Not Christians!

[MennoSota]

Here is the question I am asking you, and you refuse to answer it:

As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?

Stop lying, stop being a hypocrite, stop stonewalling, stop being a coward. Answer the question:

As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?

Your one question is really two questions. Do you know why? The Bible will answer both questions, but you, presently, do not grasp why your question is actually two. I will not toss you pearls.

 

[7djengo7]

Your one question is really two questions. Do you know why? The Bible will answer both questions, but you, presently, do not grasp why your question is actually two. I will not toss you pearls.

On the contrary, the question I asked you--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

--is really one question, and not two questions.


When you wrote "Your one question is really two questions," you were saying that there are two questions that you have in mind, in addition to the one question I asked.

So, to which (if any) two questions would you say you are referring?

Question 1. ____________________________________________?
Question 2. ____________________________________________?

Fill in those blanks!

Of course you will not toss me pearls! You have none to toss; and even if you had any, your cloven hooves would inhibit you from tossing them. Just fill in those blanks, and stop dragging the Bible through your mire!

 

[MennoSota]

On the contrary, the question I asked you--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

--is really one question, and not two questions.


When you wrote "Your one question is really two questions," you were saying that there are two questions that you have in mind, in addition to the one question I asked.

So, to which (if any) two questions would you say you are referring?

Question 1. ____________________________________________?
Question 2. ____________________________________________?

Fill in those blanks!

Of course you will not toss me pearls! You have none to toss; and even if you had any, your cloven hooves would inhibit you from tossing them. Just fill in those blanks, and stop dragging the Bible through your mire!

So demanding to answer under your rules. Are you always this controlling? Is that why you reject God choosing whom he wills to be saved and demand that you have sovereign control over your life?
When you recognize the dual question that you are asking, let me know. Presently, you are clueless.

 

[7djengo7]

So demanding to answer under your rules. Are you always this controlling? Is that why you reject God choosing whom he wills to be saved and demand that you have sovereign control over your life?
When you recognize the dual question that you are asking, let me know. Presently, you are clueless.

When you wrote "Your one question is really two questions," what are the two questions to which you were referring? Can you please tell me what they are, because, indeed, as you said, I am clueless as to what two question you were referring?

Of course, the question I asked you--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

--is really one question, and not two questions.

However, since you claimed I was asking two questions, whereas I only asked the one question, I am clueless as to what two questions you were referring. Why can't you just share them with me?

 

[MennoSota]

When you wrote "Your one question is really two questions," what are the two questions to which you were referring? Can you please tell me what they are, because, indeed, as you said, I am clueless as to what two question you were referring?

Of course, the question I asked you--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

--is really one question, and not two questions.

However, since you claimed I was asking two questions, whereas I only asked the one question, I am clueless as to what two questions you were referring. Why can't you just share them with me?

Your question requires perspective. From which perspective does a person answer. Therefore, there are two questions.
First, from God's perspective, the elect were chosen from before the foundation of the world. God, being outside of time, knew the elect...always. From that view, the answer is...no.
Second, from my finite and timebound perspective, I was dead in my trespasses and sins, following my master, the devil. But, God, made me alive in Christ Jesus, saving me by His grace at just the right time so that He might be glorified. From that view, the answer is...yes.
So...your question is really two questions because there are two perspectives.
A theology professor once explained it like this: There is a door frame. On the side where humans view the door, you see the words "All who will may enter." On the side where God views the door, you see the words "Chosen from before the foundation of the world." Thus the answer is given from the perspective from which you look.

But, this is easily read in scripture, if you actually wished to read scripture. That is all that John Calvin did. He didn't add anything new to God's word. He wasn't like Joseph Smith. He didn't remove from scripture. He wasn't like Charles Taze Russell. Calvin just observed scripture and let it say what it says.
I suggest you do the same.

 

[7djengo7]

Your question requires perspective. From which perspective does a person answer. Therefore, there are two questions.
First, from God's perspective, the elect were chosen from before the foundation of the world. God, being outside of time, knew the elect...always. From that view, the answer is...no.
Second, from my finite and timebound perspective, I was dead in my trespasses and sins, following my master, the devil. But, God, made me alive in Christ Jesus, saving me by His grace at just the right time so that He might be glorified. From that view, the answer is...yes.
So...your question is really two questions because there are two perspectives.
A theology professor once explained it like this: There is a door frame. On the side where humans view the door, you see the words "All who will may enter." On the side where God views the door, you see the words "Chosen from before the foundation of the world." Thus the answer is given from the perspective from which you look.

But, this is easily read in scripture, if you actually wished to read scripture. That is all that John Calvin did. He didn't add anything new to God's word. He wasn't like Joseph Smith. He didn't remove from scripture. He wasn't like Charles Taze Russell. Calvin just observed scripture and let it say what it says.
I suggest you do the same.

In the first place, I asked you to tell me what two questions you had in mind when you said to me, "Your one question is really two questions." So far, you have not told me which (if any) questions you had in mind. In your post, #25, the only question marks I found occurred in the quote box, and they were all at the ends of the questions I asked you. I searched in vain, in the body of your own comments, for question marks, and there was not even one to be found. No question marks = No questions. Inasmuch as you provided no questions, whatsoever, you failed to provide the two questions I asked you about. So, again, I request that you please tell me what (if any) two questions you had in mind when you said "Your one question is really two questions," because, so far--as you, yourself, admitted--I have no clue as to what questions you were talking about (if you actually even had two questions in mind, and were not merely bluffing); you are the only one that can supply that clue, since you were the one purportedly referring to two questions. If, on the other hand, you were just bluffing, then you ought to come clean and tell me: "Look, I'm sorry. It was dishonest of me, but I merely said that your one question is really two questions without really having any questions in mind." You won't, of course, but you ought to.

At any rate, you finally answered the one question I did ask--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

And your answer to it was "the answer is...yes."

So, fancying yourself to be an elect person, you now admit that you believe there was a time during which you were BOTH

1. Elect,

AND

2. Not yet regenerated--unregenerate.

Thus, you have now admitted that you believe you were once, simultaneously, UNREGENERATE AND ELECT. But, observe what you are on record as having said to me, in regard to the phrase 'unregenerate elect':

In post #11, you wrote:

I don't use the term "unregenerate elect." Perhaps someone else does, but I don't find the term in scripture.

But, obviously, since, as you now admit, you believe you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect, and since you would pretend that you believe it because you think it is based on Scripture, your complaint that the phrase, 'unregenerate elect', is not in Scripture, is manifestly frivolous. Perhaps you also are an anti-Trinitarian, since you don't find the phrase, 'The Trinity', in Scripture.

Indeed, you have now plainly admitted the Calvinist category I've been talking about all along: the unregenerate elect. You have just now claimed to have been, at an earlier time, one of 'em. It is a category inextricable from TULIP theology, and necessarily embarrassing to those who, like you, pretend to be defenders of Calvinism. Remember, in post #13, you wrote to me:

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.

Indeed, it doesn't matter a whit that you, yourself, did not write the phrase, "unregenerate elect", in any of your posts to me, because your admission that you believe you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect is nothing other than an admission, on your part, that you believe in the state of affairs referred to by the term, 'unregenerate elect.'

Your "I don't find the term in scripture" ploy backfires on you, too. You don't find anywhere in Scripture the term you used, "timebound [sic] perspective", and nevertheless, you used it. It's not in Scripture, but you used it anyway! Why the double-standard? And, I'm not going to be so silly as to pretend I think you made that term up, as you pretended to think I made up the term, 'unregenerate elect'.

Also, you have now admitted that you believe you were once simultaneously elect and a follower of the devil! For all your pretense about how much you revere the Bible, it is quite telling to see you saying that an elect person can be a follower, a servant, of the devil, and that the devil can be master of an elect person! Where's that to be found in Scripture? Nowhere! Perhaps you will try to claim that, while it is obvious that no one passage of Scripture explicitly states that an elect person is, or can be, a servant of the devil, we somehow ought to infer it, and accept it as though it is a necessary implication from multiple Scripture proof-texts. But, your own conduct will shoot that sentiment down, right quick, for you manifestly oppose making inferences to necessary consequence. For instance, I had laid out the syllogism, whose major and minor premises both are propositions you pretend to believe to be true, viz.:

Maj.: All false teachers are non-elect,
Min.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
Ergo,
Conc: Greg Boyd is non-elect,​

and, though you purportedly agree with both the premises, you have, thus far, utterly refused to personally conclude, and to state what is necessarily implied by those premises--that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, you'll manifest astounding hypocrisy whenever you try to claim that you have arrived at believing any other propositions of Calvinism by way of inference to necessary consequence from the propositions of Scripture!

So, now I ask you, since you have now admitted to believing that you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect, what is your real motivation for refusing to use the term 'unregenerate elect', since the bogus reason you gave has just been exploded?

 

[MennoSota]

In the first place, I asked you to tell me what two questions you had in mind when you said to me, "Your one question is really two questions." So far, you have not told me which (if any) questions you had in mind. In your post, #25, the only question marks I found occurred in the quote box, and they were all at the ends of the questions I asked you. I searched in vain, in the body of your own comments, for question marks, and there was not even one to be found. No question marks = No questions. Inasmuch as you provided no questions, whatsoever, you failed to provide the two questions I asked you about. So, again, I request that you please tell me what (if any) two questions you had in mind when you said "Your one question is really two questions," because, so far--as you, yourself, admitted--I have no clue as to what questions you were talking about (if you actually even had two questions in mind, and were not merely bluffing); you are the only one that can supply that clue, since you were the one purportedly referring to two questions. If, on the other hand, you were just bluffing, then you ought to come clean and tell me: "Look, I'm sorry. It was dishonest of me, but I merely said that your one question is really two questions without really having any questions in mind." You won't, of course, but you ought to.

At any rate, you finally answered the one question I did ask--

"As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?"

And your answer to it was "the answer is...yes."

So, fancying yourself to be an elect person, you now admit that you believe there was a time during which you were BOTH

1. Elect,

AND

2. Not yet regenerated--unregenerate.

Thus, you have now admitted that you believe you were once, simultaneously, UNREGENERATE AND ELECT. But, observe what you are on record as having said to me, in regard to the phrase 'unregenerate elect':

In post #11, you wrote:



But, obviously, since, as you now admit, you believe you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect, and since you would pretend that you believe it because you think it is based on Scripture, your complaint that the phrase, 'unregenerate elect', is not in Scripture, is manifestly frivolous. Perhaps you also are an anti-Trinitarian, since you don't find the phrase, 'The Trinity', in Scripture.

Indeed, you have now plainly admitted the Calvinist category I've been talking about all along: the unregenerate elect. You have just now claimed to have been, at an earlier time, one of 'em. It is a category inextricable from TULIP theology, and necessarily embarrassing to those who, like you, pretend to be defenders of Calvinism. Remember, in post #13, you wrote to me:



Indeed, it doesn't matter a whit that you, yourself, did not write the phrase, "unregenerate elect", in any of your posts to me, because your admission that you believe you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect is nothing other than an admission, on your part, that you believe in the state of affairs referred to by the term, 'unregenerate elect.'

Your "I don't find the term in scripture" ploy backfires on you, too. You don't find anywhere in Scripture the term you used, "timebound [sic] perspective", and nevertheless, you used it. It's not in Scripture, but you used it anyway! Why the double-standard? And, I'm not going to be so silly as to pretend I think you made that term up, as you pretended to think I made up the term, 'unregenerate elect'.

Also, you have now admitted that you believe you were once simultaneously elect and a follower of the devil! For all your pretense about how much you revere the Bible, it is quite telling to see you saying that an elect person can be a follower, a servant, of the devil, and that the devil can be master of an elect person! Where's that to be found in Scripture? Nowhere! Perhaps you will try to claim that, while it is obvious that no one passage of Scripture explicitly states that an elect person is, or can be, a servant of the devil, we somehow ought to infer it, and accept it as though it is a necessary implication from multiple Scripture proof-texts. But, your own conduct will shoot that sentiment down, right quick, for you manifestly oppose making inferences to necessary consequence. For instance, I had laid out the syllogism, whose major and minor premises both are propositions you pretend to believe to be true, viz.:

Maj.: All false teachers are non-elect,
Min.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
Ergo,
Conc: Greg Boyd is non-elect,​

and, though you purportedly agree with both the premises, you have, thus far, utterly refused to personally conclude, and to state what is necessarily implied by those premises--that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, you'll manifest astounding hypocrisy whenever you try to claim that you have arrived at believing any other propositions of Calvinism by way of inference to necessary consequence from the propositions of Scripture!

So, now I ask you, since you have now admitted to believing that you were once simultaneously unregenerate and elect, what is your real motivation for refusing to use the term 'unregenerate elect', since the bogus reason you gave has just been exploded?

LOL, you ARE a pretzel maker.
Why do you hate God and His Sovereignty?

 

[God's Truth]

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!

That is an interesting thought. I think it would sure make one more careful about what they are doing.

 

[Squeaky]

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!

I said
The only saints are Christians. And if the title of Christian was good enough for the apostles its good enough for me. Anyway you could loose your own Christian standing if you are one. By criticizing them.

[Jas 4:11
[11] Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

 

[Zeke]

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!

Who cares what the world thinks, it's mostly your own reflection your seeing in others that you judge keeping you perpetuity reaping your own mind candy. labels and names have no substance other than herd hypnosis to keep you slumbering, the teaching of Christ is the way "in" to your true identity, not some religious ear tag or cultural nose ring that makes you Caesars property.

 

[BoyStan]

[Be happy

 

[BoyStan]

[Be happy

 

[Derf]

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!

If "Christian" is so stained in the world's eye, let's work to unstain it. Let's not pretend we don't have problems by changing our name.

Btw, "saint" and "stain" are anagrams of each other.

One more thing...if the world calls us "Christian" after Christ's name, I certainly wouldn't want to drop the "Chri" part (leaving "-stian", another anagram of the same 5 letters!) that shows how we are named after Him.

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. [2Ch 7:14 KJV]

So I would suggest you not get so "antsi" (sorry, couldn't resist) about it, and encourage believers not to blaspheme the name of our Lord (Rom 2:24).

(Hey, Bo-istan, did you notice how close your name comes to having another anagram of saint in it?)

There's just no ifs, ands, or ain'ts about it. It's na likely (as our Scottish friends might say) we will be changing our name any time soon.

 

[BoyStan]

Be happy

 

[Idolater]

Christians and the church are too much in love with the world and winning its favour. It would be better to accentuate the great divide between the world and church and christians. Who takes much notice of the name christian today? If the church really stood for the kingdom of God in this world today it would be persecuted to death. The blood of the martyrs would again be the seed of the church!

There's still Christian martyrdom around the world, not so much in Europe and America, but it remains in more backward nations.

The world belongs to Christians. It has for centuries. Back when the Church was born, in the 1st century, this was by no means true, and that's when the most famous Christian martyrs were disintegrated on crosses, beheaded, burned alive, and eaten by wild beasts for sport.

The world began to become the Church's in the 4th century with Constantine converting to the faith. By the end of the 4th century, the Church had become the only licit religion in the Roman empire.

The 4th century also sowed the seeds of the Reformation in the 16th century, when Christians themselves began to rebel against the Church being in an alliance with civil authority, and against the use of force to convert people to the faith, and to keep Christians toeing the line.

 

[BoyStan]

Be happy

 

[God's Truth]

Who cares what the world thinks, it's mostly your own reflection your seeing in others that you judge keeping you perpetuity reaping your own mind candy. labels and names have no substance other than herd hypnosis to keep you slumbering, the teaching of Christ is the way "in" to your true identity, not some religious ear tag or cultural nose ring that makes you Caesars property.

Yeah but who did you get that idea from, did you get it from a new age teacher?

 

[Idolater]

The western world, like the 1st century, is increasingly anti Church and Christians.

It's anti-Christendom, I'd say. That's way different from the Church and Christians.

The clerical system exists to ensure Christians toe the line.

You think? And by 'clerical system,' are you talking about the Church's authentic pastorate, that of the bishops, instituted by the Apostles, or is it some other thing than that? Without the application, or credible threat of force, there's not really a legitimate charge of anybody ensuring that anybody toes any line, wouldn't you agree?

Hopefully seeds of another reformation are being sown

The last Reformation hasn't yet demolished Christendom from the earth. It's centuries in the making, and it's not done yet.

 

[BoyStan]

Be happy

 

[Idolater]

Christendom, Church, Christians go together as parts of a whole.

I don't see it that way, at least not necessarily. Christendom is an error. The use of force to coerce Christian/'Christian' morals/behavior, and it is the opposite of the separation between Church and state; rather, it's the mingling together of the two.

The clerical system developed after the apostolic era. It's purpose is the maintenance of orthodoxy,and the survival of the the bricks and mortar church system.

That last part sounds like the bishops, except the bishops developed during the Apostolic era, they were first created by the Apostles, as 'senior' pastors of the Church, just as were the Apostles themselves.

The Catholic Church is a prime example of "Without the application, or credible threat of force, there's not really a legitimate charge of anybody'.

The Catholic Church hasn't even been accused of sanctioning the use of force in a rather long time.

The New Testament gives a different picture of an organic not organisational church.

What is 'organic' as compared to 'organizational,' to you? I just want to understand.