Calvinist dead

[kyredneck]

Will you continue to follow a man-made theology that come from pagan roots? The foundation is bad so the result is bad. I am just the messenger that is pointing you to the truth, the scriptures.

Romans 9:18-20, Paul foresaw your ilk coming two millennia ago.

 

[DaveXR650]

If one were once dead to God, with Total Inability to respond to God, THEN,

After salvation, once must be dead to sin, with Total Inability to respond to it.

Romans 6:2 asks the question, "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?"

The implied answer is, "We cannot." "Why?" Because we are dead to sin, thus our Total Inability".

Look. The total inability or total depravity as found in the T of the TULIP doesn't mean you can't attempt to follow God's commandments with some success or do good, even sacrificial deeds or live a life of high virtue. And Romans 6:2 doesn't say a Christian , being dead to sin cannot ever commit a sin. Your analogy is faulty. It may sound good to you but it doesn't work. Is there some writer who came up with this or did you think of it yourself? Back in post 16 I asked specific questions about your views on how a person comes to faith. I would really like to know where you come down on this. Please ignore the hyper-Cal vandals that have shown up here as they always do. I am not with them.

 

[kyredneck]

D

Please ignore the hyper-Cal vandals that have shown up here as they always do. I am not with them.

ROFL, this “hyper-cal vandal” actually agreed with and complimented the OP for his reasoning FROM SCRIPTURE (something you don’t do), and you refer to us as vandals? You are a trip man. What exactly is your agenda Dave? Do you even know? I’m beginning to think that you just thrive on rambling, or sowing discord.

 

[AustinC]

It is dishonest and a manipulation of the text to claim that only the Calvinists are in view in these chapters. Jesus Christ is in no way less than Adam. "In Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive, the scriptures says."

This goes to my point that Calvinists and people like yourself do not believe the words of the scriptures.

Do you think that all humanity will be made alive in Christ?

 

[Silverhair]

Romans 9:18-20, Paul foresaw your ilk coming two millennia ago.

KY those words do not support your theology but you clearly do not know that. Calvinists and those that think like them often misuse scripture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

D

ROFL, this “hyper-cal vandal” actually agreed with and complimented the OP for his reasoning FROM SCRIPTURE (something you don’t do), and you refer to us as vandals? You are a trip man. What exactly is your agenda Dave? Do you even know? I’m beginning to think that you just thrive on rambling, or sowing discord.

More Pejoratives obviously, but that’s allowed by the so called Bible scholars​

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

D

ROFL, this “hyper-cal vandal” actually agreed with and complimented the OP for his reasoning FROM SCRIPTURE (something you don’t do), and you refer to us as vandals? You are a trip man. What exactly is your agenda Dave? Do you even know? I’m beginning to think that you just thrive on rambling, or sowing discord.

in order to get the jist of all this back and forth, it really will be necessary to look at Arminian theology, Pelagian rational etc. there is a marked rejection of all things Calvinism and of course, Doctrines of Grace.

 

[JonC]

in order to get the jist of all this back and forth, it really will be necessary to look at Arminian theology, Pelagian rational etc. there is a marked rejection of all things Calvinism and of course, Doctrines of Grace.

Except, perhaps, total depravity. I disagree with their theology, but Arminianism holds that men are completely unable to turn to God without the work of God.

Calvinism is more consistent, IMHO. It is extremely simple and complete. There are a few flavors (some reject that a Baptist can be a Calvinist, some reject a point or two....which seems illogical to me as each point plays off another....ect.).

But Arminianism .... Classic or Reformation Arminianism was a part of orthodox Calvinism for a long time....then we have Wesleyan Arminianism (very different....probably what people generally refer to) and takes on that.

Too many "isms", not enough Bible.

 

[JD731]

JD731 said: ↑
I remind everyone that God was obliged to save the Jews because he promised them he would. However he was not obligated by a promise to save anyone else God would still be just if he had only saved the Jews and not saved the gentiles.

That is a false teaching.

Genesis 12:2-3, ". . . And 1) I will make of thee a great nation, and 2) I will bless thee, and 3) make thy name great; and 4) thou shalt be a blessing: And 5) I will bless them that bless thee, and 6) curse him that curseth thee: and 7) in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. . . ."

I am not a false teacher. I pay very close attention to the words and the context and the prophetic nature of what I am reading. You, OTOH, have found a gotcha verse that you do not believe (I know that because I have read many things you have said in the past) in the context it is given, which is the Abrahamic covenant. It is an eternal covenant.

Concerning promise #7 in the above verse, the atonement of Christ in the context of Romans 5 is the blessing of Abraham. That text says that Jesus Christ died for sinners while they were still in their sins. When they nailed Jesus to the cross all men were sinners and there was none righteous. All were condemned by God for their offences. When Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, God counted no man as a sinner. I did not say that, God did.

Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
How?
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

God at this time is not imputing personal sins to sinners to condemn them. To say he does is to deny the efficacy of the atonement of Christ.

Here is a succinct explanation of the blessing of Abraham and it is dependent on the cross of Jesus Christ and his resurrection and it is world wide.

Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Limited atonement is among the worse doctrines ever devised. All men can believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

ROFL, this “hyper-cal vandal” actually agreed with and complimented the OP for his reasoning FROM SCRIPTURE (something you don’t do), and you refer to us as vandals? You are a trip man. What exactly is your agenda Dave? Do you even know? I’m beginning to think that you just thrive on rambling, or sowing discord.

Look at your own posts. The one right above it:

Romans 9:18-20, Paul foresaw your ilk coming two millennia ago.

That's your idea of sharing views? It points out exactly what I mean. People can read these posts and they know what is going on. "Your ilk". Where do you get off with that. You are mixing up replying against God with replying against you.

I’m not a Calvinist….just don’t like you

That's helpful too. Compared to that, anything would be Biblical scholarship.

 

[DaveXR650]

Limited atonement is among the worse doctrines ever devised. All men can believe.

Do you mean by this that there are some men who would like to believe, but cannot believe because of a limited atonement?

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree with their theology, but Arminianism holds that men are completely unable to turn to God without the work of God.

That's true. They thought the work of God was resistible and I think a lot of the Puritan Calvinists did too. It's more complicated than we make it on here.

 

[AustinC]

But Arminianism .... Classic or Reformation Arminianism was a part of orthodox Calvinism for a long time....then we have Wesleyan Arminianism (very different....probably what people generally refer to) and takes on that.

Too many "isms", not enough Bible.

What do you mean by "a long time?"
The only reason why the followers of Calvin gave 5 points is because the followers of Arminius (Remonstrants) wrote an article expressing 5 points of their soteriology.

As to the "isms," it's unfortunate that there are so many wolves, who follow their father the devil, who, like their father, quote the Bible to create humanist ways of being saved where Jesus takes a passenger seat to themselves.

 

[JonC]

What do you mean by "a long time?"
The only reason why the followers of Calvin gave 5 points is because the followers of Arminius (Remonstrants) wrote an article expressing 5 points of their soteriology.

As to the "isms," it's unfortunate that there are so many wolves, who follow their father the devil, who, like their father, quote the Bible to create humanist ways of being saved where Jesus takes a passenger seat to themselves.

I mean through out James Arminius' life and a few years afterwards.

BUT what you argue as Arminianism is a form that did not originate with the Remonstrants (it is of an Arminianistic trajectory just as Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory and Calvinism is of a Roman Catholic trajectory....i.e., each held the theology from which they came as correct to a large extent but wrong in essential doctrines so they reformed the theology from whence they came).

 

[kyredneck]

Look at your own posts. The one right above it:

k:

Romans 9:18-20, Paul foresaw your ilk coming two millennia ago.

What's wrong with it? With artful brevity Paul sums the complaints against sovereign grace in the simplest form:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Except, perhaps, total depravity. I disagree with their theology, but Arminianism holds that men are completely unable to turn to God without the work of God.

Calvinism is more consistent, IMHO. It is extremely simple and complete. There are a few flavors (some reject that a Baptist can be a Calvinist, some reject a point or two....which seems illogical to me as each point plays off another....ect.).

But Arminianism .... Classic or Reformation Arminianism was a part of orthodox Calvinism for a long time....then we have Wesleyan Arminianism (very different....probably what people generally refer to) and takes on that.

Too many "isms", not enough Bible.

Last sentence I agree with.

 

[JonC]

Last sentence I agree with.

Ah.....agreeism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Look at your own posts. The one right above it:

That's your idea of sharing views? It points out exactly what I mean. People can read these posts and they know what is going on. "Your ilk". Where do you get off with that. You are mixing up replying against God with replying against you.

That's helpful too. Compared to that, anything would be Biblical scholarship.

You would say that. What honestly do you know of biblical scholarship? You are all over the place without consistency and direction ie a babbler.

 

[kyredneck]

Romans 9:18-20, Paul foresaw your ilk coming two millennia ago.

"Your ilk". Where do you get off with that

Ilk: A class that is defined by the common attribute or attributes possessed by all its members.
Ilk Synonyms: 22 Synonyms and Antonyms for Ilk | YourDictionary.com

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I mean through out James Arminius' life and a few years afterwards.

BUT what you argue as Arminianism is a form that did not originate with the Remonstrants (it is of an Arminianistic trajectory just as Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory and Calvinism is of a Roman Catholic trajectory....i.e., each held the theology from which they came as correct to a large extent but wrong in essential doctrines so they reformed the theology from whence they came).

I sincerely don’t believe you understand Catholic theology much less any serious link to Calvinism. But since you made that comment, please prove me wrong and explain it in greater detail.