Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


William last won the day on June 18

William had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,110 Excellent

1 Follower

About William


  • Occupation


  • Gender


  • State (No Abbreviations)

City Name

  • City Name
    Scotts Valley

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status


  • Den


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

660 profile views
  1. The Office of the First Lady has notified the Secret Service after actor Peter Fonda called for kidnapping Melania and Donald Trump’s son, Barron, The Daily Caller has learned exclusively. In a tweet sent Wednesday, the actor called for Barron to be “ripped” from Melania’s arms and put in a cage “with pedophiles.” Spokesperson for the first lady Stephanie Grisham told The Daily Caller that the Secret Service has been “notified” of the threat. “The tweet is sick and irresponsible and USSS has been notified,” Grisham said. (RELATED: Here Are The Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Detention Facilities The Media Won’t Show You) Fonda has been on a twitter tirade against White House officials, particularly females and children, over the past few days. He called for the public caging and rape of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen in a tweet Tuesday. In the vulgar tweet, Fonda said “Kristjen Nielsen is a lying gash that should be put in a cage and poked at by passersby.” He continued, “The gash should be pilloried in Lafayette Square naked and whipped by passersby while being filmed for posterity.” Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/20/melania-calls-secret-service-after-actor-peter-fonda-threatens-to-kidnap-barron-trump/
  2. William

    The Binding of Satan

    Why wouldn't it suggest that because demons are able to be cast out that the proof of Satan bound is now? The binding of Satan is evident everywhere (nations, tribes, and tongues) the Gospel is preached. Satan's house is plundered as his goods (Elect) are drawn from out of the house of Satan. God bless, William
  3. William

    Eternal Election

    I pray for my unbelieving loved ones also, I petition that God regenerates them in His timing if it is his will. I pray that they are drawn to Jesus by His Spirit. Here's a good model prayer for regeneration: Lord, take out of her flesh the heart of stone and give his/her a heart of flesh. Cause him/her to walk in your statutes. Put love for yourself into his/her heart. Open the eyes of his/her heart to see the glory of the gospel. Grant repentance to him/her and free his/her from the devil. Make him/her alive together with Christ. Save him/her by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. God bless, William
  4. William

    Eternal Election

    "like" precious faith. In the OT the Holy Spirit could come upon someone (unbeliever) to perform a task and then leave. The life of Saul serves an example: 1 Samuel 10:10 When they came to there to the hill, there was a group of prophets to meet him; then the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. 1 Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, a distressing Spirit from the Lord troubled him . Just as in the NT: Hebrews 6: 1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings,[a] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. In Hebrews 6 it is possible for someone to "taste" the fruits of the Holy Spirit but fall away. There is no difference between the OT and NT in that the Holy Spirit can come upon an unbeliever and leave. This is not to suggest that the Holy Spirit does not permanently indwell believers. John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. God bless, William
  5. William

    Eternal Election

    Calvinist are all familiar with the Arminian use of foreknowledge. Consider: "The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 "God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything past, present, or future was not fully known to Him.* But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse. "It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says,“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord knows about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way.* They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6.*God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His! "Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good.*“It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition.* This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).* There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” God bless, William
  6. Which Reformed denomination do you attend? I see that you're Christian Reformed, but the questions you ask are not characteristic of someone Reformed. How long have you been Reformed? God bless, William
  7. William

    The Binding of Satan

    I'm not sure it is necessary to turn outside of Scripture. And I was unawares that others were using the term "newspaper theology" (not realizing the negative connotations). Are you're suggesting that the immediate context is not clear enough in Matthew 12:28–29 or Mark 3:22-30? It appears to me that the binding of the strongman (Satan) occurs for the purpose of plundering his house. I think we've now covered the when, what, why, and how. I do agree and see that your references are examples of the binding of physical or corporeal beings. It seems that you're suggesting this because Job 2:2 suggests that Satan is corporeal. Does the text still make sense if Satan is incorporeal and localized, that is, not omnipresent? God bless, William
  8. William

    The Binding of Satan

    I am assuming your information is from current events due to the lack of use of Scripture. I apologize if you're not turning to the world outside of Scripture to suggest that other religions are spreading. Wasn't this addressed in the OP, or are you emphasizing his ability to move at all upon the earth? Can you show me from Scripture that Satan being immovable is a condition of his binding? And to clarify having the ability to come into God's presence is not "the very least"? Job 1:6–12 portrays Satan as possessing the ability to come into God’s immediate presence along with other angels, or “sons of God” (v.6). He used this place of power to cause great harm to Job. But according to what Christ says in the Gospels, Satan lost that privileged access to the heavenly courts as a result of the incarnation and work of Christ. In Luke 10:18–19, the seventy disciples return with great joy from their successful mission in preaching the gospel, healing the sick, and casting out demons. Christ then explains how they were able to accomplish these wonders: “He said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven’” (v. 18). Jesus explains Satan’s fall in terms of Christian ministry: “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you” (v. 19). I don't understand why the binding of Satan would pertain to the protection of the reprobate. And would you say that Matthew 24:24 covers other religions? Do the false Christs and prophets entail people such as Mohammad, or founders such as Buddha, and even Joseph Smith? Are we not warned about the spreading of false religions and that "if it were possible" they shall deceive the Elect? Obviously, Satan or the false prophets are not prevented from spreading false teaching and or religions. God bless, William
  9. Lemme ask you, why is man condemned (past tense) already? Why has he not believed? Do you attribute it to man's free will or do you attribute it to man's nature (original sin)? John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Jesus sheep receive the faith necessary in the completed process of salvation: Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. The "this" is not your own doing, and not only pertains to "saved", "grace", and "faith" but the entire process. Perhaps if you ask and cannot find this for yourself, @Origencan entertain the Greek syntax and explain why the pronouns should agree with the nouns they modify. Free will in the autonomous or libertarian sense is a pagan concept read into Scripture. Nobody acts contrary to either a sin nature or regenerated nature. Man is either a slave to sin or a slave to God. Slaves do the will of their master. God bless, William
  10. No problem brother. But Monergism is not only Calvinism, it is Protestantism. To reject Monergism is to reaffirm Catholicism's teaching of Synergism. And lemme ask you a personal question for reflection. What is it about proclaiming all Glory to God Alone for your salvation (Soli Deo Gloria) that makes you struggle in theology? No need to answer that here, but I struggled at first because of my personal pride, I said, there's something good in me that contributed to salvation. Now I have heard many people when confronted outright with Monergism profess that it is Scripturally correct, however, contradictions then follow thereafter. If at any point in your doctrine you point to anyone other than God (self-idolatry) from start to finish (Christ the author and He who began a good work will finish it) then you cannot rightly proclaim Soli Deo Gloria. This is my final litmus test that I personally use for any reading of any said doctrine. If I can't proclaim Soli Deo Gloria after reading what someone teaches, I reject it. The Five Solas, principles, or mini-creeds came from out of the Protestant Reformation, it was not new, but only reaffirmed or reestablished not only the true teaching from Scripture, but also what the early universal catholic church stood by, that the Catholic church later rejected. God bless, William
  11. William

    The Binding of Satan

    Excuse me DavidM, but it seems that you're still pointing to the current events in the newspaper. How has the Gospel been able to go out to all nations if not by the binding of Satan so that the preaching of the Gospel may reach the Elect? It seems that your method of interpretation of the Scriptures requires evil completely removed from the world, and the physical binding of a spirit being (Satan). You'll have to entertain me as to how that is possible? How can a spirit being be bound up with a physical chain, shut up in a hole, bottomless or otherwise? Now you ask, if Satan is bound why do we see so many nations and people deceived by other religions. What reason would God have for preventing the reprobate from being blinded? John Calvin rightly stated, "Christ, by dying, conquered Satan, who had the “power of death,” (Heb 2:14), and triumphed over all his forces, to the end that they might not harm the Church,… God does not allow Satan to rule over the souls of believers, but gives over only the impious and unbelievers,—whom he deigns not to regard as members of his own flock,—to be governed by him" (Institutes of the Christian Religion). Source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xv.html And I'm not suggesting that the Millennium is now completed, the Church has a commission (made possible by the binding of Satan) before he is loosed again. Matthew 16:18, this is why the Church can be on the offensive. Sorry brother, can't be more clearer than that. God bless, William
  12. I can't wrap my mind around your question. Either God receives all glory for salvation or man points partially to himself, and if to himself why not others? Anything other than Mongerism reaffirms Catholicism. This historic debate took place long before Calvinism vs Arminianism. The arguments and debate began with a British monk named Pelagius that took issue with Augustine's statement and argued that humankind can respond to God without any involvement on the Creator's part. What was the controversial statement of Augustine? Augustine prayed, "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Jacob Arminius rose from out of the Reformed church and his followers after his death later reaffirmed some of the points of Pelagius' teaching and what the Catholic church teaches today. Salvation is either completely from God or not. Monergism or Synergism is either or not: the direct statements of Scripture; the teaching of the Bible concerning the incapacity of man to do anything that is pleasing to God without God’s first freeing the sinner from the bonds of death; and the teaching of those passages that combine these two truths (point 1 and 2) into an undeniable whole. Ephesians 1:4-6 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us[a] for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. The divine acts of choosing and predestining are placed in the time-frame of eternity itself. This election to salvation (not merely to an opportunity to believe, but to the fullness of salvation, as seen in the use of such terms as “holy,” “blameless,” “sonship,” etc.) occurs prior to any human action. This is a personal action: the direct object of “chose” and “predestined” is a personal pronoun, “us.” Individual persons, not classes or groups, are chosen to holiness and adoption. God’s will, not man’s, determines His act of saving a sinner. Never is any other basis of this divine choice presented in Scripture. The phrase “according to” or “on the basis of” ushers us directly into the only biblical answer to the question: “Why one and not another?” The same truths come out in Paul’s tremendous “Golden Chain of Redemption”: Romans 8:29–30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. We are presented with an unbreakable chain of divine actions: God foreknows a certain people (identified later as “God’s elect”). All those whom He foreknows He predestines; everyone He predestines He calls; everyone He calls He justifies; and everyone He justifies He glorifies. Every action is divine; every action is certain - so certain, in fact, that the past tense is used to emphasize this certainty. We again see the unconditional aspect of God’s work of salvation: nowhere can the chain be broken, and never is a link of human sufficiency inserted. Everyone who is predestined is glorified. All who are glorified were chosen by God in eternity past. Paul’s teaching is crystal clear and compelling. God bless, William
  13. Reformed Theology conveys and/or teaches strict Monergism. Catholicism teaches Synergism. Keeping what you wrote in mind, lemme ask you which teaching conveys the truth of Scripture? Catholicism or Protestants? At the end, the article states that much of Protestantism has seen a regress to many of the same corruptions. No doubt the Calvary Chapel movement reaffirms these perversions. God bless, William
  14. William

    Eternal Election

    Oh, I laughed when I read her lyrics. Especially while imagining someone taking her literalistically. You realize that mine was a slight exaggeration? That really wasn't ALL I know, and I'm certain poor children are not subject to secular videos ALL the time. Just demonstrating the use of ALL in Hyperbole. Guess the use of it makes me into a liar? God bless, William
  15. William

    Eternal Election

    ALL I know, is that poor children are subjected to secular videos ALL the time. God bless, William