No, "Dr." Berrian, he is not inferring anything. He does not infer. He implies. You infer.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If I am thinking your thoughts you are inferring
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!
No, "Dr." Berrian, he is not inferring anything. He does not infer. He implies. You infer.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If I am thinking your thoughts you are inferring
No I am not saying God elects people to Hell. All people are naturally bound for Hell. One sin merits Hell and all of its fury.If I am thinking your thoughts you are inferring that God is electing some of the Jews to Hell, from reading your post. A reference like yours is also written in the fourth Gospel chapter 12:38-41. This is typical of Calvinists who take things out of context, to patch up a sloppy theology.
The call or (appeal as you call it) is to all men and not only Jews.Now read John 12:32-41 and you will see that Jesus said about Himself that He would 'be lifted up from the earth , and will draw only the elect to Himself.' Not so! Jesus goes on to say to the Jews believe in Me while you have the Light among your people. He also says, '. . . lest darkness come on you.' The appeal to receive Jesus was offered to all the Jews in this Scriptural setting. In verse 36 Christ desires that they will become '. . . the children of Light.'
There you go again praising yourself. Do you ever find time to thank God for your eyes? Do you ever thank God that you are able to see?John says that even having seen the many miracles the Jews refused to believe. If I would have been there and saw on of Jesus, miracles I would have been first to admit and believe that Jesus was Lord. The above words are the Biblical and more Arminian truth. Now, Mr. Bond, after all that Jesus said above, He now says because of their refusal to receive Me, I will blind their eyes, and hardent their heart.
I agree He has the right to do anything He wants no matter if people like it or not.We agree that He has the right to do this since they had every opportunity to welcome Jesus as their Messiah.
Just how is it Larry that any of what you've posted contradicts what I have said in this thread? Not one single thing you've posted proves we are Chosen before the foundation of the world. Not one Larry.</font>[/QUOTE]What leads you to believe this thread was about election before the foundation of the world? What leads you to believe my post was addressing that? Go back and read. You said (and I quote) Just where is it that the Bible says Jesus death purchased redemption. I answered that question for you. I did not intend to address any other point.Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Larry;
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT;
Just where is it that the Bible says Jesus death purchased redemption. Christ didn't die to purchase redemption. He died so that His blood would wash away the sins of the world. Redemption is what he did not what he died for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry's coments;
Aside from "purchasing redemption" being kind of redundant, since "redemption" means "to purchase or buy," the Bible does state that Jesus died to redeem us.
Hebrews 9:15 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Titus 2:14 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Galatians 4:4-5 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Mike, this is the second time today you have posted something in clear contradiction of what Scripture says (or perhaps one of them might have been posted last night). Please take the time to review what Scripture says, regardless of what side you come down. It is increasingly looking like you are just being disagreeable, rather than posting substance.
We can all see from your original post that I didn't make anything up. You asked a question and I answered it.You just lost it on this thread. You didn't have anything to attack me for so you just made something up.
Except you left out the first part, which is what I was responding to. In leaving that part out, you misrepresent the intent of my post.This is what I said;
Of course not. It is what he did. And as the verses above show, it is what he died to do. You made a strange dichotomy is saying "He did it, but he didn't die to do it." That doesn't seem to make much sense as I read it. Perhaps you meant something else, or perhaps I misread it."Redemption is what he did, not what he died for."
Are you saying this isn't what Christ did when He died on the cross.
Where did I say it contradicted Scripture? And how is honesty involved on my part? Remember, you said Just where is it that the Bible says Jesus death purchased redemption. I answered that. I did not address anything else.Please show me just how this contradicts scripture?. Can you at least be that honest?
I did. You said Christ didn't die to purchase redemption. I pointed out several verses that say Christ did die to redeem us. Therefore, I used Scripture to show your assertion wrong. There was nothing dishonest about my accusation.Instead of making wild accusations why not prove why you have chosen to accuse me of being in contradiction of scripture on this thread. A very dishonest accusation at that.
Yes it was.Christ death was the payment for our sins.
Really??? I just agreed with you. In fact, I agree with you on many things.I think you just want to argue any point for fear of possible agreement.
This is truly sad. I am begging you guys to clean up this nonsense. Is this really the best you can do, Ray? Come on ... Help out here. YOu don't have to agree with me, but you can be civil. And that goes for all of you.your logic does not befit a fifth grader. ... Are you sure you ever went to college?
How so?If the Lord only saved you out of all the rest of us out of all humankind, He would have had greater respect or recognition or favor toward you than the teeming billions that had ever lived on earth.
The Bible teaches us that God's thoughts and ways are above ours, that our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9), darkened, ignorant, and hardened (Eph 4:17-19). Therefore, I don't think this is a good method of doing theology.If you have children or grandchildren, give them the illustration and have them explain the facts to you.
Really??? Where did I say that? I didn't say anything about special education. My point is that it is foolish and stupid to reject Christ. Those who accept are making the wise and smart decision. Therefore, in your view, God has respect towards the smart.Another of your failed logic is you say that our view is that we were smart enough to be saved, while the non-elect were special education quality of mentality.
Not sure what the last part of this is saying, since it doesn't seem to be a complete sentence, but you are correct. Your intellect has nothing to do with it, nor does mine (see above on intellect). But you have a hard time being consistent in your position.So me being saved has nothing to do with my level of intellect, but is your lame excuse in saying the saved ones were just smart men and women.
I didn't say that, did I? I believe, if you read, I used the word "America," comparing 21st and 5th century America. Isn't that right? If I weren't so lazy, and pretty confident of what I said, I would go back and look it up, but I am pretty sure you didn't say what I said.Another attempt of you to show yourself smart, is to say that people in our world have more exposure to the Gospel.
Yes indeed. BUt the gospel is in more countries today then ever before. That is undeniable.Not necessarily so. All of the upper tier of countries in Africa is 98-99% Muslim with Indonesia being the largest Muslim nation in the world. Beyond this our school systems have poisoned American school children ...
That isn't really the point here Ray, nor is it true. For most of human history, there was a group of people who were not Christian, didn't fight the Catholic church, didn't even have a Bible. They were called "ancient people." They lived prior to the time of Christ. But that's just a small point.Study some history and you will find there was always a Christian culture, that would not conform to Roman Catholicism who had to hid away in the highlands of nations or in desolate places because of their orthodox beliefs. They would not give up or be without their Holy Bible. Those Christians who wanted to stay with the system of Catholicism admittedly were willing to sit in their spiritual unenlightened state of affairs. They were unwilling to come out of the darkness of their age.
I haven't blamed him for anything, nor has there been any demonstration of my lack of understanding. You have misquoted me twice already, and missed the poitn on several occasions.Don't blame the Lord my Savior for your lack of understanding or probably more correctly stated your rebellion against the Words of the Lord God as written in His precious Word.
This is impossible. If I don't mix truth with error, then I can't assert this. Only by lying can I say that God wants souls to enter hell.Do not mix error with truth by saying that Calvinists also believe that God does not want souls to enter Hell.
"I think" is the operative word. What "you think" is irrelevant. We can all see there are several fallacies here in your attempted rebuttal.I think I have pointed out at least four points of your misguided logic
We have to remember that the advent of Christ was not only predestined but prophesized so that we would know He was God.Was God "fair" to Tyre and Sidon since he did not do the very thing that he knew would bring repentance from them, and therefore salvation.
I don't see anything negative in what He said about Tyre and Sidon. It stands to reason that if they would have repented they would still repent. In order for your claim about them to be true you would have to be able to prove that they weren't saved at a later time. All that Christ did was not recorded, I'm sure.In other words, it appears that God says, "This will cause Tyre and Sidon to repent, but I will not do it." How is that not "partial" by your definition?
This is what I said;Of course not. It is what he did. And as the verses above show, it is what he died to do. You made a strange dichotomy is saying "He did it, but he didn't die to do it." That doesn't seem to make much sense as I read it. Perhaps you meant something else, or perhaps I misread it.
He died for the whole world.originally posted by ILUVLIGHT; Redemption is what he did, not what he died for.
You miss quoted me when you said I said this;We can all see from your original post that I didn't make anything up. You asked a question and I answered it.