Acts 13:48

[Silverhair]

Not true. Clement of Rome taught something similar.

So your saying that Clement of Rome taught pagan philosophy? Care to provide a quote for that.

 

[David Kent]

So if your not then why do you believe that error they put out?

You can believe in Sovereign Grace without being a Calvinist. Such as , or Zwinglian or Lutheran.

I am not a Calvinist. I just believe the scripture.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 .To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Why. For his glory.

 

[David Kent]

So your saying that Clement of Rome taught pagan philosophy? Care to provide a quote for that.

So you are calling scripture pagan philosophy?

No I can't now. But the owner of a pretribulation forum in Scotland provided a long quote from Clement to prove that there would be a second temple. I read the whole extract and Clement said that Christ would be coming to His temple. I pointed ot that the current temple is the church as taught be Paul and Peter and the early church writers.

In reading it I also pointed out to him one section which which what Clement said was similar to what you call Calvinism. He couldn't answer that. I used to have a book that included Clement's letters, but that went with most of my books when I had to downsize for the second time.

Phi 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

 

[Silverhair]

You can believe in Sovereign Grace without being a Calvinist. Such as , or Zwinglian or Lutheran.

I am not a Calvinist. I just believe the scripture.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 .To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Why. For his glory.

Is God Sovereign, YES. Are we only saved by His grace, YES. So why would a Christian not believe in Sovereign Grace? It is when one theological view equates Sovereign Grace with divine determinism that we run into a problem.

You quoted
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 .To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

I have no issues with scripture but rather with the misuse of them by some people. Have you not noticed that Calvinists misquote those verses and thus try to make them support their errant view. They leave out those critical words "in Him" in support of their pre-chosen view.

 

[Silverhair]

So you are calling scripture pagan philosophy?

No I can't now. But the owner of a pretribulation forum in Scotland provided a long quote from Clement to prove that there would be a second temple. I read the whole extract and Clement said that Christ would be coming to His temple. I pointed ot that the current temple is the church as taught be Paul and Peter and the early church writers.

In reading it I also pointed out to him one section which which what Clement said was similar to what you call Calvinism. He couldn't answer that. I used to have a book that included Clement's letters, but that went with most of my books when I had to downsize for the second time.

Phi 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Sovereign Grace is biblical but the Calvinist view that sovereign grace = divine determinism, as they posit it, is not. It is just a philosophical construct they Calvinist's use in support of their theology.

Augustine brought many pagan philosophies into the church, that is historical. What he, and latter Calvin, taught is not scripture it is a philosophy. Those pagan views have been carried forward into modern Calvinism although most would deny this.

There is a book by Dr. Ken Wilson “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism” that can be had on Amazon. In it he summarized his Doctoral thesis titled: “Augustine’s conversion from traditional free choice to ‘non-free Free Will’: A comprehensive methodology" An easily readable seven chapters.
Wilson sets off by defining these influential philosophies as ‘Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Manicheanism’ that all gave life to Augustine’s later theology.

So to respond to your question, NO, scripture is not pagan philosophy. The misuse of scripture by Calvinists is brought about because of Augustine being influenced by his earlier interaction with pagan philosophy. He brought those ideas into the church and Calvin just carried them forward and thus we find them in the Calvinism of today.

 

[David Kent]

Is God Sovereign, YES. Are we only saved by His grace, YES. So why would a Christian not believe in Sovereign Grace? It is when one theological view equates Sovereign Grace with divine determinism that we run into a problem.

You quoted
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 .To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

I have no issues with scripture but rather with the misuse of them by some people. Have you not noticed that Calvinists misquote those verses and thus try to make them support their errant view. They leave out those critical words "in Him" in support of their pre-chosen view.

Nonsense. We are chosen in Christ. I consider you view "errant" as well as persecuting.

I was invited to lunch with an American pastor and his wife. During conversations I happened to mention that when my daughter was doing temporary work in an office before going to college. One day her manager said something was a bit of luck. My daughter said "If you believe I it !" He replied "I suppose you believe in predestination?" My daughter replied "I do actually. " After that when someone made a mistake he said: "That wasn't a mistake it was predestined." The pastor's wife said "God predestinates us because he knows we are going to believe." Due to being a guest I didn't answer. But I thought "What sort of God is that, who choose because knows what we are going to do." But then I thought "In that case we still would have no choice."

It seems that these threads keep appearing and it is always your side attacking us.

Why don't you all grow up? That is my last word on the subject.

 

[Silverhair]

Nonsense. We are chosen in Christ. I consider you view "errant" as well as persecuting.

I was invited to lunch with an American pastor and his wife. During conversations I happened to mention that when my daughter was doing temporary work in an office before going to college. One day her manager said something was a bit of luck. My daughter said "If you believe I it !" He replied "I suppose you believe in predestination?" My daughter replied "I do actually. " After that when someone made a mistake he said: "That wasn't a mistake it was predestined." The pastor's wife said "God predestinates us because he knows we are going to believe." Due to being a guest I didn't answer. But I thought "What sort of God is that, who choose because knows what we are going to do." But then I thought "In that case we still would have no choice."

It seems that these threads keep appearing and it is always your side attacking us.

Why don't you all grow up? That is my last word on the subject.

My view is biblical not Calvinist. You need to do some reading of what I have posted on here. Your last sentence is the Calvinist position, it is all determined. The biblical position which I hold is that God saves those that freely trust in His son.

FYI it is not my side that is attacking you it is the bible that points out your error. If you hold to Calvinist philosophy then you are following an errant theology, one that has it's roots in pagan philosophy.

 

[David Kent]

My view is biblical not Calvinist. You need to do some reading of what I have posted on here. Your last sentence is the Calvinist position, it is all determined. The biblical position which I hold is that God saves those that freely trust in His son.

FYI it is not my side that is attacking you it is the bible that points out your error. If you hold to Calvinist philosophy then you are following an errant theology, one that has it's roots in pagan philosophy.

I'm sorry, I said that I had said my last answer to you was my response to you. I believe your view is incorrect. You keep quoting various people whose views are only opinions. I used to believe in compiete free will for years after I first believed, but now I see it was incorrect. I don't see how you can say that God chose us is of pagan roots when Jesus himself said "You didn't choose me, I chose you." and "No man can come to me unless the Father draw him." That view was not acceptable to the Jews because many ceased following him.

The papists believe in free will and they are neo pagans.

I think your comments are close to blasphemy.

One thing noticed on one forum where 1 member said, "I believe in complete free will." He also believed in Once saved always saved, which seems odd to me, said you have free will to believe, then you must have free will to believe.

That is my last word to you on the subject. I may answer others.

 

[Brightfame52]

david kent

I don't see how you can say that God chose us is of pagan roots when Jesus himself said "You didn't choose me, I chose you." and "No man can come to me unless the Father draw him."

Thats correct friend, because Gods drawing a person, causing them to come to Him, is a manifest token that Gpd has chosen that person Ps 65:4

4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

The word causeth is the hebrew word qāraḇ and means:
To draw or to draw near

So it can be argued that Jn 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Those drawn by the Father are none other than His Chosen ones, His Blessed Ones Eph 1:4

4 According as he[The Father] hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

[kyredneck]

Sovereign Grace is....

...he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Silverhair]

...he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Context KY context. You seem to think your one liners are magic incantations. As long as you continue to treat the bible as a book of one liners you will never understand it.

 

[kyredneck]

Context KY context.

It is Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Silverhair]

It is Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Having mercy shows grace hardening does not so your definition is flawed. Hardening shows judgement.

 

[kyredneck]

Having mercy shows grace hardening does not so your definition is flawed. Hardening shows judgement.

It is Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Silverhair]

It is Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

You remind me of BF, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over in the vain hope that some will believe it to be true. Did not work for him will not work for you.

 

[kyredneck]

You remind me of BF, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over in the vain hope that some will believe it to be true. Did not work for him will not work for you.

You’re wearisome, you remind me of any number of obsessed anti-Cals that can’t accept plain language in the Bible (as I said, you’re a dime a dozen). and I’ve no intention of being drawn into any of your pointless rabbit holes. We’re done, have the last word, I’ll reiterate this fact from plain language in the Bible:

Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

....and you ought not 'back door' @Brightfame52, let him know you're mentioning him.

 

[Silverhair]

You’re wearisome, you remind me of any number of obsessed anti-Cals that can’t accept plain language in the Bible (as I said, you’re a dime a dozen). and I’ve no intention of being drawn into any of your pointless rabbit holes. We’re done, have the last word, I’ll reiterate this fact from plain language in the Bible:

Sovereign Grace defined....he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

....and you ought not 'back door' @Brightfame52, let him know you're mentioning him.

You are indeed wearisome just as @Brightfame52 is. You keep repeating the same things in the vain hope that some will believe they are true. I stand against all errant theologies not just the one you follow. You are letting your Calvinism inform your theology rather than the bible informing your theology.

You just do not like it when the error of your theology is pointed out to you. You should go on one of those Calvinist only sites, I am sure you would be more comfortable there. On this board we can disagree as to our understanding of the bible and salvation.

You have a good day.

 

[David Kent]

Futurism is pagan philosophy as it was invented by Jesuits, and they are pagans who persecute the true saints and they are also against Calvinism.

 

[Alan Gross]

Continuing Calvin's remarks on this significant verse :

From this we also gather what effect the preaching of the Gospel has by itself. For it does not find faith in men until God inwardly calls those whom He has chosen, and draws to Christ those who were previously His own. At the same time Luke teaches by these words that it is not possible for any one of the elect to perish. For he says, not that one or a few of the elect believed, but as many as were chosen. For although we may know nothing about God's adoption until we grasp it by faith, yet there is no dubiety or hesitation about it in His secret purpose; because all whom He has for His own He entrusts to the protection or care of His Son, who will remain a faithful Guardian right to the end. (pages 393,394)

I see;

engrafted into the Body of Christ by faith,

in the first quote of Calvin in the OP, differently, and don't believe "a Body of Christ" is something that has any relevance to salvation, in any sense or that there is any kind of "engrafting" that takes place, regarding salvation, into something called a "Body", because "body" means of members in particular in I Corinthians 12:27, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."

To me the contents of the Spirit giving gifts is the context of I Corinthians 12:13 and is saying that by being added to the local body of Corinth by water baptism was a also a gift from the Spirit of God who led them to be baptized after He saved them.

As if to read this as, "by One Spirit we were led by His gift of adding us to this local body by guiding us, Supernaturally, to follow the command and example of the Lord to be baptized."

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The Jews and Gentiles were both added to the same local body of believers to worship God in one local body together, by the same Spirit that saved them both.

Not trying to start a new thread about my belief in this, I just couldn't although I wanted to give the OP a "winner" too, toward Acts 13:48, because Calvin was perfectly right on about all that.

 

[JD731]

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

John is not speaking of a physical birth but a spiritual birth. The person who is born of the Spirit is born again, having already been born physically. God the Father, who becomes a Father of his children at their birth, has sent his omnipresent Spirit, who is life, to indwell the believer in Jesus Christ. He is the Father's gift to believers. They are not required to be an eye witness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be born again, but they are required to believe the testimony of those who are born again of God..

I remind you fellows that verse 12 records two action verbs, the first past tense and the second present tense, before a birth is reported in verse 13. His own did not receive him in V 11. First things first is the rule.

Lu 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.