I don't believe in Jesus Christ

[Brett85]

Even if it was just a blinding that only happened to them (it's not), it would completely contradict Arminianism.

There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism. There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election. In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct. I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism. There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election. In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct. I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.

There is not one verse, not one syllable, in the Bible that contradicts limited atonement.

 

[Brett85]

There is not one verse, not one syllable, in the Bible that contradicts limited atonement.

Right, since "all" doesn't mean "all," "is" doesn't mean "is," up means down. Lol.

 

[Miss Annie]

There are verses in the Bible that contradict Arminianism. There are verses in the Bible that contradict limited atonement/unconditional election. In the end neither philosophy is likely to be 100% correct. I've never called myself an Arminian anyway.

I agree!! I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I don't believe that either doctrine is correct, although they both have SOME truths.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Because what is in my brain is different than what is in your brain, so what is in your brain can't be a "law".

sure - if you and i were the only two humans on the planet. But a gathering of reasonable humans would easily agree that you cannot punch me in the nose and take my stuff.

you guys think it's all brainy and such, when it's really all heart-y and such.

that's why actions speak so much louder than words. and why a picture is worth a thousand words.

"watch my feet, not my mouth"

 

[Sola_Fide]

I agree!! I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I don't believe that either doctrine is correct, although they both have SOME truths.

It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:

People are either synergists or monergists. People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).

If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.

 

[lilymc]

sure - if you and i were the only two humans on the planet. But a gathering of reasonable humans would easily agree that you cannot punch me in the nose and take my stuff.

you guys think it's all brainy and such, when it's really all heart-y and such.

that's why actions speak so much louder than words. and why a picture is worth a thousand words.

"watch my feet, not my mouth"

I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

One of the problems with that is, who decides? Do you think morality is something one can vote on and the majority wins? If the majority decided that abortion was moral, does that truly make it moral? What if that changed from one day to the next, and people decided abortion was immoral... Do you honestly think that it went from being moral to immoral in one day? That is counter-intuitive, and I think most people realize morality is not based on a majority vote.

If it comes from the mind of man, it is subjective. And if it's subjective then there really is no such thing as true morality. Because no one opinion can be truly better than any other, unless there is something objective and absolute that transcends the mind of man, that everything else is measured against.

 

[Miss Annie]

It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:

People are either synergists or monergists. People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).

If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.

I am saved because I believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross and was raised from the dead to save the world from sin.

Ro 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I am saved because I believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross and was raised from the dead to save the world from sin.

Ro 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well.... I still play violent video games. I played Grand Theft Auto 5. Some would label those games as "immoral" or even label me immoral for playing them. That seems kind of subjective to me.

The Prohibitionists were like that about alcohol. I mean c'mon can't I have a drink people?

 

[Jamesiv1]

One of the problems with that is, who decides?

well, now that's a very good question. if me, or you, or the majority vote, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever says that abortion is immoral, that isn't going to stop it from happening. Are you going to throw her in jail? stone her?

but whether they are believers or not, I think any group of reasonable people would say it's wrong for you to punch me in the nose and take my stuff. Or bomb my country and steal my oil.

me, I would like to see someone grow up living a good life, being good to others, grow in stature and wisdom, and he and a handful just like him could decide justice within my community.

I'm a believer, don't get me wrong. but I don't think believing has to predicate being good and just.

 

[Terry1]

What kind of baptism are you talking about? Infant baptism? Or water baptism that happens later in life?

I grew up Catholic, so I was taught that infant baptism and all that stuff is necessary.

But infant baptism is not even biblical.

And iyam it's a dangerous doctrine, because it gives some people a false sense of security.

If you are talking about water baptism later in life, that also is not what being born again is all about.

Bingo! The water baptism is nothing more than an outward expression of our faith, just the same as doing anything in the flesh is. There's nothing wrong with doing it, but if one understood what the true meaning of "being born again" spiritually and the spiritual baptism, there would be no need for water baptism at all.

Water baptism is not a requirement for our salvation.

born of water = that which is born of flesh is flesh = (first) time in mother's womb

born of the Spirit = that which is born of the Spirit is spirit = born again

We are washed clean through the blood of Christ and not water.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Sins are washed away calling on the name of the Lord and not by water baptism.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We repent "for the remission of sins" to receive the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Jesus was shed for the forgiveness of sins to pay the price for our forgiveness.

 

[Miss Annie]

If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.

I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.

 

[VIDEODROME]

 

[Sola_Fide]

I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.

I'm not going to watch that. Could you tell me what it says so I can go ahead and tell you why it's wrong? Thanks. I promise I will respond to whatever you post.

 

[lilymc]

well, now that's a very good question. if me, or you, or the majority vote, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or whatever says that abortion is immoral, that isn't going to stop it from happening. Are you going to throw her in jail? stone her?

but whether they are believers or not, I think any group of reasonable people would say it's wrong for you to punch me in the nose and take my stuff. Or bomb my country and steal my oil.

me, I would like to see someone grow up living a good life, being good to others, grow in stature and wisdom, and he and a handful just like him could decide justice within my community.

I'm a believer, don't get me wrong. but I don't think believing has to predicate being good and just.

Well, I agree that one can be good and just and at the same time, a nonbeliever. But I think that is where the misunderstanding is. What believers are saying is not that it is impossible to be a good, just person unless one believes. The point is that the atheistic worldview cannot ground objective morality... there is no objective basis for it, and that's why most atheists believe morality is subjective.

As for your example about punching people in the nose and taking their stuff. Well, you're right that most reasonable people understand that is wrong. But not everyone is reasonable, and there are many people who DON'T see that as wrong.

I remember one time when I was in Tijuana at night (I was there with a group of people who were giving food to the homeless and praying for the prostitutes) and I made the mistake of taking out my brand new pocket video camera. Out of nowhere, a guy on the street ran up to me and pried it out of my hands and took off running. Most likely, in HIS mind, what he did was justified. He probably rationalized that stealing is OK. If morality is truly subjective, then he did nothing wrong.... because that is HIS morality, and how can my idea on morality be better than his, unless there is an objective standard that transcends the minds of man?

I also think that believing morality is subjective is dangerous, because when you take that to its logical extreme, a person can rationalize anything. I'm sure Stalin and Mao probably thought what they did was right.... and they didn't think there was anyone above them, to hold them accountable.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's confusing to get into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. Here is a very easy way to tell the difference:

People are either synergists or monergists. People either believe that salvation is all of God (monergism), or they believe salvation is a mixture of God's efforts and man's efforts (synergism).

If you believe in synergism, you are not saved.

I think there are a lot of people who are too logically inconsistent to fit into either of these two categories, people who are actually monergists but have certain beliefs that logically lead to synergism.

I am simply going to have to politely disagree with you.

Yeah, I also disagree that everyone who believes that Christ died for everyone without exception is unsaved. I don't think its impossible to be a monergist who believes that either. But I agree with Sola that unlimited atonement is heretical, and that a Christian cannot CONSISTENTLY advocate for this viewpoint.

 

[Miss Annie]

I'm not going to watch that. Could you tell me what it says so I can go ahead and tell you why it's wrong? Thanks. I promise I will respond to whatever you post.

Sola, with all due respect....... I investigated Calvinism thoroughly. Why? Because I wondered if I was one! I have a sister in law that is a Calvinist. Her and I would talk and she would use the term,..... and I honestly did not know what it meant. There were a few posts here from 2011 with me trying to understand what it meant. I learned. I looked it up..... and with an open mind also. I was not for or against it when I was researching. But,...... after my research, I am fully in disagreement with the doctrine. Although I do believe we agree on a couple of points. No works and Eternal security.

 

[Miss Annie]

I think there are a lot of people who are too logically inconsistent to fit into either of these two categories, people who are actually monergists but have certain beliefs that logically lead to synergism.


Yeah, I also disagree that everyone who believes that Christ died for everyone without exception is unsaved. I don't think its impossible to be a monergist who believes that either. But I agree with Sola that unlimited atonement is heretical, and that a Christian cannot CONSISTENTLY advocate for this viewpoint.

Logically inconsistent???? LOL!! I am so glad that your opinion of my salvation is really not what's important to me. LOL

 

[Brett85]

If you believe in a Jesus that died for every single person (and therefore saved no one at all), then you believe in an idol who cannot save.

You're insane. Why do you bother to post here for the sole purpose of agitating people and condemning them? You really make the theology you promote a complete caricature.