Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
He was posting under two different names, which is obviously not allowed.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Objective consideration of John 12:32
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
He was posting under two different names, which is obviously not allowed.
preacher4truth
Active Member
This verse was thrown at him right before he was banned:
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
preacher4truth
Active Member
Not to mention he was schooling others with his knowledge of Scripture and handled himself well in so doing.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Someone being banned never makes me happy. But I am not under duress either.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Oh, so in the heat of that battle you just all of a sudden noticed he had 2 monikers then banned him? BTW, we all know the other version, it's easy to recognize.
quantumfaith
Active Member
In mathematics (multiplication and division) two negatives make a positive. In addition two positives make a positive.
Think on this language irony in response to your claim: "Yeah Right"
Seems more like he was to hot to handle under one name...too many good verses in context:thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Only one of his monikers was banned. He is still able to sign on and engage using just one name...as long as he follows the rules that we all agreed to when we signed on to this forum. There is nothing unfair about that. In fact, its actually gracious because both monikers are supposed to be banned for that infraction...much less the divisive tone of his more recent dialogue. If you have a problem with the moderation you can report it, or send a PM, but its not supposed to be discussed in the public forum as its not the topic of the thread. Thanks
Not so. The Biblicist liked to pull specific verses out of scripture and focus on those scriptures alone to the exclusion of other scriptures dealing directly with the same subject.
For instance, he would quote Romans 8:7,8 to "prove" Total Inability;
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Now, if you take these two verses alone and exclude all other scripture pertaining to the subject of man's ability, then YES these verses seem to support Total Inability and Calvinism has a terrific argument to support it's view.
The problem is, there are MANY scriptures that show these verses cannot be teaching that an unregenerate man is unable to believe or do anything that pleases God.
Cornelius is a perfect example, we are directly told that he was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet the scriptures say he was "devout", not carnal or fleshly, that he feared and believed in God, he prayed always, and that he did good works that God recognized.
When I pointed this out to The Biblicist, he claimed I pulled scripture out of context. He insisted you could only look at Romans 8:7,8 alone, and this was the proper way to interpret scripture.
That is pure error.
No, you have to look at ALL scripture pertaining to a particular subject, and scripture cannot contradict itself.
What Romans 8:7,8 is really saying IMO is that while a man thinks in a "carnal mind" he cannot possibly please God.
I have given the example of a man staring at a young girl in a bikini on the beach. While he does that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please his wife sitting nearby. If you don't believe me, try it sometime. But that doesn't mean the man can't look away and please his wife.
And Cornelius was not carnal minded, he was devout. So obviously unregenerated men can take their minds off of carnal matters and concentrate on spiritual matters if they so choose to do.
The Biblicist's form of study was not good. He would isolate verses he believed supported Calvinism to the exclusion of many scriptures that refuted it.
Winman, Didn't you remember that I showed your use of Cornelius as an example was actually not supporting your view?
The Scriptures are clear on this matter. No one seeks God.
It is God that seeks mankind from the time of Adam hiding in Eden even throughout the Scriptures. NOT ONE person in Scriptures willingly came to God through some innate desire. But EVERY one who were appointed by God were approached by God FIRST.
Cornelius did not break the mold, neither did the Philippian jailor, nor anyone else.
Humankind in the natural state have no desire for God, nor can they, for the things of God are Spiritually discerned.
Unless God initiates the action, no one would be saved.
Remember the opening discussion of light and dark of John, and then later in 1 John?
Why does humankind remain in darkness? Because they desire God?
No they desire darkness and cannot even comprehend the light any more than darkness comprehends light.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If I could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you couldn't pick up the phone and call the President, would that also prove that you couldn't answer his call? Because that is what Calvinists do, they take verses which teach that we can't seek Him to prove that we can't respond to Him. Its the same basic mistake laid out in my signature line.
I am not certain that I agree that Calvinists take verses teaching "that we can't seek Him to prove that we can't respond to Him."
What I see happening is that the non-cal want to take verses and show that humankind can of their own innate ability, without any intervention from God, seek God, get God's attention,...
The Cal typically responds with verses that show that the ability to seek God is not only non-existent, but totally out of the natural man character. That the verses show that humankind, without God's direct intervention, will not seek God, and because they will not seek God, then only when God has intervened will the unsaved respond.
Now it is true that if one has no desire to seek God, then it follows the ability to seek God would also be problematic and the typical Calvinist will show verses that declare such ability non-existent. I consider John's discussion of light and dark in the opening of John to sustain that view of ability. The darkness does not understand nor does it comprehend light, it can only lurk in hope that the source of light be turned off that it may once again leap out to lay claim.
Perhaps some would attempt to state that, in the natural man, there are often that which is unattainable yet sought after. They may illustrate how one may desire riches, prestige, position, possessions... They may even show some who have taken great lengths at devotion, and dedication... But then the question comes as what drives or motivates such seeking? Is it not of the flesh? Is it not true that all such seeking is to satisfy some desire that no matter how lofty or idealistic can be boiled down to a lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and/or pride of life?
When then does the unsaved have the ability to respond when from their very core nature it is motivated by two lusts and a pride?
I think there is one word that you are using that is key, and that is the word "respond."
The initial cry of the baby is made because of a change in environment, an awakening that they are no longer dwelling snugly in darkness.
The same with the new birth. The cry of the redeemed is made in response to a change in environment. No longer are they enveloped in darkness (not comprehending, understanding, or even able to experience light) but when brought to the light they then cry out in belief that all may hear. It is truly a remarkable responding!
God initiates the birth (for none have the ability to self generate) and the birthing. The new born respond.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I've not read one Non-Calvinist on this forum, EVER, (in my recollection) that has denied that God takes the initiative in our salvation. With all due respect, this just appears to be a straw-man to me. Its either intentional misrepresentation OR its that some Calvinists have grown so accustom to the work of God through means such as sending his son, dying on a cross, resurrecting, inspiring scripture, sending Holy Spirit filled messenger, his very Bride, the Church to proclaim the most powerful good new known to mankind, and that for some reason those 'means' have become so accepted as the norm, to some, that they are not considered an "initiative to seek and save the lost" by God.
Again, its one thing to say that ON OUR OWN we would never seek God or merit our salvation through works. It's a whole other thing to suggest that we cannot willingly respond to a God who is gracious seeking us through his redemptive work on the cross, so as to be saved by his GRACE through faith in the One who fulfilled those works on our behalf.
Except for maybe winman who would these be. I know of no one.
That is false, I have made it absolutely clear that no man is born with the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ.
If not for God's grace in revealing himself and his Son Jesus Christ through the holy scriptures, all men would be in utter darkness and could not possibly be saved.
You believe God zaps a man with faith, I believe God TEACHES men through his word which enables them to believe, that is the difference.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
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.
One of his handles is. Dr. Walter has not been (to my recollection )
On a side note, he does not have a doctorate, but stated he was working towards one. The hypocrisy is someone else with a Dr. moniker was run out of here...yet Mr. Walter (since he has no PhD) has received a free pass from the reformed crowd. Clear set of double standards here.
You keep trying to saddle be with cals. I am not one.
I know you are not a Calvinist, I was referring to Agedman that you were responding to who is a Calvinist.
But you misrepresented me. I have been accused of believing men can come to God without his grace probably a dozen times if not more here at BB.
It is true that I believe all men are born with the innate God-given ability to reason and choose what they believe and do not have to be regenerated in order to believe the gospel.
But I do not believe any man can come to God outside God's grace. All men are born absolutely ignorant of the true God and salvation through his Son Jesus Christ. The only reason any man can believe on Jesus is because God spoke through prophets and had them record his holy words for us. It God had not done this, all men would be in utter darkness and all men would perish.
In Romans 10:14 Paul directly addresses man's ability to believe. He directly asks the question, And how shall they believe? But Paul says not one word about any supernatural regeneration being required to believe. No, Paul implies that all that is necessary is that men HEAR the gospel, and this alone enables any man to believe. My view is absolutely scriptural.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Paul does not mention any other hindrance or obstacle to man believing on Jesus except they must hear of him. This implies that man's inability is due to ignorance only, not a lack of ability to believe spiritual matters.
Well there you I stand corrected
- Status