Search results

Ok Luke, after reading your last two post I've come up with another way to approach this matter. The Bible compares God's words with a sword, right. So, let's stick with that analogy. A sword is an instrument (a means), but in itself has no real power. It must be wilded in the hands of a...

Well, I do. He could say what you've continue to say in this thread... or at least something similar. The point I was making about Calvinistic explanations really wasn't meant to be a slam, but I've actually read an entire article by a Calvinist that made a case on the difference of the word...

And that has been the more typical view of Calvinists that I have encountered, thus the confusion with Luke's insistence on his view being the 'norm.' [PAUSE...for interaction with a Previous Skan quote]...Which was, "To insist that the gospel can't reconcile an enemy because they are born an...

Luke, I just went back and read one of the articles written by a Reformer on the topic of "Mediate or Immediate Regeneration." And while he argues, as you do, "that God sovereignly employs his Word, the gospel, in bringing sinners to life," he also teaches, "God’s Word alone accomplishes...

But even that comment is somewhat vague when spoken by a Calvinistic believer. I'm not saying that to be derogatory, but you have to admit Calvinists are masters at comments that explain how one thing really means another; like, "They are able but not willing," or "They can come to Christ, but...

:smilewinkgrin: Funny. But 12strings, I wish you would give us your opinion on this matter. You seem to be an objective Calvinistic leaning type who may add a fresh perspective on this point. I don't know how much of all this you have read, but I'd be interested to know if you agree...

But there is a difference between: 1. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for the elect alone, who the Holy Spirit has chosen to bring to life (give a new heart) when they hear the gospel. And 2. Regeneration wrought by the gospel for everyone unless God actively intervenes to prevent them...

I understand that point, but I don't believe Calvin thinks Christ is veiling the blind for the same reasons you do. Do you understand what I mean? You think he is veiling the blind to prevent them from being regenerated by the proclamation of the gospel (something I've yet to hear a...

Where does he actually say that God actively works to prevent the gospel from regenerating the non-elect? I don't believe Calvin was known as a double predestinarian.... at least most Reformed scholars I've read don't think so. Who? So I can study your position more thoroughly and see what...

I wonder how Luke would reply to Sproul's comment, "This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of...

Discussion with Luke continued... 1. Why does hardening accomplish 'their doom' if they are born doomed? And why would that be an 'accomplishment' which would glorify God? 2. Wouldn't a better demonstration of God's wrath be the condemnation of those who independently and freely rebelled...

But those who hold to gospel regeneration, don't necessarily believe the gospel's proclamation will regenerate everyone who hears it unless God actively intervenes to prevent it. They believe, as Webdog illustrated, that the words (proclamation) must first be preceded by revival of the corpse...

Bro, its a DEBATE forum! It's designed to talk about issues of disagreement (or what you call "conflict"). NOTHING I said in the OP was personally demeaning or inflammatory. If you don't want "conflict" may I suggest you not visit a debate forum...and you may also want to avoid the pithy...

I don't think it has anything to do with the topic, its those who choose to engage in the discussion. For example, I encourage you to read the thread titled "Good Debate" where I and a few others have a very cordial discussion about similar matters. We disagree with each other, but are able to...

You made a comment which assumed that because my view is more palatable that it is 'carnal.' If that isn't question begging, nothing is. I simply showed that the palatability of a point of view proves nothing. Either soteriological dogma, if it is not true, would be the "carnal sense of...

Oh, I wasn't replying to you personally. I was replying generally on behalf of all us time wasting, snorting types who enjoy endlessly discussing soteriology. :wavey:

Why aren't you out winning the lost instead of wasting your time on this endless, no-winner debate? :applause: Hi Pot, meet Kettle... :laugh:

So we need not be concerned with sound doctrine, or discipleship of believers, or church polity or anything except winning the lost? Surely that is not what you mean to say. Surely, you allow room for discussing other topics except evangelism, right? I'm just not sure your point is clear. I...

It may seem to be 'spinning wheels' when no one actually addresses the point, but continue to derail with unrelated issues...like the need to evangelize (a point we've all already conceded to), but it is a valid issue when our side is accused of having a 'high view of man.' Clearly, when our...

I think you missed the point of the OP (and apparently so did many others). The point wasn't whether or not we should attempt to witness to these individuals. That is a given. The point was to contrast the two systematic views of mankind to demonstrate that the non-Calvinistic view doesn't...