Sincerity

[preacher4truth]

All conveniently ignored.

You're pretending to have 'won' with those passages? Do know this; no one is ignoring them. The thing is not one verse you've given validates the quoted statement in the OP.

What exactly have you proven to such an extent that 'we're therefore' ignoring them?

 

[Skandelon]

The thing is not one verse you've given validates the quoted statement in the OP.

You asked a question and it was answered. You didn't like the answer, so you moved on. It's pretty evident.

 

[Skandelon]

You're posting that God really wants to save someone, but their free will ties His hands up. Do you believe it to be this way? Mankind can, and does, tie God's hands up?

I'm not Winman, obviously, but this is NOT what most of us believe.

If God wanted to effectually saved someone, He could. He can make stones worship Him too, but what he SEEKS is those who worship him in spirit and in truth. He desires for people to choose to trust Him, not for rocks made to do so.

 

[preacher4truth]

You asked a question and it was answered. You didn't like the answer, so you moved on. It's pretty evident.

This is absolutely untrue.

The only thing you've shown is post #8 as your stance where you define man boasting in knowing the Lord as 'personal achievement':

"Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD."

Boasting - "talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one's achievements, possessions, or abilities."

Now show me your other answers, not just a mix of verses with a few bolded words that prove nothing. However, if that is what you have to do to pretend a moral victory, then, well, it is what it is, and you've won nothing. Maybe it soothes your psyche to make pretense?

Allow me to reiterate: no one has ignored your Scripture references, they just happen to not prove anything. Now enlighten us as to what these prove. The only thing 'pretty evident' is that you've proven nothing accept for post #8. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

This is absolutely untrue.

Which part? The part where you asked for biblical verses to support our view regarding the heart condition? Or the part where you ignored the scriptures after we posted them?

Allow me to reiterate: no one has ignored your Scripture references, they just happen to not prove anything. Now enlighten us as to what these prove.

You claimed that the bible never teaches that man is responsible (or you said 'in control over') for the condition of his heart. We listed over a dozen verses which strongly suggest otherwise and you have yet to rebuttal.

Instead you are still debating God and Websters dictionary, which is all that post #8 contains.

 

[preacher4truth]

Falsely Accused 4 Times by Skandelon

Which part? The part where you asked for biblical verses to support our view regarding the heart condition? Or the part where you ignored the scriptures after we posted them?

There you go, always going down a false trail on another subject. I never asked you for such verses. Wow, just wow. That's false accusation #1 for you.

And one more time, no one ignored your verses. This is false accusation #2 for you. As I stated, your verses prove nothing accept for a straw man argument that you've created. The only thing you've proven in this thread is your stance in post #8.

You claimed that the bible never teaches that man is responsible (or you said 'in control over') for the condition of his heart.

False accusation #3. I never made such a statement.

We listed over a dozen verses which strongly suggest otherwise and you have yet to rebuttal.

Yes, 'we' see it, as is typical for you, you've yet again erected yet another straw man argument based upon 3 false accusations against me.

Instead you are still debating God and Websters dictionary, which is all that post #8 contains.

I've not argued nor debated God. But this is yet another false accusation and it is totally unfounded. Tally it up to 4 false accusations. The thing is you have absolutely nothing but these false accusations to go by.

Your stance was given, I called you on it and all can see it, but now, on this merry go round you want to make pretense your post was merely benign and arbitrary.

 

[Winman]

I'm not Winman, obviously, but this is NOT what most of us believe.

If God wanted to effectually saved someone, He could. He can make stones worship Him too, but what he SEEKS is those who worship him in spirit and in truth. He desires for people to choose to trust Him, not for rocks made to do so.

God doesn't FORCE people to believe Skan. He COULD, but he doesn't.

 

[Skandelon]

God doesn't FORCE people to believe Skan. He COULD, but he doesn't.

Obviously.....

 

[Skandelon]

There you go, always going down a false trail on another subject. I never asked you for such verses. Wow, just wow. That's false accusation #1 for you.

I apologize that was Willis who requested those verses. You commented on how he had grown right after that, so I confused the two of you.

And one more time, no one ignored your verses. This is false accusation #2 for you.

Well, since the verses weren't FOR YOU, then neither was this accusation...OBVIOUSLY. I was meaning to address the person who made the request.

The only thing you've proven in this thread is your stance in post #8.

Still debating God and Webster's dictionary, I see. Having fun yet? Who is winning?

Let me know how it turns out.

 

[preacher4truth]

Let me know how it turns out.

I've already done so. It turns out you're into boasting, and gave a definition of it which reflects your beliefs and you tied it to a text you used as proof.

Now let's make certain that you don't falsely accuse about me of not accepting the Word of God or debating against the Word. I debated the conclusion you made on it by providing a definition in support of your stance and ideology. That's a huge difference.

 

[Skandelon]

I've already done so. It turns out you're into boasting, and gave a definition of it which reflects your beliefs and you tied it to a text you used as proof.

Now let's make certain that you don't falsely accuse about me of not accepting the Word of God or debating against the Word. I debated the conclusion you made on it by providing a definition in support of your stance and ideology. That's a huge difference.

Dude, you hammered God on that reply. Now, what do you think of Webster? You have them both on the ropes, now. Don't let up!

 

[The Biblicist]

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Notice the suppositional "if"!! You are assuming that the Arminian position is the condition ("in the flesh" with the old heart) is the state being considered here and you have no evidence for that.

1. This verse does not prove WHICH heart believes the gospel. The "old" heart or the "new" heart that God gives (Ezek. 36:26; 2 Cor. 3:3). The old heart has no ability to preceive, see or hear spiritual things according to Deuteronomy 29:4 as that kind of heart must be given by God. The old heart is desperately wicked and is unnacceptable to God as God gives a NEW heart.

2. You are assuming this is a matter of mere sincerty originating by those still "in the flesh" rather than the creative effect (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 1;23,25) of the gospel coming in power, in the Spirit and IN MUCH ASSURANCE - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

3. Such must FIRST be drawn according to John 6:44-45 and John 6:64-65 proves that not all who profess with the mouth are drawn.

Those in John 6:64 were no doubt sincere, but sincerely wrong as it is not him "that willeth or him that runneth but of God who sheweth mercy"

 

[preacher4truth]

Dude, you hammered God on that reply. Now, what do you think of Webster? You have them both on the ropes, now. Don't let up!

That's quite the callow reply, but I'll take your false accusations with a grain of salt and I'm thankful to God for them; 'But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God'

Yes, your accusations are unfounded and there is nothing in this thread to back up your attack, but this is classic you, dishing it out, then threatening others for the slightest, well, nothing.

The funny thing about all this is is that you cannot prove your unfounded accusations in the same way you can't prove your belief system. Why? Because the proof simply doesn't exist.

 

[preacher4truth]

Notice the suppositional "if"!! You are assuming that the Arminian position is the condition ("in the flesh" with the old heart) is the state being considered here and you have no evidence for that.

1. This verse does not prove WHICH heart believes the gospel. The "old" heart or the "new" heart that God gives (Ezek. 36:26; 2 Cor. 3:3). The old heart has no ability to preceive, see or hear spiritual things according to Deuteronomy 29:4 as that kind of heart must be given by God. The old heart is desperately wicked and is unnacceptable to God as God gives a NEW heart.

2. You are assuming this is a matter of mere sincerty originating by those still "in the flesh" rather than the creative effect (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 1;23,25) of the gospel coming in power, in the Spirit and IN MUCH ASSURANCE - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

3. Such must FIRST be drawn according to John 6:44-45 and John 6:64-65 proves that not all who profess with the mouth are drawn.

Those in John 6:64 were no doubt sincere, but sincerely wrong as it is not him "that willeth or him that runneth but of God who sheweth mercy"

It's good to see a refreshing and Biblically spot on post and one that is on topic unlike the post at the top of this page.

Thank you. :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

YES, men tie God's hands.

Wow!!!! I thought you believed that, but not be brazen enough to state it in public. :tear:

 

[Skandelon]

Notice the suppositional "if"!! You are assuming that the Arminian position is the condition ("in the flesh" with the old heart) is the state being considered here and you have no evidence for that.

God does not lie, and He always keeps his promises. So, if God were to state, "IF you do X, then I will do Y," then you can take that promise to the bank. I think we would both agree on that point. However, where we disagree is regarding God sincerity or forthrightness in a statement like this. Because I believe, and common sense tell us, that the "responsibility" is strongly implied in a statement like this one.

A honest reasonable adult doesn't say to a cripple child, "IF you get up and walk, I will give you candy." Even a Warden, unless he was just cruel, wouldn't say to his prisoners, "If you can walk through your prison bars, I'll let you go free." The IF/THEN statement coming from an HONEST person carries weight and strong implications. I do not believe you have ANY clear and conclusive text to deny the strong implication of God's IF/THEN statement. To suggest otherwise paints God in a deceptive light, at best.

1. This verse does not prove WHICH heart believes the gospel. The "old" heart or the "new" heart that God gives (Ezek. 36:26; 2 Cor. 3:3). The old heart has no ability to preceive, see or hear spiritual things according to Deuteronomy 29:4 as that kind of heart must be given by God. The old heart is desperately wicked and is unnacceptable to God as God gives a NEW heart.

You like to quote some of the texts regarding the need of a new heart, but not others. Why not quote ones like:

Ezekiel 18:31:
Throw off all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

Or

James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.

Or

1 Peter 5:6:
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you in due time.

Again you like to quote some texts, and ignore the ones that clearly reveal the human responsibility in the process of gaining a new heart.

 

[Skandelon]

That's quite the callow reply

God's words in post #8 or mine? I can't tell because you seem to treat both with the same distain.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow!!!! I thought you believed that, but not be brazen enough to state it in public. :tear:

I'd say it is unbelievable, but it's not.

 

[preacher4truth]

God's words in post #8 or mine? I can't tell because you seem to treat both with the same distain.

So now you accuse me of treating God's Word with disdain? More ad hominem from a moderator. :thumbs:

You've concluded boasting in knowing God with a dictionary definition of boasting which speaks of personal achievements. That's telltale enough.

Now, once more I'll ask you to leave off your personal insults that are unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

So now you accuse me of treating God's Word with disdain?

You treated my first post, which only contained God's word and definitions, with the same distain as you treat all my posts, so I'm simply asking for clarity.

You've concluded boasting in knowing God with a dictionary definition of boasting which speaks of personal achievements. That's telltale enough.

So are you disagreeing with God or Webster's definition? You still haven't told us. Who messed up? God or Webster?