What is the difference?

[Winman]

Painting with that wide brush, again?

The same could be said of the non-cal's.

But then, it is a matter of perspective.

I don't know any Cal who does not use the entire Bible, without hesitation, eager to establish principle of faith and practice by balancing Scripture with Scripture.

However, I also have seen a number of non-cal's attempt to justify some principle they hold when there is not one Scriptural support - or they attempt to restate Scriptures to mean what in truth they do not.

So, were the same arguments of Whitefield and Wesley, were they not?

Well, there might be a few Calvinists who believe faith precedes regeneration, but if he is smart he will keep his mouth shut. His fellow Calvinists will be all over him like a swarm of bees.

There are scriptures that could go either way. I can understand a Church of God who insists that a person has to be baptized to be saved, because there are some verses that seem to say this, such as Mark 16:16;

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I do not believe a person has to be baptized to be saved, but I can easily understand why some would. They would read this verse to mean what it actually appears to say.

That is not what Calvinists do, I could show you half a dozen verses or more that all say you must first believe to have life. You flat out deny these verses. You insist that regeneration precedes faith when there is not one single verse in all the Bible to support this, NOT ONE.

You can't show it, because there is ZERO scripture to support your view.

This is much different from some who misunderstand certain scriptures.

 

[Herald]

I would say Calvinists do not believe the Bible and I would not take it back or apologize, because it is the truth.

Thank you, Winman, for the having the courage to stand on your word; something Van will not do.

Van, you can learn something from Winman. He is basically saying that Calvinists are not Christians (which is something you are forced to conclude about a person if they do not believe the Bible). Note that Winman did not say, "I think Calvinists are wrong on [insert topic]." He went all-in and said Calvinists do not believe the Bible.

Van, Winman has the courage to fly his colors up the mast. Do you?

 

[Winman]

Thank you, Winman, for the having the courage to stand on your word; something Van will not do.

Van, you can learn something from Winman. He is basically saying that Calvinists are not Christians (which is something you are forced to conclude about a person if they do not believe the Bible). Note that Winman did not say, "I think Calvinists are wrong on [insert topic]." He went all-in and said Calvinists do not believe the Bible.

Van, Winman has the courage to fly his colors up the mast. Do you?

I do not judge whether a person is lost or saved, not my job. I will leave that to Jesus.

I believe the scriptures warn against judging a person lost.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

A "fool" is someone who does not believe in God. I believe this verse is warning us not to judge whether another person is lost or saved. We shall be judged according to the same criteria we judge others.

Nevertheless, I would not apologize for saying Calvinism does not believe much scripture. In fact, I believe Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture and is a form of works salvation.

 

[Herald]

I do not judge whether a person is lost or saved, not my job. I will leave that to Jesus.

I believe the scriptures warn against judging a person lost.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

A "fool" is someone who does not believe in God. I believe this verse is warning us not to judge whether another person is lost or saved. We shall be judged according to the same criteria we judge others.

Nevertheless, I would not apologize for saying Calvinism does not believe much scripture. In fact, I believe Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture and is a form of works salvation.

Ah, are you now equivocating? Earlier you said:

I would say Calvinists do not believe the Bible and I would not take it back or apologize, because it is the truth.

Your statement leaves nothing to the imagination. Calvinists do not believe the Bible. You did not say Calvinists do not believe some parts of the Bible. You want so far as to say you do not take it back or apologize. Are you now qualifying your original statement?

I can appreciate that you do not want to pronounce someone lost. But consider that the gospel message is in the Bible. If a Calvinist does not believe the Bible, which you said, then they do not believe the gospel. If they do not believe the gospel, then how can they be saved?

Do you see where this leads?

 

[agedman]

It is not enough to simply believe Jesus exists. You must commit yourself to him, you must place yourself in his hands and trust him to save you.

Of this we agree!!!!

Trust and obey are true hallmarks of a believer. Especially when it is irrational trust and irrational obedience. That which the world would consider foolish, such as the preaching of the cross.

Correct, as when Jesus said he is knocking at the door, if any man hear his voice and open to him, he will come in and sup with them.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

It is not enough to simply believe Jesus is the Son of God, the devils believe and tremble. You must open the door of your heart and receive him, you must invite him in to be saved.

Why? Why must a believer (one who has already believed in the heart) do other than "confess?" One has no ability to open their own heart's door and receive Him.

We have discussed the use of Rev. 3:20 before, and if you recall it is written to the church members. It is not applicable to the heathen.

This is not the only place that the Scriptures are calling God's people to allow Him in to fellowship. Remember that great passage that has in it "...come let us reason together..." It is not a call to heathen unregenerate folks.

Accept is a perfectly acceptable term. You must receive or accept Jesus as your Saviour to be saved.

Because I have been schooled by the typical non-cal professors, what you stated would be agreeable to them.

What I question is the actual part in which "you must..."

Does that not equal to some human approval or conditional approval of God's offer before application?

Throughout all the conversions of the New Testament, I don't see the human doing as any part.

Philip said, "Do you believe."
Paul said, "Believe on the Lord."
Even from the first instance of public invitation to salvation "accept" was not the issue for the folks were already "pierced in the heart." and as the jailor proclaimed, "What must we do?" What was Peter's response? Was it "accept," was it "pray this prayer with me," was it "come forward and make your profession of faith?"

Here is the testimony as given in Acts:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.


​

Folks do you see the bold part? The one that says, "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself?"


THAT is the truth of salvation.



It does not demand that man do anything.


It does not rely upon man's ability or man's station in life.

Salvation is TOTALLY resting upon the purposed call of God through Christ and all those called WILL come to him.

That is what the Scriptures teach - and that is why belief is so different that accept.

 

[agedman]

Well, there might be a few Calvinists who believe faith precedes regeneration, but if he is smart he will keep his mouth shut. His fellow Calvinists will be all over him like a swarm of bees.

There are scriptures that could go either way. I can understand a Church of God who insists that a person has to be baptized to be saved, because there are some verses that seem to say this, such as Mark 16:16;

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I do not believe a person has to be baptized to be saved, but I can easily understand why some would. They would read this verse to mean what it actually appears to say.

That is not what Calvinists do, I could show you half a dozen verses or more that all say you must first believe to have life. You flat out deny these verses. You insist that regeneration precedes faith when there is not one single verse in all the Bible to support this, NOT ONE.

You can't show it, because there is ZERO scripture to support your view.

This is much different from some who misunderstand certain scriptures.

I reject the teaching that has man having to do anything to be saved. (period)

That you focused on baptism is good, and I agree with your thinking in that matter.

On another point, though:

I'm one who no longer parses out that in salvation this goes before that as some would and even use display charts to illustrate.

Rather, I hold that from the first impulse of Godly conviction to the final glorification that salvation has, is, and does occur.

So, I suppose one could put me in the classification of one who agrees that regeneration takes place "before public confession of salvation."

BUT that is NOT factual.

For by stating that "from the first impulse of Godly conviction to the final glorification..." regeneration and renewal is. It is all part of the package of salvation. One is not saved without regeneration, and one is not saved without Godly conviction.

I find my expressed view as the most consistent with the balance of teaching from the Scriptures.

For example, "All that the Father gives me WILL come to me ..." and other such - as in Acts where Peter is declaring the Gospel and the results are given. See how carefully it is worded.

For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.

​

Now, there are those who do piece out salvation and make much of the intricate parts in such a way that they actually desire that a certain event must occur before another event can occur.

And there was a time that I would, too.

When I searched examples of conversion throughout Scriptures, I eventually had to declare that God moves to declare salvation upon a person, and that person is saved.

The process to bring that person to awareness and personal belief is all part of the declaration by God and no two believers come through that with the same testimony.

 

[Winman]

Of this we agree!!!!

Trust and obey are true hallmarks of a believer. Especially when it is irrational trust and irrational obedience. That which the world would consider foolish, such as the preaching of the cross.

I said we must trust Jesus to save us. I did not say we must always obey. No Christian always obeys. When the Philipian jailer asked what he must do to be saved, did Paul tell him he must Trust and Obey to be saved? NO, Paul told him to believe on Jesus Christ and he would be saved. We are not saved because we are obedient.

Why? Why must a believer (one who has already believed in the heart) do other than "confess?" One has no ability to open their own heart's door and receive Him.

Of course I have the ability to open my heart and invite Jesus in, in fact, that is what I did. It is a matter of the will to receive Jesus.

We have discussed the use of Rev. 3:20 before, and if you recall it is written to the church members. It is not applicable to the heathen.

No, Jesus said, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Jesus also said in verse 22- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Clearly Jesus was speaking to all men. I really don't want to see you redefine words the way Calvinists often do.

This is not the only place that the Scriptures are calling God's people to allow Him in to fellowship. Remember that great passage that has in it "...come let us reason together..." It is not a call to heathen unregenerate folks.

What? I think you need to read it again, it is talking about forgiving a sinner's sins.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

If your sins are not forgiven, you are dead in trespasses and sins.

Because I have been schooled by the typical non-cal professors, what you stated would be agreeable to them.

What a joke, I have owned one book outside the scriptures in my life, a Strong's Concordance that I lost years ago. I bet you have a Reformed library, I have seen many here boast about their number of books. LOL.

Correction: I just remembered that I received a Matthew Henry Commentary as a gift many years ago, but I haven't seen that thing in 30 years at least.

What I question is the actual part in which "you must..."

Does that not equal to some human approval or conditional approval of God's offer before application?

Throughout all the conversions of the New Testament, I don't see the human doing as any part.

Well, then your eyes must be shut tight.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Amazing that you Calvinists can be so oblivious to scripture.

Philip said, "Do you believe."
Paul said, "Believe on the Lord."
Even from the first instance of public invitation to salvation "accept" was not the issue for the folks were already "pierced in the heart." and as the jailor proclaimed, "What must we do?" What was Peter's response? Was it "accept," was it "pray this prayer with me," was it "come forward and make your profession of faith?"

Yes. But what did Philip and Paul mean when they said believe? Were they simply telling these men to believe a fact? Or were they telling these men to trust Jesus to save them?

Here is the testimony as given in Acts:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.​

The King James Bible says to "Save yourselves"

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Peter was no Calvinist, he had no problem at all telling these Jews to "Save yourselves". Note they also "received" or accepted his word.


​

Folks do you see the bold part? The one that says, "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself?"

You must answer. When I was a kid, there was a kid named Mark that used to play football with us. Every day at 5 PM his father would whistle, you could hear it several city blocks away. We all knew it meant Mark had to go home for supper, but sometimes Mark would ignore it to play. He knew he would miss supper and likely get a belt when he got home, but he wanted to keep playing ball.

You have to answer when God calls, you can't just sit there.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Did Abraham do nothing? NO, Abraham obeyed God and went out as he was told.

THAT is the truth of salvation.

No, that is what you have been taught.

It does not demand that man do anything.

Of course it does, you must believe. That is something.

It does not rely upon man's ability or man's station in life.

All men can believe, but you are correct, our position or station in life has nothing to do with it.

Salvation is TOTALLY resting upon the purposed call of God through Christ and all those called WILL come to him.

That is what the Scriptures teach - and that is why belief is so different that accept.

Well, now you contradict yourself, you say all those called WILL COME to him. That is doing something.

You Calvinists do not even realize when you contradict yourselves.

 

[Van]

Folks, I see Herald is still attempting to taunt me with flagrant manufactured falsehoods. Nothing on the topic, just yet another Calvinist personally attacking an opponent, and then denying calling me a coward is a personal attack.

This is all they have folks, obfuscation, personal attacks, misrepresentation and stonewalling. Pay no attention to Herald, he puts words in the mouths of others and is unrepentant.

 

[Van]

So what is the difference between believing and receiving, accepting, welcoming, and making it our own? Do demons believe and shutter? Yes. So to receive the gospel is to trust in its truths, to make it our own. When we believe into Christ, John 3:16, we have eternal life. So what prompts God to credit our faith as righteousness. Is it because we received, accepted, welcomed and made the gospel our own. He knows our hearts, so He knows that we believe from the heart, or not. He knows if we love God with all our heart or whether, like the third soil of Matthew 13, we ask Christ to share our heart with the treasures of this world.

 

[agedman]

No, Jesus said, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Jesus also said in verse 22- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Clearly Jesus was speaking to all men. I really don't want to see you redefine words the way Calvinists often do.

Winman, was Christ speaking to "all men" in the following verses from the same area of Rev?

19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’


11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’

17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”


​

Please, Winman show some consistency with what the Scriptures state.

Verse 20 cannot be divorced from verse 22.

Therefore your view that Rev 3:20 applies to all men is just incorrect.

It is just not supported by the whole of the first three chapters of Revelation, nor by the section in which it occurs.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

Of course I have the ability to open my heart and invite Jesus in, in fact, that is what I did. It is a matter of the will to receive Jesus.

This is completely unscriptural as God gives a new heart.

What a joke, I have owned one book outside the scriptures in my life, a Strong's Concordance that I lost years ago. I bet you have a Reformed library, I have seen many here boast about their number of books. LOL.

Correction: I just remembered that I received a Matthew Henry Commentary as a gift many years ago, but I haven't seen that thing in 30 years at least.

That explains it...if you had opened and read Matthew Henry instead of laughing at it...you might have learned those truths you stumble over now.
:thumbsup:

 

[saturneptune]

Folks, I see Herald is still attempting to taunt me with flagrant manufactured falsehoods. Nothing on the topic, just yet another Calvinist personally attacking an opponent, and then denying calling me a coward is a personal attack.

This is all they have folks, obfuscation, personal attacks, misrepresentation and stonewalling. Pay no attention to Herald, he puts words in the mouths of others and is unrepentant.

He is not trying to flaunt you. Your novel length posts are weak on doctrine and logic.

 

[Winman]

Winman, was Christ speaking to "all men" in the following verses from the same area of Rev?

19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’


11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’

17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”


​

Please, Winman show some consistency with what the Scriptures state.

Verse 20 cannot be divorced from verse 22.

Therefore your view that Rev 3:20 applies to all men is just incorrect.

It is just not supported by the whole of the first three chapters of Revelation, nor by the section in which it occurs.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Jesus said "he that hath an ear, let him hear", so he is speaking to me, I have an ear. Pretty simple.

 

[Winman]

Winman

This is completely unscriptural as God gives a new heart.

You telling me scripture? That's a good one. You should stick to copying and pasting your creeds.

And if you really knew the scriptures, you would know God says man plays a part in making this new heart.

Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

You probably don't hear verse 31 in the Reformed audios you constantly listen to.

You probably don't hear verse 32 either, seeing you teach God damns men for his glory.

Notice that both verse 30 and 32 say "turn yourselves", showing it is man doing the turning or repenting.

That explains it...if you had opened and read Matthew Henry instead of laughing at it...you might have learned those truths you stumble over now.
:thumbsup:

I didn't laugh at it, I read it on occasion, but somehow it got lost, that is all.

That's your problem, you insert your presuppositions into everything, just like you do with scripture. I never said for a moment that I laughed or ridiculed the Matthew Henry commentary I once owned.

 

[Van]

He is not trying to flaunt you. Your novel length posts are weak on doctrine and logic.

This is all they have folks, obfuscation, personal attacks, misrepresentation and stonewalling. Here, no specifics are mentioned, just a general subjective statement, weak on doctrine and logic.

The topic of the thread is the difference between believing and receiving the gospel. Mark 4:20 demonstrates we must "receive" or "accept" or "welcome" the gospel. The Greek word means to take and make our own. Thus the doctrine or biblical teaching that we must receive the gospel is not weak, it is obvious, and to deny the doctrine is irrational, because it must be accepted because it is taught in many verses, including Mark 4:20, and Acts 22:18. It means accept it, not reject it. It means make it our own, not put it on a shelf marked "awaiting action."

 

[convicted1]

Of course I have the ability to open my heart and invite Jesus in, in fact, that is what I did. It is a matter of the will to receive Jesus.

God must open man's heart to believe the gospel, Brother Winman.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

You telling me scripture? That's a good one. You should stick to copying and pasting your creeds.

I offer scriptures for the others who enjoy thinking on God's word in context.

I offer the Catechism and Confessions of faith as they have been used to teach biblical truth and safeguard against error.

You do not like the truths contained in them.You offer your own ideas apart from the historic faith.

And if you really knew the scriptures, you would know God says man plays a part in making this new heart.

The scripture says that God alone does this work.Man plays no part in anything until God does His supernatural work bringing the dead sinner to life.

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.

This is the salvation the scripture teaches.....not as you say...men saving themselves because you misunderstand the meaning of the verses.

Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

good verses.....

You probably don't hear verse 31 in the Reformed audios you constantly listen to.

Sure I do Winman.....but they understand them correctly....Men were urged to repent and obey God's law....they could not because they died in Adam.

So God tells Ezekiel He will enable them.See it....look at Ezk 34...God does it all,

You probably don't hear verse 32 either, seeing you teach God damns men for his glory.

God saves sinners ,and damns sinners to the praise of His Glory.Are you okay with that?

Notice that both verse 30 and 32 say "turn yourselves", showing it is man doing the turning or repenting.

Man who sins is responsible to repent...even if he does not want to...he is still responsible.

I didn't laugh at it, I read it on occasion, but somehow it got lost, that is all.

You do not see value in godly teachers as you ridicule and boast of having no books except the one given to you.[which you lost?]
I know where my books are.....I even read them! try it:thumbs: not just a little bit as you say...but seriously read and learn.

 

[Iconoclast]

God must open man's heart to believe the gospel, Brother Winman.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

What does this mean?

God must open man's heart to believe the gospel, Brother Winman.

Calvinism uses vague phrases to pour their man-made doctrine into scripture. Illumination or enlightenment becomes "irresistible grace."

Here we have the phrase open the heart and it is claimed this is some supernatural enablement by the Holy Spirit, either irresistible grace (if used by a Calvinist) or prevenient grace (if used by an Arminian).

Lets take a look at what scripture says:

In Proverbs 15:11 we see the idea that our hearts are open to the Lord's inspection. Thus an open heart is not closed and unable to receive divine revelation.

In Acts 16:4 we see opening the heart allows a person to respond to the Lord's revelation. So again, the idea seems to be to somehow prepare the person's heart to receive divine revelation.

In 2 Corinthians 6:11 we see that love for another opens the heart wide to whatever the other is offering. Christ high and lifted up draws all who behold.

Now in Matthew 13:1-23 we see that the first soil, hardened and uncultivated is not open to the gospel. So how are we cultivated so we are open to the gospel?

a) We must believe in God, i.e. Lydia was a worshiper of God.

b) We must understand scripture and the promises of God. Thus to explain the gospel would cultivate and open a person's heart.

c) In Luke 24:45 Jesus opens the mind of others by explaining scripture.​

Bottom line, the least that scripture could be saying, thus avoiding adding our own speculation to the phrase, is that God's revelation was put before people in a way they could understand, thus opening their hearts to God's truth.

Now we can add to that our own speculation, i.e. supernatural enablement, but none of that can be supported scripturally.

 

[Herald]

This is all they have folks, obfuscation, personal attacks, misrepresentation and stonewalling. Here, no specifics are mentioned, just a general subjective statement, weak on doctrine and logic.

Have you ever wondered why even those on your side of the theological fence keep a wide berth from you?

I could care less what your opinion on Calvinism is. The sides are drawn on this issue. No one is changing their mind. I only pipe in when someone crosses the line into error (IMHO). I chastised brother Luke for being too condescending a few weeks back. saturneptune and I have had our spats, and we are on the same side of the theological fence. I have been challenged by quantum, Thomas Helwys (spelling?), DHK, and webdog and I am grateful that they have done so. I know none of them think too highly of me, but I am fine with that. Still, they have given me pause to consider my attitude and the substance of my argument on more than a few occasions. When I am wrong, or when I have gone over the top, I will retract and or apologize.

I am not here to obfuscate, offer personal attacks, stonewall, or misrepresent. I simply quoted your words; verbatim. I gave you opportunity to qualify your words or even retract them. You could have said, "I take back my statement that Calvinists do not believe the Bible. What I meant to say is that I differ with them on certain areas". If you believe in the virgin birth and I believe in the virgin birth, then both of us believe the Bible on that doctrine. Instead of offering clarity you played the role of the martyr. You claimed you were being attacked personally when no such attack was made. I did not answer your questions about Calvinism because Calvinism was not the issue. The issue was one thing: your statement that Calvinists do not believe the Bible. That you and I disagree on specific teachings is obvious to all. Of course we disagree! saturneptune and I disagree over the use of confessions, but I do not accuse him of not believing the Bible. We just disagree. No harm, no foul. Picking from the group that I mentioned in the previous paragraph; I disagree substantially with webdog. But guess what? I am convinced webdog believes the Bible. I believe he loves God and desires to serve him with all his heart. Why is it so hard for you to extend the same charity towards those you disagree with?