Preceding Grace & Divine Providence - the Truth, “within a hairs breadth of Calvinism

[Van]

Hi Ben, sorry you feel like avoiding actual discussion of scripture, because those holding alternate views must be irrational. Jesus said something about getting the log out of our own eye before we tried to clear up the vision of another.

To restate my view, Revelatory Grace, the milk of the gospel is sufficient when coupled with believers filled with the Spirit as witnesses, those who till the ground, plant the seed, and water, to open the hearts of those who are "of My sheep."

Rather than "Total Spiritual Inability" scripture teaches the Fall resulted in our being conceived in a separated from God spiritual state, a sinful state, corrupted and predisposed to sin. In this fallen state, spiritually dead meaning unable to do any works to obtain the righteousness of God, we have only limited spiritual ability. We cannot understand some spiritual things, spiritual meat, because to understand spiritual meat, we need to be indwelt with the Spirit of God. If we look at 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 we see that the natural man (fallen and unregenerate) cannot understand the "things of the Spirit of God." To add "all" so it reads cannot understand "all things of the Spirit of God" would be a reasonable inference looking at this verse in isolation. However if we read the passage, we see in verse 3:1 where Paul had to speak to the babes in Christ as "men of flesh" teaching men of flesh can understand the milk, which refers to the fundamental things of the gospel. So in context, the "things of the Spirit of God" should be understood to refer to spiritual meat only, thus "some things of the Spirit of God is the correct view of the verse.

Peace

 

[Benjamin]

Hi Ben, sorry you feel like avoiding actual discussion of scripture,...

You seem to be missing or ignoring the point that to discuss our differences of the interpretations of scripture, rationally, would require me to take you back to the roots of your reasoning, hence Open Theism. I've done that with you, spent quite a bit of time doing so, as far as I'm concerned I plucked your roots out as exposed them for what they are and where they lead - which isn't good. I offered you alternative ways to look at the aforementioned issues but you were too stubbornly boxed-in. I'm not going to get into personal issues regarding your reactions other than to say I consider them desperate and irrational, so again, not good. To me dealing with OT is like dealing with another type of religion.

Apparently you don't understand why I would need to get to these roots to have a reasonable debate about the scriptures with some practical goals but that's really beside the point; its that not only are we very far apart concerning the logical conclusions OT leads to, but what it would no doubt lead to, again, regarding the reactions I could expect from you if I even started working to pull these roots out once more. That's why I said concerning such a deep challenge of unraveling someone's base of doctrinal understanding I'd look for another avenue in which I felt some goals could be reached that was worth my time traveling to get there.

 

[Benjamin]

Post the link where you responded...I do not see it anywhere....is this hide and seek now? Surely there must be a "debate fallacy for hiding a post:thumbs:

Right here from post #13 in this thread, the link has never moved: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2002025&postcount=13

I'm going to make you go back to it and find it yourself, because your not looking. :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Poste by Benjamin:
Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."
Can a true conclusion be derived from within my example?
We will see, Icon is about use his two premises above and explain how his argument can be demonstrated to be logically true using ethical philosophical principles to do so.
Take it way Icon!

I will modify this for the sake of clarity....[your premise is bogus] Your insisting on using language cals do not use does not lend itself to a solution.

Benjamin- {B} Since God determines all things that ever happen...did God determine the things Jeffery Dahmer did?

ANY BIBLICAL CALVINIST-{ABC} While God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass,He has also ordained the means to accomplish the ordained end. To say that God determines all things is an attempt to blame God for the sinful behavior of fallen sinful mankind.

So if you are really trying to ask if God is Sovereign over even the evil acts of sinful men we do not have too look too far, we can see the most evil act ever committed among men......

22 `Men, Israelites! hear these words, Jesus the Nazarene, a man approved of God among you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs, that God did through him in the midst of you, according as also ye yourselves have known;

23this one, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, being given out, having taken by lawless hands, having crucified -- ye did slay;

24 whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,


And again....the scripture provides all we need to know for life and godliness
like right here;
24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.


Notice my friend Benjamin...the evil acts of sinful men were a part of God's ordained purpose. Peter does NOT speak of carnal logic, debate fallacies, etc. He by the Spirit explains how the evil men rage against God and His electing Covenant love......HE DOES SO BY QUOTING SCRIPTURE...not logically debate formulas.....nope...he quotes from Psalm2

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Why does he refer to the heathen rage as ...VAIN THINGS??

because they stand opposed to God's eternal purpose which cannot in any way be diminished...dan 4 psalm 115 deut 32


35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?


2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Benjamin-"Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"

[ABC]-That would be Adam,whose fall into sin and death condemned the whole of mankind to be bound over to sin and death...Rom5:212-21

- can I come to know these things also?

[ABC]- sure you can ...just stop whining about debate fallacies and reconcile all the scriptures together,not just the six or seven you misuse.here are some that might help get you started;

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

Benjamin- thank you....I will look to scripture more than I have been

[ABC]- No problem my friend...believers have always done that....

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.


So then my friend, lay down the weapons of your warfare,serve God and confess Him openly

 

[Benjamin]

I will modify this for the sake of clarity

I will repost this with some underlining for the sake of clarity:

Why on earth would you post that in this thread and in total disrespect and disregard of staying on the topic of this thread?!

Do you not have any principles of debate etiquette at all?!

Icon, anyone with half a brain can click on the link in post 13 and see that you have not posted there! They can also see how obnoxious you are in pursuing to argue here about that.

Just checked it, still open. You serious needed a second chance anyway to try to address that reasoning of yours and show how in any way it could be concluded as logically true and not false: I’ll give you clue where you need begin your argument - first you need to start by actually using your two premises that the argument is about…good luck…focus man, focus, you can do this!!!

Icon, GO - to - the - post - where - the - link - is - and - click - on - it - for - A BIG SURPRISE!!!

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
Right here from post #13 in this thread, the link has never moved: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2002025&postcount=13

I'm going to make you go back to it and find it yourself, because your not looking.

 

[Iconoclast]

I will repost this with some underlining for the sake of clarity:

Post 44 was my response.....You cannot seem to grasp this...maybe it was the scriptures that confused you....:laugh::wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Post 44 was my response.....You cannot seem to grasp this...maybe it was the scriptures that confused you....:laugh::wavey:

Chicken, to address your own carnal reasoning, eh? Maybe your reasoning about the scriptures confuses you.

 

[Van]

To restate my view, Revelatory Grace, the milk of the gospel is sufficient when coupled with believers filled with the Spirit as witnesses, those who till the ground, plant the seed, and water, to open the hearts of those who are "of My sheep."

Rather than "Total Spiritual Inability" scripture teaches the Fall resulted in our being conceived in a separated from God spiritual state, a sinful state, corrupted and predisposed to sin. In this fallen state, spiritually dead meaning unable to do any works to obtain the righteousness of God, we have only limited spiritual ability. We cannot understand some spiritual things, spiritual meat, because to understand spiritual meat, we need to be indwelt with the Spirit of God. If we look at 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 we see that the natural man (fallen and unregenerate) cannot understand the "things of the Spirit of God." To add "all" so it reads cannot understand "all things of the Spirit of God" would be a reasonable inference looking at this verse in isolation. However if we read the passage, we see in verse 3:1 where Paul had to speak to the babes in Christ as "men of flesh" teaching men of flesh can understand the milk, which refers to the fundamental things of the gospel. So in context, the "things of the Spirit of God" should be understood to refer to spiritual meat only, thus "some things of the Spirit of God is the correct view of the verse.

Peace

Prevenient Grace has been shown to be non-existent in scripture, with no response from the proponent other than to say "Van is an irrational Open Theist" when in fact, I am no more an Open Theist than every Arminian. So the charge is just a dodge to avoid defending the indefensible.

Folks, anytime a proponent of doctrine pretends he or she cannot present a defense because of some fault in the opponent, the man behind the curtain has been exposed.

 

[Iconoclast]

:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Post 44 was my response.....You cannot seem to grasp this...maybe it was the scriptures that confused you....

Chicken, to address your own carnal reasoning, eh? Maybe your reasoning about the scriptures confuses you.

I knew you could not handle scriptural interaction, but I wanted to give you the opportunity.Your lack of response is understandable.You hide behind your silly and spiritually useless debate fantasies and your failure to respond confirms this.
So you call names and avoid real discussion,...maybe someday.

 

[Benjamin]

Prevenient Grace has been shown to be non-existent in scripture, with no response from the proponent other than to say "Van is an irrational Open Theist" when in fact, I am no more an Open Theist than every Arminian. So the charge is just a dodge to avoid defending the indefensible.

Folks, anytime a proponent of doctrine pretends he or she cannot present a defense because of some fault in the opponent, the man behind the curtain has been exposed.

Didn’t say “can’t” said “won’t”. Also explained what the topic of the thread was on and that I did that comparison (the topic of the thread) with scripture in post #6.

What you have done here is make an irrational suggestion that the Prevenient Grace view wasn't derived through examining the scripture and further merely have gone forth to demonstrate that you can’t understand clear reasoning why I said I “won’t with you” (a closet Open Theist) and also how stubborn and irrational you are to "suggest" that I said, “can’t”, thereby making my point why I said I “won’t". Thanks.

 

[Benjamin]

:
I knew you could not handle scriptural interaction, but I wanted to give you the opportunity.

I knew you could not handle interacting with your own "carnal reasoning" pertaining to what you "suggest" the scriptures say, but I wanted to give you the opportunity.

Couldn't find the link...

:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

I knew you could not handle interacting with your own "carnal reasoning" pertaining to what you "suggest" the scriptures say, but I wanted to give you the opportunity.

Couldn't find the link...

:laugh:

I found it and had answered it.I see you have nothing.....you can be left to your own devices now,:thumbs::sleeping_2:

 

[Iconoclast]

You can keep all of these nonsense filled posts...we want scripture, not page after page of this...

In return, in stereotypical fashion the aforementioned respondent avoided all questions of logic and attempted to revert the debate back into his kind of “argument” to pursue his agenda of embarking on his usual unproductive smokescreen tactics to avoid logically reasoning, once again merely focusing on his continuing tantrum of trying to draw the debate into a fruitless never-ending circular scripture food-fight as that is his "way" to avoid being taken to the mat with logic.

The opponent, demonstrating once again that his only goal in debate is to continue in his fallacious debate tactics and unconscionably attempts to suggest that it was “I” that was going against ethical debate methods

My entire post #6 focused on the aforementioned contrast while showing Determinism to be illogical, false and a method of force to fit distortion while at the same time demonstrating through scripture and logic the need for a genuine faith response to be true.

Proof-text till the cows come home but your doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth, for God reveals His way in Truth!

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Icon:
I answered in the other thread, then reading in this thread I clicked on the link YOU SUPPLIED in post 13.....this is where it lead to, so I put it here also.

providentially that thread has been closed.

Closed Thread.....means it is closed....it is locked up.That is logical....

Post the link where you responded...I do not see it anywhere....

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
Right here from post #13 in this thread, the link has never moved: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...5&postcount=13

I'm going to make you go back to it and find it yourself, because your not looking.

I found it and had answered it.I see you have nothing...

Your nose is going to grow Icon…

 

[Benjamin]

Icon says:

You can keep all of these nonsense filled posts...we want scripture, not page after page of this...

...and posts this from me:

Proof-text till the cows come home but your doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth, for God reveals His way in Truth!

...which he took from out of this post:

You offer me nothing. John 14:6 has not been demonstrated to support the Deterministic view. “You” clearly don’t understand and/or must resent that the way “you” must come is through genuine faith through your own heart! It is your way to claim love for Him must be pre-determined.

Jesus said, “no man cometh unto the Father but by me” – By any other doctrine (this includes false doctrines which exclude genuine faith), or intersession, He is the Mediator, all the promises of God made before the foundation of the world are fulfilled at this time, revealed that they come in Christ – grace through faith, not grace alone. The promise, the true message to all the world:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: “You” is used 4 times in this verse. You Determinists will be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

You have to have a serious set of blinders on to miss that genuine faith must come from one’s own heart; this requires the ability to respond from their own heart, volition, and volition and determinism are logically mutually exclusive any way you might wish to philosophically splice your system together my friend. Proof-text till the cows come home but your doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth, for God reveals His way in Truth!

Another typical poor example of trying to proof-text in the Determinist view that disregards that those chosen were chosen “in" the Lord Christ, -our Mediator is plainly in view, but you attempt to reduce the Mediator from a Righteous Judge to a preprogrammed puppet to serve your Determinist doctrines.

The Divine Order of salvation is clearly presented in Eph 1:13, but the Determinist shamefully attempts to distort that view to force fit his systematic theology. To ignore or change the inspired order is false doctrine.

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,

Ah, more of those pesky “you”. But that is how “responsibility” logically falls on the “you” in God’s judgment, if “you” were chosen by God in design to act a certain way before creation then “you” would have no choice and God would be responsible for “your” actions. Would a just God judge “you” for His actions??? Care to explain “your” logic?

One need only honestly work through the text without his Determinist glasses to see the order of salvation.

First, we must hear the gospel (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47; John 20:21; Acts 1:8; Romans 10:14-17).

Secondly, we must believe in Jesus (John 3:16; 6:29; 20:31; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 10:9-10).

Thirdly, at this point we are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit or born again (John 3:3-7; Romans 3:21-26; 4:24-5:1; 8:9, 15; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Galatians 3:13-14).

Rom 3:21-27 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

The order of salvation in Ephesians 1:13 is:

Hear the Gospel —> Believe the Gospel —> Be Sealed with the Spirit.

The Determinist way is to attempt to change the Biblical order and would have to put regeneration before faith for salvation. Such a view is entirely backwards and contrary to God’s judgment which is His way in truth! (Deut 32:4)

On and on while you hope to produce more distorted proof-texts. The hyper-Determinists perverts the truth while reading through deterministic glasses in desperation to claim Divine Sovereignty must = Deterministic Sovereignty. They have Determinism on the brain and sadly see things that aren’t there.

Determinism logically leads to theological fatalism through unavoidably attributing evil unto God. When taken to its true ending it leads to a dark gospel of no hope for most and this false teaching should be shunned and condemned by all who believe in the true Light that gives light to everyone in the world and delivers the promise of genuine hope for all that listen and respond in faith out of love for the truth which He reveals to all. None will have an excuse not to respond out of his own heart, despite their “reasoning” that they had no choice, think about it and repent from “your” ways. (Rom 1:20)

...but, I think if Icon looked real hard he might see one or two scriptures in that post he took that little clip from. It seems Icon isn't being very honest lately in his efforts to debate...his nose is going to grow...

 

[Benjamin]

You can keep all of these nonsense filled posts...we want scripture, not page after page of this...

Ya see, I know what your ONLY agenda is in debating on this board is Icon, I spelled it out for your buddy:

Originally posted by Benjamin:

Perhaps you don’t comprehend that I have no intention of lower my standards of debate and to begin an agenda with you of meaningless circular scriptural food-fights and argument while chasing the entire Determinist TULIP system down within this thread – I obviously can’t help you get the reasoning for this into your skull, but know this, your tantrums and whining have not changed my opinion of your misguided principles and unethical goals in debate (argument), nor will they.

All 5 points of the TULIP vitally hinge on strict Deterministic views in order to logically support them. Free will/volition and Determinism are logically mutually exclusive. If you believe there is no argument between the non-Cal view over the Determinist’ principles which support the TULIP other than over Irresistible grace you are in denial, delusional or have one heck of a lot to learn about my opposition to your position friend.

It is of no surprise to me that my typical opposition will get up in arms because they don’t want to be pinned down on a logical definition of the principles behind Calvinism/Determinism because of the logical conclusions of “Determinism” defeats the Calvinist’ view and brings it into theological fatalism. I hear you telling you’d rather just continue in never-ending poorly interpreted circular scriptural food-fights while making the typical claim that the Bible supports your Determinist views. So what, you wish to continue without using philosophically reasoned logical debate principles to back your claims up. Some, as demonstrated in this thread will simply “appeal to authorities” that their interpretations are correct. I see these methods of argument as virtually meaningless and unproductive towards the goals which I have learned to be ethical in a “philosophical debate” and see a huge difference between the two kinds of arguing.

Once again, by avoiding things such as definitions and logical conclusions you seem to think you’re onto some kind of great debate methods of never-ending proof-texting which you believe help you from ever losing an argument. Well, I emphasize with your desperation to not be pinned down on the definition of Determinism which would bring fatalistic conclusions to your treasured TULIPs and would rip out the roots from under them. But, like it or not, the philosophical methods designed to draw out a true or false conclusions pertaining to the claims and issues made have long exist and the basics of giving ethical reasons to believe a claim is true begins by defining premises, not by raising so many premises that you cloud (smokescreen) the claims beyond any comprehensible conclusions – you may consider that type of argument ethical and meaningful debate, but in good conscience and for ethical reasons I try to avoid getting into such arguments as they are unproductive on many fronts.

I’m sorry you’re so upset that I won’t bother to engage in argument as per your agenda to continually proof-text and jump topics, and that you feel I am trying to be superior somehow for wanting to maintain a standard of philosophical debate principles which I understand to draw out the truth in a debate.

That said, I will ask you to drop the focus on the personal issues you have against me and style of debate, I merely look at personal attacks as more fallacy (Ad Hominem) and if you knew my intensions better you’d find that although I’m admittedly aggressive in attacking the opposing view, and that may irritate you because it is your view, I do my best to keep out of the truly personal attacks and to stay focused on the topic at hand to try to maintain the aforementioned ethics of debate that I have come to learn to respect. It’s probably better if you don’t engage me if you can’t refrain from taking my attacks on your views as personal, because I am an aggressive debater and will continue to define premises, hold the opponent to their claims and insist on sticking to the topic in order to try to come to logical conclusions if one wants to debate my perspectives on a subject.

Now I gave you your chance to show us that you can give reason, just a little bit , to go along with all those scriptures you like to continuously claim you Calvinist lay down but nobody else does, but...well, you don't want to explain how you get your interpretations and simply got a bigger nose trying to avoid that demonstration when put to the challenge after giving a little "carnal reasoning" of your own about them. Hmm......

Come on, fess up, you're trying to avoid reasoning about all those scriptures you're so proud about pasting down aren't you? You just want to post scriptures and say they support your doctrine without having to try to really prove it. That's how you like to "debate" huh, Icon?

 

[Van]

What you have done here is make an irrational suggestion that the Prevenient Grace view wasn't derived through examining the scripture

Prevenient Grace was derived via eisegesis, not exegesis. Total Spiritual Inability was poured into scripture and then Prevenient Grace was poured in to fix it. Folly

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin

Ya see, I know what your ONLY agenda is in debating on this board is Icon, I spelled it out for your buddy:

Thanks B...I will now take a look.This post did have some scripture but if I recall Agedman was helping you out already, and doing quite well...I enjoyed his sound and accurate response:thumbsup:

Now I gave you your chance to show us that you can give reason, just a little bit , to go along with all those scriptures you like to continuously claim you Calvinist lay down but nobody else does, but...well, you don't want to explain how you get your interpretations and simply got a bigger nose trying to avoid that demonstration when put to the challenge after giving a little "carnal reasoning" of your own about them. Hmm......

I will as I did previously help walk you through the scriptures you are trying to abuse to conform to your debate world.... Iwas going to leave you to your rhetoric,however you did offer some scripture to Agedman so I have reconsidered.....As I am in a Good Mood in Kingman ARIZ....having escaped from LA:laugh:

Come on, fess up, you're trying to avoid reasoning about all those scriptures you're so proud about pasting down aren't you? You just want to post scriptures and say they support your doctrine without having to try to really prove it. That's how you like to "debate" huh, Icon?

The scriptures offered in the links I offer....you have not once answered , so I figure you might be secretly learning despite your bluster:wavey:

So I Will respond as requested...but only because we are friends:thumbs: You wrote;

You offer me nothing. John 14:6 has not been demonstrated to support the Deterministic view.

It is a wonderful text that can easily be tied in to Jn 6:37-44,and Jn 17.
that however is another whole thread.

Many Cals how explained to you that the term determinism leads to theological fatalism that all of us reject.We explained that to you, but you keep patching up that strawman terminology trying to insure that you can beat it up one more time...lol...so you are answering questions no one is asking...lol,,,,go ahead Don Quixote !!!! Go get em...

“You” clearly don’t understand and/or must resent that the way “you” must come is through genuine faith through your own heart! It is your way to claim love for Him must be pre-determined.

Every believer comes through faith. It is never said to be because of faith however....so you commit two errors here.You are denying being born from above through the Spirit's work of regeneration...giving a new heart as the New Covenant promises...


25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Jesus said, “no man cometh unto the Father but by me” – By any other doctrine (this includes false doctrines which exclude genuine faith), or intersession, He is the Mediator, all the promises of God made before the foundation of the world are fulfilled at this time, revealed that they come in Christ – grace through faith, not grace alone. The promise, the true message to all the world:

Yes Jesus said that...right after He described those who come to Him as those given to Him by The Father....you left that part off....

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Yes...that is wonderful

Note: “You” is used 4 times in this verse. You Determinists will be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

No..we are not surprised at all.When the scripture speaks of persons it is quite common in the english language to use the word ...You.
We do nothing until the Spirit regenerates us....{there is another word that is used alot} shocking!

You have to have a serious set of blinders on to miss that genuine faith must come from one’s own heart; this requires the ability to respond from their own heart, volition

,

You and your anti-cal posse as usual deny the reality of the Fall into Sin ans death.Adam was not slightly wounded but dead indeed at the fall.
No man seeks god as a consequence...No man, Not one....

see part 2....

 

[Iconoclast]

part2

and volition and determinism are logically mutually exclusive any way you might wish to philosophically splice your system together my friend.

There is no free will....man being bound in sin....determinism is again your false philosophical term that you want to beat up...address the scriptures please.

Proof-text till the cows come home

The Bereans in Acts 17 searched the scriptures daily...to see if it was so...I do not see them dwelling on debate fallacies...just scripture.
the truth of God is found in scripture.

but your doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth,

This is your idol and warped philosophical construct,Biblical truth is indeed revealed or concealed by God.You disparage this all the time, you and Winman ridicule the Spirits illumination to believers... You mock and call it special enlightment, winman has in times past mocked at it...But I will stay with scripture:
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:


10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You can keep your carnal reasoning....and your worldly wisdom which you refer to as
"logic to come to truth" or to draw out truth...whatever you think that means.

for God reveals His way in Truth!

You chant deut32:4...as if it was quite mystical, then you ascribe your own philosophy to subjectively give what you think it means. be specific, and do not cop-out with some vague reference to jn 1;9....or romans 1 :20

Another typical poor example of trying to proof-text in the Determinist view that disregards that those chosen were chosen “in" the Lord Christ, -our Mediator is plainly in view, but you attempt to reduce the Mediator from a Righteous Judge to a preprogrammed puppet to serve your Determinist doctrines.


This is profane.

The Divine Order of salvation is clearly presented in Eph 1:13,

actually...do not chop off vs 3-11 as it tells the full story,,,not the one you want to slide in .

but the Determinist shamefully attempts to distort that view to force fit his systematic theology. To ignore or change the inspired order is false doctrine.

What is shameful is your distorting it like you do in your post.


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,

Ah, more of those pesky “you”. But that is how “responsibility” logically falls on the “you” in God’s judgment, if “you” were chosen by God in design to act a certain way before creation then “you” would have no choice and God would be responsible for “your” actions. Would a just God judge “you” for His actions??? Care to explain “your” logic?

verses 3-11 already explained it...but you reject it....that is on you.

Such a view is entirely backwards and contrary to God’s judgment which is His way in truth! (Deut 32:4)

there it is again...lol

Determinism logically leads to theological fatalism through unavoidably attributing evil unto God.

We explained that to you already....

 

[Benjamin]

Icon, you call that meaningless rhetoric and a couple of Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations a response to my argument??? I’m sorry, but you seem confused and don’t seem to be following along too well…I’ve explained these things already in details that you have ignored.

There is no free will....

Now, you ever want to address this carnal reasoning of yours about those philosophical terms “self will” and “Free Moral Agency”: :thumbs:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2002025&postcount=13