Skylight wrote: Thank goodness I don't beleive in neither heresies of Arminianism and Calvinism.
You believe in an Armenian free will and universal atonement and the rest of the kitten kabootle. You just claim otherwise. No Armin ever admits to being Armin. They all think that they are the first to come up with something totally new under the Sun
These two have debated before. It won't move anyone over to either side. Because the spiritually dead will remain dead.
Speaking of spiritually dead, if ever I was able to discern someone's spiritual condition, it is J4's. J4 knocks down the very pillars of Christianity TO leave it open to perversion. J4 is the most dangerous because he's so good. Calling yourself "for Jesus' iS like a betrayal with a kiss. There is no Jesus there.
'Researchers found that simply living in an area with a large concentration of conservative Protestants increases the chances of divorce, even for those who are not themselves conservative Protestants'
Wow damning indictment. If it was homosexuals, we'd say it was a judgement from God
when it comes to the issue of divorce, stay clear of 'conservative christians', they're clueless.
when it comes to marriage, christians only know to 'just hate queers'. That is the sum total of our biblical knowledge
Michael Hranek wrote: because if the atonement was limited how could those who reject Christ be held guilty
Under Calvinism, since it Is God who elects, God is free to offer grace to all or limit it to some. The guilt of man is not affected. And god remains sovereign
Under Arminianism, salvation is reliant on the action of man therefore all men must be extended the same grace. If God limits, then man is absolved of guilt.
Armin must argue that Calvinists restrict Gods sovereignty by not allowing Him to extend grace to all. But Calvinism can accommodate both, a universal or limited atonement without affecting the guilt of man. While it can ACCOMMODATE either, it ACCEPTS the one that is biblical. So it is a false charge to accuse Calvinism of coming up with LA Armins NEED universal atonement. But Armins will argue that Calvins restrict Gods sovereignty.
Michael Hranek wrote: if the atonement was limited how could those who reject Christ be held guilty (inexcusable) for doing so
I don't believe someone has to understand Limited Atonement (L.A) to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. But I believe for someone who professes faith as long as you have, the error compounds into bigger doctrinal errors.
So how could someone be guilty of rejecting Christ if it wasn't offered for them to believe?
Arminians problem verse is Rom5:12- imputed sin ' for that all have sinned'. Christ is God. Man starts off having rejected God & is already guilty and dead in sin. MAN IS ALREADY GUILTY!! LA is God exercising his sovereignty in extending grace to whom He will
Grace owed to everyone is NOT GRACE but what is DUE.
Can God exercise sovereignty in extending grace? Israel is type of Gods chosen and elect. God chose whom He would and saved whom He would. God chose to save the Israelite firstborn& killed the Egyption firstborn. That's Limited
Michael Hranek wrote: if atonement was limited how could those who reject Christ be held guilty (inexcusable) for doing so
You believe that it isn't untill man makes a decision to accept/reject that he gets saved or lost. The bible says, in Adam we have all sinned. It isn't left for man to do/not do ANYTHING before guilt is reckoned to him. limited atonement starts at all are guilty. Not as you suppose, that they are guilty only after they reject Christ.
So if God saves the elect, it is because at start, all are declared guilty.
Mike wrote: 2)Since a man can do no good thing without God, he is but guilty of not being given the gift of faith. Isn't that why you say he is "passed by"?
you'r confusing sin with ignorance. That man is innocent of sin but guilty of being ignorant of God, and withiut faith then man is guilty of not being given faith.
the bible says man is guilty of sin of rebellion against God. we all HAD free will in Adam. And we all rebelled in Adam. We all sinned in Adam and are guilty.
Free willers want to break free of Adams imputed sin and want a fresh go at it for themselves. To have free will, you have to have Adams position back again and undo the imuputed sin reckoned agaist you first. then bhabe a fresh go at free will over again
Michael Hranek wrote: Mike NY A bit more consideration on motivation here. If an individual (Calvinist/Reformed/TULIP) holds: "We don't know who the elect are" in their witness it appears they are hindered/sabotaged in how much labor/effort they will put out to make Christ known so that the lost might hear of Him and be saved
John The power of the cross ws sufficient for all but efficient for those whom it was intended. God accomplished exactly what He purposed, and not thwarted by mas decision.
As far as Michael's comment, I have never seen that in practice but always brought up as a debating tactic. This is same silly point brought up against Paul regarding grace - that it was a license to sin. Did Spurgeons Calvinism hinder his witnessing? Well then lets stop this nonsense. You can't hinder the truth of the doctrine by nonsensicle points.
I use a phone whic is very dificult to carry a discussion. But i can point you to James White from AOM' material on the subject. lets have a serious evaluation of scripture Michael
thats not to say you'r not serious but lets do away with nonsense points
noooo wrote: Mohler's [url=http://news.sbts.edu/2014/01/13/mohler-to-be-joined-by-new-york-times-columnist-douthat-radio-personality-prager-for-faith-and-freedom-in-the-public-square/]]]hosting[/url] a devout Romanist with him on the dias at the SBTS in two weeks. Has he finally lost his mind?
It's some sort of symposium on secularism and morality. It has a Jewish, RC, & an Evanjelly giving their perspective.
John Yurich USA wrote: Why should anybody feel repulsed by a Mormon wedding when a Mormon couple would not be homosexual but would be heterosexual? True that Mormonism is a Cult but that is totally supefluous when it comes to weddings being only for heterosexual couples.
I cant get on these forumns as much as I'd like to, but ahh thanks for enlightning me JY.
Here I thought that it was a sin issue but it really was a homosexual issue. Lets burn them queers then?
CAB wrote: Fact is, TULIP philosophy and logic doesn't hold up without the bloodless penal atonement: You start out with a supposition, God is "sovereign" (pulling all the strings, nothing left to chance, and no free will) or He couldn't really be "sovereign."
Imagine that! Under TULIP, Gods sovereignty leaves nothing to be blindsided by chance.
CAB wrote: So if you buy this (false) argument, then you move on to TULIP and end with a philosophy (not scripture) that says God picked people out of a hat to save
Except when he picked the Israelites over the Egyptians. God picked six people to put in the Ark. Can you say who's free will decision pulled those names out of the hat?
CAB wrote: Works righteousness. Read your Bible, and you will find the Christians in the Bible were called Saints, Servants, Soldiers. Not sinners. Yes, actually real righteousness is what a Christian should have. Real, not imagined, not some imputed sheet that you put over your head like KKK to cover up your face and the evil person underneath, like God can't see under the sheet? I know that's what Calvinism teaches, that God goes blind and can't see those sins once he pounds on Jesus on your behalf. Such stupid and unscriptural lies
I am a '5-point Calvanist' by the grace & mercy of GOD.
You say, ' I know that's what Calvinism teaches, that God goes blind and can't see those sins once he pounds on Jesus on your behalf. Such stupid and unscriptural lies'
So, in Acts2:23, Who is responsible for Jesus' death' then?