If salvation is predetermined, why pray for the salvation of others?

Theophilos

Active member
Yes, and since there is no reason based on this context to CHANGE "all men" to "all INDIVIDUALS", I'm not really sure what your point is.

Again, all you're doing is ASSUMING your theology (aka "eisegesis").



Yes, and the CONTEXT of Rom. 5 (going back to vv. 1-5) is limited to the ELECT (those who have been justified, have received the Holy Spirit, accept Jesus as Lord, etc.)

And even if you reject that, it is very easy and natural to interpret "all people" as "all GROUPS of people", so again, all you're doing is ASSUMING your personal theology.
Okay, Adam's sin only affects the elect?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Okay, Adam's sin only affects the elect?

<sigh>

Are you going to get around to proving "all men" ACTUALLY should mean "all individuals", or are you going to keep changing the subject just to waste my time?

Btw, asking questions doesn't "prove" anything, so in future, try to make an actual ARGUMENT.

Also, you would do well to read epistles FROM THE BEGINNING, instead of simply ignoring most of Scripture and try to reduce it to a few "proof-texts".

Rom. 3 teaches ALL have sinned.
Rom. 5 is about those who are ALREADY SAVED (according to the context of vv. 1-5).

If you can't prove your false claim, then simply man up and admit it.
You'll find life much easier when you reject your false teachings and accept God's truth.
 
Last edited:

Theophilos

Active member
<sigh>

Are you going to get around to proving "all men" ACTUALLY should mean "all individuals", or are you going to keep changing the subject just to waste my time?

Btw, asking questions doesn't "prove" anything, so in future, try to make an actual ARGUMENT.

Also, you would do well to read epistles FROM THE BEGINNING, instead of simply ignoring most of Scripture and try to reduce it to a few "proof-texts".

Rom. 3 teaches ALL have sinned.
Rom. 5 is about those who are ALREADY SAVED (according to the context of vv. 1-5).

If you can't prove your false claim, then simply man up and admit it.
You'll find life much easier when you reject your false teachings and accept God's truth.
Okay.

Is this the correct translation based on the Calvinist tradition:
. . . just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for only the elect , so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for only the elect.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Okay.

Is this the correct translation based on the Calvinist tradition:
. . . just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for only the elect , so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for only the elect.

So you can't demonstrate that "all men" actually SHOULD instead read, "all INDIVIDUALS".
Thank you for the admission that you're wrong.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Okay,

Here is the revised correction:
. . . just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for only elect groups not individual persons, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for only elect groups not individual persons.

Did I miss anything?

Mockery is unbecoming of a Christian.

As is CHANGING Scripture to try to make an argument, which shows your hatred of God through your abuse of His word.

You are also engaging in the logical fallacy of attempting to "shift the burden of proof".

Rom. 5:18 is YOUR "proof-text".
YOU are the one who falsely claim it means "all INDIVIDUALS".

And as we have seen, you are UNABLE to demonstrate your false claim.

Have a nice day.
 

Theophilos

Active member
Mockery is unbecoming of a Christian.

As is CHANGING Scripture to try to make an argument, which shows your hatred of God through your abuse of His word.

You are also engaging in the logical fallacy of attempting to "shift the burden of proof".

Rom. 5:18 is YOUR "proof-text".
YOU are the one who falsely claim it means "all INDIVIDUALS".

And as we have seen, you are UNABLE to demonstrate your false claim.

Have a nice day.
I deleted the last comment. I am sorry if I caused offense.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from. The verse is clear to me. It is a mystery to me how it could be understood otherwise.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I deleted the last comment. I am sorry if I caused offense.

I'm no longer offended by mockers and scoffers.
They cannot control me.

But people who make such remarks demonstrate that they aren't interested in bonafide charitable discussion.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. True Christians base their theology on the TOTALITY of what they teach, not simply on one nor two cherry-picked "proof-texts".

The verse is clear to me. It is a mystery to me how it could be understood otherwise.

And that's the problem.
People think that just because they personally find something to be "clear to [them]", that this allegedly makes them great apologists. All it does is make them a person with a stubborn opinion.

It is just as clear to me that "all men" means "all KINDS/GROUPS of men".

I don't know if I can get you to understand what I believe, and I don't know if it matters to me (actually, it doesn't). One of the problems is that Scripture doesn't seem to be your only source of God's truth.

If you're Catholic, I suggest you read some of Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings.

If you truly want to try to understand what we believe, I suggest Sproul's "Chosen by God", or White's "The Potter's Freedom".

And if you really want to convince others about you believe, you might want to learn how to properly exegete Scripture.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
That definitely applies to you James Whiteism.



God doesn't always get what He desires. That is clear in the very existence of sin. Does the existence of sin mean that God always has His way? I suppose you believe that sin is the "Good Pleasure" of His will?

Your comment is simply not in keeping with reality. James White was not in the video, but the Bible is.

Sorry, but God does get what He desires.

The Secular forums are that a way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Is that why you respond or reference others? You're being ridiculous.

She is a follower of James White. Her beliefs are those of James White. I know James Whiteism.
Would you say that when Priscilla and Aquila explained the Faith more accurately to the learned Apollos, that they taught him Priscilla-ism? Or Aquila-ism?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
They received their doctrine from Paul. I do the same. Bad comparison.

You do know that we are thousands of years removed from such and that a great falling away took place after the death of the apostles?

People hire others to believe for them now. We are in the "age" of hirlings. Most people pay others to establish their own beliefs instead of putting in the effort themselves.
Why is it a bad comparison? Paul is Inspired by the Holy Ghost; it would be wrong to call Paul's Doctrine Aquila-ism. If James White teaches me more accurately, it would also be wrong to call Paul's Doctrine James White-ism; right?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
She is a follower of James White.

No, she is a follower of Jesus Christ, unlike you.

Her beliefs are those of James White.

Only because both her and Dr. White follow Jesus Christ, and get their beliefs from the BIBLE.

YOU are the only one here obsessed with "James White".
YOU are the only one bringing up his name, when he is irrelevant here.

I know James Whiteism.

Sorry, but "James Whiteism" is nothing more than a derogatory (according to you) nickname for "true Biblical theology".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
They received their doctrine from Paul. I do the same. Bad comparison.

Actually Calvinists get their doctrine from Paul.
You don't.

You claim we don't get our theology from Paul, so there's no reason to believe YOUR false claim that you get your theology from Paul, especially when you contradict Paul and Jesus in so many areas.

People hire others to believe for them now. We are in the "age" of hirlings. Most people pay others to establish their own beliefs instead of putting in the effort themselves.

Thank you for admitting what YOU do (since you can only speak for yourself).
Calvinists don't do that. We study the Bible for ourselves.
For instance, as I've said many times, I used to be a Calvinism-hating free-willer, and it was the BIBLE that convinced me that Calvinism was true Biblical theology.

It's enemies of Calvinism who don't bother to pick up their Bible, and instead blindly accept whatever their pastor tells them.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
James White does not teach the doctrine of the apostles. He is a hireling. He sells books and demands wages for his service.
That's another debate for sure. But if James White did accurately teach the Bible, it would be wrong to call his Doctrine James White-ism...

So, what does White get wrong?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Like I have to the time or inclination to list them all......

It amazes me how you prefer to use specific "terms" to more accurately identify what you believe and when I give you that, you all get mad and want to talk about being a "Christian"......

Double minded silliness......

You can't have it both.
Eh, you know I'm different. Like I told the new guy yesterday who Posts giant,,, Posts; I prefer one point at a time...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
James White does not teach the doctrine of the apostles. He is a hireling. He sells books and demands wages for his service.

No, he does not "demand" wages. Quote him "demanding" any such thing.

I guess you are ignorant of the Bible, because God COMMANDS us to financially support our pastors and teachers:

1Cor. 9:3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
1Cor. 9:8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak certainly for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?


1Tim. 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.


That's why the tribe of Levi wasn't given any land to tend. They were responsible for workign in the tabernacle on behalf of the people of Israel, and that's why God commanded tithes to be given, so the tribe of Levi could be supported.


Congratulations!
Now you've learned something!
 
Top