Is This True? - Limited Atonement

[FreeGrace2]

That is what it says. And the verses you've posted have nothing to do with rejecting grace.

Just because c.h.s didn't include Acts 7:51 is no reason to reject his point about rejecting grace.

Those who resist the Holy Spirit ARE rejecting God's grace. Unless there is proof to the contrary.

 

[Hammster]

Yes they do. They warn us what happens if we don't endure, ie. stop cooperating with God's grace.

Why do you think the new testament is full of warnings against falling away?

You made up the part about cooperating with God's grace. It's not in those verses.

 

[Hammster]

Just because c.h.s didn't include Acts 7:51 is no reason to reject his point about rejecting grace.

Those who resist the Holy Spirit ARE rejecting God's grace. Unless there is proof to the contrary.

I'm waiting for proof that they are the same.

 

[Hammster]

Still waiting on any sort of exegesis on Romans 8:30 and the meaning of called.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

You made up the part about cooperating with God's grace. It's not in those verses.

When I say cooperating with God's grace I mean following the leading of the Holy Spirit in obedience to the teachings of Jesus. Clearly, I didn't make up anything.

Does it mean something different to you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm waiting for proof that they are the same.

OK, so there isn't any proof to the contrary. Which is what I thought.

How about this? How does one see them to be materially different?

 

[Hammster]

When I say cooperating with God's grace I mean following the leading of the Holy Spirit in obedience to the teachings of Jesus. Clearly, I didn't make up anything.

Does it mean something different to you?

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:10-13 NASB)

When you post the whole passage, it takes on a different meaning than when you isolate the text. And it says nothing about cooperating with grace for salvation.


So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. (Romans 8:12-17 NASB)

Takes on a whole different meaning when you don't isolate one verse. And nothing about cooperating with grace for salvation.


1 Timothy 5:8
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

Hmmm. Yep, this is true.

 

[Hammster]

OK, so there isn't any proof to the contrary. Which is what I thought.

How about this? How does one see them to be materially different?

God's grace is not the Holy Spirit. You seem to think they are the same. I'm waiting for the proof of that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Still waiting on any sort of exegesis on Romans 8:30 and the meaning of called.

How many times should I repeat myself?

Rom 8:30
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

"these" refers back to "those who love God" in v.28. That would mean believers, since unbelievers cannot love God.

Believers have been redestined. To what, the verse does not specify.

Believers have been called. The Greek word is 'kaleo'
kaleō

1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

To be called is self explanatory here.

Believers have been justified. By faith, of course.

Believers have been glorified. Except we haven't yet, but Paul was so convinced of what will occur, he wrote it as though it has already happened.

Any questions?

 

[FreeGrace2]

God's grace is not the Holy Spirit. You seem to think they are the same. I'm waiting for the proof of that.

I never said they are the same. But for grace, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have a ministry.

But like I said, there isn't any proof to the contrary.

And you again DODGED my question. How is rejecting grace and resisting the Holy Spirit materially different?

If you don't have an answer, it would be polite to just say so. Dodging is rude.

 

[Hammster]

How many times should I repeat myself?

Rom 8:30
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

"these" refers back to "those who love God" in v.28. That would mean believers, since unbelievers cannot love God.

Believers have been redestined. To what, the verse does not specify.

Believers have been called. The Greek word is 'kaleo'
kaleō

1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

To be called is self explanatory here.

Believers have been justified. By faith, of course.

Believers have been glorified. Except we haven't yet, but Paul was so convinced of what will occur, he wrote it as though it has already happened.

Any questions?

What exactly is the call? Why can't (or won't) you answer that question?

 

[Hammster]

I never said they are the same. But for grace, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have a ministry.

But like I said, there isn't any proof to the contrary.

And you again DODGED my question. How is rejecting grace and resisting the Holy Spirit materially different?

If you don't have an answer, it would be polite to just say so. Dodging is rude.

I have an answer. They aren't the same. There's nothing in Acts to indicate that they are. If you can't prove it, it would be polite to just say so. All you're doing is making general statements, and you haven't even quoted scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What exactly is the call? Why can't (or won't) you answer that question?

How is the definition I provided not clear enough?

1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

The "call" is to call, to call aloud, utter in a loud voice, to invite, to call by name, to give a name to, etc, etc, etc.

If definitions given by Strong's are not clear enough, there's nothing else I can do to make it more clear.

Were you thinking that I think it is something else? I don't. I think it means exactly what Strong's says it means.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have an answer. They aren't the same. There's nothing in Acts to indicate that they are. If you can't prove it, it would be polite to just say so. All you're doing is making general statements, and you haven't even quoted scripture.

So I have to actually quote Acts 7:51? Let's face it, your view cannot be proven. I agree that they aren't the same, as in exactly, but it seems clear enough that they are closely related, as I explained, and wasn't refuted.

To refuse the Holy Spirit is to resist Him. And the Holy Spirit is given by the grace of God. So the math is quite easy to do here. Or connect the dots. Whatever you'd prefer.

There's way more logic with my view than yours. You've just made statements that can't be proven. I've given statements that are obviously related, whether there is agreement or not. That doesn't matter.

 

[Hammster]

How is the definition I provided not clear enough?

1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

The "call" is to call, to call aloud, utter in a loud voice, to invite, to call by name, to give a name to, etc, etc, etc.

If definitions given by Strong's are not clear enough, there's nothing else I can do to make it more clear.

Were you thinking that I think it is something else? I don't. I think it means exactly what Strong's says it means.

So when you believed, God just then called your name aloud? Really? That's what you think is being taught here? For some reason, I expected better from you. This is below par for your type of argument.

 

[Hammster]

So I have to actually quote Acts 7:51? Let's face it, your view cannot be proven. I agree that they aren't the same, as in exactly, but it seems clear enough that they are closely related, as I explained, and wasn't refuted.

To refuse the Holy Spirit is to resist Him. And the Holy Spirit is given by the grace of God. So the math is quite easy to do here. Or connect the dots. Whatever you'd prefer.

There's way more logic with my view than yours. You've just made statements that can't be proven. I've given statements that are obviously related, whether there is agreement or not. That doesn't matter.

How do you know that resisting the Holy Spirit is resisting grace, and not resisting conviction?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So when you believed, God just then called your name aloud? Really?

No, not really. Not at all. How come the definitions from a lexicon seem not to fit anything in Rom 8:30?

Let's review:
1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

How about 2a, 2a1, 2a2, and 2b? When He saves one who believes, they become a new creation, and are given the right to be called the children of God. How do those meanings not work in Rom 8:30?

That's what you think is being taught here?

Of course not.

For some reason, I expected better from you. This is below par for your type of argument.

I certainly expect must better from you when responding to my posts and grasping what I say. I know I'm not talking over your head. But it seems there is no effort to even try to understand.

Your response here demonstrates that very well. Out of all the meanings, you zeroed in on 1 and 1a as if that's what I thought.

I know you can do better. Please try.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How do you know that resisting the Holy Spirit is resisting grace, and not resisting conviction?

What's the difference, functionally? If the Holy Spirit provides conviction, that is also from grace, right?

If not, please explain.

 

[Hammster]

No, not really. Not at all. How come the definitions from a lexicon seem not to fit anything in Rom 8:30?

Let's review:
1) to call
1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
1b) to invite
2) to call, i.e. to name, by name
2a) to give a name to
2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name
2a2) to give some name to one, call his name
2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
2c) to salute one by name

How about 2a, 2a1, 2a2, and 2b? When He saves one who believes, they become a new creation, and are given the right to be called the children of God. How do those meanings not work in Rom 8:30?


Of course not.


I certainly expect must better from you when responding to my posts and grasping what I say. I know I'm not talking over your head. But it seems there is no effort to even try to understand.

Your response here demonstrates that very well. Out of all the meanings, you zeroed in on 1 and 1a as if that's what I thought.

I know you can do better. Please try.

The problem is that you're generalizing. Posting definitions isn't really all that helpful, especially since the definitions posted don't reflect what you've said earlier about the call being the gospel offer, or the called being believers.

So pick one of the definitions, and we'll run with that.

 

[Hammster]

What's the difference, functionally? If the Holy Spirit provides conviction, that is also from grace, right?

If not, please explain.

Are you using "conviction" like the modern church? "I feel so convicted over my sin."

Or as a judge?