Calvinsts are under possession, for they can't sense why the god of Calvinism is evil
Why do you keep avoiding these points (summarized below and summed up by the 6 Major Sins of Calvinism)?
Your mistaken assumptions are as follows (overassuming, reading into the text that which is not supported by the text):
1. Claiming Lydia worshiped God in vain when Acts 16.14 says she positively "worshiped God" so she "heard us" just like those who had believed in God and the coming Messiah though Christ had not yet come. In your first bringing this up at the outset there is not shown conclusively irresistible regeneration and there being no free-will involved even if Lydia did not believe in God, so adding your thought into the text is without foundation. "As she listened to us, the Lord opened her heart, and she accepted what Paul was saying" (v.14). Praise the Lord! Very emphatically, "She was a worshiper of God"! So As she listened to us, God opened her heart. Someone who already believes in God would surely accept the Son of God, for the Son of God is the 2nd Person in the Godhead.
2. Claiming a person can't be baptized for service at any other time other than the day they were born-again!? Please. That's not free will. There is no such demand made in Scripture for baptism required on the day of new birth, being made a new creation of God.
3. You falsely accused, "Your comment made it appear as if Paul wrote it." You're sinning bearing false witness since you can't and don't even try to prove your allegation.
4. You do assume you were regenerated without having to prior repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. And this is why you are not born-again, because God wants a real and genuine heartfelt relationship not an assuming one and in your head.
5. There are no verses in the Bible that teach you have to be regenerated before you can believe in Christ. Therefore, it is clear you are pridefully assuming regeneration without the prerequisite of true repentance and faith. How sad for you that this is the way you want to be-the tares trying to look the saved wheat as you worship a false Christ.
6. The issue is not whether God provides the grace (for obviously He does), but whether God provides sufficient grace to all to give us the opportunity for salvation to freely obtain the gift of repentance and faith to believe on Him. Since Jesus died on the cross for all, this shows Calvinism is evil. A further rationalizing to claim God has a secret will in which He doesn't want all to be saved and a revealed will that He does want all to be saved is a contradiction, and a true and loving God does not contradict Himself.
7. The tense used in "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13.48b) does not specify in Greek that the ordained is not depending on foreknowing the person's choice to believe.
8. None of the verses you quoted suggest Total depravity, but only willfulness and propensity to sin, not Total inability. Since you can't get the Bible to agree with you, you should repent of the heresy of the biggest TULIP bubble in history: the 5 points of Calvinism. As an aside, did you know Martin Luther who was a Total depravist is the guy responsible in the 1500's for putting the Christmas tree in a home? He subsequently moved it to England and was later sent to North America. "Thus saith the LORD, LEARN NOT THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. THEY DECK IT WITH SILVER AND WITH GOLD; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not" (Jer. 10.2-4). With a properly functioning conscience it should be embarrassing for Calvinists that they feel compelled to high jack the Sardis Reformation of "justification by faith" and tack onto it TULIP's and Christmas Trees.
9. The first active instance of hardening was the Pharaoh hardening his own heart first without any mention of God doing the hardening as in the latter instances. I can understand your desire to separate yourself from the embarrassment of Piper contradicting his Calvinism faith by his admitting the first active instance was the Pharaoh hardening his own heart first. Who is being more true to their Calvinism? While Piper is convicted by the clear reading of the text the first active hardening was the Pharaoh hardening his own heart first, Brian you shut your mind down and just insert God did it without giving the Pharaoh the choice in the matter, making the god of Calvinism evil-thus, true to form! I think you are being more true to Calvinism than Piper is, because Piper's conscience at least convicts him, though he will have to come up with a rationalization somehow to deal with it. Then you could ask yourself, who's hell is going to be worse? All else being equal I would have to say Brian, your hell will be worse than Piper's because your conscience is more seared than Piper's. You'll insert whatever you need to obnoxiously. To hell with evidence and clear delineation.
10. Acts 22.15: "For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." All means all, not just some all men. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Pet. 3.18). Not just some unrighteous, but all unrighteous, that whosoever is willing may be brought into that sure death on the cross with Christ and made alive in the spirit. Amen.
11. John 6.65: "No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." Nobody could be saved without the Father giving us to the Son; nowhere do we find in Scripture the giving is done by irresistibly drawing them without regard for our choice, for many "draw back unto perdition" (Heb. 10.39). To draw back indicates there were was God's initial drawing as He draws all men unto Himself.
12. John 12.32: " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." This is God providing sufficient grace to all, all things summing up in Christ, not that the elect are irresistibly drawn. You've misread this verse and your pride oozes out in self-exaltation. If this really was a world of irresistibly moved chess pieces and reprobate damned from birth without the opportunity for salvation, who is to say you are not a child of Hell, for it was never your choice? Just like Washer tries to put on a show to compensate for his selfish salvation, you work hard for your salvation too, because you don't really know if you are saved or not as it was never your choice. You could just as easily being the reprobate. Who can know for sure! So false hope is giving to the reprobate of the gospel of Calvinism in quite a sadistic fashion.
13. You said, "Matthias was not a legitimate apostle"!? Acts 1.26 says, "Matthias...was numbered with the eleven apostles" as an Apostle. There were other Apostles to select from such as those in the 70, but Matthias was selected to be one of the 12. Nowhere do we find in Scripture your claim "Paul was the twelfth apostle." How absurd! Paul was an Apostle, not one of the 12 Apostles. Paul was saved about two years after the cross and didn't meet the Apostles Peter and James until three years after that. The Church was not missing a 12th Apostles for 5 years. Silly. Just as Jesus was seen "then of the twelve" (1 Cor. 15.5), He was also seen "then of all the Apostles" (v.7). And last of all he was seen by Paul. Praise the Lord!
Matthias was "chosen to take place in this ministry and apostleship" (Acts 1.24,25) as an Apostle. Realize the glaring contradiction of mistakenly claiming Matthias was not an Apostle but "then the twelve" (1 Cor. 15.5) saw Jesus alive from the dead during the 40 days. What 12? According to you there are only 11. Ask yourself, how do you get more than 11 apostles witnessing Jesus alive from the dead but Matthias is not an Apostle and Paul didn't get saved until at least 2 years after the cross? Your assumption denying the Apostles are for today is a heresy of grandest denomic intent that tries to do damage to God's Church. You're a heathen so I understand your attitude: false tare trying to look like the saved wheat. You're just another false Christian trying to usurp himself against God's will likely for filthy lucre and special teaching that will grab the fleshly. Since there were two notable Apostles to select from, we know there were at least 13, but since there were some Apostles among the 70, the 120 and the 500, we know these are "then of all the Apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7). You're a bad guy Brain. You're going to Hell because you refuse to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. That is the nature of being a Calvinist -- a selfish salvation! Naturally the way you read most of the Bible is by a "strange spirit."
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4.11). Is Paul lying? Of course not. In 95 AD, what a strange calling of John who is the last remaining of the 12 Apostles to say these words if there are no other Apostles alive. Brian, you're Satanic to reject the Apostles. "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Rev. 2.2). If there were not any Apostles in 95 AD, John should have simply said there are no more Apostles, but he says test those who call themselves Apostles because there are Apostles today. Just as there are false Christians in Matthew 13 such as Calvinists, there are false Apostles who try to make themselves out to be true Apostles.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by briancook007
Bookmarks