• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Looking At T.U.L.I.P. By Calvin

I'm guessing that, since you think this doesn't contradict your thesis, it is proof of it?
Is it contrary to any truth in any other scripture?
 
Is it contrary to any truth in any other scripture?
Whether or not it is contrary to any truth in any other scripture, it is bad logic and bad hermeneutics to claim, that because your quoted scripture does not defeat it, that it is therefore true. You have not shown your referenced scripture to support your thesis.

The reference also doesn't deny that pink unicorns exist, nor that moray eels are gregarious.
 
If you are amil, then you believe Jesus already returned at 70AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. So, the rapture occurred then?
Amil doesn’t teach this my friend. Full preterism does. Now, some amil may be FP, but I’d venture to say not many.
 
Please correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like you are describing a scenario where there was a pool of “people”, already existing, and God just “chose” from that pool based on a “feeling”…

Is that your understanding of Unconditional Election?

The verse in question is not easy to deal with. However, it is people God foreknew, which is either everyone who will ever exist or just the group that He chose for Himself. If you decide to use the parable of the wheat and tares in figuring out, it becomes really interesting.

You did not answer my question but instead restated your previous statment begging my question again:

Please correct me if I’m wrong but this appears like you are describing a scenario where there was a pool of “people”, already existing, and God just “chose” from that pool…

Is that your understanding of Unconditional Election?

 
Whether or not it is contrary to any truth in any other scripture, it is bad logic and bad hermeneutics to claim, that because your quoted scripture does not defeat it, that it is therefore true. You have not shown your referenced scripture to support your thesis.

The reference also doesn't deny that pink unicorns exist, nor that moray eels are gregarious.
That so called esteemed educated standard is not being done Biblically. You should consider disregarding that teaching of that standard.

The lost books of the Bible were not regarded as scripture because they were running against scripture.

Scripture cannot go against scripture as there can be no lie of the truth.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Let us not take the route of the Catholic Church to look outside the Bible to our "tainted" educational system for understanding and applying the Bible.
 
Your post here seems to assume that all sin is conscious sin.
Not sure if anyone can sin while unconscious, unless in thoughts in dreams.
Also, the fact that some may take something to be an excuse for them to continue to sin, is irrelevant to the point. The truth is always good, even when God uses it to cause some to turn against it or even to misuse it.
Believers misusing scriptures is not good.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

What may be one example of wresting Paul's words for why the apostle John is writing that epistles for believers thinking sin was no longer sin to them?

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

They may had applied verse 27 with verse 28 as if when they loose themselves from a wife that it was okay to marry another and that it was not a sin, but Paul was talking about virgin men and virgin women while those in error were ignoring his words written prior in that chapter as below.

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

That may be where those believers got the idea that when they sin, it is no longer sin to them, because it seems to null the sin of marrying another after being loosed from the wife.

It is a speculation as to what those in error could ever think what Paul had written as if making sin cease to be sin.
 
Amil doesn’t teach this my friend. Full preterism does. Now, some amil may be FP, but I’d venture to say not many.
True. There really needs to be the four approaches added to the discussion of millennialism. Preterist, futurism, historicism, idealism.
 
1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

If the consequence is castaway & the reward is a crown for running that race, then it does not apply to how we are preaching in life down here but how we are abiding in Him while preaching at the time for when He comes as the Bridegroom.
Your problem is that you are ignoring the rest of chapter 9. When you take the whole of chapter 9 together, you will find that the other passages you post have nothing in common with the context of Paul defending his ministry. For what he says, apparently people were questioning his identity as an apostle. And why? Because he is eating and drinking, and is showing himself to be human. Is any of it sin? You have to read what he says, as he defends himself.

"19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the [e]law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without [f]law toward God, but under [g]law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became [h]as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Context. The section we quoted follows the above. The version you posted starts in a way that shows that his statement is an elucidation of the previous section. Completely changes the meaning, doesn't it? The other passages you posted no longer fit in the broader, actual context. If you are still having difficulty, then read the whole chapter as a continuous context, since it is.

"1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the [a]seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no [b]right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along [c]a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?

8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel [d]of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel."
 
Amil doesn’t teach this my friend. Full preterism does. Now, some amil may be FP, but I’d venture to say not many.
I got it backwards. Amillennialists believe that Satan is bound right now. So all the deception that is seen, all the resurgence of evil, has nothing to do with Satan. (I find that a little difficult to believe.)
 
Your problem is that you are ignoring the rest of chapter 9. When you take the whole of chapter 9 together, you will find that the other passages you post have nothing in common with the context of Paul defending his ministry. For what he says, apparently people were questioning his identity as an apostle. And why? Because he is eating and drinking, and is showing himself to be human. Is any of it sin? You have to read what he says, as he defends himself.

"19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the [e]law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without [f]law toward God, but under [g]law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became [h]as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Context. The section we quoted follows the above. The version you posted starts in a way that shows that his statement is an elucidation of the previous section. Completely changes the meaning, doesn't it? The other passages you posted no longer fit in the broader, actual context. If you are still having difficulty, then read the whole chapter as a continuous context, since it is.

"1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the [a]seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no [b]right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along [c]a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?

8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel [d]of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel."
Regardless of what was written prior, Paul was saying this as an exhortation to the readers rather than just apostles in running that race.

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Ties in what Paul had written to the Hebrews for how to run that race by looking to the author & finisher of our faith to help us to follow Him.

Hebrews 12:1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 
You did not answer my question but instead restated your previous statment begging my question again:

Please correct me if I’m wrong but this appears like you are describing a scenario where there was a pool of “people”, already existing, and God just “chose” from that pool…

Is that your understanding of Unconditional Election?

Um no. I speak of how God sees everything. It isn't some pool of people, it is all people who would ever exist, or it was only those God intended to elect.
 
I got it backwards. Amillennialists believe that Satan is bound right now. So all the deception that is seen, all the resurgence of evil, has nothing to do with Satan. (I find that a little difficult to believe.)
Especially when there are demonic possessions and exorcism having been done after Pentecost. How can Satan be bound now?


 
Um no. I speak of how God sees everything. It isn't some pool of people, it is all people who would ever exist, or it was only those God intended to elect.

So God sees a pool of "everything" that already exists, including all people, and chooses individules from this pool of already existing people?

Is this your view of Unconditional Election?

...
 
Especially when there are demonic possessions and exorcism having been done after Pentecost. How can Satan be bound now?


You would have to read about amillennialism. I am a premillennialist, though I don't really ascribe to dispensationalism. However, there is a difference between historic premillennialism (chilianism) and dispensational premillennialism, which is the part that Israel plays. I believe that it is the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, etc.) They were God's chosen people, and Paul says that God did not fully reject them, but gave them a partial blindness that would continue until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

I believe that artificial intelligence is going to play a huge role in deceiving the whole world. The creation of God's rebellious creation is going to take on God. However, it is but a tool. We have the beast... and his image. HIs image, I am beginning to believe more and more, is going to be some sort of artificial intelligence. Pair that with the huge advances being made in robotics, and you have something man has created in his own image. Artificial. Man made. So you have the Beast, his image (son....), and then you will have his mark. Sounds like the makings of an anti-trinity, doesn't it?
 
I got it backwards. Amillennialists believe that Satan is bound right now. So all the deception that is seen, all the resurgence of evil, has nothing to do with Satan. (I find that a little difficult to believe.)
Bound doesn’t mean complete restraint but he can’t do all he wants to do. Just like Job’s account. If he’d had his way, he’d wiped Job out, but God only let him do so much. He bound Satan from killing Job, but Satan still inflicted much harm to him.
 
So God sees a pool of "everything" that already exists, including all people, and chooses individules from this pool of already existing people?

Is this your view of Unconditional Election?

...
No, this is me trying to understand a single verse which is probably completely divorced of its context.

As for the question you are asking, God knows everything, right? Omniscience. God does not see time as we do, since He is the beginning and the end all at the same time. He is eternal. Peter says that God sees a day as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. In other words, He perceives the world differently than we do. This is because He is eternal. He does not exist within time. He entered into our existence as Jesus, by taking upon Himself human flesh, but outside of that, God does not experience time the way we do. Those people who keep saying He does, have made Him nothing more than a human being with super powers.

It is impossible to know how God sees everything, all we know is that God chose a group of people we know as the elect, before the foundation of the world, to live up to His standard. The reason He did this, is because He chose this group of people from all of His creation, to adopt as His children through Christ. Paul tells us that God did this according to the good pleasure of His will. (Basically, he felt like it.) There was no merit or conditions involved, hence it was unconditional election.
 
I got it backwards. Amillennialists believe that Satan is bound right now. So all the deception that is seen, all the resurgence of evil, has nothing to do with Satan. (I find that a little difficult to believe.)
Amillennialists/idealists believe that Satan is now bound from deceiving the nations, which it says in the passage that says he is bound. And when he is released, what does he do? Goes out and deceives the nations. In the A/I view bound from deceiving the nations refers to he is bound from preventing the gospel from going to all nations as God continues to gather His people through the preaching of the gospel. When he is loosed, is when that ceases and there will be unprecedented and worldwide persecution of the church and her people.

It considers the term last days to be the time span between Christ's first and second comings---the thousand years representing (as numbers consistently serve as representatives throughout scripture and the same numbers or combinations of them appear over and over in Rev) an unspecified but long period of time.
 
Bound doesn’t mean complete restraint but he can’t do all he wants to do. Just like Job’s account. If he’d had his way, he’d wiped Job out, but God only let him do so much. He bound Satan from killing Job, but Satan still inflicted much harm to him.
So, you believe Satan was bound before Job? Where do you get the idea that being bound and thrown into a pit does not mean complete restraint? That is laughable to me. The image Revelation gives is that the world is a beautiful place while he is bound. The population of the world wiped out in the tribulation, and by Christ's return, recovers. Then Satan is released for the purpose of deceiving the nations of Gog and Magog, and they all get wiped out when they attack Jerusalem to destroy Christ and His kingdom.

Here is something you don't seem to understand with what you wrote above. God is sovereign. (I thought you believed that?) If Satan could do whatever He wanted to in God's creation, and to God's creation, that would make Satan greater than God. Job shows us that not only is Satan not greater than God, he is not free to do however he pleases. He still falls under God's sovereignty. He too is a created being.

Can you explain why nothing has changed in the world since this supposed binding? Satan is still out seeking those he might devour. He is still deceiving whole nations. He is still directing the course of the whole world. Yet even before Jerusalem was destroyed and Satan was bound, it is said that Satan was restrained. (Not bound, but restrained). If Satan has to be unbound to deceive the world, then how is he deceiving the world now if he is bound?
 
Amillennialists/idealists believe that Satan is now bound from deceiving the nations, which it says in the passage that says he is bound. And when he is released, what does he do? Goes out and deceives the nations. In the A/I view bound from deceiving the nations refers to he is bound from preventing the gospel from going to all nations as God continues to gather His people through the preaching of the gospel. When he is loosed, is when that ceases and there will be unprecedented and worldwide persecution of the church and her people.

It considers the term last days to be the time span between Christ's first and second comings---the thousand years representing (as numbers consistently serve as representatives throughout scripture and the same numbers or combinations of them appear over and over in Rev) an unspecified but long period of time.
And that makes no sense to me. It is obvious that Satan is still deceiving the nations today, and it is getting worse. His deceiving of Germany is the most recent blatant example of Satan deceiving a nation to attack the chosen people of God, Israel. I mean, can it be more clear. His fingerprints are visible in the focus of attacks against God's chosen people. It is clear that Satan is still deceiving nations. There is a reason why post millennialism died at WW I and WW II. Those wars ran contradictory to their claims of what the future would be. (A post millennialist is a optimistic amillennialist.)

Question. Scripture is clear that all men die, and then they are judged. However, there are two men who never died. Enoch and Elijah. How does God take care of this problem if amillennialism is true?
 
And that makes no sense to me.
Hey bud, you have to remember Revelation is full of symbolism. By Satan being bound to no longer deceive the nations does not mean he is powerless to do anything; after all, he is God's devil and just a pawn. But it is teaching salvation goes to every tribe tongue and nation. No longer just the Jews and there is nothing the devil can do about that. Hopefully, that makes a little more sense.


It is obvious that Satan is still deceiving the nations today, and it is getting worse
Yes, but he is unable to stop the spread of the gospel to all nations.

Question. Scripture is clear that all men die, and then they are judged. However, there are two men who never died. Enoch and Elijah. How does God take care of this problem if amillennialism is true?
I don't understand that question and how it would interfere with Amillennialism.
 
Back
Top