Search results

God said, "Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD." How do you define boasting as it is used by God in this text?

P4T, That post wasn't directed to you, I'm still waiting on your definition of Boasting to replace Websters so as to reconcile your view with God's words.... Waiting....

Consequences are something God has no control over? Or is that the condition?

This proves that you cannot be reasoned with on any level of this discussion. Even if the text clearly states that its man's responsibility to put off the flesh and put on the spirit, you will continue to impute your system onto and over the text to suggest that man has nothing to do with...

P4T, I'm still waiting on your definition of boasting that makes God's words acceptable to you and your system.... Waiting...

EXACTLY, and that is true regardless of whether our faith is a free response or a divinely determined one. Do you understand? As explained in the other thread, this is a false statement, as even those who believe and repent could justly be condemned for sin. It is only by His Grace that those...

I understand that perspective, but I'd just remind you that works must be meritorious to be considered 'works.' Since we deny that faith or repentance earns or merits salvation you cannot rightly accuse us of believing in works salvation. That is a categorically incorrect statement. The son's...

But that isn't unconditional election. That is clearly based on a condition, regardless if 'many' or 'few,' were chosen for their being weak, not noble, etc...the fact conditions were listed for the choosing negates your conclusions. Your dilemma is that you believe and teach God chooses people...

Right, but even fruits that are effectually generated by God can be considered meritorious. I'm not saying that is what you believe, I'm simply saying that some could see it that way. For example, God could make someone repent so that they will be worthy of being forgiven. Or God could make...

I do not see how this relates to my statement? You seem to be replying to something else? Again, what are you talking about. I never said 'it is saying.' I presented a question to illustrate our point of contention and your response is confounding. Yeah, 'you put on the new man' isn't clear...

I'm not seeing how that answers my question. The verse says he chose the weak, yet your dogma teaches that he chooses them based on no condition. Isn't being 'weak' a condition?

How would you like if one of us went around saying Calvinists don't believe in evangelism, regardless of what they SAY they believe, their system is clearly anti-evangelistic. Is that fair? Is that charitable? Is that accurate? Then why would you do that to us?

I realize that is the Calvinistic perspective, but the question was to bring clarity to our position, because your statement seemed to suggest that one confronted by the powerful gracious gospel truth is 'left to himself' if he isn't effectually regenerated. We obviously disagree. One...

So, do you believe someone confronted by the powerful gospel appeal to be reconciled to God is equal to being 'left to himself?' Is proof that one won't seek forgiveness also proof that one cannot respond when forgiveness is offered?

I don't know. And I also don't know how one group can accuse the other of this given that NEITHER group believes or teaches salvation is merited.

And? Are men saved because 'with the heart they believeth' and thus merit being saved? Or is that faith a fruit of grace alone and actually not meriting anything? I think its the latter, right? That is only true if you fail to consider God's work in bringing the gospel to the world a...

No, from what I've read you made a generalized blanket accusation that I was using "debate tactics." You never quoted the actual 'tactic,' named the tactic, or in any way made a case for your unfounded accusations. Make your case. You are welcome to use simple words, but you can't call me...

You are a 'Johnny came lately' to this part of the conversation. I quoted a direct quote from God and then a direct quote from Websters. I didn't make an argument, I didn't even give my opinion. P4T disagreed with my post but has yet to offer a definition of boasting which would fit his views...

The question is how does one go from being able to see to blinded and then from blinded to being saved. You seem to think the individual had nothing to do with becoming blind (as if they were born like that due to Adam) which the text doesn't support, and that they have as little to do with...

Can you explain how this fits with Calvinism's teaching regarding unconditional election? I thought men were called based on NO CONDITION whatsoever, yet this passage lists foolish, unwise according to the flesh, the weak, not the mighty, not the noble...sounds like a list of conditions.