What verses are against calvinism?

Both. </font>[/QUOTE]I can only shake my head in amazement. It is much like the little kid asked the circus contortionist once -- "Doesn't that hurt?" </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is your presented a false dichotomy and expected me to be dumb enough to answer it without seeing through it. Both of your statements are true. Your first statement had to do with the necessity of repentance and belief for salvation. I, and most other calvinists, unequivocally affirm that to be true. Your second statement dealt with unconditional election. I, and most other calvinists, unequivocally affirm that to be true.

Your confusion is due to the fact that I address below.

No, I want to address the issue through biblical terminology rightly used. "Election" and "salvation" are two different things in Scripture. That is my point. So your dichotomy you tried to present above is a false one. It doesn't work. It is like asking if you want to walk to school or carry your lunch. Both can be true. Your problem is that you asked a wrong question predicated on a false dichotomy.

Certainly. Not only that, individual election is different than personal salvation, though they are necessarily related.

Let's see one at a time.

I cannot begin to affirm what "all Calvinists" would agree with. I will say that the majority of calvinists affirm the necessity of faith and repentance for salvation. Without meeting those conditions, most Calvinists would say that man cannot come to Christ for salvation.

If you would do as I recommended above and get out some theologies, you could read for yourself what calvinists believe. Your statement below that you refuse to do such, only indicates more than you are unwilling to deal with the actual realities of what we believe and instead prefer to go on what you think we ought to believe. I really wish, if you are going to combat calvinism, that you at least combat what we actually believe.

As I said, because I don't know every single calvinist. I know primitive baptists will not affirm that, but most of them will not claim to be calvinists.

The problem you have is that you want to equate salvation with election. Therefore "salvation conditioned on faith and repentance" is contrary to "unconditional election." Yet, as I say, that is a false dichotomy. In Scripture, election is to salvation. In other words, a very brief ordo to address this would be "election, repentance/faith, salvation."

Yet agian you are dead wrong. My theology is based solely on God's word. My point about theologies was simply this: You are using terms improperly because you do not (or will not) understand how they are used in this discussion. You are confusing things because you do not know simple definitions.

The Bible teaches that God chooses people to salvation. That is a distinction. Therefore, election and salvation are not the same and they cannot be confused.

Don't start with the tripe about my belief being based on anything other than God's word. I have said many times, I became a calvinist simply by reading the Bible. I have not read John Calvin. I have read very few reformed writers at any great length. I am a Calvinist because abou 12 years ago, my daily reading of the Scripture convinced there was not other alternative that did not involve twisting Scripture beyond what my conscience would allow. If other people are different, than so be it. But to say that my theology is based on human logic and theoretical ambiguities is again a simple illustration of how much you really don't understand what you are refuting here. I don't say that to sound arrogant or condescending, but at some point, we have to deal with actual realities.

If I accuse you of teaching that man is saved by works (which is a logical extension of arminianism), I am fairly sure you would refute it vigorously. I would hope so. I think you have a gross inconsistency in your system at that point. But I know you don't believe that so it is useless for me to try to paint you that way. See, that is ethical debate. Do not accuse your opponent of something he doesn't believe and do not inflame the argument by using prejudicial language to describe his beliefs. Can we not agree on something as simple as that??

For you to resist reading theologies shows that you are not really interested in getting answers, but only in fighting. That is inconceivable to me. You want to refute Calvinism, but you don't know what Calvinism really teaches and you explicitly refuse to read to find out what Calvinism teaches. If you don't read to find out what we actually believe, then how can you refute it?? Until you find out what we believe, you are just making stuff up and shooting down straw men, as you have done here.

I have learned much about arminianism here. It hasn't swayed me in the least, but I have learned because I have been willing to listen and to read and to study. For you to outright refuse to find out what the theology you hate so much actually believes is unfortunate. Why continue to refute Calvinism when you refuse to find out what you are refuting?? Are you scared you might find that calvinists actually do explain Scripture from exegesis instead of from man-made logic??

It was a very nice day. We had my wife's mother over and a guy from across the street who got saved about a year ago (because he was elected by God and then repented and believed to get saved ). It was a good time of fellowship with him and hopefully an encouragement to him. He is a single parent. Then I took a nap and watched the Lion's game. Overall, very relaxing. Glad that you had a nice day as well.

 

Oh, really? Individual election? Since your theology is biblically based, perhaps you would like to share some scriptures where you find this election of individuals to salvation? Certainly not Romans 9, which is a quote from Malachi referring to the national election of Israel, and within the context of national election of Israel as explained by Paul.

Now, you are being somewhat more reasonable. Welcome to reality.

I do not find this to be true and do not agree with you. Any other Calvinists on this board care to chime in?

And what Arminian theologies have you read? You seem to have taken me wrong. I have a large Spurgeon library, reading at least two of his sermons a week. I have a large Calvinist library. But I do not limit my reading to that. On top of that, I have done quite a bit of diatribe with reputed Calvinists. Enough to realize that Calvinists don't come in a "one size fits all" package.

 

Eph 1:4; 1 Thess 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 2 Thess 2:13; Acts 13:26; etc. etc. This is found many many places.

Romans 9, however is about personal election, in dealing with the principle behind it. In case you did not know, Pharoah was an individual, as were both Jacob and Esau. But you can debate that on your own time. Having studied it in depth, you will not be able to convince me otherwise. The point of Rom 9 is that God is God, he can do what he wants to do and he uses individuals as examples of it.

I have been here for quite a while. Your difficulty was that you tried to make me say something I was not saying.

Who cares whether you agree?? You don't like Calvinism so of course you are not going to agree. But I am still right and if you took time to study you would know that. As I say, you don't have to agree with my theology, but at least be honest about the facts.

I can't remember who all I have read. There have been too many of them. My point was addressing your outright refusal to go and find out how these terms are used before you used them differently. You try to score some cheap points by accusing me of not being biblical That was not good.

 

Eph 1:4; 1 Thess 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 2 Thess 2:13; Acts 13:26; etc. etc. This is found many many places.</font>[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's look, then.

Eph 1:4

Interesting that if one actually looks at the verse, something that Calvinists are normally loathe to do, you find that he has chosen "US", and that "WE" should be holy and without blame before him in love. Sounds to me like some group of people have been elected by God to holiness and blamelessness. But you claim that INDIVIDUAL election is found in that verse? Considering the many grammatical errors in your posts so far, I am beginning to think you might be grammatically challenged. You do understand that a group is NOT an individual, right?

1 Thessalonians 1:4

Once again, we find some BRETHREN who have been chosen (elected). Just some basic Bible instruction for you, Pastor Larry -- that word Brethren is plural! Ever read John Grisham's novel of that title? It means several men in a brotherhood. And common arithmetic tells us that 2+ does not equal 1. Or, more bluntly, a group is not an individual.

1 Peter 1:1,2

Guess what? Hello, Pastor Larry &lt;knock, knock, knock&gt; You there? That word "strangers" ... it ain't a good choice to show INDIVIDUAL election. Unless of course you want to show that Peter is addressing his epistle to one of those poor individuals who under persection was tied to 4 horses and then "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia."

2 Thess 2:13

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this Second Thessalonian epistle addressed to the same "BRETHREN" as the first one?

Acts 13:26

Let's see -- "Men" (plural), "brethren" (plural), "children" (plural), AND (don't forget the addition! ) "WHOSOEVER". Ohhhhhh, don't you just love that word WHOSOEVER? I'm so glad that I was once one of those whosoever's. But, unfortunately for you Pastor Larry, Individual election it is not.

And as you say, "etcetera, etcetera, etcetera"

First, let us deal with the context of Romans 9. It is about personal election, you claim?

Romans 9:1-4 Introduces us to a discusson about the nation of Israel

In case it escaped you, did you notice in verse 4 to whom the adoption, glory, covenants, law, service of God, and promises pertain to?

What is the purpose of God's election? To elect one individual over another? No, but to bring about his people, Israel. That is why verse 10 begins with "And not only this" speaking of the birth of Esau and Jacob AFTER the birth of Issac from Sarah. Did Esau the individual serve Jacob the individual? No. In fact Jacob would fear death at the hands of his powerful brother Esau when he returned. But that did not happen. Instead, Esau left Canaan and went to Idumea to establish his own nation, the Edomites. You did not have a fulfillment of this until the time of David when in 2 Sam 8:14 David conquored them and made them servants.

Notice again that God is making the riches of his glory on more than one vessel -- not individual, but a people. Note the contrast of the Jewish nation with the Gentile people. This is further emphasized by the following:

Then the beginning of the next chapter continues the theme of Paul dealing with the nation of Israel.

And he will continue into chapter 11.

Chapter 11:7 is particularly insightful that he has been dealing with national election through these chapters.

But the capstone showing national election is Romans 11:28

I composed a post once regarding that verse about the unsaved elect. There can be no question that the subject of election from Romans 9 to 11 is the national election of Israel. Of the 5 times the terms "elect" or "election" appear in the book of Romans, 4 of them are in Romans 9-11 and speaks of national Israel each time.

Now, regarding the Individuals you have named.
In case you didn't know it, Romans 9 contains several quotes of OT passages. It would behoove a good student to look up those references before pontificating upon them.

For instance, regarding Pharoah, the Bible says in Romans 9:17, "For the scripture saith unto Pharoah..." It does? The scripture? Where is this scripture? You can find it in Exodus 9:13-21.

Now, who was elected? Are you arguing for the individual election of Pharoah to hell? That is not shown in the passage, what is shown is that God raised Pharoah up to the leadership of the nation of Egypt, because He is going to get glory over them in delivering HIS PEOPLE Israel. *REMEMBER THIS* -- don't lose touch with the subject of Romans 9 -- the election of national Israel. God said, "Let MY PEOPLE go!" God said, "exaltest thou thyself against MY PEOPLE." Against whom was the plague of hail? Pharoah as an individual? No, the text from which Paul quoted demonstrates that Pharoah is representative of his people, because the plague is "such as hath not been IN EGYPT..." Did Pharoah go out and get his cattle? No, but those among his servants (his people, from the time of Joseph all Egyptians were servants of Pharoah) who feared the Lord did.

The primary evidence of Pharoah is not that God "elected" Pharoah, but that He elected ISRAEL. He only raised up Pharoah, and endured that vessel of wrath fitted to destruction (IOW, he deserved destruction long before he got it) that He might glorify himself in the deliverance of His people, Israel. You seem to not understand the Biblical definition of "election." Pharoah was not elect.

How about Jacob and Esau? Romans 9:13 starts out with, "As it is written..." Where is this written? Malachi 1:1-5

The passage is addressed to who? The children of Israel in the time of Malachi. How is it God hated Esau? By laying "his mountains and his heritage waste." It is the Edomites who cry out. The passage is about the election of the Israelite nation over the Edomite nation. Bottom line: Esau was not "elect" as an individual.

And here I thought you just said that you listened to Arminians on this forum? Once again, you contradict yourself and reveal a closed mind, convinced only of your own pompous rightness.

What facts? You made another pontification without documentation of ANY fact which I chose to disagree with. On the other hand, when presented with facts such as Moravian Missionaries and Methodist Circuit Riders contradicting your factually ignorant assertion that Calvinists were "virtually all" of the early church planting works in this country, you do as you did above, ignore them! Your method of study seems to be one that refuses to be confused with the facts.

Does anyone wonder why I am not surprised?

 

More of the same foolish comments from you. I am the one who brought up the verses. For you to suggest that I don't like to look at them is foolish in the highest degree. You really should cease these types of comments. They serve nothing to further the discussion. To charge us with being unwilling to look at Scripture is baseless and you know it. Whether you like it or not, Calvinism has been shown from Scripture for centuries. You might disagree with the interpretation and if your conscience allows that then fine. But do not charge us with unwillingness to look at Scripture. Raise the level of dialogue. Don't drag it down.

Show a grammatical error I have made. Go ahead, put your money where you mouth is and show it. I may have made one; I would be interested in you showing though, since you seem to have noticed it.

In the meantime, who do you think makes up a group??? This is so simple, I am amazed I have to explain it to someone who is supposed to know what they are talking about.

And once again I have to point out the startling revelation that groups are made of individuals.

More of the same error on your part, failing to realize the obvious ... that groups are made of individuals. And Peter was addressing his letter to individuals, gathered in the churches.

You are right on that account, but still wrong in that your continue with your major error. And sticking your tongue out is not civil.

Did you really think you would get by with such weak argumentation and thinking??? If this convinces you, you are worse off than I imagined.

Acts 13:26 was the wrong verse. I should have said Acts 13:48. And you will likely offer the same ridiculous assertion and it will be as wrong as it was before. On the other hand, you might try to weasal out of the revelation of this verse by redefining words to fit your theology. We have seen both in the forum. The fact is that some were appointed to eternal life and it takes great exegetical gymnastics to explain that one away.

2 Tim 2:10 is another verse that shows election to be personal and references to those who are not yet saved, thereby showing that the group of saved is made up of individuals who need to get saved.

Another demonstration of how insufficient your understanding. "Whosoever" is attached to a verb, namely, "fears God." The whosoever fears God is who has salvation. No Calvinist will disagree with that. We believe "whosoever will" may come. We like to emphasize the "will" part of it. You want to include the "won't" part of it and not even God includes them.

You can't just throw out the "whosoever" charge. We believe that whosoever will may come. There is not want person who wants to be saved who will not be saved.

Well, let's look at what I said, shall we???

I will quote it to save you from having to look back up at it again:

I bolded a couple of lines for your convenience, again to save you the trouble of having to think too hard. Quite clearly, you are disingenuous to change what I actually said to make it say something else. The point of Rom 9 is that God can do what he wants. Election is a part of that. You don't have to like it; you should believe it becuase it is what God said.

I am not closed in my mind. Far to the contrary, I am very open. That is how I know that your attempt at "exegesis" of Rom 9-11 is totally deficient. You do not deal with the text hardly at all. You think a few glib phrases will suffice. They won't. And those willing to study will see that. I do listen to the arminians. I don't accept what they say without careful study. I do accept what they tell me they believe, which was the point of my saying that in the first place.

Then we see that, yet again, you have shown yourself to be unethical by taking my words about one thing and applying them to something else. That is shameful. The fact that I don't agree with your exegesis doesn't mean I don't listen, and it has nothing to do with what I was talking about when I said that I listen to arminians and have learned a lot.

The fact was that the majority of Calvinists do affirm the necessity of faith and repentance. You cannot reasonably deny that. You disagree with it becuase you want to maintain your straw man. But it simply shows that you are determined to believe what you will regardless of what the truth is about what we believe.

Balderdash and you know it. My reference in early church planting had to do with Baptists. If that was not clear to you, then my apologies. But don't come in here with your attitude and accuse me of somethign that is not true. I said nothing about Moravians or Methodists. IN fact, I think I clarified that there was mission work done by arminians and I did not deny that. This is a Baptist board. I was talking about Baptists. I wish I could find the notes I have on it. But I don't have the time to look for them and you don't have the interest to read them anyway so I will leave it at that.

Having read for more than 15 years, there is no possible way that I can remember everything that I have read. And I doubt that if you are honest, you can either. Who cares?? Why is that an issue?? It was a cheap attempt by you to try to look superior. The truth is that you would fail by the exact same standard, meaning that you are no better off that I am. If you can remember everything you have ever read, then you need to read more. I doubt you can remember that much. Therefore, you should not be surprised that I am no better off than you.

If you have particular authors in mind, mention their names and I will tell you if I have read them. It really doesn't matter. This is a straw man set up by you to try to attack me because you can't do anything with the actual arguments.

Again, I repeat my plea where this started: If you are going to talk about election and salvation, use the terms as they are commonly used. Do not confuse unconditional election with salvation conditioned on belief and repentance. That was where your big error started. Perhaps you are not used to someone standing up to you and pointing out this foolishness that you think is proof. Perhaps others just roll over for you. I should have dropped out long ago since this is generally a waste of time for those not willing to listen to Scripture. You are not off to a good start in this forum. I hope you will change.

 

If you insist.

Don't not? You mean, I do not not have to believe... This is one example, and only one, of the confusing grammar you have used in our postings. That is a double negative, by the way.

 

Oh, yes. Individuals make up a group. There is a mighty big difference between electing a group and electing an individual. For example, if I claim that the Baptist Board is found at WWW.baptistboard.com 24/7, that doesn't mean that the individual Pastor Larry is found there 24/7, does it? Or has that difference been lost on you? God DOES elect -- that is a biblical doctrine. That is not where we disagree. The bone of contention lies in my claim that you do not find individual election to the degree which you claim, and certainly not for salvation. In response, you post a few references only in a "so there" approach, but examination of those scriptures shows each one deals with elected groups.

I notice that you still are shooting out mere references with no real explanation. And you have noticably avoided any view of context or rightly dividing the word of truth yourself, but have contented yourself at mere diatribe. My post stands, and will be seen by the honest enquirer as the answer to your shenanigans that it is.

Precisely.

It seems that you not only cannot remember everything you have read, you cannot remember what you just posted today. I asked you What Arminian Theologies you have read? I did not mean for you to name every last one of them, but it would have been sufficient if you could have perhaps named one. After all, it is *YOU* who made a big deal out of reading the other side's theologies to be aware of what they believe. I no more believe that you follow your own advice than I believe Muhammed is living on the moon eating blue cheese.

I think you did -- long, long ago.

 

NONE of these speak of individual election.

 

Hello Gentlemen,

I am a first time poster. Great place to start, eh? If you haven't read Spurgeon's 'A Defense of Calvinism', here is the link:

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

Noone can put words together like Spurgeon did.

Man's only part is falling on his knees and, as for the rest, I will have to cry out with Paul,

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

In Christ,
John

 

Were you confused by that??? Are you really??? That is a ridiculous notion. The fact that in haste someone makes a typo is to be expected. Who cares?? But I see your point ... When you can't address the substance with consistent arguments, make personal attacks ... Nice move ...

 

Your theology makes you find that meaning. But the text makes us find another. That is your difficulty. You bring your theology to Scripture rather than getting your theology from Scripture. I simply reject that method and find it inadequate.

Where?? You didn't offer any real interaction. You merely said "It doesn't mean that." How is that "rightly dividing it." I have done the exegesis in depth on every single one of those passages and it would take pages to repeat that here. Feel free to prove your point from SCripture rather than simply making charges about it.

Finney, Thiessen, some others; I can't remember them all.

Your belief is not the measure of truth, which you have made abundantly apparent to us.

Yet another sign of faulty thinking on your part.

Interesting how yet again, you make no attempt to deal substantively with any Scripture, in spite of the fact that I addressed it in my post and even gave additional Scripture for consideration. Why?? Because it is easier to maintain your position than it is to deal with Scripture?? I understand that. I used to be there. When I submitted my theology to God's word, things began to change for me.

 

NONE of these speak of individual election. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually they all do. You should study them in context, both near and large, and you will find that personal election is exactly what is taught in Scripture. You just throw out your opinion here with no substance whatsoever. Did you really think that this would be convincing because you said so???

 

Actually, PappaBear is doing just fine in exposing flawed theology. I am enjoying it, I must admit.

I offer you the saaaaaaaame advice.

 

I missed this post. Where was it?? So far, he has only offered unsubstantiated opinion.

I haven't offered anything unsubstantiated.

 

ROFL! Touche, said Mr. Kettle to Mr. Pot! So far, you have cited TEXTS ... no explanation beyond the laconic, "You should study them in context, both near and large, and you will find that personal election is exactly what is taught in Scripture," which you gave to Grace1998. I, on the other hand, have shown each of your texts to apply to groups. You just didn't have the time to bother, you said. The evidence is that it is *YOU* who are guilty of the common Calvinist activity you will find at #13 at this link: A list of common misunderstanding about calvinism

Right, you should feel free. I have a post that takes Scripture after Scripture and applies it. You have yet to show how that post misrepresents scripture and to provide a right division of it. How about something more than a few disjointed text references this time?

Finney, Thiessen, some others; I can't remember them all. </font>[/QUOTE]

You have read Finney and Thiessen? Do you recall which ones? For instance, I remember that I have read The Institutes by Calvin tr'd by Ford Lewis Battles, Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray, and The Soveriegnty of God and Hebrews by Pink. I would be interested in knowing what "Arminian Theologies" you have read, not just the authors.

Au contraire, dear pastor. The only thing you addressed in your post was additional REFERENCES -- absolutely NO substantive use of Scripture for anyone's consideration. And when faced with substantive application of scripture, you just "pooh-pooh" it off.

 

If you've read all those, why would you not know that Calvinists believe that men must repent and believe in order to be saved?

 

You only say it is poor because you disagree with it. You use your own standards. And you didn't even show it to be poor at that. You seem to be able to conceive of a church with no people. I can't fathom that.

And I don't need to force individual election. I don't need it. I only believe it because I can find no alternative in Scripture, other than national election which refers to Israel, not the church, and does not deal with salvation.

Obviously in this passage no one is being elected to the cabinet. The GROUP (chosen us) has been elected AS A GROUP to be HOLY and Blameless before him in love! This is NOT individual election to salvation. But thank you for playing, maybe you can be a contestant again, sometime. </font>[/QUOTE]But you have yet to show why this is a group instead of individuals. Of course they were elected to be holy and blameless before him. That is what a saved person is. You assert it is a group, but you didn't show how you arrived at that position.

And this is my point exactly which you deny: I said at the beginning that you are not making arguments; you are just making assertions. Here is prime proof. You did not show why the plural "you" has to be a singular group. You gave no arguments to indicate that Paul was talking about a group. You simply asserted it and then expected us to believe it. How is that biblical argumentation and exegesis?? You think your assertions should convince us?? Why not use the text and the words of Paul to show us what you believe.

Solid biblical exegesis means taking the passage in its context and explaining what the author meant. You should try it. As I pointed out above, your assertions without argumentation do not qualify as biblical exegesis.

V. 29 was what I was referring to. Add that to your lists of errors I make ...

Right ... and now for that solid exegesis. Look at the first word of v. 29--For (hoti in Greek). It is a causal particle. In other words, it is giving a foundation for what the above is true. We might translate it as "because." Now, let's move on.

I agree, but it is individual believers who have been predestined to be conformed to his image, not the group itself. You, as an individual, have been predestined to be conformed to his image.

What do you think salvation is??? Salvation is becoming conformed to his image. That is a part of what it means to be saved. That conforming to his image is the ongoing work normally called sanctification that will be completed at the coming of Christ (1 John 3:2). Such conforming must take place in the individual life; not in the corporate life.

You are right.

You are right again. But how does the church become holy and blameless?? By the individuals in it being holy and blameless. It is impossible for the church to be holy and blameless apart from its individuals being holy and blameless. Paul has in mind the individuals that make up the group. I would curious to know if you can find an example of a collective use of a plural pronoun, that is a use where the plural pronoun is used to refer to a group as a group (apart from these passages in dispute).

But let's get back to the exegesis that you skipped over. The little word "hoti" gives the cause for v. 28. Why do all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose?? Because (hoti) God took the initiative for it from beginning to end. He foreknew them, predestined them, called the, justified them, and glorified them. And all who were foreknown were predestined, all who were predestined were called, all who were called are justified, all who are justified will be glorified.

This is similar to Phi 1:6, that he who began the good work will complete it. In other words, he who foreknew you, will glorify you. Rom 8:29-30 give some intermediate steps in the working of God.

Let's tie it together? Why does it work together for God? Because God has a vested interest in the people he called becoming conformed to the image of his Son. That is why he saved them and that is why the procees of vv. 29-30 are characterized as the work of God in every aspect.

The point is that God did not foreknow a group, predestine a group, call a group, justify a group, or glorify a group. All of those things can only be attached to individuals. It is individual justification and individual glorification. Aren't you glad??

 

No, I say it is a poor analogy because it is one that elects an individual to a group, and the text is the group (church) as a whole being elected to be holy and unblameable before him in love.

You only believe it because you don't agree with what it is saying? Tell me how that makes sense? You do not allow the text to speak for itself, acting totally ignorant of the plural use of the pronouns in the text. Yes, you have confirmed for me what I only suspected earlier, you are verbally challenged.

But you have yet to show why this is a group instead of individuals. </font>[/QUOTE]

Do you even read my posts, or just repost Calvinist macros without bothering? This is a GROUP because it is PLURAL. An Individual, try as hard as you might to make it so, is NOT plural. Yes, a group is composed of individual parts, but those individuals together are part of the GROUP. The subject is the GROUP. The GROUP. The GROUP. (You make me feel like Gregory Peck in Twelve O'Clock High). All you need do is open your eyes and let the text speak for itself, rather than forcing and twisting it to conform to your Calvinist thinking.

I agree, but it is individual believers who have been predestined to be conformed to his image, not the group itself. You, as an individual, have been predestined to be conformed to his image.</font>[/QUOTE]

Is this another one of your typo's? You agree that it is THE GROUP known as Christians that is obviously in mind, but in the same breath claim it is individual? You are so

The above either 1) teaches salvation by works, or 2) intentionally mixes the idea of our present deliverance commonly referred to as being saved with the entire package of salvation.

But why don't you let the Bible speak, Pastor Larry? When will we be conformed to the image of Christ? For your answer, look at Ephesians 4:13

Please notice that one day we ALL (Don't Calvinists just hate that word?) come in the unity. We do so as a GROUP. All at the same time, not individually progressing toward a state of perfection and arriving at different times.

How about 1 Corinthians 13:12?

When is "then"?

Then there is 1 John 3:2.

When He appears, Bro. Larry, when He finally appears, we all as a group will rise (no split rapture) and will then be before Him in holiness and without blame, being THEN as a group conformed to His image, being THEN glorified in body like unto his glorious body. (Php 3:1)

Must it? Then you do believe it is possible for an individual to attain perfection now, apart from the group? You believe, as the mormons, that we can just get better and better, gooder 'n gooder right now? Sorry, Pastor Larry, but the Scriptures indicate that we will arrive AS A GROUP.

Wrong on more than one account. First of all, we cannot as individuals just be holy and blameless. That is an act of God working within us. Secondly, the church does not become holy, it is holy.

Ephesians 5:24

Is the church subject unto Christ? Does it have spot and wrinkle? How will it be presented to Him? "Holy and without blemish" you say? Do those words sound familiar? When does this presentation take place in the INDIVIDUAL's life? Or is it as a group? The mysterious entity spoken of as "the church" in this passage is not a group of believers functioning independently as individuals, but it is the GROUP known collectively as The Church.

It is obvious that you think that you have been glorified already, Pastor Larry. It is also just as obvious to me that you have not been. But if you have trusted Christ, one day you will be. And when it happens to you, it will happen to everyone in the group that has been called together, the called out assembly unified, what we know of as "the Church" comprised of all individuals that have been saved. But that is done to THE GROUP, and every member of the group in the same way. No one of that group is left out or treated differently.

Yes, it is obvious to me that those whom God forknew them (a plural pronoun indicating a group) He also predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. But to what purpose? To be conformed to the image of His son AS A GROUP. That is why they are referred to with plural pronounds, because they is a they. Or, so that you will understand, we is not a him.

Predictably, you will deny that I have not supported any of this contention with scripture, even though I have taken pains to both post my passages rather than merely referencing them and to make my point in the verse. (By the way, you have claimed to have posted a reference wrong twice now, and you misposted John 5:25 as 5:24 in the that quote of yours I repeatedly posted for you; you might consider doing more than macro posting lists of scripture references that you are so unfamiliar with.) And then you will pretend like there are no groups in those scriptures, and that I do not understand you. There are none so blind as the willingly so, and that you are.