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

[George Antonios]

Yes I’m not into studying error either. The last thing to do is watch an Armenian video. That’s like studying a Book of Mormon .pass

It's not an Arminian video. I'm not an Arminian. I don't believe we can lose our salvation. The whole thing is a false dichotomy anyway. I've already told you I don't believe we can lose our salvation. Why do you proceed on calling me Arminian?
(Historical P.S. : Arminius never said a man can lose his salvation).

 

[AustinC]

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).

Does Calvinism differ with anything above?

If Jesus died for all the sins of all men, but men have to have their own faith to be justified, does that mean that God throws entirely paid for people into hell if the person doesn't have faith?
Is there a sin of unbelief that is not paid for?

 

[Sai]

It's not an Arminian video. I'm not an Arminian. I don't believe we can lose our salvation. The whole thing is a false dichotomy anyway. I've already told you I don't believe we can lose our salvation. Why do you proceed on calling me Arminian?
(Historical P.S. : Arminius never said a man can lose his salvation).

Because I’m not paying close attention. I’m a 4 point Calvinist.

 

[Sai]

If Jesus died for all the sins of all men, but men have to have their own faith to be justified, does that mean that God throws entirely paid for people into hell if the person doesn't have faith?
Is there a sin of unbelief that is not paid for?

All People are born condemned and headed to hell.

 

[George Antonios]

Because I’m not paying close attention.

A refreshingly honest answer, God bless you.

I’m a 4 point Calvinist.

I'm a former 4 point Calvinist, now I'm a 0 point Calvinist.

 

[AustinC]

Because I’m not paying close attention. I’m a 4 point Calvinist.

I'm a former 4 point Calvinist, now I'm a 0 point Calvinist.

There is no such thing as a Calvinist that only chooses some points.
All those person's I just call "confused Christians". You have to live with obvious contradictions that cannot be reconciled.
If you toss out all 5, you merely become a Christian who has a god, made in your own image, which is similar to the northern kingdom of Israel.

 

[George Antonios]

There is no such thing as a Calvinist that only chooses some points.
All those person's I just call "confused Christians". You have to live with obvious contradictions that cannot be reconciled.
If you toss out all 5, you merely become a Christian who has a god, made in your own image, which is similar to the northern kingdom of Israel.

Austin hath spoken.

 

[Sai]

There is no such thing as a Calvinist that only chooses some points.
All those person's I just call "confused Christians". You have to live with obvious contradictions that cannot be reconciled.
If you toss out all 5, you merely become a Christian who has a god, made in your own image, which is similar to the northern kingdom of Israel.

You’re problem is you can’t take scripture as it is and need to force logic into the equation. The Trinity is an antinomy that cannot be fully explained. The harmony of God’s will vs man’s will is an antinomy. If you go too much on the God’s sovereignty side you end up a hyper Calvinist, too much on man’s side you’re Arminian. Calvinism May make more sense but we need to stay with what scripture says and not what makes sense to us.

 

[Sai]

Austin hath spoken.

Again.

 

[Sai]

A refreshingly honest answer, God bless you.



I'm a former 4 point Calvinist, now I'm a 0 point Calvinist.

Why what did you learn?

 

[George Antonios]

Why what did you learn?

Well, that predestination in the scriptures is never about lost man being predestinated unto salvation but about a saved man getting predestinated unto a glorified Christ-like resurrection body.

Look, I'm not Arminian. Just do me a favour and give the video a chance. I tried as hard as I could to define the terms only with other scriptures and within context. A number of people who disagree with me here on the board nevertheless stated that the study benefited them. Please give it a chance:

 

[Sai]

Well, that predestination in the scriptures is never about lost man being predestinated unto salvation but about a saved man getting predestinated unto a glorified Christ-like resurrection body.

Look, I'm not Arminian. Just do me a favour and give the video a chance. I tried as hard as I could to define the terms only with other scriptures and within context. A number of people who disagree with me here on the board nevertheless stated that the study benefited them. Please give it a chance:

Sure. Better than reality tv watching, I’ll check it out for errors. [emoji16]

 

[1689Dave]

Paul teaches in Romans 5 that God imputed Adam's sin to his children. And from among them, scripture shows he chose some of them and imputed their sins to Christ. And then imputed Christ's righteousness to them. So this is salvation completed eternally in the decree of God. Jesus says whoever believes has eternal life. Only God is eternal so our salvation always co-existed in him, without beginning or end.

 

[Alan Gross]

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).

Does Calvinism differ with anything above?

A lost sinner has a Totally Depraved State of Nature.

This Totally Depraved State of Nature is TAUGHT to Spiritually Filled believers, by The New Birth.

Lost Religious False 'Teachings' and Heresy reject, deny, dismiss, and say that Total Depravity is A.) untrue, & B.) more often than not, 'Calvinism' so that it can more conveniently be rejected, denied, dismissed, and say that Total Depravity is A.) untrue.
Without being lost a sinner is never Saved and will intellectually 'believe; Jesus died for every person, etc., and any number of other fleshly errors, BECAUSE their intellectual 'consent' is all they have experienced with regard to 'belief'.

Without being Brought to point of being Totally Depraved, as the extent of their being 'lost', there is no need to BE CONVICTED, BE GRANTED REPENTANCE AND TO TRUST, which is the Bible sense of 'belief', when it is applicable to Salvation.

Satan has changed the connotation of 'Believe' enough, from TRUST to CONSENT that many here and around the World, by the millions and billions have 'Prayed to believe', following after a leader, like Follow The Leader.

No sin State of a lost Totally Depraved soul is ever addressed and they remain in a sin State of a lost Totally Depraved soul.

Welcome to Heresy and False Christianity.

Can they be Taught and Believe, SPIRITUALLY' THE THINGS OF GOD?

NO. Of course not.

They don't HAVE The Holy Spirit of God, if they remain Totally Depraved, without strength, impotent, blind, DEAD, and lost.

Ministers of darkness.

The Bible does not tell God's children to debate with them; God Says, "reject" them.

SNIP

 

[George Antonios]

A lost sinner has a Totally Depraved State of Nature.

This Totally Depraved State of Nature is TAUGHT to Spiritually Filled believers, by The New Birth.

Lost Religious False 'Teachings' and Heresy reject, deny, dismiss, and say that Total Depravity is A.) untrue, & B.) more often than not, 'Calvinism' so that it can more conveniently be rejected, denied, dismissed, and say that Total Depravity is A.) untrue.
Without being lost a sinner is never Saved and will intellectually 'believe; Jesus died for every person, etc., and any number of other fleshly errors, BECAUSE their intellectual 'consent' is all they have experienced with regard to 'belief'.

Without being Brought to point of being Totally Depraved, as the extent of their being 'lost', there is no need to BE CONVICTED, BE GRANTED REPENTANCE AND TO TRUST, which is the Bible sense of 'belief', when it is applicable to Salvation.

Satan has changed the connotation of 'Believe' enough, from TRUST to CONSENT that many here and around the World, by the millions and billions have 'Prayed to believe', following after a leader, like Follow The Leader.

No sin State of a lost Totally Depraved soul is ever addressed and they remain in a sin State of a lost Totally Depraved soul.

Welcome to Heresy and False Christianity.

Can they be Taught and Believe, SPIRITUALLY' THE THINGS OF GOD?

NO. Of course not.

They don't HAVE The Holy Spirit of God, if they remain Totally Depraved, without strength, impotent, blind, DEAD, and lost.

Ministers of darkness.

The Bible does not tell God's children to debate with them; God Says, "reject" them.

SNIP

... 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).
Does Calvinism differ with anything above?"

 

[AustinC]

... 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).
Does Calvinism differ with anything above?"

You have added to the Bible, what it does not say when you state: "that he died for the sins of all men."

What does the creed of 1 Corinthians 15 actually say?

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

George, do you see how you changed what God said and thus speak falsely?

Paul says "for our sins" meaning those who believe. Paul does not say, for all sins, meaning the universal sins of all humanity. Your changing of the words makes you a false teacher. I suggest you acknowledge your error.

 

[ivdavid]

I tried as hard as I could to define the terms only with other scriptures and within context.

Like I asked you before, are you applying right interpretation principles or are you biased because of your desire to prove calvinism wrong?
You look at the sentence structure in Rom 8:23 and quickly conclude that the biblical definition of adoption is the redemption of our body. Even when that makes no sense in the normal sense of the word as per the English Language? Like I mentioned earlier, how is this different from the calvinists redefining ALL to not mean each and every single person?

1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments...
Would you similarly define the "love of God" as "keeping His commandments" - that's the clear Biblical sentence structure there, right? But we know from basic language usage that Love cannot be defined as just keeping commandments, that it's much more and this verse is to be read more as - "For this is the evidence of the love of God, that we keep His commandments."
And this is further supported by John 14:15 which clearly distinguishes between the two, thereby disproving that love can be defined as what follows in the same sentence. Do we see this the same way?

Similarly, Adoption must of necessity be defined as a variant of "making/assigning someone as their own son/child" - that's the language. To redefine it to mean something entirely different is without basis. Especially when Rom 8:23 can be easily explained just as 1Jn 5:3, where it is to be read more as -
"....even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the manifestation of the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
where the wait is for the manifestation/revelation which to wit is the redemption of our body, and not for the adoption which we've already received.
Moreover, this reading fits exactly with the common definition of Adoption as per Rom 8:19 -
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
where the parallels equate Adoption with the sons of God. Why wrangle further?

Another line of argument is that of the word etymology itself - anyone would know that the word 'afternoon' has something to do with the word 'noon'. Similarly the word Adoption as used in Scriptures simply is a combination of the individual words "son" and "make" - which is again proven with the Gal 4:5-6 reference - this association is completely ignored in your video study. Again, for these basic reasons, your interpretation seems to be overreaching. Again, no issues on your intents - I'd say this is not the place to throw yourself on the sword. Let's discuss more...

 

[George Antonios]

You look at the sentence structure in Rom 8:23 and quickly conclude that the biblical definition of adoption is the redemption of our body. Even when that makes no sense in the normal sense of the word as per the English Language?

I've read enough of your stuff to know that you are more intelligent than that argument there.
You can dissect that thing to death on your own.
I really don't believe I have to do it for you.

 

[George Antonios]

Adoption must of necessity be defined as a variant of "making/assigning someone as their own son/child"

It does. It's just that that re-assignment happens at the resurrection and it's a re-assignment relative to the body, not the soul and spirit. It's simple.

 

[George Antonios]

not for the adoption which we've already received.

We haven't received the adoption. We have received the Spirit of adoption. The latter is the present earnest of the future adoption for which Paul said we wait.