Search results

Can a life-giving message help? If not, why not? Why couldn't the WORD of God enable a free response?

If the author, not me, states, "God changed his mind." And you don't believe that God really changed his mind then the issue is not with me, but the author of the text. Now, you are welcome to offer an alternative understanding of what you believe that author actually meant when he said, "God...

You are reading intent into my inquiries. I'm not attempting to express my view by asking these question. I merely asked you questions to gain clarity about your perspective...I'm not trying to 'put words in your mouth.' Please try to assume the best intent from my replies. I really am not...

FYI...the quotes above are not from me, but from BobRyan. You have me listed as the one making those statements.

Ok, I want to address this. Can we, and should we, reduce the spoken Word of God to mere transfer of information? Is truth powerful, or not? Jesus said, "The very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." And there are MANY other texts which speak to the power of WORDS. Speaking of...

Ok, so you are arguing that a regenerate man doesn't get his nature changed, made new? But that a regenerate man simply has his fallen nature subdued by the HS? Is that correct? If the HS's work through regeneration can subdue the fallen will enough to certainly bring man to faith, why...

Yep, if you follow determinism to its logical conclusions (without appealing to mystery), then its pure fatalism because not only is God eternal but so is everything else. Everything is eternally determined to be what it is and nothing is ever actually chosen. The reason they reject...

"God bound all men over to disobedience (enmity) so as to show mercy to them all." Rom 11:32

Not alone, no. But what if God sent his son to die for me, inspired a dozen or so men to explain his love for me, sent his Holy Spirit to bring conviction, and his bride to be His very hands and feet to show me that love in action? Then can I respond to God's working through those means to HIS...

Then your issue is with the author of the text, not us. Here is some advise from Spurgeon on interpreting scripture that I believe is applicable: "What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted...

I have no idea what you are talking about here. All I said was that I agreed with the majority of your exegesis and yet you think that is not an acceptable reply to your exegesis. Do I have to disagree with everything you say and explain why I disagree even when I don't disagree? Can I agree...

Very well stated. I'm not being sarcastic in any way when I say that, I really mean it. This could be in a systematic book. However, what I still heard was, it does nothing except change the 'circumstances' physically of the individual....you wrote, "...thus bring him circumstantially to the...

To agree with your assessment of man's inability to submit himself to the law of God, is not a reply that is acceptable? Again, I'm not taking issue with your view regarding man's natural inability apart from divine assistance. Our point of contention is the nature, power and intent of that...

inherent = "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" consequence = "a result or effect of an action or condition" So, based on this statement, is it correct to assume that you believe God had no control, power over, or decision regarding this "inherent...

All of us are arguing OUR view of what the bible states. All of us appeal to the text. Both Calvinists and non-Cals believe the bible is true and trustworthy. To suggest otherwise is divisive in nature. Both of our systems are well established by countless biblical commentaries and...

Who designed that nature?

Actually I think it is absurd to keep saying that we aren't responding when we are...and even more absurd to accuse US of resorting to our "personal opinions" as if his replies are the sacred texts, or something?

Last time then you go on my "ignore list" as one not willing to engage in honest discussions... We are all expressing our PERSONAL OPINIONS about what God's Word is saying. My views are a much based on what I believe the scripture is teaching as yours are. To suggest otherwise is fruitless...

Good point. I guess, according to this particular argument, God "zaps" his enemies to make them reconcile to Him, but once we become reconciled with God He then just appeals to us to make us reconcile with each other? And I'm still confused as to why He would appeal "be reconciled to God"...

Just because we are not convincing you with our replies doesn't mean it hasn't been 'dealt' with my friend. No one is denying the inability of man if left alone...but we aren't left alone and you've yet to address the enabling power of the Word of God. You merely presume it isn't powerful...