Featured Saved from what ?

My conclusion you can't live on a piece of the truth you are willing to accept and reason your way into it.

The wages of my sin is death not faith not trust. That is the wages of my sin nothing but death will pay it. So I am saved by grace if not I still owe that debt.

That is what faith taught me. So I am saved by grace through faith. I did not get this from myself but through Him and His word. I trust in God through Jesus Christ that He paid a debt that I could not. If I paid it myself I would not be saved. So trusting in God is not a work I am secure in Christ Jesus.

 

Maybe p4t will be along to shout "strawman" loud enough for you to hear it. Your deliberate misrepresentation is unchristlike.

 

Precisely.......Naturally, if you apply a Calvinist pre-supposition to non-Calvinist ideology, you will go wrong every time, and arrive upon ludicrous conclusions.

You can't do that however, and understand a non-Cal theology. In order for two sides to debate, they have to understand the premises the other side assumes.
One main one:
1.) "Faith" is not a meritorious "work" of any kind.......it is merely a passive response.
A Calvinist cannot communicate with a non-Cal unless they divorce themselves from viewing non-Cal Theology through that supposition.

 

A Calvinist, Old School Sovereign Baptist or anyone who is by in large Monergistic has to conclude that the Non-Calvinist priori presupposition does not include a totally sovereign God.

If we evaluate it that way then there will be understanding but nowhere will there be commitment from us to your POV. Thats why I believe there needs to be separation between the two belief systems & why I am against SBC initiatives. Its a bad marriage & one that eventually will end in divorce.

 

Actually, I typed it with calmness and poise.

 

fifthed.........God loved me by sending His Son to die for me.....me, the most vile, wicked, self-centered, self-loving person. He called and I began begging, crying, pleeing for Him to save me. He found me in the waste-howling wilderness, in the desert land.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Q,what percentage of your nearly 5,000 posts has merely been the usage of the thumbs up sign? I'd reckon almost a third. What say you?

 

Pinoy please explain these scriptures. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. Many cals and sovereign grace preachers explain this scripture like this. The gospel of Christ is not the gospel of the Arminians but when the true gospel is preached God can bless it with his Spirit to become the effectual call to a individual and the proof of his election is faith and repentance toward God or if at this time God does not anoint the gospel with the Spirit it becomes a general call to the individual but he is still held by God responsible. Christ also said, except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, so how could a person be regenerated by the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ but never know of Christ ? You might also take a look at Rom 10:12-17 and 1 Cor 1:21.

 

No need to "commit" to the POV......that's not what's being discussed. Just that, in order to speak or debate intelligently and fruitfully about said POV, one must not super-impose given assumptions ONTO the back of a system which DENIES those assertions. You can't correctly guage the coherence of a system of belief if you insert pre-suppositions which that system denies.

No one would suggest you ACCEPT those assertions....just that you only judge the coherence of that system from it's own premises and not YOURS. That's what Dr. J. is talking about, and I agree.
I will give you an example:
Arminians tend to think that Calvinism has God converting men AGAINST their will.
Calvinists deny that, and maintain that he makes men "willing" (usually anyway, some don't).

In order for me to debate the coherence of a compatibilist view....I cannot import my pre-supposition of LFW INTO it.

Similarly, you couldn't guage the coherence of Arminianism if you judge it with the presumption that "faith" is a "work".
You would have to judge the systems co-herence according to it's committment that Faith is NOT a work...........

You don't have to BELIEVE that, or "commit" to it as you say. You simply judge it's coherence accordingly. Does that clear up what I'm saying some for you?

 

I understood before you even brought it up. :laugh:

 

K :thumbs: :wavey:

 

And your point is? I will be happy to step it up to 5/8 or even 2/3. Would that meet with your approval?

 

No,it would not. There are men of few words. You are a man of a few symbols.

 

:laugh: :wavey: :thumbsup:

 

Not one iota of my faith comes from Roman Catholicism. Yours, on the other hand, comes from a state-churchist, baby sprinkling, soul liberty denying, persecuting murderer whose beliefs were unknown prior to him.

 

If you and I can get along, why can't everyone else?

 

Three times now within a few days, my views have been attributed to Satan.

I think what I'll do instead of leave the forum, as I considered, or getting into a p*****g contest with idiots, as I have done too often, I'll simply hit the report button. Maybe something will be done about self-righteous hypocrites who think they know the mind of God calling believers "satanic", which would seem to me to be a violation of forum policy, as an offense subject to banning. Not that I want anyone to be banned. I say let them stay and heap up piles of... well, fill in the blank.

 

It is vain to do with more what can be done with less (William of Occam)

 

Yep, I can go away for 5 years, come back, and the debates are all the same. Fruitless.