ok arminians a straight forward question

Show me where the Bible says the carnal mind can possess a 'genuine' love for God.

Bro. Dallas

 

No. How could I be? If I can only believe on Him if he causes me to believe on him, then if I don't believe it I can't be willing to. Remeber total depravity???!!! If Calvinism is true, then I can only become willing to accept Jesus AFTER God has saved me and made me born again. In fact, if Calvinism is true then it is GOD who makes me accept this Jesus. So, either Calvinism is true, and I am UNABLE to accept this; or it is untrue, and I reject it. </font>[/QUOTE]Where does the Bible say we are to accept Jesus? Doesn't the Bible say we are made accepted in him?

Bro. Dallas

 

Hello All! Allow me to introduce myself, I am Theo. I see you guys have been having alot of fun here, so I would like to, if I may, interject some things in response to some of the scenarios, and also ask a couple of questions of my own.

First, ILUVLIGHT made this comment:

"If you were up to your waste in quick sand and I walked over and threw you a rope and told you to grab on and I'll pull you out. How is it you could claim you saved your self when all you did was grab on and place your faith in me to pull you out? You see you aquired faith by my word saying I'll pull you out. Faith is not a work. This is where your problem is. Your convinced that Faith is a work."

If this scenario is a physical rendering of that which is spiritual, then I would say that you could throw me a rope all day long, and I will not do anything, for I am dead in sins and tresspasses. (Eph.2:1-5, Col. 2:13) A dead man must be made alive, right?

The geniusness of the TULIP acronym, is that it starts with the "T". If you don't get man spiritually "dead", and hence, inable to respond (John 6:44), then you will always believe that we must do something to merit salvation.

So, after saying that (and I'll be glad to expound on these things further, should anyone desire me to do so), may I ask a couple of questions?

1) Are faith, repentance, belief, etc... are these things that are well pleasing to God?

I'm sure we will get a resounding "YES!" from both camps on this one.

2) Are these things that which would require one to be in the flesh, or in the spirit?

If you say flesh, then how would you explain Romans 8:7 & 8?

Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

If your choice was in the flesh, then it *cannot* please God.

If your say in the spirit, then you have just agreed with the Calvinist, and said that, yes, God must regenerate for anyone to do anything that is pleasing to God. (i.e. faith, repentance, belief, etc...)

I'll leave this here for now, and see where it takes us.

Theo

 

Hi Frogman;

I never said that he could. but as long as your willing to admit that God does want genuine love from man. How's He going to get it, if He has to make man Love Him. Love it self, is only genuine if given freely.

If I would have taken a woman and forced her to love me. She most likely would leave me the moment I turned my Back. She may tell me she loves me she may even put on a good act, but real Love comes from your own heart and cannot be forced. It isn't placed there by your lover it is an act of the will of the one who loves.

True Love as I understand it is something that we grow in to. It comes gradually it isn't something we fall into and there remain the rest of our lives. We may first be infatuated and that may grow in to love but real love itself requires an act of the will.

What drew me to the Lord was hearing His word preached and the conviction of sin placed on my heart by the Holy Spirit. My realization of where my life was, in sin and where it could be if I would only surrender to Christ. I responded to Christ and the Love He showed in His death for the sinners of the world. Even though those who crucified Him, did what they did to Him. He asked the Father to forgive them. Most men would have hated there captors may even have begged for mercy but our Savior didn't. He willingly died for our sins. So that we could be saved from them.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hi Theo;

I didn't say that I was trying to please God. You see this is a Calvinist assumption that men who believe in Choice are trying to please God. Surrender is not trying to please but is giving up and giving in. With the hope that the punishment for rebellion isn't to severe. Being humbled by God is an awesome thing to experience. To To know That God died to have you in His kingdom. No one dies for someone else because they are getting paid to or will gain something from it they die for someone else because they Love them.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

I didn't say that I was trying to please God. You see this is a Calvinist assumption that men who believe in Choice are trying to please God. Surrender is not trying to please but is giving up and giving in. With the hope that the punishment for rebellion isn't to severe. Being humbled by God is an awesome thing to experience. To To know That God died to have you in His kingdom. No one dies for someone else because they are getting paid to or will gain something from it they die for someone else because they Love them.
May God Bless You;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Hey there ILUVLIGHT,

Ok, I'll use your terminolgy. Was your "surrender" in the flesh, or in the spirit?

Theo

 

Also, ILUVLIGHT,

Although I may have missed it, I never saw a response to my comments on your "quick sand" analogy. Could you comment please?

Theo

 

Hey there again Mike (ILUVLIGHT),

Just wanted to comment again (after having a little more time to read your response), if I may, about some of the things you had mentioned.

Mike said: "I didn't say that I was trying to please God."

I'm sorry, brother, if my question had come off that way, but I was not saying that either, I was simply asking you to go back to your confession of faith, and tell me, do you believe it was in the flesh, or in the spirit, that's all I was asking.

Mike said: "You see this is a Calvinist assumption that men who believe in Choice are trying to please God."

I'm sorry, brother, but that is not true, for I assumed nothing, I simply asked a question.

Mike said: "Surrender is not trying to please but is giving up and giving in. With the hope that the punishment for rebellion isn't to severe."

Ok, I will wait for your response to the post from earlier

Mike said: "Being humbled by God is an awesome thing to experience."

AMEN! But was your humble surrender that which was done in the flesh, or in the spirit?

Mike said: "To know That God died to have you in His kingdom. No one dies for someone else because they are getting paid to or will gain something from it they die for someone else because they Love them."

Agreed again! I'm not sure why you did not care to answer my question, but it still stands, if you do care to answer it. It is a simple answer, you can respond with either "flesh" or "spirit", and that way, I will understand your view a little better, Thanks Mike.

Theo

 

Hi Theo;

I fully disagree with this dead theory that some Calvinist seem to believe. I am Not a Calvinist. Being dead spiritually is not the same as being dead physically. Men do hear and respond. Even though they are dead spiritually. They see, hear, and understand. To assume they don't is absurd.

"Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

This is necessary otherwise the condemned would have an excuse.

If you refuse to grab the rope then you would die for sure. One who is so stubborn that they wouldn't take an offer of life deservers to die.

Was I in the spirit or flesh when I made a decision for Christ.
I believe I was in the flesh I couldn't have been in the spirit because I hadn't been regenerated yet. Salvation is conditional upon belief. To be regenerated means to be saved.

"Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Was my decision pleasing to God. Well I'm not God, so I don't know. Was it intended to be, no in fact I had the fear that it was to late. That I was just not good enough. I was afraid that my sins were unforgivable. The truth of the matter is I didn't think I was good enough. What God must have felt for me was pity. How can one feel pity and be pleased at the same time? I would think He must have been repulsed. To say He was pleased would make God appear to be sadistic,because I was miserable. Who could possibly be please with someone so over wrought with sin.

There is no need to respond to the same thing so many times. I'm just a member that comes here on occasion.

I'm only here on this board briefly, when time allows. I still work for a living. Responses take time, sometimes as much as week because of my work.
Thankyou for your response
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hello Mike,

You wrote: "I fully disagree with this dead theory that some Calvinist seem to believe. I am Not a Calvinist. Being dead spiritually is not the same as being dead physically. Men do hear and respond. Even though they are dead spiritually. They see, hear, and understand. To assume they don't is absurd."

Ok, if you believe man is not spiritually dead, then what happen in the Garden when God said "when you eat, you will surely die"? Was that physical or spritual? Keep with the chronology of the context, please.

Also, could you comment on the 2 passages I posted? (Eph.2:1-5, Col. 2:13)

You do not have to tell about how you are not a Calvinist, it is quite clear. But I hope that it is just as clear that I am, and I will seek to prove that you have mis-understood Calvinism, and I don't mean that dis-repectfully, I just want to clear up a few things you have "assumed" that I believe, as a Calvinist.

I never said being dead spiritually is the same as being dead physically. you have assumed that. I agree, "men do hear, and respond", but unless God does something first, the response will always be in rebellion. Take this passages for example, and tell me if you see it as absurd:

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Do tell, is it absurd for Jesus to tell these folks that they are not hearing, seeing, and understanding?

Notice, John 6:65 tells us that God must do something first. John 8:43-47 (particularly verse 47) tells us that before you can *hear* God you must be *of* God. John 10:25-27 (particularly 26) tells us one must be of the *sheep* before they can *believe*. This doesn't seem so absurd to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Mike wrote: "Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
This is necessary otherwise the condemned would have an excuse."

No, the condemned have no excuse because they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness"! (Romans 1:18) To say that men will not be accountable to God for that which they do is absurd. But do tell, how does inability negate responsibility? If I drive drunk, am I negated of *responsibility* because I was *inable* to operate my car to keep from killing others on the road? Do tell.

Mike wrote: "If you refuse to grab the rope then you would die for sure. One who is so stubborn that they wouldn't take an offer of life deservers to die."

But one who is dead cannot grab a rope. Would you throw a rope to a physically dead man and expect him to respond?

Are your analogies physical renderings of the spiritual or not? Whether you believe in the inabilities of man or not, the Scriptures lay out the doctrine nonetheless.

Mike wrote: "Was I in the spirit or flesh when I made a decision for Christ. I believe I was in the flesh I couldn't have been in the spirit because I hadn't been regenerated yet. Salvation is conditional upon belief. To be regenerated means to be saved.
"Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Was my decision pleasing to God. Well I'm not God, so I don't know. Was it intended to be, no in fact I had the fear that it was to late. That I was just not good enough. I was afraid that my sins were unforgivable. The truth of the matter is I didn't think I was good enough. What God must have felt for me was pity. How can one feel pity and be pleased at the same time? I would think He must have been repulsed. To say He was pleased would make God appear to be sadistic,because I was miserable. Who could possibly be please with someone so over wrought with sin."

Well, I'm not God either, but to act as if Scriptural proof to your assumptions have not been given is absurd! Romans 8:7 & 8 clearly say that those who are in the flesh *cannot* please God, so if your "decision" was in the flesh, guess what? According to your quotation of Acts 16:31, do tell, who is it that will believe? That is the question. Who are the "whosoever"?

Phi 1:29 For to you it is *given* on behalf of Christ not only to *believe* on Him, but also to suffer for His sake

Is your belief something you do, or is it something *given* to you by God?

Mike wrote: "There is no need to respond to the same thing so many times. I'm just a member that comes here on occasion."

If I feel the need to respond to these 100 times for clarification, I don't feel that to be any of your concern, and quite frankly, I don't know why you would say something like this. I guess I could charge you with the same thing, huh?

"There is no need to respond to the several clarifications I made in response to your post, I'm just a member that comes here on occasion".

What does that mean?

Mike wrote: "I'm only here on this board briefly, when time allows. I still work for a living. Responses take time, sometimes as much as week because of my work."

What you do with your time, Mike, is of none of my concern. Thanks for taking time to correspond, but if it takes too long, then by all means, be a good steward of your time.

Soli Christos,

Theo

 

Hi Theo;

I think misunderstanding is an understatement. Refusing to accept something as truth isn't a misunderstanding but rather a REJECTION. I believe man is dead in sin to God metaphorically speaking. In other words He counts us as dead until we accept Him.

Adam and Eve did die where they had access to the tree of life to maintain eternal life. They no longer had it. Eve was deceived, Adam loved Eve more than God and chose to eat the fruit so he would at least be with her IMO. As a result of there sin they were driven from the garden and the garden was protected to keep them out of it and away from the tree of life. The day they were driven out they did die in a sense because they were no longer immortal.

Eph2:1-5 and col 2:13 are used by Calvinist to prove total depravity the doctrine that teaches man is incapable of responding to the gospel.

Eph 2:1-5 You will no doubt notice that total depravity is not described there nor is regeneration before faith. What it speaks about is a quickening a regeneration but not as described by Calvinist. It does not say when this happens This is only your assumption.

Col 2:13 is describing what takes place when we are saved.

The doctrine of Calvinism says so. You are Calvinist aren't you?. You'll get around to it. by describing man as incapable of responding spiritually because he is dead spiritually.

Jo 6:65 I do not deny that the Father draws us nor do I deny that the only way to eternal life with Jesus is through Jesus. This is a no brainer.

How ever Jo 8:43-47 is addressed to Jews they were blinded because of there rejection of Christ. They were of there father the devil because they rejected the only begotten Son of God. They were speaking to God and refused to believe who He actually was. By the way they were elected as well because they were Jews Yet cutt out of the vine so that we may be grafted in.
Can the elect go to hell? yes they can.

Theo if God take's someone and denies them the opportunity to know better then man can't help the way that He is. How is it a man can be held accountable for something he has no choice in. Whosoever in Jn 3:16 means anyone not some preselect group.

How could you be dead, if you are about to die. I knew you'd get around to describing a spiritually dead person as incapable of response lol.

I have no doubt you believe the scriptures do. They do not for me. My analogies are about life as it is. We are both spiritual and physical at the same time.

Theo in the remainder of your post, you seem to have taken offense to my post which there was no offense meant. If you are discouraged to find someone like me at BB.com then ask yourself this. Where would a debate forum be without opposing views.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hello ILUVLIGHT,

It seems that your mis-understanding of Calvinism is that which has spawned your REJECTION! Your REJECTION is a by-product of your mis-understanding. "Mis-understanding" is *not* or *not fully* understanding that which is presented. "REJECTION" is that which is rejected regardless of understanding or not. In your case, you "assume" you know what I believe, but in all actuality, you have mis-understood, and based on that mis-understanding, you have rejected it, and you prove these things with your responses. Be that as it may...

Well, yeah, these and:

1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Romans 5:12: Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.

2 Corinthians 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.

Ephesians 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Ephesians 2:12: Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Jeremiah 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Romans 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good. no, not so much as one.

Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 13:41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you.

Proverbs 30:12: There is a generation that are pure in their own eye, And yet are not washed from their filthiness.

John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.

John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

John 8:19: They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.

Matthew 11:25: I thank thee, O Father Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes.

2 Corinthians 5:17: If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature.

John 14:16: (And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,) even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you.

John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

I guess one could go on for days with Scriptural proof of the doctrine of Total inabiblity, or Original Sin, but if you REJECT the clear teachings of Scripture, then what more could one do?

Please show me where the doctrine of Calvinism says this! Please show me any Calvinistic writer that says the physical and spiritual are the same! Were the folks Jesus spoke to in John 6 physically dead? You should re-read your responses. You said "by describing man as incapable of responding spiritually because he is dead spiritually". Well, yeah, I agreed with the Scriptures to this point, but when did I say, or any Calvinist, for that matter, that one who is spiritually dead is actually physically dead??? One can be physically alive, yet physically dead. By saying arrogant remarks as "You'll get around to it" while mis-quoting me or not reading my response thoroughly is something that anyone would take offense to, right?

What the "no brainer" is, is that you don't see the inability of man within this passage. Does the Father draw all? I'm sure you'll go to John 12:32 here, which is actually a completely different context, but I wait for your comments before I comment. John 6:44 says literally that "no man is able to come to Christ UNLESS the Father draws him". So, is Jesus gonna make these words void 6 chapters later? I'll be waiting.

Ok, why did they REJECT Christ? Jesus tells why:

"John 8:43-47 (particularly verse 47) tells us that before you can *hear* God you must be *of* God."

You are reading this verse in reverse, no matter who it is speaking of. Did the Jews have the same libertarian freewill you are fighting for? If so, how could Jesus say such a thing?

Also, you mis-understand that which is a shadow within' the OT of the very image within' the NT.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

Think about that.

Answer the question about how "inability" does not negate "responsibility", and you'll have your answer. Now that's a no brainer! lol!

Hence, my question about whether or not you are creating scenarios of the spiritual with the physical. Now, you desire to assume more. To say "How could you be dead, if you are about to die." about the spiritual, has completely mis-understood Calvinism. If you are gonna use spiritual scenarios, then I'm with ya, if you want to use physical, then I'm with ya, but if your gonna jump back and forth between the two to make it work for your theories, then it is not gonna work. Either your scenario was eschewed from the get go, or you have mis-understood Calvinism yet again.

Like I said earlier, there is a difference between the two. Distinguish between the two.

1Ti 5:6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

There's another no brainer. To say "I knew you'd get around to describing a spiritually dead person as incapable of response" after your mis-understandings, now that is rather funny... lol

Who said any different? Please re-read that which you have mis-quoted me on, and you'll find your mis-understanding.

Here is what my offense was taken over:

Mike wrote: "There is no need to respond to the same thing so many times. I'm just a member that comes here on occasion."

If I feel the need to respond to these 100 times for clarification, I don't feel that to be any of your concern, and quite frankly, I don't know why you would say something like this. I guess I could charge you with the same thing, huh?

"There is no need to respond to the several clarifications I made in response to your post, I'm just a member that comes here on occasion".

What does that mean?

Mike wrote: "I'm only here on this board briefly, when time allows. I still work for a living. Responses take time, sometimes as much as week because of my work."

What you do with your time, Mike, is of none of my concern. Thanks for taking time to correspond, but if it takes too long, then by all means, be a good steward of your time.

Your differing view was not about theology, it was about me responding to your post several times. There is no need for you to act like it was about my differing view of your theology, for anyone can read what is going on. If you took offense to me responding to "that which is for no reason", then that is for you to work out, not me.

I differ with you greatly in theology, but for you to make comments about how many times I respond to a post, and then say "If you are discouraged to find someone like me at BB.com then ask yourself this. Where would a debate forum be without opposing views" is what I don't understand.

If your fighting for an "opposing view" that says "you don't need to post more that X amount of posts", well what in the world are you here for?

Hmmm...

Oh well,

Theo

 

Edited for "quote" clarification

Hello ILUVLIGHT,

It seems that your mis-understanding of Calvinism is that which has spawned your REJECTION! Your REJECTION is a by-product of your mis-understanding. "Mis-understanding" is *not* or *not fully* understanding that which is presented. "REJECTION" is that which is rejected regardless of understanding or not. In your case, you "assume" you know what I believe, but in all actuality, you have mis-understood, and based on that mis-understanding, you have rejected it, and you prove these things with your responses. Be that as it may...

Well, yeah, these and:

1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Romans 5:12: Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.

2 Corinthians 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.

Ephesians 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Ephesians 2:12: Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Jeremiah 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Romans 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good. no, not so much as one.

Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 13:41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you.

Proverbs 30:12: There is a generation that are pure in their own eye, And yet are not washed from their filthiness.

John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.

John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

John 8:19: They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.

Matthew 11:25: I thank thee, O Father Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes.

2 Corinthians 5:17: If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature.

John 14:16: (And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,) even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you.

John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

I guess one could go on for days with Scriptural proof of the doctrine of Total inabiblity, or Original Sin, but if you REJECT the clear teachings of Scripture, then what more could one do?

Please show me where the doctrine of Calvinism says this! Please show me any Calvinistic writer that says the physical and spiritual are the same! Were the folks Jesus spoke to in John 6 physically dead? You should re-read your responses. You said "by describing man as incapable of responding spiritually because he is dead spiritually". Well, yeah, I agreed with the Scriptures to this point, but when did I say, or any Calvinist, for that matter, that one who is spiritually dead is actually physically dead??? One can be physically alive, yet physically dead. By saying arrogant remarks as "You'll get around to it" while mis-quoting me or not reading my response thoroughly is something that anyone would take offense to, right?

What the "no brainer" is, is that you don't see the inability of man within this passage. Does the Father draw all? I'm sure you'll go to John 12:32 here, which is actually a completely different context, but I wait for your comments before I comment. John 6:44 says literally that "no man is able to come to Christ UNLESS the Father draws him". So, is Jesus gonna make these words void 6 chapters later? I'll be waiting.

Ok, why did they REJECT Christ? Jesus tells why:

"John 8:43-47 (particularly verse 47) tells us that before you can *hear* God you must be *of* God."

You are reading this verse in reverse, no matter who it is speaking of. Did the Jews have the same libertarian freewill you are fighting for? If so, how could Jesus say such a thing?

Also, you mis-understand that which is a shadow within' the OT of the very image within' the NT.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

Think about that.

Answer the question about how "inability" does not negate "responsibility", and you'll have your answer. Now that's a no brainer! lol!

Hence, my question about whether or not you are creating scenarios of the spiritual with the physical. Now, you desire to assume more. To say "How could you be dead, if you are about to die." about the spiritual, has completely mis-understood Calvinism. If you are gonna use spiritual scenarios, then I'm with ya, if you want to use physical, then I'm with ya, but if your gonna jump back and forth between the two to make it work for your theories, then it is not gonna work. Either your scenario was eschewed from the get go, or you have mis-understood Calvinism yet again.

Like I said earlier, there is a difference between the two. Distinguish between the two.

1Ti 5:6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

There's another no brainer. To say "I knew you'd get around to describing a spiritually dead person as incapable of response" after your mis-understandings, now that is rather funny... lol

Who said any different? Please re-read that which you have mis-quoted me on, and you'll find your mis-understanding.

Here is what my offense was taken over:

Mike wrote: "There is no need to respond to the same thing so many times. I'm just a member that comes here on occasion."

If I feel the need to respond to these 100 times for clarification, I don't feel that to be any of your concern, and quite frankly, I don't know why you would say something like this. I guess I could charge you with the same thing, huh?

"There is no need to respond to the several clarifications I made in response to your post, I'm just a member that comes here on occasion".

What does that mean?

Mike wrote: "I'm only here on this board briefly, when time allows. I still work for a living. Responses take time, sometimes as much as week because of my work."

What you do with your time, Mike, is of none of my concern. Thanks for taking time to correspond, but if it takes too long, then by all means, be a good steward of your time.

Your differing view was not about theology, it was about me responding to your post several times. There is no need for you to act like it was about my differing view of your theology, for anyone can read what is going on. If you took offense to me responding to "that which is for no reason", then that is for you to work out, not me.

I differ with you greatly in theology, but for you to make comments about how many times I respond to a post, and then say "If you are discouraged to find someone like me at BB.com then ask yourself this. Where would a debate forum be without opposing views" is what I don't understand.

If your fighting for an "opposing view" that says "you don't need to post more that X amount of posts", well what in the world are you here for?

Hmmm...

Oh well,

Theo

 

Correction to last post.

Please show me where the doctrine of Calvinism says this! Please show me any Calvinistic writer that says the physical and spiritual are the same! Were the folks Jesus spoke to in John 6 physically dead? You should re-read your responses. You said "by describing man as incapable of responding spiritually because he is dead spiritually". Well, yeah, I agreed with the Scriptures to this point, but when did I say, or any Calvinist, for that matter, that one who is spiritually dead is actually physically dead??? One can be physically alive, yet physically dead. By saying arrogant remarks as "You'll get around to it" while mis-quoting me or not reading my response thoroughly is something that anyone would take offense to, right?

This is a question, not a statement, therefore, it should end with a question mark, and not a period. Sorry

It should read:

"One can be physically alive, yet physically dead?"

 

Hi Theo;
I have no idea what your problem is but from now on I will not respond to anymore of your questions. If I have offended you in some way I'm sorry. I just state things as I see them. I've met a lot of very fine people here both Calvinist and Non Calvinist and have managed to get along with every one of them. I guess 99% isn't perfect. Oh well I tried. I'll keep you in my prayers in hope that you find peace.
May God give you peace;
Mike

 

Alrighty then...

If you have no idea what my problem is, then re-read your arrogant sarcasm, and think about it. Your appeal to the emotions with your "I've meet people" discourse is irrelevant.

I've been here for about 5 days now, and there is always one like you in the bunch. Post arrogant and "lol" remarks, then play the humble card when it is obvious that your traditions have been challenged.

I guess, maybe you feel it is ok for you to call it the way you see it, but apparently that priviledge is reserved for you alone.

Oh well, I tried...

Theo

 

This is the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate Forum; often in a debate, emotions can flare if certain guidelines are not followed. Very often, these guidelines are not followed by anyone of us, myself included. It is mho that a common respect for the differing view exhibited here [primarily that of the Calvinist and Arminians} that man is born spiritually dead, or is not born spiritually dead should be discussed but that each 'side' should be afforded time to post a reply without having to read through several consecutive posts. This makes a thorough reading of all the posts very difficult and even I am guilty of only partially reading when presented with so much material, as with each of us, because of other responsibilities on my time.

Keep the comments related to the issue of ability/inability and not digressing into personal comments.

It is also a common show of respect in any debate to give the opposing view opportunity and time to respond.

This is not a formal debate; but is a debate forum and although I am in agreement with the doctrine of Sovereign Grace as taught by the TULIP, I think it is a show of respect to permit time between our responses.

In the future try to post all you have to respond in a single post and then to respond to the issue and not to the person.

I see that I have neglected a response from ILUVLIGHT to my earlier post. I wish to apologize for this neglect. I will try to read that response and post a reply either this evening or tomorrow sometime. Thanks for your patience.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman, sorry for the multiple posts, I am learning how to use "UBB Code" stuff. Also, I felt the need to further explain some of the things I said before, but anyway...