Calvinism vs. DoG??

[preacher4truth]

You're wrong. "From the creation of the world His invisiable attributes,that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. as a result, people are without excuse." (Ro.1:20 HCSB)

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Robert Snow]

You keep posting all these verses and it has been pointed out to you on occasions too numerous to count that you are not using them correctly. Besides, a word or a verse is not the major unit of meaning the Bible. No, for that we have to look at the paragraph.

As far as regeneration, which I define a "being made alive," because Ephesians seems to define it that way, being different than salvation...just look at Ephesians 2:4-10:

[4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— [6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, [7] so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:4-10 ESV)
​

The underlined words are the verbs in this passage. They are progressive--a making alive; a raising up. a seating. All of these happen "with" Christ, so it is His work, and this happens to us while we were dead in our trespasses and sins.

So, a "verse" will not do. The entire thrust of Ephesians 2:1-10 shows the reformed position.

The Archangel

This is an absurd explanation of these verses. Nothing says these things are a progression. It is pure fiction!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is an absurd explanation of these verses. Nothing says these things are a progression. It is pure fiction!

Yes....to the person without sight.

 

[Robert Snow]

Yes....to the person without sight.

Don't beat around the bush, like you normally do. If you have something to say, say it plainly. If you aren't up to it publically, send a PM. Other wise, shut up!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Don't beat around the bush, like you normally do. If you have something to say, say it plainly. If you aren't up to it publically, send a PM. Other wise, shut up!

I already did......laughable response as per usual

 

[Robert Snow]

I already did......laughable response as per usual

Being blind spiritually is being lost. Is that what you are saying? It appeared that way to me, thus my heated reaction.

 

[The Archangel]

This is an absurd explanation of these verses. Nothing says these things are a progression. It is pure fiction!

And your basis for saying this is?

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Yep. Exactly.

Not meaning to intrude but something to consider on that Romans 1 passage.

Note that it states quite plainly in verse 19 that though creation shows these truths concerning God (and they know these truths, per verse 18), it is God 'who is revealing himself' to man and not man just coming to an intellectual understanding of God. Thus you have God working upon all men everywhere to reveal Himself.

And if you will also note that those things verse 18-32 declare that as men come to know these truths (sin, righteousness, and His judgment to come) they are spiritual truths that can ONLY be known/understood by the revelation of God to man. Scripture via Christ Jesus tells us that the Spirit will come and rebuke the world of sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come. These are things man can NOT come to understand on his own but must be revealed to Him by God.. and is exactly what Rom 1:19 states

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Thus you see plainly in Romans 1 God is at work revealing Himself and offering the truth EVEN to those who would not and will not believe. Note that scripture states He gave them over.. meaning He was doing and/or offering to them something they refused.. and left them be in their choice.

Now what must be dealt with are 3 things.. 1) what was he offering to them, and 2) why was He dealing with them AMD revealing spiritual truths to those who Nwould never believe, and 3) How could He offer them salvation if He made a way for them? This last point is clear regarding what the truth leads to that they rejected, because in their rejection God gave them over to their sins and they were condemned. (Note 2 Thes 10-12 speaks to the same thing)

You can note the same thing later on in chapter 10 where God is reaching out toward those who will never receive Him:

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

What is very interesting about this verse is that you see it early in scripture in Proverbs 1 where God states - He called and they refused, He reaches out and they will not come

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

Note that Paul is partially quoting this passage.

You will also note the author of Hebrew expressing this same view of God reaching and revealing (thus calling out) to all men.

Hbr 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

Is it not an odd thing to hear him state - if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart.

Anyway.. just some snack food for thought - nothing more

 

[webdog]

Are you calling my salvation into question because of your misunderstanding of my position?

My position is: Regeneration precedes and is a necessary precursor to salvation. Regeneration necessarily leads to salvation. Regeneration is not synonymous with Salvation. Therefore, it is not blasphemous at all to hold my position because I am no, nor have I ever, stated that one can have eternal life outside of Christ.

The Archangel

How did I question your salvation? This is becoming tiresome...the witch hunt to have me removed from here with false accusations.

If that's your position, it's fine. It's wrong, though. Regeneration is eternal life regardless how you redefine it. If you state you cannot have eternal life outside of Christ, you don't truly believe regeneration precedes salvation.

 

[webdog]

Webdog you replied to me once, I cannot recall what exactly was said, but I do recall your reply, and the reply was "so you're saying we're a corpse"?

Ironically that is what the term dead means when referring to us as being dead in trespasses, Ephesians 2:1.

So yes. A corpse is the correct answer. Nekros; a corpse, dead.

:smilewinkgrin:

As far as I know a corpse can do absolutely NOTHING. And Jesus clarified this that without Him we can do NOTHING.

Why? Because we were dead. Or, a corpse.

:wavey:

I'd be leary of depending upon dictionaries and secular terms to explain spiritual matters, in the same manner you ridiculed one here for using an illustration of a door nail to express truth. It's the same thing that you're doing.

We were unable to respond to God unless He gave us life.

Without Him we are a corpse, and without Him we can do nothing. Jesus did it all.

:thumbsup:

A corpse had life at one point, no?

 

[webdog]

I asked a question at some point on this thread...if you are comparing spiritual death to physical death, are you consistent in comparing physical life to spiritual life?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How did I question your salvation? This is becoming tiresome...the witch hunt to have me removed from here with false accusations.

If that's your position, it's fine. It's wrong, though. Regeneration is eternal life regardless how you redefine it. If you state you cannot have eternal life outside of Christ, you don't truly believe regeneration precedes salvation.

Web....I think your being a little bit paranoid here. I dont know of anyone attempting to kick you or anyone else off for that matter. These heated discussions though are becoming a might contentious however so I think we all need to measure our words before we post...that includes me.

 

[webdog]

Web....I think your being a little bit paranoid here. I dont know of anyone attempting to kick you or anyone else off for that matter. These heated discussions though are becoming a might contentious however so I think we all need to measure our words before we post...that includes me.

Actually Dr. Bob deleted an entire post stating I questioned the salvation of another poster when I didn't using pretty much the same metaphor of "blind" you did on this thread.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The following are "virtually" all synonymous terms, however it is certainly possible there are nuanced differences.

Calvinist
Historical Baptist
Doctrines of Grace
Reformed Theology
Puritan Theology
Augustianism


If incorrect, I suspect I will be corrected, or feel free to add to the list.

Dave.....these are best discussed over a beer in a Pub.

Cheers

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually Dr. Bob deleted an entire post stating I questioned the salvation of another poster when I didn't using pretty much the same metaphor of "blind" you did on this thread.

I dont know anything about that Web ....I also discussed this with Robert privately.

you know, Ive heard the term "Doctrine Divides" many times & I myself have been tempted to just draw that line but then I remember that we are all Christians & that we all have one absolute reference point.....Jesus Christ. He doesn't want us vilifying one another.

Then I remember that the True God needs nothing ....He invites us into an unthinkable communion. I think our goal should be to try to find similarities that we can celebrate vs differences.

 

[webdog]

I dont know anything about that Web ....I also discussed this with Robert privately.

you know, Ive heard the term "Doctrine Divides" many times & I myself have been tempted to just draw that line but then I remember that we are all Christians & that we all have one absolute reference point.....Jesus Christ. He doesn't want us vilifying one another.

Then I remember that the True God needs nothing ....He invites us into an unthinkable communion. I think our goal should be to try to find similarities that we can celebrate vs differences.

Heart Amen!

 

[RAdam]

If you can show me where I used natural death to illustrate spiritual death then you might have a point. I'll wait patiently. The only time I mentioned natural death in this thread was to argue against your definition of the word "dead".

Again, something being labeled as dead does not necessitate previous life. That's an absurd notion. Something dead is something with lacks life and/or movement. I've shown this again and again yet you continue to insist upon your definition, which doesn't work either inside or outside the bible.

I would bet the same medical dictionary you are referencing would consider some of our organs to be left over from the process of evolution. I don't know how far I would trust such a source when discussing matters of the bible.

 

[webdog]

If you can show me where I used natural death to illustrate spiritual death then you might have a point. I'll wait patiently. The only time I mentioned natural death in this thread was to argue against your definition of the word "dead".

The bible uses natural death to illustrate spiritual death. This is wholly consistent with the way the entire bible works, using the natural to illustrate the spiritual. If God meant that a person were merely sick or incapacitated instead of dead, He would have used a different term. Instead He used the term dead to refer to man prior to regeneration. Speaking of regeneration, God uses not only that term but the term quicken (to make alive), pretty much telling us what He meant by dead.

Again, something being labeled as dead does not necessitate previous life. That's an absurd notion. Something dead is something with lacks life and/or movement. I've shown this again and again yet you continue to insist upon your definition, which doesn't work either inside or outside the bible.

Absurd notion? :laugh: O.K. You haven't shown me anything but taking a metaphor as literal. Faulty logic and approach to this discussion. Like YOU said in comparing the physical to spiritual, if you are going that route, we ALL know what physical death is...and it's not about movement at all. That is a RESULT of death.

I would bet the same medical dictionary you are referencing would consider some of our organs to be left over from the process of evolution. I don't know how far I would trust such a source when discussing matters of the bible.

Red herring. If you don't want to use medical terminology to define physical death of humans (what we are discussing in comparison to spiritual death of humans), you would have many friends in the pro-choice community. After all, a zygote doesn't move...it must already be dead. No worries in removing it from the mother, right?

 

[preacher4truth]

A corpse had life at one point, no?

My point is you made a mockery concerning the word corpse. The Scriptures support this by definition, so the fact is, corpse is the correct definition. No need to go down another rabbit trail over it.

It amazes me that we can't just admit to something but have to go on into some other subpoint. All of this gains nothing when an accurate point is made, then rejected.

It would be like if I were to go back to proof in Scriptures that some twist Scriptures to their own destruction, proving that doing so is dangerous, as I formerly have shown, and as several on here know others have done in s Scripture only mentality, and mix it into this somehow, as I have just done.

It's just a plain fact: you cannot give much credit to anyone, even when Scriptures support what is said.

Instead of admitting to any point, you just continue to argue it and avoid it and move it into another area.

 

[RAdam]

I said find a time I used it in such a manner. That was your whole point if you were going to use dead in the way you were going to use it. Again, find me a time I used it in such a manner and defined the parameters of such a comparison.

The bible used natural Jerusalem to illustrate spiritual Jerusalem (New Jerusalem). If I make that statement without further explanation, that doesn't give you the right to set up an argument and then try to hedge me into a corner based on some position you've taken when I never explained what I meant.

I said lacks life and/or movement. You zoned in on movement because it suited your purpose.