Search results

Look at Cain and Abel to see how God reveals Himself to man. Both of them knew what the animal sacrifice meant, it represented the coming Messiah of God. Abel brought that animal sacrifice before God and was accepted, but what about Cain? Cain rebelled and brought a sacrifice of vegetables...

Of course I've read them, many times! All three examples you gave and several more including Pharaoh in Exodus are examples of rebellion and hardened hearts against God. God gives you what you want, as far as accepting Him or not. If you rebel and continue that rebellion and hardness against...

If unconditional election is true, then we are all saved through Reformed Theology and just don't know it yet. My original statement was said in sarcasm.

There's not a single one of us who wouldn't have done the same as Adam. We agree there for sure, Brother.

If we are honest with ourselves we know there is something that dwells in us that desires to lead us into evil. The Scripture doesn't say plainly that it's a nature, and if someone chooses not to call it that then that's fine. But we all need to bear in mind that something is there and it...

Well there's lots of Scripture from Paul in Romans that ties into this, and when you put it all together I see the lust of the flesh warring against the Spirit in the classical sense of good and evil. I know you don't believe that 2 natures can exist in man, but I believe they do. Paul teaches...

Well, Brother, I know how it goes with us. Since there is no verse in Scripture that says, Hey, here is the sin nature that dwells in man's flesh from the fall, I think it best to let it go.

Ok, just wondering, lol, I won't start another argument.

JonC, how do you see Gal. 5:16-17 ? "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."...

Ok, I guess that means it's only for the Reformed.

That's strange, God inviting all of mankind to come to Him and then only enables some leaving the rest unable.

The Scripture says, "whosever will let him come and drink of the waters of life freely." That's an invitation to all of mankind. Doesn't that mean that anyone who chooses to believe can come?

Let everyone who's following this thread decide for themselves. It's not a difficult decision.

Let's let the people decide for themselves who speaks the truth. It's not rocket science, it's really very simple. Which doctrine agrees with "whosoever will let him come.." "For whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "Come now let us reason together saith the Lord."...

When you read Rom. 8:29 you're reading a conditional election according to His foreknowledge. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." He did foreknow who would believe and He predestined...

I understand that Peter said "elect according to the foreknowledge of God." I understand that Reformed Theology is according to God's sovereign will, not His foreknowledge.

Gen. 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

No, I understand it, but you can't have it both ways. God's election is according to foreknowledge or it's according to sovereignty.

If you Reformed folks want to deny unconditional election is based on God's sovereignty and claim foreknowledge, then I suggest you begin rewriting TULIP. You've got some serious problems.

I don't need to read a link to understand God's foreknowledge, I've already explained it to you.