Search results

Should this thread be titled, "Posts out of self-righteousness and judgement." Or "Can I dig the speak out from all of your eyes."

Oh, I just saw this. What is it that I can't grasp? And why can't I grasp it do you suppose? Too bad God just didn't make me as bright as you, huh? It just cracks me up when determinists can't even be consistent within their own system. Do you all really think it helps to belittle people...

Indeed, and a wise man once said that the strongest aspects of one's argument is not typically reflected in the part that is addressed by his opponent, but the part that is ignored...and most of post #36 was ignored. I don't assume it was for this reason, but after being accused of being a...

I have no problem admitting being a synergist. It's the accusations of saving ourselves, or do it 'on our own' that baffle me. It's really like there are four different groups. Extreme divine monergism = God does everything, he even believes a repents for us. Monergism = God's grace...

Wow. You don't even correctly articulate your own position. Even Calvinists (at least the scholarly ones) know that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. What you mean to say is that faith is not the cause for election. Calvinists confirm that faith is a necessary condition for being...

I think your reply of reworking the analogy to better fit your perspective is an appropriate response. The parts belittling the use of analogies...not so much. I would challenge this aspect of your analogy, because while Adam/Eve may have decide to disobey they did not decide what the...

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly did I omit? I agreed with you that the purpose of the Law was to reveal we are sinful and in need of a savior...and that we are Total Unable to attain righteousness through the works of the law. How is that omitting anything? I...

Don't bother...he likes kicking his stawman, its best just to leave him be.

The fact that you can accused me of believing that salvation is 'of yourself' and then NOT see how these comments relate to that conversation proves to me you have very little idea about what we believe and that you very little desire, if any, to better understand what we believe...enough said.

Funny, I made that exact same argument against a determinist earlier....I guess its all perspective. :) I'm arguing based on revelation, whether you believe that or not. And you think being confronted by the conviction of the Holy Spirit through his inspired Word is being left 'to...

No, it doesn't. I never once said God was obligated to give you enough grace to resist. I asked if you believe he does and your first answer seemed to suggest that he does grant you that ability, but now you believe he doesn't. I don't even make an argument for or against God's obligation in...

Since when do I deny that the purpose of the Law is to reveal we are sinners and in need of a savior? Proving we are sinful doesn't prove we are unable to repent from sin when confronted by the powerful gospel appeal. Find it. If I argued it consistently then it should be easy to find and...

So, the last time you sinned willfully it was God's fault for not granting your the measure of grace you needed to yield? Doesn't that make you feel like you're off the hook, so to speak? Yet, 1 Cor. 10 teaches that we will never be tempted beyond what we can bare. Which is it?

Yes. For the purpose of revealing our need for grace (which we know is applied through faith). See sig. line... I believe so, if you mean it how I think you mean it... I believe we fall short in keeping the law and thus need a savior. Absolutely That is incorrect according to my...

Inability to do what? TO KEEP THE LAW...TO EARN SALVATION BY WORKS! NOT, as you erroneously impose on the text, the inability to respond to the gracious sacrifice of Christ and the powerful means by which he draws all men to himself!!! The law reveals their need for a savior and for his...

These points addressed some important matters....

But for your system this so called 'enabling grace' is more than enabling, its irresistible...even the case of your yielding to the HS for help from temptation. Right or wrong?

I'd suggest reading some of the Princeton theologians who were Calvinistic in their soteriology, because you'd probably take what they have to say better than it coming from me. Start with Charles Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, and the other Hodge...they would be considered by some to be in the 4...

The problem with your interpretation is that some of the same ones being blinded are spoken of by Paul as being provoked and saved. And he doesn't reference some future Israel, but he even speaks of his own ministry to the Gentiles doing this provoking PROVING beyond all reasonable doubt that...

Are you arguing that the passage I quoted is not in reference to the present day Jews (of that 1st century), but of some unknown 'future Israel' that God has elected for salvation? I'm just wanting to understand what you are saying...