Predestination is that of a saved man unto a resurrection body in Christ's image

[Alan Gross]

... THAT, was your response to the gospel? You just called the gospel "puke".
To be clear for the readers, that was his response to this:

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, that he died for the sins of all men according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1Co.15:1-4) so that whosoever believes exclusively on him is justified by faith in him without the works of the law (Rom.3).call
Does Calvinism differ with anything above?"

Being here to bum false-adulterated-twists that you can manufacture from God's Word, as it applies to your begging for 'material' to stomp like a spider-strawman, is not the characterization of one who would have THE POSITIVE ENEGY and INITIATIVE, to look back through their own responses, to GOD'S ETERNAL WORD, as stated by other individuals, i.e., God's God-Called Teacher(s), and count the number of times you labeled them 'regurgitations').

There is no INPUT in a thread that has been duplicated into what you label, "regurgitation".

It is God's Word.

 

[Alan Gross]

Let's agree on what it is we do believe...would you agree with the following beliefs or would you reject them as ungodly heresies?

1. In the fallen state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.

2. God wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation.

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. Ecclesiastes 11:3

 

[Revmitchell]

Other than providing scripture, you may be correct...sigh.

Except you didnt even do that

 

[AustinC]

Except you didnt even do that

Sure I did. You simply disagree. Your disagreement doesn't bother me.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure I did. You simply disagree. Your disagreement doesn't bother me.

Uh no you didn't. In fact you made no effort. Its not about disagreement its about simply ,making a claim with no effort to support it. There is a difference.

 

[ivdavid]

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. Ecclesiastes 11:3

Cryptic . I am not as wise - Is that a yes, you agree with those beliefs?

 

[AustinC]

Uh no you didn't. In fact you made no effort. Its not about disagreement its about simply ,making a claim with no effort to support it. There is a difference.

I did. You're wrong. We're done.

 

[George Antonios]

Paul is not claiming that God has saved all people…as you are arguing.

I did not argue that and you know it. That is dishonest. There are honest disagreements and then there are dishonest disagreements. I have many honest disagreements with many on this board, but to pursue a dishonest disputation is fruitless.

 

[ivdavid]

Do you consider yourself to be a son of God now or are you waiting to become one at some future time?

I am a son of God right from the moment I believed in Christ and put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27) - not waiting to become one at some future time.

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not argue that and you know it. That is dishonest. There are honest disagreements and then there are dishonest disagreements. I have many honest disagreements with many on this board, but to pursue a dishonest disputation is fruitless.

Ill bet he will say that he supported his accusation of you with scripture as well.

 

[ivdavid]

Those very points were addressed in the video.

Seriously?
I was raising counter-arguments from what you'd made in the video - with your definition of adoption, you made the claim that Gal 4:6 connects with Gal 3:26 thereby removing any correlation to the immediately preceding Gal 4:5 and I'm disputing that claim with the common definition of adoption by showing how it must necessarily logically connect with Gal 4:5. Is there another segment in your video where you do a follow-up to this present argument of mine?

You read Gal 4:5 as something that is yet to happen in the future just because of the clause "might receive" ? Is that how you read Gal 3:14 too? If not, why the exception?

Again, it's the logical thought and not individual words in isolation...Gal 4:6 is effectively a cause and effect chain. Going per your interpretation, why does receiving the Spirit of future-redemption-of-my-body make me cry out Abba, Father now?

Could you point me to the starting timestamps of your video where you've addressed these 2 points?

 

[George Antonios]

I am a son of God right from the moment I believed in Christ and put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27) - not waiting to become one at some future time.

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Yes and no. You are spirit, soul, and body (1Th.5:23). You are now already a spiritual son of God. You certainly are not now already a physical son of God. You will be thus at the adoption/resurrection.

 

[George Antonios]

I was raising counter-arguments from what you'd made in the video - with your definition of adoption, you made the claim that Gal 4:6 connects with Gal 3:26 thereby removing any correlation to the immediately preceding Gal 4:5 and I'm disputing that claim with the common definition of adoption by showing how it must necessarily logically connect with Gal 4:5. Is there another segment in your video where you do a follow-up to this present argument of mine?

Fair enough. I'll check it more carefully later.

 

[ivdavid]

Yes and no. You are spirit, soul, and body (1Th.5:23). You are now already a spiritual son of God. You certainly are not now already a physical son of God. You will be thus at the adoption/resurrection.

I'm not presenting an argument in this post - this is a genuine enquiry not entailing any sarcasm or skepticism.

Where do you find this distinction between being physical sons and spiritual sons being presented in Scriptures? This is the first time I'm coming across such a distinction made and would like to inform myself of its origins.
I see it simply as a singular relational sonship - initially in a physical body and later in a spiritual body. The change in bodies in no way changes the relational status of sonship. I don't see Jesus becoming any different a Son of God before and after His resurrection - was He any less a Son while He walked the earth in the physical body? (Not an argument - just sharing how I see it and the reasoning behind it)

 

[Alan Gross]

Cryptic . I am not as wise - Is that a yes, you agree with those beliefs?

1. In the fallen state, the free will of man IS DEAD AND WILL NEVER CHOOSE GOD, because IT HAS NO ABILITY and CAN...NOT.


THE NATURAL SPIRITUAL NATURE OF A LOST SINNER IS DEAD.

There is no relevant component or 'spark of Divinity' in a soul that has Infinitely Offended The Perfection of The Trice-Holy God.

All Human Beings would be sitting towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace

....and go to Hell, forever.


2. God wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation.

No, not in a Billion years.

God Saves whom He Will, by The Good Pleasure of His Will.

Sinners have no "will" other than to sin, as shown by the activity of the sinful NATURE.

You Will Not Come unto Me.

 

[AustinC]

I did not argue that and you know it. That is dishonest. There are honest disagreements and then there are dishonest disagreements. I have many honest disagreements with many on this board, but to pursue a dishonest disputation is fruitless.

George, if you are not arguing this, then you are arguing that human beings are responsible to cooperate with God, which then means that God did not pay for all sins, but only for some.
So, whether you are a synergist or a monergist, you must acknowledge that salvation/atonement is limited, even though all who would believe will be saved.
In either case, you are misusing both 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Timothy 4.

 

[percho]

I'm not presenting an argument in this post - this is a genuine enquiry not entailing any sarcasm or skepticism.

Where do you find this distinction between being physical sons and spiritual sons being presented in Scriptures? This is the first time I'm coming across such a distinction made and would like to inform myself of its origins.
I see it simply as a singular relational sonship - initially in a physical body and later in a spiritual body. The change in bodies in no way changes the relational status of sonship. I don't see Jesus becoming any different a Son of God before and after His resurrection - was He any less a Son while He walked the earth in the physical body? (Not an argument - just sharing how I see it and the reasoning behind it)

Strong's G5206 υἱοθεσία Westcott and Hort all 5 times it appears translate - to - a - son - placing - untohttp://lexiconcordance.com/greek/5206.html

What does the, "unto," mean? Does it imply span of time?

Now because through, the faith of Jesus Christ, Gal 3:14 & 3:22 we have received / been given, the promise of the Spirit, that Spirit is, unto, to a son placing, adoption, future the result of Rom 8:11,23 see 1 Cor 15:50-52.

Now, IMHO, Just as, Romans 8:22,23 for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now. And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting ---- These are words pertaining to birth, to being born --- the redemption of our body; -- being born from above,

Except one be born from above
Except one be born from above

The redemption the body,
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, > the redemption of the body.

 

[ivdavid]

1. In the fallen state, the free will of man IS DEAD AND WILL NEVER CHOOSE GOD, because IT HAS NO ABILITY and CAN...NOT.
THE NATURAL SPIRITUAL NATURE OF A LOST SINNER IS DEAD.
There is no relevant component or 'spark of Divinity' in a soul that has Infinitely Offended The Perfection of The Trice-Holy God.

No such 'spark of Divinity' is alluded to here - where are you reading it from in my post??

For Christ has said, “Without me ye can do nothing.” St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: “Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.”

With these clarifications, what is it precisely that you differ with what's been shared here?

 

[ivdavid]

2. God wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation.

No, not in a Billion years.

No, not in a billion years !?

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Extracting just the texts in bold, don't you get what I've shared earlier? What exactly do you differ with here in saying not in a billion years? Are you reading something else into it that's not been mentioned?

2 Statements have been provided - the first to denote total depravity and the second to show that any who are unbelieving and unrepentant will remain in condemnation - what do you differ with here specifically?

 

[JD731]

Our full redemption is in the future. He has made that clear via scripture.

The subject is adoption, not full redemption. I opined that adoption was in the context of inheritance, not sonship. Why am I wrong? I am willing to learn. Sonship is a present reality. Adoption and inheritance is future. Would you still be a son of God if there were no inheritance, and are you even the son who is being addressed in the context?