Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

[thatbrian]

I certainly hope that the "Rev" is not short for revrend.

Would you honestly admit you are wrong when shown the truth?

The evidence will never persuade him because the evidence is interpreted through his (errant) presuppositions.

Here's a humorous story to demonstrate what I mean.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the man who thought he was dead? In reality, he was very much alive. His delusion became such a problem that his family finally paid for him to see a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist spent many laborious sessions trying to convince the man he was still alive.

Nothing seemed to work.

Finally, the doctor tried one last approach. He took out his medical books and proceeded to show the patient that dead men don’t bleed. After hours of tedious study, the patient seemed convinced that dead men don’t bleed.

“Do you now agree that dead men don’t bleed?” the doctor asked.

“Yes, I do,” the patient replied.

“Very well, then,” the doctor said.

He took out a pin and pricked the patient's finger. Out came a trickle of blood.

The doctor asked, “What does that tell you?”

“Oh my goodness!” the patient exclaimed as he stared incredulously at his finger … “Dead men do bleed!!”

 

[Revmitchell]

I presented Scripture.

What post. Please do not say John 1.

I presented practical everyday examples.

What post

So, where is your support?

Your statement concerning receiving has been found having no support.

Romans 6:23 salvation is a gift. Gifts are given by the giver, Gifts are received by the recipient. At no time in life, the world or scripture does the recipient ever presented as also being the giver because the made an effort to receive the gift. To suggest that is to go against what is commonly understood about giving and receiving. All of the sudden Cals want us to believe that the nature of giving and receiving changes because it trips up their flawed doctrine.

 

[Revmitchell]

Would you honestly admit you are wrong when shown the truth?

thats it, that is all you got? As I thought.

 

[Revmitchell]

What grand claims you bluster while you have no steerage to rely upon!

Ok I see this is becoming denigrated. I will leave you to it.

 

[agedman]

What post. Please do not say John 1.



What post



Romans 6:23 salvation is a gift. Gifts are given by the giver, Gifts are received by the recipient. At no time in life, the world or scripture does the recipient ever presented as also being the giver because the made an effort to receive the gift. To suggest that is to go against what is commonly understood about giving and receiving. All of the sudden Cals want us to believe that the nature of giving and receiving changes because it trips up their flawed doctrine.

You post Romans not even realizing that it supports my statement and refutes your own thinking!

Here is the basic truth. Salvation is not “possessed” as one goes out and grabs a gift from under a Christmas tree. It is not added to the character or modifies the old nature. That is just not the presentation of salvation found in Scripture.


Rather, the gift of salvation “possesses” the ungodly and presents that person as a “new” creation.

John 1, “... God GAVE them...”. He endowed them,

Ephesians, “By the unmerited favor you are saved...”. He didn’t ask you permission nor request you to extend your own effort. It is not forced, but an endowment of God.

Perhaps you never worked through the three Greek words translated “redemption,” but you should.

Briefly, the word “redemption” is presented in three ways in the Greek: 1) to purchase the slave, 2) to remove the slave from slavery by taking the slave off the market so that they never again can be sold a slave, 3) to adopt the former slave as a son, a full privileged heir.


Therefor, this post has again presented you salvation is the Scripture present.

So ultimately the question remains: Are you so entrenched in error you cannot admit and submit?

You want to discredit Calvinistic thinking, yet, when shown the truth, you refuse it. Why?

 

[agedman]

Ok I see this is becoming denigrated. I will leave you to it.

thats it, that is all you got? As I thought.

Who is denigrating?

All I did was show by a worldly example how your presentation is without direction or even being able to point out a direction you are going much less an authoritative compass bearing.

You claim is baseless

You claim that Calvinistic thinking forces salvation, when it has been demonstrated by Scriptures and example that claim is without support.

And then you desire to present that I am now denigrating the thread!

Perhaps it would have been more appealing to your sensibilities if I had quoted your own words,


“thats it, that is all you got? As I thought.”

 

[Revmitchell]

Who is denigrating?

You, through the use of your infllamatory language ie:

"What grand claims you bluster while you have no steerage to rely upon!"

 

[agedman]

You, through the use of your infllamatory language ie:

"What grand claims you bluster while you have no steerage to rely upon!"

Such is greater then your claims of “no proof” when your thinking was confronted as error, for it is clearly evident that multiple sources did present truthful proof?

You were confronted by multiple witnesses giving Scriptures, rendering meaning, and examples. And your rejection and dismissal as “no proof” were given in return. Was your portrayal of the Calvinistic thinking not without derision?

You post some question of which you would attempt to trap, yet when the question is shown as irrelevant and even when answered by both Scripture and example, you reject the statements as “no proof” and seeming mocking dismissal. For it is evident that you thought the question both sound and unanswerable. Neither being accurate.

When you did offer a Scripture from John, was it not clearly shown by multiple witness that you were not faithful to the proper presentation?

Throughout this thread you have made broad claims against what others present with little other then single lines of dismissal and distorting the Calvinistic thinking.

Therefore the question(s) remain(s):

Are you willing to repent and accept the truth of the Scripture presentation of Salvation as not something attained by effort, will, attitude or that which is grasped as some object? That your presentation of “receive” as needing to be taken and possessed is not accurate with the Scriptures?

Are you willing to accept that the presentation of salvation in Scriptures as that salvation is by the unmerited favor of God in which He redeems the ungodly as one purchases a slave? That that redemption includes God removing that Individual from the market so they no longer As a slave are available to be sold? That the redemption establishes that former slave as the adopted son with full rights and privelages as any heir?

Are you willing to acknowledge salvation is not by possession, but in being possessed? That we are “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus?”

Are you willing to submit that the Father draws those of His own choosing, gives such to the Son who will raise those the Father gives in the resurrection?

Can you truly say that you were bought with a price and therefore are granted salvation, you are possessed and therefore possess, you are received and therefore receive, you were first loved and therefore you love...?

 

[Iconoclast]

thats it, that is all you got? As I thought.

Rm has 35000 posts just like this one...they say nothing of substance...thanks rm.

 

[Reynolds]

But you said
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?

No, I have the shed blood of my Savior who did meet Gods standard.

 

[TCassidy]

No, I have the shed blood of my Savior who did meet Gods standard.

So unsaved people can claim the blood of Christ even though they don't believe?

 

[Reynolds]

So unsaved people can claim the blood of Christ even though they don't believe?

Where did I say that? This is a prime example of why Calvinism is being fought against today. Y'all needlessly complicate everything. Jesus made "come to me" and "follow me" so simple a child could understand it. Not y'all. Maybe that's why Baptist. Presbyterian, and all other non charismatic denominations are in decline. I was talking to one of my friends this weekend who graduated from a SBC seminary recently. He said he went to church at a local SBC church while there. He said about the second Sunday he was there the pastor called for all attending seminary to meet with him after church. He told them that they were welcome to come to church and act like normal lay church members. He said "if y'all bring all that seminary debate nonsense in here, I will tell you to leave."

 

[InTheLight]

So unsaved people can claim the blood of Christ even though they don't believe?

Wondering why you practice the very thing--putting words into people's mouths--that you so regularly decry? Why do you do this?

 

[Revmitchell]

Where did I say that?

Yep they do that a lot. Put words in your mouth not even remotely close to anything you said. Its called obfuscation.

 

[thatbrian]

So unsaved people can claim the blood of Christ even though they don't believe?

That's what he is claiming, evidently, as the discussion was regarding how one comes to Christ.

 

[agedman]

Where did I say that? This is a prime example of why Calvinism is being fought against today. Y'all needlessly complicate everything. Jesus made "come to me" and "follow me" so simple a child could understand it. Not y'all. Maybe that's why Baptist. Presbyterian, and all other non charismatic denominations are in decline. I was talking to one of my friends this weekend who graduated from a SBC seminary recently. He said he went to church at a local SBC church while there. He said about the second Sunday he was there the pastor called for all attending seminary to meet with him after church. He told them that they were welcome to come to church and act like normal lay church members. He said "if y'all bring all that seminary debate nonsense in here, I will tell you to leave."

Two thoughts:

1). You are correct, it may seem that some complicate what is simple, however, it is not the Cal camp that usually does the complication, but the non-cal by insisting (soteriologically) to some liberal reading that is all inclusive when the Scriptures give no such permission. Because of this intentional error, the Cal more often is seen as contentious and complicated. Rather, the message is clear and easy, however, just as in this thread, when taken out of the appropriate meaning by the non-Cal, obliges thorough examination. It is the non-Cal that more often is obstinately in error, by taking that which is simple and inappropriately enlarging and complicating.

2) The pastor was wrong. If anyplace was a place to use the resources and benefits it should have been that local assembly. I do not know, but in a similar situation, the pastor felt threatened because a young buck attempted to sow discord and steal from the assembly. The leadership immediately stepped in and exposed that student to both the assembly and the school. That was the warning the pastor should have given, not to hinder the students, but to encourage them in working within the framework of the assembly to build there skills.

 

[TCassidy]

Where did I say that?

That is what the discussion is about! How/why we come to Christ. Please. Try to pay attention to the subject of the thread.

This is a prime example of why Calvinism is being fought against today.

Because you can't figure out the subject of the thread? You may be right. You fight against biblical soteriology because you don't understand the topic.

 

[TCassidy]

Wondering why you practice the very thing--putting words into people's mouths--that you so regularly decry?

I don't. Please pay attention to the subject of the thread and the statements he made concerning that subject.

Why do you do this?

I don't. Please learn to pay attention.

 

[TCassidy]

Yep they do that a lot. Put words in your mouth not even remotely close to anything you said. Its called obfuscation.

Yep. Still trying to walk back your only honest response. And now you've sucked poor Reynolds into your back peddling. How utterly sad.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep. Still trying to walk back your only honest response. And now you've sucked poor Reynolds into your back peddling. How utterly sad.

Your behavior is getting worse. It is a shame the admin counsel will do nothing about it. The credibility of the board is at stake.