Jump to content

Stan

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Stan

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I'm wasting your time? I see, so you just want to post biased articles but NOT deal or support them? What exactly do you think a DISCUSSION forum is? I do try to initiate discussion but it seems you just don't discuss and start NEW thread with the same TULIP doctrine over and over again. I guess I should have followed my original instinct and stayed off here, because you don't want to discuss and apparently neither do the regulars here.
  2. Stan

    Eternal Election

    I asked a simple question.
  3. You haven't established anything William, except that you will continue to post threads like this but never DEAL with the actual refutations. I write this of my own free will just as I chose Jesus as my savior with my own free will. http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm
  4. Stan

    Eternal Election

    Is this a discussion forum or a blog for Calvinist authors?
  5. Stan

    An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:4

    You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Rom 5:6-8 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Rom 5:10 There is no problem in 1 Tim 2:4 unless one is trying to invent one to push their doctrine. William D. Mounce in his Commentary of the Pastoral Epistles shows this rather clearly on page 78. What I find interesting is that the reason Paul wrote 1 Tim was because of the teaching going on at that time that salvation was exclusive to some, and refuted that here, yet some still hold to that false teaching. Salvation is for ALL people as Paul affirms later on in 1 Tim 4:10
  6. Well I don't JUST state it I supply the exegesis, which interestingly enough never gets dealt with. Yes that's right William, those He foreknew would accept His Son as their savior, are predestined to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son. As that happens, they become called, justified and glorified. This is also depicted in Acts 2:23, Rom 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:2 Another assertion without corroboration William. God's foreknowledge is just that, foreknowledge, KNOWING what will happen in the future. For this very reason His plan of salvation was fully formed BEFORE He created the universe. God KNEW what Adam and Eve would do and as such had this plan ready. There is no other way to properly convey the meaning of foreknowledge unless you are trying to eisegete. You are trying to fit my beliefs into a doctrine that I do NOT necessarily subscribe to. I do NOT claim to be Arminian, you force that label on me. I'm not forcing anything into the language, it is already there. The eisegeting comes from the RT dogma. Dismissing the obvious without any exegesis is typical fair but doesn't work. You seem awfully reticent to supply a connotation for "foreknew", even though the word itself is not ambiguous in the least? The Greek is προγινώσκω (proginōskō), and connotes; to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with, Acts 26:5; 2 Pet. 3:17; to determine on beforehand, to foreordain, 1 Pet. 1:20; in NT, from the Hebrew, to foreknow, to appoint as the subject of future privileges, Rom. 8:29; 11:2 Now there's a standard RT catch phrase; "God looked through corridors of time and chose those who first chose Him". God doesn't look down time because He is NOT subject to time. He created it. To Him, it lays out as a full canvas, which is why He has no beginning or end. As man fell away from God, we have to turn back to Him, and He has provided the way for us to do that by accepting the gift of His only Son. Yes, He foreknew in the sense of time, who would accept His Son, because that is how the Bible is written, IN time. I agree that one has to be born again, but I have no idea why you quote these verses here? Paul acknowledges that God foreknew those that were born again in these scriptures. I agree with this and understand it but what does this have to do with what I said? There's no such idea as "spiritually dead" in the NT. You are either actually dead, as regards animation of the body, or you are effectively/effectually dead as regards to your current spiritual condition. Unless of course you believe and support annihilation? God draws us so we either respond positively, or we don't, the choice is ours. If we had no disposition to be attracted to God, He could not draw us so unless you also support the fallacious view of draw meaning dragged, then that is not possible. If we did not have a disposition to God, Jesus would not have said Ask, Seek or Knock. Both these appeals have to do with a disposition of human to want to know God. Not all humans submit to that, but clearly according to Paul in Rom 1:19-20. Salvation/Conversion/Regeneration are one in the same William. If you are alluding to endurance, I agree, but how could you possible believe in OSAS and not see the 3 are synonymous? That is not taught in scripture. Faith is required for salvation as Paul clearly states in Rom 10:9-11 and Eph 2:8-10 Yes that is true, the delay was an issue with some, but the truth of what Peter writes is universal and hold true today for those who may also feel this way. John 6:39 is dealing with his Apostles/Disciples, NOT every Christian ever. It is in the past tense not the future tense unless of course one IS eisegeting scripture. God is not willing that ANY should perish is pretty clear to me but I'm not trying to protect an RT doctrine. Your assertion that any refers back to us in 1:3 is not a grammatical principle, but a totally eisegetical one. BTW, this website is very slow, and I am not the fastest typist in the world, but I am always waiting for it to catch up to where I stop typing. Can you please look into this?
  7. Stan

    What About Hebrews 6?

    The following link will give you the info about the book. It is very well put together. http://www.covenantoflove.net/book-r...ews-in-review/ Paul was widely discounted for years.
  8. Stan

    What About Hebrews 6?

    Actually it is pretty widely accepted that Luke wrote Hebrews but regardless, Heb 6:4-6 is clear; 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Enlightened is far more than salvation and communion is not a heavenly gift, it is an earthly institution. Also only saved people can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2:4 Unsaved people cannot taste of the goodness of God or the powers of the coming age. Falling away is simply apostasy which the Bible does teach happens and will happen big time in the final time. 2 Thess 2:3. Apostasy is NOT losing salvation, it is walking away from it, which is why the end of v6 says what it says. It is NOT hard to understand unless you are trying to make it fit your RT doctrine, which is then eisegesis and NOT sound hermeneutics.
  9. The reality is close to #1, and Rom 8:28-30 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. God calls those He foreknows will chose His son as their savior, v29. Then He predestines those same people to be CONFORMED to the image of his Son, i.e.; Christlike. Obviously #2 is wrong because of what 2 Peter 3:9 states. Predestination is defined in scripture, we don't use a dictionary to give us a definition, especially as when this was written there was no English language or dictionary. The English definition is close but NOT fully accurate. The Greek is προορίζω (proorizō), and connotes to limit or mark out beforehand; to design definitely beforehand, ordain beforehand. To be Christ like is what God predestined those He foreknew. Foreknowledge is how God made all His plans. We are indeed elect, but only based on God's foreknowledge as stated in 1 Peter 1:1-3. We are NOT the elect before we are. Indeed predestination is in the Bible, but not as depicted in the OP to support Sovereign Election. R.C. Sproul is wrong.
  10. It's all there in black and white Ugotsta, so either do what you so kindly said you wanted to do initially or don't bother. I have no desire to get into more UNPRODUCTIVE posts like I had with Stratcat.
  11. Stan

    Arminianism: The Road to Rome

    Thanks, that was buried way down and of course I missed it. May be a good idea to have a button to it on the main profile page under the Edit Settings button like many sites do.
  12. Stan

    Arminianism: The Road to Rome

    As there does not seem to be an "Ignore facility" on this site, I'll try to ignore his posts. Thanks
  13. Stan

    Arminianism: The Road to Rome

    Apparently not or you would know the KJV is wrong and as you ignore all my requests to explain how the lamb could die before He was even born, the obvious problem is your cognitive dissonance. I wasn't banned, I left and it deserved to be bad mouthed based on YOUR actions. Obviously the admin realized the issue which is why I was invited back. I came back now only because I thought this was a new site, not a rehash of the same problematic attitudes. YOU can't discuss, all you can do is opine from ignorance and then get nasty and vehement when you fail. Sadly if William continues to let you contribute in this vitriolic fashion, this version will die the same death the last one did. You don't help Stratcat, you dictate and dictators have no place in a Christian website striving for viability and recognition. If I can I'm putting you on ignore now.
  14. Stan

    Arminianism: The Road to Rome

    No it's not, it's a bad interpretation of the Greek, as I've shown you by the versions I linked to. Again, ignoring my direct responses by indirect answers, is NOT conducive to productive debate. Was it not clear what I wrote Stratcat? Why not quote my response instead of prevaricating? WHO teaches that? YOU? RT? Because in proper hermeneutical exegesis, the Bible does NOT teach that. Jesus is addressing and speaking directly to His Apostles/Disciples. We may be able to find application from Jesus' words in our lives, but NOT doctrinal position when it is NOT for all. I didn't call you a liar, so stop accusing me of something I didn't do and stop being so violently defensive. This MO of yours in NOT quote what I actually say, then prevaricating about what I did say is rather tiresome but typical of those who can't directly defend their opinions. Show me how Psalm 65:4 teaches election? What was God choosing David or anyone here for? To dwell in His courts? Where are they and how does that state 'election' ? I see this site has really not changed much from when I was here in it's previous incarnation. You're still the same hothead. The point is you make decisions based not on what the Greek says but what a 400+ year old English translations says. If you're really interested in getting to the truth, you'll use many translations to get to the truth, but if you're only interested in spouting Calvinism, then you'll only use the version Calvin used, which was NOT the KJV. Your supercilious nature comes across pretty well whenever you start to try and defend your RT views, and ultimately ends up in false accusations and charges. Before you were converted from what? Choosing who would be Christ's disciples based on His foreknowledge and choosing who God saves are not quite the same thing but apparently closed minded people, who REACT to the light of scripture, never see that? If none actually seek after Him, then why does Jesus tell us to seek? Matt 7:7.
  15. Stan

    Arminianism: The Road to Rome

    I didn't feel I wasn't based on the thread name...just though the content itself was a bit over board, but "when in Rome" I guess.
×
Articles - News - Registration Terms