.......the text does not allow it...

All in adam.means all men who are ever born descendants from adam by physical birth. ...

all in Christ......does not mean and cannot mean all men who have ever been born....as ALL men are not and will not be adopted as Sons.....only the elect will be.......case closed.

For you to keep repeating this is fruitless. .....to run away from it makes your view lack credibility and begs f o r you to scrap it.

 

And yet, I think your interpretation does not agree with scripture. You say I'm setting conditional bounds on the scripture, but your side does as well.

You say that I cannot twist scripture, but that's exactly what your side does. Can the free gift be rejected? Some on your side would say "no," citing Irresistible Grace. My side, not believing in Irresistible Grace, believes God's free gift can be rejected. I see too many places in scripture that warn us against rejecting God. If it was impossible to reject God, then why warn us against rejecting Him? If man has no option or ability to accept Him, then why bring about such wrath and vengeance on man who was acting in the only manner he could? Do you get wrathful with a cat for meowing, when that's the only thing that cat can do?

Recognizing the futility of a discussion/debate between us means I should scrap my point of view? Wow...

 

PreachTony

No. Once again you fail to answer the bell on this statement you posted. You have failed to demonstrate that "Cals do the same thing".

You claim over and over....."My interpretation "does not agree with scripture and yet after 3 posts you have no begun to attempt to show how you think this is so.

stop accusing until you can show it scripturally.Go ahead if you think you can.

This passage does not get into any such foolish speculation.
You did not even mention what the gift was at first.

here again is the passage...it does not say a word about;
accepting
rejecting
conditions

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


vs 16...the free gift is unto justification
vs17...they which receive/grace and gift....it is a done deal ...vs the free gift came unto JUSTIFICATION......AGAIN A DONE DEAL

this passage is not describing any of this! you are introducing a red herring to avoid what the passage actually says.....stay in the passage...it is not discussing irresistable grace.

Again...this is not part of the discussion in romans 5. That your side denies that truth is worthy of discussion but it is not found in this passage.

and yet...you cannot show any scripture that says this at all.The gift is always spoken of in reference to those who have been given the gift.

ironically....you have identified with 4 pts of Arminianism, holding onto the eternal security as the one pt...saying therefore you are not Arminian???
yet your expressed view that men can accept the gift they have been given??? then reject it would not even be consistent with that teaching.:thumbsup:

romans 5 is not discussing any warning passage so this avoids the text at hand.

Men are born rejecting God.....that is not in view in rom5

men are responsible that's why.

yes..I hate pets

You should scrap your point of view because it is unscriptural. The fact that you cannot work through romans 5 shows the view will not hold up.:thumbsup:

 

How does that contradict that passage in John 3?
He who believes shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned.
Those that believe "are of the Father" and He gives them to the Son, and none of them shall be lost.
Those that do not believe shall be lost forever.

There is no contradiction here between this passage and John 3:16-18.

 

He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.

The Holy Spirit came to convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.
Those that desire to be saved will be convicted of their sin.

Jesus said he will draw all men to himself. Yes, we see the end result of the Spirit working in the individual.