ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Do you agree with this:

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE USED WITH NOUNS:

1. The ARTICULAR NOUN: When the definite article "the", IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES a NOUN, and it agrees with the NOUN in case number and gender, the NOUN is called an "ARTICULAR NOUN". The presence of the article marks CONTRAST, makes the noun stand out, and adds emphasis. The ARTICULAR NOUN also IDENTIFIES, or reveals identity. For example:

a. Titles in scripture are normally ARTICULAR NOUNS. Ho Theos (the God) and Ho Christos (the Jesus) are identifying God and Jesus as the one God of the Bible, (there are many God's), and Jesus the Son of God, the Savior. (Jesus was a common name among the Jews and many men were named Jesus).

b. In Romans chapter 6, Paul repeatedly places the definite article before the word "sin" (hamartia) indicating that he is not talking in this chapter about "a sin", some "amount" of sin, or "sinning" in general, but, THE SIN NATURE! He is contrasting our new nature and our old nature and urging us to live in the new nature!

http://www.biblefood.com/articthe2.html

Somewhat. It's such a brief gloss, it won't have much affect on English corruption at the heart level.

The process of.10-second Googling and excerpting is the bane of true understanding.

There have been hundreds and hundreds of books dedicated to the Greek articular noun alone. You want to immediately gloss something into a brief forum text that you have no idea about.

And others disdain true stewardship of intense study with a yielded heart and mind led by the Spirit, while most just access the internet for 80 or 90 seconds to post something they think agrees with their presuppositions.

Most alleged English-based Greek scholars don't even begin to understand the nuances of Greek nouns. Yet here you are pretending that a Google search brought up all you need to know.

This is Modernistic autocentric false autonomy at its finest. Self-determine validity and meaning for all things, because... hey, internet searches.

It's a lifetime of being conformed to the image of God's dear Son. It's not a microwaved gathering of snippets from the internet from sources who wade out ankle-deep in the ocean of understanding.

Cripes, this modern western culture is an abomination to truth.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thank you Professor Fussy. We should ONLY be taught by you, the world would be a better place.

It would be a start.

 

[Sonnet]

Yeah, 10-second Googling and excerpting is the bain of true understanding.

There have been hundreds and hundreds of books dedicated to the Greek articular noun alone. You want to immediately gloss something into a brief forum text that you have no idea about.

And others disdain true stewardship of intense study with a yielded heart and mind led by the Spirit, while most just access the internet for 80 or 90 seconds to post something they think agrees with their presuppositions.

Most alleged English-based Greek scholars don't even begin to understand the nuances of Greek nouns. Yet here you are pretending that a Google search brought up all you need to know.

This is Modernistic autocentric false autonomy at its finest. Self-determine validity and meaning for all things, because... hey, internet searches.

It's a lifetime of being conformed to the image of God's dear Son. It's not a microwaved gathering of snippets from the internet from sources who wade out ankle-deep in the ocean of understanding.

Cripes, this modern western culture is an abomination to truth.

Wow - all I asked was if you agreed with it or not. And you didn't answer, but just ranted at me. I did not even say it was correct.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Wow - all I asked was if you agreed with it or not. And you didn't answer, but just ranted at me. I did not even say it was correct.

Yes, I misread a "tone" into it. My bad.

That site has some brief decent info. I'm just not sure any English-sculpted hearts and minds will be able to glean much from it without some intense explicit direction.

Language formats our epistemology, so it's very difficult to self-correct to ANY degree that matters. It has taken me years and years.

 

[TulipBee]

I'm tired of you all griping about Calvinism, calling us unbelievers, calling it a false gospel, anon anon- and on top of it you all don't seem to even show a full understanding of it. You all treat it like it's some cult. Well, NEWSFLASH: Calvinism is a forged, ironclad, orthodox Christianity that brought back the good theologies of St. Augustine all the way to John Wycliffe, and it is what the Catholic Church rejected in order to dispense grace by her own will and agenda.

Jacob Arminius? He was a student of Calvinism, and took it upon himself to reject it and throw dirt on these theologians, calling it all 'Stoicism' based on the fact that earlier theologians were Stoics before their conversion to Christianity.
And yet, they produced what is still much of the most treasured theological literature to this day.

So whatever you have to say- COOL STORY. You all can go spread your unfounded hatred of Calvinism to someone who cares what you think

John Wesley used to be a Calvinist. He changed his mind and moved towards what man wants instead of what God wants. Keep up with the good work refuting man's works. They need to hear the gospel

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Wow - all I asked was if you agreed with it or not. And you didn't answer, but just ranted at me. I did not even say it was correct.

It's also a huge shift to converse with you versus the many trolling irrational idiots on TOL.

 

[Sonnet]

Yes, I misread a "tone" into it. My bad.

That site has some brief decent info. I'm just not sure any English-sculpted hearts and minds will be able to glean much from it without some intense explicit direction.

Language formats our epistemology, so it's very difficult to self-correct to ANY degree that matters. It has taken me years and years.

If you agree with it then:

'But Jesus Christ did not die for all sin'(singular articular) would be:

'But Jesus Christ did not die for all sin nature'

However, this would seem to conflict with your assertion that Jesus died for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If you agree with it then:

'But Jesus Christ did not die for all sin'(singular articular) would be:

'But Jesus Christ did not die for all sin nature'

However, this would seem to conflict with your assertion that Jesus died for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

Sigh. I must now revert to my previous rant. You draw immediate nominal gloss deductions from an excerpted glimpse of Greek nouns in what amounts to single-digit minutes of your time and energy to just apply by your English-corrupted epistemology.

I do not agree with that content in anything close to the context you have given it. You just can't understand what I'm referring to.

None of the sin/s in view are hamartema/ta, they're hamartia/i. You can't self-deduce any of this, even with googling for summarized info.

There's no such thing as a sin nature. It is hamartia in the nature and in the members. Hamartia is the void of "somethinglessness" as a noun.

You're not going to "get there" from where you are. You want a quick answer, and only to attempt to refute it.

(And it would help to know what a "nature" [physis] is, and how it relates to ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, sarx, pneuma, psuche, and soma, for only a start.)

Those presenting information on that site don't know such things and speak very generally and fallaciously on a surface level.

 

[Cross Reference]

Meat head vs Meathead.

 

[Sonnet]

Sigh. I must now revert to my previous rant. You draw immediate nominal gloss deductions from an excerpted glimpse of Greek nouns in what amounts to single-digit minutes of your time and energy to just apply by your English-corrupted epistemology.

Or, I inferred and pointed at a possible conflict.

I do not agree with that content in anything close to the context you have given it. You just can't understand what I'm referring to.

None of the sin/s in view are hamartema/ta, they're hamartia/i. You can't self-deduce any of this, even with googling for summarized info.

There's no such thing as a sin nature. It is hamartia in the nature and in the members. Hamartia is the void of "somethinglessness" as a noun.

You're not going to "get there" from where you are. You want a quick answer, and only to attempt to refute it.

(And it would help to know what a "nature" [physis] is, and how it relates to ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, sarx, pneuma, psuche, and soma, for only a start.)

Those presenting information on that site don't know such things and speak very generally and fallaciously on a surface level.

Baffling and condescending.

Would you name a recognised Greek scholar that you agree with?

 

[Sonnet]

Sigh. I must now revert to my previous rant. You draw immediate nominal gloss deductions from an excerpted glimpse of Greek nouns in what amounts to single-digit minutes of your time and energy to just apply by your English-corrupted epistemology.

I do not agree with that content in anything close to the context you have given it. You just can't understand what I'm referring to.

None of the sin/s in view are hamartema/ta, they're hamartia/i. You can't self-deduce any of this, even with googling for summarized info.

There's no such thing as a sin nature. It is hamartia in the nature and in the members. Hamartia is the void of "somethinglessness" as a noun.

You're not going to "get there" from where you are. You want a quick answer, and only to attempt to refute it.

(And it would help to know what a "nature" [physis] is, and how it relates to ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, sarx, pneuma, psuche, and soma, for only a start.)

Those presenting information on that site don't know such things and speak very generally and fallaciously on a surface level.

Until you actually show clearly whatever it is you think you know, and back it up with support from other Greek scholars, then there is nothing much to respond to.

 

[Sonnet]

John Wesley used to be a Calvinist. He changed his mind and moved towards what man wants instead of what God wants. Keep up with the good work refuting man's works. They need to hear the gospel

Unbelievers need to hear the Gospel that Christ died for their sins - is that what you are saying?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It would be a start.

And a finish at the same time.

 

[john w]

Crucible and Nang are two of the angriest Calvinists on board. However, there are others.

Naggy's new name is Naggy Debbie Downer, as satanic Calvinism/Clavinism is a real barbiturate, a "downer," man.....

Dig?

 

[john w]

The only ones destroying the gospel are YOU ALL, because you all have simply cherry picked the best from everything and wrapped it all up into your own little 'truth'.

The old reliable "you cherry picker!!!!" stumper. Next up, part of "The Trifecta?:"

2. You bible stripper!!!!!!!!!!!

3. You "pick 'n chooser!!!!!!"


Obey Leviticus, Deuteronomy. Sell all you have....


You cherry picker...


So there.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Naggy's new name is Naggy Debbie Downer, as satanic Calvinism/Clavinism is a real barbiturate, a "downer," man.....

Dig?

I dig Daddy-O

 

[Crucible]

Calvinism is bulletproof, and that makes other people mad.
It's like watching someone try to open up a can with their bare hands. Eventually they get frustrated and start beating it :chuckle:

And that is exactly what has gone on here.

 

[TulipBee]

Unbelievers need to hear the Gospel that Christ died for their sins - is that what you are saying?

Effectual Calling

“And those He predestined, He also called; those He called; He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified” (v.30).

-Romans 8:29–31

Which comes first: faith or the new birth? The answer of much of Christendom is that faith comes first, and then, when God sees that we have graciously put faith in Him, He gives us a new birth. The Bible actually teaches the reverse. God gives us a new birth, and we cry out to Him in faith as a result.

Part of the problem here is that many Christians fail to distinguish between the external call of the Gospel and the internal call of the Holy Spirit. They say that God calls all men externally, and then when some men repent and believe, God gives them new life. It is true that God calls all men, but it is not true that God gives them new life based on their repentance and faith. Rather, while God calls all men externally, He only calls His own internally. Those who truly respond to the external call are those who have been internally called by God and given new birth. Then they respond in faith to the external call.

Notice Romans 8:28. It says that all things work together for good to those who have been called by God. Does this refer to the external call of the Gospel or to the internal call of God’s Spirit? Clearly, it refers to the latter. People who are externally called and who then reject the Gospel will go to hell. All things will not be working for their good in hell.

Consider also Romans 8:30. It says that those who were called by God are justified and glorified. If this referred to the external call of the Gospel, it would mean that all people are justified and glorified. In fact, of course, it refers to God’s internal call.

The doctrine of the internal call cannot be avoided if we take the Bible seriously, and it leaves no room for man to play a part in his own salvation. Why do some people respond to the Gospel? Because God called them. Why do others not respond? Because God did not call them.

The call produces new life. Ephesians 2:1–5 says that we were dead before God called us and quickened us. A dead man cannot respond to anything. He cannot cooperate with any kind of call, external or internal. Like Lazarus in the grave, he cannot come back to life unless God raises him. God’s call, like that of Jesus, calls Lazarus from the grave.

Coram Deo

Some would say, “Well, sure, there is an internal call: God internally calls all men. But some resist His call, while others cooperate.” Use Romans 8:28 and 30 to show that this is not what Paul means by the call of God in those verses. Do you understand the difference? Can you help someone else understand it?

Found at http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/effectual-calling/

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Effectual Calling
It is true that God calls all men, but it is not true that God gives them new life based on their repentance and faith. Rather, while God calls all men externally, He only calls His own internally. Those who truly respond to the external call are those who have been internally called by God and given new birth. Then they respond in faith to the external call.

You've created your own personal gospel here. This Internal/external calling is total non-sense, you made it up. God calls ALL men to the saving knowledge of His Son's death and resurrection. Some respond and some do not. You're preaching "Another gospel" that the Bible warns against.

 

[TulipBee]

The effectual calling is more commonly known as “irresistible grace,”