Jarthur001 said:
It seems then that you do agree with me that it is your hate that drives your theology. What you fail to see, is that that hate blinds you from truth, and in the end you post folly.
Mine is no more "blind hate" than Jesus' was.
RC who?

... Having said that, going by what you just said Sproul said, and this would be subject to the truth of what he says, I would agree with Sproul.
Apparently he does speak for you and Calvinism then. You really ought to read some of his work, James.
You feel it is your duty to help out God here, for Calvinist are saying things that do not line up with your doctrine.
As do you. Yet you claim out of love, not hate. Well, we both know what it is in some degree. Unless we serve the Truth, it is pride, right?
Debate of the truths can build a strong faith on both sides.
Only if it discovers common truth. It never builds strong, rational faith in the one who is pursuing a lie at all costs.
How many times has it been told to you that election and being "saved" are not the same? And yet you keep posting this junk, so it is clear you never listen.
Election means the salvation decision was made eons ago and can never fail, even for the deceased infant who has no capacity to believe. Far as I can tell, Calvinism came up with this scheme so they could baptize the elect of original sin and assurre their parents of them going to heaven -- just like the Catholic tradition from whence the some of the Reformers' doctrines came (The Protestant Reformation was really just The Protestant
Revision of Catholicism in many ways).
You are right about one thing. I do not understand your logic when it comes to LS.
Lordship Salvation means what the words say. If Jesus is not your Lord, you are not saved. Good so far. But how is one to prove He is Lord? Not by calling upon Him in a repentant sinner's prayer -- not by choosing Him -- but by the
reformed "Catholic works" program of a new lifestyle.
Again regeneration is not the same as salvation under the Calvinist model.
And again, the Bible doesn't allow the Calvinist definition. In Mt 19:28, regeneration is the event of the resurrection with Christ. NO one is resurrected before they are called as Calvinism describes it, friend. In Titus 3:5, Christ "saved us" (past tense) by regenerating us in spiritual baptism/resurrection (cf. 1Cor 15:29) from our dead
souls. But first WE have to die to self-
spirit/self-will -- lay down our own lives in repentance before we can be resurrected in regeneration.
I know your intentions are good, James. I don't hate you. It's the unintended consequences of your theology that is the problem because it is inaccurate in so many ways and, therefore, divisive.
The regeneration/salvation idea belongs to the free-will system not Calvinism.
And as I have just demonstrated, the free will is the biblical truth. The Calvinist model is deceptive in that 1) biblical regeneration is concurrent with salvation, not with understanding spiritual truth/the word of God, and 2) it is definitely not before repentance unto salvation.
REgeneration is new birth -- born again. There is no instance of spontaneous (causeless) regeneration in scripture yet you maintain that the lost "elect" person is spontaneously "regenerated" to hear the "effacacious call" to be "born again"/saved. Did you follow that? Unless regeneration = salvation, the Calvinist has the born again being born again -- the resurrected being resurrected again.
Surely if we are to "sharpen each other's faith," as you say, we need first to have common biblical definitions to work with.
Election is clearly not unto salvation in scripture. In the scriptures, God chooses/elects individuals and groups (even Pharoah, right?) unto HIS own purposes. And
regeneration is NOT the same as conviction of sin and revelation of the gospel that the scriptures say leads to salvation, but is, instead, the result of our response to these
if we repent. There are more but I pray for you because only the Holy Spirit can reveal these things to you. I am not nor is anyone here, apparently, adequate to the task of removing the scales from your eyes. Like Rogers said, "God's Bible + Satan's dictionary = apostacy."
Maybe this is why you just don't get it. You are mixing terms between systems.
It is clearly why one of us "doesn't get it." :tear: I would simply ask, "Who is defining your terms, James?"
skypair