Featured "given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

Oh,so you are setting up some rules --some guidelines, where the Scriptures are not to teach in certain areas that you will not allow?

You like Spurgeon, --hopefully not just one of his plethora of sermons.
Well then, he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in 1858. Here's a line:"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ." Do you disagree? If so,why? CHS was being very biblical.

I hope you made a mistake and meant to say :"do not" repent...

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause::thumbsup:You have exposed the error all through this thread.

 

Inspector Javert

I agree:thumbsup:For someone to ignore the fine teaching offered by biblicist and to oppose the truth each day is evil.

I am not the issue here IJ.....opposing truth each day is evil. let's view the text;

Paul saw Elymas was working to oppose the truth and turn people from it.
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

,
here he is identified as such...because of sorcery.however satan means opposer....

Biblicist offers truth...and this is the responses you and your friends offer;

wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth...that is evil.If someone does that today...i do not see a difference.

Biblicist has exposed all three of you as lacking anything on these verses.

 

You can't change an unbeliever only a believer the bible is teaching what a believer can do. I am a Spurgeon-Calvinist type and I truly see many Calvinist focus on what an unbeliever can't do when we should be focus on believers what they can be changed into. Trying to win believers to this point. You want to focus on that and that's what you think is the main focus is on then that is your choice. The scripture to me focus on believers and what they are to do. I will stick with my statement you can do what you want to.

Our nature our will is at war with God and we(our free agency) like Jesus must say not my will but your will be done and beat our body into submission. Who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus

You know what I meant I hope, i did mean to to say do not

 

If you have any idea what you are talking about, which is probably a long shot... that makes one of us.

Are you insulting me because I am from the deep south? Is that what you are trying to do?

You are a special kind of something aren't you?

LOL!

 

Reread his paragraph and maybe you'll see that you missed the part that I was referring to.

Winman quoted a bunch of passages that he thinks proves that men can turn to God as an act of their own will without being moved by God to do so.

Just reread it and maybe you'll see it.

If not, maybe you would've have joined the rednecks in the extermination of the gar?

 

This proves biblicist has beaten you.

You cannot answer his argument.

you're done. The honorable thing for you to do at this point would be to yield- to say to him, "You are right. I have no response for that line of argumentation at this time. You have bested me today. I will study more and get back to you when I am as knowledgeable as you are on these subjects. God bless and thanks for the lesson in humility."

Why don't you just do that?

 

Two reasons:
1.) I think I have a response forth-coming as yet (even if you can't imagine what it might be)

2.) If the time does indeed come....
I am not one for making grandiose public self-serving displays of my own humility for everyone to see and express their awe at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90305

 

1, You did respond. Your response was to avoid the argument like the plague and deflect. That is why your response served as undeniable proof that you have been beaten. That is precisely what beaten people do who lack the honor and humility to admit defeat.

2. I suppose to someone who cannot imagine admitting wrong doing without self-serving purposes in view my confession of error can only seem to you as self-serving. The fact is that I was wrong and admitted it because that is what people do who are able to do it.
You may not be there yet. I hope you will grow in that area and become able to admit when you are bested. I have taken quite a few lumps to be brought there myself and I am not there all the way yet. But I am growing. I hope you can. But I will say that it is evident that you think way too highly of yourself in that you think you are able to judge that post of mine as self-serving without ANY evidence to support that judgment. You just arrogantly called it self-serving. You did not say WHY it must be self-serving. You offer no evidence. You just see yourself as God apparently- and able to discern such things that only a god could discern. To call it self serving without any merit is really quite slimy... like belly-crawling critter slimy. It really is. Seriously. Think about it. I'm not attacking you. Just think about it. Is it not very, very slimy? It really is.

 

My response to Biblicist's argument has already been posted B.T.W. It's above. ^^

God bless Luke.
Have a good day.

 

What? If man can make a decision, then God has no power? I find your argument to be very illogical. One does not follow the other.

Calvinists have to admit men are not as bad as they can be because it is obvious to everyone. You can't fool all the people all the time you know. But you can fool the fools.

This of course refutes that men are controlled by their nature, and proves man can determine what his nature is.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This verse proves my view. Men are not born knowing God's laws. But even men without God's laws mature as they grow older and naturally understand right from wrong. Men in countries that never heard the scriptures had good laws that promoted good behavior and they OBEYED them. That is exactly Paul's point. They were able to do good. The fact that they knew good and performed it made them accountable for sin, because they could have done otherwise.

The scriptures do not teach inability, they teach ability.

 

You are the one who brought up the man-eating gar fish story Luke. That didn't happen up north. And I sincerely doubt it happened at all, I think you like to embellish a bit.

And I am just as southern as you, I was born in N. Carolina but spent most of my youth in northern Florida. That's where the southern folks live. And it's even further south than Mississippi.

But I get a distinct impression from you that you are slightly ashamed of being southern, you are always trying to prove how intelligent and educated you are.

Never let your opponent know where your goat is tied up Luke.

 

Pure falsehood. I have NEVER said man can come to God without God's grace preceding. Men come in RESPONSE to God, ALWAYS. You have never heard me say otherwise.

But I do believe men can come in response to God just as they are, and do not need to be regenerated to come in faith. I believe all men have the God-given ability to believe if they choose to do so.

Note I said "God-given" Luke.

 

You have proved one of my main points for me perfectly:

And yet, the basis for your entire argument is essentially that if God's "nature" compels him to act in a certain way, than, man's "nature" MUST similarly compel him to act in certain ways.

Man's "will" is no different in capacity than God's "will".

That is the assumption you have to make, but it also traps you when men do that which is right.

Because God has no capacity to deliberate between right and wrong, and yet man does....
thus, at minimum, man's will, and subsequently, his capacity for "choice" and "choosing" is by default, inherently distinct from God's...

However, you are also forced to suggest that all "choices" are simply causally necessitated by that pre-existing nature. Which defines how God's will works in your schema.

Your arguments are self-defeating.