Could is possibly be that you are mistaken? You like to deal in generalities, huh Nang?
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
Could is possibly be that you are mistaken? You like to deal in generalities, huh Nang?
Calvinists believe that one must be regenerated before receiving saving faith. Cart before the horse type of reasoning.
You're not fooling anybody TB. You have plenty of time on your hands and nothing better to do.
Who are what?
LA = :rotfl:
Cross Reference
New member
That explains it
Sonnet
New member
It is a simple fact that one cannot preach faith in Christ's death and resurrection if Christ did not die for and resurrect for all men. Calvinists will not preach in such a manner - their theology dictates that they do not do so. If you are a Calvinist then it makes perfect logical sense.
But what did Paul do?
Romans 10:1-4
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Paul explicitly cites his unbelieving brethren, the Israelites, as the focus for those that he wants saved. Then he proceeds to explain how this salvation may occur:
Romans 10:5-9
Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Paul invites them to believe that 'God raised him from the dead.' Now what is Paul doing preaching faith in Christ's resurrection if Christ did die for all, nor resurrect for all?
There is but one reason - Christ did, indeed, die for all men and rose from the dead for all men. Paul's Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is explicit:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
v.11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.
But what did Paul do?
Romans 10:1-4
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Paul explicitly cites his unbelieving brethren, the Israelites, as the focus for those that he wants saved. Then he proceeds to explain how this salvation may occur:
Romans 10:5-9
Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Paul invites them to believe that 'God raised him from the dead.' Now what is Paul doing preaching faith in Christ's resurrection if Christ did die for all, nor resurrect for all?
There is but one reason - Christ did, indeed, die for all men and rose from the dead for all men. Paul's Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is explicit:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
v.11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.
Last edited:
To be honest, you annoy me. You have since I came here. I think it's a personality clash? So, I think it best to ignore you from now on. Thanks for your participation in my decision.
musterion
Well-known member
Careful...Nang's not above calling you a big mean brute picking on a poor defenseless woman. It's happened before.
So, you're just gonna take Nang's theory as "The TRUTH." You seem a bit gullible for some unknown reason? What if I were to tell you, I'm a one-time movie star who ruled the box office for many years. Would you trust me on that?
She may even call me a monster? I mean, a real 100% Monster. That would be interesting.
Sonnet
New member
Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus' resurrection to unbelievers:
Acts 17:18
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
Only if The Good News of Christ's death and resurrection actually pertains to all men without exception could Paul preach in such a way. If but one human was excluded from its provision - and Paul had understood this to be the case - then Paul would not have said what he said.
It has also been proven that Paul told unbelievers about Christ's death 'for our sins.' No one hearing such preaching could ever believe that anyone is excluded.
Not one verse explicitly teaches limited atonement.
Acts 17:18
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
Only if The Good News of Christ's death and resurrection actually pertains to all men without exception could Paul preach in such a way. If but one human was excluded from its provision - and Paul had understood this to be the case - then Paul would not have said what he said.
It has also been proven that Paul told unbelievers about Christ's death 'for our sins.' No one hearing such preaching could ever believe that anyone is excluded.
Not one verse explicitly teaches limited atonement.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The answer will always be the same, and it's simple grammatical structures.
Singular versus plural and articular versus anarthrous noun forms inter-contrasted, and also contrasted to verbs. Also the contrast between hamartia/i (sin/s) and hamartema/ta (sin/s).
In the last paragraph above, what is the definition of "sins" in the sub-phrase "for our sins"? (Is it hamartiai or hamartemata (or paraptomata)? And is it articular or anarthrous?)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
So... What's the precise distinction between them? And how are singular and plural, articular and anarthrous for each one distinct from each other and from the verb?
If you're starting with Strong's, you really have no clue. And that's not condescending, it's empathetic.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
And... Which one is "sins" rendered from in whatever passages you would proof-text, and in what form?
Sonnet
New member
Please explain?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Do you perceive "missing the mark" with "missing" as a verb?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Strong's isn't very extensive lexicography. It's more of a basic word reference only. Sometimes helpful in certain ways, but certainly not what any serious language student would depend upon.
- Status