₦airaland Forum

babestell:
A happy New Year to you all. May the peace of the Lord be with all of us.

late comer

ifex370:
Wait so in essence, what're you saying?

he is saying that the popular teaching about rapture was invented 200 years ago by some men and was never part of historic Christian doctrine.

it is a heresy.

Ferisidowu:
lolz it's still obvious that don't get it......
even the worst of sinners can do good without Grace no one single Grace.....

thet means that Grace is not the web ability to do good ... i.e if the worst sinners can do good without Grace... then your definition of Grace is nothing ... just a logical notion

what do you understand by irresistible Grace.....

you asked if am an elect.... now let me ask you this?

how do you know an elect?

Grace isn't the ability to do good...

since all humans do one form of good or another

GRACE IS SALVATION AND SALVATION ALONE

HEREBY IRRESISTIBLE..

sorry dear you need to leave pelagianism, no good in man without God, the way God gives us help is called grace, the way he help our will or grant us virtue is still Grace. Grace means divine favour, the help God gives us whether to save us or to help us.

Ferisidowu:
suit yourself sir.. .... but why isn't Jesus at every door since all need to be saved....


you didn't answer my elect question

do you know any door he isn't?

Ferisidowu:
also I didn't say, man can't do any good.... I said man can't do anything satisfactory to God....

the only thing that pleases God is saving faith... it's it put into people by himself alone..

that means you are a semi palegian.


you guys need to read past the 15th century. the council of Orange actually concluded against pelagius that every good thing done by man is by God's help. without God man can't do any good.

I said to the LORD, “Thou art my Lord; I have no
good besides Thee” (Psalms 16:2).

Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights,
with whom there is no variation or shadow of
shifting. (James 1:17).


there is absolutely no good in man except God.

that is the truth... anything that gives man any good without God grace was condemned by the council of Orange as the heresy of pelagius in the 4th/5th century

as I earlier said you guys need to read past the 15th century.

Ferisidowu:
lolz no one is forcing you to accept it .. . brother...
it's a free world .....


but let me ask you,
why is it that everyone isn't saved? can't God give everyone irresistible Grace like he gave Paul in That mighty conviction??

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.

asuustrike2009:
Since the Catholic church doesn't condone such, their doctrine should be respected. If anyone is not comfortable with it they can as well leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay with them. My position on the matter is that they should be allowed to take communion since Jesus didn't discriminate when sharing his blood and body. However since the Catholic church says otherwise, we should just respect their believes. There are many churches around just as there are many fishes in the river

how do you interpret this passage
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

removetheturban:
I do not get it. What are you trying to say?

I am saying a bad tree cannot produce good fruits. Protestantism is the baby of Catholicism, if the Catholics are bad so are the Protestants

Ferisidowu:
hmm guess it's somehow confusing ryt?

not to me... it is clear

MYSELF2018:
Amen, thank you so much for taking your time for the full explanation. He is also silently following this topic because I have shared the link with him, We'l weigh the two options given by you and You'l surely be invited on that day. As for me, I am okay by the dispensation method and I'l let you know the outcome from him. Thanks once again sir

I'll pray for you guys...

it seems you guys have settled most issues... this is the last huddle may God help you scale through.

These kind of issues tend to get very serious... my aunt married a Jehovah witness some decades ago, they married in the kingdom hall and only my grand dad and my uncle went for the service, my gan dad was ejected from the service because he had a rosary, my uncle had to stand in.

I pray yours won't be like that, you'll have a happy day, and blessed day and all this wahala is something you'll look back on and smile, it will just be memories.


besides my aunt who had all that trouble is still happily married about 30 years later.

it is just to convince both families to find the compromise.


may God bless you guys especially at this time.

Ferisidowu:
I don't know why this seem hard for you to understand.... neither am I going to rack my head just to start teaching you....

I didn't start with this thread so I don't know what op put down

yet I'm sure even without starting with the thread that what the op is teaching about is GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY ...

I don't discard free will .. yet I know it's nothing since .. . it's GOD'S PROVIDENCE THAT SHAPES OUR DESTINY ... (which you can't deny)

but seeing you are a willing Brother ... I will try create a thread (when am free) so we would discuss this..

HUMAN free will is in bondage either you agree or not ... humans can't do good to God's satisfaction... although humans don't believe that they are completely bad, useless, worthless, ... yet in God's sight they ALL ARE

they think themselves to be good, at least humans can do good works, can choose not to steal ryt... even a lot have died in their self righteousness thinking they would make it to heaven... but I know that if anyone make it to heaven by his works both in AD and BC then Christ died in vain

the weakness of man and his inability to do any good by himself isn't hard for me to understand, it is a fact.

what I disagree with is that human will is dead and so man needs irresistible grace,

what I disagree with is the teaching that God damned some people for all eternity and simply refused to give them any grace so that they will be bad and damned. I reject the teaching of double unconditional predestination

Ferisidowu:
ubenedictus

it's true that humans have free will.... yet even their free will is 1) limited
2) in bondage

you asked a question about elect...

the elect are the who are called spiritually and follow Christ... (when I say spiritually I don't mean that they had dreams or visions oooo)
I mean the effectual fervent call of the SPIRIT
to worship and live for God in Jesus Christ

Also human free will will always be inside God's unchanged decree

the fact that freewill is limited is true, it is taught by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church... Augustine teaches the same... in fact that limitation has a name it is called concupiscence. the sin of Adam limited our will so much that we cannot do anything good by ourselves without grace.

if grace is given then we can now be inspired to do good.

but Calvin went further... he taught that the will is dead so Calvinist teach that man needs irresistible grace t

Ferisidowu:
ubenedictus

it's true that humans have free will.... yet even their free will is 1) limited
2) in bondage

you asked a question about elect...

the elect are the who are called spiritually and follow Christ... (when I say spiritually I don't mean that they had dreams or visions oooo)
I mean the effectual fervent call of the SPIRIT
to worship and live for God in Jesus Christ

Also human free will will always be inside God's unchanged decree

the fact that freewill is limited is true, it is taught by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church... Augustine teaches the same... in fact that limitation has a name it is called concupiscence. the sin of Adam limited our will so much that we cannot do anything good by ourselves without grace.

if grace is given then we can now be inspired to do good.

but Calvin went further... he taught that the will is dead so Calvinist teach that man needs irresistible grace t

Ferisidowu:
ubenedictus

it's true that humans have free will.... yet even their free will is 1) limited
2) in bondage

you asked a question about elect...

the elect are the who are called spiritually and follow Christ... (when I say spiritually I don't mean that they had dreams or visions oooo)
I mean the effectual fervent call of the SPIRIT
to worship and live for God in Jesus Christ

Also human free will will always be inside God's unchanged decree

the fact that freewill is limited is true, it is taught by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church... Augustine teaches the same... in fact that limitation has to name it is called concupiscence. the sin of Adam limited our will so much that we cannot do anything good by ourselves without grace.

if grace is given then we can now be inspired to do good.

but Calvin went further... he taught that the will is dead so Calvinist teach that man needs irresistible grace to make man do good.

they teach man had to be regenerated before he can even believe.



I know who the "elect" are by definition.

my question is more like are you one of the elect?

An2elect2:
You agree Eternal life is a gift?

Lol the contradiction again.
"Eternal life is a gift but you have to work for it too" No need for long argument. You don't believe it's a gift but a reward. You are just not stupid to bluntly say it. Still yet, any objective person can see what you implying.

No one works for a gift. Imagine after working my life out to earn a monthly pay and it's termed a gift not a reward on point of reception. Doesn't make sense because that would mean I don't deserve the pay in spite of my work. For it to be a gift, then I can't work for it but would get it on a platter.

Freewillers cannot see eternal life as a gift. If they do they will have to accept the doctrine of predestination and election which they hate. So I understand why you have to "twist" the truth to make eternal a "gift and a reward".

Even when I showed you that it wasn't Eternal life Paul was pummeling his body for? And also showed you that Paul did nothing without God's grace working in him? You still think God's grace isn't sufficient but a special effort from Paul. Well it's not that I've not provided any point against that it is that you don't see eternal life as a gift. Because if you did you would not interpret a verse that is not talking of eternal life against one that plainly spells it out.


For someone who believes salvation or eternal life is a reward, I don't see you interpreting that another way.

[i] This is drawn because "eternal life is a reward"

You are getting bolder now. Now you can say "It is a reward" Yet in order not to sound too "biblically off" you still "maintain" it's a gift.



[i] Sure you can if it depends on you. But in the Bible it depends on God. His grace and promises.
Yes thanks, I'm sticking with the Bible



Why won't it be "an effort" when "Salvation or eternal life is a reward" Not expecting you to contradict yourself, am I?


Ya you obeyed from that stony, wicked and deceitful heart. It was really an effort!
Sure! The Bible is such a book of lies. How dare it say no one can do good or non is righteous or non is seeking God when there are people (outside Christ)according to you who can choose not to submit themselves to sin. There are definitely people who would not submit their bodies to sin and are living sinless lives. It's not an automatic submission but a willful submission. Yeah let God be a liar and Freewillism true.



Ya Bible says Sin cannot have dominion over believers anymore because they are under grace, but I forgot for freewillism to have its way, the believer must not think he is no more a slave of sin and now a slave of righteousness but he must see none as his master.

Moreso Bible says People who leave us were never a part of us. Like Judas, they appear to be spiritually called. But freewillism has to rear its ugly head and twist the truth into a beautiful lie.
When "eternal life and salvation are rewards" works and efforts become inevitable. Grace is only an abstract thing that only offers forgiveness but is not an ability to overcome sin. Your freewill theology has been consistent so far

Yeah when the enemy wants to plant his children in the midst of God's children he won't give them a form of godliness and false righteous appearance to deceive the truly called. He would plant atheists in the midst of unbelievers. Indeed.

"Isn't Salvation a reward"



Exactly! God can't be the one working inside of us both to will and to do but He is just a standby supplying us power occasionally.

It's high time we removed parts of the scriptures because they are really getting in the way of freewillism!



Very consistent. "Eternal life is a reward"


How do we arrive at all these wrong conclusions? Simple.

When we believe that we are not dead in sins and trespasses Ephesians 2:1,2.

And when we believe Salvation is not a gift but a reward or part-gift. Ephesians 2:8,9.

there is no contradiction if the reward isn't based on merit but on promise.

An2elect2:
[i] Chapter 2

Statement of the Doctrine

In the Westminster Confession, which sets forth the beliefs of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and which is the most perfect expression of the Reformed Faith, we read: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." And further, "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." This doctrine of Predestination represents the purpose of God as absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation, and as originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. God is seen as the great and mighty King who has appointed the course of nature and who directs the course of history even down to its minutest details. His decree is eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign. It extends not merely to the course of the physical world but to every event in human history from the creation to the judgment, and includes all the activities of saints and angels in heaven and of reprobates and demons in hell. It embraces the whole scope of creaturely existence, through time and eternity, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, and relations. Everything outside of God Himself is included in this all-embracing decree, and that very naturally since all other beings owe their existence and continuance in existence to His creative and sustaining power. It provides a providential control under which all things are hastening to the end of God's determining; and the goal is, "One far-off divine event Toward which the whole creation moves. Since the finite creation through its whole range exists as a medium through which God manifests His glory, and since it is absolutely dependent on Him, it of itself could originate no conditions which would limit or defeat the manifestation of that glory.

From all eternity God has purposed to do just exactly what He is doing. He is the sovereign Ruler of the universe and "does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35. Since the universe had its origin in God and depends on Him for its continued existence it must be, in all its parts and at all times, subject to His control so that nothing can come to pass contrary to what He expressly decrees or permits. Thus the eternal purpose is represented as an act of sovereign predestination or foreordination, and unconditioned by any subsequent fact or change in time. Hence it is represented as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge of all future events, and not conditioned by that foreknowledge or by anything originated by the events themselves.

Cc 5Solas

I bolded a part of the Westminster catechism that says God does no injury to the will of his creatures... that right there is your catechism teaching Free will. God doesn't force us into grace, do you know Calvin taught irrestitable grace?

An2elect2:
Thank you 5Solas. Glory to our Lord and Sovereign God!!!

Great comment. Well done!

Do protestants ever check history? How can they be happy to associate with reformed men like Martin Luther and not consider what they preached.

did you consider his teaching on baptism?

Scholar8200:
Kindly indulge this curiosity:

Would you consider yourself one of those predestined to believe? If yes, how did you know?(scriptural basis pls) And how are you sure you wont turn out to be the opposite later?


As regards the highlighted, how do we explain the Great commission in the light of predestination?

Besides, would those predestined be saved preacher or no preacher? If the latter is true, what purpose was the life-threatening Great Commission? If the former, why would God need man to fulfill His call on the called ones since they were already chosen?

And what does the persistent use of, "whosoever will" suggest? Does He mean what He says when He uses that clause?

Kindly indicate if this derails your thread and I will take it down.

good questions

5solas:
Thanks.
As you have observed most Protestants do not know what Luther and the other reformers preached.
How I wish most know for example that Luther took more than 300 pages to show that ''freewill'' does not exist in ''The Bondage of the Will''.
During Luther's time the false doctrine that salvation can be lost (Arminianism) was not in existence.
Most people assume Calvinism (the view that salvation cannot be lost) is more recent, but how wrong they are!

the view that salvation can be lost was there, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was teaching it even Luther taught that a believer could lose his faith and salvation... Calvin went further than that and Arminius rejected Calvin, so yes Calvin's teaching was new.


since according to you, you seem to know what the reformer taught, do you agree with Luther and Calvin on baptism?

5solas:
It is good for believers to know what they believe. Is it Roman Catholic or Protestant. These are the dominant school of thoughts.Reformed churches are churches which are Protestant and their belief on predestination is here set out. It is disheartening that most Protestant Churches now teach what is at variance with their creeds.The average Protestant does not know about predestination, even argues against it, holding forth ''freewill'' one of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church which the early reformers proved to be a lie.
God ordains all that come to pass (Rom. 13:1,2) evil rulers or good rulers,good or evil.And for all that, he is not responsible for the sin of the wicked. We don't accuse God to be responsible for the sins of those who crucified Christ even though He ordained the crucifixion .

(Acts 2 )



Acts 4






Amen! Nothing happens by chance! God not only has control over man , He has control over animals, plants and non-living things-rains,floods,volcanoes, earthquakes,e.t.c He determined before time what shall be and how far there are to extend.
Amos 3

Job 38



Amen!!!!!!!
Have you been deceived to overlook predestination whenever/wherever you see it in the Bible? Reconsider it. Is predestination unfair?
What about grace?

Any interpretation of the Bible (especially as it pertains to salvation) that does not take into account the fact that there is predestination is totally flawed.

Thanks An2elect2 for energizing me.

it seems you are even confused too about what Catholic believe, Catholics also teach predestination, in fact the reformer borrowed a lot from Catholic theology including the teachings of Augustine.

the problem isn't the fact that God since the beginning of the world has decreed those for eternal life and thus by grace has justified, sanctified and glorified them....Catholics teach that, in fact Calvin borrowed that part. I.e election

the problem is that Calvin also taught that God for all eternity chose some other people to go to hell and specifically damned them I.e reprobation,
Calvin believed that Jesus didn't die for all he only died for those predestined for heaven, Catholics teach that the death of Jesus is superabundant and enough to save every body.

because Calvin believed Jesus didn't die for all he taught that only the elect can receive grace, this means God is responsible for their evils since he never gives them grace for they are damned. God is thus responsible for their evil.


Catholics teach that Jesus died for all and that his death is efficacious for some but God give sufficient grace to those who will go to hell they just reject it.



the problem is that Catholics were teaching predestination while Calvin was teaching double unconditional predestination which made God guilty of evil.

that is why Calvin was condemned as a heretic because he had overstretched the true doctrine and bent it.


there are 3 branches of theology today that is called Christian.

1. Catholic
2. Orthodox.
3. Protestant.

most times Orthodox and Catholic doctrine are reconcilable but not Protestant.

Protestant theology is divided into Lutheran, reformed, aminian, new age and others,

An2elect2:
Thank you for stopping by.

Yes true!!! I've not read every bit of it but I have come to that understanding by God's grace that He is in charge of everything and man still responsible for his sins.

I should be a Presbyterian but where I live there is none for now.

check out a few Baptist, they are the closest to reformed theology you have around..


Luther isn't considered in reformed theology, so that rules out Lutherans

Ferisidowu:
one thing is.... I have found comfort in the reforned doctrines they are true and shows that God is in control ... it gives me joy know that God is in control of everything... even all of Satans doing has decreed....
it feels good to know that God will not be mocked since all our good and evil were decreed... (I usually don't discuss this cos lot of Christians don't understand.. it even beyond what we can teach ,.... it God that makes someone understand)
it feels good to know that saving faith of produced God for the ELECT and it's different from what modern SIMPLE BELIEVISM teach

I thank God he allowed me know all of this...

bro, it's a great privilege That we know these things... a lot of people don't understand these things... some even give more priority to Satan more than God


A book I will never forget in my life is

FAITH by A W pink

how to we know the elect?

Ferisidowu:
early theologians even wrote concerning bondage of free will....

a lot of modern Christians and even pastors give much priority to free will

even the early theologians teach free will.

the bondage of the will was a book by martin Luther in the 16 th century. and Martin Luther wasn't an early theologian, he was a medieval theologian whose theology was condemned as the invention it was and thus heresy.

Ferisidowu:
on a debate?

no dear,

I don't know if you have noticed but I actually naturally hate debate, I do them not because I like them but inspite of the fact that I hate them.


my question is simple, if you believe that what you are teaching here is truly historic Christian teaching, then how far is this historic, is it just from the 15th century?
how far back are you willing to go.


I even heard 5solas adding Augustine to the list of his 15 century guys, will he be open to reviewing if anyone actually taught this teaching?

is this really historic Christian teaching or is it really a 15 th century invention? I say it was an invention that was in fact immediately condemned when it was propounded.

An2elect2:
Yeah those 1-3 points are very correct. People would not argue against God's sovereignty and election if they centred their argument around God and His glory. But man is too full of himself.

Faith by A W Pink. I will add it to my list. I hope I read it soon.

Atheists? I just pray for them now. I was a sceptic too before God saved me by the power of the Gospel. I'd never know why He did but I know it had nothing to do with me because like everyone I wasn't born seeking for Him. But God changed everything.

I was a Catholic before my salvation and a legionary. But after I got born again I aligned more with the Catholic charismatics. They made me stay for a while. That was about 5yrs ago. I'm a sis.

wow an ex Catholic in reformed theology... do you know what happened when Calvin first invented this doctrine?

let me ask you about your views on baptism, is it the same with that of the reformers.

MYSELF2018:
I am just confused about this whole drama of a thing, It is getting tougher than my expectation, My family can never follow me to his side for wedding

you guys need to sit down and discuss... ask about a dispensation

keepingmum:
I am more concerned that you want to marry a man who doesnf conpromise.
You have mentioned You are happy to attend catholic church with him after the marriagr but hes still not shifting his stance.
Pray you remain happily married with this choice of yours

this isn't really an issue up for compromise, he may even allow his wife to continue her Church but he can't comprise on this issue without injuring himself in the process.

MYSELF2018:
Thank you sir. Please can you elaborate more on the dispensation?

a sacrament consist of form, matter, minister and intention.

take for instance baptism, the matter is water, the form is the words spoken by the minister, the intention is to baptise.

marriage has matter and form and minister and intention, he needs to ask the Church to dispense him from the need to fulfill the form of the sacrament I.e he will be dispensed from the need to do the wedding in the Catholic Church.

so instead his Bishop will empower someone usually a priest to be in your Church on that day to witness the wedding on behalf of the Catholic Church, by dispensing him from the form, he can be married in your Church and because the Catholic Church officially witnessed the wedding he will be recognized as valid..... there is a whole theology here.


if he agrees to this, then you guys need to see his parish priest immediately... he will tell him what to do.



the other option is to have two wedding, one in your Church I.e the big one with reception and everything, then a small one in his Church the next day at morning mass, without reception or other money sucking stuff.

his family may not like either options, I know if it is my house my mum won't attend the wedding in your Church she will meet us at the reception... you guys need to discuss this extensively.


I wish you luck

MYSELF2018:
wooow, I am loving this, Hope there was no repercussion as per the communion of a thing?

there will be if there was no dispensation....

this isn't negotiable it is just there

NoToPile:
Well didn't know it was a doctrine so if you don't receive the dispensation and you get married in another church, the Catholic church doesn't recognize the marriage, those ones are not valid right?


There's also the cultural factor here too now, Yorubas don't really do the marry in your husband church thing, that's where the matter is for the lady if she was igbo from another denomination it would have been easier to convince her family since they seem to be more inclined to such.

My friend was in this same position and honestly it was not funny.

right, it won't be recognized.


the truth is, maybe there are cultural factors involved, I don't know...
but the Catholic law goes both ways, I attended a mixed marriage last year between a Catholic and a redeemed... the lady was the Catholic, she had to pressure her husband to get married in the Catholic Church and every thing, after which each continued in their own Church.

there is also a condition to such marriage, the kids will be raised Catholic and the non catholic party must agree

An2elect2:
The Bible talks of the predestination of the elect and not the non-elect. And Salvation as a gift. These are facts any sincere and objective person would readily accept.


You are bringing in sentiments and emotions into the Bible that's why you can't understand or accept the truth!

For you to be a Freewiller you would have to ignore so many scriptures. And what you have at the end are inconsistencies and a doctrinal system built on contradictions

Study to show thyself approved!

the book you are quoting is a Calvinist book that teaches double predestination.

that means God predestined some people to heaven irrespective of the sins they commit and God predestined some to hell fire irrespective of their faith.

it is called unconditional double predestination.

Splinz:
Excellent! You got the message bro.

that mean you guys reject double predestination...

5solas:
Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians (Arminians ) and Open Theists will never interprete this verse correctly,65 as well..
John 6:65

this is why I asked u guys that if you wish to study historic Christian teaching then you much be ready to go as far back as the 1 century AD not just stop in the 15th century.


the pelagian and semi-pelegians weren't even the arminians, the pelagian heresy was propagated in the 4th century AD and was immediately condemned by the Church for teaching a work based righteousness, in fact the 4th century bishop Augustine wrote a lot of books to combat this heresy

YET

throughout that time nobody taught anything like the double predestination of John Calvin that makes God the author of moral evil in every sinner.


your so-called correct interpretation is actually an invention, a novum concocted by John Calvin.