Sethproton
Well-known member
If you don't mind, How long have you been saved?
Predestination
- Thread starter Carbon
- Start date
Sethproton
Well-known member
You are presenting yourself here as a new learner. Are you only recently interested in learning?
Theo1689
Well-known member
You consider 10+ years as "a new learner"?
Most people here spend their time "asking questions", instead of being forthright about their beliefs. Do you think THEY are all "new learners" as well?
Sethproton
Well-known member
not at all
G
guest1
Guest
Amen the same here after 40 plus years I'm still studying every day and learning something new.
The very definition of a disciple of Jesus is a learner. Do yourself another favor like I told you with the other guy do not listen to him as he is also a false teacher. He will try and trap you with clever questions and human philosophy and reasoning.
G
guest1
Guest
how long have you ?
Sethproton
Well-known member
what does "flesh and blood" mean? Do you interpret it consistently thruout the New testament?
G
guest1
Guest
What on earth does that have to do with my post ?
Are you ok ?
That was out of left field
G
guest1
Guest
That is good I also learn several things when I read the responses from others and check them out with Scripture. A disciple is one who learns and we are first called disciples of Jesus at conversion as per Matthew 28:19-20 in the great commission.
hope this helps !!!
Sethproton
Well-known member
Are you familiar with TULIP, five of the central doctrines that identify the Calvinist position?
Especially the L, limited atonement(though they sometimes change the name )
This is the concept that on the cross, Jesus only atoned for a chosen group. It means that some people did not have their sins atoned for and therefore will never have the opportunity to receive Jesus and be saved,
G
guest1
Guest
Amen I will get the popcorn ready.
Sethproton
Well-known member
There are a few ways to approach that. One is that we are still unrighteous, despite the atonement. And while the atonement soothed God's anger over our sin, we are still not clean and cannot be in His presence. Christ is clean and righteous. God accepts Him into His presence. Therefore, the Bible teaches that when you receive Christ and He indwells you, His righteousness indwells you and you will be accepted into His presence in eternity because Christ is in you. To the contrary, if you reject Jesus, forbidding Him to indwell you, then you will be judged on your own righteousness, and God will be forced to ban you from heaven
SovereignGrace
Well-known member
Which is proof of a particular redemption/limited atonement. 👍👍👍
G
guest1
Guest
Oh oh he is starting to come over to the dark side rofl...........................
G
guest1
Guest
Lets get the popcorn ready.
Sethproton
Well-known member
Let us be specific.
I already explained the answer to that question. Look back at what I wrote to you. Look at the details i laid out, talk to me about those details and what you disagree with or think is unclear.
Can you do that?
Theo1689
Well-known member
Lest anyone interpret these remarks as something nefarious ("they sometimes change the name"), allow me to provide some background.
Shortly after the Protestant Reformation, there was a movement called the Remonstrance, created by the followers of James Arminius, who rebelled against some of the Reformation doctrines. They came up with the "5 Articles of the Remonstrance", and this required the formation of the Synod of Dordt to address them.
The particular article in question by the Remonstrants was a belief in "unlimited atonement", and so the Reformed response was "limited atonement". It was the Remonstrants who dictated the original language, and the Synod of Dordt simply responded to them. There are many (including myself) who don't like the particular terminology, in that ascribing something to God as "limited" seems negative, as if the doctrine is due to a limitation of His abilities or power, which is not the case. This is why many of us prefer the label of "particular redemption", which emphasizes the purpose of the atonement being made for a PARTICULAR group of people.
But it is significant to understand that the "5 Points of TULIP" was not invented by Calvinists, it was a response to 5 articles the Remonstrants came up with. It was not intended as, "Here is a summary of Calvinism" type of thing.
Nobody has a God-given right to "an opportunity to be saved". Salvation is based on God's mercy, not on man's decision to "accept an opportunity".
The Bible does not teach "God gives everyone an opportunity to be saved".
The Bible teaches that God SAVES "His people" from their sins.
Theo1689
Well-known member
First, I would like to point out that Seth has offered ZERO Scriptures to support his heretical view. He will claim he has them, but he will never show them. If he responds to this post, he won't offer Scripture, but he will play games, and say, "I have Scripture, and if anyone wants to see what Scriptures my claims are based on, let me know and I will show the Scripture". But he never does.
Of course, this is not Biblical. This is merely rationalization.
If "we are still unrighteous", how are we unrighteous? It is sin that causes unrighteousness, so if we are still unrighteous, then it is because of unatoned sin. And if that's the case, then the atonement can't be "unlimited".
Seth teaches the heresy that salvation is by the WORK of "receiving Christ".
But it would follow that not "receiving Christ" is a sin, and if one commits the sin of "not receiving Christ", then that sin should be atoned for according to "unlimited atonement". Since it is not, the atonement must be limited.
But "rejecting Jesus" is a sin, so why is it not included in the "unlimited atonement"?
Therefore, the atonement must be limited.
This is a common heresy found in Christendom, that Christ's atonement atones for ALL sin except for "accepting Christ". So your sins are atoned for, but you're still not saved until you "choose" to be saved.
This is a very bizarre statement, that "God will be FORCED to ban you".
So God is "forced" to do something...
Who is the one "forcing" God?
God created the universe, and creation, so why is He "forced" to do something He doesn't want to do?
In this kind of heresy, God's will is "thwarted", by the will of man.
He apparently doesn't WANT to condemn anyone, to show His wrath and make His power known (Rom. 9:22), but every soul who is lost to hell is a "failure" to God and to the atonement.
Of course, this is not Biblical. This is merely rationalization.
If "we are still unrighteous", how are we unrighteous? It is sin that causes unrighteousness, so if we are still unrighteous, then it is because of unatoned sin. And if that's the case, then the atonement can't be "unlimited".
Seth teaches the heresy that salvation is by the WORK of "receiving Christ".
But it would follow that not "receiving Christ" is a sin, and if one commits the sin of "not receiving Christ", then that sin should be atoned for according to "unlimited atonement". Since it is not, the atonement must be limited.
But "rejecting Jesus" is a sin, so why is it not included in the "unlimited atonement"?
Therefore, the atonement must be limited.
This is a common heresy found in Christendom, that Christ's atonement atones for ALL sin except for "accepting Christ". So your sins are atoned for, but you're still not saved until you "choose" to be saved.
This is a very bizarre statement, that "God will be FORCED to ban you".
So God is "forced" to do something...
Who is the one "forcing" God?
God created the universe, and creation, so why is He "forced" to do something He doesn't want to do?
In this kind of heresy, God's will is "thwarted", by the will of man.
He apparently doesn't WANT to condemn anyone, to show His wrath and make His power known (Rom. 9:22), but every soul who is lost to hell is a "failure" to God and to the atonement.
Theo1689
Well-known member
G
guest1
Guest
Amen and guess what that is all you will see happening with this poster, nothing but ideas void of scripture. Good luck getting him to engage you with any sort of exegetical response.
Notice how Theo1689 responds with his posts in an exegetical format with definitions and context. He is a Calvininst.
Notice how Tibiasdad responds in his posts with an exegetical format with definitions and context. He is an Arminian.
This is what we hope to see from posters on this forum. There are many others who do the same as Theo and Doug as well I will just pointing out both ends of the spectrum whether or not one agrees with their positions.
hope this helps !!!