Predestination is misunderstood...

  • 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.

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,276
245
63
ISMS AND SCHISMS
“When is a Christian Not a Christian”
“When is a church Not The CHURCH
The Sects and Cults of Christendom

ISMS AND SCHISMS
INTRODUCTION BY J. C. O’HAIR

With all the sectarianism and confusion in Christendom, with the so-called Christian
Religion torn asunder with division and strife, we may well ask what the end is to be. “Is Christ
divided?” “That there should be no schism in the Body.”

Every student of history knows something of the bitter controversy and the irreconcilable
differences that have existed for centuries between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians.

There is no hope for a peaceful settlement of this controversy. Evangelical Christians with Holy
Spirit Scriptural convictions, cannot compromise with the Roman Catholics who claim to be the
exclusive custodians and dispensers of the true Christian religion. The Roman Catholic’s own
special Bible (the Douay Translation) condemns their unscriptural papacy, priesthood, eucharist
and ritualism. And surely no one is expecting the Roman Catholics to concede that they are the
heretics and to seek reconciliation with the Protestants in an agreement to preach and practice
Evangelical Christianity.

Presently we shall examine the creed, some of the doctrines and practices of the Roman
Catholic Church in the light of the Holy Scriptures. But all spiritually-minded Christians know
that the unpleasant division, defined as “Catholicism” and “Protestantism,” must continue to the
end of the age, even though the Romanists, in plain disobedience to their own Scriptures, (II
Corinthians 10:4), may again resort to carnal weapons and physical force in their endeavor to
make converts of the Protestant heretics.

The “sectarianism” in Protestantism is pitiable and deplorable.

There are several varieties
of Baptists, several varieties of Disciples, several varieties of Presbyterians, Methodists,
Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Reformed denominations. The Methodists are subdivided into the
M. E. Methodists, the Free Methodists, the Methodist Protestants. The United Brethren, the
Dunkard Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren (with more than a dozen divisions), the
Congregationalists, the Nazarenes, the Moravians, the Pentecostalists, the Mennonites, the
Swedish Covenant and Free Churches, the Evangelicals. Then there are hundreds of so-called
independent fundamental movements.

For many years Evangelical Christians have had an open enemy in “Unitarianism.”

Now
the Unitarians declare they are ready to withdraw from the battle, because they have succeeded
in “Unitarianizing” many of the Baptists, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians,
and especially the Congregationalists. “Evangelical” agnostic theologians in the seminaries are
turning out many other Christianized agnostics; young preachers who are called “Liberals,” or
“Modernists.”

Even the Free Thinkers’ Monthly of New York City has acknowledged that these
Modernists in Evangelical pulpits are accomplishing far more for the cause of atheism than all of
the atheistic societies of the land. Many of these so-called “Evangelical Liberals” are either
secretly, or openly, propagating Russian Communism. Modernism is growing by leaps and
bounds and, with the present sowing of infidelity, in the name of Christianity with Christian
phraseology, with the pretense of the use of the Bible as a text-book, we surely must be asking:
“What will the harvest be?” No more subtle enemy of true Bible Christianity has ever been on
this earth than “Modernism,” which is not Christian but anti-Christian. A Christian infidel is an
impossible paradox.
Not only are true Bible Christians in the conflict with “Ritualism” and “Modernism,” but
also with “Fanaticism” of every kind.

Just thought I'd throw this in-we are in a warfare.

Shalom
J.
All of the above are great examples of God allowing the tares to grow up with the wheat.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
Jesus died for every individual, but his blood is only applied to the sins of those that believe that gospel. Why is this difficult? How do you interpret 1 Timothy 4:10 and many other like verses?
especially = (adverb) most (in the greatest degree) or particularly: - chiefly, most of all, particularity.

Paul is obviously not teaching universalism, that all men will be saved in the spiritual and eternal sense, since the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that God will not save everyone. Most will reject Him and spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, Mat_25:46; Rev. 20:11–15).

specially of those that believe - "This is evidently designed to limit the previous remark. If it had been left there, it might have been inferred that he would “actually save” all people. But the apostle held no such doctrine, and he here teaches that salvation is “actually” limited to those who believe." (Barnes)
 
Dec 18, 2023
6,402
406
83
Cease from trolling.
J.
Don't try to be perfect. 😊

So far in this place you have accused a few of trolling, whilst coming a cross as being superior.

At times you have also tried to force your opinion.

Now your back to being rude.


Your not perfect and you've already lead people astray with a false a doctrine over baptism.

Your playing word games all the time.

And neither have you apologized to quite a few people,.when they have asked you to back of.

So before You accuse me of trolling, lol look in the mirror at your almighty ego, because it stinks. 😊
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,892
6,485
113
62
Just so we are on the same page-I don't for one second claim to "know it all" and are all FOR correction-so is this what you are doing-throwing/ekballo questions-knowing the answer TO your question-just to peiradzo IF there is a disagreement?

J.
I, like everyone, have a set of beliefs. And like everyone, I hold some beliefs in error. So I welcome everyone's perspective. But I'm not only interested in what people believe but what has led them to their beliefs. To find this out, it's necessary to ask questions.
I realize people are reticent to answer sometimes because one cannot be sure of another's motives. This never concerns me because I'm not bothered by other people's motives or suffer any harm from people's words. Neither is it ever my intention ever to cause people harm. I'm merely asking questions for my personal edification and occasionally to open up people within their own assumptions.
Take the current discussion I'm having with John. It's easy to see how one comes to the conclusion that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of every person who will ever live. But is that accurate? If God is just, I don't understand how He can both accept Jesus' payment for an individual's sins and still hold them accountable for those sins. That's my dilemma. So I asked him how both are possible.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
Don't try to be perfect. 😊

So far in this place you have accused a few of trolling, whilst coming a cross as being superior.

At times you have also tried to force your opinion.

Now your back to being rude.


Your not perfect and you've already lead people astray with a false a doctrine over baptism.

Your playing word games all the time.

And neither have you apologized to quite a few people,.when they have asked you to back of.

So before You accuse me of trolling, lol look in the mirror at your almighty ego, because it stinks. 😊
Water baptism is not explicitly commanded as a requirement for salvation in the New Testament. While the Bible mentions baptism as an act of obedience and identification with Christ, it does not present it as a condition for receiving forgiveness or eternal life

. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 instructs followers of Christ to make disciples and baptize them, but this does not establish baptism as a prerequisite for salvation

. Instead, salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, as described in Ephesians 2:8–9

.
Some verses, like Acts 2:38, have been used to argue for baptism as a necessity for salvation, but careful examination reveals that the context indicates that baptism follows repentance and faith, not precedes them

. Other verses, such as Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, suggest that baptism represents a spiritual union with Christ, but they do not establish it as a condition for salvation

.
Thus, while baptism is encouraged as an expression of faith and obedience, it is not presented as a requirement for salvation according to the New Testament. Salvation comes solely through faith in Christ, as taught throughout the Bible

J.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
especially = (adverb) most (in the greatest degree) or particularly: - chiefly, most of all, particularity.

Paul is obviously not teaching universalism, that all men will be saved in the spiritual and eternal sense, since the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that God will not save everyone. Most will reject Him and spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, Mat_25:46; Rev. 20:11–15).

specially of those that believe - "This is evidently designed to limit the previous remark. If it had been left there, it might have been inferred that he would “actually save” all people. But the apostle held no such doctrine, and he here teaches that salvation is “actually” limited to those who believe." (Barnes)
Was hell prepared for man? God's not willing that any man perish, but all come to repentance.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
Was hell prepared for man? God's not willing that any man perish, but all come to repentance.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
No, hell was not primarily created for humans. The Bible makes it clear that hell, often referred to as the lake of fire or Gehenna, was initially prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41)

. Humans are not mentioned as the primary inhabitants of hell in the creation narrative found within the Bible. Instead, the Bible emphasizes that God desires none to perish but that all might come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), indicating that God's intention is for all to choose salvation rather than face the ultimate consequence of rejection—separation from God in hell.

J.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
Was hell prepared for man? God's not willing that any man perish, but all come to repentance.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Proverbs 10:24 - "What the wicked dreads will come upon him, but the desire of the righteous will be granted."

Proverbs 24:19-20 - "Fret not yourself because of evildoers, and be not envious of the wicked, for the evil man has no future; the lamp of the wicked will be put out."

Ezekiel 18:23 - "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

Revelation 21:8 - "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

These verses, among others, describe the consequences of wickedness and the rejection of God's ways. They emphasize the importance of repentance and turning away from sin, as well as the ultimate judgment that awaits those who persist in wickedness.

We need to rightly cutting straight the Scriptures brother.
J.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,892
6,485
113
62
And...

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Again, you don't address the issue of the justice of God. I'll try one last time: how is God just if He accepts the payment of Jesus for an individual's sins and still requires further payment?
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,892
6,485
113
62
Your answer suggests that you do not believe Jesus paid for the sins of every individual. However, the search results indicate that the majority of Christian perspectives hold that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross was intended to cover the sins of all humankind, regardless of whether each individual accepts or rejects this gift

. The New Testament teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2)

, and this universal atonement is supported by various scriptural references

.
The idea that Jesus paid for the sins of every individual does not imply that everyone will automatically be saved or that they will escape the consequences of their actions while alive. Rather, it means that Jesus provided the opportunity for forgiveness and salvation for all individuals, leaving the choice of accepting or rejecting this gift to each person

.
Confidence in Jesus' complete atonement for all sins is central to Christian belief, as it forms the foundation of hope and assurance of salvation for both believers and non-believers alike-

The concept of Jesus paying for the sins of individuals and God's justice is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology. According to Christian belief, Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross was intended to cover the sins of all humankind, and this payment is accepted by God as full and complete. The search results indicate that Jesus, as the perfect God-man, paid the perfect and fully-sufficient payment for sin

. This means that God, in His justice, accepted Jesus' sacrifice as the complete payment for the sins of individuals

. Therefore, if God accepts Jesus' payment for sin for an individual, He is still just, as He has honored the requirement for payment through Jesus' sacrifice

.
The idea that God requires the individual to pay for their sins, despite accepting Jesus' payment, is not consistent with the Christian belief in the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

According to Christian doctrine, once an individual accepts Jesus' payment for their sins, they are considered forgiven and justified before God, and the penalty for their sins is fully paid

. Therefore, in this context, God's justice is upheld through the acceptance of Jesus' payment for sin, and there is no additional requirement for the individual to pay for their sins.

Tetelestai!

J.
This explains how God is both just and the justifier of those who believe. It doesn't address the nonbelievers.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
This explains how God is both just and the justifier of those who believe. It doesn't address the nonbelievers.
Agree-ONLY to those who believe and are sealed with the Holy Spirit-for without the Spirit NONE belongs to Messiah.
J.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,276
245
63
Your answer suggests that you do not believe Jesus paid for the sins of every individual. However, the search results indicate that the majority of Christian perspectives hold that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross was intended to cover the sins of all humankind, regardless of whether each individual accepts or rejects this gift

. The New Testament teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2)

, and this universal atonement is supported by various scriptural references

.
The idea that Jesus paid for the sins of every individual does not imply that everyone will automatically be saved or that they will escape the consequences of their actions while alive. Rather, it means that Jesus provided the opportunity for forgiveness and salvation for all individuals, leaving the choice of accepting or rejecting this gift to each person

.
Confidence in Jesus' complete atonement for all sins is central to Christian belief, as it forms the foundation of hope and assurance of salvation for both believers and non-believers alike-

The concept of Jesus paying for the sins of individuals and God's justice is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology. According to Christian belief, Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross was intended to cover the sins of all humankind, and this payment is accepted by God as full and complete. The search results indicate that Jesus, as the perfect God-man, paid the perfect and fully-sufficient payment for sin

. This means that God, in His justice, accepted Jesus' sacrifice as the complete payment for the sins of individuals

. Therefore, if God accepts Jesus' payment for sin for an individual, He is still just, as He has honored the requirement for payment through Jesus' sacrifice

.
The idea that God requires the individual to pay for their sins, despite accepting Jesus' payment, is not consistent with the Christian belief in the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

According to Christian doctrine, once an individual accepts Jesus' payment for their sins, they are considered forgiven and justified before God, and the penalty for their sins is fully paid

. Therefore, in this context, God's justice is upheld through the acceptance of Jesus' payment for sin, and there is no additional requirement for the individual to pay for their sins.

Tetelestai!

J.
1Jn 2:2 does not teach what you think, as I explained last night in a post. There are two groups of people mentioned in the passage "our sins" (sins of Jews) and "the sins of the whole world" (Gentiles). However, there is that all-important "but" in between both groups that contrasts them. Logically and exegetically, it's impossible to include the first group (Jews) in with the second group (Gentiles), since John spoke of the "whole world" (Gentiles) as distinct from the Jews. (In fact, this is precisely how Jews thought of themselves and the world. The Jews did NOT consider themselves to be part of "them" (Gentiles)! Yet, if the phrase "whole world" was meant to be understood in the distributive or universal sense, no distinction could have been made between Jews and Gentiles, since both groups literally comprise the whole world.

Universal terms are often used in a limited sense in scripture. We have to be careful in our exegesis and allow the full context of God's word to determine what sense we should understand any given passage. For example, take Jn 3:16. Did God so love each and every person in the world as so many interpret this text? But then how would we square such an interpretation with God also hating sinners (Ps 5:5; Lev 20:23; Prov 6:16-19; Hos 9:15; Rom 9:13, etc., etc.)?

Or we can take a text like Jn 12:19 wherein the Pharisees declared in their exasperation with Jesus that "the whole world has gone after him", which obviously spoken hyperbolically.

Many other such examples abound in scripture.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
1Jn 2:2 does not teach what you think, as I explained last night in a post. There are two groups of people mentioned in the passage "our sins" (sins of Jews) and "the sins of the whole world" (Gentiles). However, there is that all-important "but" in between both groups that contrasts them. Logically and exegetically, it's impossible to include the first group (Jews) in with the second group (Gentiles), since John spoke of the "whole world" (Gentiles) as distinct from the Jews. (In fact, this is precisely how Jews thought of themselves and the world. The Jews did NOT consider themselves to be part of "them" (Gentiles)! Yet, if the phrase "whole world" was meant to be understood in the distributive or universal sense, no distinction could have been made between Jews and Gentiles, since both groups literally comprise the whole world.

Universal terms are often used in a limited sense in scripture. We have to be careful in our exegesis and allow the full context of God's word to determine what sense we should understand any given passage. For example, take Jn 3:16. Did God so love each and every person in the world as so many interpret this text? But then how would we square such an interpretation with God also hating sinners (Ps 5:5; Lev 20:23; Prov 6:16-19; Hos 9:15; Rom 9:13, etc., etc.)?

Or we can take a text like Jn 12:19 wherein the Pharisees declared in their exasperation with Jesus that "the whole world has gone after him", which obviously spoken hyperbolically.

Many other such examples abound in scripture.
No problem with this-rightly dividing the Scriptures. Paradoxical.
J.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,467
451
83
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

I rather prefer the KJV-

predestined to occur -- "To occur" (ginesthai) is a different verb than the one translated "to do" (poiesai). The later speaks of man's agency, the former of God's providence. The Gentiles and Jews, the government and religious officials, who took part in His crucifixion were acting of their own free will, yet they were doing just as God had planned what would happen.

Which brings us back to-

προορίζω
proorízō; fut. proorísō, from pró (G4253), before, and horízō (G3724), to determine. To determine or decree beforehand (Act_4:28; Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.

Which you were saying is "rather misleading"

Shalom
J.
Yes, it is misleading, because it suggests reading a preconceived theology into the text, rather than beginning with the etymological meaning and seeing whether that fits the biblical texts, which it does.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
No problem with this-rightly dividing the Scriptures. Paradoxical.
J.
However-

This verse is found in 1 John 2:2 and reads, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The word "propitiation" means to appease or satisfy, and in this context, it refers to Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross as the means by which God's wrath against sin is satisfied.

The verse emphasizes that Jesus' sacrifice was not only for the sins of the believers to whom John was writing but also for the sins of the whole world.

This means that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of all people, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or background. However, it is important to note that while Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all, it does not mean that all will be saved. Salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ, and those who reject Him will not receive the benefits of His sacrifice.

In summary, 1 John 2:2 emphasizes the universality of Jesus' sacrifice, which was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. However, it is only through faith in Jesus Christ that individuals can receive the benefits of His sacrifice and be saved from the consequences of sin.

J.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
18,892
6,485
113
62
Agree-ONLY to those who believe and are sealed with the Holy Spirit-for without the Spirit NONE belongs to Messiah.
J.
I'm still interested in your understanding of Ephesians 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. I don't believe they are referring to the same thing and am happy to explain why. But still hoping to get your understanding.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
Yes, it is misleading, because it suggests reading a preconceived theology into the text, rather than beginning with the etymological meaning and seeing whether that fits the biblical texts, which it does.
Whatever you say-I am all for "etymologies and Syntax and the Morphologies" as it stands written in Hebrew and Koine Greek.

J.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
I'm still interested in your understanding of Ephesians 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. I don't believe they are referring to the same thing and am happy to explain why. But still hoping to get your understanding.
Give me your understanding of the two verses with proper exegesis and see if I will agree.
J.