Search results

Luke, I have some questions: Can an unregenerate man be convinced or persuaded that God's revelations are true without acting in obedience to, or in accordance with, those revelations? OR can only the elect who have been regenerated be convinced or persuaded of God's revealed truth?

:thumbs: Right. And if you continually refused to act upon what you KNOW to be true then you have chosen to 'trade the truth in for a lie" and you stand "without excuse." This is what I was attempting to explain before...

:confused: You may need to reword that? Yes, but it's not 'either or'... both teach us the capacity for faith This assumes the soil (man's heart) was born in its current condition (predetermined by God), rather than it becoming hard, thorny or shallow due to the choices of each individual...

Luke, welcome back. I would agree that we don't really make a choice TO BELIEVE God's revelation. For example, look at Romans 1. The people KNEW GOD. His revelation was 'clearly seen' and 'understood.' The only CHOICE that was made was the choice to "trade the truth in for a lie." This is...

I made a typo. The word "without" should be "within." Does that clarify things a bit more? Still, isn't the amount of faith granted determined by God, or do you acknowledge it was within their ability to exercise their God-given faith or neglect to do so? One is made alive through faith...

"God would be just to condemn us all to hell." Or as one Calvinist put it, "The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!" This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to...

:applause: I hope Icon is reading this thread. :)

Sorry, but this response seems to imply that my response to you was somehow "dark" and "secret" as if there is something there I wouldn't have stated in public to you. If that were the case I would have just deleted it as a violation. There is nothing secretive or hidden about my comments to...

Having been a Calvinist for some time I will objectively concur with this statement. The pride is not in believing that God chose you, because your thinking, "Why me!" And that aspect is quite humbling. If there is pride that comes through it is in the fact that you understand these...

I think we are pretty much in agreement here, but the variety of views is just as diverse in the "Calvinistic" camp as it is the non-Calvinistic camp...and probably for the same reason.

If that is what you think Arminians believe no wonder you have rejected it. Wow.

So would a correct non-Calvinist. :) True, but it is still without our ability to act upon faith or upon doubt/flesh. This is why Jesus 'ye of little faith, why did you doubt?' instead of "God, why didn't you grant them faith?" Again, a gift doesn't need to be irresistibly applied for it to...

Amy, maybe you misread a "tone" that wasn't intended due to my "mad" face. Here, see if this is better, as I pull out the five major points of the OP: Notice the underlined portions as they are attempting to point our that WE all are in this together. :) Again, we are all together... See...

Argumentative!?! On a debate forum! GASP! :eek: Just kidding with you. ;) Huh, that was kind of my point too...with one small change: "Everyone's views get misrepresented at some point, but we shouldn't all report them." I'm glad we agree on that! :thumbsup: EDIT: the mad face was to...

I agree that is an incorrect perception held by some. I don't think you will find that I have ever promoted that view. I understand that the effectual work of regeneration changes men's desire so as to make them willing to come. My question would be why you suppose it doesn't make us all...

Did I sling mud in the OP? Can I be held responsible for the response of an otherwise cordial and well meaning thread meant to address a common accusation from BOTH camps? I'm simply replying to an accusation in another thread which got too long and was closed. I did so in a cordial fashion...

It means "stumbling stone" and it was what Jesus was called because he spoke truth and the Pharisees of his day didn't want to hear it and they stumbled over him and his words... :love2: Awww, thanks.

I think some do so pretty fairly, yes, but most don't which I have pointed out a few times. I think Calvin (and Spurgeon) took a more biblical approach to doctrine. Meaning that what ever verse they were handling they attempted to remain true to the original intent of that text, not to some...

glfredrick, I think it is a bit sleazy to post PM's in a public forum without asking first, but since I have nothing there to hide I will let it go... and copy private my response here as well: Only if you insisted on calling them heretics, which was unnecessary regardless of whether you name...

This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level. Both sides...