The ROSE Acronym

[HeirofSalvation]

I can basically agree with that. What I have a problem with is those here who put great time differences between regeneration and salvation, and then put faith after regeneration, thus saying that faith is given by God to an unsaved man, but the unsaved man is miraculously regenerated before salvation without faith, and this could happen days or even a week or longer before he is saved.

For example, Cornelius was "regenerated" when God spoke to him, but not saved until Peter got there with the message.
I call that bunk! But that is what I have heard here from some, as an example of what I am trying to express.

Truth is....There really should be no temporal difference...some hypers...who place ultimate Salvation YEARS prior (temporally) are only being logically consistent...If one is salvifically chosen or "elected" logically prior to any saving act of faith...it matters not whether one is chosen years prior or milliseconds prior...Nor should it matter whether one is "elect" prior to their own birth. Regeneration is (logically) prior to faith either way...Ky's policy is at least consistent. I disagree with it, but it is logically valid....This is why I never argue with a Hyper-Cal...they are ostensibly on the same side as "non-cals" are on the consequential difference of the "ordo-salutis". They, at least, know what their claim is, and do not attempt to modify it to make it more palatable to Arminian sensibilities..

 

[Yeshua1]

Truth is....There really should be no temporal difference...some hypers...who place ultimate Salvation YEARS prior (temporally) are only being logically consistent...If one is salvifically chosen or "elected" logically prior to any saving act of faith...it matters not whether one is chosen years prior or milliseconds prior...Nor should it matter whether one is "elect" prior to their own birth. Regeneration is (logically) prior to faith either way...Ky's policy is at least consistent. I disagree with it, but it is logically valid....This is why I never argue with a Hyper-Cal...they are ostensibly on the same side as "non-cals" are on the consequential difference of the "ordo-salutis". They, at least, know what their claim is, and do not attempt to modify it to make it more palatable to Arminian sensibilities..

All hinges on how one views the effect of the fall to mankind...

Did we get damaged/hurt or dead/killed spiritually by it?

 

[reformed_baptist]

I am not obsessed...you are over-reacting. I have only ever mentioned it once, and you claim no one else has mentioned it before...So, having to explain its "real" meaning..."numerous" times as you claim is therefore provably false.

Go on then, prove it freind! I am calling you out on this one! I have had to explain the meaning to you on numerous occasions;

See here;

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1872464&postcount=16

and here

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1872529&postcount=22

and here

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1872873&postcount=29

and here

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1872874&postcount=30

By my count that is 4 explanations I have tried to give you on one thread alone, each was written in direct response to your posts so we call all so clearly that I have had to explain this quote numerous times to you!

 

[reformed_baptist]

I also made no commentary about your quote whatsoever, None...zero, I am allowing it to speak for itself.

No you are not, your single word comment was an obvious reference back to the vitrioloc statements you had alreday made, and what is more it was presented in a perticularly mocking fashion!

You made a claim, that I agree with about misrepresentation. What I quoted of yours belies some measure of hypocrisy IMO...But I didn't even bother to mention that.

In that case your post was pointless - the only resons to post as you did was to amke this point!

You were veritably splitting-hairs with Van about the nuance of words, as you recall.

No, I was dealing with words and concepts that have been carefully defined by theologians for centuries, what is more these are words and concepts that are regularly disputed, and often maligned, bu those who cannot present a real arguement against them!

I merely quoted your own patently obvious misrepresentative quote.

Only in your head!

I think you know I am right, and are thus overly-defensive.....That seems the only reason for your ultra-defensive reaction here.

No, my 'defensive' reaction as you call it is nothing of the sort. It is simply a tiredness and a boredom with your inability to admit that you were wrong, and indeed even communicate with me on a basically honest footing, see my previous post in which you claim to have only mentioned this quote once before is demonstrated to be false!

We can all read....

Some better then others obviously, because some of us read what is written, whilst other read what they would like to have written and still others read things that simply are not there at all! Let the readers decide which catagory you fit into brother!

The quote states what it states,

Agreed, it states that the human will is importent in the matter of salvation juswt as it is importent in the matter of curing a toothache!

and if it isn't misrepresentative, than anyone who can read will see that for themselves, will they not?

As everyone except you has actually done!

You may loathe my simple act of quoting your own signature word-for word and un-edited, but I cannot control that.

Here you again, more laoded language!

All I did was quote your own statements in context and say "Agreed". It speaks for itself. I don't intend to debate with you about what it "actually" means. I have no need to debate it....and will not attempt to argue with you about what Toplady "actually" meant at all.

Well at least is a chnage in your stance, you were all for argueing exactly that before! Hoqweverr sadly the only chnage is that you intend to imply criticism rather then openly statement, as the post I am responding to now openly admits!

You can claim, or not claim what it "really" states all you want, or choose not to. I have no intention of "dragging" you into anything. Why do you take umbrage at being quoted word for word? Most of us are annoyed at being mis-quoted, you are miffed at being quoted accurately.

Your meaning was plain! So please stop trying to cloud the issue and muddy the waters. For you have acheived your purpose, I will not continue to post on a forum where people can post blatant lies about another Christian that are not dealt with at all I simply do not need the grief, I came here for discusion on theological matters as a means of relaxation. I did not come here to see the name brought into disrepute in this fashion and I will no longer be party to it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

OK... I retain the right to quote it, and in context, without comment as I have....I have not commented on that quote OTHER than in the one thread you quote...there are no other threads where I have mentioned it.

I made no other comments than on that one thread, and I make no comment on it now...I am merely within my rights to copy and paste his words without further comment, as I have. Are his words under copyright? You and Toplady may BOTH speak for yourselves. I do not claim to argue what he "REALLY" meant...I know what he meant. Neither I, nor anyone else is somehow obligated to accept your personal "explanation" of what was "really" meant by him though. Are they?
You do not speak for him...You can only speak for yourself. I just quoted his words as you post them, and accurately. I let the man speak for himself. It is within HIS purview to "explain" what he meant, not yours. If his words are clearly helpful and informative...than any thinking person can read them for themselves. And if his real intent was obviously true and accurate...than they NEED no explanation....Even yours. If something HE said is embarrasing, or needs numerous caveats to explain, then don't quote him. If it needs no explanation...then don't get defensive when it is quoted without comment. Those on this board can read it for themselves, as I have.
I have NOT claimed to "explain" his real meaning. I will not debate what he "Really" meant. But I may quote him without comments all I wish.

 

[reformed_baptist]

HoS

Fools rush in......and I have better ways to waste my time then with those who refuse to acknolwdges their mistakes and who seem to believe they have the right to say what they like. So go on posting what you like and playing your little games you simply demonstrate my words to be true once more. I will now leave this with the mods to decide, but for me this is goodbye.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS

Fools rush in......and I have better ways to waste my time then with those who refuse to acknolwdges their mistakes and who seem to believe they have the right to say what they like. So go on posting what you like and playing your little games you simply demonstrate my words to be true once more. I will now leave this with the mods to decide, but for me this is goodbye.

ONLY....I say nothing...nothing other than....I have no intention of arguing what he meant, and I reserve the right to quote a man no longer under copyright (and, again, without further comment) all I wish. You are taking this too far. I am not debating with you what he "meant", nor do I intend to. You have your dander up now for no reason. This is not an issue for Mods....I do not comment about that signature, I still have yet to, other than on that initial thread. Keep it, and use it, or don't, all you feel like. I am simply not debating it with you...But I am allowed to quote him all I wish. I don't know what "mistake" you are refering to, but this thread isn't about that. So it is not the place to speak of it further anyway. If you wish to speak of it, fine start a thread or something...I don't care, I really don't, but you have no right to tell me who I may quote or not quote in context. Do you?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thread going nowhere. So will stop by my free will.