3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

[John146]

worst idea especially with how these are today so liberal. Jesus had no master's degree, apostles were simple workers like fisherman. only educated one was st.paul who was a pharisee.
do we really need to spend money to understand the bible? because university is not cheap. what we need is Holy Spirit to open us the truth, no need for any degrees. these are neat things to have. chuck missler had one but he always agreed you dont really need it all you need is the Holy Spirit.

Most seminaries today just teach students how to correct God’s word.

 

[Sipsey]

An intense thorough study of “how” to study Scripture, goes a long way. Learning what tools are available and how to both narrow down, yet back up and see the big picture and to properly connect the dots for context.

 

[oldethennew]

seminary=ies is 'man-made' = not of God =
get real and claim your own 'life' = reject the 'spellers' =
'find out what your whole 'duty' is = 'Love God and Keep His Commandments'...
Peace and Joy will follow, without question...

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

here is some of what A. Pink says of Leviticus 16 --

The most important of all the types is that which is found in Leviticus 16: the appointed ritual for the great day of atonement. The type of Leviticus 16 goes much farther than does the one in Exodus 12: the Passover illustrated the redemptive character of Christ’s sacrifice; that of Leviticus 16 its propitiatory nature. In Exodus 12 we see the blood sheltering from judgment those who are under it; in the early chapters of Leviticus, we see the power of the blood restoring to communion the penitent transgressor; but in Leviticus 16 we behold the blood opening a way into the very presence of God, entitling the penitent and believing worshipper to come with boldness unto His very throne.​

​

By a careful comparison of Deuteronomy 27 and Leviticus 16 we may discover how the law was, and still is, a "schoolmaster" unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). In the former chapter, we see that the law demanded implicit and complete obedience to its demands (v. 10); and how that the Levites pronounced with "a loud voice" a curse on the transgressor of it (vv. 14, 15). That curse was repeated twelve times, according to the number of Israel’s tribes, and on each pronouncement thereof "all the people" were required to say "Amen": the final word being "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (v. 26)— cf. Galatians 3:10. The law required sinless perfection under the penalty of eternal damnation, and thus it revealed the imperative need of an atonement. While in Leviticus 16 we see how that law by its great sin-offering, with its blood of atonement, pointed forward to Christ.​

​

The sacrificial system of Judaism reached its climax on the great day of atonement. As the ark was the chief object in the tabernacle, so the annual Day of propitiation was the chief one in Israel’s religious calendar. On that auspicious occasion the high priest divested himself of his robes of "glory and beauty" (Exodus 28), and put on "the holy linen" garments (Lev. 16:4). The spotless white in which he was clothed spoke of the perfect righteousness of Christ, which, tested as it was both by man (John 8:46) and Satan (John 14:30), and then passing through the infinitely searching scrutiny of God under the fiery trial of the cross, insured the Divine acceptance of that satisfaction which He made to God on behalf of His people.​

​

Two young goats were selected "for a sin-offering;" though there were two animals, it was but one offering. Two goats were selected in order that a fuller representation might be given: the one being designed more expressly to exhibit the means, the other the effect of the atonement. They were brought and presented together before the Lord (v. 7), the Lord determining by lot which of them was to be slain. The other animal stood by and was atoned for (Hebrew of verse 10) by the dying victim, and then bore away the sins laid upon it into the land of eternal forgetfulness (vv. 21,22): a blessed figure of that remission of our sins when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.​

​

Passing by what was done with the bullock, we confine our attention unto the two goats. After the one had been killed, the high priest took its blood within the veil and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat not once, but seven times "before" Him to provide a perfect standing ground for His people. The antitype of this is seen in Hebrews 9:12, "But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12). The consequence of this is that "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us" (Heb. 10:19, 20).​

​

After the high priest had finished his work inside the sanctuary, we are told, "he shall bring the live goat, and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel... and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited" (vv. 20-22).That was a continuation and completion of the ceremony concerning the sin-offering, so that this symbolic transfer of their sins to the head of the scapegoat, which bore them away, plainly signified that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the first goat was the complete removal of all their transgressions from before the face of God.​

​

"And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there" (Lev. 16:23). Why? To denote that his work was finished. The blessed antitype of this we see in Luke 24:12: on the resurrection morning, those who came to Christ’s empty sepulcher "beheld the linen clothes" lying there, a token that He was risen from the dead, and so of atonement completed, and accepted by God. ​

​

i'm not sure i see where it is at odds with P. Wilson? but Pink's understanding is that the goat chosen to be slain represents the means of atonement, and the goat chosen to live represents the effect. it seems to me that if the slain goat is present, but the living goat is not, then atonement has been made, but its effect is not applied. this is as though, yes, Christ tasted death for every man, but if we do not join Him on His cross in death, in order that we may also join Him in being risen to life, then we are in the "all" for whom He died but not among the "many" whose sins He bore -- because both goats are representative of Him, but one perishes, and the other lives: there is a definite distinction, just as there is a definite distinction between atonement - which is covering - and bearing, which is to lift up and carry. this would seem to me to be the case which Wilson's understanding speaks of, but it's not necessarily contrary to Pink, just that - Pink speaks of Christ, and Wilson speaks of how man responds to Him.

what do you think?

I liked Pink's explanation and it is basically the same as my own. The atonement includes propitiation and expiation. Jesus died for our sins and he also carried them away.

Various cultic groups have tried to claim that Jesus died for our sins, and that the second lamb represented Satan. Supposedly our sins will be transferred from Christ to Satan, where they really belong. These groups include the SDAs and the Armstrongites.

What I was getting from Wilson, although I might not understand his view, is that he was trying to claim that one group's sins would be borne by Jesus, but the other group would be borne by themselves. Yet, the atonement itself covers all.

I would not agree with that. The atonement of Jesus was designed to redeem the elect from their sins, and actually to provide everything they need, from beginning to end, for their salvation. Jesus actually did purchase a people for his own possession (the elect) through the atonement. He did not just create the possibility of their salvation; he actually purchased it.

Wilson was part of an extreme Brethren movement so he was not Reformed. Therefore his theology would not be Reformed and he was grasping at straws to defend general atonement, same as other free-willers do.

Pink is Reformed and my view would align with him. In fact, he's like an Extra-Strength version of Reformed Some things he says are a bit on the edge for me, but I really like how he explained this. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Most seminaries today just teach students how to correct God’s word.

That's why they are now known as cemeteries. Therefore let the dead bury their dead.

 

[Whispered]

"ἁμαρτία hamartia
Word Origin
from hamartanó
Definition
a sin, failure
NASB Translation
sin (96), sinful (2), sins (75)

Source: 266. hamartia ►

παράβασις parabasis
Word Origin
from parabainó
Definition
a going aside, a transgression
NASB Translation
breaking (1), offense (1), transgression (2), transgressions (2), violation (1)"

Source: Bible Hub 3847. parabasis ►
Search Results

Showing 1 - 7 of 7 search results for parabasis

Parabasis

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/parabasis.html
Parabasis

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/parabasis.html
Transgression

https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/transgression.html
Sin

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/sin.html
Sin (1)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/sin-1.html
Hebreos 2

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/utley/hebreos/hebreos2.html

Law In The New Testament

https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/law-in-the-new-testament.html

Just to point out that harmatia is used 173 times in the NT,

Actually, as you can see above from the source linked, it would be rightly spelled as hamartia. "1.The noun hamartia appears 173 times in the Greek New Testament. " Source: Wenstrom C 1.

whereas parbasis is only used 7 times in the NT, meaning it is a very low frequency word.

Actually it is spelled, as you see above, parabasis.

Source: NAS Verse Count
Romans3
Galatians1 1
Timothy1
Hebrews2
Total 7

In fact, sin, in its various forms, is an essential word. It is a foundational word in explaining the existence Fall of humanity and the gospel.
Transgression, a different word, God used for certain purposes. It is not really part of the gospel, one does not repent of their transgressions.

To the contrary, the whole Gospel speaks of repenting for our transgressions.
Romans 4:15
For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 5:12-21
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
What does the Bible say about forgiving past transgressions?
Psalm 103:12 12as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.


Bible Study Tools Dictionary:Transgression See Sin

How many times does Sin appear in the Bible?
KJV Old Testament 336 KJV New Testament 112 NIV Old Testament 347 NIV New Testament 127 (Source)

 

[Whispered]

I liked Pink's explanation and it is basically the same as my own. The atonement includes propitiation and expiation. Jesus died for our sins and he also carried them away.

Various cultic groups have tried to claim that Jesus died for our sins, and that the second lamb represented Satan. Supposedly our sins will be transferred from Christ to Satan, where they really belong. These groups include the SDAs and the Armstrongites.

What I was getting from Wilson, although I might not understand his view, is that he was trying to claim that one group's sins would be borne by Jesus, but the other group would be borne by themselves. Yet, the atonement itself covers all.

I would not agree with that. The atonement of Jesus was designed to redeem the elect from their sins, and actually to provide everything they need, from beginning to end, for their salvation. Jesus actually did purchase a people for his own possession (the elect) through the atonement. He did not just create the possibility of their salvation; he actually purchased it.

Wilson was part of an extreme Brethren movement so he was not Reformed. Therefore his theology would not be Reformed and he was grasping at straws to defend general atonement, same as other free-willers do.

Pink is Reformed and my view would align with him. In fact, he's like an Extra-Strength version of Reformed Some things he says are a bit on the edge for me, but I really like how he explained this. Thanks for sharing.

Transgression Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

Transgression

Wrong-doing; a violation of a law.
Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing, and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying, I am clean without TRANSGRESSION, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me. ( Job 33:8-9 )​

trans-gresh'-un:

From "transgress," to pass over or beyond; to overpass, as any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; to break or violate, as a law, civil or moral; the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; offense; crime; sin. In the Old Testament pesha`, occurs 80 times, rendered in all versions by "transgression." Its meaning is "rebellion". The word "rebellion" differs from this word in that it may be in the heart, though no opportunity should be granted for its manifestation: "An evil man seeketh only rebellion" (Proverbs 17:11). Here the wise man contemplates an evil heart, looking for an excuse or opportunity to rebel.

The New Testament uses parabasis, "trespass":

"The law .... was added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19); "Where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Romans 4:15); "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:15).



BING , search criteria:bible gospel transgression

• 63 Bible Verses about Transgression

Source:Internet Bible College New Testament Greek Words For Sin
New Testament Greek Words For Sin
There are a number of words used in the original Greek New Testament which are translated “sin” or “sins”. These are “hamartia”, “hamartema” and “hamartano”. In the original Greek New Testament, the most common word translated as “sin” or “sins”is “hamartia”. Vine says “hamartia” means “literally missing of the mark”. 1 But Richards says: “sin is not only missing God’s mark; it is an inner reality, a warp in human nature and a malignant power that holds each individual in an unbreakable grip”. 2 The word “hamartia” is used in the original Greek New Testament to refer to:

I'd like to look closer at it, but it's late, and I need to be at church in the morning.

I do hope you had a peaceful sleep and a blessed and prayerful experience at your church.

Again, these word studies are shallow, and need to be researched well,

I quite agree. Perhaps due to the late hour and a need for rest is why you omitted the sources for your Greek Concordance paste's above in your quoted remarks.

before someone like Whisperer decides to make a doctrine of of them!

Oh, no, I would never seek to feign credit, nor would this Christian ever mock doctrine could arise from "ἁμαρτία hamartia, nor from, παράβασις parabasis.
Because the doctrinal credit has for centuries now been bound and distributed world wide as the Holy Bible filled with its eternal Good News.
God Loves You.

 

[Whispered]

worst idea especially with how these are today so liberal. Jesus had no master's degree, apostles were simple workers like fisherman. only educated one was st.paul who was a pharisee.
do we really need to spend money to understand the bible? because university is not cheap. what we need is Holy Spirit to open us the truth, no need for any degrees. these are neat things to have. chuck missler had one but he always agreed you dont really need it all you need is the Holy Spirit.

Amen! Just because there is the designation of "Bible College or University" , does not mean it is a place of our Lord. Remember the Moody Bible College news not long ago? Resignations of Provost Junias Venugopal, and Chief Operating Officer Steve Mogck, shocked many people. But likely not on the campus.

Someone I know wrote this many years ago. It is still relevant I think and especially now.
"
Let’s consider the foundational . . . Biblical . . . issue before we get into the practical. First and foremost, there is no Biblical support for Bible colleges and seminaries. There are 3 God-ordained institutions relevant to Christian life: the family, the local church, and civil government. Training (discipleship) for all believers (children and adults) is clearly to be done within the family and the church. We see evangelism and discipleship performed in the Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts. We see the apostles (Paul, in particular) planting churches and strengthening them through visits and epistles. We see evidence of evangelists traveling and corresponding to enable communication among the independent local churches. We see absolutely no example of Bible colleges.

Why are Bible colleges and seminaries not only un-Biblical, but anti-Biblical? Every follower of Jesus Christ is called to produce more disciples, each one of us working to produce more educated followers who, in turn, produce even more educated followers. That is how the New Testament churches are designed — by God — to grow and spread. Where does the Bible college fit in? IT DOESN’T!!! Bible colleges produce pulpiteers. Pulpiteers lecture at their crowds — they don’t train disciples to produce more disciples. Furthermore, pulpiteers need salaries and auditoriums and, therefore, lots of money to support the system . . . which includes Bible colleges to train more pulpiteers. The system works to prevent discipleship! What an ungodly mess. "
Source and further reading at Don’t Go to Bible College


The Book of Romans chapter 14 and verse 18
Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

The Book of Ecclesiastes 12

9 Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. 10 The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. 12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

 

[Melach]

That's why they are now known as cemeteries. Therefore let the dead bury their dead.

hahaha theological cemeteries

i learned more from pastors who are real life car mechanic like charles lawson than professors. i am now listening to his sermon posted on sunday evening

 

[Deade]

seminary=ies is 'man-made' = not of God =
get real and claim your own 'life' = reject the 'spellers' =
'find out what your whole 'duty' is = 'Love God and Keep His Commandments'...
Peace and Joy will follow, without question...

Yes oldethennew, not just keeping God's Commandments but learning through them. Start delighting in the law of the Lord (Psalm 1:2) and He will teach us His ways. Then peace, joy and confidence with draw people to God through us.

Regarding the OP. Predestination is very real, but just how it works exactly is a mystery. Just like choice plays a role, but we can't rely on that too much either. I have read through this thread and have seen a lot of truths and many errors. It can be baffling how it all works together in a believers life. We may not get all our answers during this life, but God will make sure we have instructions enough to serve Him. In my age I have learned to let go and let God more and more.

 

[calibob]

Yes oldethennew, not just keeping God's Commandments but learning through them. Start delighting in the law of the Lord (Psalm 1:2) and He will teach us His ways. Then peace, joy and confidence with draw people to God through us.

Regarding the OP. Predestination is very real, but just how it works exactly is a mystery. Just like choice plays a role, but we can't rely on that too much either. I have read through this thread and have seen a lot of truths and many errors. It can be baffling how it all works together in a believers life. We may not get all our answers during this life, but God will make sure we have instructions enough to serve Him. In my age I have learned to let go and let God more and more. View attachment 205180

Bullseye

Read my signature panel that @Magenta made for me.​

 

[Angela53510]

worst idea especially with how these are today so liberal. Jesus had no master's degree, apostles were simple workers like fisherman. only educated one was st.paul who was a pharisee.
do we really need to spend money to understand the bible? because university is not cheap. what we need is Holy Spirit to open us the truth, no need for any degrees. these are neat things to have. chuck missler had one but he always agreed you dont really need it all you need is the Holy Spirit.

I have a Master of Divinity, from a conservative Bible believing seminary, that gave me tools for ministry as well as a solid understanding of Scripture, and Bible Interpretation or hermeneutics. I certainly don't know everything, but it gave me the tools to dig deeper for the truth. I have been working in a PhD in theology, such an amazing way to study the Bible, under the leading of the Holy Spirit.

There are people, who can do this on their own. I have met them! But for me, 7 pt time years of study under Bible believing professors taught me me about the Bible, about God and theology, and how to serve, more than I could have learned in my own.

I'm sorry you have met people who didn't grow into solid, mature Christians, as I had the opportunity to do.

 

[Angela53510]

thank you Angela -- i am sorry that shallow word studies are the only kind i am qualified to do. i realize that i don't know much more than to recognize that two different words are two different words, and i try to limit what i say about such things to what i can definitely support. to my understanding the particulars ((at least some)) of the meaning of two different words being in Romans 4:15 & 5:13 is elucidated in things like the fall of Satan and of mankind and whether all are saved or only a portion, which things i don't need supporting linguistic studies for, but only the clear scripture and the message of the gospel.

i'm not very good with people =\

I wasn't talking to you. You are very humble, and you used your own words, and didn't copy and paste the same erroneous info. I'm very sorry if you thought I was talking to you! I apologize!

 

[Angela53510]

I guess he PM'd for support.
Oh, and by the way, I started this thread. Please don't presume to tell me I'm not entitled to opine and do not throw credentials into this thread when it has gone 15 pages without your presence and the first introduction you make is one that is passive aggressive.

Not a good look as far as first impressions go however, eerily familiar as the behavior of others who's names have appeared in their postings for longer.

Nobody PM'd me for support. If you bothered to look, I am a long time member, 9 years coming up in Jan. I have over 10,000 posts, so no, not a first impression. I've been around a long time! You'd have to go back to 2011 to find an introduction. Pretty much everyone knows who I am, although I have been too busy lately to do much more than pop in and out.

You are the newbie! You've been here less than 2 months, and think you know your way around?

Like, just because you started a thread, it does NOT make it yours. This is an open forum, once you post the OP, it belongs to every member, not just you! Although you keep copy and pasting the same thing over and over to prove your point, which is unwarranted.

I read this thread, every post from the OP to the end. But your long, copied & pasted from?? They just didn't stop. No one reads copy and pastes that go on forever, not even you to delete unnecessary things in the original source.

And speaking of sources, you need to put a link, and probably an author. And stop confirming your rigid biases, by googling your warped theology. Try reading both sides of an issue, from people who believe in what they are talking about. Do some research. Draw your own conclusions. Even if you don't change your viewpoint, you will understand the issue much better than trying to google quick evidence from other people who do not hold to the other viewpoint.

Oh, and welcome to CC!

 

[Angela53510]

Transgression Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

Transgression

Wrong-doing; a violation of a law.
Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing, and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying, I am clean without TRANSGRESSION, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me. ( Job 33:8-9 )​

trans-gresh'-un:

From "transgress," to pass over or beyond; to overpass, as any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; to break or violate, as a law, civil or moral; the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; offense; crime; sin. In the Old Testament pesha`, occurs 80 times, rendered in all versions by "transgression." Its meaning is "rebellion". The word "rebellion" differs from this word in that it may be in the heart, though no opportunity should be granted for its manifestation: "An evil man seeketh only rebellion" (Proverbs 17:11). Here the wise man contemplates an evil heart, looking for an excuse or opportunity to rebel.

The New Testament uses parabasis, "trespass":

"The law .... was added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19); "Where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Romans 4:15); "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:15).



BING , search criteria:bible gospel transgression

• 63 Bible Verses about Transgression

Source:Internet Bible College New Testament Greek Words For Sin
New Testament Greek Words For Sin
There are a number of words used in the original Greek New Testament which are translated “sin” or “sins”. These are “hamartia”, “hamartema” and “hamartano”. In the original Greek New Testament, the most common word translated as “sin” or “sins”is “hamartia”. Vine says “hamartia” means “literally missing of the mark”. 1 But Richards says: “sin is not only missing God’s mark; it is an inner reality, a warp in human nature and a malignant power that holds each individual in an unbreakable grip”. 2 The word “hamartia” is used in the original Greek New Testament to refer to:



I do hope you had a peaceful sleep and a blessed and prayerful experience at your church.

I quite agree. Perhaps due to the late hour and a need for rest is why you omitted the sources for your Greek Concordance paste's above in your quoted remarks. Oh, no, I would never seek to feign credit, nor would this Christian ever mock doctrine could arise from "ἁμαρτία hamartia, nor from, παράβασις parabasis.
Because the doctrinal credit has for centuries now been bound and distributed world wide as the Holy Bible filled with its eternal Good News.
God Loves You.

Your copy and pastes are all from English and modern language sources. This means they have been translated already, from the original language. Therefore, you are getting a translational bias before you even start!

Much better to use a lexicon, which looks at the word in Greek (Bauer) or Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew. Plus all the examples are tied to the Scriptures. These lexicons go much deeper than these simplistic glosses, and every example comes right from
scripture. So you might have 1 or 2 definitions, a lexicon might have 6 or 10, and takes pages to examine them all and how and where they used in the Bible, plus grammatical issues. (I did mention BDAG or Bauer as the Greek lexicon that the majority of scholars use! But I didn't bring up B-D-B the Hebrew lexicon because we weren't talking about Hebrew words!)

That's what people who either want to defend, or make new doctrines do! They use lexicons and grammars. Daniel Wallace has an excellent grammar, "Beyond the Basics of Biblical Greek." He has 90 pages on the word "the" and another 90 pages in the anarthrous article. Quite an interesting read!

Sorry for the typo on parabasis. Typing on a phone can be so difficult, and my very damaged finger tips (I can't hold my phone in a way to use thumbs, plus I have a huge nodule on my right thumb, which hurts and gets bigger every time it is touched.) So, typos happen! Besides, para is a preposition in Greek, making the word compound, which I noticed immediately. On my computer I use Greek letters, but I don't have a template on my phone to use the Greek.

 

[Angela53510]

Most seminaries today just teach students how to correct God’s word.

John, we have been through this before! Yes, there are bad seminaries, which are liberal and do not believe the Bible is inspired, etc.

But there are many good, Bible believing seminaries, with professors who are men and women of God. In my seminary, all the professors had to have served in the mission field for at least 10 years. Their faith was amazing, and the testimonies of the things God did, the people God saved were amazing.

But some people just cling to their anti-Intelletual bias, don't they?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

John, we have been through this before! Yes, there are bad seminaries, which are liberal and do not believe the Bible is inspired, etc.

But there are many good, Bible believing seminaries, with professors who are men and women of God. In my seminary, all the professors had to have served in the mission field for at least 10 years. Their faith was amazing, and the testimonies of the things God did, the people God saved were amazing.

But some people just cling to their anti-Intelletual bias, don't they?

The anti-intellectual bias began with folks like Charles Finney and his buddies.

They sought to discredit educated, sound believers so that they could spread their false teachings.

Charles Finney would discredit the pastors in areas that he "evangelized" (if you can call it that), and then conducted his evangelistic meetings spreading heresies such as denial of core foundational concepts like justification by faith alone, original sin, imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement.

Who was left behind to disciple them? No one. He had discredited all the sound pastors because they didn't agree with his nutty beliefs and emotionalism.

That is why the areas in the Northeast where he evangelized are called the "burned out district". It's the area where four major cults arose (Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism).

Yet, Finney is the hero of a vast segment of ignorant Christianity who knows nothing about his heresies, because they have been indoctrinated into anti-intellectualism. They would rather have services that are chaotic, flop on the floor like fish, bark like dogs, stagger like drunken men, and other circus-show antics rather than sing songs with deep theological content, pray in an organized, coherent manner, and study the word of God.

 

[posthuman]

You remove from man any and all responsibility for his sin. You make God responsible for man becoming a sinner

i'm just trying to sort it all out, not willing to make myself God's judge.

​

What if God, although choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath —prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? ​

(Romans 9:22-24) ​

​

​

 

[posthuman]

No you missed it entirely.

There are none righteous all have gone out of the way and become unprofitable. There are no sheep until God saves them by grace through faith.

Adam chose to sin. Man must choose between his sin and Christ. One becomes elect when he receives Christ and is saved. Man is not saved and does not receive Christ because he is elect.

sounds like it got it about right, actually

you are saying,
there are no sheep, they are all goats.
the goats become sheep by believing - of their own accord
afterwards, He calls them by name, because they heard His voice
post-destining them to election after they elected Him.

isn't that what you are saying?

i'm not denying any culpability of man.
for sure Adam - who was not deceived - with free choice and full understanding ((as much as any human can be said to have understanding)) deliberately chose to join the Woman in death.
when God held court, he and the Woman confessed their sin, and the Lord made atonement, and cursed the serpent and the ground for their sakes. yes. and seeing the glory of His redemption, Adam called her Eve.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

No you missed it entirely.

There are none righteous all have gone out of the way and become unprofitable. There are no sheep until God saves them by grace through faith. You remove from man any and all responsibility for his sin. You make God responsible for man becoming a sinner.

Adam chose to sin. Man must choose between his sin and Christ. One becomes elect when he receives Christ and is saved. Man is not saved and does not receive Christ because he is elect.

Fof the cause of Christ
Roger

Adam is the one who caused man's predicament.

Read Romans 5.

He chose to rebel against God, and represented all mankind in this sin.

Man is responsible for his sin, even if he does have a sin nature.

God commands man to obey him. Regardless if man has the ability or not, he is still liable for his disobedience. This is true even in our courts. If a man commits certain crimes, he needs to give restitution to the victims. Sometimes this restitution is way beyond his ability to pay, but he still rightly owes it to the victim.

Scripture CLEARLY teaches that man is a slave to sin (see Romans 6, John 8). Regardless of being a slave to sin, he is still responsible for his sin. God issues these "oughts" (commandments), and one purpose of them is to display to man that he is a sinner and is under God's just and righteous punishment. This should propel the elect toward realizing that he is helpless to fully obey God, and when the Holy Spirit regenerates him, he exercises faith and repentance.

By the way, what you are claiming (that man becomes elect by choosing Christ himself) cannot be true. Basically the claim is that man chooses himself, and God doesn't choose. 1 Cor 1:26ff refutes this, as it says that God chooses people with certain characteristics (not noble ones) to display his glory more clearly through them. So, we know God chooses individuals.

Those who hold the view that God chooses people who choose him are simply saying that man chooses himself as one of the elect.