Draw all men to myself

[reformedbeliever]

I guess all of those who have not seen it that way in the last couple of centuries are being "intellectually dishonest" also? I see nothing from that text citing acting only according to nature, sorry.

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[webdog]

5. even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Why didn't you highlight the most imortant part..."...together with Christ"? THAT'S how we are made alive!

 

[webdog]

Doesn't surprise me.

What doesn't surprise you, the fact that centuries worth of Spirit filled believers...those you call "intellectually dishonest" don't see it the way you do, which is the minority view, I might add? You reek of arrogance.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Why didn't you highlight the most imortant part..."...together with Christ"? THAT'S how we are made alive!

I have no problem with that. Bro bob wanted to know how our old nature is put to death and the new nature is made alive. Go back and read the thread.

 

[webdog]

I have no problem with that. Bro bob wanted to know how our old nature is put to death and the new nature is made alive. Go back and read the thread.

I have, and that's not what I saw him asking. Maybe he will clarify.

 

[reformedbeliever]

What doesn't surprise you, the fact that centuries worth of Spirit filled believers...those you call "intellectually dishonest" don't see it the way you do, which is the minority view, I might add? You reek of arrogance.

Like Pelagius?

 

[Brother Bob]

I have no problem with that. Bro bob wanted to know how our old nature is put to death and the new nature is made alive. Go back and read the thread.

No, I said show me scripture saying God changes our nature so we believe?

 

[reformedbeliever]

No, I said show me scripture saying God changes our nature so we believe?

And I provided it.

 

[webdog]

Now who isn't being intellectually honest?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Now who isn't being intellectually honest?

He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.'

 

[Brother Bob]

And I provided it.

No you did not.

 

[Blammo]

In post #39 I asked:
In Ro 5:18, Paul refers to the "free gift unto the justification of life." What is the free gift?

Blammo answered:
If I purchase a gift for you, when does it become yours? When you receive it, right? If you do not receive it, you do not have it. That does not mean it has not been paid for and offered to you, does it?

I respond:
But what is the gift? The passage refers to the free gift unto the justification of life. So the gift is not justification but unto justification. I'm not trying to trick anybody, here. I just want to know.

Blammo, read Allan's explanation of Romans 5:19. That's an exegesis.
Would you agree with his in post #48, or would you like to take another crack?

Allan, thanks for the exegesis. I have some questions, but in a later post

I told you I am not a scholar, yet you seem to want to hold me to some high standard. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. But, I don't think I like your attitude toward me. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have always told people on here that I consider myself a student. I have been able to have friendly discussions with many a calvinist on here that are way smarter than I am. You are not the first. So, from now on I will not respond to your posts. Since you are not aware that my statements are equally questions, and I have no idea what exegesis is. (I will look it up)

BTW: Yes, I like what Allan posted on Romans 5:19. No, I don't think I want to take another crack at it. You win.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I told you I am not a scholar, yet you seem to want to hold me to some high standard. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. But, I don't think I like your attitude toward me. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have always told people on here that I consider myself a student. I have been able to have friendly discussions with many a calvinist on here that are way smarter than I am. You are not the first. So, from now on I will not respond to your posts. Since you are not aware that my statements are equally questions, and I have no idea what exegesis is. (I will look it up)

BTW: Yes, I like what Allan posted on Romans 5:19. No, I don't think I want to take another crack at it. You win.

I think it is easy to misinterpret what people say in this medium. We can not see facial expressions, voice inflection we can not hear. I know that maybe a lot of people come across as mean.... but I hope that is not what is intended.

 

[Blammo]

I think it is easy to misinterpret what people say in this medium. We can not see facial expressions, voice inflection we can not hear. I know that maybe a lot of people come across as mean.... but I hope that is not what is intended.

Okay, RB, thanks.

However, until I become an exegete, I will refrain from discussion with Tom. I think the scriptures speak for themselves, but like most scholars, Tom thinks they are meaningless without exegesis.

The free gift of God is Christ's righteousness which leads to eternal life. That is why babies don't go to hell. That is why Morons and others who have not the capacity to accept or reject the finished work of Jesus Christ will not be condemned.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Okay, RB, thanks.

However, until I become an exegete, I will refrain from discussion with Tom. I think the scriptures speak for themselves, but like most scholars, Tom thinks they are meaningless without exegesis.

The free gift of God is Christ's righteousness which leads to eternal life. That is why babies don't go to hell. That is why Morons and others who have not the capacity to accept or reject the finished work of Jesus Christ will not be condemned.

You think I have a chance brother? :laugh:

 

[Brother Bob]

You be in the front of the line. :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

You be in the front of the line. :laugh:

:applause: You da bad boy bob. :godisgood:

 

[Tom Butler]

Blammo said:
I told you I am not a scholar, yet you seem to want to hold me to some high standard. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. But, I don't think I like your attitude toward me. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have always told people on here that I consider myself a student. I have been able to have friendly discussions with many a calvinist on here that are way smarter than I am. You are not the first. So, from now on I will not respond to your posts. Since you are not aware that my statements are equally questions, and I have no idea what exegesis is. (I will look it up)


Blammo, please accept my apology. I was not aware that I had offended you. I, too, am a learner and in no way a bible scholar. That's the reason I had asked for an exegesis of the passage, to clear up some difficulties with it. You volunteered to take a crack at it, so I assumed that was what you were going to do.

When you didn't, twice, I assumed two things. You didn't want to exegete, or you didn't know how. As I re-read my reference to Allan's exegesis I can see it was tinged with sarcasm, and that's not normally my style. So you are due an apology from me. I also just finished a healthy helping of humble pie.

Reformed Believer, I appreciate your coming to my defense, but I had it coming.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo said:
I told you I am not a scholar, yet you seem to want to hold me to some high standard. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. But, I don't think I like your attitude toward me. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have always told people on here that I consider myself a student. I have been able to have friendly discussions with many a calvinist on here that are way smarter than I am. You are not the first. So, from now on I will not respond to your posts. Since you are not aware that my statements are equally questions, and I have no idea what exegesis is. (I will look it up)



Blammo, please accept my apology. I was not aware that I had offended you. I, too, am a learner and in no way a bible scholar. That's the reason I had asked for an exegesis of the passage, to clear up some difficulties with it. You volunteered to take a crack at it, so I assumed that was what you were going to do.

When you didn't, twice, I assumed two things. You didn't want to exegete, or you didn't know how. As I re-read my reference to Allan's exegesis I can see it was tinged with sarcasm, and that's not normally my style. So you are due an apology from me. I also just finished a healthy helping of humble pie.

Reformed Believer, I appreciate your coming to my defense, but I had it coming.

Well, if that is the case, you don't owe me an apology at all, sir. Your assumption was correct. I do not know how to exegete, I did not even know the meaning of the word until this morning. And, based on your correct assumption, you're reply to me spot on, it only seemed out of line because I didn't know what the *bleep* I was talking about.

My assumption that you were being sarcastic and rude to me was WAY out of line, and I owe you an apology. I am sorry about that, Tom, I was a bit defensive and it was uncalled for.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Blammo said:
I told you I am not a scholar, yet you seem to want to hold me to some high standard. I was just trying to have a friendly discussion. But, I don't think I like your attitude toward me. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have always told people on here that I consider myself a student. I have been able to have friendly discussions with many a calvinist on here that are way smarter than I am. You are not the first. So, from now on I will not respond to your posts. Since you are not aware that my statements are equally questions, and I have no idea what exegesis is. (I will look it up)


Blammo, please accept my apology. I was not aware that I had offended you. I, too, am a learner and in no way a bible scholar. That's the reason I had asked for an exegesis of the passage, to clear up some difficulties with it. You volunteered to take a crack at it, so I assumed that was what you were going to do.

When you didn't, twice, I assumed two things. You didn't want to exegete, or you didn't know how. As I re-read my reference to Allan's exegesis I can see it was tinged with sarcasm, and that's not normally my style. So you are due an apology from me. I also just finished a healthy helping of humble pie.

Reformed Believer, I appreciate your coming to my defense, but I had it coming.

Can you share some of that pie with me? I need a big slice of it. :thumbsup: