And verse 47 says He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. This could not be the natural man, who, when he is taught, thinks it is foolishness because he cannot discern the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14) until he has been born again (Eph 2). So all that come to him are those that have been born again to a spiritual life, and already have the promise of eternal life. This same truth is also found in John 3:16 of those who "believeth".
Is unconditional election biblical?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Do you know why not everyone will see the Son and believe? Read 1 Cor 2:14, The natural man cannot see to believe the Son because he cannot discern the things of the Spirit, he thinks they are foolish. Only those who have been born to a spiritual life in the new birth can discern spiritual things and they already have the promise of eternal life.
Again you opposition to the sound doctrines of the bible are evident. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17 You cannot believe what you want to believe you must believe what Gods word says about Christ. Romans 10-9-10 are crystal clear on the matter. This is the work that the Holy Spirit does in every heart. John 6:45 says that they all shall be taught. They have been taught to word of God. Apart from the word of God no man coms to a saving knowledge of Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
I know that you will stick with your belief that man's actions is what gets him to heaven. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) you receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the new birth. At the beginning of the new birth you are a babe in Christ. Your faith grows as you hear the word of God. The natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit and therefore will not hear and believe.
Do you realize Karl Barth was engaging in marital unfaithfulness for years with his assistant?
I looked into some of his teachings. They are actually taught by an ex cultic group called Grace Communion International. It appears like they exchanged one heretic (Herbert Armstrong) for another (Karl Barth).
He is the one who is the source of the corporate election teaching. This teaching has a grain of truth with regards to mission and holiness, but not in terms of salvation.
Again, you can quote a few verses here and there, but does it align with all of Scripture?
Of course God is love, but he is also holy. And, his holiness demands that he punish sin. And, he has done this on the Cross through subjecting his Son to the penalty of the sins of the elect. He has redemptive love for them, but not others.
Are you aware of Barth? If so, what is your assessment of him? If he was engaged in marital unfaithfulness, do you think that he would still be able of producing sound theology?
I don't think a man involved in gross immorality such as marital unfaithfulness would be used by God to restore lost truths. I think Barth's fan-boys are engaging in philosophy rather than biblical exegesis. They cannot deal with John 6, 10, Romans 8, 9, 10, 11, Ephesians 1 effectively.
Barth's mother told him this:
“What is the most brilliant theology good for, if it is to be shipwrecked in one’s own house?”
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/why-i-still-dont-much-care-for-karl-barth/
Perhaps you haven't gotten your theology from Barth or one of his fan-boys. If not I'd be interested in knowing.
I'd also be interested in knowing if you believe open theism and process theology. Those teachings accompanied individuals I know who believe in corporate election.
His theology is being taught by the ex Armstrongite cult in videos from a series called "You Are Included".
My theology is based on bibical exegesis, not a few verses that seek to tame God down.
I looked into some of his teachings. They are actually taught by an ex cultic group called Grace Communion International. It appears like they exchanged one heretic (Herbert Armstrong) for another (Karl Barth).
He is the one who is the source of the corporate election teaching. This teaching has a grain of truth with regards to mission and holiness, but not in terms of salvation.
Again, you can quote a few verses here and there, but does it align with all of Scripture?
Of course God is love, but he is also holy. And, his holiness demands that he punish sin. And, he has done this on the Cross through subjecting his Son to the penalty of the sins of the elect. He has redemptive love for them, but not others.
Are you aware of Barth? If so, what is your assessment of him? If he was engaged in marital unfaithfulness, do you think that he would still be able of producing sound theology?
I don't think a man involved in gross immorality such as marital unfaithfulness would be used by God to restore lost truths. I think Barth's fan-boys are engaging in philosophy rather than biblical exegesis. They cannot deal with John 6, 10, Romans 8, 9, 10, 11, Ephesians 1 effectively.
Barth's mother told him this:
“What is the most brilliant theology good for, if it is to be shipwrecked in one’s own house?”
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/why-i-still-dont-much-care-for-karl-barth/
Perhaps you haven't gotten your theology from Barth or one of his fan-boys. If not I'd be interested in knowing.
I'd also be interested in knowing if you believe open theism and process theology. Those teachings accompanied individuals I know who believe in corporate election.
His theology is being taught by the ex Armstrongite cult in videos from a series called "You Are Included".
My theology is based on bibical exegesis, not a few verses that seek to tame God down.
In essence, that's what I call faith and repentance. It is a fundamental change of orientation to a God-centered life rather than a self-centered life.
I wouldn't say that "take control" is exactly the right phrase, though....as some would claim that Reformed theology teaches that one becomes a robot. Those who are saved are united with Christ, and Christ leads them through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. This union produces good fruit, and progressively transforms the believer into the likeness of Jesus.
I have seen pictures of married couples where the man and wife progressively resemble each other over time in some ways. I believe that this is a physical type of what happens in the believers' union with Christ.
I wouldn't say that "take control" is exactly the right phrase, though....as some would claim that Reformed theology teaches that one becomes a robot. Those who are saved are united with Christ, and Christ leads them through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. This union produces good fruit, and progressively transforms the believer into the likeness of Jesus.
I have seen pictures of married couples where the man and wife progressively resemble each other over time in some ways. I believe that this is a physical type of what happens in the believers' union with Christ.
-
1
- Show all
7
interesting response...and would be quite correct except for the fact that FGC has now self identified as a Primitive Baptist
here: post 215 you can read the conversation between the op and FGC.
it does get confusing if people are not familar with what others actually believe or are not familiar with a type of belief
but pray anyway at least that others do not get dragged down the tulip trail
oh...and this post in the so called 'Arminian Prayer' thread. a thread that opens with a cruely mocking prayer of Spurgeon
I apologize. I thought I had answered that question, but I checked back through my posts and could not find it. I typed it out, but I must have not hit "post". I was raised in a primitive baptist church, but never was able to understand the doctrine, probably because I was too busy playing to pay attention. When I graduated high school and went to college, I never went back to church. At age 50 I had a problem with "seemingly" contradicting scriptures, mostly the salvation scriptures. I decided that I was smart enough, that if I bought a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough, I could figure it out. At the age 62 I finally gave up and decided that I was not smart enough. A short period of time after that I had given up, the scriptures began to harmonize and I went back and joined the Primitive baptist church. I am now 85 yrs old and have been a deacon for the past 18 years. I really thought I had posted this, but was mistaken.
interesting response...and would be quite correct except for the fact that FGC has now self identified as a Primitive Baptist
here: post 215 you can read the conversation between the op and FGC.
it does get confusing if people are not familar with what others actually believe or are not familiar with a type of belief
but pray anyway at least that others do not get dragged down the tulip trail
oh...and this post in the so called 'Arminian Prayer' thread. a thread that opens with a cruely mocking prayer of Spurgeon
I apologize. I thought I had answered that question, but I checked back through my posts and could not find it. I typed it out, but I must have not hit "post". I was raised in a primitive baptist church, but never was able to understand the doctrine, probably because I was too busy playing to pay attention. When I graduated high school and went to college, I never went back to church. At age 50 I had a problem with "seemingly" contradicting scriptures, mostly the salvation scriptures. I decided that I was smart enough, that if I bought a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough, I could figure it out. At the age 62 I finally gave up and decided that I was not smart enough. A short period of time after that I had given up, the scriptures began to harmonize and I went back and joined the Primitive baptist church. I am now 85 yrs old and have been a deacon for the past 18 years. I really thought I had posted this, but was mistaken.
here: post 215 you can read the conversation between the op and FGC.
it does get confusing if people are not familar with what others actually believe or are not familiar with a type of belief
but pray anyway at least that others do not get dragged down the tulip trail
oh...and this post in the so called 'Arminian Prayer' thread. a thread that opens with a cruely mocking prayer of Spurgeon
I apologize. I thought I had answered that question, but I checked back through my posts and could not find it. I typed it out, but I must have not hit "post". I was raised in a primitive baptist church, but never was able to understand the doctrine, probably because I was too busy playing to pay attention. When I graduated high school and went to college, I never went back to church. At age 50 I had a problem with "seemingly" contradicting scriptures, mostly the salvation scriptures. I decided that I was smart enough, that if I bought a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough, I could figure it out. At the age 62 I finally gave up and decided that I was not smart enough. A short period of time after that I had given up, the scriptures began to harmonize and I went back and joined the Primitive baptist church. I am now 85 yrs old and have been a deacon for the past 18 years. I really thought I had posted this, but was mistaken.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
Ah, but you don't levy that same charge against one's here that post as proponents of RT and Calvinism. They do not ascribe to what you feel entitled to charge me over.
I post the opposing view because RT and particularly Calvinism is the topic in this thread. RT at first and then the tenets of Calvinism entered in.
I would suggest you post-practice what you preach.
My dear the evidence here is that it is you that attack and attack. Me.
The resources I post are informed, are accurate, and are sustained with a Bibliography or other references.
Of course I don't believe you were created Totally Depraved. Why would that upset you so much?
You appear to have a deep grudge against me personally as you fabricate untruths in order to fulfill your predisposition for attack and deflection. You attack in this thread. And you are not positive in the least.
By the way, Mary was given God's grace, as the scripture tells us. Perhaps you should read more, credit sources you copy and paste in your posts, and begin by searching so as to find that "Alma" means, young girl. Oh, and pray that you come to grace and hate less. Perhaps then you will not deflect your sins onto others who have never demonstrated themselves to be in the image and likeness you accuse. While you have and are.
You are in my prayers.
I post the opposing view because RT and particularly Calvinism is the topic in this thread. RT at first and then the tenets of Calvinism entered in.
I would suggest you post-practice what you preach.
My dear the evidence here is that it is you that attack and attack. Me.
The resources I post are informed, are accurate, and are sustained with a Bibliography or other references.
Of course I don't believe you were created Totally Depraved. Why would that upset you so much?
You appear to have a deep grudge against me personally as you fabricate untruths in order to fulfill your predisposition for attack and deflection. You attack in this thread. And you are not positive in the least.
By the way, Mary was given God's grace, as the scripture tells us. Perhaps you should read more, credit sources you copy and paste in your posts, and begin by searching so as to find that "Alma" means, young girl. Oh, and pray that you come to grace and hate less. Perhaps then you will not deflect your sins onto others who have never demonstrated themselves to be in the image and likeness you accuse. While you have and are.
You are in my prayers.
interesting response...and would be quite correct except for the fact that FGC has now self identified as a Primitive Baptist
here: post 215 you can read the conversation between the op and FGC.
it does get confusing if people are not familar with what others actually believe or are not familiar with a type of belief
but pray anyway at least that others do not get dragged down the tulip trail
oh...and this post in the so called 'Arminian Prayer' thread. a thread that opens with a cruely mocking prayer of Spurgeon
I apologize. I thought I had answered that question, but I checked back through my posts and could not find it. I typed it out, but I must have not hit "post". I was raised in a primitive baptist church, but never was able to understand the doctrine, probably because I was too busy playing to pay attention. When I graduated high school and went to college, I never went back to church. At age 50 I had a problem with "seemingly" contradicting scriptures, mostly the salvation scriptures. I decided that I was smart enough, that if I bought a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough, I could figure it out. At the age 62 I finally gave up and decided that I was not smart enough. A short period of time after that I had given up, the scriptures began to harmonize and I went back and joined the Primitive baptist church. I am now 85 yrs old and have been a deacon for the past 18 years. I really thought I had posted this, but was mistaken.
here: post 215 you can read the conversation between the op and FGC.
it does get confusing if people are not familar with what others actually believe or are not familiar with a type of belief
but pray anyway at least that others do not get dragged down the tulip trail
oh...and this post in the so called 'Arminian Prayer' thread. a thread that opens with a cruely mocking prayer of Spurgeon
I apologize. I thought I had answered that question, but I checked back through my posts and could not find it. I typed it out, but I must have not hit "post". I was raised in a primitive baptist church, but never was able to understand the doctrine, probably because I was too busy playing to pay attention. When I graduated high school and went to college, I never went back to church. At age 50 I had a problem with "seemingly" contradicting scriptures, mostly the salvation scriptures. I decided that I was smart enough, that if I bought a Strong's concordance and studied hard enough, I could figure it out. At the age 62 I finally gave up and decided that I was not smart enough. A short period of time after that I had given up, the scriptures began to harmonize and I went back and joined the Primitive baptist church. I am now 85 yrs old and have been a deacon for the past 18 years. I really thought I had posted this, but was mistaken.
The image Calvinism has of God is one that would make the adherent to his doctrine need to be saved again from that John so adored. 
-
1
- Show all
Bingo, you have hit the nail on the head. All people will be resurrected on the last day. Which is the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of Christ's millennial reign.
God is only drawing an elect few until the great harvest at the end. This is when most will know how to serve God and choose for themselves life or death. The few elect will already be immortalized at Christ's second coming to start that reign.
God is only drawing an elect few until the great harvest at the end. This is when most will know how to serve God and choose for themselves life or death. The few elect will already be immortalized at Christ's second coming to start that reign.
7
I see. I'm not often in the Prayer of the Arminian, Charles Spurgeon thread. Primitive Baptists is a new one. I checked and found they adhere to the five points of historical Calvinism. (BING) What a shame. The image Calvinism has of God is one that would make the adherent to his doctrine need to be saved again from that John so adored.
The image Calvinism has of God is one that would make the adherent to his doctrine need to be saved again from that John so adored.
yeah I don't believe God gives wicked rulers
He tried to talk Israel out of having a king but He gave them what they wanted because they persisted and look how that turned out
that there are wicked rulers is not in doubt, but look at the nations that have them
they are not 'Christian' and this one is sadly becoming less and less so
I am sure there are still many who pray and are faithful and God answers those prayers and He is not willing any perish
God is not Calvin's 'god' at all
-
1
- Show all
I see. I'm not often in the Prayer of the Arminian, Charles Spurgeon thread. Primitive Baptists is a new one. I checked and found they adhere to the five points of historical Calvinism. (BING) What a shame. The image Calvinism has of God is one that would make the adherent to his doctrine need to be saved again from that John so adored.
The image Calvinism has of God is one that would make the adherent to his doctrine need to be saved again from that John so adored.
“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)
“…salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)
“The very inequality of his grace proves that it is free.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 6)
KerriganBlog
-
1
- Show all
I also do not believe God gives us wicked rulers. I do believe God uses those who are wicked and rule a people as an opportunity to send His message to a people.
For instance, Pharaoh in the time of Moses. God sent Moses on the mission to set God's people free of Pharaoh. Prior however, God told Moses He would harden the rulers heart so that he would refuse.
After Pharaoh did this the plagues entered Egypt and as they did those woe's tested the faith of Pharaoh and the Egyptian faithful who worshiped a pantheon of god's and goddesses who's domain happened to be all those area's the plagues beset.
Finally Pharaoh was let to free the Hebrew people and even asked that the Lord of Moses and Aaron bless him well. Because the Israelite's had listened to Moses they asked from their former masters for silver, gold, and clothes. And the God of Israel granted this so that the Israelite's then plundered Egypt.
God didn't make Pharaoh wicked so as to rule over Egypt and enslave His chosen though he did use Pharaoh in order to free them.
Wicked men invent for themselves wicked god's.
For instance, Pharaoh in the time of Moses. God sent Moses on the mission to set God's people free of Pharaoh. Prior however, God told Moses He would harden the rulers heart so that he would refuse.
After Pharaoh did this the plagues entered Egypt and as they did those woe's tested the faith of Pharaoh and the Egyptian faithful who worshiped a pantheon of god's and goddesses who's domain happened to be all those area's the plagues beset.
Finally Pharaoh was let to free the Hebrew people and even asked that the Lord of Moses and Aaron bless him well. Because the Israelite's had listened to Moses they asked from their former masters for silver, gold, and clothes. And the God of Israel granted this so that the Israelite's then plundered Egypt.
God didn't make Pharaoh wicked so as to rule over Egypt and enslave His chosen though he did use Pharaoh in order to free them.
Wicked men invent for themselves wicked god's.
-
1
- Show all
Wait!
Why would you interject scandal as pertains to a servant of God, Karl Barth, in your opening remarks? And then after levying accusations against the man and the deceased, Herbert Armstrong, ask Gentle Warrior if he's ever heard of the man you just eviscerated in matters of his faith and while furthering scandal about his person?
When none of that has any semblance of relationship to GW's posts to date.
If one is of a mind they can find scandal on just about any minister or theologian if they so choose.
What's any of that have to do with this thread?
Why would you interject scandal as pertains to a servant of God, Karl Barth, in your opening remarks? And then after levying accusations against the man and the deceased, Herbert Armstrong, ask Gentle Warrior if he's ever heard of the man you just eviscerated in matters of his faith and while furthering scandal about his person?
When none of that has any semblance of relationship to GW's posts to date.
If one is of a mind they can find scandal on just about any minister or theologian if they so choose.
What's any of that have to do with this thread?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
U
Wait!
Why would you interject scandal as pertains to a servant of God, Karl Barth, in your opening remarks? And then after levying accusations against the man and the deceased, Herbert Armstrong, ask Gentle Warrior if he's ever heard of the man you just eviscerated in matters of his faith and while furthering scandal about his person?
When none of that has any semblance of relationship to GW's posts to date.
If one is of a mind they can find scandal on just about any minister or theologian if they so choose.
What's any of that have to do with this thread?
Why would you interject scandal as pertains to a servant of God, Karl Barth, in your opening remarks? And then after levying accusations against the man and the deceased, Herbert Armstrong, ask Gentle Warrior if he's ever heard of the man you just eviscerated in matters of his faith and while furthering scandal about his person?
When none of that has any semblance of relationship to GW's posts to date.
If one is of a mind they can find scandal on just about any minister or theologian if they so choose.
What's any of that have to do with this thread?
-
1
- Show all
7
[QUOTE
All you do is attack and attack. You explain the opposite side of the debate, which is simply inappropriate. You have never lived it, you don't believe it, and you are getting it wrong half the time.
[/QUOTE]
oh gee
that statement is not even remotely true with reference to whispered...I don't want to become cheese in the sandwich here, but this is inflamatory and not true
the op has consistently been rude and condescending..why not address that? actually don't bother. he is fine with it
can we try to adult please?
All you do is attack and attack. You explain the opposite side of the debate, which is simply inappropriate. You have never lived it, you don't believe it, and you are getting it wrong half the time.
[/QUOTE]
oh gee
that statement is not even remotely true with reference to whispered...I don't want to become cheese in the sandwich here, but this is inflamatory and not true
the op has consistently been rude and condescending..why not address that? actually don't bother. he is fine with it
can we try to adult please?