Search results

So, do you believe that our broken humiliation, by which we cry out to God to rescue us, trusting only in Him because we have no other hope, is a 'meritorious work of righteousness?' Could it be that our broken humiliation is just that and nothing more, and God graciously CHOOSES (only...

So you start by inferring Piper doesn't represent your view (i.e 'you think Piper is the standard for all Calvinists...CAlvinist differ on many things'), then change to defending your position as being in perfect alignment with Piper, then blame me for not understanding Piper. So, which is it...

No, its not consistent with your systematic view of scripture: ESV: "...bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God..." Holman: "Restore me, and I will return, for you, Lord, are my God." NAS: "Bring me back that I may be restored, For You are the LORD my God"...

I'm not sure you even have full grasp of what some Calvinists teach: "The best place to look in the Scriptures for a theological grasp of the language of justification is Romans 3:28-5:21. Within the first 12 verses of chapter 4 you might notice the prevalence of the verb “count.” Eight times...

Wow. Whatever it takes to keep the dream alive, huh?

Pauls said, "No one is righteous...no one is good." Which means that no one has or ever will attain righteousness by works of the law. NO one will ever merit their salvation by law. It says NOTHING about man's inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition.

Sorry, that's not what he said... Paul said that they PURSUED RIGHTEOUSNESS either by works or by faith. Calvinists think they have to be made righteous (given a new nature which is 'good') in order to pursue righteousness, which is confounding.

You said, "...he need not pursue righteousness if he IS righteous by nature. If he IS unrighteous by nature, then and only then, does pursuit of righteousness enter the picture." That is exactly what I accused you of believing. You think someone has to be irresistibly made righteous in order...

Look at the entire context of that passage and anyone can see it doesn't fit your interpretation: 16 This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So...

I don't have time right now to go through all of this, but the bottom line is that you seem to think the cause of being made righteous (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good) makes the effect of men wanting to pursue righteousness (being cleansed, made new, reborn, good), which is confounding.

Biblicist, You seem to think that a man must be made righteous in order to pursue righteousness by faith, which is confounding. It's like saying you must bathe and get clean in order to want to be bathed and made clean. With all due respect, it's pure non-sense.

I read your response and you failed to address this CLEAR and UNDENIABLE BIBLICAL distinction between the "righteousness by law" and the "righteousness by faith". All you have to do is tell us which TYPE of righteousness you are addressing because thus far EVERYTHING you have said simply...

Biblicist, Please read this again and tell us which type of 'righteousness' (goodness) you want to address because thus far you have continued to confound the two making this discussion circular and meaningless. I'll make it as simple as I can by giving multiple choice. When you speak of man's...

It seems some believe that asking someone to cleanse you is itself considered already being clean. That's like insisting that for someone to realize they need a bath they must be given one first.

That goes back to the question of the OP. How are you defining what is 'good?' If you mean 'meritorious' or 'deserving' of forgiveness and reward, then I would answer one way, but if you mean 'something God has chosen to grace' then I'd answer differently.

Defining "good" is important to a profitable discussion regarding the scriptures teaching regarding how one attains righteousness. "Good" may reference the concept of meriting righteousness through works, and by that definition then no one is "good." However, if one means "good" as in...

Another point... If I want to prove my LOVE for my wife then I can't leave her. If I leave her then I proved to never really have LOVED her. To call that love is a farce, just as to call someone who leaves Christ "ONCE SAVED" is a farce.

This wasn't addressed. I think it answers all the verses you just presented. True salvation, like true love, will endure to the end. Those who lose it, from the human perspective, never had it from the divine perspective. One doesn't negate the other. The warning is a real one because those...

Parables are taking divine truths and putting them in stories that we can relate to in real life. The story of the prodigal son and the wedding banquet, are similar in this regard. They are addressing us on our level and from our perspective. I believe the parable is representing anyone...

But, what I'm saying is if LOVE, as defined by God, lasts forever then you can't call THAT which ends "love." You'd have redefine the word to mean something 'temporary.' I'm not saying that nothing existed between them, I'm just saying it can't be called "love," because by definition love...