User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 76 to 82 of 82

Thread: Are Gods Elect ever the workers of iniquity ?

  1. #76
    TOL Legend beloved57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    18,561
    Thanks
    565
    Thanked 1,709 Times in 1,644 Posts

    Blog Entries
    14
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    52163
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    What is the problem?
    Do you believe Christ did not die for all?

    2 Corinthians 5:15
    15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


    Or do you believe Christ did not die for sinners?

    Romans 5:8
    8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
    If you want to discuss who i believe Christ died for i have several threads on this forum publicly stating what i believe. I have not been shy about it.

    Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk
    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    Charles Spurgeon !

  2. #77
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,705
    Thanks
    4,418
    Thanked 3,868 Times in 2,210 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147690
    Quote Originally Posted by john w View Post
    No, the biblical definition of hope, is "confident expectation, which the LORD provides, via His book. Saved individuals receive their confident expectation, assurance, that they are saved, from the book, witnessed by the Holy Spirit of God.
    Who knew?

    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4845421



    I guess with all the unneeded redundancy, you are assuming that you are confident all infants that die in infancy are in heaven. Of course, you continue to evade (!!) making a plain statement to that effect. Get on with it. Don't leave us in suspense.

    That said, you really have no warrant from Scripture to hold that confidence. It is but wishful thinking cloaked in your own confidence.

    So just describing the biblical concept of "hope" is not going to make your case. You will need to combine it with what I have plainly stated, that infants dying in infancy of believing parents is a situation giving parents a real warrant to hope per God's covenantal revelations in Scripture. No such biblical hope exists outside that restriction.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  3. #78
    TOL Legend john w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Heavenly Places
    Posts
    17,248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11,980 Times in 8,415 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147847
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Who knew?

    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4845421



    I guess with all the unneeded redundancy, you are assuming that you are confident all infants that die in infancy are in heaven. Of course, you continue to evade (!!) making a plain statement to that effect. Get on with it. Don't leave us in suspense.

    That said, you really have no warrant from Scripture to hold that confidence. It is but wishful thinking cloaked in your own confidence.

    So just describing the biblical concept of "hope" is not going to make your case. You will need to combine it with what I have plainly stated, that infants dying in infancy of believing parents is a situation giving parents a real warrant to hope per God's covenantal revelations in Scripture. No such biblical hope exists outside that restriction.

    AMR
    More evasion, create a moving target, change the subject, double speak, fogging the dialogue, sophistry. Non responsive.

    Again-How does a Calvinist know that their "little ones" are not consigned to hell, i.e., that they are not one of "the elect?"


    That is wicked Calvism's "good news."


    And stuff your "That said, you really have no warrant from Scripture to hold that confidence. It is but wishful thinking cloaked in your own confidence," as we see through your droid sound byte, and your "assert/pound the podium/declare 'victory'/return to the 'Reformed SO" con job.
    Saint John W

  4. #79
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    LOL, a Reformed Christian being called cultish by a Pelagian.

    Now, by 'Reformed', you mean Calvinist or Calvinistic, I take it. So, you've effectively handed us the phrase 'Calvinist Christian'. And, when we remember that you, with Spurgeon, affirm that "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else," we see you create for yourself more ideological incoherence when you denominate yourself by that phrase. Let's take a look at your latest problem of incoherence.

    You would not use the term 'Reformed Christian', a.k.a. 'Calvinist Christian', unless you think that there are also Christians who are not Calvinist. That's what you are doing by means of that phrase: you're dividing the class of all Christians into two sub-classes: those Christians who are Calvinists, on the one hand, and those Christians who are not Calvinists, on the other.

    Now, by the term 'Christian', you mean a believer of the gospel; in other words, every person who is not a believer of the gospel is a person who is not a Christian. Do you deny this? Yet, according to Spurgeon, and you, Calvinism is the gospel. Now, if Calvinism is the gospel, a Calvinist is a believer of the gospel, and so, the class, Calvinists, must be one and the same as the entire class, Christians. Thus, there can be no non-Calvinists sub-class of the class, Christians.

    It boils down to this: unless you just felt like handing us a redundancy in the phrase 'Reformed Christian', you have effectively divided the class, Christians, into two sub-classes:

    Sub-class 1: Christians who believe the gospel (Calvinists, Reformed), and
    Sub-class 2: Christians who do not believe the gospel (non-Calvinists, non-Reformed).

    Now, assuming you are correct in thinking that Calvinism is the gospel, sub-class 2 is analyzable as follows:

    Christians who do not believe the gospel,
    [Calvinists] who do not believe the gospel,
    [Believers of Calvinism] who do not believe the gospel,
    [Believers of the gospel] who do not believe the gospel.

    So, unless you meant your phrase, 'Reformed Christian', to be taken as a redundancy, you have divided Christians into Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and in doing so, this is the nonsense you have handed us: Believers of the gospel who are not believers of the gospel!

  5. #80
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,381
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 159 Times in 135 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Now, by 'Reformed', you mean Calvinist or Calvinistic, I take it. So, you've effectively handed us the phrase 'Calvinist Christian'. And, when we remember that you, with Spurgeon, affirm that "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else," we see you create for yourself more ideological incoherence when you denominate yourself by that phrase. Let's take a look at your latest problem of incoherence.

    You would not use the term 'Reformed Christian', a.k.a. 'Calvinist Christian', unless you think that there are also Christians who are not Calvinist. That's what you are doing by means of that phrase: you're dividing the class of all Christians into two sub-classes: those Christians who are Calvinists, on the one hand, and those Christians who are not Calvinists, on the other.

    Now, by the term 'Christian', you mean a believer of the gospel; in other words, every person who is not a believer of the gospel is a person who is not a Christian. Do you deny this? Yet, according to Spurgeon, and you, Calvinism is the gospel. Now, if Calvinism is the gospel, a Calvinist is a believer of the gospel, and so, the class, Calvinists, must be one and the same as the entire class, Christians. Thus, there can be no non-Calvinists sub-class of the class, Christians.

    It boils down to this: unless you just felt like handing us a redundancy in the phrase 'Reformed Christian', you have effectively divided the class, Christians, into two sub-classes:

    Sub-class 1: Christians who believe the gospel (Calvinists, Reformed), and
    Sub-class 2: Christians who do not believe the gospel (non-Calvinists, non-Reformed).

    Now, assuming you are correct in thinking that Calvinism is the gospel, sub-class 2 is analyzable as follows:

    Christians who do not believe the gospel,
    [Calvinists] who do not believe the gospel,
    [Believers of Calvinism] who do not believe the gospel,
    [Believers of the gospel] who do not believe the gospel.

    So, unless you meant your phrase, 'Reformed Christian', to be taken as a redundancy, you have divided Christians into Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and in doing so, this is the nonsense you have handed us: Believers of the gospel who are not believers of the gospel!
    LOL, reading your tortured pretzel is just too funny. I just can't take you seriously. Continue on with your fools game.

  6. #81
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    LOL, reading your tortured pretzel is just too funny. I just can't take you seriously. Continue on with your fools game.
    It's obvious you take yourself even far less seriously, since you have answered not one of my questions, while being transparently dishonest in saying that you answered all of them. But, you and I both know you answered none. And, you and I both understand that you are just too cautious and evasive to answer even simple questions about Calvinism (e.g., Is Calvinism the gospel?), because, as you and I both understand, you must then be engaged in a futile attempt to prop up a self-damning, man-made construct of anti-Biblical irrationality, and you must needs, in doing so, display your irrationality out in the open, making it all the more game for being pelted with the criticism and ridicule it deserves. It's just too much mental effort for you to put out, with no prospect of getting the self-glorifying results you want; it's best for you just to stick to your puerile, bot-like reactions, and hope that you have better luck finding people to wrangle with upon whom your parroted TULIP theology slogans may seem to have some force for a while. And, at the end of the day, be sure to cast upon them irrelevant, if not outright meaningless, names intended pejoratively, like "Pelagian".

    By the way, you refer to yourself by the phrase, "Reformed Christian"; now, since, by this phrase, you make it clear that you think some Christians are not Reformed, are not Calvinists, would you then say that these non-Reformed, non-Calvinist Christians are Pelagian Christians? If not, then who, exactly, would you say constitute the non-Calvinist sub-class of Christians?

    Now, those are a couple more simple questions about your ideology for you to shirk answering, as you and I both know you will do.

  7. #82
    TOL Legend beloved57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    18,561
    Thanks
    565
    Thanked 1,709 Times in 1,644 Posts

    Blog Entries
    14
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    52163
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    It's obvious you take yourself even far less seriously, since you have answered not one of my questions, while being transparently dishonest in saying that you answered all of them. But, you and I both know you answered none. And, you and I both understand that you are just too cautious and evasive to answer even simple questions about Calvinism (e.g., Is Calvinism the gospel?), because, as you and I both understand, you must then be engaged in a futile attempt to prop up a self-damning, man-made construct of anti-Biblical irrationality, and you must needs, in doing so, display your irrationality out in the open, making it all the more game for being pelted with the criticism and ridicule it deserves. It's just too much mental effort for you to put out, with no prospect of getting the self-glorifying results you want; it's best for you just to stick to your puerile, bot-like reactions, and hope that you have better luck finding people to wrangle with upon whom your parroted TULIP theology slogans may seem to have some force for a while. And, at the end of the day, be sure to cast upon them irrelevant, if not outright meaningless, names intended pejoratively, like "Pelagian".

    By the way, you refer to yourself by the phrase, "Reformed Christian"; now, since, by this phrase, you make it clear that you think some Christians are not Reformed, are not Calvinists, would you then say that these non-Reformed, non-Calvinist Christians are Pelagian Christians? If not, then who, exactly, would you say constitute the non-Calvinist sub-class of Christians?

    Now, those are a couple more simple questions about your ideology for you to shirk answering, as you and I both know you will do.
    Do you want to discuss the OP ?
    "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
    preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
    called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
    a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    Charles Spurgeon !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us