How about this for a proof text?

[jonathan.borland]

Determinsm + Non-Determinsm = logically impossible for both to be true at the same time....eh? Get it?

Nah, nevermind, I understand these kinds of things don't make sense to your kind. :laugh:

Just ignore what I said, I don't want you to hurt yourselves trying to figure it out. :smilewinkgrin:

Careful, Benjamin. There are some old geezers on this board. You might cause some to blow a gasket by leading them to exercise their faculty of reason.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HOS,
You are overthinking here. Just look at scripture;

And you are "over-assumming" Just look again at the Scriptures you posted:

The psalmist and Paul did not think that this was nonsense:
110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.


12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The working is always effectual, the people are made willing....it is not a burden.

In neither of those passages is it stated that God "MAKES" anyone willing to to do anything....maybe you read this statement:
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and then assummed that a statement of fact...that thy people will, in fact, BE willing (which is what it says) and then assummed "God MADE them willing". But it doesn't say that. Just read the Scriptures for what they DO say, and don't read your assumptions into them. This is essentially proof that that is what you did.

You Bolded this statement again:
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and Read it to say:
Thy people shall be Made to be willing in the day of they power,

Who is "over-thinking"?

 

[Winman]

And you are "over-assumming" Just look again at the Scriptures you posted:


In neither of those passages is it stated that God "MAKES" anyone willing to to do anything....maybe you read this statement:
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and then assummed that a statement of fact...that thy people will, in fact, BE willing (which is what it says) and then assummed "God MADE them willing". But it doesn't say that. Just read the Scriptures for what they DO say, and don't read your assumptions into them. This is essentially proof that that is what you did.

You Bolded this statement again:
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and Read it to say:
Thy people shall be Made to be willing in the day of they power,

Who is "over-thinking"?

You nailed it perfectly HoS, Calvinism reads it's theology into scripture, you showed a perfect example.

Notice the other verse Iconoclast quoted and how he also reads Calvinism into this verse as well;

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

To the non-Cal, this verse says that the word of God works effectually in those persons who believe the word of God.

But to a Calvinist, they believe this verse is saying the word of God works effectually in an elect person to cause them to believe. They get an absolutely different interpretation because they read Irresistible Grace into this verse when it is not there.

This is what Reformed/Calvinists do, read their doctrine into scripture, then they believe scripture actually supports their position. They are oblivious to the fact that they are reading into scripture what is not said, just as you correctly pointed out in Psa 110:3 with Iconoclast.

Calvinists are subjected to these erroneous proof-texts so often that their mind is conditioned to see error. Many cults teach like this.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

So....you want to "play"...ok....I will, just for you friend.

I am truly touched by your devotion to me

Whenever I have time and I come across you using your veiled tactics to question your opponent’s salvation on this this board I will call you it. Your methods which you think are “cleverly” flying under the radar in pulling this stunt are obnoxious, offensive and your intents are against the rules for good reason.

Concerning any other debate or conversation I have prepared this time saving statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about threatening with words or by use of "your highlighted scriptural interpretations to suggest" your opponents aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special enlightenments".

K?"

 

[Iconoclast]

And you are "over-assumming" Just look again at the Scriptures you posted:


In neither of those passages is it stated that God "MAKES" anyone willing to to do anything....maybe you read this statement:
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and then assummed that a statement of fact...that thy people will, in fact, BE willing (which is what it says) and then assummed "God MADE them willing". But it doesn't say that. Just read the Scriptures for what they DO say, and don't read your assumptions into them. This is essentially proof that that is what you did.

You Bolded this statement again:
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,
and Read it to say:
Thy people shall be Made to be willing in the day of they power,

Who is "over-thinking"?

Hos,

To anyone who understands the fall correctly, knows that man is unable and unwilling to come.....I thought you knew this. God makes men willing.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

The natural man......CANNOT....

If you continue to deny these truths as you and your friends do, we will never come to agreement. When you turn from scripture all that is left is:
1] carnal philosophy

2]open theism

3] works gospels

4] novelties

5]failed theologies

6] new age ideas

7]extra biblical theologies

8]cults

9]apostates

I want no part of any of these.You are welcome to any or all of them,and you can continue to discuss these errors with the rest of my "fan club":laugh::thumbs::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,
Glad to see you enjoyed my allegorical response to you.

If you want to discuss scripture sometime,let me know.

if you want to discuss.......x=t t=d therefore x=......post to someone else.

If you want to function as the accuser of the brethren...do it somewhere else.
You have an ignore button, feel free to use it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

You nailed it perfectly HoS, Calvinism reads it's theology into scripture, you showed a perfect example.

Notice the other verse Iconoclast quoted and how he also reads Calvinism into this verse as well;

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

To the non-Cal, this verse says that the word of God works effectually in those persons who believe the word of God.

But to a Calvinist, they believe this verse is saying the word of God works effectually in an elect person to cause them to believe. They get an absolutely different interpretation because they read Irresistible Grace into this verse when it is not there.

Where does a calvinist get the idea that Paul could be speaking to ....an ELECT person.......could it be from scripture itself:laugh::laugh:

Let's look who this was written to-

1thess1;
We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.


I am not sure WINMAN:laugh::laugh: Paul wrote to the ELECT,THE BRETHREN.......Paul that wicked Calvinist explains it all and ruins it for you EH???

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,
Glad to see you enjoyed my allegorical response to you.

If you want to discuss scripture sometime,let me know.

if you want to discuss.......x=t t=d therefore x=......post to someone else.

If you want to function as the accuser of the brethren...do it somewhere else.
You have an ignore button, feel free to use it.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
Benjamin

You are free to express your opinion in any way you like.

I think fair is fair in this situation considering the intentions and your revealing beliefs toward how you intend to and feel you are entitled to continue to conduct yourself in the manner which you do on this board. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

I think fair is fair in this situation considering the intentions and your revealing beliefs toward how you intend to and feel you are entitled to continue to conduct yourself in the manner which you do on this board. :thumbs:

Good....that will help you as you have proved over time your inability to engage several of us scripturally, but just attack those who do not listen to your pontification on philosophical ideas.

I conduct myself as I need to.In your case I see you coming from a mile away,twisting my words as well as anyone else who answers you.

You are crying because you have been exposed...nothing more, nothing less.

You can stop auditioning for the lead role as BB drama queen.If you have no desire to post scripturally,but post your twisting of words and "mind reading, channeling posts"....you are better to ignore my posting.

No need to go away mad...just go away:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

I conduct myself as I need to.

You are crying because you have been exposed...nothing more, nothing less.

No need to go away mad...just go away:thumbs::wavey:

I conduct myself as I need to.

You are crying because you have been exposed...nothing more, nothing less.

No need to go away mad...just go away:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

If you want to discuss scripture sometime,let me know.

Concerning any other debate or conversation I have prepared this time saving statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about threatening withwords or by use of "your highlighted scriptural interpretations to suggest"your opponents aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special enlightenments".

K?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Concerning any other debate or conversation I have prepared this time saving statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about threatening withwords or by use of "your highlighted scriptural interpretations to suggest"your opponents aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special enlightenments".

K?"

Again, he has at least Paul and the rest of the Bible writers to boost his case, yours seems to be mased mainly on the foundation of "vain teachings and philosophies of men!"

 

[Winman]

Winman

Where does a calvinist get the idea that Paul could be speaking to ....an ELECT person.......could it be from scripture itself:laugh::laugh:

Let's look who this was written to-

1thess1;
We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.


I am not sure WINMAN:laugh::laugh: Paul wrote to the ELECT,THE BRETHREN.......Paul that wicked Calvinist explains it all and ruins it for you EH???

I do not disagree that Paul is speaking to elect persons.

But Paul is not saying the word of God effectually works to cause elect persons to believe in 1 The 2:13 as you falsely teach. Paul is saying that the word of God effectually works in those that believe.

This is logical and sensible, a person will act as they believe. If a person bursts into a movie theater shouting "Fire!" those who believe this message will jump up and run for the exits. It is the same with the word of God, if a person believes the scriptures they will act upon it and obey God's word. If you believe the word of God, it will powerfully and effectually work in you. If you do not believe, it will not work in you. If you do not believe God's word you will of course not obey it, it will not produce good works in you.

This is what Paul is saying, the word of God effectually works in those who believe it. Paul is thankful that these Thessalonians truly accepted his teaching as the word of God and that it effectually worked in them because they believed it.

That is not at all how you interpret this verse, you interpret it to teach Irresistible Grace, that God irresistibly causes an elect person to believe. This verse does not say this whatsoever. There is no mention of the elect in this verse, and it does not say the word of God irresistibly causes a person to believe. You are reading your doctrine into scripture when it is not there.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos,
To anyone who understands the fall correctly, knows that man is unable and unwilling to come.....I thought you knew this. God makes men willing.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

The natural man......CANNOT....

If you continue to deny these truths as you and your friends do, we will never come to agreement. When you turn from scripture all that is left is:
1] carnal philosophy

2]open theism

3] works gospels

4] novelties

novelties5]failed theologies

6] new age ideas

7]extra biblical theologies

8]cults

9]apostates

I want no part of any of these.You are welcome to any or all of them,and you can continue to discuss these errors with the rest of my "fan club"

Icon.......This is a gaseous post which is utterly unwarranted by the discussion we have had thus far:
You have NOT addressed the point I made in my last response to you, but conveniently ignored it, and merely accussed me of promoting a list of heresies that no reasonable person would believe I cling to......but, for the sake of "lurkers"... I will rejoinder you again point-by-point:

Hos,
To anyone who understands the fall correctly, knows that man is unable and unwilling to come.....

I do........and no-one (including myself) denies that man (who is fallen) is BOTH "unable" and "un-willing" to come....... This is affirmed repeatedly by myself and numerous others with whom you have dis-agreement and that includes Jacobus Arminius himself, or do I have to quote him to you?

I thought you knew this.

I did........and you are boring me :sleep:

God makes men willing.

You IMMEDIATELY follow your ill-informed accusation that Arminians don't believe that the fall was total with the snuck in statement that affirms your last post.......Which I defeated, and you have not defended........You posted two Scriptures which state NOTHING to the effect that God "makes men willing" with this randomly inserted assertion. Please provide a Scripture which states that God in fact, "makes" men "willing"....

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

This is, again, already affirmed........only, you think that to "draw" automatically means to "compel"........and that is not Scripture. The "drawing" of the Holy Spirit is already affirmed to be critical for any fallen sinner to come to Christ. No fallen man will come to Christ without that initial "drawing"....please explain how this verse is equivalent to the "irrresistable compulsion" which you believe it is.

The natural man......CANNOT....

Agreed.....now, please assert something we do not ALL already ascribe to.

If you continue to deny these truths as you and your friends do,

I don't, and I assume you are willing to name specifically which persons by name whom you accuse of denying anything you have stated or who would deny the truth of the rejoinder I have made; which affirms all of the truths you have stated thus far........Please accuse my "friends" by name.......of denying the totallity of the fall, and the neccessity of the Divine intervention upon the corrupted sinful wills of mankind before salvation is possible. That is one option, the other is to take this bottle of Heinz 57 I kindly offer you and eat your words.

When you turn from scripture all that is left is

:
I am not "turning" from Scripture.......I am demonstrating how much you pour your own assumptions INTO Scripture and you have refused to defend yourself on that account.......I will not permit you to conveniently forget your previous post which I already soundly defeated, and which you continue to pretend does not exist.

1] carnal philosophy

You still fail to differentiate between the qualifier (which is an adjective) of "carnal" between the subject at hand "philosophy" (which is a noun) the definition of which you simply don't understand. I say this, only because it is obvious that you veritably POUR your own philosophy into Scripture (and we all actually do to some extent)......only, you are one of the few people on this board who don't realize it!!!

3] works gospels

Please explain (in detail and with quotes from myself and my "friends") how anyone has preached a "works gospel" to you.

4] novelties

You think you are quite ingenious with your capacity to randomly string words together don't you?
What is a "novelty"?
1.) An original Vincent "Black Shadow" is a novelty
2.) A 1985 AMC Jeep is a "novelty".

You simply know that old-school translations of Scriptures take blatantly heretical notions and ascribe the word "novelty" to them and therefore think yourself rather clever by randomly describing another's theology as "novelty" in like manner. This is a low and garbage form of debate.

6] new age ideas

Please, with references.....explain which particular views you have quoted from my self which are "new age" and which particular "new age" pagans you can quote which affirm the statement that I or anyone else on this board have made.........Or, a simpler solution, would be to apologize for falsely accusing brethren of "new-age" Satanism.

7]extra biblical theologies
8]cults
9]apostates

A random list of synonyms for essentially the same things you have already accused your brethren of believing.........You have not strengthened your case by adding more insulting synonyms for the same word:

Next time you go this route.... you might add "sorceries" to the list as Well!!!!
That way......you might seem even MORE clever by your capacity to select a random list of false accusations.....This might EVEN warrant a burning at the stake! OH......Goody-goo!! :jesus: and would you not SOOOOOOO...... enjoy THAT!!!:thumbs:

I want no part of any of these.You are welcome to any or all of them,

Your status as a non-Satanist is noted and affirmed by the council........your obvious accusation that I might, in fact BE a party to Satanic philosophy is noted:
Now......Do you have any worthwhile rejoinder to my directly engaging the Scripture you posed??? Or, are you going to ignore my previous rejoinder to you and continue your obvious "red-herring" of trying to make people continue to chase false leads??

 

[Iconoclast]

When you turn from scripture all that is left is:

If you notice in post 85....the list followed this statement.......in other words....anyone, you know.....whosoever...turns from scripture.

You do not believe the same things...at all.There can not be any agreement if your Adam was only wounded.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You do not believe the same things...at all.There can not be any agreement if your Adam was only wounded.

Please quote anyone on this board who affirms that they believe that Adam was only "wounded".......

You are accusing anyone who disagrees with your particular Soteriology of

"cultism" <-----your words
"apostacy" <-----your words
"new-age-ism" <-----Your words
"carnalism" <-----your words

My, what an irenic servant of the Almighty you are being!!! :wavey:
You falsely represent others by lyingly claiming they believe that...and I quote you: "Adam was only wounded"

And...........without addressing their rejoinders, you accuse them of:
Cultism, apostacy, new-age-ism, carnalism.......... blah blah...:sleep:

You know, the more you question the salvation of others...the less we will even be bothered or insulted by it, and will simply find it humorous that you post in such a manner :laugh:.......but, it will be God's perfect will that you post so ridiculously so, fear not..... you are PERFECTLY within God's perfect will...AND SO ARE WE!!!!!

 

[Benjamin]

Again, he has at least Paul and the rest of the Bible writers to boost his case, yours seems to be mased mainly on the foundation of "vain teachings and philosophies of men!"

How do you know that God didn’t bless me to use to philosophy to reason with so I could boost my case of what Paul and the rest of the Bible writers are actually saying to us? ...You a prophet or something???

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

Please quote anyone on this board who affirms that they believe that Adam was only "wounded"

.......

They will deny those words,but that is the theology put forth.

Any who believe man has ability to believe savingly prior to regeneration,
who believe in the idol of free will, or that man just needs a little more information, have a wounded Adam....no matter what they post.

So,,,you can see who posts that way....for yourself.

You are accusing anyone who disagrees with your particular Soteriology of

My statement was that anyone who turns from scriptural truth...turns to these things listed.....the list is accurate.....I do not "accuse" anyone in particular. If a free moral agent puts themself on the list...that is what they desire to do.

"cultism" <-----your words
"apostacy" <-----your words
"new-age-ism" <-----Your words
"carnalism" <-----your words

These things on the list..oppose truth...the whole list

My, what an irenic servant of the Almighty you are being!!! :wavey:
You falsely represent others by lyingly claiming they believe that...and I quote you: "Adam was only wounded"

You are welcome to your opinion...:thumbsup:

And...........without addressing their rejoinders, you accuse them of:
Cultism, apostacy, new-age-ism, carnalism.......... blah blah...:sleep:

When someone wants an answer...I offer one. None of those posting here are interested in any answer however....as you now join Benjamin trying to twist my words...looks as if you do not want an answer either

You know, the more you question the salvation of others

.

I have not questioned anyones salvation as we know everyone on the BB is saved. I respond to what is posted.Many responses I see here I see out on the road when I speak to unsaved persons,so I am used to the arguements offered. I relate that sometime in my posts and let the reader sort out the results.


.

.the less we will even be bothered or insulted by it, and will simply find it humorous that you post in such a manner :.......

I do not have to question or insult anyone here. Their own posts degrade them all by themselves.
I see many who want to discuss scripture, and learn....and others who constantly attack and disrupt thread after thread.

 

[Benjamin]

....as you now join Benjamin trying to twist my words...

Nailing your words to the wall is not “trying to twist” your words. It is not sorcery; it is merely holding them up in order to draw out the truth from them for the purposes of exposing them for their true intensions. There is nothing unethical about drawing out the true meanings of your words and holding you accountable for your obvious intension in using them. On the other hand, it is unethical for you to continue to use those words in the way in which you do; which is to continually question other’s salvation and to cast offensive insults during a “debate”.

 

[Benjamin]

Again, he has at least Paul and the rest of the Bible writers to boost his case, yours seems to be mased mainly on the foundation of "vain teachings and philosophies of men!"

It seems to me there is a select number of Calvinists on this board that “claim” they wish to engage in nothing more than circular proof-texting and do not want to reason with their own minds while they are relying on the systematic philosophy and reasoning about the interpretations of those scriptural proof-texts they use coming from other men. Isn’t that the kind of "vanity" the Bible is warning us about in Col 2:8 to not be spoiled by, the phiosophical traditions of other men???

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

You might want to look in a mirror and use your own mind and think a little harder about what the scriptures are saying before you bark out such accusations to others, eh?