Sweet talking me now? Ain't that be something?You know very well that I have never had that kind of reply to you. In fact, if you research my posts, I have stated that I think you have the promise of eternal inheritance, as most on this form do. It seems you are trying to be a little vindictive.
Those people Paul spoke about are being JUDGED and Condemned by God because there's enough physical evidence from His Creation, including HIS additions after the Flood that every human being sinner can see God exists.Your statement is based upon Rom 1, which is wrongly misinterpreted by the "salvation by works people". If you consider the whole context of Romans 1, Paul tells you who is under consideration in Rom 1:6, Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shewed it unto them. Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not, as God, neither were thankful. (Rom 1:18-21).
If you do not understand these scriptures as pertaining to backsliding born again children of God, then you are not humble enough to understand how terrible you are by your fleshly nature.
Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so theyrespectfully, The everyone in your version is "all" in the KJV, and the all are all Israel in verse 26.
Nope. No preaching or doctrine and that post. You've got that all wrong......You preach your false doctrine to whomever you want, but the natural man, that has not been born again with the new spiritual life, will not hear you, and will think your doctrine is foolishness.
100% sister.Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they
too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.
For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone.
oopps "in" that postNope. No preaching or doctrine and that post. You've got that all wrong......![]()
I’m laughing because two or three years ago you didn’t know what an Arminian was, yet you vehemently denied being one. Now it seems you’re starting to realize that you are one.
Two or three years ago I most certainly did know what Arminianism is, what Calvinism is, and what Molinism is. EitherI’m laughing because two or three years ago you didn’t know what an Arminian was, yet you vehemently denied being one. Now it seems you’re starting to realize that you are one.
I reckon that’s a step I the right direction.
Now if we can just get you to see that Arminianism/Pelagianism is in fact a works gospel that deceives the masses and causes churches to apostatize.
Actually, @Magenta is Christian.I’m laughing because two or three years ago you didn’t know what an Arminian was, yet you vehemently denied being one. Now it seems you’re starting to realize that you are one.
Calling me a liar, that’s nice. I notice you picked just one part of my post to mount your attack. You didn’t address my past denial claim or your current position on Arminianism. How convenient.Two or three years ago I most certainly did know what Arminianism is, what Calvinism is, and what Molinism is. Either
your memory is faulty, you confuse me with someone else, or you deliberately lie. I would not put the last past you.
Just over 2 years ago, you admitted you knew little of Arminianism. And here:Calling me a liar, that’s nice. I notice you picked just one part of my post to mount your attack. You didn’t address my past denial claim or your current position on Arminianism. How convenient.
Now if we can just get you to see that Arminianism/Pelagianism is in fact a works gospel that deceives the masses and causes churches to apostatize.
Properly defining something does not amount to defending what it is.Looking at your recent posts defending Arminianism
All of it is not Biblical.What part of the following is awful?
- Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
The choice thing seems to be the stickler. Do we have free will? Of course not, at least, I disagree with that
whole concept, since our will is constrained by many factors; I prefer instead the term self will. Man's will
is clearly bent one way or the other, as plainly shown throughout the whole of Scripture. To say one makes
a choice aligns with the fact that we are not forced, and does not deny that it is God Who makes it possible![]()
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-stirring-the-pot.180696/page-84#post-4317047You may know I disagree with the free will verbiage... since our will is constrained in many ways, by factors
too plenteous to enumerate, some of which are unknown to us. However, God's will and self will are plainly
laid out throughout the whole of Scripture. The point concerning choice is whether we choose to align with
God's will, or choose to oppose God's will. Adam clearly chose to oppose God's will, and God not only allowed
Adam and Eve to make that choice, He had made provision for it from before the foundation of the world.
How any Christian could argue against that is perplexing.
Not outside God's permissive will. He could exert His sovereign will and force people to choose Him, but He does not.
Man's will is constrained by many factors. "Free will" is a misnomer.
The will is constrained by many factors, so calling it free is really a misnomer.
On the other hand, the results of humanity placing self will above the
will of God are clearly laid out in Scriptures, from beginning to end.
It is not so very difficult at all to see the depravity of man's will when in opposition to God.
Secularists would call it human nature, which equates to what the Bible identifies it as the natural man.
Doing it your way is exactly what self will is. Now, calling free will a misnomer does not mean people do not have a choiceIt is just that there are many things we do not get to have a choice about at all, because our will is constrained by many factors, and also the fact that the most important choice we make in this life is in choosing God's will over our own.
Free will is a bit (understatement) of a misnomer, since the will of man is constrained by many factors.
I prefer the term "self will." Many will argue against this LOL.
Yet self will is seen from beginning to end in Scripture.
One's will is either aligned with God's, or not.
Adam and Eve sinned in placing their will above God's. All else do likewise, since we are born
enemies and rebellious toward Him. Jesus said those who sin are slaves of sin. Slaves are not free.
Jesus alone sets us free from this predicament. He overcame sin and death.
I prefer the the self will, since it is evident from the beginning to the end of Scripture.
Plus, you allude to the same thing I have said often: the will is constrained by many factors![]()
I prefer the term "self will" over "free will," since the will of man is constrained by many factors.
Free will is a misnomer, since the will is constrained by many factors.
Self will on the other hand, is apparent from front to back of the Bible.
Man's will is either aligned with God's, or it is not.
Man's will being constrained does not mean he is not morally responsible for choices he makes.
I prefer the term "self will" since man's will is constrained by many factors.
However, we are asked/exhorted to choose to believe and have faith.
If man has no choice in the matter, why would God punish those who do not choose to believe in Him?
I prefer the term self will![]()
Partially (and largely) because man's will is constrained by many factors.
So many, in fact, that it can hardly be called free.
Free will (in terms of how people generally use the term) is not mentioned in the Bible.
Personally, I do not care for the term, since man's will is constrained by many factors.
Man's will is constrained by many factors, and as such, I prefer the term "self will"![]()
Man's will in opposition to God is the problem.
Thank God He gives us new desires!![]()
Your testimony is, “I, I, I” it should be He, He, He. That’s the difference between Arminians and Calvinists.
Just over 2 years ago, you admitted you knew little of Arminianism. And here:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-stirring-the-pot.180696/page-84#post-4317047
I tell you I disagree with free will, but you ignore that and claim I am among those who promote it.
Why does Pelagianism come into this? I am not one of them either. Your understanding of what I believe looks
to amount to zero, yet you feel qualified to make declarative statements about what I believe none-the-less.
I am not here to answer to your demands. From what I have seen, you are a game player, and dishonesty goes with that.
You're not Pelagian either? Are you saying you’re not Pelagian or Arminian?Just over 2 years ago, you admitted you knew little of Arminianism. And here:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-stirring-the-pot.180696/page-84#post-4317047
I tell you I disagree with free will, but you ignore that and claim I am among those who promote it.
Why does Pelagianism come into this? I am not one of them either. Your understanding of what I believe looks
to amount to zero, yet you feel qualified to make declarative statements about what I believe none-the-less.
I am not here to answer to your demands. From what I have seen, you are a game player, and dishonesty goes with that.
Little trouble following you there.You have brought into a history of Wesley to Pentecost even if they only connect because of a simple factor in each separate origin.
But you clearly have never attended any such Church because none of what YOU CLAIM THEY BELIEVE do they actually believe.
NO Pentecost believes you can work for your Salvation.
Or, you can lose it because God decides to make you lose it.
What they do believe is where both Calvin and Armini also believed at.
Mostly what they don't believe has nothing to do with Calvin or Armini.
You posted a biased Source that represents Southern Baptist beliefs and who disagrees with them.
I know, I was born into a Southern Baptist home church.