Jesus speaking on the 99 sheep comes right after the Pharisees rebuke Him for eating with sinners. The 99 sheep that "need no repentance" are clearly a reference to the Pharisees who think they are righteous merely because they are Jews. But they are self righteous. They would not admit their need for a Savior. Jesus never said that there are people who don't need to repent. Or do you believe that Jesus died only for that 1% who are sinners?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I was born this way...
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Jesus speaking on the 99 sheep comes right after the Pharisees rebuke Him for eating with sinners. The 99 sheep that "need no repentance" are clearly a reference to the Pharisees who think they are righteous merely because they are Jews. But they are self righteous. They would not admit their need for a Savior. Jesus never said that there are people who don't need to repent. Or do you believe that Jesus died only for that 1% who are sinners?
preacher4truth
Active Member
Exactly. It is old when you see their ilk taking Scripture out of context daily to the destruction of dogma found all over Scripture. Then the 'I happen to believe Jesus!' line as if the other person doesn't. Perhaps someday some will learn the difference between what Jesus says and what He meant.
The follower of Augustine who was the follower of Gnosticism and brought the unorthodox belief to deny free will into the church with his doctrines of deterministic original sin concluding that man was brought into the world with such a ruined constitution that he was forced to sin as my opponent was unfaithfully taught from these roots which began from heretical teachings of the Manicheans, says:
...for his only response to a post demonstrating his logic to be laced in fallacy. So what does his response amount to? A strawman build on ambiguity over the matter of man falling into sin. The Determinist, as usual is desperate to avoid the logical conclusions he must arrive at in he were to be consistent in his reasoning about the nature of human volition and his belief that God is the cause of all things (including sin) which brings his theology into fatalism.
His solution in how to answer his opponent's argument which clearly demonstrates his fallacious reasoning? Well, to simply dodge the evidence against him with a rhetorical ambiguous strawman fallacy and to begin an agenda of personal attacks to ignore and disrupt the focus of the conversation.
But of course he does not do this alone, the call has been put out and the trolling BB crash dummies come out of the woodwork to do their job of joining in the personal attacks to help him in his fallacious disruption of the debate as well as the topic and go about the efforts to begin a downward spiral to keep the focus off his losing reasoning and to take the thread down. - The typical goal of the BB Determinist clan who can't answer an argument with logically reasoned principles, - do the work of a troll and instigate personal arguments.
He probably doesn't even recognize the ethical dilemma of his own ignorance in suggesting that it is I that shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'd sarcastically say, "nice try with these fallacious efforts that the typical Determinist ignorantly believes is the way to win an argument in a debate on the BB" but in reality is was wasn't a nice try at all, it was the same old immature foolishness that has been allowed to go on so they could get their "way" (serve their agendas of derailing threads that would dare to logically argue against their views) and to be the trolls they want to be on this board.
Its almost humorous but I find it hard to laugh in the face of my opposition's liability for acting the fool in these unscrupulous attempts to support their misguided position.
P.S: Continue in your practices of arguing against your own ability to come to the truth in love and have your excuses which deny the responsibility to respond to the influences of God and to accept His gift from your own heart. Proudly explain to Jesus when you get there that you had NO real choice but to accept the life you were given because of the corrupt nature He predestined you with and you couldn’t humbly bow to His Lordship of your own free will. Thank Him that you were specially picked out to be born apart from the rest and made to understand that His love in creating you and influences were not enough as you faithfully learned from Augustine's doctrines that that God made you, caused you to sin so He could later force you to bow at your knees - good luck with that.:thumbs:
...for his only response to a post demonstrating his logic to be laced in fallacy. So what does his response amount to? A strawman build on ambiguity over the matter of man falling into sin. The Determinist, as usual is desperate to avoid the logical conclusions he must arrive at in he were to be consistent in his reasoning about the nature of human volition and his belief that God is the cause of all things (including sin) which brings his theology into fatalism.
His solution in how to answer his opponent's argument which clearly demonstrates his fallacious reasoning? Well, to simply dodge the evidence against him with a rhetorical ambiguous strawman fallacy and to begin an agenda of personal attacks to ignore and disrupt the focus of the conversation.
But of course he does not do this alone, the call has been put out and the trolling BB crash dummies come out of the woodwork to do their job of joining in the personal attacks to help him in his fallacious disruption of the debate as well as the topic and go about the efforts to begin a downward spiral to keep the focus off his losing reasoning and to take the thread down. - The typical goal of the BB Determinist clan who can't answer an argument with logically reasoned principles, - do the work of a troll and instigate personal arguments.
He probably doesn't even recognize the ethical dilemma of his own ignorance in suggesting that it is I that shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'd sarcastically say, "nice try with these fallacious efforts that the typical Determinist ignorantly believes is the way to win an argument in a debate on the BB" but in reality is was wasn't a nice try at all, it was the same old immature foolishness that has been allowed to go on so they could get their "way" (serve their agendas of derailing threads that would dare to logically argue against their views) and to be the trolls they want to be on this board.
Its almost humorous but I find it hard to laugh in the face of my opposition's liability for acting the fool in these unscrupulous attempts to support their misguided position.
P.S: Continue in your practices of arguing against your own ability to come to the truth in love and have your excuses which deny the responsibility to respond to the influences of God and to accept His gift from your own heart. Proudly explain to Jesus when you get there that you had NO real choice but to accept the life you were given because of the corrupt nature He predestined you with and you couldn’t humbly bow to His Lordship of your own free will. Thank Him that you were specially picked out to be born apart from the rest and made to understand that His love in creating you and influences were not enough as you faithfully learned from Augustine's doctrines that that God made you, caused you to sin so He could later force you to bow at your knees - good luck with that.:thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
Benjamin
:sleeping_2:
:sleeping_2:
Benjamin...allow me to help you express yourself as you have offered the same treatment to the brothers here!
Translation of Benjamins post....
I Benjamin do not, and am not equipped to begin to understand biblical truth. I will attempt to attack those who hold the truth not only through church history...but also here in the present day.
Being I do not have a grasp on scripture...I repeat one verse in Deut.32 over and over...where I Benjamin can offer my subjective ideas about what "truth " is..instead of using all 66 books of scripture to derive truth from scripture itself. When asked to answer scripturally...I just repeat this verse as if my lack of understanding will be masked by using the scripturally mutated fig leaf with my subjective misunderstanding of it.
How do I do this...easy...I just fill up the rest of my posts with carnal ,philosophical language like these....perhaps you have noticed???
No need to thank me Benjamin....we are all here to offer help.
:sleeping_2:
:sleeping_2:
:sleeping_2:
Benjamin...allow me to help you express yourself as you have offered the same treatment to the brothers here!
Translation of Benjamins post....
I Benjamin do not, and am not equipped to begin to understand biblical truth. I will attempt to attack those who hold the truth not only through church history...but also here in the present day.
Being I do not have a grasp on scripture...I repeat one verse in Deut.32 over and over...where I Benjamin can offer my subjective ideas about what "truth " is..instead of using all 66 books of scripture to derive truth from scripture itself. When asked to answer scripturally...I just repeat this verse as if my lack of understanding will be masked by using the scripturally mutated fig leaf with my subjective misunderstanding of it.
How do I do this...easy...I just fill up the rest of my posts with carnal ,philosophical language like these....perhaps you have noticed???
i
No need to thank me Benjamin....we are all here to offer help.
He's always looking for that ever elusive 'gotcha' thought to undo the truths of solid biblical doctrine found in Calvinism and Reformed theology. He'll never find it because it simply doesn't exist.
Day after day...repeating of error after error.One good thing is the error is being exposed openly.
The denial of Romans 3:23....ALL Sinned...at one point in time...is the cause of all of these BLAME GOD...FOR MANS SIN...posting.
Day after day...repeating of error after error.One good thing is the error is being exposed openly.
The denial of Romans 3:23....ALL Sinned...at one point in time...is the cause of all of these BLAME GOD...FOR MANS SIN...posting.
Luke2427
Thankfully most do not take such posting seriously.Only a few whose stated desire is to disrupt the biblical flow of teaching offered by Biblicist, Old Regular,and several of you men who discuss scripture, in contrast to, carnal philosophy, speculation, debate fallacies,vain puffed up definitions.
Some now praise their heros...Pelagius, Finney,soon we will hear them speculate that perhaps Judas has been framed also.
Maybe Pharoah just needed more information....and if Lucifer had been taught a little more information he might have made better choices also.
Lucifers rebellion was only his will desiring to be "free".
Thankfully most do not take such posting seriously.Only a few whose stated desire is to disrupt the biblical flow of teaching offered by Biblicist, Old Regular,and several of you men who discuss scripture, in contrast to, carnal philosophy, speculation, debate fallacies,vain puffed up definitions.
Some now praise their heros...Pelagius, Finney,soon we will hear them speculate that perhaps Judas has been framed also.
Maybe Pharoah just needed more information....and if Lucifer had been taught a little more information he might have made better choices also.
Lucifers rebellion was only his will desiring to be "free".
Oh, of that I'm that I'm sure, but but to help who is the question.
No matter, you probably missed my my late edit but I've already sent you my blessings for your agenda to which you proudly proclaim to have reason for apart from "logic" (apart from the ability to reason) that your interpretations of the scriptures are true. Go it! :thumbs:
Carry on...
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Non-Calvinists do not blame God for sin...they blame the willful choice of every man for their sins.
They maintain that your Theology blames God for sin.
I honestly think that you LEGITIMATELY don't actually UNDERSTAND that distinction.
Only two things are possible:
1.) You are so ignorant of non-Calvinist argumentation that you seriously have yet to grasp their point (and should probably then not bother posting at all).
2.) You clearly understand that the "blame God" problem is that they perceive YOUR THEOLOGY (not theirs) places the blame for sin on God, and subsequently they reject it.....and you are therefore being dishonest...here's your choices Icon
1.) You need someone to explain to you (yet again) how your Theology makes God the author of sin
2.) You need to stop being dis-ingenuous with your posts.
No "Arminian" believes that God is the author of sin.......
They think YOU BLAME GOD for sin....get it????
From Benjamin...
Thank you for your concern....I do...GET IT. That being said...their rejection of truth...even if it was sincere..which sometimes I doubt...still amounts to a blaming of God for mans sin.
The fact that they reject truth
[which you claim is only my subjective understanding]
does not negate the reality of their open rebellion against romans 3:23..All sinned...at one exact point in time..
do men eventually grow up and develop the ability to sin by their own wickedness...yes..they also sin by their own self will.....that does not negate the reality scripture clearly says in rom 3, and 5.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Pharaoh wasn't used as an example of men born condemned to hell....we was used as a man "raised-up" for a particular purpose (to show God's power) in relation to the plagues and God's saving of Israel.
Pharaoh is NOT synonymous with the non-elect...
he's synonymous with someone God used in a particular time and place to choose a particular people group....
That's why Exodus chapter 1 doesn't say there arose a new "PHARAOH" in Egypt....
It says: "There arose a new "KING" in Egypt"....
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
He did not "know Joseph" because he was not in the same line of previous Egyptian rulers....he was a Hyksos ruler not indigenous to the earlier regime.
You actually read Paul's statement in Romans which says this:
"For this purpose have I "raised thee up"....
as saying
"For this purpose were you "BORN".
You don't get it at all:
God "raised up" a new "Melek" מֶלֶךְ (not "Par-oh")פַּרְעֹה in Egypt...to display his power, not to condemn him nor to analogize Calvinist fantasy. <----No-Where Else in ALL OF SCRIPTURE will a ruler of Egypt be described as "Melek"....it's ALWAYS a "Par-oh"....
Read the Bible again....maybe put some historical context and knowledge of the Hebrew Language behind it and it'll make WAY more sense than all this.
Esau was synonymous for Edom vs. Israel (not saved individuals vs. un-saved ones)
Pharaoh was an analogy for how God works men's Kings and rulers and even nations Providentially on Earth to display his power against evil choices....not that Pharaoh analogizes any random reprobate....
That's shallow and mis-informed and ill-read crap.
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Yes, I fully understand your position, you don't need to use your red letter statements to strengthen your argument. I've already given you my blessings:
...not sure what more you want to help me with? But, no thanks.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Those aren't contradictory statements Amy:
Just take these two ideas:
1.) No man is "Born" a sinner
2.) Therefore there exists people who NEVER SIN??
How does that follow Amy?
Just because no man is BORN sinful does that mean that someone NEVER SINS?
Lemme simplify:
1.) No infant is BORN post-pubescent
2.) Therefore there must be no human who has ever matured and borne a child?
That's your logic.
Amy, ever heard of the fallacy of a "false dilemma"?
:smilewinkgrin:
You've been hanging out with P4T and Icon too long if you're trying to support your argument with that kind of reasoning. Come to your senses girl and switch back to the side of truth. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Pharaoh wasn't used as an example of men born condemned to hell....we was used as a man "raised-up" for a particular purpose (to show God's power) in relation to the plagues and God's saving of Israel.
Pharaoh is NOT synonymous with the non-elect...
he's synonymous with someone God used in a particular time and place to choose a particular people group....
That's why Exodus chapter 1 doesn't say there arose a new "PHARAOH" in Egypt....
It says: "There arose a new "KING" in Egypt"....
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
He did not "know Joseph" because he was not in the same line of previous Egyptian rulers....he was a Hyksos ruler not indigenous to the earlier regime.
You actually read Paul's statement in Romans which says this:
"For this purpose have I "raised thee up"....
as saying
"For this purpose were you "BORN".
You don't get it at all:
God "raised up" a new "Melek" מֶלֶךְ (not "Par-oh")פַּרְעֹה in Egypt...to display his power, not to condemn him nor to analogize Calvinist fantasy. <----No-Where Else in ALL OF SCRIPTURE will a ruler of Egypt be described as "Melek"....it's ALWAYS a "Par-oh"....
Read the Bible again....maybe put some historical context and knowledge of the Hebrew Language behind it and it'll make WAY more sense than all this.
Esau was synonymous for Edom vs. Israel (not saved individuals vs. un-saved ones)
Pharaoh was an analogy for how God works men's Kings and rulers and even nations Providentially on Earth to display his power against evil choices....not that Pharaoh analogizes any random reprobate....
That's shallow and mis-informed and ill-read crap.
Winman suggests all man needs is correct info...I was not really examining Pharoah...nice attempted explanation though.
Beware of the ..."fallacy of the false dilemma"......:laugh::wavey:
it is worse than the unpardonable sin:laugh:
:jesus:
He gets it. Arminianism and non Calvinist theology has never been accused of making God the author of sin, even by Calvinists.
But Calvinism has been accused of making God the author of sin for hundreds of years, by CALVINISTS THEMSELVES.
Here, R.C. Sproul, a famous Reformed theologian himself says "hyper" Calvinists make God the author of sin.
The problem is, "hyper" Calvinism is simply consistent Calvinism, it is simply taking Calvinism to it's logical conclusions.
Icon gets it, no one can be that stupid.
He gets it. Arminianism and non Calvinist theology has never been accused of making God the author of sin, even by Calvinists.
But Calvinism has been accused of making God the author of sin for hundreds of years, by CALVINISTS THEMSELVES.
R.C. Sproul said:
Here, R.C. Sproul, a famous Reformed theologian himself says "hyper" Calvinists make God the author of sin.
The problem is, "hyper" Calvinism is simply consistent Calvinism, it is simply taking Calvinism to it's logical conclusions.
Icon gets it, no one can be that stupid.
- Status