Search results

Biblicist, what about these conclusions is inaccurate? Isn't that what you have been arguing? That the nature of man is equally unable to attain righteousness through either command? You even said that whether its a command to follow the law or a command to repent and believe the nature is...

I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm accepting your system for the sake of this point, okay. I'm ONLY pushing against your insistence that God didn't design total inability to be the result of the fall. To say that humanity 'forfeited such ability' presumes they have the ability to...

I addressed this misunderstanding of our system in another post...please heed what I wrote because it is vital to correct understanding and thus representation of what we actually believe. Context. It is not about Calvinism versus Arminianism, its about Jew (apostles and hardened/cut...

From Phil Johnson/John MacArthur: A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either: Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer...

It accomplishes its purpose, which is to enable a response. That's what invitations (as in the wedding banquet analogy) and 'appeal' (2 Cor 5) are INTENDED to do. A gift or invitation doesn't have to be effectually applied (forced) in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it...

Biblicist, You seem to believe that the law's purpose is virtually the same as the gospel's purpose: The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works. The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith. So, both the law and...

Apparently you believe Noah was equally evil in his intentions and corruption, but God effectually graced him making him favorable, right? But God grieves all the rest of mankind? Why? Why not just do for them what he did for Noah instead acting upset about it and drowning them? Is God just...

No, no, no...in this argument I'm not denying what you claim the fallen nature is. I'm debating against the concept that God had nothing to do with that 'inherent' design. If indeed men are born total unable to respond to God's revelation, then how can any Calvinist deny that was by God's...

Then why point to the Law's insufficiency to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind as proof that the gospel is likewise insufficient to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind? Apparently you think the law's insufficiencies in accomplishing the 'desired outcome' for fallen humanity PROVES...

I think I missed this one before... We are not saying that the gospel is anything other than God's power. It is the power OF God UNTO SALVATION... That has NOTHING to do with the means of attaining righteousness. Under law it was thought to be by law through works...UNATTAINABLE. Under...

So, in this text: 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am...

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. There is a difference in man's ability to hear a particular command (like thou shalt not steal) and obey it and his ability to fulfill the full demands of the law. So, what you are doing is presuming that because man can't fulfill the full...

I'll get to the rest of your post in a sec, I wanted to address this because its happening all too often in my opinion: Well, just so you know, it is always insulting to call someone's argument irrational without defining precisely what is not rational or reasonable. Believe me, your view seems...

I find it equally amusing that you won't join with the scholars of your own system in drawing the distinction between the purpose of the law and the gospel of grace. I think you have backed yourself into a corner in order to win a particular point in a debate and now won't admit you have out...

Did you see this post?

I agree...and that is what I was saying by quoting almost verbatim from the text. Obviously. Right. By grace he shares his glory with us...Rom 8:16-17: The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with...

My argument is that the flesh is enabled to respond to whatever God wants the flesh to be enabled to respond to....and every note worthy Christian scholar throughout history has affirmed that God treats or holds men RESPONSE-ABLE to the gospel appeal. There is no biblical reason to believe we...

This assumes that the 'fruit' has to be an effectual work of an indwelling spirit, verses a response to the spirit...a 'response' we are ultimately held 'responsible' to for as if we don't respond we will perish. Oh, so you deny that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that...

You are mixing two different issues. When it comes to those who have NOT heard the gospel we are discussing a different matter all together, because according to our perspective, those who are faithful with a little will be entrusted with more. Here is a link to an article explaining...

Now you are seeing my point about question begging. I was responding to your presuppositions (about total inability regarding law) with my presuppositions about grace for all. I did this to reveal our actual points of contention and your dependance on begging the question in regard to total...