Charles Taze Russell thought that the idea of hell made God look bad. So CT came up with his own theology & started a new cult - the JW's- with their re-write of the bible.
It is a dangerous thing to lean on mans own understanding to explain that which belongs in the hands of God alone.
From eternity past, God has always existed. In eternity past, before the foundations of the world, God made the plan and ordained the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation and Resurrection, and the Salvation of His people - FOR HIS GLORY. We don't understand that fully. What we do understand fully is that God is absolutely just and loving, and that no wrong can be found in Him.
But the Arminian man is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He knows the secrets of the universe and without his rationale understanding and will, nobody goes to heaven or hell. Fischer says that what God ordained in eternity past gives him a bad image. So he writes a book to give the image a makeover, and restores the glory where it belongs - to the man. But Fischer's real claim to fame is that he dissed the 'C' word. Armin's are rushing to him because - he hates Calvinism.
Armin's don't want to admit being called Armin's. But they are all too eager to call the DOG Calvinism.
Strat wrote: You are presenting an unbalanced and therefore unchristian view of the matter and as is typical of a feminist/Christian/feminist you don't like being called on it....I can go find all kinds of things on the internet about lying conniving two timing females and I'm sure you would call me on that.....don't care if you engage or not it is the sorry state of the church today.
The real issue is submission. God calls men to spiritual headship. To be conformed to the image of Christ, to be more Christlike. It's the man that WILL NOT submit! Therein lies the problem.
John for JESUS wrote: I go to a Baptist church and believe in the post-trib, pre-millenial ressurection.
So says the most dangerous deceptive degenerate on this site. You can't find a spiritual pulse on this guy. But boy can this degenerate weave a lie with such cleverness and conviction that even God couldn't hold a candle to him.
How much water do you need wrote: That's the whole problem CV. Good exegesis and sound doctrine is missing from so many non-Calvinist Non-Presbyterian churches. Its sad! No wonder Liberalism is growing! In the Older Testament, just compare, cumulatively: Gen 28:18; 35:14; Ex 4:9; 9:8-10,33; 12:7,21-23,37; 14:21-29; 15:8-10; 24:6-20; 29:7-21; 30:9f; Lev 1:5-11; 2:1-6; 3:2-13; 4:6-34; 5:9; 6:27; 7:2-14; 8:11-24; 9:9-18; 14:3-51; 16:14-19; 17:6-13; 21:10; ....... NT There, consult: Mt 3:1-17; Mk 7:1-8; Lk 1:15-17; 3:4-22; 11:38; 24:49; John 1:21-25,31-33; 3:22-26; 13:5-10; Acts 1:4f; 2:1-3,16-18,33,38f; 10:37-39,44-48; 11:15-17f; 19:5f; I Cor 1:16; 3:6-8; 6:11; 7:14 ....... For more :- http://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm "Sprinkling is Scriptural"
Quoting scripture isn't the problem. The problem is tbat it has more to do with the price of bread in Tibet then it has to do with baby sprinkling
Bible Presbyterianism wrote: Oh good! CV If you need any further Bible teaching just ask a Presbitarian,
Thanks for the offer BP. I can never have enough bible study. Oh & WE are the wretched WICKED SINNERS. But the bible refers to believers as saints! Because that's how God sees us.
I have no idea why you are making this distinction. Other then to say it messes up who we are, who God is, and who we are in Christ.
Since God is the ONLY one that can meet the requirements of a holy God. Then God Himself met the requirements for us on Calvary. And then gives it to us for free. So now you and I both are declared saints without having a statue of us bleed.
Biblical Presbyterianism wrote: The ONLY sinless person who lived on planet earth was a man called Jesus. Ever heard of Him? HE was the Son of God. Oh for better teaching in the churches!!!!
We are not sinless. We are rotten from start to finish. We require the work of the cross to save us. Jesus didn't. Jesus was perfect.
For you, the cross accomplished nothing. We are not just before God. The righteousness that is imputed to us is imperfect and lacking because we are still sinners in the same sense as those who are under the curse and wrath of God.
The 'wicked' and 'sinners' are NOT DISTINCT. Otherwise the wicked have no need of a saviour or the cross and have full entitlement to heaven. How can you get such stupid reading from the bible.
anon wrote: If you have not grown up as a pastor's child, you don't really understand.
Anon, If I was left to say one last thing before I breathed my last breath, it would be to say that the hardest calling of all is to be a pastor. And that still is trumped only by a calling to be a pastors wife and children.
There is no limit to hells fury that will be unleashed to destroy this family who are in the front line. But I know that God's word also is His promise to stand by this family. Nothing done here will come back void. God's honor is the surety of the HOPE promised in Romans 5:3,4 - "but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope"
Biblical Presbyterianism wrote: Also the word sinner is a different GREEK word to that used and translated wicked.
I would have thought that 'sinner' and "wicked" are different words even in english. But from God's perspective, a wicket person IS a sinner.
Biblical Presbyterianism wrote: Matt 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just" = Now both the "wicked" and the "just" are sinners.
No they're NOT. If they are "just", then they are justified, not sinners any longer. The bible is making the point of distinguishing between the just and the (wicked) sinners at judgement, not between "wicked sinners and just sinners"
We often use the expression that there will be "sinners" in heaven. It's just an expression we use to show where we came from & who God reached out to. But in fact, there will be NO sinners, sin, or sinfull nature in heaven. We will be perfect & completely rightious in heaven.
SteveR wrote: Doesnt your answer support what others have said here? Did not Davids sin impact his children? Did not Sarah agree to relations with a Bondwoman? Was it not Noah that was drunken? Was not Eli a hypocrite when handling his office? The one that puts me to silence is Samuels children, supporting GRACE and election As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The one that scares me is this one, "Did not Davids sin impact his children?"
I don't know how this works but it's there. God gave fathers the right to be the head of the house. That put's the responsibility squarely on his head.
With Moses, I believe that he didn't want to go to war with his nagging Egyption wife over circumcisn. God nearly kills him for his disobedience until she relents and SHE performs the deeds, ironically.
With Eli, he DID address the issue with his sons. But God didn't like it that on such grave sins as stealing from the temple and using their position to have sex with women, Eli only wagged his fingers at his sons and said tsk tsk. God took care of it Himself.
But ultimatelly, God is in charge, as you point out - "The one that puts me to silence is Samuels children, supporting GRACE and election"
J4 you don't have a clue what Paul is saying there. But before I go verse hopping after you wuth your bad onterpretations ( your favorite pastime), lets deal with 'world'
Did Jesus die for all? 'world must mean world'. You have no biblical understanding,no way to determine context. All you have is your homebrewed version of Armininism. World is then 'everyone', 'all creatiion' 'saved & unsaved.' Lurker tried to point out that context should be considered & provided some verses to show how 'world' is used differently. 'No diference', 'same' was your response because you hate loosing. Then you deal with the verses where one is (physical) land & people, the other (spiritual) sin
J4, they ARE different
The 'world' in Ephesians maybe 'was the whole world (except a few pockets)?' But babies didn't know about the good standing in Ephesus? The word 'world' IS qualified by context.
No matter, they all fall far short of your original definition - EVERYONE. But you're shifty, you'll change to suit. Your original POSITION was hot air.
John for JESUS wrote: No, it would not be true if what you said was true. Then there would be a problem of God contradicting Himself in 2 Tim 3:2-4. Thank God what you said isn't true though. The Bible doesn't say that the carnal person cannot believe in God.
I deleted the other verses you referenced in this post because they only highlite how spiritually dead you are.
I asked a simple question- That for arg sake we put aside our positions and consider, IF IF the condition of man was given as described, would 2Tim be a valid statement? In other words would sense of the sentence allow for such a condition?
But you knew if you answered honestly, you'd be sunk. So you came back with 'but the bible says'. You're safe where we pit INTERPRETATIONS.
You did the same thing with 'world'. Worse, I'll show you later how blatantly you twist scripture and get away with your shifty ways
John for JESUS wrote: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 2Tim3:2-4 The word "rather than" means those people are making a choice contrary to loving God...which means they have the ability to do so. Romans 8:7 says people do not completely obey the law of God, but faith is not of the law.
On that last part, seeing that you're spiritually dead, you won't get Rom8.
For 2Tim, supposing we set aside our 2 positions and just for a moment consider
IF IF IF It was that, man is spiritually dead and a slave to sin and chooses the pleasures of sin rather than to love God. In fact the carnal man will not choose God, nor can he, for he is under the dominion and control of his sinful nature.
If this was true, would 2Tim be valid under this condition? For now, I am not asking if 2Tim is saying wat you're saying but if 2Tim is valid to stand as a statement for this.
It really is a simple question. But J4, your strong point is your cleverness not honesty. I am going to expose your deceptiv ways
John for JESUS wrote: I've checked many versions and they all say "than". What version of the Bible are you using? The CV?! Or did you not bother to look it up before you accused me? Lol
As already pointed out, that verse discribes the deprave condition of man and what a depraved man does. It says nothing of his ability to choose to do otherwise, not there.. (It's Romans8:7 that tells us, 'nor can they') It's you that have added in there the man's ability of 'loving God which they could also do'.
You don't have a single truth of the Christian faith. Because your understanding of the bible comes from your own spiritually dead understanding.