Masaccio Braun

@crusadepepe I see, so receiving forgiveness of sins for sin is a lie designed to perpetuate sin. That must have been what John meant when he said if we confess our sin He is faithful and righteous to forgive of our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Antichristism.

@1984_nate You falsely suppose that it’s dishonest to not bring in the issue of the hidden decree when evangelizing. We don’t know who the elect are, but we evangelize because the Lord commands it. The doctrine of election is God’s revealed truth for the believer, not the unbeliever.

If Calvinism is true & God has already elected who will be saved and nothing can thwart that, then why won't Calvinists just be completely honest when evangelizing? Why not tell the full truth, that you might or might not be elect and you will believe when God regenerates you?

@BreeSolstad You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

This is what emotionalism looks like. This is what a pop concert looks like. This is NOT what worship looks like.

@1984_nate Repeat a modal fallacy enough and it becomes valid I suppose. Repeat insults enough and they become virtuous.

@MersacciBruni Dude, none of what you’re saying changes the FACT that Jesus spoke in a way to keep them from turning and being forgiven, meaning they didn’t need regenerated to do so. I’m insulted you think we are stupid enough to join you in your own ignorance.

The locking the door prevents the outcome but that makes no sense if the person cannot even rise to leave without first being regenerated. Calvinists REFUSE to accept that their system makes Jesus’s reason for speaking in parables NONSENSICAL.

@1984_nate That is, the outcome of the preaching is the preventing of repentance, just as the outcome of locking the door is the preventing of escape. You fallaciously smuggle in a premise. You think “if the verse says they are prevented from repenting, then they must be able to repent.”

@1984_nate Just bad logic. “Lock the door lest he escape” doesn’t imply he could escape under any circumstance, only that the locking of the door prevents the outcome. The logic isn’t “they could repent in any other case,” it’s “preach, bc they will keep rejecting and won’t repent.”

Amazing, Jesus’ own reason for parables destroys the idea that regeneration precedes faith and Peter here refuses to leave his Calvinism anyway. Tragic.

@JoelWebbon If anyone thinks himself to be religious while not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.

Go to hell

@1984_nate I wonder how God can declare the end from the beginning without declaring everything in the middle. Ah yes, God is omniscient, but He doesn’t know all. God is omnipotent, but He doesn’t control all. Christ is Pantocrator, and yet He is not.

It's disheartening to me that so many in the church get duped into thinking that for God to be sovereign He has to meticulously control all things.

@JstevensDK7 @ByGraceAL0NE @CherylSchatz The point is such a distinction destroys the biblical notion of what atonement is. Atonement actually covers real sin, not hypothetically. Either Christ did bear someone’s sins on the tree, or He did not. If He did, then “It is done,” and yet many go to perdition?

@ByGraceAL0NE @CherylSchatz He doesn't understand that the application is not automatic, Jesus did die for all, and all sins were paid for, however one has to receive the propitiation and ransom payment through faith in order to receive that gift. The extent is universal, the application is limited.

John MacArthur is wrong on this point. The “limited” in atonement doesn’t mean some people go to hell. Rather, it refers to the Calvinist belief that Jesus died ONLY for some sinners, while the rest were never sent a Savior, never given hope, and there is no gospel for them.

@1980srock @ProtPhilosopher @c35882053 No amount of evidence satisfies it seems.

@ProtPhilosopher @c35882053 Typical protestant trick. Now do Jerome after he was enlightened.

Doing their best Jerry Maguire impersonation, Catholic apologists demand, "Show me a 66-book Bible before Luther!" This is supposed to make the Protestant sheepishly think, "I can't show you the money :(". There wasn't a physical Bible containing only 66-books before Luther. It appears the Protestant canon was a late innovation. It was created by "one guy in Germany." Yet, there's a false assumption baked into the Catholic demand. It's that canonical status is determined by what's physically bound between two covers. There's a key distinction underlying this error. It's the difference between a codex and a canon. A codex is a physical object. A canon is a theological judgment about which books have doctrinal authority. The canonical judgment that the deuterocanonical books lack doctrinal authority was the main position for a thousand years prior to Luther. As the Catholic Encyclopedia's article "Canon of the Old Testament" explains: "In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion." (newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.…) That's a Catholic encyclopedia saying "few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity" and that "the prevailing attitude" matched the Greek Fathers who excluded them. So Luther didn't invent the canonical judgment about the deuterocanonical books. He inherited it. What he did was to stop including the deuterocanonical books in the same binding with the canonical books. That's a change in bookbinding, not a change in canonical judgment. The canonical distinction existed. The 66-book printed Bible came later. The 66-book canonical judgment came first. So Luther didn't remove 7 books from the Bible. Trent added them. And it took them 1,546 years to do it.

@UrantiaBookGems @TerriGreenUSA Not what that text means.

@TerriGreenUSA God speaks to the human heart as a still small voice

The only way to hear God speak is by reading the Bible. He does not speak outside of his word. “God only speaks inside his word. He doesn’t speak to anyone outside of the scriptures.” — Sinclair Ferguson

@ProvisionistP I did not deny that. You haven’t addressed the counterexample, but I suppose it is easier to dismiss than to engage.

@MersacciBruni Salvation is a free offer to all, bro. This is a REALLY bad illustration.

God has no basis on which to offer forgiveness to everyone if He has not made PROVISION of forgiveness for everyone by the sacrifice of His Son. Limitarianism destroys the well meant offer.

@CherylSchatz The message isn’t “some of you are elected and the rest of you are not.” It’s “Christ has atoned for sin, repent and trust in it,” and by that message, the elect will repent and trust, and so it is good news. The kinsman redeemer acted on behalf of a particular relative, not all.

@MersacciBruni That wouldn’t be good news for everyone. If Jesus didn’t die for all, then the people He didn’t die for would have no good news at all. They would be left without a Kinsman Redeemer.

She failed to mention that, according to her view, salvation is impossible for anyone for whom Christ did not die, and that is the majority of mankind. I wonder why that doesn't sound like good news?

@DefiantBaptist You’ll have to give an account to Him for that statement.

If Jesus didn't return in 70 AD, then he is a liar and a false prophet.

@AnomalyBlessed The category of elect both presupposes and logically demands a non elect category. The Bible never identifies anyone as a ‘non-prophet’ and yet you know as soon as you see the word “prophet” that presupposed is the category of non-prophet. Such argumentation is slight of hand

Did you know? There is no verse in scripture that uses: • “non‑elect” • “nonelect” • “not elect” • “not chosen” (as a theological category) • “the unelect” • “the non‑predestined” The Bible never labels a group with a term that is the opposite of “elect.” Scripture does use these terms frequently: • ἐκλεκτός — “elect, chosen” • ἐκλογή — “election” • ἐκλέγομαι — “to choose” Examples: • Matthew 24:22, 24, 31 — “the elect” • Romans 8:33 — “God’s elect” • Colossians 3:12 — “elect of God” • 1 Peter 1:1–2 — “elect… according to the foreknowledge of God” But Scripture **never** uses the opposite term. Even when describing unbelievers, rebels, or the perishing, the Bible never says they are “non‑elect.” Election is always: • corporate (“in Christ,” Eph 1:4) • vocational (chosen for something) • covenantal (belonging to God’s people) Never: • a label for who is excluded And even ἀδόκιμος (“disapproved,” “reprobate”) in passages like Romans 1:28 is: • moral • experiential • descriptive of behavior It is **not** the opposite of “elect.” The NT consistently frames election as: • a status found only “in Christ” • a group identity • a purpose‑driven calling Don't you find that interesting?

@CherylSchatz The category of elect both presupposes and logically demands a non elect category. The Bible never identifies anyone as a ‘non-prophet’ and yet you know as soon as you see the word “prophet” that presupposed is the category of non-prophet. Such argumentation is slight of hand

It’s worth noticing that the Bible never identifies anyone as a “non-elect.” Does that surprise you?