Liberal Kirsten Powers Converted

[The Biblicist]

Romans 8:7-8 are without doubt the best verses in all of scripture that seem to support Total Inability.

There is no "seem" about it. It is explicit, it is clear and it is unambigous and it is universal - Romans 8:7-9.

What folks misunderstand is that the unregenerate man is not simply flesh, he is also soul and spirit, and the spirit can be willing and obey God.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

We do not live prior to the giving of the coming of the Spirit and Romans 8:7-9 is at least universal now and so you cannot go back to what you even regard as something entirely different and make it a case for the present state of man.

Second, the new birth was a necessity prior to the day of Pentecost and it was by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus plainly told them that He, the Spirit which was "WITH THEM" and therefore it is the regenerated "spirit" that is willing and the power still comes from the Holy Spirit which Jesus said was "with them." So your point is mute and contradictory to the universal application in Roman 8:7-8.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel. This proves unregenerate men have the ability to obey and believe the gospel, and then afterward they receive the Holy Spirit.

No it does not! If as we believe, regeneration and conversion to the gospel are silmeltaneous events in a cause and effect relationship then the gospel is what God empowers to effectually call them out of spiritual darkness into light.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter's statement easily shows men first believe the gospel (because only believers are allowed to be baptized) and afterward receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore unregenerate men can be willing and obey the gospel.

This is certainly not Baptist doctrine or a Baptist intepretation of this verse. He is rather speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, and speaking in tongues as he goes on to list some while they are hearing the other.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here easily shows he believed a person first believes, and receives the Holy Spirit afterward as a result of believing the gospel.

Again, the context is very clear that this refers to the GIFTS of the Spirit instead of the Person of the indwelling Spirit. Simon wishes to purchase this power to lay hands on other to receive what only could be visible manifestations of the Spirit or other wise Simon would not be seeking to purchase power that could not be observed with the senses.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The term "after" is not found in the Greek text and could just as easily be translated "when".


You have provide NO PROOF for your position but you have provided an excellent example of misinterpeting scriptures.

Absolutely. Paul clearly said the Gentiles who do not have the law DO "by nature" the things contained in the law.

H is comparing that to the Jews and what they also do in regard to the things contained in the Mosaic law. NEITHER DO GOOD in God's sight and Paul makes that abundantly clear in his concusion to this section (Rom. 3:9-12).

If I were to say to you, "My neighbors NEVER go to church, no NOT ONE" would you understand that to mean they are UNABLE to go to church? NO, no one would ever interpret my statement to mean that, but that is exactly how you are interpreting Paul's words, you are inserting Total Inabilty into scripture when that is not what the scripture is saying whatsoever.

If Paul had said that, then you would be wrong not to understand it to mean exactly that. However, Paul is not describing specific commandments but rather moral attributes. The lost man has no "good" or "righteous" attributes in the sight of God.

 

[Ed B]

who is Willis, and who is Amy ?

The more pressing question remains "what is Willis talking about?"

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[The Biblicist]

We know for a fact that Cornelius was not saved, and that he did not have the receive the Holy Spirit until Peter came and preached the gospel to him, but he was able to do righteous works.

Acts 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Again, Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to do righteous works that were acceptable to God.

Total Inability is false and easily refuted by MUCH scripture. Calvinists simply close their eyes are are willingly blind to scripture.

This is a highly disputed passage for several reasons. Doctrine is to be established upon clear and explicit precepts and principles rather than ambigous scriptures. For example, they were baptized in the Spirit and speaking in tongues before water baptism in direct contrast to the order stated in Acts 2:38

I for one do not believe that Cornelius was an unregenerated man, but was a believer in Christ (Messiah) according to the pre-coming of Jesus as explained by Peter in Acts 10:43.

In addition the term "saved" and "salvation" cover a lot of territory and it would be a mistake to assume that it had to do with new birth in this case. Instead, I believe that this is an intentional case by the HOly Spirit to bring a Gentile into the church at Jerualem for the very purpose to have the discussion found in Acts 11:1-17.

Note that there is nothing stated about them beleiving in the gospel as they already were believers in the gospel described in Acts 10:43. Like Apollos they did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah or Christ and the Messiah had come. Peter explains this to Cornelious because Corneilus was already a believer in the gospel. What Corneilus needed was to serve God through the church and that begins with water baptism. However, what is unique here is the baptism in the Spirit prior to baptism. They were already regenerated believers and their fruits demonstrated that.

 

[Inspector Javert]

All I have to say is that you are theologically pathetic.

I still refuse to be angered by you or consider you anything but my friend, S.N. You WON'T make a nemesis of me S.N. Not gonna happen.

I love you my brother, :flower: and I refuse to accept that we will not be friends.

 

[The Biblicist]

I still refuse to be angered by you or consider you anything but my friend, S.N. You WON'T make a nemesis of me S.N. Not gonna happen.

I love you my brother, :flower: and I refuse to accept that we will not be friends.

Now, I like that response! I think even S.N likes that response!

 

[saturneptune]

I still refuse to be angered by you or consider you anything but my friend, S.N. You WON'T make a nemesis of me S.N. Not gonna happen.

I love you my brother, :flower: and I refuse to accept that we will not be friends.

Well, do not know what to say to that except it is better than me being a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Winman]

This is a highly disputed passage for several reasons. Doctrine is to be established upon clear and explicit precepts and principles rather than ambigous scriptures. For example, they were baptized in the Spirit and speaking in tongues before water baptism in direct contrast to the order stated in Acts 2:38

I for one do not believe that Cornelius was an unregenerated man, but was a believer in Christ (Messiah) according to the pre-coming of Jesus as explained by Peter in Acts 10:43.

In addition the term "saved" and "salvation" cover a lot of territory and it would be a mistake to assume that it had to do with new birth in this case. Instead, I believe that this is an intentional case by the HOly Spirit to bring a Gentile into the church at Jerualem for the very purpose to have the discussion found in Acts 11:1-17.

Note that there is nothing stated about them beleiving in the gospel as they already were believers in the gospel described in Acts 10:43. Like Apollos they did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah or Christ and the Messiah had come. Peter explains this to Cornelious because Corneilus was already a believer in the gospel. What Corneilus needed was to serve God through the church and that begins with water baptism. However, what is unique here is the baptism in the Spirit prior to baptism. They were already regenerated believers and their fruits demonstrated that.

You can believe whatever you want, but the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter so that he could hear the gospel and be saved.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Your problem is that you operate from the assumption that Calvinism is true (it isn't) and then you go about twisting and manipulating scripture to attempt to match it up with your false doctrine.

Regeneration means literally to be alive again, to have spiritual life. There are dozens of scriptures that ALL say a person must first believe to have life.

Jhn 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.

The scriptures repeatedly say you must believe to have life. There is not one single scripture in all the Bible that says a person must be made alive to have the ability to believe. You know this, you know for a fact that you cannot show even one verse to support your view.

If you want to continue to believe a lie, that is your choice, but someday you will be accountable for that choice.

 

[Luke2427]

Now let's use that same reasoning with sin.

Good is all of God.

Sin is all of nothing.

Sin is nothing but the absence of good in the same way that cold is nothing but the absence of heat.

If God is heat he cannot be blamed for CREATING cold.

If God is good he cannot be blamed for CREATING sin.

 

[Luke2427]

And Calvinists can tell the difference between a premise and a conclusion:

PREMISE: God hath from eternity determined ALL THINGS whatsoever cometh to pass:

CONCLUSION: God is the author of sin

Calvinist: "I never said that [premise]"

Sin is not something created or authored just like cold is not created or authored- cold is nothing but the absence of heat.

Darkness is nothing. It is not energy, it has no mass, etc... It is NOTHING but the ABSENCE of light.

Sin is nothing but the ABSENCE of good.

Sin is not created in the exact same sense that darkness is not created.

Light is not the CREATOR of darkness and God is not the creator of sin.

God does not have to be the author of darkness for darkness to exist- he simply has to remove light.

God does not have to be the author of evil for evil to exist- he simply removes goodness.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Well, do not know what to say to that except it is better than me being a waste of bandwidth.

Then say nothing....Except that you accept my offer of friendship. Not gonna fight you S.N....Not gonna do it.

Love you my brother :thumbsup::flower:

 

[go2church]

From what she said in the interview, her conversion sounds very much like the way C.S. Lewis described his conversion.

 

[Iconoclast]

Romans 8:7 explicitly repudiates your claim, clearly and explicitly and it refers to all lost men or those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Un-saved an un-regenerate men whom God absolutely did NOT "elect" don't "always resist" the Spirit, but, rather they regularly obey him.

Here Paul states it un-equivocally:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


You are misinterpreting Paul's words and application. He is establishing what law the Gentiles can be judged according to on judgement day. They "do" this law no differently than the Jews "do" the Law of Moses - both equally fail and that is explicitly stated in Romans 3:9-19. So your interpretation is direclty contradictory to Paul's stated conclusion which says:


9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now, go back into the text and find out where Paul last talked about lost Gentiles! You will find that his last reference was in Rom. 2:14-15 the exact passage that you believe proves they "do" good. Who shall we believe you or Paul?

Furthermore, neither did the Jews "do" good either as Romans 2:17-3;8 demonstrate as well.

This is a fundemental truth which are denying.

Yes...the good inspector is not grasping scripture ,but straws. He used to make a stronger case, but he is getting to emotional and attacking to make a valid argument.He is being turned over to his errors.

Romans went right past him in his rush to resist truth.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

You can believe whatever you want, but the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter so that he could hear the gospel and be saved.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

That texts says nothing about the gospel.

Your problem is that you operate from the assumption that Calvinism is true (it isn't) and then you go about twisting and manipulating scripture to attempt to match it up with your false doctrine.

Trying to play God again! You do not know what you are talking about so why try to imagine what you cannot demonstrate.

Regeneration means literally to be alive again, to have spiritual life. There are dozens of scriptures that ALL say a person must first believe to have life.

Jhn 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.

You don't know the difference between judicial life that reverses judicial condemnation due to justification by faith, and spiritual life which has to do with your own person which reverses spiritual death. However, that is not my problem, it is yours.

The scriptures repeatedly say you must believe to have life. There is not one single scripture in all the Bible that says a person must be made alive to have the ability to believe. You know this, you know for a fact that you cannot show even one verse to support your view.

1 Jn. 5:1, 2 Cor. 3:3-6; ahhh, but what do you care, you have your mind made up. Well, I will give it a shot anyway. The perfect tense verb "begotten" while the present tense participle "believeth" in 1 Jn. 5:1 provides a cause and effect relationship where new birth is the perfect tense completed action cause.

If you want to continue to believe a lie, that is your choice, but someday you will be accountable for that choice.

Better look in the mirror.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 8:7 explicitly repudiates your claim, clearly and explicitly and it refers to all lost men or those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8-9).






Yes...the good inspector is not grasping scripture ,but straws. He used to make a stronger case, but he is getting to emotional and attacking to make a valid argument.He is being turned over to his errors.

Romans went right past him in his rush to resist truth.:thumbsup:

Well hopefully he will take another look at it. He seems to be a pretty good guy.

 

[convicted1]

I still refuse to be angered by you or consider you anything but my friend, S.N. You WON'T make a nemesis of me S.N. Not gonna happen.

I love you my brother, :flower: and I refuse to accept that we will not be friends.

Then say nothing....Except that you accept my offer of friendship. Not gonna fight you S.N....Not gonna do it.

Love you my brother :thumbsup::flower:

Don't believe him Brother SN. He's put some bees in those flowers. Stay away, stay far away. :laugh:

 

[Winman]

That texts says nothing about the gospel.

Of course it does, Peter said Cornelius "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ".

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

You Calvinists NEVER come clean.

Trying to play God again! You do not know what you are talking about so why try to imagine what you cannot demonstrate.

I am not the one who tries to rewrite and redefine scripture.

You don't know the difference between judicial life that reverses judicial condemnation due to justification by faith, and spiritual life which has to do with your own person which reverses spiritual death. However, that is not my problem, it is yours.

Lots of talk, not one word of scripture to support this nonsense.

1 Jn. 5:1, 2 Cor. 3:3-6; ahhh, but what do you care, you have your mind made up. Well, I will give it a shot anyway. The perfect tense verb "begotten" while the present tense participle "believeth" in 1 Jn. 5:1 provides a cause and effect relationship where new birth is the perfect tense completed action cause.

Not one of those scriptures says a person must be made alive to believe and you know it. But I could easily show you half a dozen verses that all say you must believe to have life.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I've already showed two verses that say you must believe to have life, you have shown ZERO verses that support your view.

I could show many more verses that say a person must first believe to have life, but they are not really necessary. In baseball two to nothing is called a "shutout" :thumbsup:

Edit: And by the way, does 1 John 5:1 say he that is born of God believes? NO, it says he who believes is born of God.

1 Jhn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

If your interpretation were true, then being born of God should be mentioned first.

Better look in the mirror.

I'm not worried, but you SHOULD be.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course it does, Peter said Cornelius "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ".

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

So did Apollos but he already believed in the pre-coming gospel of Christ spelled out in Acts 10:43 just as Corneilius did.

You Calvinists NEVER come clean.

What is already clean does not need to be cleansed.

I am not the one who tries to rewrite and redefine scripture.

You guys always change the subject when your caught flat footed. The subject was not about scripture interpetation but about your claim to know the premise of how I operate. I was an Arminian before I came to the truth and so I did not have that premise to begin with - just scriptures.

Lots of talk, not one word of scripture to support this nonsense.

Like I said it is above your head. However, if you would like I would be glad to spell it out in terms you can understand it and the Biblical evidence for it - it is there and easy to show Biblically and logically.

Not one of those scriptures says a person must be made alive to believe and you know it. But I could easily show you half a dozen verses that all say you must believe to have life.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Why did jesus address new birth before the gospel then? Also you are forgetting John 3:18-20 which also supports my position.

I've already showed two verses that say you must believe to have life, you have shown ZERO verses that support your view.

I could show many more verses that say a person must first believe to have life, but they are not really necessary. In baseball two to nothing is called a "shutout" :thumbsup:

Well showing is one thing proving is another thing

Edit: And by the way, does 1 John 5:1 say he that is born of God believes? NO, it says he who believes is born of God.

It can be most easily translated he who is believing HAS ALREADY BEEN born of God. Something called the "perfect tense" a completed action.

1 Jhn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

If your interpretation were true, then being born of God should be mentioned first.

No, the KJV has it correct with "is" corresponding in time with the present "believeth" because they are simeltaneous in action. There is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever - that kills hardshellism, and there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer - that kills Arminianism.

I'm not worried, but you SHOULD be.

I don't seem to be sweating it but you seem awful worried about it.

 

[Gorship]

if you would like I would be glad to spell it out in terms you can understand

Good to see your so humble.

Tell me, do you believe in Total depravity? if so at birth are men condemned sinners?

 

[Winman]

So did Apollos but he already believed in the pre-coming gospel of Christ spelled out in Acts 10:43 just as Corneilius did.

Cornelius had not heard this verse until Peter spoke it to him.

What is already clean does not need to be cleansed.

We can hope can't we?

You guys always change the subject when your caught flat footed. The subject was not about scripture interpetation but about your claim to know the premise of how I operate. I was an Arminian before I came to the truth and so I did not have that premise to begin with - just scriptures.

Arminianism is error too. But you didn't find Calvinism in the Bible, cause it ain't there.

Like I said it is above your head. However, if you would like I would be glad to spell it out in terms you can understand it and the Biblical evidence for it - it is there and easy to show Biblically and logically.

Yeah, anybody can tell you are a genius.

Why did jesus address new birth before the gospel then? Also you are forgetting John 3:18-20 which also supports my position.

After explaining to Nicodemus that he must be born again, Jesus explained HOW to be born again, by believing on him. Jesus repeatedly says a person must believe on him to have life. You teach the exact opposite, you teach that a person must have life to believe. You cannot show a single scripture anywhere that says this.

Well showing is one thing proving is another thing

Well, you can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him drink.

It can be most easily translated he who is believing HAS ALREADY BEEN born of God. Something called the "perfect tense" a completed action.

No, it says he that believes is born of God. It does not say he that is born of God believes. You reverse the order of scripture. You Calvinists believe the exact OPPOSITE of what scripture says.

No, the KJV has it correct with "is" corresponding in time with the present "believeth" because they are simeltaneous in action. There is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever - that kills hardshellism, and there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer - that kills Arminianism.

Oh, I agree, the moment you believe on Jesus your sins are forgiven, you are justified and therefore have life. You cannot have life until your sins are forgiven, until your sins are forgiven you are dead in sin.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Jesus said unless you believe ye shall die in your sins. You teach that a man has life before he believes, in fact, you teach that a man must have life to have the ability to believe. This is pure error and the exact opposite of what Jesus said many times.

I don't seem to be sweating it but you seem awful worried about it.

Well, you are not nearly as bright as you believe yourself to be. Anybody that teaches pure error should be very concerned.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever - that kills hardshellism, and there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer - that kills Arminianism.

Wait, I was a regenerated unbeliever. And just call me Gene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ZYhVpdXbQ