If faith is predestined and cause by God, then answer me this.....

[Reformed1689]

Any one can give scripture and make claims about them but your claims don't hold water. Paul would of called you comments dung.
MB

Thank you for your unbiblical opinion.

 

[David Kent]

That's not true that all the great evangelist in the past were Calvinist. Certainly exaggeration is not necessary. This reminds me of the false claim that the man who wrote the song "amazing grace" John Newton was a Calvinist.Or that C.S. Lewis was a Calvinist All false claims. Whitfeild was as great as a evangelist as was your precious Spurgeon. You should not make false claims you are unable to prove. There is none great but God.
Those people from Sweden only had to travel to Switzerland and they could have heard it from where it began.
MB.

I am glad you said that. Whitfield certainly was a Calvinist, that is what Wesley fell out with him about. So was Newton. The doctrines of Grace were held long before Calvin. Luther believed them and at the Diet of Worms, when accused of being a Hussite, he denied it. Then realising he had no idea what Huss taught, he went to the university Library and read up Huss. He went back to the court the next day and said he believed the same as Huss, so we can conclude that Huss also believed the doctrines of Grace. Huss was one with the English Lollards and sent many letters to their leaders, so we can aloso conclude that they did also.

 

[Reformed1689]

I am glad you said that. Whitfield certainly was a Calvinist, that is what Wesley fell out with him about. So was Newton. The doctrines of Grace were held long before Calvin. Luther believed them and at the Diet of Worms, when accused of being a Hussite, he denied it. Then realising he had no idea what Huss taught, he went to the university Library and read up Huss. He went back to the court the next day and said he believed the same as Huss, so we can conclude that Huss also believed the doctrines of Grace. Huss was one with the English Lollards and sent many letters to their leaders, so we can aloso conclude that they did also.

He, MB, just shows, yet again, he doesn't know what he is talking about on almost every topic.

 

[George Antonios]

Of course I answered. There is no way to read that verse to say the flesh is good. And you ignored the other references I gave. Look, I get it, you don't understand theology. That's fine. But you should really try harder.

I did not say that the flesh is good. I did not say that Paul said the flesh is good. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
You just told me to reread Romans 7 and not to use a parable to prove a point (even though the Lord often did and Calvinists often do).
How is that a rebuttal my friend?

 

[Reformed1689]

I did not say that Paul said the flesh is good.

You said, and I quote, that Paul says the flesh has the will to do good.

 

[MB]

I am glad you said that. Whitfield certainly was a Calvinist, that is what Wesley fell out with him about. So was Newton. The doctrines of Grace were held long before Calvin. Luther believed them and at the Diet of Worms, when accused of being a Hussite, he denied it. Then realising he had no idea what Huss taught, he went to the university Library and read up Huss. He went back to the court the next day and said he believed the same as Huss, so we can conclude that Huss also believed the doctrines of Grace. Huss was one with the English Lollards and sent many letters to their leaders, so we can aloso conclude that they did also.

You have not convinced me, but Calvinist are famous of being convinced of everything but the truth. You are only assuming that Whitefeild was a Calvinist He was a methodist.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

You have not convinced me, but Calvinist are famous of being convinced of everything but the truth. You are only assuming that Whitefeild was a Calvinist He was a methodist.
MB

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man study some history.

 

[Reformed1689]

You have not convinced me, but Calvinist are famous of being convinced of everything but the truth. You are only assuming that Whitefeild was a Calvinist He was a methodist.
MB

Wesley Vs. Whitefield | Christian History Magazine

 

[George Antonios]

You said, and I quote, that Paul says the flesh has the will to do good.

Correct. I did not say it is good. And it never does that good. Because it is weak (not dead). And I didn't say that. Paul did:
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with ME; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Many lost men, who do not have the Holy Ghost, wish to do good, but can't do it, because they that are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom.8:8).

Psa 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my FLESH longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;

Psa 84:2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my FLESH crieth out for the living God.

We must let the Bible teach us theology by its own words, and not superimpose one upon it.

 

[George Antonios]

You said, and I quote, that Paul says the flesh has the will to do good.

I should have been more specific in my words. Instead of saying that the flesh has the will to do good, maybe I should have said "the old nature" thus also including the soul and spirit of an unregenerate man, since willing is a function of the spirit.

 

[Reformed1689]

I should have been more specific in my words. Instead of saying that the flesh has the will to do good, maybe I should have said "the old nature" thus also including the soul and spirit of an unregenerate man, since willing is a function of the spirit.

Except Scripture doesn't say that.

 

[George Antonios]

But I just gave you some David.

Psa 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my FLESH longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;

Psa 84:2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my FLESH crieth out for the living God.

How can the flesh be longing and crying out for God?

Lev_5:4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

The New Testament reveals that the good intentions in a lost man, and his good works, are not good enough to earn salvation or force God to save or bless him. But it doesn't teach that he has ZERO desire for good or that he is unable to believe of his own free will. Calvinism pushes the truth that man is inherently evil and cannot please God to an extreme that the word of God itself does not take.

 

[Reformed1689]

Psa 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my FLESH longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;

Psa 84:2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my FLESH crieth out for the living God.

Look at the original languages and context, not just English. You will see that David is not talking about the same thing as Paul.

Lev_5:4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

Notice the word if.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

The New Testament reveals that the good intentions in a lost man, and his good works, are not good enough to earn salvation or force God to save or bless him. But it doesn't teach that he has ZERO desire for good or that he is unable to believe of his own free will. Calvinism pushes the truth that man is inherently evil and cannot please God to an extreme that the word of God itself does not take.

The works of the unregenerate are for selfish reasons, that is not good. And the merit of the work itself doesn't reaveal the desire of the heart.

Give up, you are wrong on this. You clearly want to cherry pick but not look at the whole.

 

[George Antonios]

Look at the original languages and context, not just English. You will see that David is not talking about the same thing as Paul.

That is not an answer, David. Ignoring the English text is always the resort of those without an answer. That's not playing by the rules. And no where am I taught by the Holy Ghost to resort to the "original languages" to better understand the word of God. That's a humanistic kind of reasoning.

Notice the word if.

The word if is simply considering both possibilities. I'm sure you and everyone reading this understand that.

The works of the unregenerate are for selfish reasons, that is not good. And the merit of the work itself doesn't reaveal the desire of the heart.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Evidently, to seek to do good for glory and honour and immortality is as selfish as it gets, yet God nevertheless leads such a man to eternal life by faith [not works] in Christ Jesus, as he did with Cornelius.

Yet again, the problem is that Calvinists are more royal than the King.

And why do you seem to be in such a bad mood today? You're usually not as sharp with me, even when I'm being heretical.

 

[Reformed1689]

David. Ignoring the English text is always the resort of those without an answer.

You are kidding right?

And no where am I taught by the Holy Ghost to resort to the "original languages" to better understand the word of God.

Um, you do know the Bible was NOT written in English and that Greek/Hebrew do not directly translate to English with their nuances right?

The word if is simply considering both possibilities. I'm sure you and everyone reading this understand that.

That is my point, it does not say that both possibilities are valid as you are trying to claim.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Evidently, to seek to do good for glory and honour and immortality is as selfish as it gets, yet God nevertheless leads such a man to eternal life by faith [not works] in Christ Jesus, as he did with Cornelius.

Yet again, the problem is that Calvinists are more royal than the King.

And why do you seem to be in such a bad mood today? You're usually not as sharp with me, even when I'm being heretical.

More royal than the King? What on earth are you babbling about?

 

[George Antonios]

You are kidding right?


Um, you do know the Bible was NOT written in English and that Greek/Hebrew do not directly translate to English with their nuances right?


That is my point, it does not say that both possibilities are valid as you are trying to claim.



More royal than the King? What on earth are you babbling about?

Nothing. Take care and catch you later Lord willing.

 

[Reformed1689]

Nothing. Take care and catch you later Lord willing.

In other words you are the one who didn't have an answer.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are kidding right?


Um, you do know the Bible was NOT written in English and that Greek/Hebrew do not directly translate to English with their nuances right?


That is my point, it does not say that both possibilities are valid as you are trying to claim.



More royal than the King? What on earth are you babbling about?

The original languages were the language God used for His inspiration, not the Kings English!