Scholar8200

Thanks for your reply but then, even God's elect in the OT - Israel were given the obligation to choose Deut. 30:19

Hmm, you have replied as I expected sir, I guess you didn't digest what I posted earlier Sir....
Please I plead by name of God that you read it without a biassed mind..

The call to salvation is to all ... He told everyone to come, everyone to choose .... That's a general call

Check all we have been saying earlier WE ALL AFFIRM THAT MAN HAS WILL____ what I called HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

So everyone is responsible for the outcome of his salvation EVERYONE
Yet I KNOW TO ALL PERSUASION THAT SALVATION IS THE LORD'S

besides, God told Abraham that his descendants will be brought out of Egypt and made to inherit Canaan, however, those whose carcases was wasted in the wilderness were not predestined to do so, it was the fruit of their choice.

Like I said earlier EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE for his own actions no matter how it goes... Or what he thinks

For example a Bible verse that shows this is shown in acts 4:28 and acts 2:23

Acts 4:28 To carry out all that Your hand and Your will and purpose had predestined (predetermined) should occur.(AMP)

Now although God predetermined that Christ should die does that mean that those who killed him are innocent? No the killed willingly although the didn't Know that God predetermined it.

This is best explained in acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain KJV

ALSO showing that they are without excuse so no matter all that man does God's will can never be changed or fallen

Now It might be strange to indirectly ascribe insincerity and (speaking from both sides of the mouth) to God's Sovereignty by surmising that His 'whosoever wills' are actually not so! Besides, what is God's [/b]will?

exactly you still showing that you didn't really understand my earlier posts ... The message is preached to all people, yet are all saved? Why? Because God doesn't know how to accomplish his own will? Or Satan is all strong a contender
With God

Is election injustice in God's part is God allowing lying Spirits decieve the 400 prophets injustice,

Is that word "Jacob I love Esau I hate injustice"?
God's election isn't injustice....

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 [b]who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:3,4
Also: God is not willing that ANY should perish.

that's why he gave them all the gospel to heed yet we all AFFIRM that God helps some and leave others to themselves

Also, the onset of the Gospel, God's promise to Abraham states clearly the Divine will, " in Him shall ALL the families of the World be blessed"

That's the prophecy being fulfilled now

How then will His Sovereignty refuse or deny what His Word (which He exalts more than His Name) declares? If all are not being blessed it is not for us to adduce this to God but our failure in preaching the Gospel to ALL the World as commanded.

This isn't true..... He gave the gospel to all he can't deny himself God is true though everyone is a liar

Lolz and did I say that the gospel shouldn't preached ?? Definitely not..
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all Creation.

Ubenedictus:
Paul didn't receive irresistable grace, because just as your Westminster catechism says Grace doesn't do violence to the will. in fact if Paul wanted to stand up from Damascus and still go back with his blind eye in unrepentance nothing stopped him but he chose to accept Jesus.

in fact I have seen a man who became convicted of his sins and even came to see the need for Jesus, he was there crying but he still refused to open his heart. Jesus says I stand at the door of your heart and knock, sometimes he knocks very loud but the decision to open the door is yours.

the reason some are saved and others aren't is because some open their door while others don't not because Jesu wasn't at the door.

Ubenedictus:


Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint
human nature and that mortal will is still capable of
choosing good or evil without special divine aid.

you just told me that some people do good work without grace that is a half part of the heresy of pelagius condemned by the council of Carthage and Orange.

you believe original sin taints human nature, you believe we can't be saved without grace.... which is correct but you and pelagius agree that humans can do good works and chose good without God. that is semi pelagainism I.e holding a part of his condemned teaching.

you guys need to read past the 15th century

This is a great post. It is Calvinistic.
You should be bashing Pelagians and Arminians. Not Calvinists!
@Ferisidowu
It is standard reformed teaching that man cannot do good without grace, hence the need for grace.It is the extent of original sin. But again, you are totally on point when you say man cannot do good towards salvation.

I am left with charging anyone who believes it is in man to 'choose' the Pelagian, not even semi Pelagian!

5solas:

This is a great post. It is Calvinistic.
You should be bashing Pelagians and Arminians. Not Calvinists!
@Ferisidowu
It is standard reformed teaching that man cannot do good without grace, hence the need for grace.It is the extent of original sin. But again, you are totally on point when you say man cannot do good towards salvation.

I am left with charging anyone who believes it is in man to 'choose' the Pelagian, not even semi Pelagian!

thanks a lot Sir
you answered rightly

5solas:

This is a great post. It is Calvinistic.
You should be bashing Pelagians and Arminians. Not Calvinists!
@Ferisidowu
It is standard reformed teaching that man cannot do good without grace, hence the need for grace.It is the extent of original sin. But again, you are totally on point when you say man cannot do good towards salvation.

I am left with charging anyone who believes it is in man to 'choose' the Pelagian, not even semi Pelagian!

of course I bash pelagians and arminians, the Church put that belief under anathema 1600 years ago, the Calvinist simply went to the other extreme and were placed under anathema too.

with the prevenient grace of God man can chose that is the Christian teaching unlike the Calvinist teaching that demands regeneration before that choice.

Ubenedictus:
of course I bash pelagians and arminians, the Church put that belief under anathema 1600 years ago, the Calvinist simply went to the other extreme and were placed under anathema too.

with the prevenient grace of God man can chose that is the Christian teaching unlike the Calvinist teaching that demands regeneration before that choice.

who placed them under anathema?

Ferisidowu:


who placed them under anathema?

guess you didn't know

pelagian heresy was immediately confirmed as a new teaching different from the Gospel the moment it began, it was condemned by the council of Carthage and Orange in the 4 th century.

Calvinism was also confirmed as a new teaching different from the Gospel the moment it began, it was condemned by the council of Trent in the 16th century.

Ubenedictus:
guess you didn't know

pelagian heresy was immediately confirmed as a new teaching different from the Gospel the moment it began, it was condemned by the council of Carthage and Orange in the 4 th century.

Calvinism was also confirmed as a new teaching different from the Gospel the moment it began, it was condemned by the council of Trent in the 16th century.

Who organized the council of Trent isn't the council a Catholic organization? Besides what the gospel the moment it began? And what did Calvin

Ferisidowu:


Who organized the council of Trent isn't the council a Catholic organization? Besides what the gospel the moment it began? And what did Calvin

[quote author=Ferisidowu post=66188310]

Besides what right does the Catholic organization which practiced the most abominable acts to place anathema on other Christians ... When even they themselves are under anathema.... I have read about The council of Trent. And am saying that it's not worth it

Ferisidowu:


Who organized the council of Trent isn't the council a Catholic organization? Besides what the gospel the moment it began? And what did Calvin

who do you think historically organises councils? of course the Church established by Christ just as the early Church did in acts 15.


funny enough the council of Trent wasn't the first time the beliefs that make up Calvinism was condemned..... the entire Christian Church is pretty clear about the new heresy....it was a novum a invented myth

Ubenedictus:
who do you think historically organises councils? of course the Church established by Christ just as the early Church did in acts 15.


funny enough the council of Trent wasn't the first time the beliefs that make up Calvinism was condemned..... the entire Christian Church is pretty clear about the new heresy....it was a novum a invented myth

Lolz I'll only accept that those doctrines are wrong if only I can get a Bible based counter argument if not .... Don't talk to me about this again.... Is it those fools who sell indulgence that will tell me what right or wrong?.. blind leaders of the blind?

Ferisidowu:


Who organized the council of Trent isn't the council a Catholic organization? Besides what the gospel the moment it began? And what did Calvin

The Council of Trent was Catholic and against the Reformation. It was a counter reformation as its sum was to nullify all the gains of the Protestant Reformers.

5solas:

The Council of Trent was Catholic and against the Reformation. It was a counter reformation as its sum was to nullify all the gains of the Protestant Reformers.

Thanks BRO. . besides the council can't counter prove from the Bible... If they can I beg ubenedictus to show me, I'd Read with an open mind ... Or he himself should write to me

5solas:

This is a great post. It is Calvinistic.
You should be bashing Pelagians and Arminians. Not Calvinists!
@Ferisidowu
It is standard reformed teaching that man cannot do good without grace, hence the need for grace.It is the extent of original sin. But again, you are totally on point when you say man cannot do good towards salvation.

I am left with charging anyone who believes it is in man to 'choose' the Pelagian, not even semi Pelagian!

it is a good post,
it is Christian, Calvin merely took a part of the Christian truth and twisted it to the extreme.

5solas:

The Council of Trent was Catholic and against the Reformation. It was a counter reformation as its sum was to nullify all the gains of the Protestant Reformers.

the council of Orange was also a Catholic council against the pelagian heresy, it was counter-pelegianism as its sum and was to nullify the gains of pelagianism

council of nicea was anti- Arianism and countered the Arian heresy to nullify it gains.

council of Jerusalem was anti-judiazer and nullified their gains too.

so also the council of Trent addressed the heresy that arose in the 16th century... that isn't new, since biblical times the Christian Church has been having council against heresy.

Ferisidowu:

Lolz I'll only accept that those doctrines are wrong if only I can get a Bible based counter argument if not .... Don't talk to me about this again.... Is it those fools who sell indulgence that will tell me what right or wrong?.. blind leaders of the blind?

actually the council didn't sell indulgence infact it condemned all those who misconstrued the teaching on indulgence and tried to make it look like a transaction.

it seem as usual you are ignorant of the people you seem to condemn.


since you hint at it, the council actually provided a biblical counter teaching, it reaffirmed the Christian teaching that has always been taught in Christendom...

in presenting it, where will you like me to begin?

Ubenedictus:
it is a good post,
it is Christian, Calvin merely took a part of the Christian truth and twisted it to the extreme.

Unfortunately , usually when Calvin is attacked, it is the Reformed Faith and the Reformers that are the targets. He was in accord with other Reformers in those doctrines which are now branded as 'Calvinistic'.

Ubenedictus:
the council of Orange was also a Catholic council against the pelagian heresy, it was counter-pelegianism as its sum and was to nullify the gains of pelagianism

council of nicea was anti- Arianism and countered the Arian heresy to nullify it gains.

council of Jerusalem was anti-judiazer and nullified their gains too.

so also the council of Trent addressed the heresy that arose in the 16th century... that isn't new, since biblical times the Christian Church has been having council against heresy.

True, the Council of Orange was Christian and condemned Pelagianism. That of Trent on the other hand was unchristian having airtel its goal the erosion of the gains of the Reformation. It is also in conflict with that of Orange.

Ubenedictus:
actually the council didn't sell indulgence infact it condemned all those who misconstrued the teaching on indulgence and tried to make it look like a transaction.

it seem as usual you are ignorant of the people you seem to condemn.


since you hint at it, the council actually provided a biblical counter teaching, it reaffirmed the Christian teaching that has always been taught in Christendom...

in presenting it, where will you like me to begin?

I see, I'm the one you said doesn't know who he accusse ryt lolz you even said "as usual" well have it your way..

thanks God bless

5solas:

True, the Council of Orange was Christian and condemned Pelagianism. That of Trent on the other hand was unchristian having airtel its goal the erosion of the gains of the Reformation. It is also in conflict with that of Orange.

actually the council of Orange is in complete agreement with council of Trent, the Catholic Church doesn't change dogma.

just as Orange condemned pelagianism as heresy so too the council of Trent condemned the heresy in the Reformation.

are you even aware that the council of Orange condemned double predestination the heresy that Calvin dug up? are you aware Orange also condemned irresistible Grace another heresy Calvin dug up?

it seems u are again ignorant on this issue, read up what the council of Orange condemned.

5solas:

Unfortunately , usually when Calvin is attacked, it is the Reformed Faith and the Reformers that are the targets. He was in accord with other Reformers in those doctrines which are now branded as 'Calvinistic'.

not really, reformed theology is different from Lutheran theology, both have their own heresy but they don't agree in many things, Luther didn't teach predestination to sin...Calvin did. you need to read up on your Reformation.


in fact Luther and Calvin disagree on many things so too Zwingli, so attacking Calvin's heresy, doesn't necessary affect the entire Reformation, the entire Reformation isn't Calvinist.

5solas:

True, the Council of Orange was Christian and condemned Pelagianism. That of Trent on the other hand was unchristian having airtel its goal the erosion of the gains of the Reformation. It is also in conflict with that of Orange.

would you like to see how Calvin went and taught heresy already condemned by the "Christian" council of Orange 1000 years earlier?

besides do you know which Pope ratified the council of Orange since you think it was Christian but the Catholic Church isn't?

how come Orange ratified by a Pope is Christian but Trent isn't? double standards?

Ferisidowu:


I see, I'm the one you said doesn't know who he accusse ryt lolz you even said "as usual" well have it your way..

thanks God bless

you have a right and a reason to be displeased but this isn't the first time I come across Protestants making accusations about issues they are misinformed about like claiming the council of Trent had a hand in abusing indulgence.


it is a false accusation based on either misinformation or ignorance or a rash decision to criticise.

sorry for quoting the same post 3 times.

5solas:

True, the Council of Orange was Christian and condemned Pelagianism. That of Trent on the other hand was unchristian having airtel its goal the erosion of the gains of the Reformation. It is also in conflict with that of Orange.

the council of Trent wasn't to erode the good gains of the Reformation... that just isn't exactly true, anyone who read about that era will agree that there were thieves in the Church, people misconstruing doctrine for personal gains, lax ministers etc. the Church was at a turbulent time and many Catholics including Luther requested that a council should be called to address these issues. the Reformation arose to condemn these issues... unfortunately the council wasn't called early and Luther had dived into heresy and schism when it was finally called.

Trent actually solidified the good gains made by the Reformation, and pursued away the thieves in the Church, reformed the lives of the clergy, and revitalized the Church through the holy spirit, it also condemned the heresy the reformers fell into. it took the good gains and rejected the false ones