JMAN05:

Can u tell me the meaning of elect as u understand.

hmm,

Scholar8200:
Which?

Bring up any protestant teaching that is not consistent with scripture.

malvisguy212:

God pre-determined, not the IDENTITY of the saved,but the CHARACTER of the saved.

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But WE speak the
WISDOM of God in a mystery,
even the hidden WISDOM, which
GOD ORDAINED BEFORE THE WORLD
UNTO OUR GLORY :"
You see, God pre-determined the character (wisdom) in this verse and not the identity.

You goofed, as already pointed out, the wisdom here refers to Christ.

Ubenedictus:
I believe both have their errors but I'll pick lutherianism over mr Calvinism and i'll pick arminianism over both Calvinism and lutherianism.

Not surprising! The difference though between Calvin's and Luther's teachings is slim. They were at one in their understanding of justification, freewill and predestination. Both teachings are against Arminianism, even though it was not in existence during their lifetimes. Arminianism , by the way, is the creation of the Catholic Church.

drjellyjoe:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A44%2C+John+6%3A37%2C+John+6%3A64-65%2C+John+15%3A16%2C+Matthew+22%3A14%2C+Ephesians+1%3A4-6%2C+Romans+8%3A27-30%2C+2+Thessalonians+2%3A13%2C+2+Timothy+1%3A9%2C+1+Peter+1%3A2%2C+Acts+13%3A48%2C+Romans+11%3A17%2C+Romans+9%3A11%2C+John+10%3A26-28%2C+John+6%3A37-40%2C+John+17%3A9-11%2C+&version=AKJV

Here is some scripture that supports the "Calvinism" position.

Nice one.

malvisguy212:
5solas ask "were does the bible scripture teaches Predestination" and I provide the answer. I agree with your explanation because it was through christ we are called the children of God.

Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the IMAGE of his SON, that he might be the firstborn AMONG
MANY BRETHREN. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Predestination or fore-ordination is what God did before the world began,
as He determined to save man from sin through the sacrifice of His own Son. Those who answer His call through the gospel experience the blessings of that plan now in Christ Jesus.(Romans 2:3,11)

This is more like it!
How does it square with this:

malvisguy212:

God pre-determined, not the IDENTITY of the saved,but the CHARACTER of the saved.

vooks:

Very brainy of you.
James says if anyone lacks 'a person', they should ask for 'a person' from the Father

James 1:5 (KJV)
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Goofing once again!
The wisdom he is referring to is the one stated below:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Cor. 2

5solas:

Goofing once again!
The wisdom he is referring to is the one stated below:
1 Cor. 2

You dey mind vooks...he is here just to win an arguement even if he is incorrect. I have stopped taking his posts seriously.

5solas:



This is more like it!
How does it square with this:

Hahahaha..The guy nailed his coffin without knowing it. I wonder how folks read their bibles.

ABDULADINO:
You dey mind vooks...he is here just to win an arguement even if he is incorrect. I have stopped taking his posts seriously.

True. He posts copiously, error-ridden posts.

ABDULADINO:
Hahahaha..The guy nailed his coffin without knowing it. I wonder how folks read their bibles.

If predestination is admitted, in the judgement of all, they lose the argument. Their tactics therefore is either to deny it completely or to define it wrongly.

5solas:

Goofing once again!
The wisdom he is referring to is the one stated below:
1 Cor. 2

How many wisdoms are there?

5solas:

True. He posts copiously, error-ridden posts.

And you can't point the errors. You are a petty hooligan cheering your amateur theologian buddy ABDULADINO. Google does not increase your IQ

5solas:



This is more like it!
How does it square with this:

in the opposite,God predestines people for hell.? Is this not what you are saying ?
The truth is that, there are some people God chose to fulfilled His purpose and plan , judas did not volunteers to be Jesus disciple it was Jesus Himself who chose judas including the rest eleven .
Abraham, Isaac Jacob down to zacharia ,its was God Himself who chose them to forestshadow the coming of Jesus. I believe with, this we can say God predestined redemptive history, specifically, the coming of the Messiah.

And it was through Jesus God will bring all men to Himself:

John 12:32
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,
will draw ALL MEN TO MYSELF."

First Jesus say "from the earth" and then He say "ALL MEN" the context was not talking about the people presently with Him but to All men around the earth. ("from the earth"

Hmmm. Interesting topic. I believe both theories. Both are the same except that one is extreme and other is liberal. There is no need for bitter argument if you understand this. That's why some called themselves 2-point-calvinists 3-points-calvanists etc

Those who will make heaven are known to God even before the foundation of the world was laid. I don't believe, however, that God intentional destined some people for hell and others for heaven but he fore knew those who will accept and those who will reject HIM. Cain rejected God even when God extended hands of forgiveness to him why? Because, from the beginning, he did not belong to God and there was no way he could be saved. God couldn't save him. Note that Cain belonged to Devil. Cain is not son of Adam and therefore not the son of God. (Gen 4:9-11, Gen 5:3, Luke 3:23-38, 1John 3:12) As it was then, so it is now. Until the days of Noah, these elect were known physically because they were the sons of Seth but at some point the two races were joined together in mixed marriage (abomination) (Gen 6:1-3) and were finally fused together following the flood. Even Noah is not a pure seed! But God is God. He know his own and he will never loose the smallest of them.

So the point is: Christ died for the whole world: But his death is a stumbling block for many and a salvation for the elect. Just as he extended forgiveness to Cain, he is also extending same to those who will never come to salvation because from the beginning, they were not of his flock and therefore could not save them. So at the end of the day no one will rise and say: "Christ didn't offer me his salvation, he didn't die for me, he didn't offer me forgiveness" No one will be able to win his case against God.

Peace

5solas:
Bring up any protestant teaching that is not consistent with scripture.

How does this challenge relate with my post?

5solas:

Not surprising! The difference though between Calvin's and Luther's teachings is slim. They were at one in their understanding of justification, freewill and predestination. Both teachings are against Arminianism, even though it was not in existence during their lifetimes. Arminianism , by the way, is the creation of the Catholic Church.

not really, Luther believed in the sacraments as means of salvation, he believe justification and regeneration is happen durin baptism (dat is also d teachin of cathollic and orthodox), luther believed in Unlimited atonement, he said that god does not predestine to hell, all those appoint agree with catholic.

Ubenedictus:
not really, Luther believed in the sacraments as means of salvation, he believe justification and regeneration is happen durin baptism (dat is also d teachin of cathollic and orthodox), luther believed in Unlimited atonement, he said that god does not predestine to hell, all those appoint agree with catholic.

All lies. Luther believed justification by faith alone saves. In this, he was at one with the other reformers.
He also believed in predestination just like the other reformers.
He, like the others, believed in double predestination-election and reprobation.
By election is meant God's choice of certain persons for salvation before the foundation of the world and by reprobation is meant God's decision to leave others in their sin. Luther's followers later partially forsook his teaching on predestination by embracing only election. Luther's writings are there to show for this assertion.
On the issue of the atonement, the arminians were not yet in existence to cavil it, it wasn't then in contention (at least in reformed circles) and Luther actually denied unlimited atonement, asserting that Christ died ''for many''.
The only point Luther agreed on with the Catholic Church, from your post, is Transubstantiation . ''Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ''. In this, the other reformers deferred from him, and they were right!

5solas:


All lies. Luther believed justification by faith alone saves. In this, he was at one with the other reformers.
He also believed in predestination just like the other reformers.
He, like the others, believed in double predestination-election and reprobation.
By election is meant God's choice of certain persons for salvation before the foundation of the world and by reprobation is meant God's decision to leave others in their sin. Luther's followers later partially forsook his teaching on predestination by embracing only election. Luther's writings are there to show for this assertion.
On the issue of the atonement, the arminians were not yet in existence to cavil it, it wasn't then in contention (at least in reformed circles) and Luther actually denied unlimited atonement, asserting that Christ died ''for many''.
The only point Luther agreed on with the Catholic Church, from your post, is Transubstantiation . ''Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ''. In this, the other reformers deferred from him, and they were right!

luther believe in sola fide but he also believed in sacraments as a means of salvation, he disagreed with calvin on regeneration. For lutherans saved by faith and saved in baptism are complimentary. If you doubt me read up on the ausburg confession.

Luther's predestination and Calvins predestination are a mile apart.

On atonement luther and lutherans are more in agreement with catholics in teaching that objectively Jesus died for all and subjectively he died for many. That is totally different from Calvin who believe Jesus died for the elect alone!

Lastly I didn't bring up transubstantiation in my post, you are the person bringing that up and to be straight with you, while luthers teaching on the subject is faulty, he was much better than Calvin. Calvin seriously goofed when it came to the eucharist. It was funny that d guy who was screaming sola scriptura refused to believe Jesus who said "take, eat, this is my body", "take, drink, this is my blood", "do this in my memory".

Ubenedictus:
not really, Luther believed in the sacraments as means of salvation,

Ubenedictus:


luther believe in sola fide but he also believed in sacraments as a means of salvation, he disagreed with calvin on regeneration. For lutherans saved by faith and saved in baptism are complimentary. If you doubt me read up on the ausburg confession.

Luther's predestination and Calvins predestination are a mile apart.

On atonement luther and lutherans are more in agreement with catholics in teaching that objectively Jesus died for all and subjectively he died for many. That is totally different from Calvin who believe Jesus died for the elect alone!

Lastly I didn't bring up transubstantiation in my post, you are the person bringing that up and to be straight with you, while luthers teaching on the subject is faulty, he was much better than Calvin. Calvin seriously goofed when it came to the eucharist. It was funny that d guy who was screaming sola scriptura refused to believe Jesus who said "take, eat, this is my body", "take, drink, this is my blood", "do this in my memory".

Is the eucharist not part of the sacraments? You brought up the sacraments and I zeroed in on that aspect of the sacraments, transubstantiation, that other reformers deferred from Luther , with them being in the right.

Please enlighten me on what you mean by the bolded pertaining to Christ's death.

5solas:


Is the eucharist not part of the sacraments? You brought up the sacraments and I zeroed in on that aspect of the sacraments, transubstantiation, that other reformers deferred from Luther , with them being in the right.

Please enlighten me on what you mean by the bolded pertaining to Christ's death.

there are several passages that says Jesus died for all, theses passages are interpreted by lutherans to mean that the scope of the atonement is universal, i.e Christ death on the cross produced infinite merit capable off saving all men for all times! His atonement is for all because it is satisfactory and powerful enough to save all.

The scriptures also say he died for many and by this lutherans understand that is death is effective only for "many". This is because not all will accept the gift of grace and so only the predestine will make full use of the universal atonement of Jesus.

Lutherans also do not belive in irresistable grace. Thus lutherans believe that grace can be resisted.

vooks:

And you can't point the errors. You are a petty hooligan cheering your amateur theologian buddy ABDULADINO. Google does not increase your IQ

The PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY. I believe you saw that another party (Ubenedictus) agree with what i have been saying all along that Luther agrees with some point of Calvin's which had been consistent with all my posts so far both in this thread and the other one. 5solas was right that your posts are error ridden. You hardly make research, only to quarrel with folks that don't agree with you and throwing tantrums and obscenities on the forum.

ABDULADINO:
The PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY. I believe you saw that another party (Ubenedictus) agree with what i have been saying all along that Luther agrees with some point of Calvin's which had been consistent with all my posts so far both in this thread and the other one. 5solas was right that your posts are error ridden. You hardly make research, only to quarrel with folks that don't agree with you and throwing tantrums and obscenities on the forum.

You can't point ANY errors, but heckling you can

vooks:

You can't point ANY errors, but heckling you can

No need to prof..An amateur can't correct a professor of scriptures.

ABDULADINO:
No need to prof..An amateur can't correct a professor of scriptures.

They why do you claim there are errors?

vooks:

They why do you claim there are errors?

Hahaha..Prof "They" is an error too.Are you in such a hurry to respond?

ABDULADINO:
Hahaha..Prof "They" is an error too.Are you in such a hurry to respond?

Funny negro

ABDULADINO:
Hahaha..Prof "They" is an error too.Are you in such a hurry to respond?

He still hasn't seen it.

Ubenedictus:


luther believe in sola fide but he also believed in sacraments as a means of salvation, he disagreed with calvin on regeneration. For lutherans saved by faith and saved in baptism are complimentary. If you doubt me read up on the ausburg confession.

I doubt he did. I will paste some of his thinking on the matter very soon. He taught a whole lot of things in , ''The bondage of the will''. I doubt he disagreed with Calvin on regeneration. You shouldn't equate Luther's teachings with that of the Lutherans! It seems logical to do so, but I have observed before that the Lutherans (I am informed the latter ones) later deferred from him on predestination. Nonetheless, I will look at the Augsburg Confession and respond to you.

Luther's predestination and Calvins predestination are a mile apart.

Not true.

On atonement luther and lutherans are more in agreement with catholics in teaching that objectively Jesus died for all and subjectively he died for many. That is totally different from Calvin who believe Jesus died for the elect alone!

You enlightened me on the meaning of the bolded, I thank you. Do Catholics actually teach it that way? I doubt that, because it is a middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism. The Catholic Church has hardly ever shifted its ground on these issues.Rather, Arminianism has always been a middle ground between Catholicism and Calvinism, taking apart as much as it can, the gains of the reformation by its compromises.

Lastly I didn't bring up transubstantiation in my post, you are the person bringing that up and to be straight with you, while luthers teaching on the subject is faulty, he was much better than Calvin. Calvin seriously goofed when it came to the eucharist. It was funny that d guy who was screaming sola scriptura refused to believe Jesus who said "take, eat, this is my body", "take, drink, this is my blood", "do this in my memory".

Why should Calvin believe that in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine used become the actual body and blood of Christ? If his view was that they were symbolic, which I think it was, I think he was right.

Ubenedictus:
there are several passages that says Jesus died for all, theses passages are interpreted by lutherans to mean that the scope of the atonement is universal, i.e Christ death on the cross produced infinite merit capable off saving all men for all times! His atonement is for all because it is satisfactory and powerful enough to save all.

The scriptures also say he died for many and by this lutherans understand that is death is effective only for "many". This is because not all will accept the gift of grace and so only the predestine will make full use of the universal atonement of Jesus.

The reformers would see the above as a compromise of their belief on the atonement. However, I will be delighted if it was at least preached this way especially when I look at 2 Cor. 5:13-21 and Rom.5:2-20. Surely, not every one will go to heaven. I think though that a Richard Baxter had a similar view on the atonement as you described.

Lutherans also do not belive in irresistable grace. Thus lutherans believe that grace can be resisted.

It is difficult, if not outright impossible, for one to believe in election and reprobation and not believe in irresistible grace. Concerning the conversion of Saul, Luther says, he got saved when he was fighting God! Luther says it proves how much free our wills are.

@Ubenedictus
Luther's summary on the ''part'' a man's will plays for his salvation.

... I shall here end this book, ready though I am to pursue the matter further, if need be; but I think that abundant satisfaction has here been afforded for the godly man who is willing to yield to truth without stubborn resistance. For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and foreordains all things; that He cannot be deceived or obstructed in His foreknowledge and predestination; and that nothing happens but at His will (which reason itself is compelled to grant); then, on reason's own testimony, there can be no "free-will" in man, or angel, or in any creature. So, if we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and opposing the kingdom of Christ with all his strength, and that he does not let his prisoners go unless he is driven out by the power of the Divine Spirit, it is again apparent that there can be no "free-will". So, if we believe that original sin has ruined us to such an extent that even in the godly, who are led by the Spirit, it causes abundance of trouble by striving against good, it is clear that in a man who lacks the Spirit nothing is justify that can turn itself to good, but only to evil. Again, if the Jews, who followed after righteousness with all their powers, fell into unrighteousness instead, while the Gentiles, who followed after unrighteousness, attained to an un-hoped-for righteousness, by God's free gift, it is equally apparent from their very works and experience that man without grace can will nothing but evil. And, finally, if we believe that Christ redeemed men by His blood, we are forced to confess that all of man was lost; otherwise, we make Christ either wholly superfluous, or else the redeemer of the least valuable part of man only; which is blasphemy, and sacrilege.

http://www.reformedreader.org/bow.htm