Search results

Actually, I would affirm with scripture that we are born sinful and depraved, but that God's powerful message of redemption, the GOSPEL, His appeal to be reconciled gives us the ability to respond to his grace. Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't an appeal to be reconciled from the fallen condition...

Biblicist, did you see post 79?

I agree with John Stott and other Reformed theologians and most commentators as I've already laid out several times...and which you ridiculed and ignored. You quote the verse stating "..the doers of the law shall be justified" Ro 2:14, which most commentators agree is an impossible...

Really? The first one is the Calvinistic application of Romans 9 and the second is an exact quote from Jesus. Which one is a perversion and why? But Jesus said it was because they didn't believe. I'll stick with Jesus. Jesus also said: "I have come into the world as light, so that whoever...

Well, that depends on the english translation, either way it doesn't say what you need it to say to prove irresistible grace. You have to really stretch the verse to pull that meaning out of it and considering this passage is really all you have to go on to support this entire point of your...

Why? Why are they already condemned? Multiple choice: A. Because they were born hated by their creator before doing anything good or bad (i.e. Esau)? B. Because they refuse to believe? Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already...

In another thread Biblicist wrote: So, Biblicist denies that God decreed or designed for mankind to lose their ability to respond as a result of the fall. No doubt he does this because he denies 'double predestination' or 'Supralapsarianism.' In this view, Biblicist attempts to...

This still stands too....

No, it says, "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God," it says nothing about the requirements needed to move from acting in accordance with the flesh and in accordance with the Spirit. Given that the gospel is said to be powerful, and truth is said to bring 'freedom,' and the very words...

By the irresistible work of the Spirit or just 'by the Spirit.' That is where your argument falls short. You are still under the Calvinistic delusion that for a giver to receive full credit for giving a gift he must give it irresistibly.

Now watch carefully what I do... The phrase 'in the flesh' can refer to the lost man who lives in darkness without the light of the gospel. See we can do that too. That is my point. The verse doesn't address the LEVEL of grace needed to overcome this disability. It could simply be a...

I agree with what Piper states here... How Can God Be Impartial When Only the Jews Received the Law? But there is a problem here - an objection that has to be answered. So Paul takes another step in his argument. Here's the objection: You say, Paul, God is going to judge all people according...

Even Piper, quoting Stott, acknowledges my take on this passage is the most accepted interpretation of Rom 2, yet you treat it with distain instead of engaging with a cordial rational discussion. That reveals all we need to know...

Quoting the text is fine, but we are debating its INTERPRETATION, which you now are avoiding for obvious reasons. HERE in THIS POST you seem to suggest that the two passages are at odds with each other because YOU BELIEVE the latter teaches mankind is justified by works... I asked you to...

Look at it this way. What if I attempting to argue that the work of irresistible regeneration wasn't sufficient to enable mankind to please God based on the phraseology of this verse? After all, we remain 'in the flesh' until our earthly bodies are redeemed, thus this verse MUST be teaching...

Please follow me. I'm accepting your premise for the sake of this argument. Let's presume that it is completely true that man's condition is at 'enmity against God' and because of that he cannot submit to the Law of God, nor while remaining in the flesh can he even please God. Now, even by...

I can see you now have stepped out of the debate and refuse to engage my questions or arguments, even when I show you how Gill, a respected Calvinist, supported my assertions. You got caught supporting a 'justification by works' position, probably unintentionally as you weren't thinking things...

Actually, the 'cause' is equally my point. BeCAUSE man is unable to fully submit himself to the law in order to attain righteousness, Calvinists erroneously presume man is unable to trust in Christ, who fulfill the law for us. The CAUSE is very much in focus in my statement. Calvinists use...

Their works or God's works? Just to be clear...

Gill writes: Adam, in his state of innocence, was a perfect doer of the law; he sinning, and all his posterity in him, none of them are righteous, but all pass under a sentence of condemnation. The best of men, even believers in Christ, are not without sin in themselves; and when any of the...