Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[sandusky]

(cont from post #200)

Matt16_18:

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him.
1Cor. 3:16-17

A Christian that has sex with a whore is trying to join what is unclean with his sanctified body – the two become one through sex, but the Holy Spirit cannot be one with an unclean whore. Sex with a whore is a mortal sin - it is an abomination that makes desolate the temple, and God will destroy the Christian that brings the desolating abomination into his temple.

Here you claim that 1 Cor 3:16-17 is stating that sex with a whore is joining what is unclean with what is clean. 1 Cor 3:16-17 has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, IN FACT, SEX IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE CHAPTER.

Re-read the passage. All I’m going to say is that the one that God destroys in this passage is the one who is DEFILING THE CHURCH.

Matt16_18:

Heb 6:4-7

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.

This passage speaks about Christians that have become apostates, not “false believers”. Only Christians can be a “partakers of the Holy Spirit.”

Let’s start with the first description of what you believe is a true believer: “Who have once been enlightened…” This passage makes no reference to salvation. There is no mention of justification, sanctification, regeneration. None of the usual terminology for salvation is used. So that phrase should not be taken to have anything to do with salvation. That type of enlightenment has to do with intellectual perception of truth. That intellectual perception is what you decry about OSAS doctrine. You do not like the idea of “say a prayer and you are saved, and you can do whatever you want.” Here, however, an appeal is made to that which you decry in an attempt to prove your fiction.

John 1:9 says that Christ, coming into the world, enlightens every man; is every man saved? No. In Mt 4:16, Jesus claims that He came to fulfill the prophecy of Is 9:12. Jesus said, “…The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light.” All of those who saw Jesus, and listened to Him saw this “great light.” Were they all saved? No. In Jn 12:35-36, Jesus that says that “great light” was among the people. Were they all saved? No (cf Jn 12:37-40). The point is, enlightened people are not necessarily saved people.

Next phrase: “who have tasted of the heavenly gift.” The “heavenly gift” could be one of two things: The H.S., or Jesus. It is probably Jesus (cf 2 Cor 9:16), as the H.S. is mentioned in the next phrase. Again I refer you to the parable of the sower; the temporary Christian tastes the heavenly gift, and at some point, he leaves; the true, elect believer eats the bread from heaven, thereby receiving Him (Jn 6:51; cf v35), and he never leaves.

And now: “*partakers of the Holy Spirit…”*In the Greek, partakers, has to do with companions, or an association; it has nothing to do with possession. The Bible says that the true, elect believer is indwelt by the H.S., it never speaks of the true, elect believer as having an association with the H.S., but, again, an indwelling of the H.S.

I’m not going to continue with the passage, as none of it is talking about the true, elect believer who can never lose his salvation, because the keeping of his salvation is not in his care, but Christ’s.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This thread is addictive - I’m hooked ​

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

Let’s start with the first description of what you believe is a true believer: “Who have once been enlightened…” This passage makes no reference to salvation.

Gosh! Could that be because the author of Hebrews is talking about the sin of apostasy and not salvation? Sheesh! You are grasping for straws.

There is no mention of justification, sanctification, regeneration. None of the usual terminology for salvation is used. So that phrase should not be taken to have anything to do with salvation.

There is also no mention of UFOs, Nazis or Ronald Reagan either. You argument is a non-sequiter.

OSAS is heresy, and no Apostle ever taught this heresy. No Church Father ever taught the OSAS heresy, and no church that has a history traceable back to the time of Christ has ever taught the heresy of OSAS (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox). Calvinist OSAS is a heresy of men that appeared just a few hundred years ago - it is the deceitful doctrine of false teachers.

The meaning of this verse in Hebrews is obvious – Christians can commit the sin of apostasy, and this is a warning to Christians not to commit the sin of apostasy.

You are desperately twisting the plain meaning of what is said in Hebrews to avoid having to confront the fact that OSAS is heresy. This kind of squirming reminds me of what I get from the Jehovah Witnesses when they have to confront the plain meaning of John 20:28, where Thomas says to the resurrected Jesus: “My Lord and my God!”

That type of enlightenment has to do with intellectual perception of truth.

You are trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat. There is NOTHING that supports this absurd assertion.

You do not like the idea of “say a prayer and you are saved, and you can do whatever you want.”

No, of course not. I have never said that the Calvinist version of the OSAS heresy is the heresy of antinomianism. The antinomian heretics believe that once a man gets “saved” that he can commit any sin conceivable, including unrepentant murder, child molesting and Satan worshipping - with no fear of ever being damned. If one accepts that a man has free will, antinomianism it the only logical way of maintaining the OSAS heresy. If one does not accept that men have free will, then one can avoid antinomianism by asserting the Calvinist version of OSAS. But as soon as one assets that men have no free will, one is forced to accept the utterly blasphemous assertion that God is the source of all evil.

It seems to me that the Calvinist version of the OSAS heresy is at least as wicked as the antinomian version of the OSAS heresy, since the Calvinist version inevitably leads to outrageous blasphemy against God. And almost as bad as the blasphemous conception of God, is the brutal an inhuman conception of man as meat robot.

You have yet to rationally show how you can believe in the Calvinist version of OSAS and not the antinomian version of OSAS. You assert that you have free will, and that you can freely choose to commit sin as a Christian, and yet, at the same time you maintain that you are incapable of committing the sin of apostasy. Why are you incapable of this sin when you are capable of committing other sins? Are you also of incapable of committing sins of immorality, adultery, fornication, sexual perversion, lying, theft, drunkenness, revelry, greed, sorcery or idolatry?But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."
Rev 21:8

Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cor. 6:9-10

Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal. 5:19-21You have been dodging the question of how it is that it is possible for you to commit sin, and at the same time it is impossible for you to commit the sins that cause one to cast into the lake of fire. Please give us a rational explanation of how it is that you are NOT an antinomian heretic!

The assertion that “irresistible grace” destroys free will and turns the “elect” into a holy meat robots incapable of committing mortal sin is not a rational arguement!

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

John 1:9 says that …

The verse that we are discussing is in Hebrews. Wrenching verses out of context from John proves nothing.

And now: “partakers of the Holy Spirit…”In the Greek, partakers, has to do with companions, or an association; it has nothing to do with possession. The Bible says that the true, elect believer is indwelt by the H.S., it never speaks of the true, elect believer as having an association with the H.S., but, again, an indwelling of the H.S

Right, let us get back to Hebrews, since that is the verse we are discussing. First, the bible never mentions anyone as being a “true elect believer”. That is a phrase that you keep using, and it never appears anywhere in scripture.

As for your false assertion that word “partakers” as it is used in the scriptures has to do with “companions, or an association” and that this phrase has nothing to do with Christians, well that is just nothing but more of your highly defective exegesis that you use to prop up the OSAS heresy.

The “partakers of the Holy Spirit” are Christians. Peter uses a similar phrase when he describes Christians as “partakers of the divine nature.” (2Pet 1:2). And Paul uses a similar phrase to describe Christians as “partakers with me of grace” (Phil 1:7) and “partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6).

Calvinist OSAS is a heresy that was unknown to the first Christians. It is impossible for you to show that the Church Fathers ever taught this heresy.I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Acts 20:29-30

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

Here you claim that 1 Cor 3:16-17 is stating that sex with a whore is joining what is unclean with what is clean. 1 Cor 3:16-17 has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, IN FACT, SEX IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE CHAPTER.

Re-read the passage. All I’m going to say is that the one that God destroys in this passage is the one who is DEFILING THE CHURCH.

You need to practice reading the entire book instead of just one verse at a time. Then you might understand what Paul is saying, and why I also quoted 1Cor. 6:19-20 in my post (which you have conveniently overlooked.) I will save you the trouble of having to look up 1Cor. 6:19-20o you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1Cor. 6:15-20A Christian can’t have sex with a whore because the Holy Spirit cannot be become one with a whore. The Holy Spirit will leave the temple of the body unihabited if the Christian brings forth the abomination that make desolate the temple.

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

The Christian is free from the bondage of sin, yes. But being set free from the bondage of sin does not mean that the Christian will never sin.

If a Christian sins, it is because he CHOOSES to sin, not because God makes him sin, or because God’s grace is insufficient for him to avoid committing sin. God’s grace is sufficient for us to quit sinning, and if you don’t believe that, you have no faith.

One of the goals of the Christian is to bring his flesh into submission to his spirit, but he will never be successful at this in this life.

There is nothing in scriptures that supports the assertion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to quit sinning in this life. If the Christian commits unrepentant mortal sin, and dies in that state, he will be damned. This is what all early Christians believed, and this is what the Catholic Church still teaches since she cannot change her doctrine to suit the delusional fantasies of men.

Freed from the bondage to sin, is not freed from sin.

That is doubletalk. If we are not freed from sin, then we are still in bondage to sin.

As you have said, and correct me if I am wrong, the Christian can choose to disobey God; that is sin

Right. A man has the freedom to commit sin even before he is reborn in the Spirit. “Total” depravity is not anything that a sane person can believe. It is obvious that a non-Christian can avoid committing sins such as murder and that he is NOT compelled to commit every wicked act that he can imagine. The non-Christian can commit murder if he chooses, but he is not compelled to commit murder because he has not a Christian. Freedom in Christ is exactly that – freedom. Our free will is not destroyed by God’s grace. We don’t have less freedom of the will after we become Christians than we had before we were Christians.

Christians can choose to commit sin if that is what they want to do. No person can really believe that because he is one of the “elect” that he is incapable of being disobedient to the will of God.

Mortal sin is a Catholic notion

Catholic have this “notion” because John explicitly teaches that there is sin that is mortal and sin that is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal … there is sin which is not mortal.
1John 5:16-17If you think that the early Christians believed that it was impossible for a man to not commit mortal sin after he was baptized, they you have no knowledge of what the early Christians believed.

OSAS is heresy, and no early Christian believed this heresy.

 

[migurl]

It’s really hard to discuss this with people who have removed parts of the bible that they disagree with and have so deeply rooted themselves in a thought process that even if we come up with valid points they either look over them or find some dictionary argument about how certain words may mean this or that etc. It gets ridiculous. I just LOVE how Sirach was removed from their “inspired” books, considering it very plainly states that man has free will. Why do the Calvinists find Sirach to be uninspired?

 

[dennisknapp]

Matt16_18:

OSAS is heresy, and no early Christian believed this heresy.

You make a good point. No Christian believe this or any of the solas until very late in Church history. So, why buy into it? I have continually asked sola Protestants to show me their beliefs in the early Church. I have even stated that I would revert to Protestantism if these beliefs were actully taught in the early Church. I have recieved no evidence or proof that they did. None. So, again why buy into it?

Peace

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

CD, that is not true. Forget about Calvinism. What do the Scriptures say? In v 4, He says that He has created the wicked for His own Purpose. A clearer statement as to the purpose of the wicked could not be made.

Thats out of the context of the passage though, I highlighted other key parts of that passage against your preconceived ideas on interpretation, what you do is read into that passage two types of people, ones who are created evil and those who still sin but are somehow saved.

Yes, man goes to hell by his own choice.

Here again you have a differnent definition of what “choice” means. Above you said God created them evil, and now you say they chose to go to hell.
Its like if someone held up a gun to a hostage and asked the hostage if the hostage wanted to die, is the hostage going to say “yes”? Same thing with your interpretation, the non elect has a gun to his head, but somehow he “chooses” to say “yes, shoot me”.

Everyone begins this life in wickedness; Scripture is crystal clear on that. Man is conceived in sin (Ps 51:5); and continues in sin (Rom 3:23); until he is saved (Eph 2:1-10).

Here you are picking individual verses out and creating a new theology. In Ps51 its none other than David (we know what he did) who is saying sorry here, he was “elect” but somehow sinned big time.
In Rm:3:23:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.I have a question for you, in v22 (as well as places like Jn3:16) Calvinists claim “All” who believe really means only “all the elect (who are the only ones able to believe)” who were chosen to believe, but in v23 it says “All” men sinned it somehow means “all men ever created”. Isnt that kind of a double standard?

Where we differ in theology, is that I believe what the Scripture says: In the fall, Adam’s spirit died, and as a result, all men enter existence dead in sin, and dead to God. The Magisterium teaches that as a result of the fall, men are born spiritually wounded, not dead, but wounded—big difference.

I have talked with Calvinists on this issue before. I havent seen any proof texts of this idea that men are dead.
But what happened AFTER Adam fell? This is literally right after Adam fell:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” 2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. 3 In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6 The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen4)
Does this sound like God is talking to a rational being here? Is God talking to Himself here? Cain was in a weakened state after the fall, BUT he did not have to kill Abel, God says its a hard choice, but its not impossible. Cain was not created wicked the way you see it. This is RIGHT AFTER Adam fell, we see Cain very inclined to evil, but not preprogrammed to murder.
(cont)

 

[cynic]

Sandusky appears to be saying that God created each mans nature. That whether we will believe or not, whether we are capable of being spiritual or completely flesh, is the result of some constant unchangeable nature that resides within us.

Thus the Pharoahs were of the flesh, thus Esau was of the flesh (and Jacob was spiritually inclined). Those who are damned aren’t capable of belief because that ablility does not exist within them. It’s almost as if the non elect have no souls at all, or that there what counts for a soul in them is so corrupt that it can’t be changed. We cannot change ourselves, we cannot change our nature, because for a person to desire to change would in intself mean that he wasn’t predestined to hell, that he was elect to begin with.

So why would God create the majority of mankind to go to hell with no choice in the matter? The answer apparently is because it glorifes the things that are good. Evil makes good appear “more good”. In the end the wicked glorify God through their damnation just as the elect glorify him through their salvation.

So the God of Clavanists is an egotist who created billions of miserable beings who are incapable of spirituality - destined for hell, and did so for his own glorification. Excellent.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your paraphrase is inaccurate. The verse says, “It is an abomination to kings (pl) to do evil,” it does not say that is an abomination for a king (sg) to do evil. Also, there is a huge difference in meaning between “to,” and “for.” What does that mean? Simply put, evil king, evil subjects, many cursings from God; righteous king, righteous subjects, many blessings from God. That was the tragedy of O.T. Israel.

Im not sure what your trying to say here, even if you take that to be plural, Israel only had 3 kings up to this point, and all did evil in the eyes of God. In the next few verses it says:17 The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; he who guards his way preserves his life. 18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Again we see all 3 kings turning later to evil and being told of punishments to come.

That aside, I have said that kings do evil—even righteous kings.

So “wicked” and “sin” and “evil” are all relative according to Calvinism, both the non elect and elect commit the same sins but one is on the road to hell and the other to heaven.

Scripture says that God is absolutely sovereign, and that He has declared the end from the beginning. What about the things between the end and the beginning? Did He leave those to chance? Did He leave it to planetary alignment? Did He simply start it and walk away to return in the end and finish it? I am not being facetious here, CD. Those questions must be asked. If God is not ultimately in control of all things, how can we be assured that anything He has said will come to pass? We cannot, and neither can God.

Just beacuse God isnt controlling a terrorist’s mind to do a mass murder doesnt mean that person is somehow overpowering God’s will. God knows what we are going to do but His plans still go through, in the Catechism (which is not as some protestants think the “other Catholic Scriptures”) paragraph 599-601 it says:Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical LANGUAGE does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination,” he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396 Acts 3:17-18.]

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received,” St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
People have thought of the same questions you ask, and they have found out explainations.
So when you say “If God is not ultimately in control of all things, how can we be assured that anything He has said will come to pass?” if your not careful on how you explain that “ultimate control” you are basically saying that what came to pass with Adam’s first sin was just part of the original plan.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Scripture says that God is Lord of His creation; Scripture also says, that man is responsible for his actions.

Yes, we agree. Man cant overpower God we have no argument here, but in terms of “responsible”, God doesnt force people to love Him. They can and have reject Him. Its as simple as that.

1 Cor 2:16 says the believer has the mind of Christ. What is mind of Christ, CD? I say it’s the scripture; you say it’s the magisterium. Another difference.

That says nothing about the Bible. Your making up stuff. All that means is the new knowledge we have via the Gospel. And as you said “He has entrusted His word to me”, that is unfounded.

For Catholics its the Church (with Christ as its head Eph5:23), as the Scriptures teach Jesus didnt leave behind a NT, He did establish a Church though.

Within your faith, you are not absolutely free to interpret Scripture. If I am misrepresenting your faith in that, tell me, so that I may not misrepresent you in the future.

Within your faith you decide to throw out 7 books of the Bible. Am I misinterpreting your faith? Catholics are free to interpret the Bible so long as they do so in the parameters set by the Church.

Paul is doing much more than “reflecting” on O.T. events. He is using Scripture that the Jews would know, as a starting point to teach them something. Believe me, the Jews knew who was in control. The problem was, they too often forgot what they knew.

Jesus does the same thing as Paul, often. Read Mt 5:21-28. Jesus uses a truth already known, and He changes it. Jesus says, “You have heard that…., But I say.”

Jesus, and Paul, use already known truths to teach further truths. It is an excellent teaching method. In the case of Christ, it is also a clear statement of His deity.

I would agree with this to a certain extent. But not all OT references in the NT involve “you have heard it…but I say” type teaching.

The statement in bold is Pelagian, CD.

How so? Is it not true that some are unable to repent? How does a Calvinist interpret commands like “I command ye to repent and I will destroy ye if ye dont repent.”? If God is asking the impossible of His people then He has multiple personalities.

CD, you have said that I am taking things out of context. I think that you are using 2 Pet 3:16 out of context, that is why have not answered your question. Exegete the verse for me, and then I will give you three verses that are hard to understand.

I explained myself, Paul wrote letters, some of the things he said are hard to understand, some people misinterpret those things and twist them into false teachings. You havnt explained why you think Im wrong.

Exegete those verses for me as well.

I dont know what your asking? I have interpreted these already and claimed they mean Baptism forgives sins. Here is Acts22:16-‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
How much clear do I need to be? Paul himself got Baptized for the forgiveness of sins. If Im wrong then you have the right to object as do I if I dont agree with you.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

Gosh! Could that be because the author of Hebrews is talking about the sin of apostasy and not salvation? Sheesh! You are grasping for straws.

Yes, the passage is about the sin of apostasy, a sin, which you say that the true elect believer can commit, and which I say that he cannot commit. Those being addressed are not true elect believers, because they are not referred to in language that is used to refer to true elect believers. The ones being addressed here are the false Christians Jesus describes in Lk 8:14; I have made that point to you many times, and you continue to ignore it.

You ignore it again in your post when you say:

Matt16_18:

You assert that you have free will, and that you can freely choose to commit sin as a Christian, and yet, at the same time you maintain that you are incapable of committing the sin of apostasy. Why are you incapable of this sin when you are capable of committing other sins?

As I have told you, the true elect believer cannot commit the sin of apostasy because he is kept by God (1 Pet 1:5), and because he has eternal life, and has passed from death to life, and does not come into judgment (Jn 5:24), and because he will never perish (Jn 10:28), and because the Father has made the Son responsible to lose none of the elect (Jn 6:39), and all of the others statements made by the Father and the Son that I have provided in support of my position. Have you forgotten them?

Here is the true statement of God concerning the New Covenant:

Jeremiah 32:40
40 “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

What can I add to that?

You say that you believe what the Bible teaches. Do you believe what God says, Matt16_18?

The true elect believer “will not turn away from Me [God].”

…the bible never mentions anyone as being a “true elect believer”. That is a phrase that you keep using, and it never appears anywhere in scripture.

I have shown you that Scripture declares that there is a group of people who are foreknown, called, predestined, justified, glorified, chosen by God in Christ to be conformed to Christ’s image, etc., etc., etc. You continue to ignore that.

Matt16_18:

As for your false assertion that word “partakers” as it is used in the scriptures has to do with “companions, or an association” and that this phrase has nothing to do with Christians, well that is just nothing but more of your highly defective exegesis that you use to prop up the OSAS heresy.

I said no such thing.

Here is what I said:

Sandusky:

And now: “partakers of the Holy Spirit…”In the Greek, partakers, has to do with companions, or an association; it has nothing to do with possession.

That statement was made in relation to the passage being discussed; it was not a blanket statement concerning the whole of Scriptures, and know that, or should. If you are going to paraphrase me, do it accurately. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate misrepresentations of what I have said.

(cont)

 

[sandusky]

(cont from post #213)

Matt16_18:

The “partakers of the Holy Spirit” are Christians. Peter uses a similar phrase when he describes Christians as “partakers of the divine nature.” (2Pet 1:2). And Paul uses a similar phrase to describe Christians as “partakers with me of grace” (Phil 1:7) and “partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6).

Actually it’s 2 Pet 1:4, but what’s another inaccuracy on top of the myriad that you have already made?

In each of those 4 verses, 4 different Greek words are used, each with subtle, but important shades of meaning. You’ll just ignore that, so I won’t bother telling you about them.

Matt16_18:

You need to practice reading the entire book instead of just one verse at a time. Then you might understand what Paul is saying, and why I also quoted 1Cor. 6:19-20 in my post (which you have conveniently overlooked.)

Another inaccuracy shown in bold type.

Here is what you said:

Matt16_18:

Paul speaks about the same thing when he tells the Corinthians that their bodies have been sanctified, and their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. (God abides in the temple – Paul is obviously making a typological argument) And just as the OT temple could be made desolate by abomination, so to can the temple of the body be made desolate by abomination.
1 Cor 6:19-20

Here is my response to what you said:

Sandusky:

If it does not point to Christ, it ain’t typology to me; Paul’s argument is not typological, it is analogical.

Here is what you said:

Matt16_18:

Paul severely rebukes the Corinthians that were committing the mortal sin of having sex with whores. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a temple that has been defiled – the Holy Spirit will leave such a temple desolate (desolate means uninhabited). Paul warns the Christians that God will destroy them if they destroy their temples.

Here is my response to what you said:

Sandusky:

Re-read the passage; you are adding to it; Paul rebukes them for their behavior, and from that rebuke you conclude that the H.S. has left the believer. The H.S. does not leave the believer. You are allegorizing the passage. Also, Paul says nothing about God destroying them; that is your addition.

I have great difficulty trusting what you say because you are careless, and inaccurate in your statements.

You are obviously committed to your idea that the true elect believer can lose his salvation, and that the Heb 6:4-7 passage proves your idea beyond a shadow of a doubt. You have made it clear, that you will not budge from that position, and I assume that is the position of all those who are of the same faith as you.

Heb 6:6 says of those who have apostatized, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,…"

Matt16_18, define the term, “Catholic revert.”

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

As I have told you, the true elect believer cannot commit the sin of apostasy because he is kept by God …

You admit that the Christian has enough free will to be able to commit at least some sins. Indeed you go much farther than that, because you assert that the irresistible grace that is forced on the Christian by God is not sufficient to keep the Christian living a life where he commits no sin at all. You have said that it is impossible for a Christian to NOT commit sin.

On the other hand, you assert that “irresistible” grace keeps the Christian from committing really terrible sins such apostasy (and presumably, murder, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, revelry, and all the other sins that prove that the man that commits these sins is a “false believer” that was never really saved in the first place).

This “irresistible grace” that Calvinists believe in is a very strange thing. It is so powerful that it completely prevents the “elect true believer” from ever committing really terrible sins such as unrepentant apostasy, unrepentant Satan worshipping, unrepentant rape, unrepentant fornication, etc … and yet, at the same time, irresistible grace is so weak and ineffectual that it is powerless to keep a “true believer” from committing minor sins such as sassing one’s mom!

Calvinist OSAS is a completely irrational doctrine.

 

[sandusky]

Matt16_18:

You admit that the Christian has enough free will to be able to commit at least some sins. Indeed you go much farther than that, because you assert that the irresistible grace that is forced on the Christian by God is not sufficient to keep the Christian living a life where he commits no sin at all. You have said that it is impossible for a Christian to NOT commit sin.

On the other hand, you assert that “irresistible” grace keeps the Christian from committing really terrible sins such apostasy (and presumably, murder, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, revelry, and all the other sins that prove that the man that commits these sins is a “false believer” that was never really saved in the first place).

This “irresistible grace” that Calvinists believe in is a very strange thing. It is so powerful that it completely prevents the “elect true believer” from ever committing really terrible sins such as unrepentant apostasy, unrepentant Satan worshipping, unrepentant rape, unrepentant fornication, etc … and yet, at the same time, irresistible grace is so weak and ineffectual that it is powerless to keep a “true believer” from committing minor sins such as sassing one’s mom!

Calvinist OSAS is a completely irrational doctrine.

Matt16_18, what is a “Catholic Revert”?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Matt16_18:

You admit that the Christian has enough free will to be able to commit at least some sins. Indeed you go much farther than that, because you assert that the irresistible grace that is forced on the Christian by God is not sufficient to keep the Christian living a life where he commits no sin at all. You have said that it is impossible for a Christian to NOT commit sin.

On the other hand, you assert that “irresistible” grace keeps the Christian from committing really terrible sins such apostasy (and presumably, murder, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, revelry, and all the other sins that prove that the man that commits these sins is a “false believer” that was never really saved in the first place).

This “irresistible grace” that Calvinists believe in is a very strange thing. It is so powerful that it completely prevents the “elect true believer” from ever committing really terrible sins such as unrepentant apostasy, unrepentant Satan worshipping, unrepentant rape, unrepentant fornication, etc … and yet, at the same time, irresistible grace is so weak and ineffectual that it is powerless to keep a “true believer” from committing minor sins such as sassing one’s mom!

Calvinist OSAS is a completely irrational doctrine.

I have had the same question, here is my example I have been asking Calvinists:

I see Calvinism like this, lets say man is a ball and God is a hand, the goal is to get the ball to the other end of the field (heaven)…the ball cant move at all and resides in the mud (sin)…in that mud it can only sink (total depravity), if it wants, the hand can enact a force on that ball via the hand throwing it (grace), that ball cant resist that force and goes freely with it in the same direction (irresistable grace), this can go on forever because that force is so powerful (God’s grace is able to keep a person going all the way to heaven)…yet somehow that ball doesnt stay moving in that direction and gravity (temptation to sin) overcomes it and it starts to fall downward, if it hits the ground (in sin) it is lifeless and dead unless the hand picks it up again.
How did gravity overcome the powerful force?

 

[Matt16_18]

sandusky:

Matt16_18, what is a “Catholic Revert”?

A repentant Catholic.

 

[Michael_Paul]

Matt16_18:

A repentant Catholic.

HI Matt:
Hopefully all Catholic repent. To me, a revert is one who had left the Church and has returned.

MP

 

[Matt16_18]

Michael Paul:

To me, a revert is one who had left the Church and has returned.

I agree. A revert is a Catholic that has left the church, and then repented of his unfaithfulness and returned to the true faith. Most reverts become heretics, not atheists, when they leave the church. When they are apart from the church, reverts mostly either join Protestant sects, or drift around for a while as lukewarm unchurched dissenters that confess a do-your-own-thing mixture of Christian doctrine and heresy.