Featured The nature of Quickening

Well, from my perspective (not that you care about my perspective), a ten page thread where you beg your opponent to concede a single point that it is obvious he is never going to concede is BORING.

Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine, not because you get dirty, but because the pig will tear you to pieces.



Actually, rolling around in the mud would be far more entertaining than trying to get one of these guys to agree with you.

 

They will know us by our love for each other.

 

Oh, I see, you equate disagreement to hatred. They are not the same. I strongly disagree with every Calvinist here at BB over doctrine, but I do not hate any of them. I like them and care for them as we should care for all men.

That said, we are in a real fight for truth, and that means you have to get tough and mix it up.

Acts 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

Paul didn't hate his enemies, he loved them. But he spoke BOLDLY. This is not a game. That doesn't mean you hate your opponent. If I hated my opponent I would let him continue in what I believe is serious error.

 

I never said hatred. They will know us by our love, care, kindness, charity for each other. We can disagree without being hateful, mean, unkind, uncharitable.

Be angry but do not sin. Seek unity, but speak truth in love.

 

I do not seek unity with false doctrine.

 

As an Arminian (not just non-cal) I observe that you describe depravity in the total absence of the supernatural "Drawing of ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 and in total absence of the supernatural "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 12 and in the total absence of the "enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman" Genesis 3 supernaturally placed there by God.

Thus you describe a context that "does not exist" - in the same way that one could claim that if you push an object it keeps going in the direction you push it -- described apart from the context of earth's gravity and air resistance that is everywhere.

Because you describe one universal rule to the exclusion of the other universal factors, you get a result that is never seen in real life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bump. Anyone care to comment?

 

I have already commented, I believe before you did. Quickening is actually defined by scripture itself as being forgiven all our trespasses;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

The wages of sin is DEATH. The reason men are spiritually dead is because they have sinned. Sin causes us to be separated from God (Isa 59:2). To be quickened means to be made spiritually alive again. This can only happen when our sins and trespasses are forgiven, which can only occur AFTER we trust Jesus and are justified. We are justified or forgiven by faith.

I believe your view and mine are basically the same, it means to pass from spiritual death to spiritual life, which only happens when we first believe.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

 

Although I agree that our quickening takes place in conjunction with the forgiveness of our sins, the definition of 'quicken' doesnt include 'forgive'.
Quicken, to the Anglish, at one time, meant to take away death. It was the name for the process of becoming immortal. Being made a god. Being made unable to die.

Quickening stands on its own, as the dead receiving life. It fits many scenarios, but always with the same role, it is the transformation process

 

READ WHAT I WROTE! I acknowledged that you affirm regeneration in the very next sentence. I asked if you believe that God wasn't ABLE to enable a free response, but that His only option was to MAKE them believe through effectual regeneration. Apparently that is what you believe because you continue to argue that God doesn't have sovereign control over the effects of the fall on the nature of mankind. You seem to argue that God is a victim of the fall and that man's condition of inability to willingly respond to His revelation is beyond His control. The ONLY control God has, according to what you seem to be saying, is to irresistibly regenerated the fallen nature to make them certainly desire to believe and repent. How is that NOT accurate?

You deny that God had control over the nature of man's condition after the fall, which strongly seems to suggest that God couldn't have (even if he wanted to) merely enabled men to freely respond. His only option was to effectually change the nature, correct?

I never once denied that. I said 'irresistible' didn't I?

Or you don't like them explained in a way that reveals their weaknesses...

I challenge you to quote something that I have written that isn't consistent with some aspect of mainstream Calvinism teaching. BTW, some Calvinists wouldn't take the approach you do by denying God's sovereignty over the condition of man resulting from the fall.

So, by that admission why couldn't you affirm with me that God COULD, if he so designed, to control the nature of man following the fall and make them enabled to freely respond to his revelation? You have continually argued that the nature of sin (total inability) was not by His design and not within his control, as if He couldn't, even if he wanted to, do anything about the consequences of the fall...except irresistibly regenerate.

 

In debate one is called to VET or PRESS their opponents position. Sometimes we do this by asking pressing questions, and those questions are meant to highlight the weakness of the argument being presented. That is the nature of a debate.

If one argues, as you have, that the nature of sin resulting in the condition of total inability is NOT under the control of God, in that He had no say in it, because it was merely an innate, natural 'essence' of sin, he should expect such difficult questions...possibly even from those in his own camp (I can present a few reformed scholar's articles if you'd like to read them who do just that).

If you can't handle the difficult question because you feel they put your view in a negative light, fine, but don't pretend that doesn't go both ways as is evidenced by many of your replies to me and my views. I mean, for goodness sake man, in the other thread you and P4T are ruthlessly painting me as some fool who actually gloats knowing and understanding God all by myself, without his help at all....which is just plain silly.

Why don't you attempt to show some charity and meet me half way instead of attempting to create a monster?

 

Winman

This is why truth eludes you winman....you are trying fleshly"winning"technique...rather than obeying the word from the Spirit as He reveals truth.
:thumbsup:

:laugh:

well yes because they stay in the bible he is fighting against it...so it seems like a steam-roller is at work:thumbsup:

:laugh: then again ...maybe not!

 

the work of the Holy Spirit i to take the truth of the message of the Cross and resurrection of jesus to sinners, and those whom have been prdained to be saved by those described acts, will indeed have the truth of their sins and their need for Him be revealted unto them, and they will be enabled to turn to him and call upon the name of the Lord and get saved!

Nessage preached to all, ONLY those to get saved by it though are enabled by him to do such!

 

You can just call it a false dichotomy and present the correct alternative. Sometimes it appears that one perspective as just two alternatives and that often becomes evident when that so-called 3rd alternative is proven to say virtually the exact same thing as one of the alternatives presented. Listen, almost any perspective has a 'nice way' and a 'negative way' to be expressed. Calvinism, even by the admission of many Calvinists, is a hard pill to swallow...ESPECIALLY when the raw hard truth of it is laid right out there without any decorative language and long vague theological jargon.

i.e. "Particular redemption is God gracious atoning work for those He eternally loves."

vs.

"Limited atonement is the dogma that teaches God only savingly loves a preselected few and atones for their sins alone leaving the rest of humanity without hope of salvation."

Both statements virtually communicate the same truth, but one does so in a 'nice' manner and other in a 'realistic' raw manner, which reveals the negative side of the doctrine. It doesn't make it untrue.

 

Good points. To put it another way, I’d add conclusions are often communicated either euphemistically or dysphemistically which amount to little more than rhetoric regarding the logical truth toward reaching the conclusion.

What stands out to me in Skan’s examples are that:

(A) amounts to a purposefully vague euphemistic “half-truth” which is presenting a claim.

(B) dysphemistically defines the method of the claim (“dogmatic teaching”) and addresses the consequences of that premise while drawing a conclusion upon it which presents a moral dilemma (“negative side”) concerning it or adds some transparency to the vague euphemistic dogma which was presented.

What I see being objected to and avoided by Skan’s opponents is simply his being more complete in defining their positions and exposing the half-truths which are being dogmatically presenting.

Since the purpose of debate should be drawing out the truth in an argument and this begins by examining and defining the terms (claims and issues) it seems to me Skan is on the right path which is to draw conclusions. It is obvious as I watch him time and again have to defend himself from those trying to turn the argument into a personal slugfest rather than allowing him to establish the premises in an argument/debate which can then be shown to come to logically true conclusions who it is that has the proper and ethical objectives in this debate. His opponents constantly squawk about his efforts to “restrict” their claims to their logically true conclusions while he is merely trying to prevent them from question begging on these same issues later- holding them to their logically true (and detrimental) conclusions.

The Determinists typically resort to euphemisms, ambiguity, double speak and phrases like “redemptive love” to smokescreen such issues of either/or Love divinely brought through in creation for all of God’s creatures as per His Omnibenevolent nature.

The problem with Determinists trying to argue while avoiding being pinned down on where their doctrines logically lead is summed up quite nicely by the words of Adrian Rogers:

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers