Oh my goodness.Ok ✅
So we don’t have a sin nature…we’re fallible creatures who sin?
We HAVE a sin nature.
What I'm saying is that we're not imputed with Adam's sin.
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?
There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."
Oh my goodness.Ok ✅
So we don’t have a sin nature…we’re fallible creatures who sin?
What doesn't the WCF state?That isn't true .look
The founder started pca .that's younger the the oldest reformed Presbyterian church and broke away .
My arp church is tied to a pre revolutionary built church that switched from the pca and to the arp .the arp started on Scotland and it's still there and moved to the colonies .
The wcf itself doesn't say that and doesn't mention it as you say .
We use the oldest one in kjv English .the p soup split of Presbyterian is over minor differences of the wcf.its why I asked which one a few pages ago.
We even used the long and short catheschizm.
Saying what you said is akin to saying because one is a freewiller ,and they exist ,that one can earn your salvation by works and keep it .
It's a. Extreme . I do ask my pastor .he has even read your posts!
I can't. You're protected from being ignored.You don't have to trust me F, please use your ignore button if you must.
You can't create evil.... but I won't bother you with reasoning.I made the statement that Piper and MaCarthur (and Sproul too, but I'm not spending my time linking something you then will state is not calvinism -- funny stuff), all say that God created evil.
Post the exact words and where (the time) in the video where these men say "God is the author of Evil". I am suspicious all you will do is point to some statement where a guy says God control someone committing an evil act and therefore they believe GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. I showed with URLs that Piper and MacArthur said GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. I suspect you will not give specifics where to find your slurs (slur IMO) to cover your tracks, not state exactly where they said GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL.So, I'll post the links AGAIN - It's YouTube.
Piper stating that God created evil
MaCarthur stating that God created evil.
Double predestined.What doesn't the WCF state?
Is it something I posted above?
Well, I guess one or both of us have communication issues. (Be that as it may)You're the one being obtuse.
... aside.. I hate double negatives.... which I interpret to mean "freedom (ability) to believe salvicficly"freedom from the inablilty of natural man to not be able to believeYour definition is wordy.
Here's how to ignore me.I can't. You're protected from being ignored.
You can't create evil.... but I won't bother you with reasoning.
You were wrong about all three gentlemen. I printed sources and quotes to prove you wrong and then you try to cover your tracks by pointing to a book in Sproul's case and long youtube videos and never says where in these sources are statements to back you are. At best you misinterpret what they are saying .... I give you credit for not purposely stating a falsehood, but the result is the same.
Oh please.Post the exact words and where (the time) in the video where these men say "God is the author of Evil". I am suspicious all you will do is point to some statement where a guy says God control someone committing an evil act and therefore they believe GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. I showed with URLs that Piper and MacArthur said GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. I suspect you will not give specifics where to find your slurs (slur IMO) to cover your tracks, not state exactly where they said GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL.
Yeah, I was right ... I see now. A link to a clip and no specifics. You didn't give a quote or where to find it. Like I can say you said GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL (not that you did) and point anyone to look at her forum posts as proof. Like, one is looking for a needle in a hay stack and I suspect there is no needle.
I don't like the reformed faith. I've never made a secret of this.Aside: You know, I think you are a fine, Christian woman and you know your theology and are of above average intelligence ... but, you've got a Reformed vendetta or something. You make too many false statements in that regard IMO. Your welcome to do it I suppose, just leave me alone as I don't wish to take part in discussions with you.
I happen to know all this Jason.Double predestined.
Look I had an ordained man rag me for months .he wasn't one to debate but I asked him on Calvin .he said no to that
The wcf was written after Calvin deaths but a few centuries .
And no Calvin also didn't believe in limited atonement .
The five points came around the time of synod of dort.the wcf and the London Baptist confession are a finalized statement of confession in response to several problems ,one being the papists and also the Anglicans needed a unifying document .
Westminster is the Scottish version that based upon that and the church of Scotland is the originator of that .irc .
The London confession is older then the wcf .
Point is the knowledge they did have, they perverted, so they already knew.Agreed.
Aside: There is nothing here saying they could have knowledge needed to be 'saved'. (Faith coming by hearing...yahda, yahda)
They're about what David was born in, not what David himself was in Gods' eyes. Sin is the result of the knowledge of good and evil, not heredity.We don't agree, but I don't want to go down that trail ... other fish to fry.
Well, at least an attempt. The context of the surrounding verses are all about DAVID and not the surrounding world... the word WORLD is not even used ... .
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Jb.14:4and again, I gave other verses to support my exegesis ... Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, John 3:6, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12
My source of truth was a Jewish guy who believed Jesus is the Messiah and he knew the OT and NT better than any commentary I ever read. That's the funny thing. He was a nobody "credential wise."I didn't want to reply before because you said you were not a protestant and therefore your source of authority of truth is not the bible alone and I don't want to bother arguing about alternate "sources of truth".
I do, unless you respond to mine. Please don't.Here's how to ignore me.
Just don't read my posts.
No technology necessary.
You don't give a quote or a location (time) to find it. That is deceptive or lazy.HOW am I misinterpreting what they're saying?
They're saying it on YouTube!
Do you think it's puppets of your theologians?
Stating EXACTLY what I said in my posts.
Well, if you think I don't understand it then that is evidence that you don't. Think on it.I'm really tired of being told that I don't know calvinism too.
Maybe it's YOU that doesn't understand it?
That is ridiculous.You know, systematic theology is not the best way to learn of our Christianity.
Ridiculous. You're saying it is better to find out about the various aspects of God by reading bits and pieces as you randomly come across them while reading the bible. Ludicrous idea.It's not such a good idea to learn our faith in bits and pieces, but by reading the entire NT as one unit.
That's the only way to come to an understanding.
A study of free will or predestination or the sovereignty of God will not give you a correct understanding of what Jesus wanted to convey.
You don't understand metaphysically what evil is, so there is not sense responding. You lack the necessary background knowledge. (aside: it is impossible to create evil.... but I can tell you don't know why... so I will stop there).To say that God created evil is blasphemous.
It's calling good evil.
You're lazy or know it's not there or you have misunderstood what they said. I was not lazy. I took to time to give URLs and direct quotes to prove your statement was a fabrication (hopefully not purposely). I am not wasting my time again looking for something that is not there and then have you pretend it's there. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Nice Try. Got me once. (LOL at your solution to play it on 2X)It's not a needle in a haystack.
Put the speed to 2X and watch it.
The point is you don't care to watch it.
You'd rather continue believing that I'm wrong and your own theologians don't think God created evil.
Because you fabricate falsehoods as I proved by giving URL's and quotes.I don't hate any person of the reformed faith - but they do dislike me and I don't know why.
I think in speaking about heretical doctrine you're referring to what I mentioned...
The Theory of Penal Substitution.
If so, this is not heretical.
There are about 7 or 8 theories of the atonement.
I'll link something good below if I could find it fast.
Each theory has something in it that is perfectly biblical.
But each one is slightly different.
It's up to YOU to decide which one you agree with the most.
The one I personally like the least is the Penal Substitution Theory.
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison7 Theories of the Atonement discussed and briefly explained. Article by Stephen D Morrisonwww.sdmorrison.org
I listen to oh say my pastor and eldetrs since I run the audio and visual on the church on a rotation of two Sundays or more and will anticipate the mike switchesI happen to know all this Jason.
I don't understand what I stated that was incorrect.
Could you give me the opportunity to post again?
You can't just tell me I'm wrong about something and then let it go.
I'd also like to say that I do not misrepresent the reformed faith.
It's not my fault if people listen to their pastor instead of researching what the reformed faith's doctrines are.
It's like if I wanted to become Catholic without reading the CCC first.
It's easy to read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
or the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London CF or the Baptist CF.
However, one of the above should be read before deciding that calvinism is a good teaching both of God and His salvation economy.
No, babies don't literally speak lies from birth. You know it, I know it. It's obvious that he is not speaking literally, but figuratively. He's speaking figuratively of the depth of wickedness in a person. So deep, so prevalent, so all encompassing so as to be utterly corrupt from birth. It's like when the Pharisees derided the man in John 9:34 whose eyes were opened by Jesus: "34They replied, “You were born in utter sin, and you are instructing us?” The NIV says, "steeped in sin", like a tea bag soaking in water. So corrupt, so wicked, so evil so as to have been soaking in that wickedness from birth. It's the use of figurative language to get the point across of how deeply wicked a person is. It's not literal. It HAS to be figurative because babies don't speak lies from birth. They literally don't. Don't try to convince us they do.The bible does say we in sin from/before birth Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These go astray from birth, speaking lies [even twisted partial truths].
Logically, unless you can exegete Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, John 3:6 differently, one would conclude that either you don't believe this part of the bible or one of us is confused as to what these verses mean. You have people giving you likes. Maybe they can explain how one is wicked from the womb and go astray from birth and yet do not sin.
Like, this is 1 + 1 = 2 logic.
Mine is simple.What is your source of the systematizing of scripture so I can browse it?
Why are you reducing 'believing' to that of mere probability?Well, by that definition I can scientifically prove there is not such thing as FREE WILL.
To wordy... simply put free will is the ability for man to believe salvificly
Premise 2: A small percentage of men have chosen to believe (simple observation proves this)
Conclusion: Free Will does not exist as if it did then 50% (like flipping a coin) would believe. Something, someone has their finger on the scale.
You and Ben Shapiro are sounding very not reformed here, lol.Agreed. You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink ... or a Ben Shapiro would say: What you want to believe you tend to believe and you tend to look for excuses to believe it.
I actually kind of agree with this.Just fell on this...
No matter if you want to call it double predestination or not...
It ends up being double predestination.
Think about it.
I'm not going to try to explain it to you since what I say seems to get incorrect responses as if I'm not being understood.
So many of us start out this way in Christianity. We are convinced that everything that we experience in our walk with God after getting saved is the one and only true way. I have the T-shirt on that, too. But I have concluded that to think that is a matter of immaturity.This is rather prideful of you,,,as usual.
Perhaps YOU need to drink the water?
Why do you assume that YOU are correct and every other Christian denomination is wrong?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe John Calvin got it wrong?
Did you ever stop to consider that you're following the teachings of a man instead of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?