Understanding unconditional election

[Jordon]

There are just too many verses to make limited atonement work.

Google gives " Calvinist doctrine stating that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was intended to redeem only the elect (those chosen for salvation), not all humanity, making salvation certain for the chosen but not universally available. While the value of Christ's death is seen as sufficient for everyone, its efficacy (actual saving power) is limited to the specific people God chose from eternity to save, meaning it was "all the way for some," not "part of the way for all".

The t in tulip that's the most important to accept when you accept that one the other points are just like duck soup to accept.

There only really a big deal to those who haven't done there homework. Or been on the receiving end of the wrong tulip.

Can't blame people really theirs plenty of bad tulips knocking about who haven't budded yet


Your welcome to express your views tho.

 

[Jordon]

There are just too many verses to make limited atonement work.

Google gives " Calvinist doctrine stating that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was intended to redeem only the elect (those chosen for salvation), not all humanity, making salvation certain for the chosen but not universally available. While the value of Christ's death is seen as sufficient for everyone, its efficacy (actual saving power) is limited to the specific people God chose from eternity to save, meaning it was "all the way for some," not "part of the way for all".

so just to let you know true love is about knowing Christ died for all sinners. Thats the message from. RC sproul who teaches the five points of tulip very well.

Best I've heard. I'm sure there will be many more like him. Seeing as he does care about the truth, when it comes to human compassion it can most certainly blossom just like a tulip. He does seem to possess compassion in abundance, unlike some yucky tulips I've heard

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

so just to let you know true love is about knowing Christ died for all sinners. Thats the message from. RC sproul who teaches the five points of tulip very well.

Best I've heard. I'm sure there will be many more like him. Seeing as he does care about the truth, when it comes to human compassion it can most certainly blossom just like a tulip. He does seem to possess compassion in abundance, unlike some yucky tulips I've heard

So I know his name but not his teaching. If he teaches that Christ died for all sinners, that would be a switch from what Calvin taught. And the Bible totally teaches that Christ died for all.

 

[Jordon]

At one point Sproul made a very revealing remark. He made a distinction between striving for a holy life (Erasmus) vs not doing so and instead giving glory to God (Luther). Erasmus said that Luther's ideas would open up a flood gate of iniquity, and Luther wrote "So be it" because such gave all of the glory to God.

Luther was defending all the teachings of Augustine, so really it was Augustine speaking. Because Luther was an Augustine monk.

Tho it was Luther who was having the controversy, with who would have been a cardinal for the pope. Ie Mr Harris protestants alot

The argument was really between Augustine and the pope,

So really without Luther preaching about the bondage of will it's strongly believed many people would never have got the true message about being saved by grace. And we would not have our protestant faith today.

It's why there loved amongst the Christian people. The children of the way. It is the main reason, did you know this ?


Well anyhow do enjoy

 

[Jordon]

So I know his name but not his teaching. If he teaches that Christ died for all sinners, that would be a switch from what Calvin taught. And the Bible totally teaches that Christ died for all.

he taught that the five point of tulip have become known as Calvinism Rosey, which means there only a small tiny fraction of the reformed faith, and really saying it would be silly to believe that.

 

[Jordon]

So I know his name but not his teaching. If he teaches that Christ died for all sinners, that would be a switch from what Calvin taught. And the Bible totally teaches that Christ died for all.

I showed you remember 2 mins into the video for 30 sec he stated for all who trust in him will be justified. All meaning anybody, I've heard him mention it other sermons too.

The problem is understanding that the elect are all those will be saved and elect means they saved. but the issue is not knowing who will be saved. Nobody knows that, so it's really means anybody can be saved. You only know so many people, and you may know there fruits, and know there heart, and know they trust in the lord, so you know there saved, you know your saved, you can have assurance your saved.

The other big issue not seen by some idiotic beliefs is everyone is predestined at first to be given a chance, everyone is seen in the light, he even came to his own who did not receive him.

The true message gets lost because idiots dont see that all our predestined at first to be made accountable to God. Nobody is without excuse

The elect simply means those who he knows in advance will accept his means he's already ordained for everyone, meaning it could be anyone as nobody knows only God.

The true Calvies teach differently

I've got sermons from a poplar church associated with John Calvin's teachings, who teach all can be saved.

I've posted them here.

There are miss representations of Calvin's teachings, for instance regeneration proceeds faith, proceeds actually means to come become, mercy is the first stage of Regeneration in a persons heart before being saved.

 

[PaulThomson]

well I dont ignore it and neither does rc sproul and i do understand some of it. But no one does good ultimately means God writes his moral law on unsaved hearts and then he decides who will be saved

But RC Sproul makes a good point of why greek can't always be used to work things out, from 10 minutes 15 second into this video for just a few minutes from that point on, he explains why greek can't always be used, if you can be bothered to acknowledge the reason.

I'm sure he would of studied the greek before producing this sermon and the one at the beginning of this thread, and then made his sermon with all conviction he was giving the best knowledge he could, maybe you should listen to it

From 10 mins 15 secs into the video

No. He does not seem to be basing his teaching on the Greek. His division of God's will into three kinds is not based on the use of thelO by the Greeks, but is based on Deformed theology dividing the occurrences of will (thelO) so as to make the Bible fit its presuppositions. God's will, at any particular time, is "what God wants/desires at any particular time". The same meaning as when "will" is applied to men and animals.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Deformed theology

Love it

 

[Jordon]

No. He does not seem to be basing his teaching on the Greek. His division of God's will into three kinds is not based on the use of thelO by the Greeks, but is based on Deformed theology dividing the occurrences of will (thelO) so as to make the Bible fit its presuppositions. God's will, at any particular time, is "what God wants/desires at any particular time". The same meaning as when "will" is applied to men and animals.

well. I don't mind if you disagree but but don't finish with an assumption it shows your other assumptions to more sumptuous

He said there are two greek words that can both be translated into the the English word will. And of those words there capable of several different nuances, So in other words when you study the word will in the bible you get willing in abn authoritive way or a persuasive way or a permissive way.

So when it comes to his will it definitely has to be discussed with the whole bible,

The good thing about sermon he did Say Jesus atonement if offered to all.

Obviously RC sproul teachings is open to all too, now you did join the discussion, so if you could try to make it more of a pleasant existence, by proving him wrong in a civil way. If you want to that is. Calling a professor a zombie only leads to people being disrespectful of a man's intelligence

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I showed you remember 2 mins into the video for 30 sec he stated for all who trust in him will be justified. All meaning anybody, I've heard him mention it other sermons too.

The problem is understanding that the elect are all those will be saved and elect means they saved. but the issue is not knowing who will be saved. Nobody knows that, so it's really means anybody can be saved. You only know so many people, and you may know there fruits, and know there heart, and know they trust in the lord, so you know there saved, you know your saved, you can have assurance your saved.

The other big issue not seen by some idiotic beliefs is everyone is predestined at first to be given a chance, everyone is seen in the light, he even came to his own who did not receive him.

The true message gets lost because idiots dont see that all our predestined at first to be made accountable to God. Nobody is without excuse

The elect simply means those who he knows in advance will accept his means he's already ordained for everyone, meaning it could be anyone as nobody knows only God.

The true Calvies teach differently

I've got sermons from a poplar church associated with John Calvin's teachings, who teach all can be saved.

I've posted them here.

There are miss representations of Calvin's teachings, for instance regeneration proceeds faith, proceeds actually means to come become, mercy is the first stage of Regeneration in a persons heart before being saved.

I agree with foreknowledge, I just don't agree God chose certain people for heaven and certain people for hell.

 

[Jordon]

I agree with foreknowledge, I just don't agree God chose certain people for heaven and certain people for hell.

That would be his judgement that make the decision, his decision are always made on his judgement, so his judgment was he chose all mankind to have an inherent will of having his moral law wrote on every heart even before there born.

By his judgment he chose his many days you should live.

So his judgment is made half way through person lifes or at the end of a person life by his means he ordains.

He never chooses people to go to hell before there born thats a bad teaching. Even tho some are destined for hell those people will still walk with him before they go there.

The problem not seen is that even Gods life could happen the way he wants it, if it's intended if he wants, but he knows what will happen and can change what will happen, So God can choose. The word eternal meant God is all of time to.

God can chose to not have his presence in hell,

Now to these skeptics, if you say a person can escape hell or only serve a temporary punishment in hell, I bet many of the sceptical people here would all be saying there's no way to escape that Judgment of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

If only we had Bibles translated by people who understood Greek.

well. I don't mind if you disagree but but don't finish with an assumption it shows your other assumptions to more sumptuous

He said there are two greek words that can both be translated into the the English word will. And of those words there capable of several different nuances, So in other words when you study the word will in the bible you get willing in abn authoritive way or a persuasive way or a permissive way.

So when it comes to his will it definitely has to be discussed with the whole bible,

The good thing about sermon he did Say Jesus atonement if offered to all.

Obviously RC sproul teachings is open to all too, now you did join the discussion, so if you could try to make it more of a pleasant existence, by proving him wrong in a civil way. If you want to that is. Calling a professor a zombie only leads to people being disrespectful of a man's intelligence

Yes there are two words ThelEma (what one wants) and boulE or boullEma (what one plans).

But the nuances Sproul began to explain were decretive will, preceptive will and permissive will. Those are not nuances recognised in the Greek; they are nuanced categories invented by theologians to dice and slice the scriptures to fit them their presuppositions.

 

[PaulThomson]

Calling a professor a zombie only leads to people being disrespectful of a man's intelligence

Please, don't lie about what I said.

 

[Jordon]

Please, don't lie about what I said.

did I lie, ? I don't know about that, maybe I chucked a question at you, which was on the bases of you suggesting deformed theology was an assessment of RC Sproul.

Unless I'm mistaken zombies can definitely be deformed but RC Sproul is reformed

 

[Jordon]

Yes there are two words ThelEma (what one wants) and boulE or boullEma (what one plans).

But the nuances Sproul began to explain were decretive will, preceptive will and permissive will. Those are not nuances recognised in the Greek; they are nuanced categories invented by theologians to dice and slice the scriptures to fit them their presuppositions.

no it means where there are different nuances you have look at the others.

So tell me what nuances of his will are only recognised by the greek ?

 

[Jordon]

Yes there are two words ThelEma (what one wants) and boulE or boullEma (what one plans).

missed this part i was a bit busy,

So what your basically saying is want and desire is the only nuances of God's will ? And they cant include what RC Sproul mentioned ? Do you think want fully includes is authoritive will and every aspect of it ? How about desire can that in include his permissive will ? Or should it be what God desires but it doesn't have to be what you desire.

So which nuance of that will is included in no one does Good not one for human will ?

Would you say thats what a person wants or what he desires in his unsaved condition ?

I mean you do have to recognise human will here surely not ?

 

[Jordon]

I wonder how Gods moral will is a persons will who does no good,

Or where Gods moral will is in not one person who does good not one, must be he a person can do his moral good by his will of what God knows is permissive and not permissive by his permissive will.

And where would Gods permissive will work here.

Then what is God's perfect will ?

Surely that would be what he wants and what he desires ?

How does that become permissive in person that does no good not one,

I mean surely there has to be some persuasive will about that and surely some authoritive will about it.

I mean it has be more than just a want and desire to take a hold. Has to be an element of influencing will surely not.


Not to mention his guiding will.

I mean well if I'm inserting my ideas like a theologian I will accept the title

 

[PaulThomson]

did I lie, ? I don't know about that, maybe I chucked a question at you, which was on the bases of you suggesting deformed theology was an assessment of RC Sproul.

Unless I'm mistaken zombies can definitely be deformed but RC Sproul is reformed

Yes you lied.

I said ""No. He does not seem to be basing his teaching on the Greek. His division of God's will into three kinds is not based on the use of thelO by the Greeks, but is based on Deformed theology dividing the occurrences of will (thelO) so as to make the Bible fit its presuppositions. God's will, at any particular time, is "what God wants/desires at any particular time". The same meaning as when "will" is applied to men and animals."

You responded, "Calling a professor a zombie only leads to people being disrespectful of a man's intelligence,"

 

[Jordon]

Yes you lied.

I said ""No. He does not seem to be basing his teaching on the Greek. His division of God's will into three kinds is not based on the use of thelO by the Greeks, but is based on Deformed theology dividing the occurrences of will (thelO) so as to make the Bible fit its presuppositions. God's will, at any particular time, is "what God wants/desires at any particular time". The same meaning as when "will" is applied to men and animals."

You responded, "Calling a professor a zombie only leads to people being disrespectful of a man's intelligence,"

You need to prove his teaching a deformed theology, could you have chose a better word than deformed.

That's a pretty cynical word unless I'm mistaken, it's a word that can really upset somebody.

But hey take no notice.

You know that poster right after your comment, even thanked you for that one definition, all they said was deformed theology, I like it.

Its also the fact I gave you a answer that should have got better respect than your answer, to answer with deformed theology.

Deformed is a word used to describe a person who hasn't formed in his mothers womb,

Do you expect me to be appreciative of that,

And now you expect me to be in wrong ?

One person on another thread called him an unpleasant name another person here, and. Another person in another thread.

And now you add to it.

So basically I'm having to deal with one excuse after the next here, untill finally a civil discussion takes place, on something that never hardly gets discussed appropriately here.

And people have little knowledge about the truth believing all the rubbish people say with no idea

 

[PaulThomson]

missed this part i was a bit busy,

So what your basically saying is want and desire is the only nuances of God's will ?

This might help you, and other readers of this thread, understand the difference between thelEma and BoulEma.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....-thelema-compare-with-each-other-in-luke-2242

One could say that boulEma is a desire (thelEma) that has become a decision or a plan (boulEma) to fulfil the desire (theEma).

So, what I am saying is that want or desire is the only Greek nuance to God's thelEma. And a plan to fulfil a desire/want is the only Greek nuance to God's boulEma. You may try to prove me wrong.

And they cant include what RC Sproul mentioned ?

No. The kinds of thelEma/will and boulEma/plan to fulfil a desire that Sproul imagines and catalogues are not nuances of those words IMHO.

Do you think want fully includes is authoritive will and every aspect of it ?

God wants something or plans something. Some things He wants and continues to want until they happen, and some things He wants, but changes His mind about them, and stops wanting them, but begins to want and alternative. And some things He wants but is also willing to forego getting, because He would rather allow creatures to learn some worthwhile lessons and wisdom from them getting their own way and then them having to deal with the consequences. This is like any good father would do.

How about desire can that in include his permissive will ?

God is willing to let creatures have their own way sometimes. It is not a different kind of will from his wanting to have His own way. When I use a hose to direct water, I don't categorise "fire extinguishing water", "garden soaking water" and 'car washing water" as different kinds of water, simply because the target and the result of the water is different in each case..

Or should it be what God desires but it doesn't have to be what you desire.

Not sure what "it" is referring to here. Can you please clarify?

So which nuance of that will is included in no one does Good not one for human will ?

Your grammar has deteriorated to incomprehensibility at this point.

Would you say thats what a person wants or what he desires in his unsaved condition ?

Still incomprehensible.

I mean you do have to recognise human will here surely not ?

Also incomprehensible.