Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

[Revmitchell]

There ya go.

That's an honest answer. The ones who choose Christ have more virtue than the ones who don't.

If God has elected "whosoever believeth," and whosoever believeth doeth so because of the presence of a virtue in them, then God has elected a quality, not an individual.

There's no way around it.

No that is your spin on that. This is what cals do. They spin things they disagree with and then try to claim it is the only way to view it when really is it nothing more than your errant presuppositions. So I will ask you,

Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift?

 

[TCassidy]

No that is your spin on that.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

This is what cals do. They spin things they disagree with and then try to claim it is the only way to view it when really is it nothing more than your errant presuppositions.

And this is what you do. You make a statement then immediately walk it back until it is meaningless.

Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift?

Same illogical, irrational question.

Here is one for you. Did you come to Christ because you were more humble than Uncle Billy or not?

 

[agedman]

No that is your spin on that. This is what cals do. They spin things they disagree with and then try to claim it is the only way to view it when really is it nothing more than your errant presuppositions. So I will ask you,

Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift?

In another thread I answered this question with Scripture examples.

You rejected the truth presented then, too.

 

[Revmitchell]

In another thread I answered this question with Scripture examples.

You rejected the truth presented then, too.

Its not possible since the receiving of a gift is never considered also part of the giving.

 

[TCassidy]

Its not possible since the receiving of a gift is never considered also part of the giving.

Again, the completely meaningless non sequitur.

It is really pathetic when that gibberish is all you have to offer.

So, again, "Did you come to Christ because you were more humble than Uncle Billy or not?" Are you going to give an honest answer or are you going to run away again?

 

[InTheLight]

Again, the completely meaningless non sequitur.

It is really pathetic when that gibberish is all you have to offer.

So, again, "Did you come to Christ because you were more humble than Uncle Billy or not?" Are you going to give an honest answer or are you going to run away again?

I think Revmitchell has me on Ignore so I don't think he'll see this. However, you are twisting what he said. He didn't say he came to Christ BECAUSE he was more humble than anyone, he said that people who come to Christ are more humble than people who don't. In other words, humbleness is not causative, it is a reaction.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Aaron]

No that is your spin on that. This is what cals do. They spin things they disagree with and then try to claim it is the only way to view it when really is it nothing more than your errant presuppositions. So I will ask you,

Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift?

When the receiving is not passive.

 

[InTheLight]

When the gift being given is life.

I see. So when a person is unconscious, "dead to the world", and a emergency rescue worker revives him, that unconscious person receiving the gift of life is participating in the revival. OK, then...

[Edited to add: I see that Aaron has changed his original post from "when the gift being given is life" to "when the receiving is not passive. Either way, my example stands.]

 

[Reformed]

people who come to Christ are more humble than people who don't. In other words, humbleness is not causative, it is a reaction.

Speaking only for those who are Reformed-minded, those who come to Christ do so because they have already been regenerated. It is the work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration that enables true humility. This is in keeping with the Reformed view of the ordo salutis. The Reformed ordo salutis is:

1. Election/Predestination
2. Atonement
3. Gospel Call
4. Inward Call
5. Regeneration
6. Conversion (faith & repentance)
7. Justification
8. Sanctification
9. Glorification

 

[Reynolds]

You seem to have missed the point. Rev said he got saved because he was more humble than his neighbor, but God's standard is perfection in all things. Who meets that standard?

I didn't miss it. There is perfection and then there is everything else.

 

[agedman]

Its not possible since the receiving of a gift is never considered also part of the giving.

So, your view is that it is impossible for one to receive Christ by giving Him the love and devotion due Him.

Which is directly contrary to other posts you made about this issue (should my memory not fail me).

 

[TCassidy]

There is perfection and then there is everything else.

So, God's standard is perfect but the filthy rags of human effort are acceptable to him, why?

 

[TCassidy]

In other words, humbleness is not causative, it is a reaction.

Except that is not what he said:

The one who chooses to come to Christ is more humble.

 

[InTheLight]

Speaking only for those who are Reformed-minded, those who come to Christ do so because they have already been regenerated.

Yep, to a non-Cal that's called begging the question. You've already assumed this is the way that it is and everything else flows from that.

 

[InTheLight]

Except that is not what he said:

Your question was:

Did you come to Christ because you were more humble than Uncle Billy or not?

Revmitchell had said:

The one who chooses to come to Christ is more humble.

It says nothing about the reason why he came to Christ, just that he was more humble.

 

[Reformed]

Yep, to a non-Cal that's called begging the question. You've already assumed this is the way that it is and everything else flows from that.

It is OK to disagree with me, but please do not think that is what I have done. Reformed theology has a strong biblical case for its view on the order of salvation. If we are going to indict the Reformers, the Puritans, Spurgeon et. al, we need to do better than just accusing them of begging the question. Why? Because the main problem we have on this board is agreeing on what the other side believes. Again, it is OK to disagree. I am not asking you to believe these conclusions.

 

[agedman]

Yep, to a non-Cal that's called begging the question. You've already assumed this is the way that it is and everything else flows from that.

How is this different from the non-cal views?

Do not all views start with assumptions especially in the scientific, philosophy, theology, and medical community?

For example, do not the Scriptures state that assumptions are basic to pleasing God?

6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11).
​

Not certain the concern of your statement.

 

[Reynolds]

So, God's standard is perfect but the filthy rags of human effort are acceptable to him, why?

I didn't say they were.

 

[TCassidy]

I didn't say they were.

But you said

I don't have to be perfect.

So, as you do not meet God's standard, do you have a special dispensation, perhaps a Catholic indulgence, so you don't have to meet God's standard?

 

[Revmitchell]

When the receiving is not passive.

Receiving is never passive. If someone brings me a gift in order to make it mine I must physical take possession of it, Receiving always requires and action.