| Poster | Thread | BenWilliams
Member
Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas
| | Re: | | roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
"See" is the Greek eido which means to understand, to see etc. If a man is not "born from above" as it is literally in the Greek, he cannot understand or discern spiritual things.
Actually, according to strongs, that is not the definition of the word see, it means to "see". Wow, it doesn't have a hidden meaning.
"a-don"
[b]1) to see
a) to perceive with the eyes
b) to perceive by any of the senses
c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover
d) to see
1) i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
2) to pay attention, observe
3) to see about something
a) i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
4) to inspect, examine
5) to look at, behold
e) to experience any state or condition
f) to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2) to know
a) to know of anything
b) to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
1) of any fact
2) the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
3) to know how, to be skilled in
c) to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12)[/b]
So we can see this argument already beginning to fade, let's examine the rest of these scriptures, in context, rather than just pulled out of a book.
Quote:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
ok roaringlamb, I am not going to quote the whole chapter of 1 corinthians 2, because it is quite long, but you are going to have to stop pulling things out of context to make points.
Paul says absolutely nothing about the issue of salvation, or the sovereignty of God anywhere in the chapter, neither does the chapter's context reveal that to be what Paul was talking about.
What Paul is talking about is depending on the wisdom of God rather than the wisdom of man. And he goes on to say that a natural man cannot discern the deep wisdom of God, that it is foolishness to him because it is a spiritual thing.
So anyone who read this would immediately understand that Paul is saying that a natural man cannot understand the deep things of God because they are spiritual.
Nowhere does Paul say that a natural man cannot understand the gospel, that is not found in this passage, nor is it found in any passage.
You have once again ignored the context, and used a doctrinal statement to interpret the passage, rather than use the passage to interpret itself.
Quote:
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
You are reading into this verse far too much, it does not say what you imply unless you cross reference it with the other verses that you just took out of context.
I am going to use a very simple verse to show you a simple meaning that should be plain without me even doing this.
[b][color=FF0000]John 3:16 16"For God so (A)loved the world, that He (B)gave His (C)only begotten Son, that whoever (D)believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.[/color][/b]
Now let's take this step by step,
1.Those that believe in Him are not perishing.
2.Those that do not believe in Him are perishing.
Ok, now let's take what Paul said and compare it to this simple truth found throughout the rest of scripture.
[b][color=FF0000]1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish (DO NOT BELIEVE IT) foolishness; but unto us which are saved (BELIEVE IT) it is the power of God.[/color][/b]
Now, that is what that verse means, not the twisted definition that is drawn from the bad context of the other two verses that you misinterpreted.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
They cannot come because they are blinded by satan, and do not want to come. The natural man would rather spit upon Christ than submit to Him. If anything this only proves that the heart must be changed, the desires must be changed, and only God can do that. Faith is the fruit of a regenerate heart, and this causes men to no longer hide from the light, but to walk in it. This causes a man to no longer curse God, and hate Him, but rather love Him, and obey Him.
If you think you changed your own heart, you are practicing idolatry by taking responsibility for what only God can do. No man can convict himself of sin, or convince himself of his need to be saved, that work is God's alone.
This again is a doctrinal statement, and it is based mostly off of the few verses that you misinterpreted, and also a misinterpretation of Romans 1.
The scriptures do not say that natural man cannot come, it says he will not, and the difference is apparent.
I have shown the bad contextual interpretation that brings about this conclusion, and without the prior, this point falls apart as well.
Now let me state so that the record is clear, I did not change my own heart, God did. I did not save myself, God did. But he saved me because I believed, I did not believe because he saved me, that is contrary to the order that scripture teaches in salvation.
And I challenge you to show an example through scripture, where a man was saved before he believed.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
How about we look at what Paul says before your selected verses-
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Now Paul comes to your verse-
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
The point here is that God no longer favors Jew above Gentile, but that whoever believes may be saved.
I don't see what the argument is, I full agree that whoever believes will be saved. But only God can cause people to bleive by renewing their hearts, and giving them the gift of faith.
While I agree with the first two statements that you made there, and part of the third, where you say, "whosever believes shall be saved," which proves only further the point that belief comes before salvation, I do not agree with your last statement there.
That pattern of salvation is not a biblical one, you cannot show that pattern outlined in scripture at all. Like I have said before, it is a doctrine that is taught, and all of it's conclusions revolve around itself, and not what scripture shows.
I refer you to my earlier challenge of showing this outlined in scripture, and let me further add to the challenge that it must be in context, not a verse from here, a verse from there, I want to see a real passage that teaches that concept all by itself.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Why did they not all believe? Because they did not hear the "word" which here is rhema. God uses the Gospel to speak faith into a person(inward calling and outward calling as you and jay spoke of quite awhile back), that is why it is imperative that the Gospel be preached to all people everywhere. God will call His own to Christ through this, and since we do not know who is elect and who is not, we preach to all and let God give life as He sees fit.
Does God do this as well, preach to everyone because He doesn't know who the elect are?
I refer you again to where God tells cain that he "can" be accepted.
Either God does what you do, or you are wrong. It cannot be both ways, God told cain he had the ability to be accepted, and it was either true or a lie. You can ignore it, but God does not lie. So you have a problem.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Brother either He is or He is not. If one created thing was out of His control, He would cease to be Sovereign and omnipotent. If He did not know everything at all times He would cease to be omniscient, and if He was not everywhere at the same time, He would cease to be omnipresent.
That would mean He would not be the God presented in Scripture, which would mean I would be following an idol that suited my own intellect and idea of fairness. A god who was much like me, only bigger, kind of like a super hero.
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep me until that day.
God's sovereignty is in no way threatened by man's ability to choose, God said, "choose" or "repent", and that is His sovereign decleration concerning salvation for all mankind.
God's will was from the beginning to have all men completely surrendered to Him, if you deny this, then you say that it was God's will that man sin.
In the same way, you say that satan is under God's will, so satan was actually doing God's will in tempting man, yet the scripture tells us that God tempts no man, according to James.
------------------------------------------------------
One other thing, inward and outward calling the way you use them is not found in the scripture, Jay never could show me that concept in scripture. When God speaks to a man, He does not speak to his brain, or his skin, He speaks to the spirit of a man, every time.
I challenge you with that to demonstrate one passage of scripture where God says something to a man, any man saved or non, and prove that it is either an inward, or an outward calling, and not both at the same time.
_________________
Benjamin Williams
|
|  2007/10/24 17:11 | Profile | refrigbob
Member
Joined: 2007/9/12
Posts: 15
Buffalo, NY
| | Re: | | "Brother no matter what someone believes about salvation, each group must face the fact that men will be lost. This is never something to be taken lightly, but it is a fact because men love darkness rather than light. Until the desire of the heart is changed, they will continue that way.
So you believe that men are lost because they "choose" to be, but God has done all He could to save them(if this is not your view, please forgive me. It seems to be the logical opposite). Thus you have a God who is weak and cannot change men's hearts apart from co-operation from man."
Brother, just to clarify, I realize many, if not the majortiy will be lost. That was not my point. My point was the calvinst view that God double predestinates, there by appointing most men to hell without a thing they can do, another words created for the slaughter. Now this is the belief in a nut shell. One can dance all around it, changing context in mid stream,and going in different directions, but that is the end result of this theology plain and simple. How could anyone realy love or trust a god like that? One who commands us to love, who says he hates a false balance, gives warning to those who call good evil and evil good, etc? What in the entire universe could be worse than to create a soul, billions of them for that matter, and condemn them to hell for being sinners, creating them that way, and punishing them eternaly for what they cannot help or stop doing, with no remedy or even lifting a hand to help them? (or passing them by as said before?) This defies logic! (sorry Bro logic, I mean all human logic!)How could you even defend this god, let alone love him? When I hear these things, how it brings back memories of the struggle I previously mentioned which I loath. The basis of judgement is men refused to come to the light. The offer is there, to reject, then judgement is understandable. To reject the supreme sacfrifice of the eternal living God, that demands eternal punishment. But to condemn a man, or multitudes for no other reason than good pleasure, now that is evil beyond description. And again, I contend that no thinking person who believes this to be true can realy love a god like that. We are not wired for such internal contridiction. It does not follow reason or scripture, but I see I am repeating myself.
One thing I do not understand, some calvinists will claim God is good to them (the damned) on earth, rain on the just and un just, and say that is Gods goodness to them. Someone else said that is like giving a man a steak dinner before you kill him. Good things, even if a perfect life was given to a man for say 70 years, compared to eternity in hell fire does not constitute God being good to anyone. That is cruelty, not goodness. It would be more "good" to torture him on earth so that he has no conception of what "good" is. Then he would have no point of referance to compare the torture, and the torture would be at least something he is accustom to.
(It would be be better to have never tasted a steak, then to have one, and then have one held a foot away and smell it and never be able to bite into one again - and lets make this even more applicable, to have that happen for all eternity.)
God doing all He can to save someone equated to God being weak: That is so far from reality. With that line of thinking, we could conclude God is weak because satan rebelled, God is weak because man rebells, Jesus said for us to pray " Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", there by proving Gods perfect will is NOT being done on earth - (it must mean He is a weak God??) - (God wills that none shoud perish, but that ALL should repent and be saved - they are not, so He again must be weak) One could go on and on with this line of thinking. This has noting to do with a weak God, but the result of wanting a creature who would FREELY love Him without cohertion, the result being that not all in His creation , for a limited time, would allow things to not to be "On earth as it is in Heaven". You see, my definission of God is much more supreem and soverieghn than calvins, mine says God can maintain His sovereigty, and also allow free will to operate together. I cannot explain how that is, but it is true. Maybe the JW's have that answer to, or maybe calvin? Why is it so hard for calvinists to get this? The arguments never seem to directly addressed to what is beng discussed.
Do you know why JW's become JW's? Well,at least a majority-becasue the JW have an answer for everything. A neat tidy religeon that answers all the mysteries perfectly. There is mystery to election, I cannot argue that. I have my beliefs but I may not have it down pat. There is also mystery to once saved always saved, vs you can loose it. Both sides can quote scriptures up and down, just like this debate. (I do believe you can loose it by the way, if you walk away from Christ, not abiding in Him by your own free will-yes. And yes, I believe we have one, but in the end, if you didn't have salvation to begin with, or lost it, the end result is the same)
My point is these things cannot always be tied up into a neat little package. Anyone who denies free choice or election (properly defined) is off base. Both are true, but one cannot cancel the other. Truth lies between the extreems. When a man, calvin, could not reconcile with his limited brain the whole council of God, he went to far, along with his many followers in coming up with the neat package I mentioned. But in saying that, it is not even a neat package, it is full of contridictions. Please help me understand my calvinist freinds, how do you swallow this and stay sane? I ask this humbly, I can't understand it at all. Please answer the question, HOW can you love the god you defend if this is his ways and methods?
I am not sure what to think about all this discussion, it can be very frustrating. I wonder if it accomplishes anything? At minimum it shows we care about truth and the things of God. All we need to do now is have our calvinist brothers see the light!
God bless, Bob
_________________
Bob
|
| | 2007/10/24 18:25 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Quote:
So we can see this argument already beginning to fade, let's examine the rest of these scriptures, in context, rather than just pulled out of a book.
Not at all brother, because man must still believe to be saved. Since man does not have free will to determine himself to be saved, it must come from somewhere else i.e. the new birth.
Scripture does not talk of man being born by his own decision, but rather God's choice of whom He will.
What you seem to ignore or do not wish to explain is how is it that a man believes? Who causes him to believe in what he previously thought was foolishness?
Look at Jesus' words here to the Jews-
John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because [b]ye cannot hear my word.[/b]
Is this because they were deaf? or is Jesus speaking of a different "hearing" that a natural man does not have, and must be given?
Quote:
ok roaringlamb, I am not going to quote the whole chapter of 1 corinthians 2, because it is quite long, but you are going to have to stop pulling things out of context to make points.
Brother the "wisdom" Paul is speaking of is Christ's crucifixion, and the Gospel. Therefore it firmly shows that Paul is speaking of the natural man not being able to understand the Gospel.
Is the Gospel spiritual, and must it be applied by the Spirit? If so, how can a natural unspiritual man receive it. How can a man even comprehend "conviction of sin" without a new heart when his natural heart loved his sin and left on its own would continue in that state?
Quote:
Now, that is what that verse means, not the twisted definition that is drawn from the bad context of the other two verses that you misinterpreted.
So you would say that a man apart from the Spirit may at any time "choose" Christ, and enlighten himself? While Christ said that the Spirit convicts of sin.
Quote:
Now let me state so that the record is clear, I did not change my own heart, God did. I did not save myself, God did. But he saved me because I believed, I did not believe because he saved me, that is contrary to the order that scripture teaches in salvation.
And I challenge you to show an example through scripture, where a man was saved before he believed.
God did not save you "because" you believed, you "believed" because God gave you faith, and your heart was regenerated to believe.
I do not know the time period in which they happen, but in many times it is simultaneously, the new birth provides faith, and the two are intertwined with each other, but the birth precedes life.
Quote:
That pattern of salvation is not a biblical one, you cannot show that pattern outlined in scripture at all. Like I have said before, it is a doctrine that is taught, and all of it's conclusions revolve around itself, and not what scripture shows.
I refer you to my earlier challenge of showing this outlined in scripture, and let me further add to the challenge that it must be in context, not a verse from here, a verse from there, I want to see a real passage that teaches that concept all by itself.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; [b]if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.[/b]
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: [b]whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.[/b]
Quote:
Either God does what you do, or you are wrong. It cannot be both ways, God told cain he had the ability to be accepted, and it was either true or a lie. You can ignore it, but God does not lie. So you have a problem.
Brother again Cain could have been accepted by God, if he would have accepted God's way of sacrifice, that is the point there. The very point that he would not only shows that natural men cannot change themselves, and rather rebel. But God still gives them mercy. To put it in a simple way, for the unbeliever, Earth is the closest they will ever get to Heaven, while for the child of God, Earth is the closest they will get to hell.
God could have destroyed Cain and been just, as He could with all of society. However God gave him life, and mercy.
Quote:
God's will was from the beginning to have all men completely surrendered to Him, if you deny this, then you say that it was God's will that man sin.
In the same way, you say that satan is under God's will, so satan was actually doing God's will in tempting man, yet the scripture tells us that God tempts no man, according to James.
God ordained that sin entered the human race, and He allowed the human race to continue to this day. God has ordained demons to hell, and angels to Heaven. All things are under His control and guidance.
Satan is under God's rule, and cannot do anything but what is allowed by God. Even in the book of Job, we see God allowing satan to test Job.
It was God's will for Job to be tested, was it not?
God from all eternity did by the most wise and counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. Yet in all of this, He remains holy, and in no way violates a man's will. We see God do this with Assyria in raising them up to chasten Israel. Though the Assyrians were being a tool in God's hand, they wanted to destroy Israel and so delighted in this.
God created satan, and allowed him to bring sin into the world. If God did not want sin to exist, it would not, but this doe snot mean He has stepped back and left us all to our own ways. He reigns and as the Psalms say- "our God is in the Heavens and He has done whatever He has pleased"(Psalm 115:3)
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/24 18:49 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | So here's a question for all involved in this discussion.
If a man is presented with the Gospel, and is not saved, why is this?
Why is it that some believe and some do not, when all of us start off dead in sin? Who gives the life, who causes us to believe and not others?
Why is this?
Why do some have faith, while others do not in light of the fact that faith is a gift from God?
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/24 19:07 | Profile | Logic
Member
Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791
| | Re: | | John 3 is not "regeneration"; John 3 is saying one must be "born from above" or "born again", "born of the Spirit".
If one is "born of the Spirit", that one has Eternal life already(John 17:3), that means "saved".
If one does not have eternal life, that one is not able to enter into the kingdom of God(John 3:5).
"Entering into the kingdom of God(John 3:5)" is the same as "seeing the kingdom of God(John 3:3)"
[b]Titus 3:5[/b] [color=990000]not by works in righteousness which we had done, but according to His mercy, He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit[/color]
In other words, becoming new again from the washing away of sin with the Holy Spirits renovation, that is how we are saved.
[b]1 Peter 1:23[/b] [color=990000]Being born again(begotten again), not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abides for ever.[/color]
In other words: We have eternal life(born again) by incorruptible Seed(God as our Father).
The word "seed" is Greek "spora": a sowing, that is by implication, a descent from parents.
If one is "born again", one simotaniously has God as his own Father, and therefore, already saved.
One must not say the "regeneration" or the "new birth" comes before salvation, they are one and the same. |
| | 2007/10/24 21:03 | Profile | refrigbob
Member
Joined: 2007/9/12
Posts: 15
Buffalo, NY
| | Re: | | "So here's a question for all involved in this discussion.
If a man is presented with the Gospel, and is not saved, why is this?"
John 5:39-40 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye may have eternal life.
Note: you WILL NOT come that you MAY HAVE eternal life. That is a choice, it says or implies nothing of a secret doctrine. Was Jesus upfront and honest in His appeal, or not? Was He lieing, or offering something that could not be obtained by who he was speaking to, or not? The direct context is, the choice to recieve a free gift was offered, and rejected.
9:41 Jeus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin; but now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Pride kept this sinner out of the kingdom, as all others who reject the terms of the Gospel. The gift offered, the gift rejected. (Romans 9:30-33 - , read it all, but vs 32 - Wherefore, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, for they stumbled at that stumbling stone" (Jesus -the cross)
12:47 And if ANY man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the WORLD, but to save the WORLD.
Note: ANY man, not some. World means world, not the world of the elect)
He that rejectith me, and recieveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him on the last day.
Note. He that REJECTS ME. Again, no secret society, no secret doctrine. HE that rejects - it is called accountability - rejection of thuth. Pride of man. (Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not SUBMITTED THEMSELVES unto the righteousness of God" Accountable, or not? Elected not to submit by decree? 11:23 - And they also, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grfted in; for God is able to graft them in again.
15:22 If I had not come, and spoken unto them, they would have no sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.
Why do some men accept, and others reject the Gospel? This is a very small sample of scripture to answer your question brother. How many more do you need? Please, lay down all the books pray, and ask God to show you the truth about this. We may never in this life have all the answers, but this path of the secret and enightned doctrine is just encredible! How can you ignore so many scriptures that contridict this theory?
God bless, Bob
_________________
Bob
|
| | 2007/10/24 21:04 | Profile | Logic
Member
Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791
| | Re: | | Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
So here's a question for all involved in this discussion.
If a man is presented with the Gospel, and is not saved, why is this?
You reject the answer, or, you reject the truth to that question.
Quote:
Why is it that some believe and some do not, when all of us start off dead in sin? Who gives the life, who causes us to believe and not others?
Your theology, is seriously flawed, because you put a different meaning to what Paul meant by dead in your trespasses and sins.
Using your theology, we could just as well say that those who are spiritualy dead cannot make moral judgments, choose yo do any good, or ackknowledge any truth, since physicaly dead people cant do those things either.
Like all analogies, there are simularities that can be seen between physical and spiritual death, but, like all analogies, there are limits.
You are taking the term spiritually dead to far in what it is supposed to mean.
dead in your trespasses and sins( Col 2:13) means that unregenerate man has no relationship with Christ because of his sin. It does not mean that man is incapable of making a choice to repent, just as it evidently does not imply the unregenerate's inability to make any other choice, including moral choices.
Unregenerate people have the capacity to choose between doing what is right and or wrong, and receiving Christ is a moral decision. People make choices all the time to obey or disobey from their own consciences. The unregenerate are not so evil that they are incapable of choosing to obey.
So what is the difference between any other moral choice that an unregenerate person makes and the moral choice to repent and follow Jesus?
It is evident that people who are dead in their trespasses and sins are capable of submitting to God.
Quote:
Why do some have faith, while others do not in light of the fact that faith is a gift from God?
Where does it say that ffaith is a gift, do not use Eph 2:8. |
| | 2007/10/24 21:25 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Quote:
If one is "born of the Spirit", that one has Eternal life already(John 17:3), that means "saved".
Interesting that you would use this verse, because look what Jesus says before this-
John 17:2 As thou hast given him(Christ) power over all flesh, that he(Christ) should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
So let's see what is being said here-
Christ says that He gives eternal life to those whom the Father has given Him, and that eternal life is the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ.
What do you make of Christ's words to Peter-
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, [b]Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.[/b]
No one has answered what Christ meant when He said that no man could come to Him unless they were drawn by the Father.
As far as being dead in sin, I have never said that this means men cannot do moral, or good deeds so please do not add to my words. I have said that because of this deadness, they must be given life to be spiritual and man cannot do this. God and God alone must give life just as He did the day each of us was born into this world.
How much control did you have over choosing your parents, or when you were born? That's about as much control as you had over your re-birth as well. The wind blows where it will brothers.
Quote:
One must not say the "regeneration" or the "new birth" comes before salvation, they are one and the same.
I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary. But they are from God and God alone. The fruit of these is faith in Christ, because now I understand my sin, and need for Christ, and take Him as Lord and Saviour.
Apart from God working in man first though, no man would choose this, or see his sin as it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin.
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/24 22:16 | Profile | Logic
Member
Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791
| | Re: | | Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary.
Yah, but you do take the term dead in sin out of it's true meaning. |
| | 2007/10/24 22:23 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Brother bob,
I don't know why you did not include this verse first though-
John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; [b]even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. [/b]
The Son gives life to whom He will, it's His choice and not determined upon merit or works of ours.
Quote:
Please, lay down all the books pray, and ask God to show you the truth about this
And cannot I say the same to you brother?
It is because men forsook "the books" as you say that we are in this mess in the first place. Paul had to deal with "free-will worship", as did Augustine, as did the Reformers, as did the Church in the 1800's.
The semi-Pelagian ghost seems to be throttling the Church, and many of the complaints voiced by people here and in the professing church at large are a direct result of this flawed view of man, and a idolatrous view of God.
I have prayed, and prayed some more, have lost friends, have been labeled "out of my mind", but it is all worth it because I know Him, and that is what I rejoice in.
I would not have even posted on this thread except for the demeaning tone in which ben spoke of those who hold to Calvinist doctrine.
By the way, I have yet to read a book by Calvin, looking forward to getting the Institues though.
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/24 22:33 | Profile |
|
