Calvinism needs to be Redefined

I have demonstrated myself to be more than willing to talk about the issues. I have indulged you far longer than I should have. The WCF gives the biblical support for everything it says. Some of that support, I disagree with. But you can't say it is non-theological unless you are dishonest. You know it isn't non-theological.

That question was answered long ago. You know, as you sit there, that the evidence has been given and you refused to address it. I know for a fact that Russell brought it up again this week, noting your refusal to address it. Don't try to shift the blame becuase of your own unwillingness to deal with issues.

 

Actually, these replies are so simple, it takes very little time and space. You are not even challenging me to think. Your attempts at refutation don't even make sense.

It is, however, continued dishonesty to say that I "cannot give [you] that one Scripture you are after". You know that I have given it to you. YOu know that this week, they were given to you again, and I just checked to make sure ... you still haven't responded. So do not lie and say I cannot give it to you. I can give it to you and I have, many times. You simply refuse to answer.

Your dishonesty has nothing to do with disagreement. It has to do with dishonesty. You knowingly make untrue statements. We can disagree without it involving dishonesty. Unfortunately, you make dishonest statements. And when you do, I point them out. If you don't want your dishonesty pointed out, then stop being dishonest.

 

That is dishonest. I can post the Scripture. I have posted the Scripture. You simply refuse to deal with it. Your unwillingness to deal with what was already posted does not mean I "cannot." I can ... and did. You simply don't want to face the truth.

 

ok icthus yer starting to act like me too much - might wanna back off just a tad - you get one insult of no more then three words per post.

Such as Larry man yer reading of Romans 5 is quite poor - I know I was supposed to use three words but no matter.

Let me explain - using the AV version or KJV - I point to verses 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.)

and you use made in 19 rather flippantly so as to assume automatic sin - but rather it can be quite readily interpreted as corrupted by the effects of sin and still be held in tune with other verses that say we arent held responsible for our father's sins.

Because Larry those verses exist too - you cant claim one passage and then drop it to claim another. They have to go together

 

Hello icthus.

What are the rules? What do you actually want proved?

john.

 

ACtually it's not. Get out the Bible, and commentaries, and do the work on it. I did. That passage never made sense to me until I put the study in.

 

I am not afraid in the least. I posted those verses long ago, more than a year ago, and many times since them.

You have it. But you refuse to address it.

I haven't called you any names, except Icthus, which is hte one you chose..

That is dishonest. We aren't lost for arguments. You joined in March 2005. I have been making these arguments for two years before you came here. I have made them many times since then. Don't say I am lost for an argument. That is dishonest. I have given biblical support for everything I believe.

 

Let me quote from my last post (that you quoted improperly). I said: You joined in March 2005. I have been making these arguments for two years before you came here. I have made them many times since then. Clear enough?

It isn't. They have been posted many times, and you have refused to answer. Not more than two hours ago, you were asked yet again to answer them, and so far you have refused.

Think about it. If I were hiding, would I be coming back? If I were hiding, would I have posted the proof for more than two years? If I were hiding, would I continually tell you that the verses are there? If I were hiding, I would do what you do ... just ignore them when they are posted.

[ June 11, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

is it possible that the "elect" just refer to the appointed leaders in the OT (ex. Moses, Abraham, Jacob, etc) and/or the Apostles in the NT?

 

Hello PreachTREE.

If we only use the word 'elect' to support the doctrine of election then I would on balance think it a defendable position.
Most of the 'elect' verses are below what you think?

Mark 13:20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
For the sake of the Apostles is not a natural reading. It speaks of the elect, for their sake the end will be cut short. All of us still alive is meant as far as I can see.
Matt 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.
To deceive even the Apostles again is too narrow a sense.
Matt 24:31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
To gather His Apostles from the four winds again is too narrow a sense for my liking and an unacceptable understanding to me.
2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.
Paul is working for the elect and by the looks of it he seeks the good of the elect that are not saved yet.

RO 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

1PE 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

john.

 

PeachTree... are you in "The Church"?

The name for church comes from the same root as called out ones... which is THE SAME word as THE ELECT....


Many times in the epistles they are started with "To the ELECT"... He's not writing to the apostles... SORRY WES! But to the ones elected by God... those whom He CALLED OUT of the world.

 

What bible you using icthus? Mine says:

...He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. Ephesians 1:4 .

So how comes you say you don't get elected until after you take office? Strange procedure you have!

We've just had our elections over here in Blighty man and I did not vote for Blair because he was Prime Minister I voted for him because I wanted him to be Prime Minister.
Like God voted for me, He elected me, He chose me in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

And that is what I am, holy and blameless in His sight.

Romans 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

These words mean what they say. God hasn't written for the clever clogs He has written for me, for me to understand.

Those He predestined...
predestined = : to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand : foreordain especially by divine decree or eternal purpose
he also called
The elect, the predestined, are called by God
those he justified
justified = To be declared righteous. Those that are called, the elect, the predestined, those ones are declared righteous whether you like that or not.
he also glorified
My eternal secrurity is assured.

How can you have trouble with that? You must be clever. I listen and believe what God says not talk back but then I'm not clever.

john.

 

Johnp,

Paul, in this passage, is telling the Ephesians about the apostles who were part of God's plan of Salvation from before the foundation of the world. God established before the foundation that there would be Apostles of the Christ whom He would give to Jesus. (John 17)

It is not until verse 13 (Eph 1) that Paul speaks of the Ephesians themselves as being included.

You are simply too bound up in your literal CALVINISTIC interpretations to see the truth! I pray the Lord will open your eyes so that what you read is correctly understood.

At the time of this prayer, this his passage could speak of no other than the 12, and no it does not include Paul, because Paul did not get recruited till much later, months or even years perhaps. However at the time Paul was writing to the Ephesians, He was counted "among the Apostles", and therefore rightly includes himself as being "an elect" from before the foundation of the world. Who can deny Paul's recruitment? (9th chapter of Acts)

"The brothers" (Acts 9); "Adopted Sons" (Ephesians 1:5); "those whom you took from the world and gave to me" (John 17); ALL speaking of the same individuals, who are not the Ephesians!

Paul was known as "SAUL" to the Apostles through chapters 9,10, 11 & 12. It was not until chapter 13, the first mention of Saul being Paul, that SAUL became known to all as PAUL, and the time frame could have been several months to several years after his conversion.

Ephesians 1:3-12 Paul is introducing the establishment of the church to the Ephesians, and in verse 13, he tells them that because they have believed the Gospel, that they too are part of that church!

Believe it or not!