Faith received part deux

The context of Lukes passage is, take a guess; believers, not unbelievers, so, it only applies to the born-again, and thus it excludes your proof-texting methodology.

Therefore you are the one in error, failing yet again to intepret within context and misapplying a proof-text.

Excellent point Luke.

 

We were discussing Adam on a personal level, not the consequences of the Fall as they pertain to the human race. We need to keep one separate from the other so that we can talk about one issue at a time. No need to confuse the two. The fact is that Adam sinned. In the day that Adam would sin, he would die. He died (spiritually). After he died spiritually he continued to talk on a spiritual plane to God. How is that possible. That was my question to P4T, which he was unable to answer. I believe the answer is simple. It is in the definition of death, which many Calvinists wrongly define.

As to your previous post concerning Satan, you are comparing apples to oranges. Satan is a spirit-being who was cast out of heaven because of his pride and rebellion against God. He will never again be reconciled to God. There is absolutely no chance of that. He wages a war against God though he knows that he cannot win. We do not understand everything about the spirit world, the spirit realm. We do know that even though Satan is a fallen creature he still in some way has access to some outer court of heaven as is indicated by Job chapter one. He can communicate with God. But he is a spirit not a man. He cannot be compared to man that is need of reconciliation to God through the blood of the lamb--a completely different story that even the angels of heaven desire to look into, for they don't completely understand salvation.

 

The story is also told here:

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. (Mark 10:21)

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:22)
--He was not saved. Instead of choosing Christ he chose his riches. Jesus demonstrated that the Ten Commandments which he said he kept from his youth up, he did not keep. He "coveted" his riches more than he desired Christ. That covetousness kept him from Christ.

Therefore Christ said;
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:23)
--The believers Christ was talking to was his own disciples teaching them about rich people and their response to the gospel.
What was the disciples response?

And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24)

 

Baloney, Luke was not speaking of believers only, he said EVERYBODY. Here is what he said;

Luke is not speaking of believers only here, he said EVERYBODY. He implies, whether intentionally or not, that God does not love everybody, but he also directly says if God loves a person they will love him back in a salvific way.

He also implies I believe that if God loves a person that they will irresistably be caused to love God back when he said;

Luke put great emphasis on the word "caused", I believe he was implying God's love irresistably causes a person to love him back.

Both of these statements are refuted by scripture, the scriptures say Jesus loved the young rich ruler. He was unsaved, so we see God loves the unregenerate. Also, he did not get saved, so Jesus's love did not CAUSE the young rich ruler to love him back.

You try to divert, but I can read, and I know what Luke said. His view is error and refuted by scripture, if you agree with him you are in error too.

 

Nope. He said everybody in a "salvific way" in other words, he qualified it to salvation, or in other words, believers. Did you miss that part?

 

But Luke was talking about a passage in 1 John, not the one you cite here. He made his point from 1 John, "we (believers) love Him because He first loved us..." 1 John 4:19

I think winman rebuted him from your scriptures.

Lukes idea is that this is exclusive to believers, as in his passage.

 

I don't think Luke mentioned the story of the rich young ruler as far as I can tell. It was brought up by Winman. Winman's assessment of the story is correct. At the beginning the rich man was rebuked by Jesus and so he was at the end. He went away sorrowful. He was an unbeliever and Jesus described him as such to the disciples. Now what that has to do with what Luke said, I have to read more carefully his post.

 

If you are speaking of the unregenerate, or even the unsaved, can you show from Scripture where this is true.

 

Nonsense, he said EVERYBODY. If he meant believers only, why didn't he say believers only?

This is the problem with debating many Calvinists, many twist words and their definitions to their liking. Many of you are like a greased pig when it comes to nailing you down to the specific meaning of a word. You should all go to law school and become attorneys, your talents are being wasted here. Or you should run for office, you would make excellent politicians.

 

Yep, he sure did say EVERYBODY, but he QUALIFIED this afterwards to mean EVERYBODY who is saved: by saying "in a salvific way":

 

The first epistle of John was written to believers only. It really has no application to an unsaved man. The rich young ruler was definitely unsaved. He went away sorrowful. Jesus said: "How hardly shall a rich man (the rich young ruler) enter into the kingdom of God. He made the application that he didn't enter the kingdom, or wasn't saved.

The verse in 1John uses the pronoun "us" and "we" speaking of believers.
The comparison doesn't really fit, does it?

 

Hey, calling others "lawyers" and "politicians" is hitting way below the belt. Clean it up! :wavey:

 

What are you saying here, that I am in error, or Luke, or both?

I just wish Calvinists would use direct language. If Luke meant believers only, why not say believers only? He not only said "everybody", he emphasized it with upper case letters.

Either way, I hardly see how P4T can know what Luke meant for a certainty. He seems to know more about folks than they know about themselves.

 

Exactly. Winman made that comparison, that doesn't fit, not Luke. And Lukes verse he qualified from 1 John 4:9 to believers onlyas we have. That's been my point. I hope that clears it up.

 

Winman, it is because he qualified "everybody" to being specifically the saved only. It's a way of making a point. It was right there in his sentence.

 

Well, Luke said "everybody" but wrongly applied it as to what non-Cals believed.
You said the story about the rich man was applicable to unbelievers only which was correct.
The first epistle of John was written to believers only, is what I said, and thus John was speaking of believers only if one looks carefully at the personal pronouns used.

 

Here is where the ambiguity in Luke's post comes in:

From a non-Cal's point of view, God's love can be rejected. However, if it is not rejected it is the reason that he is saved. It is his love that draws us to him. Thus the point of free will. The second statement is false to a non-cal because everyone will not love God even though God loves them (unless Luke is specifically talking of only the elect). Like Winman pointed out the rich young ruler did not love Christ back. Judas did not love Christ back, though Christ loved him. Of his own will he rejected Christ; he wasn't forced to.

 

The other problem here is that not all Calvinists (including Calvin himself) believe that God's love for men will effectually lead them to salvation. Many Calvinists (including Calvin) affirm that God does indeed love all mankind, yet deny that all will be saved.

 

Exactly, I have known and loved the verse in 1 John from my youth. If Luke had said "we" or "us" I would not have been misled, I knew the verse was speaking of believers only. If he were to have said "believers" or "believers only" I would not have been misled. But to use the word "everybody" is misleading.

It sure would be simpler if Calvinists used direct and accurate words. I think any honest person would say they are far more guilty of playing word games and using misleading language than non-Cals. I say that not as an insult, I say that because I think it is absolute truth.

Non-Cals here are always asking Cals to very specifically define certain words they use, and more often than not they are very evasive to explain how they define words. It is difficult to debate someone when they use definitions other than the common accepted use or dictionary definition. Qualifying words would not be needed if direct and accurate words were used.

 

Yea, and apparently skandelon did too.