Predestination

Sethproton

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.
Strange Theo. You start off by claiming I never give scripture then you gave NO scripture,
 

civic

Well-known member
There are at-least 850 direct OT quotes in the NT and many scholars believe there are more than 1000 references to the OT in the NT.
 

civic

Well-known member
Of course I do, You know I do. we discuss scripture all the time. Why do you pretend?
You didn't do that for johnnybgood and he specifically asked you to do that and you still refused to show him scriptures. You only gave him your long running paragraph about your ideas of a mediator.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
You didn't do that for johnnybgood and he specifically asked you to do that and you still refused to show him scriptures. You only gave him your long running paragraph about your ideas of a mediator.
let me correct you. As soon as Johnny asked for scripture, I asked him to tell me which idea he wants supported. Time will tell if he really wants to discuss scripture, or is just another calvinist acting in the standard calvinist approach

Also you talk about my ideas of a mediator as if i invented something about what a mediator does. The Bible uses specific words for specific reasons. part of understanding the Bible is understanding what the words mean. You on the other hand come up with your own personal ideas about what a mediator is and does. That is different from me, using the scripture and a Greek lexicon to define mediator.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
That is my approach here. Talk the truth, and then if questioned show what the Bible has to say.
So I can ask you again to engage in a truth discussion. Tell me what you disagreed with and we can talk scripture.
I’m looking for people who want to talk about passages in the Bible and I’m not getting that from your posts. I was hoping for a bit more from you sethproton.

How many years you been a Christian ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
2 Peter 3:9 is a favourite verse of mine, since while it's abused by Arminians to try to prove "unlimited atonement", when understood properly it is a very encouraging passage. And I think this verse is an excellent example of how Arminians poorly and improperly interpret Scripture, and a good example of proper exegesis when done right.


The Arminian Presentation

First, let's see the Arminian presentation:

God is "... not willing that any should perish ..."

That's it.
They quote half a verse. Sometimes they'll rearrange Scripture like a ransom note created out of newspaper words, and include John 3:16, "God so loved the world, and is not willing that any should perish", as if God wrote it that way.


The Calvinist Presentation

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

One of the things people learn when interpreting the Bible in particular, or any text in general, is to note (1) the author, (2) the audience, (3) the context/topic, (4) the culture, etc.

This section of Peter's epistle is directed at a group called "beloved" (v.8), and "us-ward" (v.9). "Us-ward" refers to the first-person plural pronoun, a group of multiple people, of whom the speaker includes himself. This is in contrast to "them", third person plural. In this passage, the "them" is found in 2 Pet. 3:3-7, "scoffers" who are unbelievers, and are trying to dissuade believers:

2Pet. 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we have a "they" group in vv. 3-7, and a "we/us" group in vv. 8-9.
And it is the "us-ward" that v. 9 is speaking of:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of us-ward] should perish, but that all [of us-ward] should come to repentance.

2 Pet. 3:9 is not a "universal" text. The SCOPE of vv. 8-9 is this "beloved/us-ward" group. And it says God is not willing for any of the "beloved" to perish. And that is perseverance of the saints. God is not willing for any of His people to perish. He WILL save all of His people. But Arminians have destroyed this passage as an encouragement that God WILL do as He promised, in order to try to instead twist it into a "universal atonement" teaching, which was never intended.


Who are the "Beloved"?

We see that the group in vv.8-9 is identified as "beloved", and "us-ward". Can we find out any other information on who this group is? Yes, we can. We read at the beginning of the chapter:

2Pet. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

Peter has written two epistles to "beloved".
This second one is 2 Peter.
The first one is 1 Peter, which we also have.
Who was 1 Peter written to?:

1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter was writing to "the elect".
The "beloved" are "the elect".
It is "the elect" whom "God is not willing for any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9)


Day vs. Thousand Years

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Why did Peter write v.8? To Arminians, it seems like a throw-away verse, out of place, interrupting the message more than anything else. But consider this. We just saw in 2 Pet. 3:3-7 that there were "scoffers" bothering the Christians, saying, "Where is your Christ? Why hasn't He come yet? Are you sure He even really exists?" Why hasn't Christ come yet? It's a valid question.

But remember, Peter wrote his epistle almost 2000 years ago. To you and me, that's a LONG time. But to God, it's a drop in the bucket. There are people thinking or saying, "It's been so long! Why hasn't Christ come yet?" Butt consider this. You and I are God's elect. He chose us from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). If Christ had come during the time of Peter, we wouldn't have been part of it, since we hadn't been born yet. God has chosen to scatter His elect people throughout nations, and over time. And Christ's second coming is not going to happen until EVERY SINGLE ONE of His elect has come to salvation.

Why? Because God is NOT WILLING FOR ANY [of His elect, His "beloved", His "us-ward"] to perish.


God's Will

"God is not willing for any to perish".

Arminians believe this is universal, that God doesn't "want" anyone to perish. But most agree that some will. So God doesn't get what He wants, which to me is ridiculous. God is omnipotent. "Whatever God wants, God gets". If He doesn't get what He wants, then either (1) He isn't omnipotent after all, or (2) He didn't really "want" "will" "desire" it.

According to the Calvinist view, the scope of "not willing for any to perish" is the "elect", the "beloved", and since God is God, and God is omnipotent, none of the elect WILL perish. God will save EVERY ONE of His sheep.

Praise God!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
let me correct you. As soon as Johnny asked for scripture, I asked him to tell me which idea he wants supported.

And of course, the answer is ALWAYS, "ALL of them".
Show Scripture for EVERYTHING you assert.

It's not that difficult.

Time will tell if he really wants to discuss scripture, or is just another calvinist acting in the standard calvinist approach

<sigh>
More insulting rhetoric against Calvinists.
Go and do a Bible study on "charity", please...
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Jesus and the Apostles did that you DO NOT.
Make up your mind. First you agreed that was what I did and you demeaned me for it, now you are saying Jesus did it and I don't.
It would be easier to chat with you if you stuck to a particular POV
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
And of course, the answer is ALWAYS, "ALL of them".
Show Scripture for EVERYTHING you assert.

It's not that difficult.



<sigh>
More insulting rhetoric against Calvinists.
Go and do a Bible study on "charity", please...
let johnny speak for himself as to what he would like to see in scripture
 

Johnnybgood

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
Here is an example of what I was asking of you where you left out scripture. I was hoping for the Bible to be included with your post like everyone else is doing.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
let johnny speak for himself as to what he would like to see in scripture

Please look at my recent exegesis of 2 Pet. 3:9.
I made a lot of statements about the meaning.
But I didn't make those statements in a vacuum.
I supported EVERY ONE of them with Scripture.

And it doesn't matter who your audience, whether its Johnny, or civic, or anyone else. The same Scriptures support the same concepts.

It's not a difficult concept.

You're simply making excuses for not having Scriptural support for your heretical claims, and trying to blame the Calvinists because YOU have no Scriptural support.
 

civic

Well-known member
Make up your mind. First you agreed that was what I did and you demeaned me for it, now you are saying Jesus did it and I don't.
It would be easier to chat with you if you stuck to a particular POV
Hilarious since you NEVER quote scripture in your posts even the new guy can see right through you seth. 🤣

Any more deflections today ?

I'm sure there will be a pile full of them by midnight. 🤣
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I’m looking for people who want to talk about passages in the Bible and I’m not getting that from your posts. I was hoping for a bit more from you sethproton.

How many years you been a Christian ?
So let us talk scripture. Point out just one thing that you thought was not scriptural and i will take you to scripture so we can discuss whether it is a Biblical thought. And please no games. Start with 1 or 2 things you think were not scriptural and let's discuss where the ideas come from in the Bible?
 

civic

Well-known member
Please look at my recent exegesis of 2 Pet. 3:9.
I made a lot of statements about the meaning.
But I didn't make those statements in a vacuum.
I supported EVERY ONE of them with Scripture.

And it doesn't matter who your audience, whether its Johnny, or civic, or anyone else. The same Scriptures support the same concepts.

It's not a difficult concept.

You're simply making excuses for not having Scriptural support for your heretical claims, and trying to blame the Calvinists because YOU have no Scriptural support.
Exactly that is what he was looking for from seth and he has asked him several times lol. Even he can see right through him.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Please look at my recent exegesis of 2 Pet. 3:9.
I made a lot of statements about the meaning.
But I didn't make those statements in a vacuum.
I supported EVERY ONE of them with Scripture.

And it doesn't matter who your audience, whether its Johnny, or civic, or anyone else. The same Scriptures support the same concepts.

It's not a difficult concept.

You're simply making excuses for not having Scriptural support for your heretical claims, and trying to blame the Calvinists because YOU have no Scriptural support.
An offer to discuss specific scripture is NEVER an excuse. Why not stay out of it and let Johnny tell me what concept he would like to start with?
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
So let us talk scripture. Point out just one thing that you thought was not scriptural and i will take you to scripture so we can discuss whether it is a Biblical thought. And please no games. Start with 1 or 2 things you think were not scriptural and let's discuss where the ideas come from in the Bible?
Let’s start with 2 Peter 3:9- the Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness but is patient towards you not willing for anyone to perish but for that all should come to repentance.

Can you discuss this passage like Theo1689 did for me , in a similar way to break down its meaning ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
An offer to discuss specific scripture is NEVER an excuse.

Except that you only "offer", and you never actually DO.

And due to the nature of discussion in this forum, you (should) know that every assertion is going to be questioned, so there's no reason not to bring it up from the start.

Why not stay out of it

Um, because it's a PUBLIC discussion forum, and you are NOT in charge?

and let Johnny tell me what concept he would like to start with?

He already has.
And he agrees with me. (Go figure.)
 
Top