Who is Paul referring to here?

Hi Larry;

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

So are you an Israelite? If not then I guess you weren't elected either, unless you can prove your of that seed of Israel. When Christ paid for our sins He did it, that the world might be saved. The atonement elected the whole world.

Are you saying that it is possible that a man can be elected and not be saved before death?.

You are assuming that it isn't in line with scripture. If so where is it out of line? Show proof instead of just making an unsubstantiated claims.

Simply this statement above is ridiculous.
Calvinism is not found in scripture it has to be read in to it.

I'm not the one with the logic I believe it is Calvinist who are talking what is and isn't logical. I take the scripture literal. I accept it as it is. Face value is the only value. What you presume is scriptural is not because you neglect the rest of the Bible to make your doctrines. Many are based on your logic and not scripture at all. Such as election.

In this post alone you have taken scripture out of context to apply to you, that was meant for Israel. Those who are related to Israel are Israel. How ever Christ came to die for the Jews and because of there rejection, He died for the whole world. Because of there rejection we all became elect because Salvation has come to the Gentiles Rom. 11:11 to make Israel jealous. Just who else is there in the world besides the Israel's elect and the gentiles. If they aren't the Israel elect they are Gentiles. There is no in-between I've ever heard of.

You still haven't shown where the Newtestament says we are not all elected. That only some will be. You still haven't shown where election insures Salvation. All you have shown is That not all Israel is Israel. I agree which has nothing to do with you or I. Well unless you are an Israelite.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

icthus.

Heretic am I? I wasn't sure if you had seen this before, that is why I include it in your thread.

1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
That is limited atonement right in your face. You either accept God's word or you oppose Him. You oppose Him I see. The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for... Never means never. No atonement for some means no atonement for some. No atonement ever as I would say. This scripture says in regards to Eli's decendants that there will be no sacrifice offered for their sins.

What can be insincere about a command of God? Obligated to you is He or something? The law states, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Romans 8:7. And there you have a dilemma.
Or else, you are making God guilty of being insincere!

That is not the point is it?
Anyway, You simply cannot argue for a single text... Where do I find this rule? Your invention is it?
...and suppose that it can be use for doctrine. What? That we cannot use Eli as an example of God refusing any atonement for a person or persons because it destroys your pretense? Shall we rip out Romans while we are at it?

Yes indeed let us say that and let us add regardless of scripture shall we? 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
That is limited atonement right in your face. You either accept God's word or you oppose Him. And you reject this without a comment but I am wrong! Prove me wrong with scripture and you will prove me wrong.

Do Arminians believe the OT folk knew about that? But that is not the point. The point is that God said He would not atone for them. That's the point. That's limited atonement and that is why God does not plead for all.
If you say that Christ did not die for that sin then it is a limited atonement. If you say He did then you are still left with the problem house. I have no problem but your side is destroyed by limited atonement and this, for whatever reason the house was condemned, it was not atoned for was it? Look at the text. God said He swore an oath. The oath was Eli's house would not receive an atonement ever. Jesus did not die for that house. Limited atonement is proved.

johnp.

 

icthus.

I choose my fights not you. You asked a question and supplied the answers. What was there to say? But address it I did. I said that since Jesus did not atone for all then He did not die for all and will not plead for them all, you have the Almighty cringing at our feet do you? More fool you!
You believe all men saved because Christ died for all men? In this you deny explicite scripture that says that not all men have the atonement made for them and again you say I'm wrong but where is your scripture but nowhere in sight to support your nonsense. Nonesense is a double edged sword!

If you don't believe, "3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " What point in more? You deny scripture. You do deny the scripture don't you?
God swore an oath and you ask for more proof just shows how dark you are.

So all are saved. Well done in resurrecting Judas. A universalist are you?

"3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " Do you mean this sort of twisting? The twisting of scripture into what it says instead of wishing it were not there and trying to make the word of God appear small by asking for more proof, after God swore on oath. Where are you at?

I see a pattern emerging!

I never thought of doing anything of the such old chap but to destroy one!

Does not need to it is still limited atonement ain't it. Yes it is limited atonement. I take that as a step in the right direction.

"3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
Do you deal facts, or just on what you think Scripture teaches?

Where does He offer salvation for all?

johnp.

 

How do you think his name got in there? I think it got written in there when he got saved. There is no evidence that it got there any other way. Think of it this way: why would the name of a rebellious sinner be in the book of life? And when would it come out?

No

Why would you guess that? That doesn't follow from what you said.

Several problems. First, one of chronology. You said that the atonement elected the world. The Bible says that God did the electing, and he did it, not at the atonement but at the foundation of hte world. Second, if the whole world were elected, then no one would go to hell. Since we know that peopel go to hell (cf. Rev 20:11-15; Rev 21:8), then we know that not all are elected.

Nope, not saying that.

I have used Scripture. I have challenged the idea that Scripture never records that all names are in the book of life until they are removed. Your verse did not disprove that. I have referenced Scriputre with respect ot election and salvation, the whole thing. In other words, you dont' have to take my word for it. It is right there in your own Bible.

So when the Bible says that "God chose people to salvation from the beginning" that really isn't in Scripture?

Your whole argument about election and salvation is logic. You said that election equals salvation. That is not a scriptural teaching. It is a logical argument that you made.

So when the Bible says that God chose you for salvation from the beginning, you accept that? If so, then why are you arguing against it. If not, then why did you say you did?

Name one verse that I have neglected.

So Eph 1:4, 2 Thess 2:13, 2 Tim 2:10, etc. aren't in Scripture? That is really confusing to me, becuase when I open my Bible, there they are. Please tell me which Bible I should get so I don't have those verses in Scripture.

In this post alone you have taken scripture out of context to apply to you, that was meant for Israel. Those who are related to Israel are Israel. How ever Christ came to die for the Jews and because of there rejection, He died for the whole world. Because of there rejection we all became elect because Salvation has come to the Gentiles Rom. 11:11 to make Israel jealous. Just who else is there in the world besides the Israel's elect and the gentiles. If they aren't the Israel elect they are Gentiles. There is no in-between I've ever heard of.

You still haven't shown where the Newtestament says we are not all elected. That only some will be. You still haven't shown where election insures Salvation. All you have shown is That not all Israel is Israel. I agree which has nothing to do with you or I. Well unless you are an Israelite.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Hi Larry;

It was placed there from the beginning and it is stricken from there when we reject Him. There is no evidence that shows it gets written there. Only that it can be stricken from there. You expect me to disprove your theory that you have no evidence for in the first place. Someone as educated as you no doubt are, should know better.

The reason is you attempt to apply what was written about Israel to your self. If Gentiles are elected then Romans 11:11 proves we all are, because of the Israel's Rejection. You claim men are individually elected by some criteria that you haven't discussed. If God elects a man based on any thing about that man then He is a respecter of persons. This would be professing a works for Salvation. There are only two ways to get around that, either we are elected randomly or we are all elected to begin with and it is up to us to make that election sure because we can loose our election. Other wise why would we have to make it sure?

And who made the atonement?
You think this way because you believe election insures your Salvation. Yet there isn't any scripture that I know of that says so. The problem as I see it is that since we have to make it sure shows that it doesn't insure Salvation unless we do those things that are in 2nd Peter 1:1-9. I see this as proof, election is not insured. We've discussed this before you tossed out some scriptures that weren't relevant to election at all. Which still leaves the burden of proof that election insures Salvation.

Your right I don't have to take your word for it because your word doesn't line up with scripture. Your view is not there as you claim which is why you won't debate seriously. You just make unsubstantiated claims.

No part of scripture is exclusive to Calvinism only it's interpretation.

I accept that which is why I said all men are written into the book of life from the beginning. And that there names are stricken because of rejection. Your the one who denies it by applying it as individual, making God a respecter of men.
This verse you miss as a plan for all men.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

The same here;
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This one contradicts you;
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
"May also"? In other words it is Paul who is trying to insure our Salvation.
Wake up and smell the coffee Larry Your slipping.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike