NOTE: Jack is now ON my ignore list so I won't be seeing anything he posts and consequently NOT responding to him.
.
You appear to start threads for the sole purpose of arguing. Whether one believes in limited atonement, or not, the main thing is to preach the Gospel. If you don't believe there is an "elect", that's fine. Those who do believe in the "elect", preach the Gospel so that those whom God has "chosen" will awake from sleep and come to him. Why expend energy over and over again to argue against a doctrine you don't accept, rather than praising God for the privilege of preaching the Gospel in the first place? I've seen at least three threads now, all started with the intent of arguing against something some Christians believe. To be very honest, I just don't see the wisdom in that at all. Well, I've put in my two cents, and will refrain from posting more in this thread also.
I sure would like to see a thread about THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST, and discussing what a great and awesome savior and Lord we have! I think Ill' start one.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you elaborate on that or, better yet, give me an example or two. I'd like to understand what you mean.
God is good (Psalms 136:1). Hence He is not bad. Hence when we look at the Egyptian babies been killed, our first inclination must not be to judge Him as bad. Rather we should know that scripture = Jesus = truth = God is good to the maximum of our ability to judge Him (else He would have included disclaimers). Hence we need to look for more insight into the situation. Remember the devil did the same thing with Jesus when tempting Him.
God is light 1 John 1:5, God is holy 1 Pet 1:16, God is righteous Psalms 129:4, God is sovereign, God is just, God is fair, God is impartial
Do you not see how the statement ''God is partial'' does not fit in with the attributes of God? A just and fair God would be partial? A righteous God would be partial? A loving and good God would be partial?
Your attempted debunking of Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11 and James 2 is very weak (no offence). The math / logic does simply not add up. Example…God gives Peter a revelation that Gentiles and Jews can be His chosen race. But you assume this does not encompass all gentiles and ….Jews? You need to read more verses like Rom 2:5-8. It is not only those three places that say God is impartial you need to debunk. It is every scripture that says He is fair, just and good. Peter did not say ''Of a truth I perceive that God is impartial on Jews and gentiles but is partial on which Jews and gentiles are chosen''. He said plain and simply God is impartial. Rom 2:11 says plainly God is impartial. James 2:9 says plainly God sees partiality as a sin! You are adding an assumption that goes against the grain. If it was in the nature of God to be partial, He WOULD NOT have been impartial on Jews and gentiles / rich and poor!!
God is omniscient AND impartial at the same time. Sure our little brains may have a hard time computing that, but if we believe that Jesus was a man who is God and who died for our sins 2000 years ago. We can / should believe scripture describing attributes of God as literal. Or else God is a liar and He better keep us seeing through a glass darkly in heaven, as we will all judge Him as a fraud.
Read the whole thread...we ARE communicating with the variety expressed by our members.
It's worth whatever your opinion is....so far unstated.
Amen Rusty its rotten to the core. To mention partiality in the same sentence as the cross really sickens me.Well said KingJ....This partiality of God theory is what is the "rotten stench in the basement" of the whole elitist Calvinist theory for me.
Amen Rusty its rotten to the core. To mention partiality in the same sentence as the cross really sickens me.
We also see the gospel offered to the world. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creatures." There are two reason behind that. First, we don't know who the elect are. They don't ware signs that they are the elect. Second, Christ commanded that the gospel be spread throughout the word. So, where do we differ on that point?Ya really need to read the thread, mate. No one is suggesting this.
We see the Gospel offered to 'the world', to all, to any....NOT to some preselected elite team of candidates.
Ya really need to read the thread, mate. No one is suggesting this.
We see the Gospel offered to 'the world', to all, to any....NOT to some preselected elite team of candidates.
Jack if that were the case....why are you not killing babies?"...will save His people from their sins." Who will be saved? "His people." (Isa. 14:24).
Nah, God succeeded in being good and impartial. Having a valid reason now for sadly sending many to hell. He does what pleases Him. He doesn't want to judge Himself as bad / partial. Or have us harassing Him for eternity on His partiality...if we can deduce it is wrong now...how much MORE in heaven!!! God will be in His own hell. I will make Him remove everyone from hell and do things properly . But then He has already done it properly and fairly. Again Jack, imagine YOU are in hell. You have never sinned and feel like you deserve hell for it? Nobody who understands God's grace can ever say the worst of the worst has not got hope. No smart Christian would ever judge themselves as one of the 'chosen'. 1 Cor 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.If the death of Jesus was intended to save all of humanity and it actually resulted in only a small portion of humanity actually being redeemed, than God failed in his design.
Hi Farouk. You need to google / wiki 5 point Calvinism.Well, so do I see the Gospel offered to the world. And I guess I know of plenty of people who happen to be called some sort of Calvinist who do too.
The matter is not so much whether the Gospel is offered to the world, 'to every creature' — which it manifestly is, Scriptural — but rather whether the cross secured the redemption of those who do believe, which is also Scriptural, I believe.
Blessings.
Hi Farouk. You need to google / wiki 5 point Calvinism.