You're wrong again. What else is new? Calvinists believe that God chose certain people before the foundation of the world to be called "The Elect." They would first be regenerated then, receive saving faith. In other words, they'd be saved before they could be saved. The rest of humanity would suffer eternal damnation according to Calvinism. Those people were to be "Unsavable." Calvinism is a false doctrine and a false gospel, as well. One may consider it "Another gospel"
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
You're wrong again. What else is new? Calvinists believe that God chose certain people before the foundation of the world to be called "The Elect." They would first be regenerated then, receive saving faith. In other words, they'd be saved before they could be saved. The rest of humanity would suffer eternal damnation according to Calvinism. Those people were to be "Unsavable." Calvinism is a false doctrine and a false gospel, as well. One may consider it "Another gospel"
Sonnet
New member
Hamartema - 4 occurrences:
1 Cor 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
Mark 3:28,29
Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
1 Cor 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
Mark 3:28,29
Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Sonnet
New member
http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/sermons/1516.htm
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
Sonnet
New member
Indeed, nobody would dream of adding 'kinds' to the text if it weren't for the invention of limited atonement...and still without ONE EXPLICIT VERSE TO BACK IT UP.
I need to leave it alone? Haven't touched it. You are the one who's forced to.
PSS is typical of those who think that by citing a few grammatical technicalities, you will think them educated and authoritative. Unfortunately, language doesn't work like that. PSS prejudged me by saying point blanc that I had no idea what sin was. He has never discoursed with me before at length and had no knowledge of me or my education and yet somehow feels himself qualified to tell me what I don't know. I happen to be an advanced reader of ancient Greek and I also know other languages. He is just a spinner. Steer clear.
Sonnet
New member
Even so, I am willing to hear what folk have to say.
How do you you interpret 1 Cor 15:3b? The Greek uses harmation (from harmatia) - a noun meanning 'sin' and PSS suggests, therefore, that this precludes any reference to the sin deeds - rather the sin as a condition.
I think so anyway...
Sonnet
New member
Interesting.
Sonnet
New member
I have no idea how PSS gets there. As you say, and as all the translations seem to indicate, the word used here is in the plural. 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. This word is often used in the plural. If there was a singular concept ('Christ died for our sin') then there were other ways that could have been expressed. Take for example in John 1:29
Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.
The same word is being used but in its singular form. People use the same words to mean different things at different times or to add different kinds of emphasis. Obviously John is stressing the condition of the world as a whole and that Jesus came to deal with this condition as a whole. Whilst Paul and other writers were looking at it from the individual's point of view.
Any insights into resolving compatibilism?
I do not believe that Calvinistic predestination of all things is compatible with freedom generally.
In response, Calvinists will typically quote reams and reams of scriptures demonstrating God's sovereignty. All in vain, as that is not the issue. Sovereignty does not equate to predestination. Calvinists limit God by their teaching that in order for God to be sovereign he must predestine all things. God is clever and capable enough to do it differently. In fact it doesn't take much lateral thinking to see how God could manage the world, achieve his plans, without having to predestine every last things down to the smallest atom. Calvinists lack faith as well as imagination. Rather, his sovereignty is manifested in the freedom he gives to the world, which implies that the world can live. Predestination is incompatible with life itself (a big read but if you had one last chance to say everything to everyone you know, I am sure you would not limit it to just 15 words!).
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
I'm still counting the days. Early April was the prediction. In fact I get by from hour to hour. Now you see me, now you don't...
By the way, it's hamartia, not harmatia. See? I give you clear and comprehensible answers to your questions. You may not agree with me but you don't have to ask it 10 times before getting an answer or read terrible technical stuff first and try to work it out yourself. This is because PSS is a charlatan, I am not.
Sure. Total Misanthropy. There's no one easier to manipulate and abuse than a person who has a low sense of their own self-worth. They have nothing good to say about man. It's a great way to maintain authority over the flock. Tell them they are useless and can't do anything good on their own. Tell them that they will know they are elect if they persevere to the end. Tell them that by their own thinking they cannot understand God. So they have to come to the church to receive the teaching. So they have to submit to the authority of the leaders, of the tradition, of the creeds, the 39 articles, the confessions of Dort, etc. Good-bye Holy Spirit.
Sonnet
New member
That's hard and sad to hear. You sound strong.
Sonnet
New member
Even so, I do think we are depraved. Not in a total sense...
I'm limited to force God's arm behind his back to tell him I deserve heaven according to my own pleasures.
You're unlimited to boast about your works that knocks the heavens gates down with your army of idiots.
Your friends lie as well as you do
You're the leader of the wolves
Sonnet
New member
Strong words.
I'm not boasting or even a believer.
I made a statement about 1 Tim 2:3ff.
Sonnet
New member
Best to stick to the OP.
Sonnet
New member
I am a liar - yes... Not always though.
- Status