I have explained it to you before, remember?
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
Trust the Lord by yourself, not your theologies
I have yet to see a single Calvinist explain the Grace Gospel to anyone? They don't seem concerned about the eternal destination of others?
Sonnet
New member
You have, yes.
Calvinists do them with quotes as seen on TOL
She does. You don't. Therein lies the difference.
Everyone who calls themselves a Christian ought to share the Gospel with others. Maddests do. Calvinists do not!
Sonnet
New member
Meaning what TulipBee?
Is this how is goes when presented with an unbeliever?
Forget our verbal clashes - are you going to proclaim the Good News or not?
I suppose Calvinists don't see a need to share the Gospel because they believe God has already decried the saved from the unsaved before the foundation of the world?
More than likely he doesn't know how to share the Gospel with an unbeliever?
Calvinism is backed with quotes meaning they believe in inerrancy. You add to, you believing the bible is infallible meaning you add what men think. Big difference in inerrancy and infallible. One you can't touch and the other you can add to. You ought to leave the bible alone and let God do the speaking
You said you're not a believer and that means youre still in your natural state. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
You see things different
You being an atheist, you don't hear the good news
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
And this is why you're not a troll. You at least attempt to address subject matter.
Most certainly. It's the distinction between inward and outward, and God has always been more concerned with the inner because the outer is merely the manifestation of the inner coming forth.
It's about the heart, and what is or is not in the heart. Is it the void and somethinglessness of sin that cannot be the righteousness of God? Or is it the imputed righteousness of God.
Inward character and outward conduct IS righteousness, whether of oneself's own standard or of God's standard. It's about the source, not the acts. Actions are left to the interpretation and accusation of man by outer appearances. This is about inner reality.
But only in regard to their source, which is always in view as the governing principle or power(lessness).
Sin is personified within man. Man personifies sin by sinning. Man's acting and actions are the inevitable result. Hamartema/ta refers strictly to the resulting acts and their consequences. Hamartiai refers to the plurality of that which comes forth from the source; manpersonifying himself as a sinner.
This is why I presented the noun forms in a sort of order from inward to outward.
Sin (singular articular) is the inner condition.
Sin (singular anarthrous) is the inner qualitative characteristic and dysfunctional activity of the condition.
Sins (plural anarthrous) are the individual inner qualitative characteristics and dysfunctional activities of the condition.
Sins (plural articular) are the anarthrous coming forth from internal to external as acting by the verb to produce action/s as the noun/s.
The last one "straddles" the verb, with all the foregoing being manifested from the source. Referring to plural articular hamartia is calling attention to "that/those" sin/s and their source, and can never be divorced from their source.
With singular aritcular hamartia in our physis (nature) and our members, it is the very essence of our being and existence to bring it forth.
Ok.
Because ALL Greek nouns are anarthrous. Articular nouns are specifically designated by the article being included. The article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun, and became more and more unique as the language developed; to the point that there are hundreds of books written just about the Greek article and the three-layered significance of having the article added to anarthrous nouns.
It's a specificity that exudes divine expression, for it is as close to infinite as any linguistic construct could be, just as the anarthrous nouns already are to a great extent.
I can sit for hours and worship and glorify God just for the majesty of Himself that is in Greek noun constructs. It's amazing. English thinkers/speakers have no idea why the inspired text was given to us in Greek. They can't. And it's all been replaced by glossed nebulous nothingness, very similar to hamartia itself. English is the linguistic equivalent of sin, but it's also the most viable and vibrant means of resurrecting life out of the death of the letter.
Because scripture clearly and explicitly says he was made sin (singular anarthrous) who knew no sin (singular anarthrous). He wasn't made certain or all men. He was made sin.
Poieo takes some time to understand as well. From it come the words poietes (poet) and poiema (poem). By His own Logos made flesh, God is the poet of our salvation; and we are His poem, written by the very Word of God Himself.
Again, the -ma suffix in Greek indicates "the result of". Poiema is the result of God being the poietes.
The verse and cadence of that poem is according to His own sovereignty. We don't get to write the poem with Him or for Him. And it's a poem of love, which He is.
They could if you'd share it. However, I doubt your ability to do so?
Hey, TB, try and explain the "True Gospel" to us? What would you tell somebody who is seeking eternal life?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, God must feel so honored that you made Jesus Christ the object of your grace. (Except that violates His incommunicable attribute of Impassibility, not to mention His sovereignty.)
Good job being god, GrossOne. You're really rockin' it.
Sonnet
New member
Right - you won't proclaim it.
You've seen and heard the gospel, do you expect people to keep repeating it to you ?
- Status