User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86

Thread: Not Christians!

  1. #1
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 115 Times in 89 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19129

    Not Christians!

    Be happy
    Last edited by BoyStan; November 4th, 2018 at 07:48 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to BoyStan For Your Post:

    God's Truth (October 28th, 2018)

  3. #2
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,173
    Thanks
    14,290
    Thanked 36,634 Times in 18,280 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147798
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyStan View Post
    Calling yourself a Christian today is folly. The Christian name tag has become repulsive to the world.
    The New Testament emphasises that we are saints. Let us call ourselves saints. Let us rejoice in our sainthood!
    Do you think the world would be less repulsed if we called ourselves "saints"?

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 19th, 2018),Grosnick Marowbe (October 19th, 2018),Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018),ttruscott (November 4th, 2018)

  5. #3
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 115 Times in 89 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19129
    Be happy
    Last edited by BoyStan; November 4th, 2018 at 07:49 AM.

  6. #4
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,379
    Thanks
    17,734
    Thanked 33,576 Times in 22,522 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147911
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Do you think the world would be less repulsed if we called ourselves "saints"?
    Well said.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Grosnick Marowbe For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 19th, 2018),glorydaz (October 19th, 2018),Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  8. #5
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,379
    Thanks
    17,734
    Thanked 33,576 Times in 22,522 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147911
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyStan View Post
    The world always has and always will hate the true God and his saints. Jesus spoke plainly about this hatred.
    The label Christian has been horribly soiled and carries too much baggage.

    God's saints are called to be different to the world and this difference will bring the world's hatred.

    I don't care how repulsed the world is by religion. I too hate the religion of Churchianity
    I think you need to rethink' your opinion. True 'Christians' are members of the 'Body of Christ' and a 'Child of God.'

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Grosnick Marowbe For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 19th, 2018),Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  10. #6
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 115 Times in 89 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19129
    True, but using the name christian today is unprofitable. Better to call ourselves something else such as saints.
    Better to be called saints and show how different we are to the world.

  11. #7
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 862 Times in 550 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    413219
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyStan View Post
    Calling yourself a Christian today is folly. The Christian name tag has become repulsive to the world.
    The New Testament emphasises that we are saints. Let us call ourselves saints. Let us rejoice in our sainthood!
    Actually, the term was originally one of derision anyway. The church wore it as a badge of honor.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 19th, 2018),glorydaz (October 19th, 2018),Idolater (October 19th, 2018),Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  13. #8
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,513
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Actually, the term was originally one of derision anyway. The church wore it as a badge of honor.
    Thank you. Yes, it was originally coined as a derisive term in the city of Antioch toward the followers of "The Way." The disciples embraced the derisive term and so we carry the name to this day.
    We walk the path of the cross. Those who are slaves to their master, the devil, will hate the adopted children of the King.

  14. #9
    Over 1000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,006
    Thanks
    113
    Thanked 167 Times in 143 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    21741
    It may be divisive, but I don't see that as a reason to cede the word 'Christian' to the world. If you believe that Christ's Resurrection was an historical fact, nonfiction, then calling yourself one, is the plainest way to communicate that to others, imo.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  16. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459

    Calvinism's Unregenerate Elect

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Those who are slaves to their master, the devil, will hate the adopted children of the King.
    Who, exactly, are you talking about as being slaves to their master, the devil? The non-elect? What about Calvinism's unbiblical category, the unregenerate elect?

    I ask these questions, because I am well aware that Calvinists say that an elect person was elect even long before his/her conception and birth from the womb--in fact, that an elect person has been elect eternally, or "from all eternity". So, according to Calvinism, no person starts out as non-elect, and then, at some point, becomes elect.

    But, I am also aware that Calvinism denies that the elect person has been regenerate for as long as he/she has been elect, i.e., eternally; that Calvinists speak of regeneration as an event in which the elect person goes from being unregenerate to being regenerate. Any Calvinist will readily affirm that he/she, at some point, was regenerated--was made regenerate--by the Holy Spirit; in fact, say at least some of them, it was at that very moment of regeneration that they were enabled to believe the gospel, a.k.a. Calvinism, and become a Calvinist.

    So, Calvinism creates for itself this problematic category: the unregenerate elect. In other words, as per Calvinism, there are persons alive at any given time who are elect, but who have not yet been regenerated by the Holy Spirit; these are Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

    Now, here are some more questions for you Calvinists to stonewall against:

    As God is the master of regenerate persons, and as the devil is the master of the non-elect, who, exactly, is the master of the unregenerate elect? God? The devil? Neither? Who?

    To whom are the unregenerate elect slaves? To God? To the devil? To neither? To whom?

    Except a man be born again (regenerated--made regenerate), he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, would you say that the unregenerate elect--the not-born-again elect--can see the kingdom of God? Would you say that the unregenerate elect are adopted children of the King, or are only the regenerate elect the adopted children of the King?

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  18. #11
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,513
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Who, exactly, are you talking about as being slaves to their master, the devil? The non-elect? What about Calvinism's unbiblical category, the unregenerate elect?

    I ask these questions, because I am well aware that Calvinists say that an elect person was elect even long before his/her conception and birth from the womb--in fact, that an elect person has been elect eternally, or "from all eternity". So, according to Calvinism, no person starts out as non-elect, and then, at some point, becomes elect.

    But, I am also aware that Calvinism denies that the elect person has been regenerate for as long as he/she has been elect, i.e., eternally; that Calvinists speak of regeneration as an event in which the elect person goes from being unregenerate to being regenerate. Any Calvinist will readily affirm that he/she, at some point, was regenerated--was made regenerate--by the Holy Spirit; in fact, say at least some of them, it was at that very moment of regeneration that they were enabled to believe the gospel, a.k.a. Calvinism, and become a Calvinist.

    So, Calvinism creates for itself this problematic category: the unregenerate elect. In other words, as per Calvinism, there are persons alive at any given time who are elect, but who have not yet been regenerated by the Holy Spirit; these are Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

    Now, here are some more questions for you Calvinists to stonewall against:

    As God is the master of regenerate persons, and as the devil is the master of the non-elect, who, exactly, is the master of the unregenerate elect? God? The devil? Neither? Who?

    To whom are the unregenerate elect slaves? To God? To the devil? To neither? To whom?

    Except a man be born again (regenerated--made regenerate), he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, would you say that the unregenerate elect--the not-born-again elect--can see the kingdom of God? Would you say that the unregenerate elect are adopted children of the King, or are only the regenerate elect the adopted children of the King?
    I don't use the term "unregenerate elect." Perhaps someone else does, but I don't find the term in scripture. I do use the term unregenerate as it refers to those whom God has not chosen to redeem, though he may choose to redeem some over time as He Sovereignly wills.

  19. #12
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    I don't use the term "unregenerate elect." Perhaps someone else does, but I don't find the term in scripture. I do use the term unregenerate as it refers to those whom God has not chosen to redeem, though he may choose to redeem some over time as He Sovereignly wills.
    It matters not whether you, or anybody else uses the term 'unregenerate elect'; of course Calvinists are going to be politic and guarded against speaking so plainly and forthrightly! Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, Calvinism necessarily posits the category of the unregenerate elect, whether or not you, or any other TULIP huckster publicly owns that phrase. It is impossible for you to hide that category.

    No Calvinist will say that an elect person has been regenerate for all eternity. No Calvinist will say that an elect person has even been regenerate for all his/her earthly life. So, Calvinists are necessarily left to account for a period in the existence of each elect person during which that elect person has not yet been regenerated; in other words, a period during which that elect person is yet unregenerate. That is the unregenerate elect. And it is an insurmountable problem for you--for Calvinism. It is something you will never be able to unburden yourself of, so long as you are a Calvinist.

    You will claim that you were eternally elect, of course. Now, do you deny that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE? Of course you don't deny that. Rather, you affirm that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE. That means that, during that period, you were elect but not regenerate--that is, you were elect and unregenerate--an unregenerate, elect person. This is Calvinism, and you can't escape from it. Whether or not you try to disown the phrase 'unregenerate elect' is of utterly no help to you as a would-be Calvinism apologist, since to eradicate the category of the unregenerate elect would be to destroy Calvinism.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    Right Divider (October 20th, 2018),steko (October 19th, 2018)

  21. #13
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,513
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    It matters not whether you, or anybody else uses the term 'unregenerate elect'; of course Calvinists are going to be politic and guarded against speaking so plainly and forthrightly! Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, Calvinism necessarily posits the category of the unregenerate elect, whether or not you, or any other TULIP huckster publicly owns that phrase. It is impossible for you to hide that category.

    No Calvinist will say that an elect person has been regenerate for all eternity. No Calvinist will say that an elect person has even been regenerate for all his/her earthly life. So, Calvinists are necessarily left to account for a period in the existence of each elect person during which that elect person has not yet been regenerated; in other words, a period during which that elect person is yet unregenerate. That is the unregenerate elect. And it is an insurmountable problem for you--for Calvinism. It is something you will never be able to unburden yourself of, so long as you are a Calvinist.

    You will claim that you were eternally elect, of course. Now, do you deny that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE? Of course you don't deny that. Rather, you affirm that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE. That means that, during that period, you were elect but not regenerate--that is, you were elect and unregenerate--an unregenerate, elect person. This is Calvinism, and you can't escape from it. Whether or not you try to disown the phrase 'unregenerate elect' is of utterly no help to you as a would-be Calvinism apologist, since to eradicate the category of the unregenerate elect would be to destroy Calvinism.
    So...you make up a term and tell others it matters not if you use it. LOL, you're just making up things and trying to argue. That's just silly.

  22. #14
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6459
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    So...you make up a term and tell others it matters not if you use it. LOL, you're just making up things and trying to argue. That's just silly.
    OK, so now you are actually admitting that you believe that not only have you been elect from eternity past, but also that you have been regenerate for as long as you have been elect! In other words, you believe that there was never a time during which you were unregenerate. I hate to break it to you, but that means that you are not even a Calvinist. See, Calvinists believe that elect persons come into the world unregenerate, and that, at some point, the Holy Spirit regenerates them--makes them go from being unregenerate to being regenerate. That whole time, the elect person is elect, but for some of that time, the elect person is also unregenerate, so, for some of that time that elect person is elect AND unregenerate. So, Professor, what phrase could better be used to denote an elect person who is unregenerate than 'unregenerate elect' or 'elect unregenerate'? So, no, I did not make up the term, you lying Jesuit.

    Oh, and since, in denying the Calvinist category of the unregenerate elect, you now have admitted that you believe that, as an elect person, there was never a time during which you were unregenerate, not only are you radically deviating from Calvinism, you are also showing yourself to be even more of a fool, since you believe you were already born again (regenerate) even before you were conceived and born the first time.

  23. #15
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,513
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 174 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    OK, so now you are actually admitting that you believe that not only have you been elect from eternity past, but also that you have been regenerate for as long as you have been elect! In other words, you believe that there was never a time during which you were unregenerate. I hate to break it to you, but that means that you are not even a Calvinist. See, Calvinists believe that elect persons come into the world unregenerate, and that, at some point, the Holy Spirit regenerates them--makes them go from being unregenerate to being regenerate. That whole time, the elect person is elect, but for some of that time, the elect person is also unregenerate, so, for some of that time that elect person is elect AND unregenerate. So, Professor, what phrase could better be used to denote an elect person who is unregenerate than 'unregenerate elect' or 'elect unregenerate'? So, no, I did not make up the term, you lying Jesuit.

    Oh, and since, in denying the Calvinist category of the unregenerate elect, you now have admitted that you believe that, as an elect person, there was never a time during which you were unregenerate, not only are you radically deviating from Calvinism, you are also showing yourself to be even more of a fool, since you believe you were already born again (regenerate) even before you were conceived and born the first time.
    LOL, you have no clue.
    My suggestion: start reading a Bible.

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