The so-called elect do not need to answer any objections. They are already on cloud nine. Or should we say as pleased as Punch?
Wrong my friend. But carry on.
Is total depravity (radical corruption) a biblical teaching?
- 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.
Wrong my friend. But carry on.
sounds like you got conquered and instead of waving the white flag like i did you left the front, came home and said "i won doe".
Romans 8:9b, "[…] Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
We do not come into this world having the Spirit. So, this fact having been true of all/each of us (at that point), means that the rest of the sentence applied to us as well (at that point in our history/histories / past).
We do not come into this world having the Spirit. So, this fact having been true of all/each of us (at that point), means that the rest of the sentence applied to us as well (at that point in our history/histories / past).
A wise warrior chooses his battles. Do I want to fight uphill with the sun in my eyes? Do I want to fight in mucky swampy land? Or field with no cover of natural terrain? Or how about I am choosing which battles are worth fighting and which hill to die on. After all we only physically die once so it best be worth it.
You could have easily answered my post and that would have been the end of it. But you’ve chosen not to because either way you answer it, you’re theology would be exposed for all to see. I can’t and won’t make you. I digress...
Would of been the end of it.....lol the Calvinist beliefs are self defeating philosophically and scripture so yes I already own the end of it but I have already spoken to you, heard your beliefs and defense, and it wasn't persuasive. So why kill any more time doing so?
I would respond and you would respond and in a month we will not see the end of it. Not that naive. And from discernment your ears are not open to my evidence or explanations so what is the point?
I'll find someone else with more fertile soil.
In other words, you will not answer it because it will compromise your position.
Look, I can be persuaded. If not, I would still be a semi-Pelagian Modalist.
I know you system every bit as well as you do my friend. You're the one who hasn't shown the ability to discern my evidence and explanations. Thank you for the discussion.
In other words, you will not answer it because it will compromise your position.
Look, I can be persuaded. If not, I would still be a semi-Pelagian Modalist.
Thank you for the discussion.
You can think whatever you want I have never been the one to care about what people think.
My position I have studied it and debated it too many times as to why I do not spend much time on it anymore. I once was a zealot like you trying to dominate the Calvinism theology. But call it experience or age, whatever, but I found it to be fruitless and in fact did nothing to unite the church.
So I got bored of the debate. Nothing new in it. You are welcome to start another thread on a different theological interpretation outside of the tulip doctrine. That sounds fun. But for now I know what you think so the excitement of figuring it out is gone and being by the book Calvinist is nothing new.
Attached is a good article on misrepresentations of Reformed (Calvinist) theology that are commonly employed by free-willers.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
