By ALL means!

Nice dodge. What do you suppose God wants those means to accomplish that are not already accomplished through the effectual work of regeneration?

Having trouble answering that question, Luke?

 

No I'm not, you are misunderstanding my question as I will explain...

Also, you say "once again" as if this there was another time I "confused" the two. Could you site that quote instead of making blanket accusations? Thanks.

I understand and even acknowledged that fact. I see the purpose accomplished through the preaching of the gospel to those who are elect of God, but what I've asked for the the purpose accomplished through the other means that is NOT accomplished only through Calvinism's "effectual work" of grace?

I couldn't agree more, but this is just a restatement of what we believe, its not an answer as to what those means actually accomplish that is not only accomplished through the inward effectual work of God (i.e. what some refer to as "regeneration" or "new birth").

I was in agreement with you all the way up to the part I emboldened. You presume that all these things you listed didn't work, quoting Acts 18:32 as a proof text, which doesn't exist (maybe just a typo?)

The point is that some people did come to faith after the use of these means so to claim that they didn't work is presumptuous and begs the question. If they don't work what was their purpose? Why did Paul bother becoming all things to all men if that wouldn't work? Why not just proclaim the truth and let God's effectual regenerative work do the rest?

Also, you say God must open the heart of those who hear but you seem to dismiss the possibility that its through these chosen means that God is opening their hearts and minds. Could God not use envy to open the mind of a hardened Jew? Why presume that these means are not useful in accomplishing these purposes? Why presume there must be another effectual/irresistible inward means when scripture never indicates there is?

Saying "because it pleases God" doesn't answer the question as to what purpose it serves. The gospel pleases God, but it also serves the purpose of informing and inviting the born again elect to faith. These other means, which you clearly acknowledge are used in scripture, serve no other purpose to speak of if Calvinism is true.

 

Apart from regeneration?

I didn't think so. See, you still must have regeneration to accomplish the purpose thus leaving the other means without any real purpose. They accomplish nothing to speak of, thus making such verses which speak of them as having accomplished something misrepresentative.

For example, when Jesus says, "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

Clearly, if Calvinism is true, the non-elect people of Tyre and Sidon would have never repented regardless of the number of miracles performed. Why? Because they would have never been regenerated. Clearly, Jesus acknowledges the ability of these means to convince a man. They have a purpose and they can accomplish that purpose in my system, but not in yours.

 

I don't moderate for doctrine, only for the breaking of the rules. The admins would edit me if I did otherwise. The board is actually to be self moderated as each person is able to report posts. We are just given the responsibility to actually go in and do the edits.

Your neglecting to answer for this reason is clearly an avoidance technique, especially in light of the fact that you have engaged in discussions with other moderators.

 

We are on the same playing field because I'm subject to your rebuke as well if I break the rules. You only have to report my post if they are in violation of the posting rules and a moderator (beside me) will be informed and can edit it. But, I think you will find that will not be necessary with me because I don't break the rules.

You would have no problems if you simply obey the rules. If you can't do that, then you may be right, you shouldn't debate me.

 

I received several reports from other members Luke, there is nothing "willy nilly" about what I've done. There are also several public comments concerning your demeanor and inflammatory posts. You made a personal attack, which is against the rules. Just stick to addressing the subject and not the person and that won't be a problem.

I've sent you a PM and I advise you to stick to addressing these types of concerns there. I've also agreed to only report the posts that you write directed to me, in the same way you can report mine.

 

Yes, and if you feel that I have broken them you can report it, as I've told you again and again.

I'm only trying to dispel the notion that I have treated you unfairly. No one has questioned whether or not you actually broke the rules, only if I should edit you when I'm in a discussion with you. We've come to an agreement on that point. I'm also letting people know how to properly handle moderating concerns.