/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>557655

We've been winning for 500 years m8

>>557650

I am sure this thread will break new theological ground and not at all butcher arguments people have spent large parts of their lives developing.

>>557657

>church younger than Christianity

>winning

Kek

>those he predestined

Not all who get saved were predestined. God wants all to be saved and come to truth and anyone who believes has that chance. But some might be called and refuse, while some might be called and accept the invitation.

Without freewill none of this makes any sense , there is no test and there is no moral duty. The bible teaches both predestination and freewill

>>557650

>Hope we can have a nice and informative discussion

>>557664

>Not all who get saved were predestined.

So you do you disagree with Romans 8:30? Also, what do you mean by this?

> God wants all to be saved and come to truth

Sure but you must remember that he also has a will and that is to glorify himself and he may do that in anyway he wishes.

>But some might be called and refuse

So you disagree with Luke 15:4? Are you saying that God can lose a sheep?

>Without freewill none of this makes any sense

I use sola scriptura and not sola reason. We believe that we have been affected by the fall of man and that sin affects every part of man and reason would be one of those places so do not rely on it when reading scripture but let the spirits power work in you. 1 Corinthians 2:5:

>My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

>there is no test and there is no moral duty.

Implying life is a test and not a way in which God receives glory. Look at genesis and you will see that it is not a story on how to be a good person or pass the test but about God's promise to a specific people and how it was not based on works but on grace… ALONE!

>The bible teaches both predestination and freewill

Does things are contradictory and the bible never uses the word free will and uses the words predestined multiple times!

>>557693

>So tell me, what good is this self proclaimed dogma supposed to bring?

Teaches you about God and gives no room for man to boast since all his works are predestined and he should humble himself to this fact. In fact it was so important that Paul himself felt as though he should dedicate an entire chapter to it.

>All it does it promote passivity and arrogance

How? In fact Calvinist have done much work to spread the gospel. This fact has motivated men to persevere for the elect. Even Paul himself admits it. 2 Timothy 2:10:

>Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

>this interpretation will unironically think that if someone does not believe how they believe then they obviously were elected to be unsaved.

Are you gonna blame God for that or mans sinful reasoning?

>rejected by the early Christians who knew better than to put a limit on God's grace.

Like I would join a religion that says we are to get into heaven by our works the the bible clearly says by faith alone. And we believe in a irresistible grace. This grace has power and actually saves unlike what Arminians believe that grace is simply passive and we must first act in order to receive that grace.

>>557719

<Hello, today I will be proving flat earth

Nice one.

>See also Parable of the Tares - who really is tare and who really is wheat is will be known at judgment

I agree. We do not know who the elect are. Doesn't go against my belief unless you mistook me for a hyper Calvinist.

>we can see today how wheat changed into tare and vice versa

Nope, Philippians 1:6 clearly states that a true believer will be led to completion at the day of Christ and to say that Christ can lose a sheep is like saying Christ failed in keeping them as Luke 15:4 so clearly states.

>And Christ have other sheep that are of no this fold and them he want to bring them to fold.

Proof.

>First of all, goats are also possession of Shepherd. That;is the first thing.

Notice the distinction. What does Christ mean when he differentiates from the two. Clearly there are those who are his sheep and those who are goats unless you wanna say that goats are going to be saved and are just like his sheep you will have to accept that these goats are in fact not of God.

>Second is that Sheep of Christ do have free will and choice to simply walk away from him.

Proof.

>They do it all the time.We know it from first pages of Bible, Genesis 4:7, not to mention others, like John 15 or Sirach 15

First of all "Sirach" disgusting. And second of all none of those passage go against predestination. Just because he has given us an option does not mean we have free will. He God is being prescriptive as to what we should do. A lot like how he gave us to mosaic law knowing we couldn't do and just to show us our sin and our dependence on God. It's to show us our sin.

>He died for his sheep. Not ONLY for his sheep.

Now you're being intellectually dishonest. Compare this with the fact that he will lose non of his sheep as we see from luke 15. I mean if you take that approach then he also died for the goats since it doesn't say Only the sheep.

>Gal 2:20

This is being specific. If you look in the gospels the sheep aren't a single person but rather a collective. Here Paul is stating that he is one of the sheep. If you're trying to use this to prove that just because luke 15 doesn't use the word 'only' then it's kind of a false equivocation since it's talking about a specific example and not all of the believers.

>1 John 2:2

It is talking about all without exclusivity. Meaning not just for the Jews but for the gentiles also, which is a common trend in Paul's writings.

>for whole world (which is used to mean "non-Christian")

D you realise using this logic would mean that even atheist will go to heaven?

>But this gate and path ARE opened to ALL.

Sure, but none can come so God takes it upon himself to save those who are "dead" in sin.

>He would. He did that with Judas.

Great example. Look at John 17:12:

>While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Even Judas was predestined. He was never a believer and a devil since the beginning. And never saved. So still, Christ lost "NONE" of whom the father gave to him.

> would rejoice in day when people who quote this verse would like Paul and Romans know WHAT they are quoting.

Please teach me. I'm open to your interpretation.

>Romans 11

This actually proves my point. But I would like for you to first state your interpretation and then I will answer, God willing.

>Romans 8 says nothing about for who Christ died.

What do you mean? It's quite explicit. Also, notice that I haven't even referenced roman 9 yet but I would like to see where this conversation goes. Thank you for you time.

>>557693

Fun fact: the early calvinists adhered to some kind of what we now call 'prosperity gospel'.

It was believed that if you were blessed in life chances were high you belonged to the elect.

This is the reason why the Dutch Republic became calvinistic (as opposed to staying catholic or going lutheran) since relatively many people there were prospering through mercantile ventures.

>>557780

I hate internet "history"

>>557836

That's not internet history.

I don't know if it was some kind of core doctrine or not but the Dutch followed this way of thinking.

It explains calvinism's success in the Netherlands and why mostly the middle to upper class people followed it.

>>557780

And you going to blame the bible for that or men abusing the biblical truth?

This truth, in fact, motivated a lot of reformers into preaching the gospel more.

Those men who abused the scriptures and turned it into something about prosperity were completely in the wrong, and the bible isn't to blame but rather the corrupt nature of those men.

The early Christians were being prosecuted for their beliefs, Job in the bible was stricken with many diseases, and even Christ himself went through betrayal, heartbreak and humiliation for his 3-year ministry. But does this mean that they were not of God? Clearly not!

These are simply men who seek to destroy the biblical truth by their false interpretation that was caused by their depraved nature.

>>557836

That's true read the protestant ethic by Max Weber

>>557730

He doesn't lose them

They leave him…like the son of perdition. Use your noggin

>>557650

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

>>557747

>Nope, Philippians 1:6 clearly states that a true believer will be led to completion at the day of Christ and to say that Christ can lose a sheep is like saying Christ failed in keeping them as Luke 15:4 so clearly states.

Paul is praising the Philippians in particular, not all Christians, when he expresses his confidence. The Philippian Church was the only one generous enough to support him in his time of struggle (Phil. 4:14-16). In 2:12 we also read of their obedience, which was the source of Paul’s confidence in them.

Also this letter says to work out salvation with fear and trembling in 2:12. This means that

<We have to work with God

<Confidence is not absolute for if it was there would not be fear

I alredy told you about Luke 15:4

>Proof.

John 10:16 I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also.

>Notice the distinction. What does Christ mean when he differentiates from the two. Clearly there are those who are his sheep and those who are goats unless you wanna say that goats are going to be saved and are just like his sheep you will have to accept that these goats are in fact not of God.

I mean that there is one God and one Lord. Goats are possession of God. DId they disobey him? Are they doomed? Yes. But it's clear that they were followers of him, and heard his voice. But they lost grace of being his sheep.

>First of all "Sirach" disgusting.

<Bible is disgusting

> And second of all none of those passage go against predestination. Just because he has given us an option does not mean we have free will.

This is definition of free will - God giving us a choice, free choice.

> He God is being prescriptive as to what we should do.

Should do, not make do.

>A lot like how he gave us to mosaic law knowing we couldn't do and just to show us our sin and our dependence on God. It's to show us our sin.

Some keep it with his Grace like Zacharias and Elizabeth

>Now you're being intellectually dishonest. Compare this with the fact that he will lose non of his sheep as we see from luke 15. I mean if you take that approach then he also died for the goats since it doesn't say Only the sheep.

He will lost nothing. Sheep themselves could be lost. Plus we are not even talk about it, we talk about Christ dying for whole world

>This is being specific

Just like 10:15

> If you look in the gospels the sheep aren't a single person but rather a collective. Here Paul is stating that he is one of the sheep. If you're trying to use this to prove that just because luke 15 doesn't use the word 'only' then it's kind of a false equivocation since it's talking about a specific example and not all of the believers.

John 10:15 is as well specific. Christ died for his Sheep. 1 John 2:2 says that he died fo hsi sheep AND for rest of humanity.

>It is talking about all without exclusivity. Meaning not just for the Jews but for the gentiles also, which is a common trend in Paul's writings.

You are either saying that Jewish or Gentile Christians are not of God and are not Christian at all.

>D you realise using this logic would mean that even atheist will go to heaven?

Do you understand distinction between possibility of salvation and actual salvation? or better yet redemption itself and application of it?

>Even Judas was predestined. He was never a believer and a devil since the beginning. And never saved. So still, Christ lost "NONE" of whom the father gave to him.

"While I was with them, I protected them and guarded them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

Judas was given to him.

Judas was his.

He lost noone.

Judas lost himself.

>Please teach me. I'm open to your interpretation.

It's not interpreation, it's quotation from psalm 13 "Lord is in jus't genration"

>This actually proves my point. But I would like for you to first state your interpretation and then I will answer, God willing.

It does not though.

>What do you mean? It's quite explicit. Also, notice that I haven't even referenced roman 9 yet but I would like to see where this conversation goes. Thank you for you time.

It does not. It says about predistination. Not redeemption.

>>558261

<Confidence is not absolute for if it was there would not be fear

You haven't read much about fear have you. To fear the Lord is the only fear we have. Not fearing anything else. 1 John 4:18.

Now I must deal with your misuse of Philippians 2:12, just see Philippians 3. Paul already knows Christ, verse 8 and 10, and he is already apprehended of Him, verse 12. He is telling them to walk by the same rule which they have already attained, which is salvation. This makes sense because as Ephesians 2:10 adds, we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. And the only fear here is of the Lord.

Philippians 3:16

<Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

>"While I was with them, I protected them and guarded them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

I have to say that is a terrible version of John 17. I have no idea how they came up with that.

<While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Judas Iscariot was the son of perdition here, and he IS lost in John 17.

>>557747

>[1 John 2:2] is talking about all without exclusivity. Meaning not just for the Jews but for the gentiles also

Is John the Baptist lying then in John 1:29? What about Peter in 2 Peter 3:9? Also 1 John 2:2 literally says "for the sins of the whole world" so I don't get this.

>>557996

Read Luke 15. The Shepherd puts the responsibility upon himself. It is the Shepherd's duty to not even lose one of his sheep and even if one does wonder off, as we see with Peter's denial of Christ 3 times, with his power he will bring them back.

It is the Shepherd that comes to the sheep not the other way round.

the church fathers teach that salvation is synergistic, man has to accept God's gift freely. Love cannot exist between a predetermined robot and a coercive master. So your personal interpretations are irrelevant and misguided.

>>558330

>Says church fathers, does not quote any

The Council of Orange would like a word with you

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

>>558366

Those are fine and correct. And don't contradict this post >>558330

All of those verses deny the idea that man initiates his own faith or prayer by his own will, and then God responds. Which is not the synergism that the fathers teach.

The real synergism is initiated by God first, through the Holy Spirit, and then it acts upon us, and then we respond or decline accordingly. We pray or have faith by God's infusion and our acquiescence. Such is man's free-will, and how true love can manifest in a personal relationship, without force or coercion, and how true guilt and condemnation can be ascribed.

Otherwise God is just using humans as sock puppets.

>>558275

>You haven't read much about fear have you. To fear the Lord is the only fear we have. Not fearing anything else. 1 John 4:18.

You cannot fear the lord of Lord cannot do anything to you.

>Now I must deal with your misuse of Philippians 2:12, just see Philippians 3. Paul already knows Christ, verse 8 and 10, and he is already apprehended of Him, verse 12. He is telling them to walk by the same rule which they have already attained, which is salvation. This makes sense because as Ephesians 2:10 adds, we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. And the only fear here is of the Lord.

And you cannot fear the Lord if Lord cannot do anything to you.

>I have to say that is a terrible version of John 17. I have no idea how they came up with that.

I can go with other englis, polish or even latin and greek versions of it. It's the same thing really. Even Autsimo version says this:

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

>Judas Iscariot was the son of perdition here, and he IS lost in John 17.

I said it. That's the point. Judas was lost. Judas was given to Christ by Father. Christ did not lose him, neither none snatch him from his hand. Ergo Judas lost himself.

>>558366

"Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time" (Didache 16 [A.D. 70]).

>>558277

>Is john the baptist(not the catholic) lying in John 1:29

First of all we have to use some of our intellectual capabilities when reading scripture. You are basically saying that we should take the use of the word "world" as to mean everyone. But if we take this literal approach then one would have to conclude that everyone is going to heaven. Of course you will reply that it is only those who take advantage of this gift but even there you are admitting that the use of the word world should be understood in a specific context. And so i say that here the use of the word world only refers to the elect IE those god has predestined, called, justified and glorified.

>2 Peter 3:9

Yes, it is God's desire that all may come but so that God may display not only his Love and Patience but also his Wrath so that the full extent of his power can be know.

>1 John 2:2

Again understand them and then all will be clear.

>>558408

>Yes, it is God's desire that all may come but so that God may display not only his Love and Patience but also his Wrath so that the full extent of his power can be know.

Pretty much, which is why it makes no sense to say he didn't die for all sins, so that those unbelievers will truly have no excuse. As it says about those who crucify the Son of God afresh, they have actually understood what God did for them and have actually rejected it. If Christ had not actually died for their sins, then they would not have that judgment also on their heads.

John 15:22

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

>IE those god has predestined, called, justified and glorified.

They aren't the limit of who has been called though, that's the only thing. Romans 8:30 is true, but not the limit of who is called, according to 2 Peter 3:9. More are called than are predestined. (By Ephesians 1 of course predestined and justified are one-to-one.)

For many are called, but few are chosen. Matthew 22:14

>Again understand them and then all will be clear.

It doesn't say "them" though. It says "not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." There's just no way to confuse this, even if with this quasi-judaizer approach where 1 John is suddenly only being addressed to Jews in this verse. Because "the whole world" is not just limited to elect gentiles, that's eisegesis.

>>558404

>I said it. That's the point. Judas was lost.

In John 17 he IS lost. You said Judas Iscariot "was given to him," but the verse actually says Judas was already lost as Jesus spoke those words. So Judas was excluded from the others, he was not given, he was not kept. So scripture would be fulfilled.

>>557927

>Those men who abused the scriptures and turned it into something about prosperity were completely in the wrong, and the bible isn't to blame but rather the corrupt nature of those men.

Not really, more like a need for certainty about one's state of salvation and the scholastic approach of it.

Think about it; why would God bless the non-elect?

Doesn't make a lot of sense, and so thought the Dutch.

>>558584

How is worldly wealth a blessing?

>>558757

Seems like a life like that will lead you further from God.

>>558759

>Seems like a life like that will lead you further from God.

I don't know, the Dutch were staunch calvinists, not even permitting lutheranism on their colonies for a long time.

Having wealth doesn't mean you automatically go full sodomite.

More so it seems to me that the opposite is true ("I'm poor/depressed/whatever, God must hate me so why should I worship Him?")

Besides would that even matter? Since the elect are saved anyway.

>>558005

>1 John 2:2

It is talking about all without exclusivity. Meaning not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles also, which is a common trend in Paul's writings.

>>558261

>Paul is praising the Philippians in particular

Doesn't disprove my point. The language he uses can be extended to all Christians.

>Also this letter says to work out salvation with fear and trembling in 2:12. This means that

Read the next verse: Philippians 2:13

<for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Even the act of trembling before God is God working in you.

>John 10:16

This is just talking about lost sheep. As Luke 15:4 says he will go out to find the sheep that are not of this fold… yet.

>Bible is disgusting

Apocrypha isn't scripture.

>This is the definition of free will - God giving us a choice, free choice.

Nope, don't know where you got that definition from. The definition of free will is:

<the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Or better yet I would like to use the epicurean definition.

<but my will not even Zeus himself can overpower

>Should do, not make do.

But he does. He takes out your heart of stone and works in your to do good works.

>Some keep it with his Grace like Zacharias and Elizabeth

Again, "with his grace." Besides even they were not sinless. Read Ecclesiastes 7:20

<Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

And besides if you say someone can be sinless by the law then you are going against Paul in Romans 3:20:

<For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin

>He will lost nothing. Sheep themselves could be lost.

Yes, but you're trying to give power back to man. Luke 15 is very clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the shepherd to keep the sheep.

>Plus we are not even talk about it; we talk about Christ dying for the whole world

It's inevitably gonna digress into something else as it always does.

>You are either saying that Jewish or Gentile Christians are not of God and are not Christian at all.

CAn you rephrase?

>Do you understand the distinction between the possibility of salvation and actual salvation?

Whatever you mean it would follow from not taking a literal interpretation of the verse to be the actual whole world.

>Judas lost himself.

Once you are saved, you are always saved. You cannot be lost. He was never a Christian since the beginning.

I'm tired right now but will answer more thoroughly later.