Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[maxamir]

behold the confusion in this post. from what I gather about your style of posting, everyone but you is always and consistently wrong. that is actually a common style often found in Christian forums and churches but let's proceed anyway. I do so because the error in this post is so outstanding I desire to point that out

1. God is indeed a consuming fire but that is not the reason people will find themselves in hell when the time comes. the lake of fire was actually created for the devil and his angels and not for the human creation that populates this planet

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

so while humans may end up there because of their UNBELIEF, that eternal fire was not what God had in mind when He created it

2. The Bible clearly indicates that Christ died for all. ALL. not all will accept Christ as we know, but to state that somehow proves that the sacrifice was insufficient is the product of either insufficient information or a corrupted understanding of scripture and sometimes both.

And I do not for one moment believe you will accept any of that unless God actually does take over your will (as some here are wont to think) and make the correction for you

not going to bother to get into it with you and only bothered because the error represented by this one post alone is disturbing and needs correction

on the other hand, you may come back with such an egregious post directed at me, that I may feel myself moved to respond

just another day in the forums

tootles

thank you for confirming that you are currently judicially blinded from understanding that salvation belongs to the Lord and not the choice of men as you falsely presume and as long as you continue to rob God of the glory of His salvation which He secured for those He has chosen before time began then you will remain in darkness and if you die in your sin having hope in your faith and supposed free will rather than trust granted by grace in the person and work of Christ then you will prove yourself to be reprobate, eternally and justly hated by God as confirmed in Scripture and given to you as a loving warning.

 

[maxamir]

Why do you continue to pretend that you possess omniscience?

I only judge what I see by the light of Holy Scripture and to me you are still standing in the shadows having no meaningful arguments from Scripture.

 

[studier]

No, it's not like that at all. You set forth the proposition without providing evidence that hina + subjunctive is used substantively many times. I took your claim seriously and looked on line for some argument that would support your claim, to see how robust the argument for it is. I found an article that seemed to be giving a clear list of hina + subjunctive clauses that the author claimed were devoid of any sense of intentioned or expected result. I looked through the verses he cited and saw that, as far as I could see, not one of them was devoid of a sense intentioned or expected result. I impartially took the first four of his examples, and presented my argument to you as to why his claims regarding the first four of his examples we unproven assertions, since I could show how the hina + subjunctive clauses did include a sense of intended or expected results. If the first four of his examples do not support his claim, it is reasonable for me to assert that the author's thesis is false and that I found none of his examples proved his point. Rather than me going through every verse in his list and critiquing them all one by one to show they re all false, I can justly now place the burden on those agreeing with him to cite one or more of the verses in his list that do prove his point. If no one can, then his claim that there are apporx. 10% of hina + subjunctive clauses that are purely substantive should not be taken seriously.

I explained why his first four proof texts failed to make his case. Instead of engaging with my reasoning, you simply argued that this expert and that expert and this resource says that such clauses can be devoid of any sense of intended or expected result, and on that basis alone, without even engaging with my arguments to the contrary, you believe you have established your claim. That is the very essence of the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority".

I would be interested to see some actual reasoned argument against my conclusions that I draw from my own study of the biblical texts. What I see in scripture is not going to change simply because authority A, B an or C disagrees with what I see, At the start of his easy, Greenlee admits that the view he is defending is a relatively recently posited opinion, is not one that what was historically the case, and other experts did not hold to his view. So, clearly, cherry picking experts that agree with his and your view, and accepting the thesis purely on the basis of their being experts and holding the view, without proving their view, is "an appeal to authority."

Maybe, at some point, you will find time to cite even one, two or three verses in which those hina + subjunctive clauses are completely devoid of any sense of intended or expected result.

Grace and peace.

From what I've seen, there is nothing I can cite that you will accept even though I and others see the construction in the verses we've discussed and in other places. Once someone becomes the [only] authority, that one can make anything into anything and claim everyone else is wrong. This seems to be the case here so far.

IOW, you see my translation and interpretive work as being not as authoritative as your work. And you see the work of 4 others I cited as not being as authoritative as your work. I'll add another source hereinbelow. As yet, it seems we've found no one who is as authoritative as you. And to make certain we see you as authoritative, it seems we're in a logical fallacy if we don't.

I'm trying to be respectful here. These are just the facts as I see them.

I'm truly not opposed to taking a position against the crowd, but in this case I agree with the crowd and don't see your authority or agree with your work. So far, you've shown no one who agrees with your work, not even the in the article you presented.

It seems you're versed enough to know that there can be a fine line in this type of analysis. I simply think you're just on the wrong side of the fine line here. IOW, to me this is not some extreme disagreement. Some observations:

• You are having to carry the verb over from 17:2 and insert it in 17:3 to make purpose work.
  • It would have been very easy for John to continue the string of didōmi into 17:3 or even infer it more clearly, but he didn't.
• It makes sense to me that John in 17:3 is explaining and making clear what eternal life is.
  • It's either what is this EL that Christ is giving to men, or why is Christ giving it to men
    • The reason why Christ is giving EL to men is because it is the Father's will that Jesus give EL
      • This seems simple and clear enough at minimum in 17:2.
    • Just what is this EL that Christ is giving per the Father's will?
      • This may be one of the, if not the only place EL is defined or explained for us as it relates to men.
      • Many seem to think EL is just living forever
        • But here (and elsewhere) John tells us it's much more than that
  • The wording "this is the eternal life" seems to me to flow better into content than purpose.
    • Content: And eternal life is this: that men know God
    • Purpose: And eternal life is this: [it is given] so men can know God
      • Purpose would be more likely if the pronoun was not there
        • And eternal life is this [given] so men can know God
• I see 1John basically and in many ways as a commentary on GJohn:
  • NKJ 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, [in order] that (hina) we may know (subjunctive) Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
    • God is Eternal Life
    • Jesus Christ is Eternal Life
      • It's [purposefully] difficult at times in John's writings to distinguish between God and Jesus Christ
    • Jesus Christ has given to us an understanding for this purpose: so we can know God/Eternal Life
      • We know God <> We know Eternal Life
        • John17:3 cf. 1John5:20 This is Eternal Life for men: to know God who is Eternal Life
  • NKJ 1John5:11-12a And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this [eternal] life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has [eternal] life;
    • God gave us Eternal Life which is in Jesus Christ
    • We have Jesus Christ <> We have Eternal Life
    • John17:3 Eternal Life is knowing God and Jesus Christ
      • This is relationship language
        • We have Jesus Christ who is Eternal Life <> We have Eternal Life <> We Know God and Jesus Christ
        • Eternal Life for men is This: Men having relationship with God and Jesus Christ who God sent (and gave to men).

The language of the Text is tough at times for we Englishers. But as I read it, it makes these equations.

The fine line I spoke of earlier acknowledges that content and purpose can be very close. But it seems to me that purpose needs to be forced here and that substantival makes more sense and combines very nicely with other writings of John.

One more proposed authority promised above (the highlighting is mine):

NTFE (by N.T. Wright)

17 After Jesus had said this, he lifted up his eyes to heaven.

“Father,” he said, “the moment has come. Glorify your son, so that your son may glorify you. 2 Do this in the same way as you did when you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he could give the life of God’s coming age to everyone you gave him. 3 And by ‘the life of God’s coming age’ I mean this: that they should know you, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah, the one you sent.

4 “I glorified you on earth, by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me, alongside yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I revealed your name to the people you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you; you gave them to me; and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything which you gave me comes from you. 8 I have given them the words you gave me, and they have received them. They have come to know, in truth, that I came from you. They have believed that you sent me.”

"I mean this" is substantival and not purpose.

To conclude this discussion from my end:

We can both pull from lists of fallacies and send them back and forth. There is the one you've posited and there are ones that speak to rejecting all the work and credentials of all others in favor of only oneself.

Firstly, I did not agree with your interpretation by translating myself. To double check myself I referred to some outside resources and found they do not agree with you. To triple check I asked you for an outside resource that agreed with you and the one you supplied does not agree with you.

Unless and until you can substantiate your proposed authority by any other sources, I'll just rest here. and consider the case closed.

Additionally, I stand on the way I read the language of John 6:39-40 and see it conforming to my reasoning above.

 

[Rufus]

From where in the Bible do you get your assertion that ALL the unregenerate (TU) do not EVER want to understand, and do not EVER want to retain knowledge of God in their hearts and minds?

See Rom 3:18. Also Job 28:28. The last thing Corporate Adam wants to do is to shun evil!

 

[Rufus]

I have only agreed with Paul, that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jew is not better than the Gentile. This is the case Paul was making. This alone says no man is superior to another in this context we've been discussing. This is why I said it's not a matter of superiority.

I've never said man is in charge of his spiritual destiny. Again, I agree with Paul in context that all men are under sin. As I've further said, "under" means under subjection - under dominion - imprisoned (with no way out). I'm willing to narrow this down and make certain we understand one another in regard to man making a choice.

This is my theology and it seems to match Paul's as far as we've discussed so far.



I never said this either. I simply said that men functioning by their conscience in accordance with natural law shows there are differences among men. Paul used this difference among men to make a case against the circumcised Jews. I also used this to say that there are layers to which Paul writes. He and the rest of Scripture militate against the TD view there is universal dead among men where no man can accept GR or that there has never been an unregenerate man that seeks God.



If (???) we both agree with this, then what is the issue?



Again, superior ability is not my theology, nor Paul's, nor as I understand it, is it yours.

I've offered a suggestion for what it is in some men that I see Jesus saying God is seeking. It doesn't make them better, nor more able, nor Jew better than Gentile, nor vice versa.



So, are you saying men can accept or reject spiritual information? As I understand TD, this is not the case.

I thought we established that GR information about God's existence, His eternal power, His divinity is spiritual information. Do you think that all men in Adam I have universally since Adam I (until Adam II) rejected this spiritual information about God's existence?

If not all men universally and for all such time rejected God at GR, then it seems there must be something about those who did not reject this spiritual knowledge, so, #1 how does TD compare, and #2 what do you think it is about these non-rejecters that made them not reject? What is it about the Abels vs. the Cains, the Noahs (righteous in his generation), etc., down through history? Were they not in Adam I? Did they reject knowledge of God? Isn't that where TD needs to go back and speculate about ancient regeneration and such things?



Just so I make myself clear, and no offense intended as I'm not selecting you only for this, but I'm not going to be going through long lists of proof-texts to determine where I may or may not agree with you about them and unless you go through each one of them and explain them in context, I won't be accepting them as proof of anything.

Once again, in general, you are downplaying man's conscience as if the Text is negative in totality about it. Yet Paul in Romans 3 says [some] Gentiles are living by it sufficiently to be a witness against Jews who had God's written Law. And we have not discussed anything about Clean or Unclean yet. As far as I'm concerned we've yet to conclude TD.



Don't lay this out for me. I have no issue that spiritually dead men - men separated from God - cannot do the Good (please note the capital "G") that God requires or be as Righteous (please note the capital "R") as God requires to be spiritually alive apart from God's work.

But, once again, I'm still discussing TD and have yet to understand how TD deals with some men throughout history who did understand God's existence and [imperfectly] retained this spiritual knowledge of God. It seems TD is not TD for all men so T must mean something other than universal in Adam I, or that TD is not TD but TI but that "I" has to be more narrowly defined as in part the Inability to free themselves from being under sin, both Jew and Gentile and Jew not being better than Gentile as both Jew and Gentile are under sin and need the Savior to free them from being under sin and be restored to relationship with God.

IOW, again, what does T mean?

• The Totality of men reject God at GR?
  • Not that I can see in Biblical history from Abel through those looking for Messiah when He came.
    • Thus T cannot mean the Totality of men cannot understand any spiritual information.
      • Actually the Totality of men do understand spiritual information - God's existence - per Paul in Romans 1.
        • That's why the Totality of men have no excuse for rejecting God, for not glorifying Him as God, for not being thankful to God.
        • So, how does the TD concept of totally dead work precisely?
• The Totality of men in Adam I being under sin.
  • OK. That' what Paul established in Rom1-3.
    • Don't even TD opponents accept this?
• The Totality of men need Jesus Christ?
  • OK. The entire Bible establishes this.
    • Don't even TD opponents accept this?

It seems to me that TD adherents have a problem with some or all of the points under the first bullet above. Why don't we focus there again? I think you're only reading a top layer in Rom1-3 where we started this discussion. Again, Paul is simply establishing that all men in Adam I are under sin and Jews are no better than Gentiles.

Depraved men have no heart for God. They HATE God. The come into this world estranged from Him. They come into world as Rebels! Having said that does not mean that no spiritual truth can be understood. But it does mean that whatever is understood is corrupted by their depraved minds, passions, consciences and wills, and that the Natural Man has no true desire to ultimately attain to the Knowledge of God.

But I have another question; Since you make man's conscience the difference that "separates the men from the boys" (even though both groups cannot not sin), then do you also attribute Conscience as the power "behind God's throne", in a manner of speaking, that makes sinning an impossibility for God?

Also, you keep appealing to OT saints as some sort of "iron clad proof" ( perhaps?) that none of them needed the kind of divine intervention promised in the terms of the New Covenant. But when you do this, aren't you implying that people under the Old Covenant weren't quite as bad as the people under the New? After all, the New Covenant is drastically different from the Old in many ways, and its unconditional, unilateral nature would certainly seem to suggest (going by your hypothesis) that people in this NC age are far worse than those in the previous age, needing far more help from God than the ancients did.

Finally, if you want to discuss the "U", I would suggest the discussion begin at the beginning of man's destruction. What do you think happened in Gen 3:15ff.? Did God save Adam, Eve, both or neither? And why?

 

[Rufus]

Mr. Studier and et al,

I would like pick up from where I left off in my 5755. Ultimately, the answer that I would like for all of us to seek out was to the question I raised often in this thread but particularly in the above post: What accounts for God's inability to sin and Man's inability to do Good?. The way I worded this question stemmed from the contrasting spiritual/moral parallel that I drew from scripture: God cannot sin (because He's Good in his Essence); conversely, Man cannot not sin (because he's Evil in his Essence). Therefore, I deduce from this axiomatic biblical parallel that this is the reason scripture teaches in a few places (such as Rom 3:12) that "no one does good, not even one". And how I have long understood a text like this is in the same way I understand v.10 in chapter when it says, "There is no one righteous, not even one". How can we not see the very strong parallel between v.10 and v.12, given the added emphatic emphasis (and redundancy) in both, "not even one"? Since no one in Adam is inherently righteous, then can any anyone in him intrinsically desire to do good? And the next question that is begging for an answer is: What is this "good" that no one [in Adam] does!?

It behooves us to find a biblical answer to this question because we know that on the horizontal level, not all men are equally evil. Or not all men are as evil as they could be. Some are kinder than others, or more considerate than others, or more compassionate than others, or more generous than others, or less selfish than others, etc. Since both scripture and Natural Revelation bear this truth out, then the only other way to understand these kinds of absolute, redundant, dogmatic assertions is that God is not speaking in terms of the horizontal level, but rather in terms of man's personal relationship with him on the vertical level. Don't forget: Spiritual Death is not primarily separation of man from man (although horizontal relationships have also been ruined), but rather separation of God from man due to Adam's sin. Spiritual Death is separation from the Author and Source of Life. This "good", therefore, that "no one does" must be understood not in relative terms but in absolute terms. The "good" that no one does must be absolute good. It must be some good that is not being performed to God.

The great Confessions of Faith can help us cut to the chase because they ask the KEY question about man: What is Man's chief end? Why did God create mankind in the first place? What is God's supreme purpose for man? What should man's ultimate goal in life be? The Westminster, both versions of the London Baptist Confession, etc. agree that man's chief end is to glorify and enjoy God. (An answer I largely agree with insofar as it goes, so it will suffice for this discussion.) The next question is: Is there biblical proof for this? Yes, I certainly think so. The psalmist tells us that "God has exalted above all things his Name and his Word" (Ps 138:2). And in another psalm it is written that God "has set his glory above the heavens" (Ps 8:1) And Isaiah tells us that God created mankind for his glory (Isa 43:7) And God covets his glory, is jealous for it and will not give his glory to another; for no one is comparable to or greater than He is (Isa 42:8). And all nations will one day come before the Lord to worship him and glorify his name (Ps 86:9). And in the new heavens and new earth, the sun will no longer be needed, for God himself will be the Redeemed's glory (Isa 60:19).

But what is God's glory, precisely? It is two things. It is his brilliance, radiance, splendor and majesty that he visibly exudes from his Being. But it's more than this also. The external manifestation of his glory flows from what He is in his Essence. It flows from his holiness, righteousness, goodness, purity, love and all his perfections. It's no wonder that the "other" definition of sin (other than lawlessness) is that all men are sinners and thereby fall short of His glory (Rom 3:23). Therefore, just one sin alone is an infinite assault against God's thrice holy character (Isa 6:3) and is infinitely and personally offensive to Him (Ex 34:7; Ps 51:4).

The fact that all men fall short of God's glory also fits the context of Romans 1. Verse 23 tells us that when men became foolish in their speculations about God, they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for those of corruptible man, birds, animals and crawling creatures. This, then, appears to be the supreme sin against God: Corporate Adam has no desire to glorify their Creator. Fallen mankind neither wants or can perform the greatest good, which is to glorify God. But someone may still ask: How does man glorify God? So, now I'll attempt to give the brief version of the answer.

First, we should pay careful attention to what scripture tells us what to do under any and all circumstances, and how we should do it and in what kind of spirit it should be done. So, the best place to start, I think, (and easy to remember) is with Three Whatevers. Whatever we do, no matter how mundane it may appear to us, we are to do it for God's glory (1Cor 10:31). And again, Whatever we do, in word or deed, we should do in the name of the Lord and with thanksgiving (Col 3:17). And finally, Whatever we do, we should do it wholeheartedly as working for the Lord (Col 3:23). In short, the Creator should be the locus of our entire being. He should be the reason for all that we do. Then and only then will He be glorified. Conversely, anything short of this means man has fallen short God's glory and will result in his condemnation since he failed to do good, which is what Paul's Universal Indictment says.

But it might be further asked, what motivates man to obey these passages? Again, I think it's three things: Love, Faith and Fear of the Lord. There is no greater commandment than to love God with all our heart, soul and mind (Mat 22:38). Faith is a fundamentally important component because without it, it's impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). And the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7), is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10), is the key to the treasure of salvation, wisdom and knowledge (Isa 33:6), compels us to hate evil (Prov 8:13), is the whole duty of man (Eccl 12:13) and the lack of the Fear of God is the rock bottom line summary to Paul's Universal Indictment of Corporate Adam (Rom 3:18).

To conclude this, then, we have determined that the ultimate good that no man does cannot be on the horizontal level, so it must be on the vertical. The good that no one does is ultimately Godward. We learned that God created us for his glory, and that God has set his Glory (his Name, his Essence) above the highest heavens. Therefore, the only thing we can infer is that man's chief end is to glorify God in all that we do, in thought, word and deed, and that whatever we do we should do it wholeheartedly unto Him with all thanksgiving and praise; for He alone is worthy of our all. And we also learned that three spiritual elements move the human heart to perform this ultimate good: Love, Faith and Fear of the Lord. And finally, since there seems to be a very strong parallel between Rom 3:10 and 12, the logical inference is that since no one in Adam is inherently righteous, then no one in Adam can intrinsically perform the Ultimate Good either.

In my next post, Mr. Studier, we'll examine more closely your hypothesis that some men's corrupt consciences can outperform their unbelieving counterparts' consciences, by presumably causing their hosts to believe the gospel and repent of their sins.

 

[Niki7]

thank you for confirming that you are currently judicially blinded from understanding that salvation belongs to the Lord and not the choice of men as you falsely presume and as long as you continue to rob God of the glory of His salvation which He secured for those He has chosen before time began then you will remain in darkness and if you die in your sin having hope in your faith and supposed free will rather than trust granted by grace in the person and work of Christ then you will prove yourself to be reprobate, eternally and justly hated by God as confirmed in Scripture and given to you as a loving warning.

View attachment 264288

said the individual who took judgement out of the hands of God (in his mind only) and has decided to visit it upon members of this forum

there is a smell to your post that puts one in mind of sulpher, leaving no doubt as to the inspiration that encouraged you to think so highly of yourself

ridiculous for the reader and a real treat for the co-author

 

[maxamir]

said the individual who took judgement out of the hands of God (in his mind only) and has decided to visit it upon members of this forum

there is a smell to your post that puts one in mind of sulpher, leaving no doubt as to the inspiration that encouraged you to think so highly of yourself

ridiculous for the reader and a real treat for the co-author

I only judge according to what Scripture says as should every child of God who loves the truth and is jealous for the glory of God and sincerely hates when it is perverted and distorted. I would rather be slapped in the face with the truth than kissed with a lie so please swing away.

Pro_9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
From where in the Bible do you get your assertion that ALL the unregenerate (TU) do not EVER want to understand, and do not EVER want to retain knowledge of God in their hearts and minds?

See Rom 3:18. Also Job 28:28. The last thing Corporate Adam wants to do is to shun evil!

Rom. 3:18 says: ouk (not) estin (is or keeps on being) phobos (fear) theou of God) apenanti (in front of) ophthalmOn (eyes) autOn (their).

It is describing a present state,. There is nothing in that text that indicates it is describing an everlasting state.

If I say of someone, "They are not competent," that is not a statement that should be taken as saying they have never been competent."

Or if I say, "There is no fear of spiders in their heart," that should not be assumed to mean they have never been afraid of spiders.

That is one of the many problems with Calvinism. It teaches people to read unreasonable assumptions into biblical texts, and to claim that those texts teach what they do not even say.

 

[Niki7]

I only judge according to what Scripture says as should every child of God who loves the truth and is jealous for the glory of God and sincerely hates when it is perverted and distorted. I would rather be slapped in the face with the truth than kissed with a lie so please swing away.

Pro_9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.

View attachment 264365

Nah. your nastiness is not found in scripture and certainly does not represent what the New Testament teaches. It is one thing to declare you follow the 5 tenents of Calvinism or perhaps, like some say, do not follow him but believe as he taught

I don't care. I don't think that is a salvic issue anyway as we are saved because of Jesus and not Calvin and not believing a certain doctrine taught by men who think they operate above scripture as I have found many Calvinists do with their attitudes and self righteousness

I am saved by believing in Christ, believing that His sinless blood shed on that cross fulfilled the righteous demands of God and because of my faith in Him, God sees me as righteous in His Son and I am delivered from the devil and death.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21

Your bluster and self serving condemnation of others is not justified and not how God Himself sees things

You are the scoffer and no matter how you believe, you are not justified in condeming others and calling them names and just displaying the type of nastiness you have become known for

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:
From where in the Bible do you get your assertion that ALL the unregenerate (TU) do not EVER want to understand, and do not EVER want to retain knowledge of God in their hearts and minds?


Rom. 3:18 says: ouk (not) estin (is or keeps on being) phobos (fear) theou of God) apenanti (in front of) ophthalmOn (eyes) autOn (their).

It is describing a present state,. There is nothing in that text that indicates it is describing an everlasting state.

If I say of someone, "They are not competent," that is not a statement that should be taken as saying they have never been competent."

Or if I say, "There is no fear of spiders in their heart," that should not be assumed to mean they have never been afraid of spiders.

That is one of the many problems with Calvinism. It teaches people to read unreasonable assumptions into biblical texts, and to claim that those texts teach what they do not even say.

Of course it's in the present tense because Paul's entire indictment of mankind is in the present tense. The human heart is 100% corrupt. There is no spiritual soundness in man.

Isa 1:5-6
5 Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness —
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.
NIV

And when Paul said that there IS no good thing in his "flesh" (sin nature), do you think he was only speaking of that moment when he penned those words (Rom 7:18)? Or when Jesus said that God alone IS good (Mk 10:18), Jesus only meant in that moment when he uttered those words? God wasn't always good? Or he won't be good in the future? The reason those kinds of statements are in the present tense is because they apply to the subject forever or toeveryone who has ever read them, who is reading them and will read them!

 

[Niki7]

thank you for confirming that you are currently judicially blinded from understanding that salvation belongs to the Lord and not the choice of men as you falsely presume and as long as you continue to rob God of the glory of His salvation which He secured for those He has chosen before time began then you will remain in darkness and if you die in your sin having hope in your faith and supposed free will rather than trust granted by grace in the person and work of Christ then you will prove yourself to be reprobate, eternally and justly hated by God as confirmed in Scripture and given to you as a loving warning.

View attachment 264288

I'm just going to revisit this post

Obviously, I have never claimed, nor has anyone else to the best of my knowledge, within the framework of this particular forum, ever once declared that anyone is responsible for their own salvation.

As far as my understanding (according to scripture) goes, no human has ever or will ever 'rob God of His glory". This is basically the cry of the person who does not understand that God is never robbed of who He is nor of any of His attributes...while glory is not an attribute, it is a characteristic. A flawed understanding does not detract from fact in any way save in the mind of those so inclined.

The words 'judicially blinded' indicate a judgement has taken place with the result that the judged is blinded, presumably by God.

The construct is designed in such a way as to presume superior standing with God and a flawed and corrupt understanding of salvation that is no salvation at all, directed toward the person (in this case myself) who dares to question Calvinism or worse, does not see within that framework salvation as understood from scripture.

Yet there is salvation under no other name than that of Christ. Calvin has saved no one and never will and in fact has murdered. I have said before and I say it again: It seems that the spirit of murderous Calvin has followed Calvin's adherents through time and resolved itself in the unbiblical condemnation of Christians who know nothing of Calvin but have accepted and followed their actual Savior without condemnation and whose sins are put away from them as God promises to all those who put their trust in His Son and not in their own flesh.

from my original response in post 5770:

I am saved by believing in Christ, believing that His sinless blood shed on that cross fulfilled the righteous demands of God and because of my faith in Him, God sees me as righteous in His Son and I am delivered from the devil and death.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21

When I say 'the spirit of Calvin' I do not mean the man's actual spirit haunting anyone, but rather attachments from what the Bible calls 'demons'. In saying this, I am not saying anyone has demons, but condemnation of belief because it does not follow the pattern of self righteous and false superior antics is certainly not born from the Holy Spirit.

There seems to be a pattern of following and quoting men long dead, who were sharp in their judgements and lacking in understanding, with certain people who believe that Calvinism, or similar belief structures, are to be considered as indications of actual salvation rather than following the Biblical injunction to 'believe in the name of Christ and call upon Him.'

It is not a sin to dismiss Calvinism nor is it sin to see something in scripture differently than another. The sin is raging against other people, dismissing their salvation and believing you have summarily sent them to hell because they do not believe as do you; even going one step further and saying God has judged them and blinded them to thel truth.

Jesus said: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

So consider your words and remember that you are yourself judged by those very words.

 

[PaulThomson]

Of course it's in the present tense because Paul's entire indictment of mankind is in the present tense. The human heart is 100% corrupt. There is no spiritual soundness in man.

Isa 1:5-6
5 Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness —
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.
NIV

And when Paul said that there IS no good thing in his "flesh" (sin nature), do you think he was only speaking of that moment when he penned those words (Rom 7:18)? Or when Jesus said that God alone IS good (Mk 10:18), Jesus only meant in that moment when he uttered those words? God wasn't always good? Or he won't be good in the future? The reason those kinds of statements are in the present tense is because they apply to the subject forever or toeveryone who has ever read them, who is reading them and will read them!

I gave you two examples in English that show your understanding of the meaning of the present tense structure Paul uses is wrong. You just ignored those and spouted more of your native stupidity, forcing your foolish theology into the biblical text yet again. You did not even quote my post and address my argument. You just ignored the argument and mindlessly ran your calvinist programming. Romans 3:18 does not SAY what you are claimimg it means.

Try addressing the argument.

Rom. 3:18 says: ouk (not) estin (is or keeps on being) phobos (fear) theou of God) apenanti (in front of) ophthalmOn (eyes) autOn (their).

It is describing a present state,. There is nothing in that text that indicates it is describing an everlasting state.

If I say of someone, "They are not competent," that is not a statement that should be taken as saying they have never been competent."

Or if I say, "There is no fear of spiders in their heart," that should not be assumed to mean they have never been afraid of spiders.

That is one of the many problems with Calvinism. It teaches people to read unreasonable assumptions into biblical texts, and to claim that those texts teach what they do not even say.

 

[PaulThomson]

Of course it's in the present tense because Paul's entire indictment of mankind is in the present tense. The human heart is 100% corrupt. There is no spiritual soundness in man.

Isa 1:5-6
5 Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness —
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.
NIV

And when Paul said that there IS no good thing in his "flesh" (sin nature), do you think he was only speaking of that moment when he penned those words (Rom 7:18)? Or when Jesus said that God alone IS good (Mk 10:18), Jesus only meant in that moment when he uttered those words? God wasn't always good? Or he won't be good in the future? The reason those kinds of statements are in the present tense is because they apply to the subject forever or toeveryone who has ever read them, who is reading them and will read them!

You should perhaps read this https://ntgreek.net/present.htm to get a better idea of what the present tense means in Greek. It does not mean what you are trying to shoe-horn into it. It is describing a present ongoing process/state in a person, not a state of affairs stretching back to the beginning of a person's life.

 

[studier]

Finally, if you want to discuss the "U",

We've never gotten past the T. Nor have we gotten past Rom3:11. So, this is my response to both of your most recent responses to me.

I don't see Rom3 as a universal, all time indictment against all men proving no unregenerate man has ever had the ability to understand spiritual things about God and proving that all men reject God pursuant to Romans 1:18 on.

I also don't think anything you have taken us into has proven the case for thinking otherwise.

Re: Rom1-3:

• From Rom2:17 (at min) - ch. 3 Paul is making a case against the Jew.
• Although Paul says in Rom3:9 that they have previously charged both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, this is mainly to make the case that Jews are not better than Gentiles. His focus is still on the Jews.
• When Paul starts quoting OC Scriptures to make his case that the Jew is not better than the Gentile, he begins by referencing Ps14:
  • Firstly, these are the Jews' Scriptures and although we have some history of the world in them, we mainly have the history of the Jews and much if that history is condemning them for their failures with God.
  • Ps14 is writing within this history:
    • Ps14:1 does read like a universal condemnation of men but it is speaking of the fool who says there is no God.
      • This cannot be universal for all time as David reveals in this Psalm:
        • In Ps14:4-5 David contrasts the fools with "My (God's) people" and the "generation of the righteous."
          • Paul speaks of God's people in Romans 11 as the "Remnant."
    • Ps14:2 speaks of a point where God looks down from Heaven.
      • This is during Israel's history as David is writing about.
    • Ps14:3 says "they have all turned aside":
      • I've looked through most of the 125 verses in the LXX where this word translated as "turned aside" is used 133 times and I did not see any instance where it is used of other than the Jews in the sense David is using it and Paul seems to be using it as David did. Here are some examples:
        • ESV Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands."
        • ESV Judges 2:17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so.
        • NKJ Psalm 125:1 <A Song of Ascents.> Those who trust in the LORD Are like Mount Zion, Which cannot be moved, but abides forever. 2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem, So the LORD surrounds His people From this time forth and forever. 3 For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest On the land allotted to the righteous, Lest the righteous reach out their hands to iniquity. 4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, And to those who are upright in their hearts. 5 As for such as turn aside to their crooked ways, The LORD shall lead them away With the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel!
        • NKJ Zeph. 1:4-6 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests1 with the pagan priests--5 Those who worship the host of heaven on the housetops; Those who worship and swear oaths by the LORD, But who also swear by Milcom1; 6 Those who have turned back from following the LORD, And have not sought the LORD, nor inquired of Him."
        • NKJ Mal. 3:7 Yet from the days of your fathers You have gone away from My ordinances And have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," Says the LORD of hosts. "But you said, `In what way shall we return?'
        • NKJ Jer. 5:20-26 20 "Declare this in the house of Jacob And proclaim it in Judah, saying, 21 `Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not: 22 Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD. `Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, Yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. 23 But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; They have revolted and departed. 24 They do not say in their heart, "Let us now fear the LORD our God, Who gives rain, both the former and the latter, in its season. He reserves for us the appointed weeks of the harvest." 25 Your iniquities have turned these things away, And your sins have withheld good from you. 26 `For among My people are found wicked men; They lie in wait as one who sets snares; They set a trap; They catch men.
      • It seems pretty clear that Paul is making his case from the Jews' OC Scripture that they are not better than the Gentiles and are under sin.
• As I was looking through these verses re: "turning aside," I also noticed the following. Since Job is thought to be pre-Moses, what do we do with him in regard to this concept of no unregenerate man being able to understand spiritual things? Note what Job also says re: this "turning aside":
  • NKJ Job 23:11 My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside.
    • Job obviously is conscious of God.
    • Job says he has not turned aside from God's way.
    • As I've stated before, there are other unregenerate men in history who very obviously had not rejected the knowledge of God. Job is just another one we can add to that list.

Honestly, once we start focusing on Scripture in context, this TD case just seems weak and in error. I can see how the case is being proposed, but it just doesn't play out.

There are very clearly unregenerate men from Adam on who knew of God and did not reject him.

Romans 3 does not look to be a universal all time indictment against all men. Romans 1 in context is about the ungodly & unrighteous who suppress truth in unrighteousness and reject knowledge of God that God has given to all men. Psalm 14 is about the fool who says there is no God. This is not all men in all of time.

Paul is making the case that the Jew is not better than the Gentile. The language from the Jew's Scriptures is mainly indicting the Jews who turned aside from God. Paul's case in context is against the Jews and he is proving his case against them from their Scriptures. That's brilliant and it too is spiritual information.

Total Depravity or Total Inability or whatever it's being called as it's battled even with its adherents has several Scriptures they base their belief upon. I'm happy to review those Scriptures with you and anyone else who wants to look at Scripture and analyze it together. The discussion needs to be focused and remain on point in Scripture in context. Otherwise it just gets lost and buried in a proposed theology.

 

[Ruth96]

Revelation 20
-books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[Rufus]

I gave you two examples in English that show your understanding of the meaning of the present tense structure Paul uses is wrong. You just ignored those and spouted more of your native stupidity, forcing your foolish theology into the biblical text yet again. You did not even quote my post and address my argument. You just ignored the argument and mindlessly ran your calvinist programming. Romans 3:18 does not SAY what you are claimimg it means.

Try addressing the argument.

Rom. 3:18 says: ouk (not) estin (is or keeps on being) phobos (fear) theou of God) apenanti (in front of) ophthalmOn (eyes) autOn (their).

It is describing a present state,. There is nothing in that text that indicates it is describing an everlasting state.

If I say of someone, "They are not competent," that is not a statement that should be taken as saying they have never been competent."

Or if I say, "There is no fear of spiders in their heart," that should not be assumed to mean they have never been afraid of spiders.

That is one of the many problems with Calvinism. It teaches people to read unreasonable assumptions into biblical texts, and to claim that those texts teach what they do not even say.

Your argument is absurd. Try addressing my rebuttals. When Jesus said, God alone is Good, then according to you, Jesus must have meant only at the time he spoke those words. Otherwise Jesus would have said, only God alone was good, is good and will be good.

Or take Rom 3:10 which reads: There is no one righteous..., then according to you that only means at the present time when Paul wrote that. People in the past were righteous and people in the future will be.

 

[Rufus]

We've never gotten past the T. Nor have we gotten past Rom3:11. So, this is my response to both of your most recent responses to me.

I don't see Rom3 as a universal, all time indictment against all men proving no unregenerate man has ever had the ability to understand spiritual things about God and proving that all men reject God pursuant to Romans 1:18 on.

I also don't think anything you have taken us into has proven the case for thinking otherwise.

Re: Rom1-3:

• From Rom2:17 (at min) - ch. 3 Paul is making a case against the Jew.
• Although Paul says in Rom3:9 that they have previously charged both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, this is mainly to make the case that Jews are not better than Gentiles. His focus is still on the Jews.
• When Paul starts quoting OC Scriptures to make his case that the Jew is not better than the Gentile, he begins by referencing Ps14:
  • Firstly, these are the Jews' Scriptures and although we have some history of the world in them, we mainly have the history of the Jews and much if that history is condemning them for their failures with God.
  • Ps14 is writing within this history:
    • Ps14:1 does read like a universal condemnation of men but it is speaking of the fool who says there is no God.
      • This cannot be universal for all time as David reveals in this Psalm:
        • In Ps14:4-5 David contrasts the fools with "My (God's) people" and the "generation of the righteous."
          • Paul speaks of God's people in Romans 11 as the "Remnant."
    • Ps14:2 speaks of a point where God looks down from Heaven.
      • This is during Israel's history as David is writing about.
    • Ps14:3 says "they have all turned aside":
      • I've looked through most of the 125 verses in the LXX where this word translated as "turned aside" is used 133 times and I did not see any instance where it is used of other than the Jews in the sense David is using it and Paul seems to be using it as David did. Here are some examples:
        • ESV Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands."
        • ESV Judges 2:17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so.
        • NKJ Psalm 125:1 <A Song of Ascents.> Those who trust in the LORD Are like Mount Zion, Which cannot be moved, but abides forever. 2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem, So the LORD surrounds His people From this time forth and forever. 3 For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest On the land allotted to the righteous, Lest the righteous reach out their hands to iniquity. 4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, And to those who are upright in their hearts. 5 As for such as turn aside to their crooked ways, The LORD shall lead them away With the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel!
        • NKJ Zeph. 1:4-6 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests1 with the pagan priests--5 Those who worship the host of heaven on the housetops; Those who worship and swear oaths by the LORD, But who also swear by Milcom1; 6 Those who have turned back from following the LORD, And have not sought the LORD, nor inquired of Him."
        • NKJ Mal. 3:7 Yet from the days of your fathers You have gone away from My ordinances And have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," Says the LORD of hosts. "But you said, `In what way shall we return?'
        • NKJ Jer. 5:20-26 20 "Declare this in the house of Jacob And proclaim it in Judah, saying, 21 `Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not: 22 Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD. `Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, Yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. 23 But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; They have revolted and departed. 24 They do not say in their heart, "Let us now fear the LORD our God, Who gives rain, both the former and the latter, in its season. He reserves for us the appointed weeks of the harvest." 25 Your iniquities have turned these things away, And your sins have withheld good from you. 26 `For among My people are found wicked men; They lie in wait as one who sets snares; They set a trap; They catch men.
      • It seems pretty clear that Paul is making his case from the Jews' OC Scripture that they are not better than the Gentiles and are under sin.
• As I was looking through these verses re: "turning aside," I also noticed the following. Since Job is thought to be pre-Moses, what do we do with him in regard to this concept of no unregenerate man being able to understand spiritual things? Note what Job also says re: this "turning aside":
  • NKJ Job 23:11 My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside.
    • Job obviously is conscious of God.
    • Job says he has not turned aside from God's way.
    • As I've stated before, there are other unregenerate men in history who very obviously had not rejected the knowledge of God. Job is just another one we can add to that list.

Honestly, once we start focusing on Scripture in context, this TD case just seems weak and in error. I can see how the case is being proposed, but it just doesn't play out.

There are very clearly unregenerate men from Adam on who knew of God and did not reject him.

Romans 3 does not look to be a universal all time indictment against all men. Romans 1 in context is about the ungodly & unrighteous who suppress truth in unrighteousness and reject knowledge of God that God has given to all men. Psalm 14 is about the fool who says there is no God. This is not all men in all of time.

Paul is making the case that the Jew is not better than the Gentile. The language from the Jew's Scriptures is mainly indicting the Jews who turned aside from God. Paul's case in context is against the Jews and he is proving his case against them from their Scriptures. That's brilliant and it too is spiritual information.

Total Depravity or Total Inability or whatever it's being called as it's battled even with its adherents has several Scriptures they base their belief upon. I'm happy to review those Scriptures with you and anyone else who wants to look at Scripture and analyze it together. The discussion needs to be focused and remain on point in Scripture in context. Otherwise it just gets lost and buried in a proposed theology.

Mr. Studier, how Ps 14 reads is largely immaterial. The psalmist wrote what he did in the historical context of his time; and Paul, within the context of his era and in the context of his argument, uses the psalm to suit his purposes. So, my question to you is this: To whom was he referring in Rom 3:10? Only the Jews? I totally disagree with that because Paul made his conclusion in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. So, I don't know how you parse from that comprehensive conclusion that what follows this verse is speaking only of the Jews.

Since you don't see Rom 3:9-18 as a universal indictment of Corporate Adam, then I must ask outright if you agree or not with one of my major premises which is: Man cannot not sin? Yes or no.

Then I would like your understanding of Rom 3:10 & 12 particularly. What do you think Paul meant when he said "there is no one righteous, no not one" and then went on to say two verses later: "there is no one who does good, not even one". First, who are the no one(s) in both verses, and what does it mean to not be righteous and what does it mean that no good is performed?

And once again....you keep on insisting that I have said that TU cannot understand any spiritual truth. That is not my position. And I even cited a parable in which the Christ-hating Pharisess clearly understood that Jesus was referring to them. When I say that TU "cannot" understand spiritual truth, I mean they cannot understand it sufficiently, substantially and essentially...because they have no heart for God. They don't want to have a deeper knowledge of God. And this is certainly the thrust of Romans 1 since men suppressed the truth, in their wickedness, that God revealed to them through his creation. They became FOOLISH in their speculations (thereby becoming fools!) and futile in their thinking because they did not want to retain God in their knowledge. This idea of having insufficient knowledge or understanding of spiritual truth can be found in 1Cor 2:8.

As far as how OT saints were saved, how do you think they were saved: Works, Faith, Both?

Did God have a hand in any OT saint's salvation or not? Or prior to the NC, was it every man for himself? But if God did have a part, what specifically was his role as "Savior"?

 

[maxamir]

Nah. your nastiness is not found in scripture and certainly does not represent what the New Testament teaches. It is one thing to declare you follow the 5 tenents of Calvinism or perhaps, like some say, do not follow him but believe as he taught

I don't care. I don't think that is a salvic issue anyway as we are saved because of Jesus and not Calvin and not believing a certain doctrine taught by men who think they operate above scripture as I have found many Calvinists do with their attitudes and self righteousness

I am saved by believing in Christ, believing that His sinless blood shed on that cross fulfilled the righteous demands of God and because of my faith in Him, God sees me as righteous in His Son and I am delivered from the devil and death.

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21

Your bluster and self serving condemnation of others is not justified and not how God Himself sees things

You are the scoffer and no matter how you believe, you are not justified in condeming others and calling them names and just displaying the type of nastiness you have become known for

it doesn't really matter what you think you believe but whether what you believe is the truth and if you are trusting in your faith and supposed free will to be saved rather than the person and work of Christ and end up dying in you sin then you will prove yourself to be a reprobate, justly and eternally hated by God no matter how holy you may claim to be.

Many people will miss Heaven by eighteen inches which is the distance from their heads to their heart. I sincerely hope and pray that my loving rebuke to you would by the grace of God make you realise that salivation belongs to the Lord and not the choice of men as you falsely seen to assume and that you stop robbing a perfectly jealous God of the glory of His salvation.

 

[maxamir]

I'm just going to revisit this post

Obviously, I have never claimed, nor has anyone else to the best of my knowledge, within the framework of this particular forum, ever once declared that anyone is responsible for their own salvation.

As far as my understanding (according to scripture) goes, no human has ever or will ever 'rob God of His glory". This is basically the cry of the person who does not understand that God is never robbed of who He is nor of any of His attributes...while glory is not an attribute, it is a characteristic. A flawed understanding does not detract from fact in any way save in the mind of those so inclined.

The words 'judicially blinded' indicate a judgement has taken place with the result that the judged is blinded, presumably by God.

The construct is designed in such a way as to presume superior standing with God and a flawed and corrupt understanding of salvation that is no salvation at all, directed toward the person (in this case myself) who dares to question Calvinism or worse, does not see within that framework salvation as understood from scripture.

Yet there is salvation under no other name than that of Christ. Calvin has saved no one and never will and in fact has murdered. I have said before and I say it again: It seems that the spirit of murderous Calvin has followed Calvin's adherents through time and resolved itself in the unbiblical condemnation of Christians who know nothing of Calvin but have accepted and followed their actual Savior without condemnation and whose sins are put away from them as God promises to all those who put their trust in His Son and not in their own flesh.

from my original response in post 5770:



When I say 'the spirit of Calvin' I do not mean the man's actual spirit haunting anyone, but rather attachments from what the Bible calls 'demons'. In saying this, I am not saying anyone has demons, but condemnation of belief because it does not follow the pattern of self righteous and false superior antics is certainly not born from the Holy Spirit.

There seems to be a pattern of following and quoting men long dead, who were sharp in their judgements and lacking in understanding, with certain people who believe that Calvinism, or similar belief structures, are to be considered as indications of actual salvation rather than following the Biblical injunction to 'believe in the name of Christ and call upon Him.'

It is not a sin to dismiss Calvinism nor is it sin to see something in scripture differently than another. The sin is raging against other people, dismissing their salvation and believing you have summarily sent them to hell because they do not believe as do you; even going one step further and saying God has judged them and blinded them to thel truth.

Jesus said: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

So consider your words and remember that you are yourself judged by those very words.

I happily stand by my words before a thrice holy God which state that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone but there are many here including yourself that have made statements saying your faith is the condition of your salvation rather than the fruit of salvation which God grants as a gift of faith and by so doing have added works to grace and destroyed the very concept of grace and given room in which to boast before God.

Anyone who consistently trusts in their faith rather than the person and work of Christ to grant saving faith is still under the curse and not yet saved.

Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD.

Those who say otherwise are adherents of Arminianism which was cast out as heresy at the first major protestant gathering of church ministers to address this issue at the Synod of Dordt who concluded after many months of deliberation with the below statements.