• 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!

IS there an actual "Arminian" Study Bible Out There?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Really? I think some non-Calvinists here think that it is possible that some non-elect individuals can be saved. Chime in non-Cals.

Think that some would hold that we totally determine our eternal destiny, in the sense that God has already done all that he can by having jesus atone for our sins on the Cross, but waits to see if we will apply faith towards Gospel message once we hear it!
 

nodak

Active Member
Site Supporter
Heavily dispensational generally Arminian: Old Scofield, new Scofield, Ryrie.

Not as disyp: current Wesley Study Bible
 

seekingthetruth

New Member
Heavily dispensational generally Arminian: Old Scofield, new Scofield, Ryrie.

Not as disyp: current Wesley Study Bible

Scofield and Ryrie strongly supported eternal security, and their study notes reflect this, so they cannot be labeled as Arminian.

But Wesley embraced the Arminian doctrine completely. so, if it's true Arminian doctrine you want, then the Wesley Study Bible is the one.

John
 

seekingthetruth

New Member
Originally Posted by Rippon
"Really? I think some non-Calvinists here think that it is possible that some non-elect individuals can be saved. Chime in non-Cals."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


There are no "non-elect". The vast majority of people are lost not because they are non-elect, but because they have not repented and believed.

The price has already been paid, all they have to do is accept the gift of salvation.

See, here is the difference between Calvinist Christians and Normal Christians, Normal Christians believe that salvation is a gift, and Calvinist Christians believe salvation is a right by birth just for being born as one of the "chosen".

If it is a birthright, then it is not a gift.

John
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
There are no "non-elect". The vast majority of people are lost not because they are non-elect, but because they have not repented and believed.

The price has already been paid, all they have to do is accept the gift of salvation.

See, here is the difference between Calvinist Christians and Normal Christians, Normal Christians believe that salvation is a gift, and Calvinist Christians believe salvation is a right by birth just for being born as one of the "chosen".

If it is a birthright, then it is not a gift.

John

Calvinist believe that grace is the gift of God, as salvation is totally the work of the Lord on our behalf to save us...

Basic difference between cals and Non cals is that Cals hold that the biblical position is that all of us are sinners in the image of Adam, and as such, it is impossible for ANY of us to seek out the Lord and be saved, as we are sinful beings that refuse to come to Christ in order to get saved!

While Non cals would hold that we still ahve enough "free will" to make the decision toaccept/reject Christ in and of ourselves...
We see the fall as destroying Image of God in man, while others see as as being "damaged goods" now!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


There are no "non-elect".

How many non-Cals would agree with STT on that unbiblical statement?

If there are no non-elect ones --then all would be elect. Hence you would be a Universalist.

Of course there are the non-elect or or usually referenced as the reprobate.

Do you, or do you not believe, that only the elect have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life? Do you realize that not only Calvinists,but many genuine Christians from an Arminian persuasion are in that famous roll?
 

seekingthetruth

New Member
How many non-Cals would agree with STT on that unbiblical statement?

If there are no non-elect ones --then all would be elect. Hence you would be a Universalist.

Of course there are the non-elect or or usually referenced as the reprobate.

Do you, or do you not believe, that only the elect have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life? Do you realize that not only Calvinists,but many genuine Christians from an Arminian persuasion are in that famous roll?

You have twisted my statement in a direction I did not intend when I wrote it.

What I mean is that noone is born as a designated non-elect. We can all join in with the elect if we believe and repent. Yes, there are the reprobate, but where I differ with you is that I believe they remain reprobate by choice, not by election.

John
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You have twisted my statement in a direction I did not intend when I wrote it.

What I mean is that noone is born as a designated non-elect. We can all join in with the elect if we believe and repent. Yes, there are the reprobate, but where I differ with you is that I believe they remain reprobate by choice, not by election.

John

We ALL are born though before God as sinners, guilty of partaking in Adam sin against the Will of God, so we are all born "non elect" in the sense that all of us would be hell bound IF God did not chose to elct any of us unto salvation!
 

seekingthetruth

New Member
We ALL are born though before God as sinners, guilty of partaking in Adam sin against the Will of God, so we are all born "non elect" in the sense that all of us would be hell bound IF God did not chose to elct any of us unto salvation!

No one is born predestined for hell is what I am saying Einstien.

John
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
No one is born predestined for hell is what I am saying Einstien.

John

We all are born going to hell.... God is NOT direct electing as their, as per a kind of double Predestination, but we all are heading that way unless He directly intervens.... Would prefer newton, as I think he had a better "chance" of being an actual Christian!
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Welcome telemagenta.

Rather strong words for an introductory post.

This is a zombie thread more than a decade old.

Rob
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Yep! Also the first "conclusion" to 2 Peter, an obvious later insertion by Paulists, probably Roman Catholics, to try to give credence to Paul's false gospel by associating him with a real Apostle (which Paul mockingly called "superapostles"). The voice is completely different and the shoehorn is clearly visible in the reading which sounds exactly like Paul's self-aggrandizing writing! Could be more insidious Babylonian Talmudic Pharisaic Edomite nonsense inserted throughout. After all, the "canon" of Scripture all Judeo-Christians use, was set by the Roman Catholic Church. Even Jesus quoted scriptures which are not in your canonical books lol. Deifying the Bible is merely one of the many mistakes made since about 100 A.D. when the Gospel stopped being preached! Come to Jesus!

Do you call yourself a "Christian", or something else? Obviously, your rejection of any part of the Scriptures, including the writings of Paul and Peter(which were inspired by God the Holy Spirit), will not go over well on this board, and I doubt that the moderators will allow you continue much longer with spreading your false teaching and ideas on this board.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
preach the Gospel to you all!

You are not preaching the gospel of Christ - that is a certainty. Also, you are lying about the apostle Paul. Do you also reject the book of Acts, which describes God's choosing him in Christ to be an apostle and which describes God using him to carry the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles?
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yep! Also the first "conclusion" to 2 Peter, an obvious later insertion by Paulists, probably Roman Catholics, to try to give credence to Paul's false gospel by associating him with a real Apostle (which Paul mockingly called "superapostles"). The voice is completely different and the shoehorn is clearly visible in the reading which sounds exactly like Paul's self-aggrandizing writing! Could be more insidious Babylonian Talmudic Pharisaic Edomite nonsense inserted throughout. After all, the "canon" of Scripture all Judeo-Christians use, was set by the Roman Catholic Church. Even Jesus quoted scriptures which are not in your canonical books lol. Deifying the Bible is merely one of the many mistakes made since about 100 A.D. when the Gospel stopped being preached! Come to Jesus!
Are you a member of the New Church?
Swedenborgian?

Rob
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
You say. Everything I preach is from the mouth of Jesus and his Apostles. Get behind me, accuser. And yes I know Acts. Nor do I deify the scriptures or follow the Catholic Church's deification of any particular scripture. There is TRUTH, and then there is everything else. Anything that's TRUE, is of God (and John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, I DO trust!)

What part of the comparison to Balaam that Jesus made about Paul, didn't you understand? He started with the right spirit after his "conversion on the road," but fell away and began teaching Israel to violate the perpetual statutes of Yahweh. Paul even admits that he is teaching a different Gospel, and that he is comfortable with lying, and that he doesn't care about and locks Christ's Apostles who actually KNEW HIM, and that they cast him out from among them, and you sheep still follow him!

More lies spewed by you toward the apostle of Christ, the apostle Paul.

Maybe instead of asking which books of God's Holy Scriptures you reject, it would be easier to ask you these two questions:

1) Which books of the 66 books in the Bible do you accept?

2) Are there any other writings that you consider on a par with the Bible, that you think are inspired by God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top