Search results

And you have done so by suggesting that God's permissive will is equal to his decretive will, which is simply unfounded. As stated, and apparently ignored, God permitting evil to enter the world and allowing billions of people to suffer the consequences of their free moral choices, is a very...

I'm not sure its the nature of man that is the point up for debate, as much as it is the power or sufficiency of the Holy Spirit wrought gospel.

The whole reason that Calvinists insist there must be an effectual work is because they believe that men are born "Totally Depraved" or totally unable to willingly come to Christ from birth. But a simple survey of the book of John reveals that is NOT the reason Jesus' audience could not believe...

Icon, If you are said to be patient with you kid then clearly you are waiting for them to change while remaining loving toward them and desirous for that change. Yet, when applied to God you confound it to mean that he acts like he wants them to change, yet is unwilling to give them what they...

You're being lazy bro. I love ya, but you know as well as I do that there are countless nuanced takes in every camp. How about I label you with the Hyperists or some other sect of the reformed tradition and dismiss you as a heretic? This has become your MO Guy and its just the lazy way out of...

Three questions: 1. What do you believe are the means God has chosen to draw men to Himself? 2. Had those means been fully deployed at the time when Jesus said these words? And were some being purposefully blinded from those means at that time? 3. How do you believe John 12:32 ("...I...

I have a clarifying question before I answer: Would you consider someone being confronted by the powerful Holy Spirit wrought Gospel, carried by a Holy Spirit indwelled ambassador of God who is making an appeal as if from God to 'be reconciled to Him,' as being 'on his own?'

I could say the exact same thing about your view. "To read this as an individual is reading something into the text." But I support that by showing the "US" is more than one person. So, you are the one reading something into the text, I'm just taking it at face value. Whoever believes (us)...

I'm not sure what the relevance of this point would be in relation to my post. Please explain.

Can you restate what you believe my view to be because based on what you said it doesn't appear that you know... Where did I say they were? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that some didn't even attempt to follow the law or want to be in covenant with God. Did loyal Jews believe that...

Prior to the revelation of the New Testament most of the teachers of that day believed: Israel saved through the Law: Israel are the elect and are saved through the law. So, the scope of election was limited to those who were children of Abraham and the means for their salvation was through...

Well, that is the debate. "We" meaning who? Believers. See you always read it with an individual perspective and Paul often speaks of the whole (Jew/Gentile/Church etc) God has predetermined to make whosoever believes to be blameless in his sight, even if they are a Gentile. That is the...

Labeling and dismissing is the lazy man's debate method. There is nothing "new" about my perspective on what Paul teaches and even those seen as the scholars supporting the NPP view don't believe the things you seem to think.

I'm not denying that jbh. Please try to at least understand this perspective. If the captain of a football team speaking to his teammates says, "Before this season began, the coach predetermined for us to be conditioned and trained." Does that necessarily mean the coach predetermined who...

Really? Because you do know that is a quote from Psalm 22, right? David FELT alone and abandoned, but was he really? Or is that just what it felt like from the human perspective? Later in that same chapter David goes on to say, "24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the...

I think jbh28 and Winman are making the same error. You are reading this text as if Paul is addressing "us" individually rather than "us" who believe. It's like this: If I were a speaker at the republican convention, after an election we won, I might say, "The American people have chosen us...

"I remain committed to understanding Paul in his own right and his own terms against all traditions about him, including my own. I remain convinced that Luther and Calvin would say Amen to that point of principle. And I believe, and have argued in my various exegetical works, that this reading...

"I say all this to make it clear that there are probably almost as many ‘New Perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and that I disagree with most of them." - NT Wright

It was to be understood an analogy representing that one can have love for the individual while still hating their action. Jesus continued to be loved by the Father even though he was under wrath. And truth is that God's wrath for ungodliness is 'for our own good.' Further, when God 'gives...

It think the distinction is the way in which we understand divine wrath. From the human perspective it may appear, and even be represented in scripture (anthropomorphically) as God's anger toward man, but I believe in reality the full revelation teaches us that God's wrath is the full weight of...