Not Christians!
- Thread starter BoyStan
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
Do you think the world would be less repulsed if we called ourselves "saints"?
Well said.
I think you need to rethink' your opinion. True 'Christians' are members of the 'Body of Christ' and a 'Child of God.'
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Actually, the term was originally one of derision anyway. The church wore it as a badge of honor.
Thank you. Yes, it was originally coined as a derisive term in the city of Antioch toward the followers of "The Way." The disciples embraced the derisive term and so we carry the name to this day.
We walk the path of the cross. Those who are slaves to their master, the devil, will hate the adopted children of the King.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It may be divisive, but I don't see that as a reason to cede the word 'Christian' to the world. If you believe that Christ's Resurrection was an historical fact, nonfiction, then calling yourself one, is the plainest way to communicate that to others, imo.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Calvinism's Unregenerate Elect
Calvinism's Unregenerate Elect
Who, exactly, are you talking about as being slaves to their master, the devil? The non-elect? What about Calvinism's unbiblical category, the unregenerate elect?
I ask these questions, because I am well aware that Calvinists say that an elect person was elect even long before his/her conception and birth from the womb--in fact, that an elect person has been elect eternally, or "from all eternity". So, according to Calvinism, no person starts out as non-elect, and then, at some point, becomes elect.
But, I am also aware that Calvinism denies that the elect person has been regenerate for as long as he/she has been elect, i.e., eternally; that Calvinists speak of regeneration as an event in which the elect person goes from being unregenerate to being regenerate. Any Calvinist will readily affirm that he/she, at some point, was regenerated--was made regenerate--by the Holy Spirit; in fact, say at least some of them, it was at that very moment of regeneration that they were enabled to believe the gospel, a.k.a. Calvinism, and become a Calvinist.
So, Calvinism creates for itself this problematic category: the unregenerate elect. In other words, as per Calvinism, there are persons alive at any given time who are elect, but who have not yet been regenerated by the Holy Spirit; these are Calvinism's unregenerate elect.
Now, here are some more questions for you Calvinists to stonewall against:
As God is the master of regenerate persons, and as the devil is the master of the non-elect, who, exactly, is the master of the unregenerate elect? God? The devil? Neither? Who?
To whom are the unregenerate elect slaves? To God? To the devil? To neither? To whom?
Except a man be born again (regenerated--made regenerate), he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, would you say that the unregenerate elect--the not-born-again elect--can see the kingdom of God? Would you say that the unregenerate elect are adopted children of the King, or are only the regenerate elect the adopted children of the King?
Calvinism's Unregenerate Elect
Who, exactly, are you talking about as being slaves to their master, the devil? The non-elect? What about Calvinism's unbiblical category, the unregenerate elect?
I ask these questions, because I am well aware that Calvinists say that an elect person was elect even long before his/her conception and birth from the womb--in fact, that an elect person has been elect eternally, or "from all eternity". So, according to Calvinism, no person starts out as non-elect, and then, at some point, becomes elect.
But, I am also aware that Calvinism denies that the elect person has been regenerate for as long as he/she has been elect, i.e., eternally; that Calvinists speak of regeneration as an event in which the elect person goes from being unregenerate to being regenerate. Any Calvinist will readily affirm that he/she, at some point, was regenerated--was made regenerate--by the Holy Spirit; in fact, say at least some of them, it was at that very moment of regeneration that they were enabled to believe the gospel, a.k.a. Calvinism, and become a Calvinist.
So, Calvinism creates for itself this problematic category: the unregenerate elect. In other words, as per Calvinism, there are persons alive at any given time who are elect, but who have not yet been regenerated by the Holy Spirit; these are Calvinism's unregenerate elect.
Now, here are some more questions for you Calvinists to stonewall against:
As God is the master of regenerate persons, and as the devil is the master of the non-elect, who, exactly, is the master of the unregenerate elect? God? The devil? Neither? Who?
To whom are the unregenerate elect slaves? To God? To the devil? To neither? To whom?
Except a man be born again (regenerated--made regenerate), he cannot see the kingdom of God. So, would you say that the unregenerate elect--the not-born-again elect--can see the kingdom of God? Would you say that the unregenerate elect are adopted children of the King, or are only the regenerate elect the adopted children of the King?
I don't use the term "unregenerate elect." Perhaps someone else does, but I don't find the term in scripture. I do use the term unregenerate as it refers to those whom God has not chosen to redeem, though he may choose to redeem some over time as He Sovereignly wills.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
It matters not whether you, or anybody else uses the term 'unregenerate elect'; of course Calvinists are going to be politic and guarded against speaking so plainly and forthrightly! Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, Calvinism necessarily posits the category of the unregenerate elect, whether or not you, or any other TULIP huckster publicly owns that phrase. It is impossible for you to hide that category.
No Calvinist will say that an elect person has been regenerate for all eternity. No Calvinist will say that an elect person has even been regenerate for all his/her earthly life. So, Calvinists are necessarily left to account for a period in the existence of each elect person during which that elect person has not yet been regenerated; in other words, a period during which that elect person is yet unregenerate. That is the unregenerate elect. And it is an insurmountable problem for you--for Calvinism. It is something you will never be able to unburden yourself of, so long as you are a Calvinist.
You will claim that you were eternally elect, of course. Now, do you deny that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE? Of course you don't deny that. Rather, you affirm that there was a period during which you, an elect person, were NOT REGENERATE. That means that, during that period, you were elect but not regenerate--that is, you were elect and unregenerate--an unregenerate, elect person. This is Calvinism, and you can't escape from it. Whether or not you try to disown the phrase 'unregenerate elect' is of utterly no help to you as a would-be Calvinism apologist, since to eradicate the category of the unregenerate elect would be to destroy Calvinism.
So...you make up a term and tell others it matters not if you use it. LOL, you're just making up things and trying to argue. That's just silly.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
OK, so now you are actually admitting that you believe that not only have you been elect from eternity past, but also that you have been regenerate for as long as you have been elect! In other words, you believe that there was never a time during which you were unregenerate. I hate to break it to you, but that means that you are not even a Calvinist. See, Calvinists believe that elect persons come into the world unregenerate, and that, at some point, the Holy Spirit regenerates them--makes them go from being unregenerate to being regenerate. That whole time, the elect person is elect, but for some of that time, the elect person is also unregenerate, so, for some of that time that elect person is elect AND unregenerate. So, Professor, what phrase could better be used to denote an elect person who is unregenerate than 'unregenerate elect' or 'elect unregenerate'? So, no, I did not make up the term, you lying Jesuit.
Oh, and since, in denying the Calvinist category of the unregenerate elect, you now have admitted that you believe that, as an elect person, there was never a time during which you were unregenerate, not only are you radically deviating from Calvinism, you are also showing yourself to be even more of a fool, since you believe you were already born again (regenerate) even before you were conceived and born the first time.
LOL, you have no clue.
My suggestion: start reading a Bible.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here is another question that you will refuse to answer:
As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?
If you say Yes, then you are admitting that you believe that you were, during that period, both elect AND unregenerate--an unregenerate, elect person.
If you say No, then you are not even a Calvinist, and what's more, your No will necessarily entail that you believe you were already regenerate in eternity past, and before you were even conceived, and born from the womb.
So, Mr. Jesuit, here's the question again:
As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?
What are you waiting for? Answer the question.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Answer the question:
As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?
You're asking two questions. Do you know why you're asking two questions?
Sadly, you don't know what the Bible says, therefore you don't know what you don't know.
What you know is that you hate whatever Calvinism is, but you don't know what Calvinism is, but you hate whatever that is.
Read a Bible, jengy.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's possible, since regeneration precedes faith, and since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," that actual conversion (believing the Gospel) might lag regeneration, since faith requires hearing the Word of God, but regeneration does not. This then creates ambiguity as to what Irresistible Grace refers to; is it regeneration that is irresistible, or is it faith? And if it is not faith, then are there any who are elected, regenerated, but who don't believe the Gospel?
The Clavinism I believed, was that Irresistible Grace referred to conversion. I'm not convinced that it referring to anything other than faith or conversion is possible, or if the rest of the system would collapse.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here is the question I am asking you, and you refuse to answer it:
As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?
Stop lying, stop being a hypocrite, stop stonewalling, stop being a coward. Answer the question:
As an elect person, was there ever a time during which you were not yet regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Yes or No?