Search results

Whatever revelation of God they have received. I agree, but scriptures indicate that God holds people accountable for how they respond to what ever revelation they have received. Rahab believed and she was listed in the hall of faith in Heb 11. Why? Did she believe in Jesus? No, she believed...

You never showed how I misrepresented you by showing that Christ and scriptures are not on the same level. Really? Where does the scripture call itself "The Word of God?" You can if you understand the distinction between the person call "the Word," and the scripture inspired by Him in order to...

I like Ron Paul as a person. He is fun to listen to but I don't think MANY Americans see him as a viable or serious candidate. Anyone who thinks its ok for Iran to get a nuclear weapon better believe in legalizing marijuana, because we are all going to need it. How long after Iran has a...

How so? What did I say that was misrepresentative of your view? I'd be glad to recant if I misrepresented you. :) Really. Let's review. 1. Scriptures don't refer to themselves with this title. 2. Jesus doesn't refer to scriptures with this title. 3. I don't refer to scriptures with...

Did I deny that the scriptures taught the word of God, just as John did? But we don't put John on the same level of Christ do we? The scriptures testify of HIM with divine authority, just as John testified of HIM as the authority of an apostle, but we don't worship the scriptures and we don't...

So, you put the scriptures on the same level with their author? Would you rather read the book or meet the author? The book is meant to introduce you to its author, not to be the end in and of itself. We don't worship the scriptures...at least we shouldn't. We do worship Christ and yet...

I believe the Bible teaches us the words of God, but I believe to call it the 'Word of God" in the manner some do undermines the One given that title by the very scriptures being deemed to be God's words. Rev. 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider...

Unbelief. Scripture indicates than men are held accountable for their response to God's revelation. Both camps should agree on this point. The difference is regarding the doctrine of Total Inability and Effectuality.

I liked it. It reminded me of a quote about parenting. It said something to the effect that you can almost get away with any reasonable method of disciplining you children if they know you love them unconditionally. Point being, the law (discipline) is made perfect through unconditional love...

I heard a message from RC Sproul that spoke of customs and principles where he did a real good job describing these issues, but I don't remember the name of it.

JF, go back to your last post and push the edit button and look at the changes I made to format your post. Notice where the {quote} boxes are and how they surround my quotes but not yours. You need to learn this feature. Practice.

How is that different from "God cannot willingly sin?" Notice the word "willingly" tells us that God cannot will/want to do something against His nature. Now, is everyone happy? Can we kiss and make-up? :)

I understand your point now, but if you go back and re-read what you wrote, "He chose to use that particular means to accomplish the effectual calling," that suggests that the effectuality is within the the outward means and not the inward work of regeneration, don't you think? Plus, Jesus...

Then answer your own question: Then if one does resist the Word of God, why do we still call it effective? Surely, we both agree God's word is effective, right? And we both affirm that God genuinely offers the gospel appeal to all people, right? So, if one resists the appeal what...

1. It's not my camp. 2. I don't believe what you have just accused me of. Allow me to re-quote myself from a previous post, which I believe was addressed to you when you made the same mistake:

Ok, brother, no offense but when I have to start debating you about what I believe because you can't seem to understand my very clear and simple explanation, it is time to end it. I'll end our discourse with this: As stated the first time and the second, I was making the point that God COULD...

So, your view is that God effectually calls some people through outward means (seeing, blinding light etc) while others like you and me are effectually called through an inward awakening? I thought you believed that what happened outwardly was ineffectual without the inward work of...

If that choice is to reject, then even your "camp" would affirm that last question with a Yes, wouldn't you? Otherwise, you'd be affirming Double Predestination, right? And we call it effective, because it produces its intended result. To enable those who hear it to believe and be saved...

How about we come to a common ground and all agree that "God cannot willingly sin?" Ok? Or we could just go with Luke's view and say that He can and does do the "DEED," but it's not really sin if he does it for the right motive?

Of course I could say the same about you from my perspective, but that obviously accomplishes nothing in a discussion except to inflame. That seems to be your goal in most discussions. :tear: Question beg much?