Featured Sincerity

Brother, I came to your support vin the post previous to the you quoted me on, and this is what I get? Brother it is you who posts as much, if not more, vitriolic posts than anyone on here. Since my belief change, I have been nothing but respectful to you, but you have unaplogettically(sp?) called me an arrogant jerk, I used to know the truth, and now a crybaby?

 

Pay attention, and you will see I am a counter-puncher. Now, that's no excuse I guess, but when someone insults me, I get a little kick out of responding.

Protestant started, I countered.

And when did I call you an arrogant jerk? I certainly don't remember that.

But you have changed since your belief change. Now you parrot the same insults that all Calvinists parrot.

You used to be funny when you were a non Cal, you are not funny at all now.

You can't see it, but your personality has radically changed, and it is not an improvement. Sorry, but that is the truth.

 

Animals absolutely have faith, anybody that has owned a pet knows that.

When my father died, my brothers and I had to get his cat. That cat was used to my Dad and no one else. We were in my Dad's home for several days, packing and clearing the house out. The cat was terrified and remained under the couch the whole time. He wouldn't eat or drink or anything.

Finally, my brother had to pull the cat out from under that couch, and he got scratched up pretty bad, both arms were bleeding. We put the cat in a carrier and brought him to N. Carolina from Florida. My brother kept the cat. It took about a month, but the cat finally got used to him. Later, I visited and this cat thought he owned the place, he wasn't afraid of anybody. He got fat.

That cat died last year, but he did not trust us at first, but he came to trust us. Many animals are like this. Even animals have faith.

 

You are correct. I was wrong. I simply failed to observe it was translated "boast" ten times and 117 times "praise."

However, if you will look at those 10 times they support my view that it does not refer to "personal acheivement" but the boast is "in God" and "in the Lord" not in self.

Furthermore, Christ completely contradicts Skandelon's interpretation that knowing God is by personal acheivement that you can boast in. There is simoly no evidence for Skandelon's interpetation and that is why he was forced to find his authority in Webster instead of scripture.

 

Let me tell YOU something Biblicist. For some one as learned (or appears to be as learned) as you.....YOU need to think heavily about two words.

Hubris and Humility.

One, you demonstrate way too much of, and the other very often appears non-existent.

 

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate that.

Well, yes and no. I know exactly what you are saying, and I understand Skandelon as well. You are both correct. A Christian should boast of God.

You know, when we were kids, we all boasted about our Dad. He was the biggest, strongest, smartest, best athlete around. You know, "My dad can lick your dad".

It is the same with God. We have the best Father there is. We are children of the King. It is something to brag about, and folks are attracted to that.

Now, of course, we didn't merit anything, we are saved because of God's grace. Nevertheless, we are children of the living God and we should tell folks.

I think you are making more out of it than you should. The point is, we should not boast because we are rich, or powerful, or smart, or whatever, but we should boast that we are children of the living God and that we have a personal relationship with Jesus.

You know, people are attracted to that, that is something they want also. This has brought many people to Christ.

That is all Skan is saying.

 

That's like boasting that I inherited a million dollars from an uncle I did not know I had. It is not a "personal achievement" for heaven's sake. It is of grace. I did not ACHIEVE anything. Something was given to me- of that I boast. That is the OPPOSITE of "personal achievement."

Knowing God IS MOST ASSUREDLY something to boast about- but not that it is something you have ACHIEVED. OH MY!! That's awful! That's Arminianism gone wild!

 

Yea, Skan. There you go. It means he's looking for them. He doesn't know where they are. He can't hardly find them but God is looking for them.

I take it back.

You turn the one true God of Scripture into a god LESSER than Zeus.

 

Winman, that is not the issue at all! The issue is claiming that knowing God is a "personal acheivement" that we can boast in. The scriptures point blank deny that is possible! Boasting in God, His grace, the cross, His might, His attributes are all things we can "boast in" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OUR PERSONAL ACHEIVEMENTS.

7 ¶ For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Jesus not only directly contradicts that knowing God is a "personal acheivement we can boast in" but denies it is of "flesh and blood" but by divine revelation (Mt. 16:17).

THAT IS NOT THE POINT AT ALL! Jesus flatly repudiates that knowing God is or can be of "personal acheivement" but rather is COMPLETELY/TOTALLY a DIVINE ACHEIVEMENT!

Mt 11:27 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Lu 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Skandelon's claim that understanding and knowing God is a "personal acheivement we can boast in" is a direct contradiction to these words of Christ that cannot possibly be harmonized. Jesus says it comes only by divine revelation - "to whom the Son will REVEAL Him."

There is no common ground between Skandelon' statement that "knowing God is a personal acheivement" which we can boast in. Note the text says both "understanding" and "knowing me" not merely knowing me. We can only glory in it BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PERSONAL ACHEIVEMENT.

There is no middle ground between skandelon's statement that "understanding and Knowing me" is "a personal acheivement" in which we can boast and "understanding and knowing me" is not a personal acheivement in which we can boast but a divne REVELATION which we must praise and glorify God for. - NONE because they ARE DIRECT OPPOSITES and the difference between grace and works.

 

You know, it is amazing that when you fella's are just simply wrong and so obviously proven to be wrong as in this very case, there is no "hubris and humility" exhibited on your part. When I am wrong, I freely admit it. When you, Skandelon, Winman and Van are wrong you simply dig in and refuse to admit it. So I think you are the one who really needs to think about "hubris and humility".

There is no middle ground between skandelon's statement that "understanding and Knowing me" is "a personal acheivement" in which we can boast and "understanding and knowing me" is not a personal acheivement in which we can boast but must praise and glorify God for. Jesus plainly and clearly repudiates that idea and claims that knowing God is WHOLLY and TOTALLY by Divine acheivement and that is by "revelation" and NOT OF FLESH AND BLOOD (Mt. 16:17).

 

Seeking is the biblical word, I'm sorry you have a problem with the word God chose. He apparently doesn't have an issue with us thinking him as seeking or patiently waiting for those who Worship Him. You have a problem with God and scripture, not me.

 

Is there such thing as a 'personal achievement' in the CAlvinism world view, ever?

I think your answer will reveal the point of contention between us.

The divine phrase, "Well done my good and faithful servant," doesn't really exist in a Calvinistic world view, which is is why I know this world isn't one.

 

Biblicist, you ignored posts 287 and 290 in order to repeat your same unfounded arguments.

 

BTW, Luke, don't you believe that you are the one who repents and believes AFTER and AS A DIRECT RESULT of God's effectual work of regeneration? I mean, you personally are STILL the one DOING those things, right?

So, why is what you do personally, even as a result of divine effectual causes, not considered a personal achievement? Can't you just give praise to God for your personal achievements? Otherwise you'd have to say God believed and confessed for me...and your dogma already looks too much like a puppet show as it is, you can't go to that 'Calvinism gone wild' extreme.

How about when you lie or cheat or steal? Is that a "personal achievement" in the Calvinistic world view? Oh wait, it can't be because that would deny His sovereignty. I guess God also lies for you and cheats for you? This is what happens when Calvinists back themselves into a deterministic corner and forget to even leave room for compatibilism.

 

One more thing...

Ok, I'm glad you brought up this example. So, God is like the uncle who gives away one million dollars to you. So, you boast or glory in the fact that you know this uncle as you reveal the unmerited blessing he gave you. What's wrong with that? I've never argued that you "GLOAT" about how much knowledge or understanding you have, but that you boast in knowing and understanding God because He is the souce of the unmerited blessing.

In fact, the ONLY distinction I could find between what I believe about this verse and what Calvinist commentators say about it is the irresistible nature of God's revelation for the elect alone. Going back to your example, I'd say the nephew has the ability to resist the gift and 'trade it in for lies' or squander it on riotous living, and he would be completely RESPONSE-ABLE for that RESPONSE, because he was ABLE to make it. But even if the nephew makes that stupid choice the Uncle should still get the glory for his blessing. People shouldn't lie about the gift and say it really wasn't intended for the nephew or the gift really wasn't offered to him....that steals glory away from the Uncle who did provide. Likewise, if the nephew does receive the gift, it in no way lessons the givers glory for giving it. If anything it makes the givers glory greater because he is a blessing and is being blessed by the genuine response of his beloved.

 

At this time, I will refrain from further comment, but I do want to suggest you might be against board rules here.

 

P4T has painted me as a boogie man monster in his mind and there is just no changing that. He is going to continue to respond to me with this kind of rancor and lack of objectivity. Some other new poster, especially a Reformed one, could sign on and virtually say the same things and he'd at least have the decency to engage with the subject matter in a reasonable manner. But when you think your debating Lucifer himself, its difficult to be objective and that is who I am in his mind. It really is sad and because of it I'm having to put him on my ignore list. It's just not worth trying to engage with him anymore.