FAITH continued . . .

[Skandelon]

I agree. But again you presuppose that God seeks after all men when both the Scriptures and experience tells us that isn't the case.

Even Calvinists affirm the universality of the gospel call being meant for "all creatures." Whether you like it or not, that qualifies as God's work in seeking after all men. Even if you attempt to argue that the gospel is powerless in accomplishing anything apart from the prior work of regeneration, it does not negate the universality of the gospel's appeal, thus proving our position and Allan's argument.

Apparently Christ thought that the Father willing withheld saving knowledge from some. Matt. 11:25-27 He even thanked Him for it.

This is another good reason to be familiar with the historical context.

1. Israel as a whole is being hardened in their rebellion...FACT.
2. A remnant from Israel has been hand picked to be Christ's disciples/apostles...FACT.
3. The Gospel had not been sent to the Gentiles yet and was being hidden from Israel in parables and by a "spirit of stupor"...FACT.
4. The Holy Spirit was sent along with the gospel into all the world and to be preached to EVERY CREATURE after Christ was raised, thus the means to DRAW all men to HIMSELF...FACT.

These are historical FACTS, not opinions, not conjecture, not interpretive quandaries, but FACTS. Knowing these fact helps one to understand Christ's intent in this passage as being that Christ is pleased that God has chosen fishermen and the lowly to be His disciples, instead of the Pharisees (wise and learned). It has nothing to do with God preselecting to save a certain few and condemn the rest of humanity to hell. That is absurd in the context of all scripture.

The fact that you are blind to your system of faith as a work doesn't negate the fact that in your system it is. Repeating that it isn't a work in your system because the Scriptures say that it can't be and be saving faith in no way makes faith in your system not a work. Denying a logical truth doesn't make it untrue.

Ironic that you call Allan blind, when you don't even seem to recognize the fault in your own reasoning. Even Calvinists affirm that men make a choice and must believe in Christ for salvation. Regardless if it is done as a result of an effectual work or not, it still is done by the man. The faith is the man's faith even if it was given to him effectually by God. Thus, if you conclude that faith is a WORK you must maintain even in your own system that men are saved through works. Even if a work is effectually produced by God it is still a WORK.

 

[Ron Wood]

This is a debate board. If you can't keep up, don't play.

If you fellows have all this free time to "play" then I would suggest you get a job. For myself I will not waste my time arguing with with folks who have nothing better to do and refuse to even consider what is being said. Ya'll have a good time putting on a show I am done here. I have better things to do.

 

[Skandelon]

Allan did more than an adequate job in addressing you, Ron...but I just wanted to ask you one thing... in your theological view, is man held responsible for not believing, and can you give me the etymology and definition behind the words respons-ibility and account-ability? What is the common denominator in both?

AWWW, you chased Ron off before he had time to answer this question. They always leave just before this question is answered. I can't imagine why that might be...

 

[DHK]

What in the world are you getting at?
That doesn't even speak to what I was saying.

My point was that the reformed view, in which God must regenerate first, AND THEN give them faith because they do not have it.. was silly if you looked at what it encompasses (but also leaves out)

I agree. I guess I wasn't trying to refute what you said, but expound on it, especially after I re-read your post. It was a good one.

 

[webdog]

If you fellows have all this free time to "play" then I would suggest you get a job. For myself I will not waste my time arguing with with folks who have nothing better to do and refuse to even consider what is being said. Ya'll have a good time putting on a show I am done here. I have better things to do.

What a cop out. You had plenty of time to post 116 times in less than a month...and bail when cornered and thoroughly schooled.

Two words "internet troll".

 

[Winman]

First you have to prove that a dead man can do anything. Second the Scriptures do not say when it was imputed to him for righteousness it simply says it was. You are reading into it what you want.

I would say the words of Jesus is proof. I don't know about you, but that is good enough for me. If Jesus said the DEAD can hear his voice, then I believe it. And he said that those DEAD that hear shall live, which shows the hearing and believeing comes before being made alive. There are so many verses that say this, a person must be in a great deal of denial to not see it.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is the most famous verse in all of scripture. It clearly says that those who believe shall not perish but HAVE everlasting life. This shows believeing as the cause, life as the effect.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This verse explains that receiving Jesus is believeing on his name. And to those who receive him and believe on him, to them does he give power to "become" the sons of God. Again, belief is the cause, life is the effect.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John here explains that he wrote these scriptures that we might believe Jesus is the Christ. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Then John explains that believeing we might HAVE life. Again, faith or belief is the cause, life is the effect.

God is no fool, and quite capable of properly expressing himself. If God wanted to say we must have life that we might believe he could have easily said so. I am a mere mortal and I can easily express this. But God never says this in the scriptures, not once.

I could probably show you a dozen more verses that all say a person must first believe before they can be regenerated and have life. But if you will not accept one, you will not accept any.

 

[Aaron]

Not even close...but nice try.

It's exactly the same.

 

[Aaron]

Allan did more than an adequate job in addressing you, Ron...but I just wanted to ask you one thing... in your theological view, is man held responsible for not believing, and can you give me the etymology and definition behind the words respons-ibility and account-ability? What is the common denominator in both?

You and Skandelon are two peas in a pod. You think your questions probing and learned, but they're drivel.

You think that the suffix -able implies competence, like the whole word able. But used in adjectives the word formed simply describes the property or state of a person or object.

To say a vase is breakable does not imply that the vase has any ability to break itself.

One should know a little about etymology when tossing the word itself around.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What a cop out. You had plenty of time to post 116 times in less than a month...and bail when cornered and thoroughly schooled.

Two words "internet troll".

Nice, really nice!

 

[Aaron]

Well, both DHK and quantum have asserted that faith is the product of a carnal mind, though Paul asserted that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.

That's basically where Noncalvinists stand—at enmity with Paul. I'll stand with Paul instead.

 

[Aaron]

Nice, really nice!

Paul wouldn't have taken the time with dog that Ron did. After one or two admonitions Paul wouldn't have given dog the time of day.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you fellows have all this free time to "play" then I would suggest you get a job. For myself I will not waste my time arguing with with folks who have nothing better to do and refuse to even consider what is being said. Ya'll have a good time putting on a show I am done here. I have better things to do.

Brother.....you need to develop a very thick skin in here. Its kinda like the Marines. Your opponent will constantly pelt you, call you names etc. If there is a perceived hole in your argument, you will get pulled down & you better be prepared to defend your argument. Perhaps more push ups are required.:laugh:

Get them next time. :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Paul wouldn't have taken the time with dog that Ron did. After one or two admonitions Paul wouldn't have given dog the time of day.

Even a dog has their day. Usually though there just returning to their vomit. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

Two words "internet troll".

Do you ever feel a sense of shame saying these kinds of things that are completely uncalled for?

Does he deserve that kind of treatment? Did he do bad things to your family or something?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you ever feel a sense of shame saying these kinds of things that are completely uncalled for?

Does he deserve that kind of treatment? Did he do bad things to your family or something?

Again...." True humility means respect for others" - John Calvin:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

You and Skandelon are two peas in a pod. You think your questions probing and learned, but they're drivel.

Then why are many of the same questions I present here being discussed in theological journals, in historical works and by scholars on both sides of this subject? Where do you think I come up with my questions? I come across them while reading scholarly work. You should try it.

You think that the suffix -able implies competence, like the whole word able. But used in adjectives the word formed simply describes the property or state of a person or object.

To say a vase is breakable does not imply that the vase has any ability to break itself.

One should know a little about etymology when tossing the word itself around.

There is no one in the world except a deterministic theists who would draw this connotation about the words "responsible" or "accountable."

 

[Skandelon]

Well, both DHK and quantum have asserted that faith is the product of a carnal mind, though Paul asserted that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.

And for some reason you presume that a message sent for the purpose of bringing RECONCILIATION cannot be accepted. Why? Because they are an enemy.

That is tantamount to a doctor creating a cure for cancer and then saying, oh sorry they can't take the medication because they are too cancerous. It is absurd really.

 

[webdog]

Do you ever feel a sense of shame saying these kinds of things that are completely uncalled for?

Does he deserve that kind of treatment? Did he do bad things to your family or something?

Pot or kettle?

 

[webdog]

You and Skandelon are two peas in a pod. You think your questions probing and learned, but they're drivel.

You think that the suffix -able implies competence, like the whole word able. But used in adjectives the word formed simply describes the property or state of a person or object.

To say a vase is breakable does not imply that the vase has any ability to break itself.

One should know a little about etymology when tossing the word itself around.

This is the most ignorant thing I have read from you Aaron. Surely you can do better. Do you know what accountable and responsible even mean? Please, remove the hyper-cal glasses and try again.

 

[DHK]

Well, both DHK and quantum have asserted that faith is the product of a carnal mind, though Paul asserted that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.

That's basically where Noncalvinists stand—at enmity with Paul. I'll stand with Paul instead.

First, you don't stand with Paul.
I dare say you don't stand with the Bible.
And third, I question your definition of faith, if you have one. If you do, I haven't heard one.