Search results

I think the example of the bronze serpent is a prime model for atonement as well. It shows how the atoning work can be provided for all, while only being effective for those who look in faith toward it for healing. God has made his truth very clear.

Good. I like it because it makes the clear distinction between God's active and passive decrees, something I haven't really understood you to support as of yet. I look forward to hearing what you think of it more fully. You just tied cause to predestine. You argue that God predestines his...

1. Please let me know what you think about the definition of decree in the post above (post #62). Thanks 2. You say that predestine doesn't mean cause, but you would say that God predestined you to believe, right? Does that not mean that God causes you to believe? Would you like wise say...

P4T, Would you agree with this definition of "Decree" from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary? The decrees are eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehend all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23...

It appears to me that you don't want to have a discussion with me but just an argument. Anything I say you appear to just disagree with it because I say it. You and I both seemed to agree that God allows or permits sin, but now you seem to say that he does more than just allow or permit it...

Permit: to allow, to let happen, to not hinder or forbid. Determine: to decide, cause, to make happen I see permitting something as passive, while to determine is active, so there is no "tail spinning." I've consistently said that I believe God permissively allows evil for a purpose, but He is...

I agree! But I wish people (especially Calvinistic ones) would apply this principle when approaching John 6. Every time I attempt to apply this basic rule of hermeneutics with regard to John's intent in chapter 6 I'm railed on as one who doesn't believe the scripture is to be applied to us today.

That was EXACTLY my point for about three threads, thank you!!! Maybe if you ask him he'll give a good working definition and explanation as to the distinction between God's active and his permissive will. I meant that I agreed with the idea that God permits or as you said, "allowed," evil...

And my point was this: If indeed you did read those threads regarding the Origin of Sin (there were three of them), you would have seen that I clearly defined those terms in order to combat Luke's inconsistent uses of the terms. You would also seen that I agree with your point regarding God's...

P4T, your faith has saved you, go in peace.

I think you got confused. I was the one emphasizing the need for context and defining of terms when speaking of God's nature. It was Luke who was avoiding doing so for three threads. And it was I who, in agreement with your points, argued that God "allowed" evil for a purpose, while Luke...

I'm sure you weren't implying that non-Calvinists wear that shoe, now were you? Nawww....you were probably referring to the Nephilim referred to in Genesis 6, right? Those dang Giants, always taking God's glory away and thinking God's grace can't save them! :rolleyes:

Its really funny you ask that question, because if indeed you did read through those threads you will see that I asked Luke to define those very terms for this very reason. It was like pulling teeth to get him to provided any definitions and he never really followed up on distinguishing between...

Yeah, Matt, stop hijacking Luke's threads with your pesky little questions about God's role in all this! Oops, I meant to say: God, stop making Matt want to hijack Luke's thread!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Really, because you were replying to JesusFan's post which said, "Think , not you, but others posting on this discussion have to still really answer...."? And you replied say, "Most go in circles around it, attributing it to mans faith, or indirectly to God, such as in the "message" but not...

They are in the archives for anyone to read. I encourage it in fact. You will see much more of the same. I agree, but Luke argues that God doesn't just allow evil, but that He "ordains/decrees/wills" it, but that it's not evil when He does it because His motive is pure. You can look for...

Did you forget the OP? Here, let me remind you: You start a thread accusing Arminians of not being amazed by Grace, and not even believing that we are saved by Grace and you accuse me of creating the battlefield? Hmmm. :confused:

I have no difficulty giving God the full glory for salvation and to suggest that those who don't affirm Calvinistic dogma don't give full glory to God is inaccurate, misrepresentative and offensive. I couldn't agree more. In fact, that point is at the heart of true Arminian doctrine regarding...

The divinely inspired message of reconciliation (otherwise know as the Gospel) is what enables men, who otherwise would remain enemies of God, to be reconciled. That Gospel in John 6 was being hidden from the audience, thus they were not yet "enabled" or "given to Christ," as were the twelve.