John 5:25-29??

[agedman]

In your belief system, I was regenerated for close to twenty years. God showed me a condemned sinner at around 15-16 one day riding home on a school bus, in the first seat behind the busdriver. God drawed me for years, Brother. I'd go to church for a while, then I'd be back in the same ole rut, running the bars, chasing the women, drinking the booze, cursing, using God's name in vain, and yet, through all of this, He kept drawing me. He kept showing me I needed Him, and when I would do something sinful, I'd feel it from the Spirit, and He was convicting me. Yet, I kept on my sinful ways, and enjoyed it to the hilt(not bragging, just being honest).On May 24th, 2007, He saved me, and placed me in Christ.

I enjoy reading testimonies of believers who are members of the BB. It brings a certain joy.

So, if I had died in this "regenerated" state, if I would have died, I would have went to heaven or hell?

I think your question (though good) is missing in the aspect of practical Biblical support.

Who holds BOTH the keys to death and hell? Does not Christ?

If Christ begins a work in you, does the Scriptures state that it ever goes incomplete?

Now, in this "regenerated" state, how was I in Christ and yet a fullblown sinner?

What was Paul before the conversion on the road side?

Do you not consider it Biblical that when "Christ died for the ungodly" that He saved you before you became aware of the need of salvation?

Is a person always aware of the need before it is already supplied?

One is a condemned sinner unless they are in Christ. How can we be in Chirst, if we are given the new birth, and in this new birth, we are given the abilty to believe only?

Again, the awareness doesn't necessarily have come before the provision. As a parent, I often pre - provided for my children's needs before they were aware they were in need.

Christ said that He knows those that are His. God has the Book of Life finished before the foundations of the world.

Is it so strange to you that God prepares for His own, before they are aware they are His own?

Does the newborn have awareness of the parent? Not until the parent brings the child unto their self is that bond. The child is the parent's child before awareness of the bond by the child.

We are given the ability to believe in Jesus(faith), and yet we must believe, and then we are placed in Christ.Y'all are putting steps in the salvation equation that aren't there.

Salvation is the gift of God. It is not conditioned upon any work of mere man.

If it were, then man would have doubts (as some do) as to having said the right words, was the belief actual belief, what if my prayer was interrupted or not sincere enough...

Belief is an expression not a state of being. The expression of what has already taken place.

 

[OldRegular]

Acts 13:43-49, KJV
43. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46* Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Notice that the Scripture states clearly and unequivocally:

Acts 13:
48. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

It does not say "as many as believed were ordained [appointed] to eternal life".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Notice that the Scripture states clearly and unequivocally:

Acts 13:
48. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

It does not say "as many as believed were ordained [appointed] to eternal life".

Yes, it does state that clearly and unequivocally... and no, it does not say, as you graciously pointed out:

"as many as believed were ordained [appointed] to eternal life".

But that verse also fits quite nicely into any number of Soteriological systems....some better than others: I am confidently telling you, unreservedly...that as a Molinist myself, (go ahead and google that if you need to: Wiki actually does a pretty good job on the topic as it is not an overly popular view) this verse makes perfect sense and does not in any way have to be tortured, ignored, explained away or re-defined in order to say exactly what it means and mean exactly what it says: It tells us this:

Gentiles heard and were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.
[As a result of Paul and Barnabus's preaching:]

Those and ONLY those who were ordained to Eternal life believed.
Those who believed were those and only those who...by the counsel of God's perfect will were pre-destined...elected, foreordained, chosen and foreknown by God to Salvation.
No one who did not meet these conditions believed and/or were saved.

What did I miss? And yet, I am not a Calvinist. Expand your horizons a little.

 

[Winman]

Winman if you know such a person you need to share the Gospel with them so they can exercise their God given faith and believe!

I could easily find such Calvinists. Here are some who all believe a person is regenerated before they believe in Jesus.

Loraine Boettner:

"A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved." (Loraine Boettner, Predestination, p. 101)

Arthur W. Pink:

"A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated." (Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 55)

R. C. Sproul:

"We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again that we may believe." (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 73)

Here are three famous Calvinists who say a man is regenerated, born again, and saved BEFORE they believe on Jesus. This would be life without Jesus.

 

[kyredneck]

I could easily find such Calvinists. Here are some who all believe a person is regenerated before they believe in Jesus.

Loraine Boettner:

"A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved." (Loraine Boettner, Predestination, p. 101)

Arthur W. Pink:

"A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated." (Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 55)

R. C. Sproul:

"We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again that we may believe." (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 73)


Here are three famous Calvinists who say a man is regenerated, born again, and saved BEFORE they believe on Jesus. This would be life without Jesus.

Hey! Thanks Winman! Saved to file. Got any more of those?

[edit] Here's a few 'Old School' Southern Baptists that held the same view:

"James P. Boyce (first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky): "It is not strange, therefore, that they [i.e. regeneration and conversion] are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is that act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart" (Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 374)."

"John A. Broadus (distinguished professor of New Testament and successor to Boyce at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): "1. Q. What is meant by the word regeneration? A. Regeneration is God's causing a person to be born again. 9. Q. Does faith come before the new birth? A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes" (taken from Broadus' A Catechism of Bible Teaching, reprinted in A Baptist Treasury, pp. 67-68)."

"John L. Dagg (first writing Southern Baptist theologian; president of Mercer University in Georgia): "In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect. . . . But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the word effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of love to God exists, the first throb of spiritual life commences" (A Manual of Theology, pp. 277, 279)."

"B. H. Carroll (founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas): "The true scriptural position [concerning regeneration] is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of repentance and faith." Carroll goes on to state that "repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration" (An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 4, p. 287)."

 

[Winman]

Hey! Thanks Winman! Saved to file. Got any more of those?

Sure, they are easy to find.

The new life is not implanted because man perceives the truth, but he perceives the truth because the new life is implanted. A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated. He is not regenerated because he first repents, but he repents because he has been regenerated.

William Shedd
Dogmatic Theology, 1888, 2b:509.

Rebirth or regeneration is monergistic, not synergistic. It is done by God and by God alone. A dead man cannot cooperate with his resurrection. Lazarus did not cooperate in his resurrection. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God in which man plays no role. After God brings us to life, of course, we certainly are involved in “cooperating” with Him. We are to believe, trust, obey, and work for him. But unless God acts first, we will never be reborn in the first place. We must also realize it is not as if dead people have faith, and because of their faith God agrees to regenerate them. Rather, it is because God has regenerated us and given us new life that we have faith.

R.C. Sproul
Tabletalk, 1989. Used by Permission.

We do not have the ability to enter the kingdom unless the Spirit of God gives us life through the new birth. We are born again, then, by a sovereign, monergistic (that is, the Spirit working alone) act of the Holy Spirit. Then, as a result of that new birth, we exercise the faith given to us, and enter the kingdom of God.

Jerry Bridges
Copied from The Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges, © 2002, p. 133. Used by permission of NavPress – www.navpress.com. All rights reserved.

All of these men teach that a person already has life before they can believe on Jesus. They do not believe you receive life from Jesus when you believe on him, they believe a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit before he can hear with understanding and then believe the gospel.

They all teach a man is alive without Christ and believes on Christ afterward.

 

[kyredneck]

Sure, they are easy to find.

Quote:
The new life is not implanted because man perceives the truth, but he perceives the truth because the new life is implanted. A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated. He is not regenerated because he first repents, but he repents because he has been regenerated.

William Shedd
Dogmatic Theology, 1888, 2b:509.

Quote:
Rebirth or regeneration is monergistic, not synergistic. It is done by God and by God alone. A dead man cannot cooperate with his resurrection. Lazarus did not cooperate in his resurrection. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God in which man plays no role. After God brings us to life, of course, we certainly are involved in “cooperating” with Him. We are to believe, trust, obey, and work for him. But unless God acts first, we will never be reborn in the first place. We must also realize it is not as if dead people have faith, and because of their faith God agrees to regenerate them. Rather, it is because God has regenerated us and given us new life that we have faith.

R.C. Sproul
Tabletalk, 1989. Used by Permission.

Quote:
We do not have the ability to enter the kingdom unless the Spirit of God gives us life through the new birth. We are born again, then, by a sovereign, monergistic (that is, the Spirit working alone) act of the Holy Spirit. Then, as a result of that new birth, we exercise the faith given to us, and enter the kingdom of God.

Jerry Bridges
Copied from The Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges, © 2002, p. 133. Used by permission of NavPress – www.navpress.com. All rights reserved.


All of these men teach that a person already has life before they can believe on Jesus. They do not believe you receive life from Jesus when you believe on him, they believe a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit before he can hear with understanding and then believe the gospel.

Thanks again Winman!

And Christ affirms the above:

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life;......Jn 3:36

.....He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life,...Jn5:24

... He that believeth hath eternal life. Jn 6:47

They all teach a man is alive without Christ and believes on Christ afterward.

No, it's the Holy Spirit that regenerates, not without Christ, but because [of the work] of Christ.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."

 

[Winman]

Thanks again Winman!

And Christ affirms the above:

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life;......Jn 3:36

Nope, these men teach you have life BEFORE you believe on Jesus. The quote by Pink said this directly.

.....He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life,...Jn5:24

Nope, same answer.

... He that believeth hath eternal life. Jn 6:47

Strike three, you're out! All these men teach that a person has life before they believe. The scriptures you showed all say a man has life as a result of believing.

No, it's the Holy Spirit that regenerates, not without Christ, but because [of the work] of Christ.

The Holy Spirit does not regenerate a person until after they have believed, never before. See John 1:12.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."

This is quite different, this is revelation. The Spirit gives revelation to any man who will listen. Revelation is not regeneration. Hebrews 6 shows a man can be enlightened (taught) by the Spirit, and yet fall away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Calvinism teaches only a regenerate man can be enlightened to understand the gospel, but the scriptures teach an unregenerate man can be enlightened by the Spirit, and yet fall away in unbelief.

Calvinism confuses enlightenment with regeneration.

Calvinism cannot explain Hebrews 6.

 

[OldRegular]

No, it's the Holy Spirit that regenerates, not without Christ, but because [of the work] of Christ.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."

Perhaps God will reveal the truth to Winman as He did to Simon Peter.

 

[webdog]

Perhaps God will reveal the truth to Winman as He did to Simon Peter.

He already has...get onboard!

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon...while I can appreciate how you feel....You must understand something; You might just as easily hear dozens of sermons and teachings or even read dozens of catechisms that are NOT from a Calvinist perspective. Could you not?

Not really.....because there are no good ones out there....because calvinism is the biblical truth, thats what most all the biblical catechisms were.the other false ideas were rejected

I assure you, there are wise and godly and gifted men with excellent Biblical knowledge on any given side of that spectrum

You might think so...but that is because your perception is of necessity off:thumbs: What do I mean?...that sounds a bit cutting,perhaps'
Hos.......if Calvinism is more or less the truth of God[and it is} then you and others who look at it and resist, are resisting God's truth and thereby opposing yourself. That means your perception is defective. It does not make you a bad person...just badly mistaken.

...

What if you were to immerse yourself say, for a year or two in exclusively non-Calvinistic teaching?

Hos.....i have been around for awhile. Earlier on in my christian life...I looked into these other ideas more than I would now. They are bankrupt ideas.
I read until I find the fatal flaw....it always shows up...That I see the truth clearly although there is so much more to learn about Jesus work, to immerse myself in known error, would be counterproductive.
For example...when learning about cults.....I am not going to spend time memorizing the book of nephi.

It is not adequate to say that you merely listen and learn etc... I don't imagine you regularly consider teachings by Ken Keathly or WLC....You can get countless hours of his stuff via pod-cast. You do not allow non-reformed teaching into your brain though do you?[/QUOTE]

It is not as though I never look at some of these things.....but they are not that challenging...and as webdog pointed out...i do not care for excess philosophy....particularly. Those portions of that study intro you listened to,that you were objecting to,were the portions that did drift that way.
I pick and choose on those type of lectures. That kind of lecture is as far away from exegetical sermons as I will venture...for the most part.

Ever listened to several weeks worth of Roger Olson?

I would not defile my mind with such nonsense.He has a wrong base...not believing scripture properly.There are too many good teachers to read rather than someone like that.

Weeks worth of A.W. Tozer?

There are some men who people like...that I am not interested in reading.Tozer...Cs lewis,John Stott,,,,,you can keep them...not interested.

Having pre-concieved notions about what you should be learning and then "heaping to yourself teachers" who support your pre-existing philosophy is not very mind-expanding. (I do not mean to suggest "itching ears" I am simply making an analogy).

I have found that if they are wrong on the DoG...for the most part, they are limited in their understanding and have less to offer.
J C Ryle...and Richard Baxter are two exceptions that I know of.

I Could very well begin to "refute" many of the teachings in your "catechisms" I simply could not do so to your satisfaction

....

I am more than confident that you cannot.You might try for awhile, but if you do I believe God would open more truth to you and you would agree with them.I know you have not read them yet.

I could produce atlernative catechisms which dispute some of the points contained in the catechisms you use. Would you claim that these alternative Statements or Catechisms, presumably written by equally educated and equally Godly men are incapale of "refuting" your Catechisms?

Yes they cannot refute them overall. First...because they do not exist...second because I know for sure they would be defective....it is not like there are two seperate truths available. Those who wrote the historic documents would have incorporated any truth into those existing documents.

I seem to get the vibe from you that YOU are more un-teachable than you often think non-Cals are

.

I am open to scriptural teaching...not un-biblical philosophy,carnal reasoning,emotional whining. Non cals mis-using scripture constantly....like 2pet 3:9...show me they offer little.

You were all excited that winman offers a list of verses the havethe word believe in them.[he tried to use scripture...which is good]...only not one of the verses taught what he claims they teach...so it nulifys the verses.



..

.I go into conversations such as these with the thought that I might very well be mistaken about certain things....and that possibly, my Cal brethren might have insight that I could use....

that is always good

You I feel are simply "dyed-in-the-wool" Calvinist, and every time you post, you seem to feel it your responsibillity to "teach" this is not a board where we come to "teach" one another...

guilty as charged
I do come to teach...or offer teaching that I have found helpful. As I am a parrot,and blowhard to you...you will resist it....that is for you to decide...I have no problem to shake the dust off my feet.
I read your posts as I think you have something to offer,even with your rough edges...I do not mind so much as I have enough of my own.

We DEBATE alternative points of view and incidentally...we learn from one another....we are sharpened by one another. We hone our own skills.

There is some debateable points that can be explored...there are some that can be profitable.I do not have as many"debateable points as you do.

I will say this though: If you honestly believe that those who are not of a Calvinist perspective are so...merely or even usually.. because of ignorance, or pride, or the remnants of corrupting sin or something...and that it is not a viable biblical option....Then these teachers of yours have failed you.....miserably....they have confused themselves and you.

That is your right as an American to believe what you want. you have a right to ...be wrong....if you want to. Arminianism is "not a viable option" but error , plain and simple. Thankfully God allows many to study themselves into the truths of grace. There are many who believe and are saved who have minimal understanding of how God saved them.

Non-Calvinists can just as easily suggest that there is self-aggrandizing prideful applications to Calvinist teachings as You would suggest....You know: "I am special because God chose me and not you"

This is an ignorant objection that has been made here,usually it tips off a biblical calvinist that the person who makes this objection is woefully ignorant of theology and is clueless about calvinism....no calvinist says this,and no calvinist thinks this way.



Ha ha ha kind of crap...But no one here will get away with it. Because that type of thinking is juvenile...the person who will call them on it BTW will be a non-Cal.

Do you pick and choose which teachers you use??? Of course you do, so you do far more than merely listen and learn do you not?

I have many trusted guides...sometimes I venture out a bit.I have a descent library,and use sermonaudio constantly. When I am very tired I will put the fm radio on scan...and play....name that heresy....I listen and sort out the errors of the local christian station....Bott radio is more solid..and sometimes moody radio lets me hear non cal ideas.

On this trip I have 7-8 books with me....3 flash drives full of sermons

 

[kyredneck]

...The Holy Spirit does not regenerate a person until after they have believed, never before. See John 1:12.

Sigh. It's always the same ol' circles with you Winman; you ALWAYS leave off that crucial qualifying next verse when quoting Jn 1:12:

"who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Read man totally passive in the acquisition of the new nature.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sigh. It's always the same ol' circles with you Winman; you ALWAYS leave off that crucial qualifying next verse when quoting Jn 1:12:

"who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Read man totally passive in the acquisition of the new nature.

:thumbs::thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

[Alive in Christ]

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Well, this the type of post shouldnt create and great arguments or great "gnashing of teath". :wavey:

The scriptures are given, the scriptures are clear as a bell, and to the point.

These events, will happen, precisely and literally as the scriptures declare, at a literal point in time in the furture.

PRAISE GOD!!!

 

[Alive in Christ]

HeirofSalvation; posted...

Icon...while I can appreciate how you feel....You must understand something; You might just as easily hear dozens of sermons and teachings or even read dozens of catechisms that are NOT from a Calvinist perspective. Could you not?

And Iconoclast posted...

Not really.....because there are no good ones out there....because calvinism is the biblical truth, thats what most all the biblical catechisms were.the other false ideas were rejected

Unbelievable. Off the charts. Lulu land. It litterally stuns the mind.

Iconoclast, you are my christian brother and I love ya. If you lived next door to me there isnt ANYTHING I would'nt do for you if you needed help in any way

But regarding your theology,(at least on this board) you are so out of touch with reality.

Regarding theology, you are like the "christion" version of (((ARCHIE BUNKER))).

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, this the type of post shouldnt create and great arguments or great "gnashing of teath". :wavey:

The scriptures are given, the scriptures are clear as a bell, and to the point.

These events, will happen, precisely and literally as the scriptures declare, at a literal point in time in the furture.

PRAISE GOD!!!

:thumbs::applause::thumbs: I have to agree with you ....when I can

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation; posted...


And Iconoclast posted...



Unbelievable. Off the charts. Lulu land. It litterally stuns the mind.

Iconoclast, you are my christian brother and I love ya. If you lived next door to me there isnt ANYTHING I would'nt do for you if you needed help in any way

But regarding your theology,(at least on this board) you are so out of touch with reality.

Regarding theology, you are like the "christion" version of (((ARCHIE BUNKER))).

Thank You AIC:thumbs: I know now my post was good, because it made you post this one:laugh::laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Not really.....because there are no good ones out there....because calvinism is the biblical truth, thats what most all the biblical catechisms were.the other false ideas were rejected

The circularity of this is amazing.....as long as you are fully cognizant of and comfortable with it.....:thumbs:

if Calvinism is more or less the truth of God[and it is} then you and others who look at it and resist, are resisting God's truth and thereby opposing yourself.

Your verbiage either belies more than you think it does....or you are aware of it....and that is equally troublesome...note the words I bolded: Do you see a problem with this???? I think you mean what you say...This....bothers people. The entire response is also...very circular.

Hos.....i have been around for awhile. Earlier on in my christian life...I looked into these other ideas more than I would now. They are bankrupt ideas.

You did not look very hard then, or you have forgotten much because you have many mis-conceptions about them.

I read until I find the fatal flaw....it always shows up...That I see the truth clearly although there is so much more to learn about Jesus work, to immerse myself in known error, would be counterproductive.
For example...when learning about cults.....I am not going to spend time memorizing the book of nephi.

Again, this is VERY circular.

I would not defile my mind with such nonsense.He has a wrong base...not believing scripture properly.There are too many good teachers to read rather than someone like that.

You have no idea whether it is nonsense or not....none...zero...nada. You have never listened to him. I haven't much myself....but I know this: You have absolutely no clue what his belief about the Scriptures is....You have pre-judged too hastily, and I think to your own misfortune.

Cs lewis

This....is unfortunate, extremely so....The man is doubtless the greatest apologist of the last century...at least Up to your R.Z. and WLC perhaps...You are decidedly only cheating yourself. He is not even a Theologian, nor does he claim to be....You have obviously never read him in that....Personally, having read almost all of his books...I have NEVER (at least that I can remember) heard him even mention Cal..Arm..non-Cal or anything else...He is silent on those topics...You should REALLY read something he has written...His is a truly gifted mind, which comes along only so many decades.

.I know you have not read them yet.

I have actually, at least when you post them...along with (most of) Institutes, selected readings of J. Calvin...and a systematic Theology by B.B. Warfield<----who I think is a genius. A number of other guys as well.

Yes they cannot refute them overall. First...because they do not exist...second because I know for sure they would be defective....it is not like there are two seperate truths available. Those who wrote the historic documents would have incorporated any truth into those existing documents.

You are at least cognizant of, and perfectly copacetic with the circularity of this right?

I am open to scriptural teaching...not un-biblical philosophy,carnal reasoning,emotional whining. Non cals mis-using scripture constantly....like 2pet 3:9...show me they offer little.

And the Circularity of this...

You were all excited that winman offers a list of verses the havethe word believe in them.[he tried to use scripture...which is good]...only not one of the verses taught what he claims they teach...so it nulifys the verses.

We do not know that, because you....and your compadre have, as of yet, refused to interract with them and show the error of them.....and don't suggest that I am stupid enough to think that the mere presence of the word "believe" is proof-positive, any more than proof-texting wherein a determinist posts random Scriptures with the word "elect" in them as though it is a done deal....(It's especially nauseatingly stupid when they find one with the word "grace" and think they have won their case).

guilty as charged
I do come to teach...or offer teaching that I have found helpful. As I am a parrot,and blowhard to you...you will resist it....that is for you to decide...I have no problem to shake the dust off my feet.
I read your posts as I think you have something to offer,even with your rough edges...I do not mind so much as I have enough of my own.

I do have rough edges.

That is your right as an American to believe what you want.

The status of being an American has nothing to do with it. I have never understood this statement.

Arminianism is "not a viable option" but error , plain and simple.

I am not an Arminian...You would not know that, as you are woefully unfamiliar with the Soteriological viewpoints extant in the wonderful world of Christendom...It is a veritable Smorgasboard. That, and in your mind...There are two possibilities: Calvinism OR Wrong etc.. (Arminian..is merely the synonym for wrong). You distinguish no others it is black/white, God/Satan, Calvinism/Satan ......

This is an ignorant objection that has been made here,usually it tips off a biblical calvinist that the person who makes this objection is woefully ignorant of theology and is clueless about calvinism....no calvinist says this,and no calvinist thinks this way

Umm....why did you misquote me by intentionally editing the rest of my statement here.....

kind of crap...But no one here will get away with it. Because that type of thinking is juvenile...the person who will call them on it BTW will be a non-Cal.

Did you do this on purpose???

Out of sheer curiosity...I would love to hear you explain this objection....I bet I could defend the Cal side of this better than you could....Even though I believe the objection does have legs.

...and play....name that heresy....

That is a fun game :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

The circularity of this is amazing.....as long as you are fully cognizant of and comfortable with it.....:thumbs:

I told you in another post...if you ask ,I will answer.

Your verbiage either belies more than you think it does....or you are aware of it....and that is equally troublesome...note the words I bolded: Do you see a problem with this???? I think you mean what you say...This....bothers people. The entire response is also...very circular.

People are going to be bothered ,no matter what is said.....I see you have this thing about circular....I speak direct HOS

You did not look very hard then, or you have forgotten much because you have many mis-conceptions about them.

Again, this is VERY circular.

I took a good look....but I try to only retain scriptures,and scriptural truth now, I delete the rest...keep a cult file, for reference.Another thing to keep in mind...many calvinist writers will present truth against the backdrop of these errors. So...from time to time they come up.

You have no idea whether it is nonsense or not....none...zero...nada. You have never listened to him. I haven't much myself....but I know this: You have absolutely no clue what his belief about the Scriptures is....You have pre-judged too hastily, and I think to your own misfortune.

His name came up in here a few weeks ago...if you look in my previous posts you will see that I posted a link or two of him in his own words condemning himself.....i am not an expert on him...to me he is nobody....but seeing what he wrote...I do not need to hear about him anymore.

This....is unfortunate, extremely so....The man is doubtless the greatest apologist of the last century...at least Up to your R.Z. and WLC perhaps

I do not like ravi zacharias.....he hardly uses scripture or talks about Jesus...
many like him,and if God uses him...great...but you will not see me mentioning him anytime soon....he is a smooth speaker....

if WLC...is willian lane craig.....not to familiar with him...again many like him,but if he is the guy with open theism ideas...count me out. I have no interest in middle knowledge speculations, big words that are not for regular persons....not interested,you can have him and his errors.

Tozer.....

...

You are decidedly only cheating yourself. He is not even a Theologian, nor does he claim to be....You have obviously never read him in that....Personally, having read almost all of his books...I have NEVER (at least that I can remember) heard him even mention Cal..Arm..non-Cal or anything else...He is silent on those topics...You should REALLY read something he has written...His is a truly gifted mind, which comes along only so many decades.

any writer who ignores these topics for years is defective....I do not need clever anecdotes,stories.....what is his best work???i have seen nsome of his work quoted ,but cannot remenber any of his ideas

I have actually, at least when you post them...along with (most of) Institutes, selected readings of J. Calvin...and a systematic Theology by B.B. Warfield<----who I think is a genius. A number of other guys as well.

:laugh: so a parrot has some use after all:thumbsup:

You are at least cognizant of, and perfectly copacetic with the circularity of this right

?

Hos...I do not think in complicated terms...that is why i drive a truck....I take a look, identify the problem, offer a scriptural solution, then walk away

And the Circularity of this...

We do not know that, because you....and your compadre have, as of yet, refused to interract with them and show the error of them

.....

I have in times past answered winman, but as old regular pointed out,,,he ignores/does not grasp the answers...so....it is not a wise use of time....
if he is answered it is more for the benefit of those who lurk and read....not for winman....because he does not want an answer.....he posts alot of verses, but they never show what he thinks they show.

and don't suggest that I am stupid enough

I did not suggest that...i am clear when i post...if I think you are stupid..I will let you know....I did not struggle to point out that you were sounding like a "punk" in the other post right. not a kind statement, but I felt it fit your written abuse toward old regular...who posts solidly....I said what i said...you said what you said....but both of us could do better...agreed?

to think that the mere presence of the word "believe" is proof-positive, any more than proof-texting wherein a determinist posts random Scriptures with the word "elect" in them as though it is a done deal....(It's especially nauseatingly stupid when they find one with the word "grace" and think they have won their case).

I do have rough edges.

thats why we understand each other...lol

The status of being an American has nothing to do with it. I have never understood this statement

.

its one of the few places on earth that have freedom

I am not an Arminian...You would not know that, as you are woefully unfamiliar with the Soteriological viewpoints extant in the wonderful world of Christendom...

I do know the distinctions...do not assume I do not.....there is a full spectrum of error....too many nuances....so saying arminian covers them...lol

It is a veritable Smorgasboard. That, and in your mind...There are two possibilities: Calvinism OR Wrong etc.. (Arminian..is merely the synonym for wrong). You distinguish no others it is black/white, God/Satan, Calvinism/Satan ......

there you go!

Umm....why did you misquote me by intentionally editing the rest of my statement here.....
Did you do this on purpose???

I was trying to focus on the part I quote...




Out of sheer curiosity...I would love to hear you explain this objection....I bet I could defend the Cal side of this better than you could....Even though I believe the objection does have legs.

What objection?

 

[convicted1]

In reality, in the DoG system, regeneration isn't really being placed in Christ, but a precursor; meaning that they now have the new birth, and in this new birth, they have the ability to believe, and then be placed in Christ. How is this not having life outside of Jesus Christ?