Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

In the original Greek, the word baptizo meant "immersed" not always Baptize (as in a church ordinance).

Does that change the way you look at that passage where Jesus is looking forward to His passion?

 

Ahhh, you make a few good points there Bob...LOL

 

The original doctrine of the Catholic faith is Agustinanism the exact same faith of Calvinism. Which is why Calvinist by the groves are returning to the Catholic faith. They are called reformers for the same reason some mormons are called reformers. They disagreed with the new doctrines. I'm surprized to meet a Calvinist who doesn't know his own faith roots.

Regeneration with out faith and the expressed will of the person is forced faith. There simply isn't any other way to explain it.

Well the problem with that is you refuse to give honest consideration of the facts of scripture. Regeneration without faith is not in the Bible not even once.

To be biblical it has to be in scripture just as you said it and it isn't.

Not so. We resist God until we submit to Him. And some resist Him even after Salvation.

Rebellion.

The successful purpose of conviction.

I've never said God wasn't involved. I've said it plainly, God draws, convinces, and convicts. the only thing man can do is surrender that means to give up. However man can still rebel and stop the process. Giving up is actually doing nothing more to stop it. Salvation is all of God.

Of course
MB

 

MB, I'm trying to play nice with you, but you have missed some points that makes it very difficult to have an actual conversation.

In Roman Catholicism, for instance, Thomism has long ago overtaken Augustinianism, and they indeed very much resemble Arminian theology in their outlook rather than Calvinist theology. But, they are actually Roman Catholic and neither Arminian nor Calvinist, so using them as an example of either misses the mark and is typically only used so that one can attack someone's position by equating them with Catholics, which tends to get a negative reaction when invoked in a debate on a Baptist board. Hopefully, that is not your intention. It is not mine.

As far as understanding the "roots of my faith" I am fairly well versed, thank you. I anticipate by your answers that I may have the edge in that category, but perhaps not. Time will tell.

About "forced faith" you are plainly and simply wrong -- period.

I can trot out all sorts of resources that say so, but you most likely would not accept them anyway, so why should I go to all the work. You continue to suggest that you are arguing Scripture, but you are plainly using a logical argument and several intentional fallacies at that; one being equivocation and another being straw man. You can look that up on Google if you don't know what the words mean.

About all your points about regeneration and faith, I don't even recall mentioning either issue, so I am fairly clueless as to what you are arguing or why with me?

If you do want to continue, let's do it in Greek, just for fun... :love2:

 

This is false. Also, the word you were looking for was "droves," not "groves"--droves being "large numbers" and groves being "an area rife with trees.

Further, it is not proven that large numbers of Calvinists are returning to the Catholic faith.

One of the presuppositional errors you are making is this: You assume the Catholic church has not corrupted Augustine's teaching, thought, etc. The reformers, looked to Augustine...the Augustine of the 5th century.

It is almost as if there are two lines from Augustine, the line the Catholics call as their own and the line that skips 1,100 years from Augustine to the Reformers.

It is wrong to consider these two lines the same.

The Archangel

 

Nice post! :thumbs:

 

It is still the same Augustine, who was a fine theologian. You are presupposing that this "other line" did not also "corrupt" Augustines teachings.

BTW, I think he knew he made the mistake with "groves". Nice of you though to point it out for him.

 

But, the reformers...namely Calvin...was essentially Augustinian and Augustine was essentially Pauline.

Many of the crucial positions held by the reformers go back to Paul, not to Augustine. That Augustine goes back to Paul and the reformers go back to Paul is not a problem.

To return to the "lines," there really are only two--biblical and unbiblical. The Catholic "line" departed from the biblical model long ago. The reformers, by going to Paul (through the example of Augustine) simply reestablished the biblical line (and notice, this reestablishment precedes the split between the Arminian Remonstrance and the Reformed position).

I detect a touch of sarcasm in your language (sarcasm implied in my words too). It is not wrong to point out an improper usage. Kindly notice I didn't make any disparaging remarks to him about it or about him. It is altogether possible he didn't know the word he was looking for, especially given that the "G" for groves and the "D" for droves are separated by a letter on the typical keyboard (which is to say the likelihood of a simple typo is less likely than a genuine misunderstanding).

You seem to bristle at gentle correction as if there is no need to even consider you might need it. All of us have flaws and "blindspots." So, unfortunately, I think you have taken my attempt at a genuine corrective to MB as an affront to yourself and everyone else who happens to hold a different theological position than myself. Unfortunate indeed.

The Archangel

 

God saves or does he?

In the Garden of Eden were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told them they could eat of all the trees bot one. If they ate of it dying they would surely die. They chose a tree. What happened?

Many years later God called a man named Abram. Made covenant promises with him and he had a son. His son had a son and this son had twelve sons and before too long the whole family about or seventy souls found themselves in Egypt and were there four hundred and thirty years when God decided to bring them out of Egypt (a picture of sin) and make them his people. Somewhere between one and three million souls. He led them to a place in the wilderness and gave them his law and told them if they would obey his law they would live. To choose life and people said all the LORD has said we will do. What happened?

Now this is what everyone says happened next. The covenant promises made to Abram whose name God changed to Abraham was to him and his one seed that would come along many years later. He would be son of Abraham yet he would also be the son of God. The Word who was God and was with God was made flesh. He would live a sinless life yet God would make him sin for us and he would pay the penalty for our sins. He would die.
And I mean die in the context that if someone other than himself doesn't give him life he would still be dead. God, the Father raised him from the dead.
But that's another story. Now according to most God is once again saying choose. What do you think is going to happen?

But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



That my friends is the only way people can be saved.

Also God is doing this through election. The spring harvest the firstfruits of the spirit are being elected now. Christ will return and there will be an election called in-gathering. There is the last great day of the feast when whosoever will can come. The dead can be raised and given opportunity.

God is in the saving business.

 

When you say "The dead can be raised and given opportunity" do you mean to say that there will be an opportunity for the non-believing dead to become believers after their death?

Am I understanding you correctly?

The Archangel

 

Brother, this is not actually true.
It is your 'assumption' your view is Pauline and everyone else is not.

However the non-cal view claims its views are strictly Pauline.
As does the Arminian view claim it's views are Pauline.

Just because a group claims their view is Pauline does not make it so.

Augustine had a few views that are not Pualine in any sense.. ex, infant baptism, for one. Maybe you mean to state you're referencing salvation.. then I would state my view is unequivocally Pauline and based expressly upon his writing.. but it is different in mechanics than yours, which you will say is always based upon Pauls writings.

It is my opinion the whole, Pauline, argument is moot for either and most any side.

Anyway.. just being nosy

 

Bro Willis, it does no good for you to continue to put these verses up when we have already expressed to you that we believe that men DO RESIST THE HOLY GHOST. I have stated clearly that we believe that that is ALL that men do until God gives them a new heart.

 

That is absolutely wonderful! I've never heard that before. Not only is it very entertaining but a tremendous anecdote to illustrate this great truth.

God doesn't force against one's will- though he could if he so chose- he just makes one willing.

That's fantastic!

 

That is wonderful Luke, be careful, you might find yourself on the "darkside".

BTW: I think both salvation and sanctification are monergistically synergistic.