ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Grosnick Marowbe]

LOTS very wrong with arminianism - semi pelagianism and free willism. Why would I even bother with your personal opinions when its a waste of my valuble time?

I take it, that you think of yourself as a "Delicate genius?" Is that a proper conclusion?

 

[TulipBee]

You will rot in your error using your valuable time.

Thats why God MADE me willing to follow Christ. I'm on Christ insurance

 

[Cross Reference]

Remember KJV is another translation and needs very, very, very, very badly retranslated. Best to start with greek and hebrew. Nouns and verbs are simple and I'm enjoying the conversations about them. What I can see is ignorance from clowns like promoting to throw away the original versions of the bible and sticking with man's versions of stupidity

Then why say you are orthodox when you obviously place yourself superior to their knowledge?

 

[Cross Reference]

Thats why God MADE me willing to follow Christ. I'm on Christ insurance

Don't blame Him for your presumption. He calls it a sin . . even in the original Greek.

 

[TulipBee]

Then why say you are orthodox when you obviously place yourself superior to their knowledge?

Whats already written in my heart leads my intelligence

 

[TulipBee]

Don't blame Him for your presumption. He calls it a sin . . even in the original Greek.

Taking things as they are is what I do best

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Thats why God MADE me willing to follow Christ. I'm on Christ insurance

In the world of the clowns, you reign as "Bozo!"

 

[Cross Reference]

Taking things as they are is what I do best

But, you lack discernment. You can't possibly have discernment because it is a gift of God. Now where do you want to take this?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Taking things as they are is what I do best

What's that supposed to mean? Further explanation is needed.

 

[TulipBee]

But, you lack discernment. You can't possibly have discernment because it is a gift of God. Now where do you want to take this?

The "present" is experiencing the living God. That means God saved me and still doing the work to make sure I stay saved meaning once saved always saved cause saved means saved.
Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return. http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

*

 

[Sherman]

Hey, Nang, it's interesting that you can't stand me because I call your Calvinist belief system a false doctrine/false gospel. Therefore, you accuse me of derailing your thread. Whereas, at the very same time, Sonnet and PPS are discussing a totally different subject than your thread? Does that mean you're being biased Nang? Perhaps you ought to peruse the other posters on your thread, as well? You might be outraged and say: BAH!! Bah, is your usually reply. Usually, cranky type people use that silly word for some reason?

I don't think that is the case, GM, you just hop into a thread, mock and call names. Instead of mocking her challenge her theology in a reasonable manner. That is what Sonnet and PPS are going.

It is your tone she is taking issue with. There is no need for it. There are plenty of scripture tools out there on the web for you to use. You can look up a scripture on the web and find the verses.

An example: I found this on the web. One of the favorite verses here on TOL.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

​Do this instead of being a thread pest. Use scripture to support your argument.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It's true that I have no explanation as to how God maintains control whilst permitting unpredetermined choice. However, you cannot explain how man remains responsible if he is left without access to salvation - such being the consequence of you theology.

But you have already described that this process is all of God. In what way isn't he a spectator?

Who's talking about 'knowing God's standard' as if it comes down to a work of righteousness. we are back to Romans 4.

Scripture?

AGAIN - if the sin qua non is unconditional election, then what on earth is Paul doing explaining how they might be saved? Your argument renders Paul disingenuous. Can't you see that?

Sorry, but it is axiomatic that without true unpredetermined choice then there can be no worth.

You mean those chosen don't you?

As above.

Evidence for God is damaged by evidence that speaks of a different 'truth'.

I wasn't lobbying for the worth of man in that sense. Straw man argument.

The eternal glory you speak of - of His death for us - is the VERY thing your theology damages!

Can't you see it?

For sure, nothing is not know by God, but without unpredetermined choice then God's creation is rendered NOT GOOD.

Agreed.

Attempting to defeat the charge by saying it isn't thus isn't going to be efficacious.

You might be right.

This might be a prescient.

I want to know but you are probably guilty of sentence 2, clause 1.

Ok.

Plenty of Arminians who consider themselves Christians making similar arguments.

I appreciate your concern.

You place an additional particularism on the words. Words cannot pin down their meaning to such a degree as you appear to impose on them. You'd have show why is CANNOT be the case that a generality of meaning lie within the words.

Well, since you don;t seem to agree with many other scholars then I can be forgiven my confusion.

No scripture exists, but doctrines wrested from the scriptures do.

Will respond to the remainder of your post anon.

You seem to have forgotten what you said but a few minutes ago:

So we have (your view):
God covers everyone for everything but man cannot choose God.

And yet you still dare to assert that man frustrates it!

If he's truly unable then you won't blame him for frustrating it.

That's because cognitive "action" is the innate functionality of the noun, not a verb. The cognitive action you refer to requires repentance (metanoia, the noun). Yes, repentance is a noun, from which the action comes forth. Repentance is granted by God. Man doesn't "do" it without the noun being granted for the verb to be the action.

Strange how the apostles preached that we do those very things

I'd have to look them up. Please tell me.

That explains nothing. I'll ask again:

Why would Paul agonise over his kinsmen if he understood faith as you do?

You're just avoiding the binaries you claim are false.

Misrepresentation. Not appreciated.

Where have I suggested otherwise?

You claim non-alliance but it remains to be seen.

Misrepresentation. Not appreciated.

Your position, like mine, is not proven.

I do enough search as it is I'd say. One has bills to pay, of course.

Weasel: A deceitful or treacherous person.

Perhaps consider taking that back?

As far as I am concerned you teach that God did not provide for all men so I could not sit in your preaching of the Gospel.

But this all comes down to you (and multitudes, including Calvinists) not understanding created time versus God's uncreated timelessness.

Instead of a passive foundational perspective of Deism and Determinism all predicated upon "before" for God according to election, why not consider it from a very simple perspective that could be life-changing to your ontology, epistemology, economy, and methodology?

What if... (since God is timeless) election is every bit as relative to "after" as it is "before"? What if God elects all Believers AFTER they have rejected Him for their entire lives and have died?

Since there is no "before" OR "after" for God, it's all the same. "After" non-believers reject grace and mercy and love and faith and all else God freely offers to all mankind, and they die without any of that; God THEN doesn't foreknow them or predestine them to be conformed to the image of His Son... because there's no "after" OR "before" for God as timelessness interfacing with created time in its fallen chronological form.

By Jesus Christ being made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous), man has no excuse for not knowing, and being known by, God in Christ. "After" there was no hearing (the noun) out of which no faith (the noun) came, it's certainly not God's fault when He spoke the Rhema and His Logos was embodied in flesh as Theanthropos, THEN God didn't foreknow those who refused and rejected His Word.

And THAT's why I'm not a Calvinist. Monergism isn't a time-constrained linearity of before and after for depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance.

"Before" is the "after" for a timeless God. He didn't foreknow any who didn't commune with Him during their physical lives in creation. So it's the "before" of "after" that is His divine election.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS seems to have a lot of calvinistic flavors and it's tasty somehow

Monergism is as Monergism does. Synergism denies God's incommunicable attribute of Necessity, that co-inheres with all His other incommunicable and communicable attributes. To promote Synergism is to deny God and His very nature and divinity as eternal uncreated Self-conscious Self-existence, and also makes man into God by mutual contingency and reciprocity.

Calvinism has some issues with addressing God's timelessness, and too readily replaces it with linearity and sequentiality.

For God, there is no "before" or "after", or any other time construct that could contain or constrain Him.

 

[Cross Reference]

The "present" is experiencing the living God. That means God saved me and still doing the work to make sure I stay saved meaning once saved always saved cause saved means saved.

Does he interfere with your life to perform that or simply show you the way from scripture and you are to do it? Sortta like salvation?

Perseverance of the Saints:

What perservance of the saints? You mean this:

You are sealed. . . "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,. . . . " Colossians 1:23 (KJV)

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

You mean as this:

You can't lose your salvation . . . "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,. . . . " Colossians 1:23 (KJV)

I have a whole bunch more "IF's" you need to know about before you draw more false conclusions to an end. And if you have already well, you lose. Know that you cannot support your man-made doctrine with scripture. It isn't there and one is only allowing himself to be deluded. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would to move in that direction when knowing the Holy Spirit will not compromise Himself to live within such soulish life incapable of regeneration. However, perhaps that all wasn't explained to you? Here:

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked . .. . . I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Revelation 3:17,16 (KJV)

 

[Cross Reference]

The "present" is experiencing the living God. That means God saved me and still doing the work to make sure I stay saved meaning once saved always saved cause saved means saved.

Does he interfere with your life to perform that or simply show you the way from scripture and you are to do it? Sortta like salvation?

Perseverance of the Saints:

What perservance of the saints? You mean this:

You are sealed. . . "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,. . . . " Colossians 1:23 (KJV)

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

You mean as this:

You can't lose your salvation . . . "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,. . . . " Colossians 1:23 (KJV)

I have a whole bunch more "IF's" you need to know about before you draw more false conclusions to and end. And if you have already well, you lose. Know that cannot support your man-made doctrine with scripture. It isn't there and one is only allowing himself to be deluded. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would to move in that direction when knowing the Holy Spirit will not compromise Himself to live within such soulish life incapable of regeneration.

OMT: "Discernment" is of the Pentecostal Acts 2 experience you mock.

 

[Cross Reference]

If you say you're not a believer and at the same time say man can choose God then why do we taste contradition ? If you believe you're able to chose then why are you rejecting God?

And because you say man cannot choose God because he is a reprobate, we have this you might like to explain:

". . . . then [unregenerate] men began to call upon the name of the LORD." Genesis 4:26 (KJV) No gift of faith mentioned here.

 

[Nang]

But this all comes down to you (and multitudes, including Calvinists) not understanding created time versus God's uncreated timelessness.

Instead of a passive foundational perspective of Deism and Determinism all predicated upon "before" for God according to election, why not consider it from a very simple perspective that could be life-changing to your ontology, epistemology, economy, and methodology?

What if... (since God is timeless) election is every bit as relative to "after" as it is "before"? What if God elects all Believers AFTER they have rejected Him for their entire lives and have died?

Since there is no "before" OR "after" for God, it's all the same. "After" non-believers reject grace and mercy and love and faith and all else God freely offers to all mankind, and they die without any of that; God THEN doesn't foreknow them or predestine them to be conformed to the image of His Son... because there's no "after" OR "before" for God as timelessness interfacing with created time in its fallen chronological form.

By Jesus Christ being made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous), man has no excuse for not knowing, and being known by, God in Christ. "After" there was no hearing (the noun) out of which no faith (the noun) came, it's certainly not God's fault when He spoke the Rhema and His Logos was embodied in flesh as Theanthropos, THEN God didn't foreknow those who refused and rejected His Word.

And THAT's why I'm not a Calvinist. Monergism isn't a time-constrained linearity of before and after for depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance.

"Before" is the "after" for a timeless God. He didn't foreknow any who didn't commune with Him during their physical lives in creation. So it's the "before" of "after" that is His divine election.

What generates the interest in the Lapsarian views, is of course Ephesians 1:4, where it is revealed souls were chosen to receive adoption in Christ before the creation . . which God purposed "in Himself" Ephesians 1:9 and worked out to the glorious event of the Incarnation in the "dispensation of the fullness of times" in Ephesians 1:10

I agree that God is not subject to time or contingent upon anything created, so I ask if you interpret "the foundation of the world" as being something other than creation "in the beginning." Genesis 1:1

 

[Cross Reference]

Thats why God MADE me willing to follow Christ. I'm on Christ insurance

Indeed, God can make anyone willing .. . . to be willing but, God never wills man directly to do anything. Pharoah is a quick example.

 

[Nang]

And because you say man cannot choose God because he is a reprobate, we have this you might like to explain:

". . . . then [unregenerate] men began to call upon the name of the LORD." Genesis 4:26 (KJV) No gift of faith mentioned here.

That scripture does not define Seth and those men as being "unregenerate." In fact, because they alone, out of all other persons, did call upon the Lord, is evidence God had gifted them with His grace and faith in His Person.

 

[Cross Reference]

That scripture does not define Seth and those men as being "unregenerate." In fact, because they alone, out of all other persons, did call upon the Lord, is evidence God had gifted them with His grace and faith in His Person.

What I posited doesn't mention of Seth. WAKE UP because this where I lose my cool with you. You can read same as me. READ IT WITH BUT HONESTy OF PURPOSE, I.E., FOR THE TRUTH.

They could not be anything else but since regeneration was NOT possible. Four Thousand years later it would be. There is no gift nor evidence of anything in this except man was capable . .on his own . .of calling on the NAme of the Lord.

OMT: Scripture does not define a host of things left up to us to fathom out by honest study, study without a hook in it.