>God will never leave me nor forsake meBe not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRXDYvpA020
>>84548667God bless you for making these threads here daily.What prompted you to do this?
>>84548764Thank you anon, I want robots to go to heaven.
>>84548775What kind of denomination are you?How do you guard your heart when you go to this website with all the filth that is here? Genuine question, I often struggle with that. Its the usual pipeline towards falling into temptation: first go here, then other places next
>>84548781Independent Baptist (unconnected local church that takes doctrine foremostly from the bible, instead of from confessions or greater hierarchy), what about you anon? are you saved? /r9k/ and /a/ are pretty big triggers for that sort of thing. >avoiding falling into temptationI find that if I'm sensible and come for specific threads, then leave after, I'll be fine. If I waste a bunch of time filtering through the whole catalog while responding and waiting for responses, or if I go into image based rec threads like /opt/, I'll probably fall into temptation. Now that I type it out, it's pretty much any time you browse for images rather than to read responses. The root for that sort of desire for guys comes from what we look at, I guess; which is why prudish people looking away from scantily dressed women is a movie stereotype.
>>84548888>/r9k/ and /a/ are pretty big triggers for that sort of thing.>>avoiding falling into temptationmessed up the order here, they should be reversedThe solution to avoiding "behavioural triggers" (relating to bad habits) on the chans is pretty much just bookmarking threads after you respond, and not idling around looking at the catalog. When I've been busy with assignments or trying to beat a game for a few weeks, I usually go that period of time without being tempted in this aspect.
>>84548888I am a reformed Baptist, we have an independent congregation like you but we also have a historic confession of faith, the 1689 London Baptist Confession.I like having a confession of faith like that because it prevents a lot of confusion about different kinds of wrong doctrines. But I actually agree with most things in that confession of faith and I could show you where the Bible teaches them if someone asked me. I agree that the Bible is the only authority, but treacherous is the heart and desperately wicked; who can know it? Meaning that: I do not trust the average man to read the Bible properly, thats why confessions are a good thing. Imo.Also I am Calvinistic so my understanding of who is saved and not comes from seeing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in the life, and I am really greatful for what God did for me. So I know I am saved because of what Jesus did for me. I am still figuring out how to best guard against that kinds of temptations, the most important learning is to recognize the direction where things are headed as soon as possible and flee immediately when you do.This can mean different things depending on context, in this case it meant staying with this thread and closing all other tabs.
>>84548948>Reformed Baptist.Where you do you guys stand on Lordship salvation? This doctrine seems to sometimes afflict you guys. Aside from this, I loathe to read theology (Calvin's tedious writing style maddens me), or to hear sermons which reference philosophers more often than the bible (among my crowd, people who depend on reference bibles are a growing problem also). The people in reformed churches I've met have been mostly friendly, kind, well bred people aside from this.>In this case it meant staying in this thread and closing all other tabs. In general, replacing something fun with something boring is a test of willpower, and therefore won't last. Rather than sitting at the computer, one tab open away, it'd probably be better to boot up a game, go for a run, or do similar (something that you can readily engage with) after praying for deliverance from this. >Make no provision for the fleshI've found this to be the most effective method in general.
>>84548948>Meaning that: I do not trust the average man to read the Bible properly, thats why confessions are a good thing. Imo.If we're saved, and we're reading it every day, I have faith we'll be led into all truth, but you're right that confessions do serve a purpose, even if we call ours a "statement of faith", it's really just the same thing.
>>84548948>But I actually agree with most things in that confession of faith and I could show you where the Bible teaches them if someone asked me.If you're not opposed to this sort of thing, I find proving one's own doctrine from the bible to be a beneficial exercise. Concerning Calvinism, which I hold to be false, how would you defend from the following assertion, that in 1 Timothy 2:4-6, that God wants all men to be saved, and that Christ was a ransom for all? Furthermore in John 12:32 Christ will draw "all men" unto him, and in 1 John 2:12, that Christ was a propitiation for sins, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."? I'd be interested as to a Calvinist response from the bible.
>>84549280>it'd probably be better to boot up a game, go for a run, or do similar (something that you can readily engage with) after praying for deliverance from this.Don't worry, I just started working on my projects after that. But yes you are right that you should flee and do something else instead.>I have faith we'll be led into all truthYes.But this basically leads into my answer to Lordship salvation.I have only recently heard about that term in a book, and from what I understand about it, I basically agree with Lordship salvation as a doctrine. Though it may be formulated too rigidly the way it is often expressed it is in essence correct that we should submit to Jesus as the LORD over our lifes.It is written that without holiness no one will see the kingdom of God, and that faith without works if in and off itself dead.It is also written: Faith which becomes active through love.And my favortie verse from the entire Bible: 1. Corinthians 13-2:I had the girft of prophecy and fathom all mysteries, and have all knowledge and ALL FAITH, but have no love; then I am nothing.Therefore the bible clearly teaches that Salvation always leads to the Love of God being poured out into your heart. Therefore whoever does not love God (And by 1. John 4 no one who does not love his neighbor loves God whom he has not yet seen) is not saved.But love will always lead to obedience and the desire to cross over and become holy.It is to me simply hard to imagine someone being saved who is in rebellion against God and does not wish to obey his commandments.I, too have faith that we'll be lead into all truth; And yet God has ordained means by which we will be. And those means include the church, eldars, your brothers and sisters in faith, and of course reading the bible and meditation and prayer.Using those means will lead to being lead into all truth; And refraining from using them will result in failure to do so.
>>84549368>that God wants all men to be savedI will limit my response to this because it is complicated enough and it is actually the PERFECT passage to explain Calvinism. I will not try to convince you of it, but simply explain to you what we believe.Calvinism essentially holds that God has revealed in scripture two types of "wills": One Sovereign will of God, and one Immanent or Moral will of God. Now before I go into what that is and how they work we need to go into the method by which we arrive at this:The premise with which we begin is that everything in the Bible is perfectly logical. Because God is a God of peace not of disorder.Therefore there MUST be a systematic correct answer to everything that answers all questions.Therefore as Calvinists when there is an apparent contradiction in the Bible we will always try to resolve it, if necessary we will derive concepts which are not explicitly mentioned. (I would comment here that one such concept is the trinity, so this is not something foreign to other denominations)We do this because we believe that the truth will always lead to consistent answers, it is essentially the same method a physicist derives the Newtonian Laws.Now: The doctrine of calvinism actually is not derived by trying to somehow dodge this explicity passage, but it derives fundamentally from the problem of evil.How can God be both all powerful, and allow man to Fall wihout being the author of evil?A typical answer is free will, but the Bible goes even further with that.Why does God allow the devil to tempt Job without being evil?And my own favorite example:Why does God say in Genesis 6:The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.How can God "regret" something?Cont.
>>84548667Why anybody would rejoice in worshipping the dickhead that created women, incapable of love and entirely worthless, is beyond me
Is it worth it to drive to a bigger, 'nicer' church 1hr30m away instead of attending my local parish?I've been attending a nice Orthodox church in my hometown for just a couple weeks and am moving away in a few months. There's a church in my new town, but its kind of small and doesn't exactly permeate the energy of God that I feel from other, larger, more ornate churches that really drives me to worship better, to focus and participate more deeply. Is this vain, or a genuine thing to consider? I would like to be in community but I'm torn between attending somewhere that I'm not so much inspired to focus on my spiritual relationship than one that is far and thus harder to maintain a relationship with the parishioners. IDK if this is vain, I'm new to Orthodoxy and new to practicing in general. I love the church. It feels so natural.
>>84549460And How does it at the same time happen that God says:Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)And also God often says:For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Ephesians 1:4)The way we as Calvinists would answer this is that:When God said that he regretted creating Man, it is his moral and immanent will.And when God said that he elected us before the creation of the world it is his sovereign will.Gods moral will HATES sin, but it is also absolute in its grace, and and absolute in its love.Therefore when God says:>God wants all men to be savedThen it is his moral will: Yes, God WANTS everyone to be saved.But at the same time, he elected some before the creation of the world, and reprobated others.In the same way as:Both of these are true:God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)And:Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions. Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.(1 Samuel 15:10)We would say that all of this are examples of this distinction. God wants everyone to be saved in the way that God hates all evildoers.Those are the expressions of his moral will.The thing is that Calvinism is the only proper way to solve the problem of Evil IMO, and before I heared of that doctrine, that was precisely the reason why I couldn't believe before.
>>84549368Perhaps to the passages that you name with "ALL" I would say that there are many passages in the bible where all does not mean every single one, but just a large portion of them.So basically I would say that its either: not all as in everyone, not salvic but just common grace, or a moral desire not a soverein will.If you read just those passages then I will admit that you could stretch them to mean all as in all. However now you would get contradictions with clear passages like when jesus says:"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."And things like election before the creation of the world, and Romans 9 vessels of wrath.If "all" truly meant ALL have SALVIC grace in a SOVEREIGN way. Then it would lead to self contradiction. This is essentially the thing, calvinism allows proof by contradiction as a legitimate hermeneutic method, often times I hear people say to this that human logic is flawed and we should instead not systematize the it all into a coherent whole but just leave contradictions up to mystery (A Lutheran pastor told me that)While I can respect that in a way, I still consider it somewhat suboptimal to just going with the logically necessary conclusion.I truly love the doctines of calvinism because all of it works together like a perfectly oiled watch, and its just so beautiful.
>>84549663An example of where "all" does not necessarily mean "every sinlge person" is:"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan" Matthew 3:5
>>84549406I'm glad to hear it, this stuff sounds common sense, but it took me hearing it from someone else to know to apply it.> I basically agree with Lordship salvation as a doctrine. Lordship salvation is annihilated by Romans 4:5, which states,>But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.This will be my central verse in response to the rest of the argument. It's the most important part, so I'll leave the rest of the argument to other posts.
>>84549406Working off the premise that Lordship salvation teaches that>When you are saved you make Christ the Lord of your life, or that salvation is in any way incomplete when faith in Christ is uncombined with your own works. and not just merely that Christians SHOULD do works (Ephesians 2:8-10 states that Christians are made for the purpose of works, although it's entirely by our faith in Christ's finished works).Therefore I will assert that:>Romans 4:5 States that faith (which James 2 names "a dead faith") when uncombined by works, is still profitable unto salvation. My second assertion will be that James 2 is talking about the way our faith is viewed by our peers when it says "faith without works is dead" , which is clearly shown by James 2:10 >For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.contradicting with Rahob the prostitute being used as an example of a good Christian in James 2:25>Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?If faith needs to be combined with works, but an imperfect work is the same as no work at all, what is the benefit of the work? Impure works are worthless before God, which is why Christ was sent, as said in Isaiah "our righteous is as filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6>But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.If anything less than perfect righteousness was accepted, Christ needn't have been sent. Furthermore in that section of the commonly quoted proof for a works salvation (17-20), verse 18 uses the phrase "shew me thy faith by thy works" >Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
>>84549406Now, having both given my definition of Lordship salvation. I will assert my own understanding of salvation, which I believe to be called "easy salvation", or something similar by Lordship salvation types. That>Salvation is a one time occurrence (likened to birth (John 3:3)), in which the man is Spiritually born again following belief in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-14), which he is moved to, after hearing the Gospel from a saved person. This salvation is eternal (Romans 6:23)/ everlasting (John 3:15) and therefore cannot be lost, stolen or taken away (John 3:18, John 10:28, John 5:24, 2 Corinthians 1:22).Too much has been written in this post to continue the point, so I will out line my plan to respond to the scripture posted and the interpretation given, and to completely ignore philosophy or human assumption about God where is it given, as these things are less than worthless, and should have no working in spiritual matters. My basis for this disregard for this is:>Assertion on Spiritual things on the basis of man's understanding Where Isaiah says this (Isaiah 55:8-9)>For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.>For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.>Using philosophy or logic (which is often wrong, or often sneaks in false premises)Colossians 2:8>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Which I can see you fall into in here: >>84549460>>84549679>All does not mean allis a pretty standard Calvinist trick, which is why I included the third verse, where it was specified that >And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.Now, you could try and prove that "all" doesn't mean "all", but it's much harder to prove that "whole world" doesn't mean "whole world"
>>84550835You are making the mistake of confusing that which is apparent with that which is ontologically so.Salvation is not by works, but by faith alone.I never denied that.However, there is no such thing as a salvation that does not bring fruits."Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 7:17ff)Therefore you are saved by grace and faith alone. But someone who says he has faith, but brings no good fruit is a liar because he does not believe in his heart.For had he believed he would have brought good fruit.Therefore by their fruits we recognize them.Now salvation IS by grace and faith alone. But WHY would someone who is saved not affirm christ as LORD over his life?Can a good tree bring such bad fruit as to do that? No. It can not.Therefore the answer is simple: That person is not saved.Now he is NOT unsaved because he does not affirm Jesus as Lord.He IS not saved, because he has not yet been regenerated.For had he been regenerated, then he would have brought the good fruit.Its a very simple concept.
>>84549406Now, like an overly long preface before a philosophy book, I am finally already to the attack. >1. Corinthians 13-2:Love here being how a Christian becomes beneficial to others, in the KJV this is translated as Charity. >And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.I hope I am not being uncharitable in interpreting that you mean to attach "I am nothing" to conclude that Paul says here "If I do not love God I am unsaved"? Therefore, it remains for me to find an example of a saved person who does not love God. That is, someone who the bible directed stated to have gone to heaven ("for by faith are ye saved"), but did not love God. Very helpful, you give 1 John 4:20, where we can see the conditions for being saved under lordship salvation are loving God, which you don't if you don't love your brethren. I will add to this. >John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.If you don't keep Christ's commandments you don't love Christ. Therefore we will add in brackets to the definition.>The conditions for being saved under lordship salvation are loving God, (which you don't if you don't love your brethren.) (which you don't if you fail to keep Christ's commandments) Already, it must appear to you I am aiming for the same maneuverer that our Lord pulled with the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17:22, in raising the standard of salvation to someone who believes that works will save them, so that they will humble themselves and accept that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ. >"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."Now, I am not aware if Calvinists hold an incorrect view of Old Testament Salvation. So i'll make 2 proofs from this.
>>84551009>"whole world" doesn't mean "whole world""Whole world" means "israel and the nations".
>>84551009>Assertion on Spiritual things on the basis of man's understandingOkay, then why aren't you silent?All your arguments are just words based on your understanding.If you say that no argument can be formulated and it is less then nothing, then you ought to be silent because there is nothing you can say that is not an argument.
>>84551151Old testament salvation was by grace and faith alone, just as in the new testament.Are you a Dispensationalist, too?>If you don't keep Christ's commandments you don't love ChristThis is exactly correct.If you don't keep the commandments then you do not love Christ.There is the old nature, and the new nature.The old nature is the nature of Sin. But the new nature is the new man who is born again, and they are in conflict.The point of Lordship salvation is not to say that ANYONE is justified by works.Again.It is that the new nature EXISTS, and it's fruits are APPARENT.The new nature loves God.So this is basically how it works: When God looks at a born again christian, then he sees ONLY his good works, and his new heart which loves him.The man still HAS the body of death which strives against the spirit, however when looking at that instead sees Christ who has paid for your sins.Therefore you end up with a pure positive and as a perfectly JUST person without a single blemish, even though if it was without christ you are full of sins and deserve eternal damnation.This is why I can say that I am perfectly just in the eyes of God, and that I love God with all my heart, all my mind and all my spirit. Because everything else is the body of death, that is no longer me.This is also what it means when David prays that God should reward him according to his justice.And again: This does NOT mean that salvation is by works. But salvation is also not by simply saying a word or by your choice. Salvation is the invisible work of the spirit that regenerates you, and gives you a new heart and a new spirit.Some who is not regenerated, is not saved. And it does not matter how often he says: LORD, LORD, Jesus will tell him: I never knew you; Depart from me, ye worker of lawlessness!
>>84551128Believing in your heart is enough, and the fact that "mental ascent" is such a common meme among reformed churches proves the warning against vain philosophy spoiling Christians true. Matthew 7:17 is a warning that false prophets cannot produce true Christians (the fruit of Christians is other Christians, and not love, joy, peace, etc; which is the fruit of the Spirit, in case this meme will follow from you in response). To prove this I will simply refer you to verse 15 before this.To your assertion that true faith (that is, a saving faith) will bring forward fruit, I bring again to you Romans 4:5 >But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.Faith enough is to count you righteous in God's sight, this is because the condition to everlasting life is faith alone >But someone who says he has faith, but brings no good fruit is a liar because he does not believe in his heart.>For had he believed he would have brought good fruit.Only by walking in the Spirit/ "new man" can we keep from evil. To point to a saved person, who we can demonstrably assert to be saved, because the bible states that he and his sons went to heaven, but who did not walk rightly for many years, I only have to point to King Saul, or you yourself, who claims to be a Christian, but does good and bad. There are many saved people who do not preach the Gospel, even once, because of fear, or laziness, or some other factor. They are ineffective and disobedient, but they are saved. If Salvation was accompanied by complete obedience, it would safe to say noone has been saved on this earth since Christ ascended. Now if we walk in the new man, the spiritually regenerated man, we will do good, but if we walk in the flesh, we will merely serve the lusts of the flesh. Many Christians have faith and live in the flesh, and do not show by their works to be a Christian. There are also Wolves who appear Christian publicly.
>>84551250>Many Christians have faith and live in the flesh, and do not show by their works to be a Christian. There are also Wolves who appear Christian publicly.Both of these are not saved, and therefore not christians.>But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.Look.Saving Faith is of the quality that it will bring good fruits, because Jesus clearly said so.Good Fruits do not justify anyone, it is faith alone that justifies.Look at it this way: A duck quacks. A raven craws.However a duck is a duck because it is a duck, not because it quacks.However a duck quacks.If I have a bird, and someone told me that it quacks, but instead it craws all the time.Then it is reasonable to assume that this bird is in fact a raven and not a duck.It is the same way with faith.Neither quacking or crawing does a bird make a duck or a crow.But it sure is a good indicator,>SaulSaul went to hell and was damned, you mean David, right?David sinned by committing adultery and many other sins which are recorded in scripture.But David still loved God.He had the old nature, and the new nature. The new nature loved God, the old nature was of this world and a body of death.The question is not: Does he sin? Because every man is a sinner.The question is: Does he have the new regenerated nature? That is a totally different question to answer, and what you are saying in large parts is just missing the point, I am afraid to say. You are arguing against a position neither I, nor any calvinist holds.
>>84551169I agree, inasmuch as "israel and the nations" means "israel and every other country".>>84551183I hope I have not annoyed you. It appears I was imprecise with my words. Much of your argument deviates from scripture, and is not founded upon it, but rather upon logic. "Ontological belief" for an example, "moral desire vs sovereign will" for another. These are not scriptural arguments to my knowledge, but rather, tricks to try get around scripture with human logic, similar to how catholics would respond if pressed on Christ saying "call no man father" contradicting what they call their priests. >>84551238I am not, though I am similar, and this hyperdispensationalist doctrine irks me. I am glad you have the correct view, which means you must accept my use of King Saul as an example of a saved Christian who though his actions, did not love God, but was directly stated to have gone to heaven 1 Samuel 28:19.I am gladder still, to see you understand the new man and the old man with his natures. This leads me to think you are indeed saved and misinformed, rather than being unsaved, as I had started to fear when you stated your belief in Lordship Salvation. To this end I will simply say that practically, choosing to walk in the new man takes effort. We must seek God first thing in the morning, read our bibles or pray, if we do not put in this effort, and instead watch a youtube video on a secular matter or something to start the day off, we will be in our flesh, and not in the Spirit, until we seek the Lord. Most Christians are unprofitable, many get backslidden because they choose convenience over seeking God. This is merely a result of free will. From here I can see your understanding of Lordship salvation to be something like >Christians are saved by faith by God's grace for the purpose of works, and we can know who is saved and is not saved by how they live their lives.
>>84551238In the last line here, although nothing in the way you phrased it makes it appear this way, but I have had a previous experience, so I must ask: You aren't interpreting the evil workers here to be lying about their good deeds right? You understand that not getting saved while they were alive and depending on their own works is the problem here right? >>84551353>>Many Christians have faith and live in the flesh, and do not show by their works to be a Christian. There are also Wolves who appear Christian publicly.>Both of these are not saved, and therefore not christians.There are two easy counters to this, Romans 4:5 (again), and the apostle Peter denying Christ. Furthermore there are lame Christians who are saved, but just walk in the flesh every day. >"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Corinthians 14:32)after all. To your next section, I appreciate the duck analogy, and I appreciate you referencing Matthew 7:17-20 again, because it relates to a similar analogy that proves my point (that saved Christians can live unproductively, and be bad examples, as Saul and Samson were bad examples for much of their lives).>Saul went to hell and was damned. The bible asserts that he went where >Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.>Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.If you mean to conclude that Saul and Jonathan went to hell, you must follow in your conclusion that Samson went to hell also. Do you mean to do this? Saul also had the old and new natures, but he ended his life in the flesh, rather than the spirit. To be concise, I will be referring to these people as "saved", when I mean "a true believer with a regenerated nature".
>tricks to try get around scripture with human logicWell, the trinity is not a concept that is ever called this way in scripture.The thing is that you have to reason about scripture in logical categories either way. What we do is we look at all of scripture holistically and systematize it into one coherent understanding.How do you handle apparent contradictions?Like that God said that he regreted making man, and yet it is written that God can regret nothing.This is a question that you have to answer, to avoid answering it is not an answer but just bad.>>84551364>Christians are saved by faith by God's grace for the purpose of works, and we can know who is saved and is not saved by how they live their lives.Yes this is correct and what I believe. This is also what the common calvinist position is on salvation. I think that Lordship salvation is just a poor phrasing of that same position, that leads to much confusion.It is likely more a practical application of the same doctrine.The key are such passages from the Bible:"For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."The way this is interpreted is that God calls you to repentance, even though you are a regenerated Christian. How it works is that the new heart which is regenerated IS of the nature that when it hears this call to repentance, it will listen and follow it.Basically the call to accept Jesus as your LORD, IS the means by which someone who is saved by faith will display his fruits.But we would say that someone who is of the nature to resist that, is not saved. Which is what is then confused with: you have to do it in order to be saved. Which is definetly false.>>84551455>Peter denying Christ. I must ask why you bring that up: Because peter clearly had the fruits of the spirit. Again: The way fruits work is not that one is flawless but that the work is apparent.Cont.
>>84551455The thing about Saul is actually interesting because I never heard someone claim that he is saved.The thing about the spirit is that there are cases of people who had tasted the spirit and were enlightened for a while, but then fell away.As Calvinists we would say that they were never saved.It's like in the book of acts there are actually people who even had gifts of the spirit and then later were revealed to be not saved."They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." (1 John 19)So I would say that it is the same way for Saul.To say that he went to heaven because "Samuel" says that he will come to him, I would say that he merely means the Sheol, the land of the dead, not heaven or hell, which is common in the old testament. I always thought that this was the consensus, though.And also the gift of prophecy clealy does not mean someone is saved, because otherwise Balam would be saved, too.>You aren't interpreting the evil workers here to be lying about their good deeds right? You understand that not getting saved while they were alive and depending on their own works is the problem here right?Oh yes, I would say that the problem is that they think that their choices or works were what saves them.I would count both Easy Believism and Catholicism there.Like the Catholic who believes in salvation by works because he fasted a lot or whatever.And the one who simply once came forward and "converted" and then thought he was safe for the rest of his life.Both of these are essentially dead works which do not save.Because salvation is by grace alone.They indeed do believe that their works and choices (which are works) are what gets them into heaven.
>>84549557If the preaching is better, and will make you a better Christian, I would do it. I do not believe orthodox Christians are saved (pic related). Pretty buildings and the social benefits are the only tangible benefits from that religion, so maybe. Having replied to your responses, I'll continue my attack. After adding that >>84551353I've met and heard Lordship salvationists preached against who teach a backwards works salvation (that is, you aren't saved going in, but if you cease to do good works, you were never saved, thereby requiring works to maintain ones salvation), which is why I included the arguments against works salvation. >>84549460My understanding of Calvinism doctrine is something like >God is sovereign, and therefore decided who would be saved and who would be damned before they were born (usually aided by John 6:44, which is why I referenced John 13:32 to counter it in anticipation of this earlier). I agree that God is consistent, and that the bible completely agrees with itself.I disagree with using logic to solve "the problem of evil". To my knowledge the global flood was God's attempt to solve this problem. On Job's temptation, my understanding is derived from the following verses:1 James 13-14>Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:>But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.and >1 Corinthians 10:13>There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.There's always an escape, basically. Fundamentally, I do not recognise these as problems. >how can God 'regret' something? When something devolves outside of his control? Free will and all. >>84549561I feel I can answer this without splitting his will in two.
>>84551455I have reread your passages again and I think you are missunderstanding how I would look for fruits.The way you look for fruits is not by judging someone by their works.Instead you look carefully if there is any work the LORD has done in his life.So for example Peter and Samson are easy examples, because there are clear cases where the LORD gave them repentance onto life.With Saul, I don't think there is any good fruit in his life that we know of. There were gifts, but that only means that he was enlightened, not that he was saved.But I wouldn't definetly say that he was damned either, just that there is no clear indication either way.This is also how we go in the new Testament.Like for example: someone who is what you would call, "a christian who lives according to the spirit" is someone where I would probably clearly say he is saved because there are visible fruits of the spirit in his life. If he lived like the world, then we would say that possibly what was before was merely a false air like a wolf in sheeps clothing. But possibly he also merely has muddied the spirit for a while like David when he comitted adultery.
>>84548667It's very intimidating trying to become a new Christian and take in everything all at once. My heart desperately wants to fight for the Lord but I only have one bible verse memorized (I don't even remember where it was from just the verse itself) and seeing more educated believers be able to share endless amounts of scripture makes me feel insecure. I still haven't even been able to find a good church near me, which has contributed to me falling back into sin many times.
>>84551621>When something devolves outside of his control? Free will and all.Wait, you actually believe that there are things outside of Gods control?You know that we Calvinists do not believe in free will, right?I believe that NOTHING, absolutely nothing ever happens without God being in control."I am God, and there is none like me,declaring the end from the beginningand from ancient times things not yet done,saying, My counsel shall stand,and I will accomplish all my purpose." (Isaiah46:9-10)"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care." (Matthew 10:29)Even the hearts of men:"The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)
>>84549561>But at the same time, he elected some before the creation of the world, and reprobated others.I had something written, but I'd rather ask for clarification on this matter before continuing. Do you mean to merely say God knows some people will fail to get saved in their life and go to hell before they're even born? or that God creates some people in a way that their salvation will never be possible? I only really object to the latter (because it contradicts the bible and condemns God). The former is more or less what I understand to be true. For me, the problem of evil, or the problem of free will, is exactly the same as the question of the purpose of creating humanity. In other words, what is the benefit of creating humanity, trying us, and saving the souls of some? The only real answer given for this is in Revelation 4:11>Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.This will probably sound like a stupid question, and it's an unnecessary addition, but maybe your answer will give me some understanding. Isn't the moral will and sovereign will in your examples contrary one to the other? We know from Amos 3:3 and the NT that this cannot be so, so either I'm misunderstanding, or there's a contradiction here. >>84549663I think I already answered the all=/= thing, and I see that you have posted new responses, so I will focus on those before retiring tonight.
>>84551482The trinity is the shortening of a biblical concept (Matthew 28:19-20), rather than drawing doctrine out of philosophical concepts and hypotheticals, as you must admit theologians and reformed Christians are commonly guilty of. >How do you handle apparently contradictions?These days: Pray -> reread verse and context around it -> look for a sermon on the matter. The convenience of the internet is pretty cool. I haven't had one not solved by the third step so far. >God can regret nothingCan you link a verse? I have not heard of this claim before. I fundamentally agree that you shouldn't half believe something, and that it must be consistent. >second paragraphWhile it's sometimes true you can tell who's unsaved by who doesn't do any works, wouldn't someone reasonably conclude the lack of soulwinning from calvinist churches is due to the whole sect being unsaved? I have an issue with concluding all the lazy, ungrateful and carnal Christians are all merely unsaved, I think one proof to the existence of this sort would be the ten lepers that Jesus healed, where only one was thankful and returned. I hope you'd agree that the use of Christ healing people as a picture of salvation isn't too far?To this end I must ask you if any time passed before your salvation, and attendance at church. Many people get saved, do nothing for a few years, but the new man is allowed to act eventually and they show up to church and start growing as a Christian. Since we share the same view of salvation, and the matter is a pretty small one (whether or not unproductive Christians are saved, or what's the bare minimum amount of fruit in someone's life to conclude that they are saved.) I will ask you conversely, to any negatives you foresee from my doctrine, that most Christians are saved, but largely inactive. I can see this being used to introduce actual works salvation into reformed churches, by actual I meant the first definition I went with, which I hold to exist
>>84551740My goal here is not to convince you of my position but merely to show you what calvinists actually believe, so I appreciate you being open to that. >God creates some people in a way that their salvation will never be possible"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" Romans 9:11"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:13"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Romans 9:17"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" Romans 9:20ffI think this is the clearest passage. I think that the Absolute Sovereignty of God that everything happens according to Gods will makes the conclusion unavoidable that God created some people for the purpose of being "vessels of wrath", that is "to be vessels of his wrath for the Glory of his justice", therefore all things exist for the glory of God as you correctly quote.Just reread Romans 9, I think you can't really read it differently than this, I am afraid.>God can regret nothingGod is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Genesis 6:6)the key word is "repent" it is also translated as "regret" what I quoted is the KJV.cont.
>>84551553I hold that Saul was saved according to that verse I've posted twice where Samuel says he and his sons (including Jonathon) will be with him the next day. >As Calvinists we would say they were never saved. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on this doctrine, and the Spirit coming upon (rather than dwelling in) unsaved people wouldn't change my view on Saul being saved, as the proof is unrelated to it. >It's like in the book of acts there are actually people who even had gifts of the spirit and then later were revealed to be not saved.That's a pretty crazy leap in logic from the verse that you posted. I don't think that ever occurred in acts. I agree that there are unsaved people in churches, like Judas, noone suspected Judas though (not visible by his works). >Balaam That's a pretty good proof for OT the spirit coming upon people. I'll concede that much. Because the Holy Spirit indwelled believers at Pentecost, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a pretty core salvation doctrine, I still balk at your acts example, and will ask you to show proof of it. I don't think the people that came out from them were doing miracles. >Easy believism I believe in this, for reasons already stated, and I think the removal of one's choices mattering regarding to their salvation (to accept what Romans 6:23 calls the gift of God), leads to the contradiction of a moral and sovereign will. >And the one who simply once came forward and "converted" and then thought he was safe for the rest of his life.This makes me nervous as to your salvation. If this was repeated with the quotes removed, like is basically stated in Romans 4:5, would you be opposed to this? >>84551684>For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:It takes time. As long as you're going in the right direction, you're doing better than experienced Christians who live carnally
>>84551897>I will ask you conversely, to any negatives you foresee from my doctrine, that most Christians are saved, but largely inactive.I think that cheap grace and easy believism, if it is indeed not true, will lead to many people being damned because of a false sense of security.The thing is that preaching the gospel and calling people to repentance is a means of salvation.If you tell people that they are safe and will go to heaven, then many will die in their sins, and you will have successfully decieved them for eternal damnation.Now, that being said, I do definetly see christians who believe this as my brothers and as saved. This doctrine is in my opinion very harmful, because cheap grace has historically lead to destroyed chruches.There are also of course destroyed calvinistic churches which go the other extreme towards hypercalvinism which claims that God elects whom he wants and there is nothing we can do to bring people the gospel because whoever is elect will be saved with or without us.But that too is a false doctrine, as you can err on both sides.Jesus clearly says: if you live according to the flesh, you will die.And he tells that to his own disciples.So clearly the warning has to be taken seriously.We can not remove the warning, and expect there to be no consequences.>I think one proof to the existence of this sort would be the ten lepers that Jesus healed, where only one was thankful and returned. I hope you'd agree that the use of Christ healing people as a picture of salvation isn't too far?I am sure you are familliar with the parable of the Sower, I would say that they participated for a while but then fell away and were never truly saved.But I have actually one very interesting passage which I will post in response to your latest post because it perfectly fits here, and I am now really currious how you would interpret that one.
>>84551553>They indeed do believe that their works and choices (which are works) are what gets them into heaven.>choices (which are works)I can't really respond to this without insulting your intelligence. Do you really believe this? Is this taught in your church?
>>84552026>I don't think that ever occurred in acts"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance." (Hebrews 6)This clearly says that some were enlightened and shared in the Holy Spirit but have fallen aways and it is impossible for them to be brought back to repentance.So there are unsaved people who even shared in the spirit. I think this is also probably the unforgivable sin against the holy spirit.>>84552082>Is this taught in your church?Yes. I am literally quoting my pastor.A choice that YOU make is a work, by definition.
>>84552026>f this was repeated with the quotes removed, like is basically stated in Romans 4:5, would you be opposed to this?I think this is just physically impossible. If it were to happen, then God would lie because he promised that every good tree would bring good fruit and that we would know them by their fruits. Therefore it is impossible.But SAY this conditional hypothetical actually happened, then yes he would be saved. Like for example I believe if he converted and then was shot on the spot for his faith then he is likely saved even though he didn't do any works.
>>84551722>Wait, you actually believe that there are things outside of Gods control?Yeah, I do. I will give you an example as early as Genesis 2, where God brings the animals before Adam and tells him to name them whatever he wants, this would be pointless without free will. From this, we can see that human creativity, is something that we generate, not something we receive from God.>You know that we Calvinists do not believe in free will, right?The extent differs, like how the extent of Lordship salvation differs>I believe that NOTHING, absolutely nothing ever happens without God being in control.In control? This is vague. Is there any meaning in this assertion? Like whatever grotesque or rotten thing occurs, it's the will of God? Even burning your children alive to please false gods? So when he said:>They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:God, who cannot lie (Numbers 23:19) was lying? God knowing all things, and being able to interject is not a new doctrine to me, but thinking that every action is pre-programmed seems like a jump in logic most Calvinists wouldn't dare to make. Regarding that verse in proverbs, this is known, and it's why many would avoid office. To extend political leaders within the scope of their emotions to all men and every action (not just the state of their heart like with Pharoah) is a pretty extreme leap. Could you provide your strongest verses for such a doctrine?
>>84552152>Like whatever grotesque or rotten thing occurs, its the will of God? Even burning your children alive to please false gods? Yes. It is the sovereign will of God. But God also hates this.Every action that ever happened is ordained by God before the creation of the world.So let me ask you: Was it a sin to murder Christ?I think it is clear that yes. It was the greatest sin that ever happened.And yet God says about this:"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by Gods deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." (Acts 2:23)It says it was Gods PLAN and Foreknowledge, so it was Gods plan even though it is a Sin. But God can not sin. There are many other examples:"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20)Also Romans 1:Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.This is how it works: God gives them over to their own Sins. So The evil of man is already there, but God resists it sometimes more sometimes, less.
>>84552152>God brings the animals before Adam and tells him to name them whatever he wantsThe thing about this is I will tell you plainly: I am an extremely creative person. And I know for a fact that there was never a single original thought in my mind.Picasso said: A good artist borrows, a master steals. The Bible also says this: there is nothing new under the sun.Adam did name all the animals, but this does not mean that his creativity was something that was outside the sovereignty of God. It just means that he did it. This is hardly a proof for free will.But this is actually a good point: There is not a single biblical passage that even remotely implies anything resembling free will.There are many passages that point towards human responsibility. But responsibility does not necessitate free will, that is a notion born out of Human pride. Responsibility actually just necessitates action and agency.A dog that bites is still put down.And a criminal is still locked up.It does not matter what caused them to act this way, they comitted the action. They are to blame.There is no excuse in circumstances ever.
>>84551963I appreciate you taking the time>That he should repentTo repent means "to turn from", it can mean regret (Genesis 6:6), or turning away from a wrong decision (the context here), or repenting from sins (Jonah 3:10).I'll have to study Romans 9 again, I think this is a case of Paul's complicated writing being misunderstood, which Peter references (2P3:16-17).>>84552054I do not believe "mental ascent" exists outside the minds of Calvinists, I'd be interested to hear examples of "cheap grace" destroying churches, I have only observed the opposite (calvinism opening up churches to lordship-> works salvation) in person. Could you elaborate a bit more on hyper-Calvinism? I'm surprised there's anything more extreme that believing every action is pre-programmed. Does your calvinist church knock doors?>If you live in the flesh you will dieJohn 1:12 saved Christians are the sons of God, Hebrews 12:8 God punishes Christians on this earth for sin. To extend this to ones salvation is the only part I'd take an issue with. >>84552054>, and I am now really currious how you would interpret that one.I will have to respond to this one tomorrow, if you miss the thread, a response will definitely be archived. >>84552054>I am sure you are familliar with the parable of the Sower, I would say that they participated for a while but then fell away and were never truly saved.In the example they weren't reinfected with leprosy. In the example of the sower, I'd say all those where seeds turned into living plants they were saved, but only in the best example they were productive. >>84552117>Yes. I am literally quoting my pastor.I cannot blame you then. The conclusion that a choice is a work is thoroughly retarded. Romans 11:6/ R:6:23 for one counter.>Just Reread Romans 9 I intend to study this verse and read romans 9 and listen to this (https://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/071719p.mp3) sermon which claims to refute the Calvinist interpretation of romans 9.
>>84552026>Easy believismAlso one thing that I am currious about is how you can even reasonably say that Orthodox and Catholics who teach salvation by works are not saved, even though you believe in easy believeism?Like: what would you do if someone came forward and believed genuinely, but then later became a roman catholic due to false teachings?I would think that he is then saved despite the catholic church. Do you think that false doctrine is capable of destroying that which God has done?
>>84552297>I'd say all those where seeds turned into living plants they were savedThen what about: narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it?I think that only the good soil is the one where someone is saved. The others perish.>exists outside the minds of CalvinistsContext: I am in Germany. We are a very small congregation that is very active. We do not knock doors but we evangelize on the streets and try to bring the gospel to as many people as we can. Europe is very atheistic at this point, it is horrible.Part of what destroyed the church in Germany was cheap grace, especially in Lutheranism.I really like what Dietrich Bonnhoefer says about this. But I am a from a vastly different context then you apparently which probably explains the difference in perception.hyper-calvinism is when you don't evangelize because you think that whoever is elect will be saved either way.
>>84552297I will look forward to the thread, though I cant promise I will have time for it tomorrow.Anyway, God bless you, and have a wonderful day.
>>84548667NOT SAVEDPROBABLY NOT GONNA BE SAVEDDO I BELIEVE THE RESURRECTION HAPPENED? YEAH LOL THERE'S P GOOD EVIDENCEAM I GONNA ACTUALLY CONVERT? PROBABLY NOT.PART OF ME WANTS TO IF ONLY FOR THE LIFESTYLE AND A CUTE CHRISTIAN GIRLFRIEND RATHER THAN THE CHICKS I USUALLY TALK TO BUT GOD'S WHOLE "INFINITE MERCY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HATE YOU WANT WANT YOU RAPED AND KILLED" SHTICK IS BITCHLY AND I THINK CHRIST IS A PUSSY FOR IT LOLIF I WAS JESUS I WOULD'VE TOLD PETER "HEY MAN THANKS FOR CONVERTING FOR ME BUT NOW I'M GONNA GET MY GETBACK AND MAKE YOU ROT IN HELL FOR WHAT YOU DID TO MY PEOPLE, FAGGOT"AND THAT I FRANKLY DON'T ABIDEDOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT MATTERS ANYWAYS LOL I CAN SCAM THAT SUCKA AND BE A PRODIGAL SON AND "BORN AGAIN" AT ANY TIME WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCE SO FUCK IT
>>84552144>If it were to happen, then God would lie because he promised that every good tree would bring good fruit and that we would know them by their fruits. Therefore it is impossible.Again, the verse is about false prophets, the fruit of a Christian is other Christians (preach the Gospel -> believes -> born again).False prophets can be identified if their converts all act really poorly, or if they have no converts, it's tangential but it relates to this > Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.>>84552292>This is hardly a proof of free willConsider it again, what does God get out of it? Why give Adam the choice if he's repeating fed lines?>But this is actually a good point: There is not a single biblical passage that even remotely implies anything resembling free will. These are all choices presented, particularly the last example. Deuteronomy 14:26, Deuteronomy 24:1, Deuteronomy 30:15, Joshua 24:15, 1 Kings 18:21, 1 Chronicles 21:12
>>84552404Again. The existence of a "choice" does not show free will.Like here:ChatGPT choses what it writes by predicting the next letter.How is its free will different from yours?There is no biblical passage that shows you have any more capacity then a GPT.It could also name animals if you asked it, too for example. But at the end of the day the answer it gives you is just very complex math
>>84552373>>84552362I am surprised to hear there are saved churches in Germany. You too anon, It was a pleasure talking with you tonight.>>84552309Because it's the result of every conscious choice resulting from free will meeting verses like John 5:24, John 3:15, Romans 6:23. It's why calling any choice a work is so strange to me.
