The APPEAL to be reconciled to God

[The Biblicist]

Last time then you go on my "ignore list" as one not willing to engage in honest discussions...

We are all expressing our PERSONAL OPINIONS about what God's Word is saying. My views are a much based on what I believe the scripture is teaching as yours are. To suggest otherwise is fruitless and divisive in nature. I've explained to you countless times that we do not deny your specific claims regarding the inability of man IF LEFT TO HIMSELF. Now, if you'd like to make a case for how God's Word, His Gospel, is not powerful enough to enable that fallen nature to respond, I'll be glad to address that.

Of course I will go on your "ignore list" because YOU CANNOT PROIVDE ANY BIBLICAL BASED RESPONSE TO MY BIBLICAL BASED REPUDIATION OF YOUR VIEWS.

The difference is that my responses are NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL OPINION but upon BIBLICAL EXEGESIS whereas yours are PURE SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL OPINION without a scintilla of Biblical exegesis to back it up.

Dear Readers, let it be known that I challenged Skandelon to back up his assertion that they provided a response to the exegetical based expositon of Romans 8:7-8 and HE COULD NOT DELIVER! He NEVER has provided any Biblical based response! He NEVER has demonstrated that any exegetical based reason I gave was not true to the text. He is in a corner and his only escape is the usual ones:

1. Ridicule
2. Ignore
3. Run, Jump and Pit
4. Personal attack
5. Philisophical based personal opinions

 

[Skandelon]

All of us are arguing OUR view of what the bible states. All of us appeal to the text. Both Calvinists and non-Cals believe the bible is true and trustworthy. To suggest otherwise is divisive in nature. Both of our systems are well established by countless biblical commentaries and systematic works, many of which I've studied for a couple of decades now, as I'm sure you have as well. I typically come to my discussion on this topic presuming that the person I'm engaging has some working knowledge of their opponents biblical perspective and scholarly exegesis. Having been a Calvinist for quite sometime I'm certainly very familiar with your perspectives and, believe it or not, actually have a lot of respect for many Calvinistic scholars.

I can list you dozens of responses where I appeal to actual texts and my interpretations of them in response to you and others here. I've not personally attacked you, as you have now asserted and I've not ignored you...yet. I've chosen not to reply to your countless lengthy posts at times due to time restraints and sometimes their repetition, but I've been very patient to take you through our points of contention and attempt to direct the debate to what I believe are our actual points of disagreement.

If you'd like to engage with me on those issues, I'm glad to have a discussion with you about that. But I will not engage with someone who is accusatory or divisive. I'm sorry but it profits neither of us to do so.

 

[The Biblicist]

All of us are arguing OUR view of what the bible states. All of us appeal to the text.

Why play this silly pontificating psychological game? Every OBJECTIVE reader can easily see that I laid down specific exegetical reasons that you NEVER addressed at ANY TIME but you want to pretend you have.

You cannot provide a single post where you addressed these exegetical based reasons - not one!

Instead, you want to pontificate and speak down from your ivory tower like you are the epitomy of scholarship and wisdom when in fact you are completely bankrupt in knowledge and proficiency in the scriptures and your posts advertise it plainly for all to see.

If you can answer those exegetical based specifics then do it! If you can't then be honest enough to admit you can't.

 

[Skandelon]

To agree with your assessment of man's inability to submit himself to the law of God, is not a reply that is acceptable?

Again, I'm not taking issue with your view regarding man's natural inability apart from divine assistance. Our point of contention is the nature, power and intent of that divine assistance. You continue to want to rehash issues that have long been addressed and if you can't see that then I cannot help you anymore. You are clearly getting agitated and I don't want to prolong that for you or for me, so let's take a break. Think about what I'm saying...read back through my arguments and maybe we can reengage at a later time? Okay?

 

[The Biblicist]

To agree with your assessment of man's inability to submit himself to the law of God, is not a reply that is acceptable?

TO WHO? Not to God as His word plainly spells it out to be true. Not to objective Bible believers becuase it is a matter of indisputable doctrine because it is based upon indisputable exegetical based facts. Not to any rational individual because sin IS what it IS and cannot be what it IS NOT.

Again, I'm not taking issue with your view regarding man's natural inability apart from divine assistance.

You are taking issue with God's Word that denies divine assistance can change SIN into righteousness! Romans 8:7 defines the fallen nature to be the essence of what sin IS! You are denying it - period!

 

[Skandelon]

TO WHO? Not to God as His word plainly spells it out to be true. Not to objective Bible believers becuase it is a matter of indisputable doctrine because it is based upon indisputable exegetical based facts. Not to any rational individual because sin IS what it IS and cannot be what it IS NOT.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. All I said was that I agreed with the majority of your exegesis and yet you think that is not an acceptable reply to your exegesis. Do I have to disagree with everything you say and explain why I disagree even when I don't disagree? Can I agree with you about some things without you accusing me of not rebutting all of your arguments? You do know that historically speaking, in the whole scheme of things, our views are very similar to each other, right? We do have a lot more in common than you appear to think.

You are taking issue with God's Word that denies divine assistance can change SIN into righteousness!

Of course I'm not. I'm denying the irresistible nature of that assistance, obviously, but to assert I'm denying the necessity of that assistance is just a straw-man. That has been the substance of my reply for the last dozen or so posts on this subject but you've been less than receptive to hear it.

Romans 8:7 defines the fallen nature to be the essence of what sin IS!

Agreed.

You are denying it - period!

No, I'm denying your application of it regarding the necessity of the irresistible divine assistance, specifically as it relates to the enabling power of God's Word, His gospel...something this particular passage doesn't even mention, much less expound upon.

Proving that a man is unable to leave his jail cell without a key is one thing, but to prove a man is unable to leave his jail cell even when the key is made available to him is quite another. Your presumption that the key isn't being made available to most of humanity AND that the key MUST be irresistibly given if it is provided at all, is our point of contention. I hope that you recognize that eventually because I think it would be fun to actually engage you on our point of disagreement for once.

 

[BobRyan]

I

2. No one can deal withe exegetical based use of the pronouns in 2 Cor. 5:20. The pronoun "you" in verse 20 refers to the same "you" of the preceding 2 Cor. 5:13-17. The same "we" of verse 20 refers to the same "we" in 2 Cor. 5:13-17. The lost people needing reconciling through Christ to God are "the world" .

Your entire program for 2Cor 5 collapsed as we noted that "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" just when the Calvinist idea was to "stop God's reconciling with one or two - you".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

Of course I will go on your "ignore list" because YOU CANNOT PROIVDE ANY BIBLICAL BASED RESPONSE TO MY BIBLICAL BASED REPUDIATION OF YOUR VIEWS.

The difference is that my responses are NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL OPINION but upon BIBLICAL EXEGESIS whereas yours are PURE SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL OPINION without a scintilla of Biblical exegesis to back it up.

Dear Readers, let it be known that I challenged Skandelon to back up his assertion that they provided a response to the exegetical based expositon of Romans 8:7-8 and HE COULD NOT DELIVER! He NEVER has provided any Biblical based response! He NEVER has demonstrated that any exegetical based reason I gave was not true to the text. He is in a corner and his only escape is the usual ones:

1. Ridicule
2. Ignore
3. Run, Jump and Pit
4. Personal attack
5. Philisophical based personal opinions

Let me appeal to my mature side and quote the well known fictional character Scrooge.

"Bah Humbug"

 

[Yeshua1]

Your entire program for 2Cor 5 collapsed as we noted that "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" just when the Calvinist idea was to "stop God's reconciling with one or two - you".

in Christ,

Bob

WHO were the 'world' being referrd to here though?

cannot be all sinners, else all would have been reconciled and received jesus and be made alive again!

Again, its those whom God intended the death of jesus to actually pay and provisde atonement for ...

His ELECT...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Your entire program for 2Cor 5 collapsed as we noted that "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" just when the Calvinist idea was to "stop God's reconciling with one or two - you".

But God does not "Need" Calvinists to go running around behind him to "Clean up is grand statements" whittling them down to toothpick size.

WHO were the 'world' being referrd to here though?

For the Calvinist imagination it is the "World of 2 or 3 people" or the "FEW" of Matt 7.

But for God it is the actual WORLD of mankind.

The one HE MADE..

John 1
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

cannot be all sinners, else all would have been reconciled and received jesus and be made alive again!

Not true.

The text says that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself and also giving to His evangelists the "ministry of reconciliation" -- and they say "We BEG YOU on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God" --

All the resources of the Kingdom of God continue to appeal to mankind to be reconciled to God.

The very thing that gets Calvinists so upset.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me appeal to my mature side and quote the well known fictional character Scrooge.

"Bah Humbug"

You are simply proving my point! Well done!