Receiving a gift is not also part of the giving

[Revmitchell]

Did you not read with comprehension the quote of Van?

So van said "God needs our help"?

 

[agedman]

So van said "God needs our help"?

You either did not read or did not comprehend the statement made by Van.

He said (paraphrased) FIRST the unredeemed has to do, THEN God responds.

 

[Revmitchell]

You either did not read or did not comprehend the statement made by Van.

He said (paraphrased) FIRST the unredeemed has to do, THEN God responds.

Once again you fail to answer my question. Did van say " God needs our help"?

 

[Van]

It is you, Agedman, that claims you cannot grasp salvation by grace through faith is not a salvation by works.
Stop worrying about others, they all can read their bibles.

And in post 58, I specifically said God does not need our help. Pay no attention to Agedman who posts one falsehood after another.

 

[agedman]

Once again you fail to answer my question. Did van say " God needs our help"?

And again, you apparent did not read with comprehension the statement of Van.

What is more troubling is your own complicit actions.

If it was a new poster who had made such error, you no doubt would be raising much alarm about the quote.

However, because Van vainly attempts to link the opposition to a view you oppose, then you are willing to endorse what is not Scriptual salvation

Did you not recognize that the quote actually is offensive to your 9wn view?

Does a human actually FIRST, before even the work of the Holy Spirit using the Word of God, raise his own faith to the point that IF some undetermined level is met, God might THEN respond?

Does that type thinking not create a huge alarm even in your own holdings?

All I ask was for Van to recant and repent from that statement.

However, his and your reaction has been further entrenchment and avoidance of that quote.

Neither one of you took the quote apart and showed by Scripture it was accurate. Yet the others, who see the quote as a failure to accurately be supported, have shown the quote is a failure.

Such is certainly troubling.

Have you not witnessed me upon any disagreement, no matter the doctrinal view held by a poster, raise a Scripturally based review and confrontation?

Does not each B.B. member responsible to be aware of error, be it intentional or not?

I do not cling to what is in error, just because a poster and I may agree upon some point of doctrine, be it in eschatologically or soteriology.

Van’s statement was clearly presenting work based salvation. And at this point, it would seem that you agree that salvation is attained irregardless and outside the FIRST work of the Holy Spirit using the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

It is you, Agedman, that claims you cannot grasp salvation by grace through faith is not a salvation by works.
Stop worrying about others, they all can read their bibles.

This from a person who appeals to “folks” in posts on threads.

Besides, I made no such claim, ever, anywhere.

Are you ready to recant from your statement and repent from the error?

 

[Van]

Agedman continues to post one falsehood after another, devoid of any on topic content. I said faith comes before salvation, which is to say salvation is through faith. No need to recant biblical truth. Agedman needs to recant his false theology.

 

[Revmitchell]

And again, you apparent did not read with comprehension the statement of Van.

What is more troubling is your own complicit actions.

If it was a new poster who had made such error, you no doubt would be raising much alarm about the quote.

However, because Van vainly attempts to link the opposition to a view you oppose, then you are willing to endorse what is not Scriptual salvation

Did you not recognize that the quote actually is offensive to your 9wn view?

Does a human actually FIRST, before even the work of the Holy Spirit using the Word of God, raise his own faith to the point that IF some undetermined level is met, God might THEN respond?

Does that type thinking not create a huge alarm even in your own holdings?

All I ask was for Van to recant and repent from that statement.

However, his and your reaction has been further entrenchment and avoidance of that quote.

Neither one of you took the quote apart and showed by Scripture it was accurate. Yet the others, who see the quote as a failure to accurately be supported, have shown the quote is a failure.

Such is certainly troubling.

Have you not witnessed me upon any disagreement, no matter the doctrinal view held by a poster, raise a Scripturally based review and confrontation?

Does not each B.B. member responsible to be aware of error, be it intentional or not?

I do not cling to what is in error, just because a poster and I may agree upon some point of doctrine, be it in eschatologically or soteriology.

Van’s statement was clearly presenting work based salvation. And at this point, it would seem that you agree that salvation is attained irregardless and outside the FIRST work of the Holy Spirit using the Scriptures.

Did van say "God needs our help"?

 

[agedman]

Agedman continues to post one falsehood after another, devoid of any on topic content. I said faith comes before salvation, which is to say salvation is through faith. No need to recant biblical truth. Agedman needs to recant his false theology.

REALLY?

Where is the Scripture delivered, the ears of the person opened to receive the Word by the work of the Holy Spirit?

Do you not know the Scriptures state just HOW faith is brought (some take as activated) in the unregenerate?

No, you appoint it as faith being innate, a nd having such authority as actually being able to get God’s attention!

Van’s quote:
“The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ.”

 

[agedman]

Did van say "God needs our help"?

Do you not hold that BEFORE FAITH the preaching of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit must take place?

Or are you so smitten with Van you ignore the truth?

But then without the exact words of your question Van states tha “IF GOD...”

So, is Van stating that God must wait on us?

 

[Van]

Yet more falsehood posts by Agedman.

Did Agedman recant his claim about God needing help?

Does salvation depend upon a person who wills or works to be saved?

Salvation by grace through faith is biblical doctrine. Pay no attention to those who say faith is works, just read Romans 4:2-5.

 

[agedman]

Yet more falsehood posts by Agedman.

Did Agedman recant his claim about God needing help?

Does salvation depend upon a person who wills or works to be saved?

Salvation by grace through faith is biblical doctrine. Pay no attention to those who say faith is works, just read Romans 4:2-5.

1). I made no such claim of God needing help.

2). It is your stated and quoted words that one of their own will may possibly get God’s attention that if it meets His standard the attention getter might be credited.

Do you not know John 1?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you not hold that BEFORE FAITH the preaching of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit must take place?

Or are you so smitten with Van you ignore the truth?

But then without the exact words of your question Van states tha “IF GOD...”

So, is Van stating that God must wait on us?

Yet another question you refuse to answer because it shows your error

 

[Van]

Are you agreeing with me that God does not need our help?
Are you says we are saved by grace without faith?
You are the one saying we need to get God's attention which is bogus. God is all-knowing.

Here is the deal. Agedman is just posting falsehoods to hide is bogus theology.

We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and given faith.
Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand.
God credits our faith (or not) and if He does, we will not perish, but have eternal life.

His views have no support in scripture.

 

[agedman]

Yet another question you refuse to answer because it shows your error

Are you agreeing with me that God does not need our help?
Are you says we are saved by grace without faith?
You are the one saying we need to get God's attention which is bogus. God is all-knowing.

Here is the deal. Agedman is just posting falsehoods to hide is bogus theology.

We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and given faith.
Our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand.
God credits our faith (or not) and if He does, we will not perish, but have eternal life.

His views have no support in scripture.

1). Van’s statement is that faith is first. That is not Scriptural.

2). Van places emphasis that God is reactive and not proactive in the work of salvation. Is it not God providing the Word, the delivery of the Word, the ability to hear the Word, all done by the Holy Spirit, that is FIRST?

3). RM is now complicit with Van as a denier of the Scriptural salvation being both authored and finished in the life of humankind.

4). RM has been given opportunity to show faithfulness to Scripture over a violation of Scripture documented in a quote by Van. He has refused the encouragements

5). Others also of their own interest joined the matter, and each contributing substantially. This has not gone unnoticed, for nearly every post contains Scripture to support a view and that is good.

6). I desire that both Van and RM repent of the attack launch upon Scriptures.

Do they even realize that in separate posts, they have actually refuted the quote of Van, yet are encumbered by clinging to that quote as being Scripturally sound?

 

[Revmitchell]

You falsely accused van of saying something he never said you need to repent and apo.ogize

 

[agedman]

You falsely accused van of saying something he never said you need to repent and apo.ogize

Are you so enamored, that you would now accuse the one who did not violate Scripture?

I NEVER accused Van of “saying something he never said.”

I did show the results of his statements, and the inappropriate and lack of Scriptural validity. I paraphrased his statement with the intent of using such to highlight just how unscriptural the statement was.


Here are Van’s own words, perhaps you have forgotten them.

“The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ.”

One who is “spiritually dead” does have not any interest in “putting their wholehearted trust in Christ” outside of the direct and purposed intervention and work of the Scriptures an Holy Spirit.

 

[agedman]

Van’s quote:
“The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ.l

Van is consigning God to being reactive rather than proactive in the matter of salvation.

The phrase, “...then if God credits...” is a demonstration of this thinking

The premise is that God waits patiently on the sidelines.

Even song writers reflect this by lyrics such as found here:
He was there all the time, Hymnlyrics.org

There are no “if / then” statements when it comes to salvation.

Salvation is in terms of “either / or”

 

[Revmitchell]

Are you so enamored, that you would now accuse the one who did not violate Scripture?

I NEVER accused Van of “saying something he never said.”

I did show the results of his statements, and the inappropriate and lack of Scriptural validity. I paraphrased his statement with the intent of using such to highlight just how unscriptural the statement was.


Here are Van’s own words, perhaps you have forgotten them.

“The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ.”

One who is “spiritually dead” does have not any interest in “putting their wholehearted trust in Christ” outside of the direct and purposed intervention and work of the Scriptures an Holy Spirit.

What post did van say " God needs help" ?

 

[agedman]

What post did I state that Van say “God neeeds help?”