Tasted death for every man !

[HeirofSalvation]

the sure sign to a calvinist that one has been saved, is one of the so called elect is that one has received jesus, placed faith in him,

That is how an Arminian or non-Cal might know....It cannot be how a Calvinist knows....that is all that is being argued.

having a new nature, confirmed by inner witness of the Holy Spirit and the

That is what a Calvinist would personally have to hold to, and that is subjective.

testimony of the Word!

What do you mean by this specifically...

IF one is not saved, one could care less about the real jesus and real gospel!

That is not necessarily and always true....some very much do, but not necessarily to the point at which they have "ABC" 'D yet (so to speak.)

 

[The Biblicist]

WOW!!!!! Biblicist...listen to yourself...You just posed your own argument....literally, your own personal argument here:

I did not ascribe this argument to you. It was my argument against your philosophical line of thinking and then I anticipated what you might say in response and posted the additional response.

What happened was that I forgot to change what I had in the "cut" and "paste" and accidently placed your heading on my words

 

[Winman]

I am not.

"The Biblicist" has never read in the Scriptures that he personally, was one of the elect...he is appealing to his belief that he has met the conditions to be properly categorized that way...It is not provable, It is not deductive, it is subjective and it is circumstantial. You have established already and it was never denied that there are those sets of evidences spoken of in Scripture...You didn't have to, as I already knew and never denied it. You have not established that you are a partaker of them....See the difference? Those ARE Biblical evidences....the question is, how does a Calvinist KNOW, that he is properly categorized as having sufficiently met them...The answer: He doesn't.

You are accusing me of witchcraft somehow??? This exchange has devolved so quickly that one accuses the other of witchcraft? I am now being accused of sorcery, and thus my personal salvation is now in question....I am not sure that this is in keeping with the rules of this board....Please explain this accusation.

Oh, o.k. dismiss it at it's onset so you don't have to engage it? I also like the word "admittedly" As in...."Humbly, I must admit, that my arguments are all straight from the mouth of Almighty God as revealed in his Holy Word..." Yes, I admit it...." :laugh: (Just poking fun here....I do not seriously think you meant it that way, it's just funny )

It isn't I assure you.

That is the sole and sufficient reason to do so.

*Sigh*....It is that you can only appeal to it from a subjective point of view which is being argued...not that the evidences themselves are Biblical or not....they are indeed, they are also not being debated. You have posted under the moniker of "The Biblicist" so long, I think, that you have unfortunately begun to believe it....Here's a hint: there is no such being. This, from another adherent of determinist philosopy: http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org/2010/02/17/who-can-argue-against-being-a-biblicist/

His experientially based knowledge is very real....as is yours.

Not in the sense in which you are trying to use it...The Scriptures do not ever say: "Biblicist: the experiential knowledge you have is sufficient, according to these conditions, to affirm your position as one of the elect". There is no such verse...that is the issue.

THAT it serves as EVIDENCE it is indeed Biblical, and it is also not being denied.... by my posts....I have stated that repeatedly. And it indeed serves as an Inductive set of probabilistic evidences....I have indeed already said that, and I have even stated that it can make for a powerful case indeed. See my first post....I tend to think you have not heard of Winman's arguments before...if you have, you simply have not addressed them or mine....

You have no way of "KNOWING" however, not deductively, that You personally were in view with God's election or with the atonement on the cross.....You can only probabalistically assume it. This is a classic non-Cal argument which has existed for ages. And you appear to be merely avoiding it, or not understand the crux of it. An Arminian appeals to having met certain conditions (namely, repentance and faith) to assure themselves of Salvation...you are appealing to evidences of what is assumed to have been a previous act, not of your own will or purpose, but of God's alone....God has not written in his Scriptures who was in view. He has not written in the Scriptures the identity of those whom he "elected". You are taking a set of evidences and believing that you have met the criterion of who would subsequently qualify ex post facto.

Kind of odd to see two Calvinists debating, but you understood exactly the point I was making. No Calvinist can have real assurance of salvation, they cannot possibly know they are elect. They must look to their own works as evidence that they are saved, just as the false believer looked to his own wonderful works in Mat 7:21-23 as his assurance, but was not saved.

The Arminian or non-Cal can KNOW he is elect because he can KNOW he has met the condition of salvation, which is to believe on Jesus Christ.

A Calvinist cannot even know he has believed, because according to Reformed theology the unregenerate man cannot possibly understand what it is to believe. True saving faith is something the unregenerate is unable to do, or comprehend. If this is so, then how can any man know he has believed?

Seeing all this is true, the scriptures refute Calvinism and support that unregenerate man is able to understand and actually believe.

1 Jhn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

A non-Cal or Arminian can claim 1 John 5:13 as absolute assurance they are saved. Because we know we have believed (because we believe we are able to both understand and exercise faith), we know we have eternal life.

A Calvinist cannot know if he has believed, because the unregenerate man cannot possibly know what it means to believe in Calvinism.

Thank you for your honesty, it is very refreshing. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

You should have simply waited for me to respond to your previous post, wherein I would simply have said that I generally agree with your conclusion and that that was basically all I was contending to begin with....But, no....the Straw man....This will be posted....repeatedly.

You have accused me of Witchcraft, and denying Bible Truth....No one has yet shown such umbrage before for no reason whatsoever. Examine yourself.

I have no idea what you are talking about! I never accused you of witchcraft. I never called you a liar. I said that your philosophical argument is calling the Bible a liar. It is your argument I am referring to.

I do not see any consistent rational line of argument in Winman's assertion. 2 Thessalonians 2;13-14 demands that election of persons before the world began consisted also with election of means of salvation (effectual calling in connection with repentance and faith in the gospel) before the world began - equally so.

This argument by Winman applies no more to my view salvation than his view of salvation because my view demands repentance and faith in the gospel as evidence of election as much as his view demands repentance and faith in the gospel as evidence of salvation. My view is the more consistent because it is inclusive of both and demands both equally but in a cause and effect relationship.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I have no idea what you are talking about! I never accused you of witchcraft. I never called you a liar. I said that your philosophical argument is calling the Bible a liar. It is your argument I am referring to.

Isaiah 8:19-20

This is what I was referring to.

I do not see any consistent rational line of argument in Winman's assertion. 2 Thessalonians 2;13-14 demands that election of persons before the world began consisted also with election of means of salvation (effectual calling in connection with repentance and faith in the gospel) before the world began - equally so.

This argument by Winman applies no more to my view salvation than his view of salvation because my view demands repentance and faith in the gospel as evidence of election as much as his view demands repentance and faith in the gospel as evidence of salvation. My view is the more consistent because it is inclusive of both and demands both equally but in a cause and effect relationship.

O.K. Then.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is what I was referring to.

That was not my intent for referencing Isaiah 8:19-20. My intent is the principle being stated. If a person is not speaking consistently with "this word" it is because their teaching or thinking or concepts have some other source than the scripture.

Ultimately all false doctrine has a demonic source (1 Tim. 4:1) and that is precisely why we are commanded to "try the spirits." However, that does not necessarily mean a person is purposely seeking mediums for their insights (Isa. 8:19). Isaiah 8:19 with verse 20 in general principle simply demonstrates there are other sources than the scripture for doctrine and philosophical arguments. If I wanted to call you a witch or a sourcer or one who seeks mediums I would have done so. However, it is perfectly legitimate to use Isaiah 8:20 as a general principle to repudiate ideas that do not have their source with scripture without inferring that any use of it is making a charge of witchcraft or intentional seeking of mediums.

O.K. Then.

What?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is how an Arminian or non-Cal might know....It cannot be how a Calvinist knows....that is all that is being argued.

Cals KNOW same way one who holds to others views on salvation would...

By the sure testimony of the Spirit, and the word of God!

That is what a Calvinist would personally have to hold to, and that is subjective.

NO! paul said that he bears witness inside our new natures that we are now of god, calling God Abba..

To make it subjective is to deny paul and the bible!

What do you mean by this specifically...

the Apostle paul/peter/John ALL testify that we CAn and DO know that we are saved, and those would include inner witness from Spirit, testimony of the bible, and love for God, bible, bethren!

Not a Hope so, but really know!

That is not necessarily and always true....some very much do, but not necessarily to the point at which they have "ABC" 'D yet (so to speak.)

the lost and in their sins have no desire to find real christ/God, as they prefer to follow a God that appeals to them!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That was not my intent for referencing Isaiah 8:19-20. My intent is the principle being stated. If a person is not speaking consistently with "this word" it is because their teaching or thinking or concepts have some other source than the scripture.

Ultimately all false doctrine has a demonic source (1 Tim. 4:1) and that is precisely why we are commanded to "try the spirits." However, that does not necessarily mean a person is purposely seeking mediums for their insights (Isa. 8:19). Isaiah 8:19 with verse 20 in general principle simply demonstrates there are other sources than the scripture for doctrine and philosophical arguments. If I wanted to call you a witch or a sourcer or one who seeks mediums I would have done so. However, it is perfectly legitimate to use Isaiah 8:20 as a general principle to repudiate ideas that do not have their source with scripture without inferring that any use of it is making a charge of witchcraft or intentional seeking of mediums.





What?

O.K. and O.K. then....and that is fine, and very well, and God bless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

the lost and in their sins have no desire to find real christ/God, as they prefer to follow a God that appeals to them!

Well, I would contend that there are those upon whose hearts the Holy Spirit or rather even other things, such as an honest fear of death and a desire to know truths about the afterlife or even the general revelation of God in nature vis-a-vis Romans 1 have begun to work, and they yet remain un-saved and un-regenerate, and yet their mind and heart are still open to truth. They may yet seek truth, and they desire yet to know the truth...but they have yet to either hear the truth "specifically of Jesus Christ" or they may have heard and remain sceptical or un-convinced, but yet still teachable....their's is a plight not to be discarded...Personally, their's is also a plight, which generally speaking, (IMO) Calvinists are incapable of answering and working with, if they remain logically consistent with their beliefs...because they remain shackled to the idea that there is person type 1...and person type 2....and no others.

You are decidedly right that your examples above speak to many...even the MAJORITY....of people. But I think the world and the people in it is bigger than that. :thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

O.K. Let's try again then....and merely from your own words, and in this singular post:

If a person is not speaking consistently with this word it is because their teaching or thinking or concepts have some other source than the scripture.
Ultimately all false doctrine has a demonic source (1 Tim. 4:1) and that is precisely why we are commanded to "try the spirits."

However, it is perfectly legitimate to use Isaiah 8:20 as a general principle to repudiate ideas that do not have their source with scripture without inferring that any use of it is making a charge of witchcraft or intentional seeking of mediums.

WWHHEWWWW!!! and here I thought I was being accused of being a willing servant of Satan....rather than an inadvertent and unwitting tool of the "Father of Lies"...... Thank God, I am only his simple foolish robot!!! Maybe Salvation is yet a possibility for me!!!! :love2: :wavey: :saint:


Sir, what you have failed to realize, is that, (at least in this respect) my "doctrine" is not any different than yours...I am not claiming anything about the assurance of Salvation which is different than what you teach. You falsely stated that....

you are philosophically arguing they cannot know that because such knowledge is subjective and inductive and therefore cannot be known for sure to anyone.

This is another false accusation, as it is a position I do not take....as I believe one can be assured of Salvation...and it is one I have not expressed...You (interestingly) pre-cluded this false accusation with this reference:

The Bible explicitly and clearly says a person can know they have eternal life and are saved (1 Jn. 5:13)

A Bible reference notably lacking in your initial set of 5 "proofs" to winman which I referenced in my initial post on this topic....Your initial "proofs" were these:

1. The way the gospel came to them - 1 Thes. 1:4-5
2. Change - before and after - 2 Cor. 5:17/Rom. 8:7
3. The characteristics of Biblical repentance and faith
4. Internal witness of the Spirit - Rom. 8:14,16
5. Things that accompany salvation - Heb. 6:9

And.........I clearly took notice of the sad lack of I John 5:13 in it's inclusion....I made a sideways reference to that in a later post here:

[HeirofSalvation]..I could build my case by saying the Apostle John disagrees with YOU

This was the source of that comment....I did not pick any random apostle at will...and throw them in for effect.
The Argument I was making, was the same one made if you see Win's previous post....it is that an Arminian might claim I John 5:13 as an assurance verse, whereas a Calvinist cannot...."Faith" or the act of "believing" is always heretically taught to be a "work" in the Calvinist schema....of which you are a proponent...therefore you may not rightly appeal to "having believed" as a condition vis-a-vis I John 5:13 for your Salvation...that is the argument. I do not think you inadvertently missed throwing in 1 John 5:13....I think you intentionally left it out...the reason being, that it is not particularly favourable to a Calvinist schema.....
I did not Miss, the obvious exclusion of that verse....No Arminian would, it is that verse which probably is MOST used by a non-Calvinist to teach assurance.
No teaching of Scripture about assurance of Salvation may be thrown at me with which I will dis-agree...I simply am arguing that the truths you speak from those Scriptures are inconsistent with the Calvinist Theology with which you are inundated.....That is the difference.

 

[Winman]

Calvinists pull one verse out of context in Romans 3, and declare men are unable to seek God.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Do these verses say man is unable to attain righteousness through faith? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to understand? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to seek God? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to do good? No.

Fact is, there are many scriptures that show man is able to seek God.

2 Chr 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

King Asa sought the Lord.

2 Chr 20:3 And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.
4 And Judah gathered themselves together, to ask help of the LORD: even out of all the cities of Judah they came to seek the LORD.

King Jehosphaphat sought the Lord, and not only him, but men from all the cities of Judah also sought the Lord.

2 Chr 31:20 And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the LORD his God.
21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.

King Hezekiah sought the Lord.

Ezra 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat,

The children of Israel that came out of captivity with Ezra sought the Lord.

The scriptures are clear that many men sought the Lord. Calvinism says no man seeks the Lord, this is contrary to much scripture.

No, the scriptures say "the wicked" do not seek the Lord.

Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

The wicked because he is proud will not seek the Lord, but not all men are proud, some are meek and humble, these persons seek the Lord.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

So, Calvinists pull one verse out of context in Romans 3 where Paul was quoting Psalms 14 and was speaking of "fools" who say there is no God and falsely interpret this to mean all men are unable to seek God, while ignoring much scripture that shows men are not only able, but actually do seek the Lord.

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinists pull one verse out of context in Romans 3, and declare men are unable to seek God.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Do these verses say man is unable to attain righteousness through faith? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to understand? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to seek God? No.
Do these verses say man is unable to do good? No.

Fact is, there are many scriptures that show man is able to seek God.

2 Chr 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

King Asa sought the Lord.

2 Chr 20:3 And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.
4 And Judah gathered themselves together, to ask help of the LORD: even out of all the cities of Judah they came to seek the LORD.

King Jehosphaphat sought the Lord, and not only him, but men from all the cities of Judah also sought the Lord.

2 Chr 31:20 And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the LORD his God.
21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.

King Hezekiah sought the Lord.

Ezra 6:21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat,

The children of Israel that came out of captivity with Ezra sought the Lord.

The scriptures are clear that many men sought the Lord. Calvinism says no man seeks the Lord, this is contrary to much scripture.

No, the scriptures say "the wicked" do not seek the Lord.

Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

The wicked because he is proud will not seek the Lord, but not all men are proud, some are meek and humble, these persons seek the Lord.

Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

So, Calvinists pull one verse out of context in Romans 3 where Paul was quoting Psalms 14 and was speaking of "fools" who say there is no God and falsely interpret this to mean all men are unable to seek God, while ignoring much scripture that shows men are not only able, but actually do seek the Lord.

think the prophets such as say jeremiah/Isaiah would disagree with you over this!

 

[The Biblicist]

WWHHEWWWW!!! and here I thought I was being accused of being a willing servant of Satan....rather than an inadvertent and unwitting tool of the "Father of Lies"...... Thank God, I am only his simple foolish robot!!! Maybe Salvation is yet a possibility for me!!!! :love2: :wavey: :saint:

You are pressing this far too much. It is a simple truth that error is derived from the "spirit of error" and truth is derived from the "Spirit of truth" and all human beings including myself are subject to errors. What I have said about you I could have said about me and some things I have believed in the past or some faulty arguments I have used.

Sir, what you have failed to realize, is that, (at least in this respect) my "doctrine" is not any different than yours...

Sir, we are talking about Winman's PHILOSOPHICAL argument which you decided to defend. That line of argument makes the word of God a lie whether he weilds it or you weild it. It is the philosophical argument that makes God's Word a lie and if you are the one wielding it or defending it then if the shoe fits, it fits.

A Bible reference notably lacking in your initial set of 5 "proofs" to winman which I referenced in my initial post on this topic....Your initial "proofs" were these:


And.........I clearly took notice of the sad lack of I John 5:13 in it's inclusion....I made a sideways reference to that in a later post here:

Note the plural in both the first and last. In the first reference - 1 Thes. 1:4-5 "assurance" is explicit in the text. I could have listed John 5:24; 10:28-30; Philip. 1:6; 1 Jn. 5:13 and many more "assurance" based texts but I listed one. The "things" that accompany salvation are many but I did not list them did I?

I simply am arguing that the truths you speak from those Scriptures are inconsistent with the Calvinist Theology with which you are inundated.....That is the difference.

And that is my point! I never have claimed to be a "Calvinist" but a "Biblicist" and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 is consistent with a Biblicist position on salvation regardless if it contradicts "Calvinism" of which I have NEVER claimed to be a proponent. So please don't put in a category I have never claimed to be part of. Everyone else places me in that category but I am a "Baptist" not a "Calvinist" as there are many things in Calvins theology I reject and abhor!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are pressing this far too much. It is a simple truth that error is derived from the "spirit of error" and truth is derived from the "Spirit of truth" and all human beings including myself are subject to errors. What I have said about you I could have said about me and some things I have believed in the past or some faulty arguments I have used.




Sir, we are talking about Winman's PHILOSOPHICAL argument which you decided to defend. That line of argument makes the word of God a lie whether he weilds it or you weild it. It is the philosophical argument that makes God's Word a lie and if you are the one wielding it or defending it then if the shoe fits, it fits.




Note the plural in both the first and last. In the first reference - 1 Thes. 1:4-5 "assurance" is explicit in the text. I could have listed John 5:24; 10:28-30; Philip. 1:6; 1 Jn. 5:13 and many more "assurance" based texts but I listed one. The "things" that accompany salvation are many but I did not list them did I?





And that is my point! I never have claimed to be a "Calvinist" but a "Biblicist" and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 is consistent with a Biblicist position on salvation regardless if it contradicts "Calvinism" of which I have NEVER claimed to be a proponent. So please don't put in a category I have never claimed to be part of. Everyone else places me in that category but I am a "Baptist" not a "Calvinist" as there are many things in Calvins theology I reject and abhor!

such as?

And would they be rejection of what calvin himself wrote, or what later followers summarized together, as the TULIP not really his for example!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sir, we are talking about Winman's PHILOSOPHICAL argument which you decided to defend.

It is not original to Winman or me, it is an argument which is made all the time, I wonder that you appear unfamiliar with it.

That line of argument makes the word of God a lie whether he weilds it or you weild it.

It doesn't...it simply does not deny any Biblical Truth that you hold....it is an argument...which merely states that your own Theological points of view are inconsistent with the truths expressed in the Scriptures about assurance....You cannot take our continued agreement with what the Scriptures teach, and continue to accuse the argument as denying Scripture...From my own posts....I have repeatedly agreed what you are claiming the Bible teaches: I seem required to repeat myself:

[HeirofSalvation]*Sigh*....It is that you can only appeal to it from a subjective point of view which is being argued...not that the evidences themselves are Biblical or not....they are indeed, they are also not being debated.

[HeirofSalvation] THAT it serves as EVIDENCE it is indeed Biblical, and it is also not being denied.... by my posts....I have stated that repeatedly.

[HeirofSalvation]The answer is, I know, and agree with what you stated here completely.

It is the philosophical argument that makes God's Word a lie and if you are the one wielding it or defending it

You simply do not understand the argument as presented by Winman or myself...I wish we had been more clear.

Note the plural in both the first and last. In the first reference - 1 Thes. 1:4-5 "assurance" is explicit in the text.

I still think you are missapplying this passage....but I could not possibly convince you of it.

And that is my point! I never have claimed to be a "Calvinist" but a "Biblicist" ..... of which I have NEVER claimed to be a proponent. So please don't put in a category I have never claimed to be part of. Everyone else places me in that category but I am a "Baptist" not a "Calvinist"....

As you said....

if the shoe fits, it fits.

I assure you, it does....

Everyone else places me in that category

There is a reason for that.

I have previously addressed this uniquely self-aggrandizing appeal to personal inerrancy here:

[HeirofSalvation]You have posted under the moniker of "The Biblicist" so long, I think, that you have unfortunately begun to believe it....Here's a hint: there is no such being. This, from another adherent of determinist philosopy: http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org...g-a-biblicist

You appear to suffer the same failure I often do...to be mentally composing our response...before we have read the other's posts..

 

[The Biblicist]

It is not original to Winman or me, it is an argument which is made all the time, I wonder that you appear unfamiliar with it.

That is beside the point. The argument itself requires a certain set of premises that are simply not true to my position. It may be true to your position but it is not true to the Biblical position. Indeed, that philosophical argument may be valid against a certain type of "Calvinism" but it is not valid against my position as I believe the means is equally for salvation elected as the persons to salvation and that is precisely what 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 asserts in unequivocal language.

It doesn't...it simply does not deny any Biblical Truth that you hold....it is an argument...which merely states that your own Theological points of view are inconsistent with the truths expressed in the Scriptures about assurance....

It most certainly does deny Biblical truth. It's very premise denies Biblical truth. The problem here is that you are conceding to the limitations and defintiions advanced by that philosophical argument which I reject as true or Biblical.

The whole premise of this line of argument is that my position is restricted and defined within the limits of "calvinism" as presented and defined by this philosophical argument.

That sir, is absolutely and completely false in regard to my position and equally false in regard to the Biblical position which includes election of means for salvation with election of persons to salvation.


I understand the philosophical argument completely as well as its PRESUMED premises which are false. They may be true to YOUR POSITION and they may be true to those who claim CALVINISM within the restrictions of this philosophical argument but that argment is not Biblically sound nor does it rightly apply to my position.

The only truth of that argument is that CALVINISM as defined and accepted by those using that argument cannot know they are one of God's elect.

 

[convicted1]

Let me give an analogy of what I am talking about.

Suppose your church receives a letter from me. In the letter I promise to send every member of your church a check for $1000. But there is a catch, only half of the checks are good. The other half are from an account that has no money in it and will bounce.

Now the day comes and everybody gets their check. Can you with certainty know your check is good? No. Just because it is a real check doesn't mean it is going to cash. Your check looks just like everyone else's, you have the same evidence everyone else has, but none of you knows if your check is good or not. None of you can have certainty until you actually attempt to cash your check.

Well, that is what it is like if Jesus did not die for every man. You may believe there is all sorts of evidence that you are elect in your view, but in the end, your check may not cash.

Brother, you really need to stop being philosophical(sp?) on here....:smilewinkgrin:


Good example.....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It most certainly does deny Biblical truth. It's very premise denies Biblical truth

.

I would love to hear two things:

1.) What you think the Premises are
2.) Which specific "Biblical truths" it denies

that are simply not true to my position.
they may be true to those who claim CALVINISM within the restrictions of this philosophical argument

The argument was always about "Calvinism" if that fails to apply to your position....then one wonders why you are debating it....either you ARE a Calvinist, or you are not. The argument applies to Calvinism....Either you can continue to claim that it has nothing to do with "your" beliefs...and thus, it was never about you, or it applies to you as an argument levelled upon "Calvinism"....Which is it? You are trying to have it both ways.

Which specific Biblical truth have you posed which anyone here has denied? Please quote them....or cease baseless accusation....As I have posted innumerable posts where I have quoted myself REPEATEDLY agreeing with every single Biblical statement you make.

The only truth of that argument is that CALVINISM as defined and accepted by those using that argument cannot know they are one of God's elect.

It IS the ONLY truth to the argument....it is also the sum total of all the argument itself was ever trying to convey.....That's it, that's all, nothing more...nothing less. That is the sum total of all the argument tries to demonstrate. Thus, it either does apply to you, (as a Calvinist) or it doesn't (as you aren't one).

 

[The Biblicist]

.

I would love to hear two things:

1.) What you think the Premises are
2.) Which specific "Biblical truths" it denies

One premise is that the argument refers to a specific KIND of Calvinism, the KIND that denies that the means for salvation are as predestinated as the persons.

The specific "Biblical" truth it denies is that God has predestinated/chosen the specific means for salvation (2 Thes. 2:13-14) and thus denies the Biblical basis for personal assurance in regard to UNCONDITIONAL election.

Hence, my position on salvation no more denies personal assurance than his position on salvation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

One premise is that the argument refers to a specific KIND of Calvinism, the KIND that denies that the means for salvation are as predestinated as the persons.

The specific "Biblical" truth it denies is that God has predestinated/chosen the specific means for salvation (2 Thes. 2:13-14) and thus denies the Biblical basis for personal assurance in regard to UNCONDITIONAL election.

Hence, my position on salvation no more denies personal assurance than his position on salvation.

Oh...O.K. then...that explains everything.