Regeneration preceeding final acceptance

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Wes

Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Your above post would indicate otherwise.

Depends on one's persuasion. From Calvin's, or Arminius' perspective perhaps it is as you say. However, from God's point of view, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn one who says what I said.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Wes

Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Your above post would indicate otherwise.

Depends on one's persuasion. From Calvin's, or Arminius' perspective perhaps it is as you say. However, from God's point of view, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn one who says what I said. </font>[/QUOTE]I asked a simple question which you refused to answer. I condemned no one. I wonder if you have ever answered a simple question on this Forum. I stated some days back that I thought your purpose on this Forum was to create dissension. I still think so. Your evasive responses are ample evidence..

 

[Wes Outwest]

I did answer your question, you just don't like my answer! But I'll answer it another way for you.........YES!

I just do not believe in taking every word at its literal meaning because CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

I believe the bible is error free when it is seen as written in the form of communicating thoughts, principles and concepts.

I believe the bible is error prone, when it is seen as every word taken LITERALLY.

Now if you tell me that you take the bible to be inerrant, I'll call you immature in your spirit life, unable to render an accurate interpretation.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
I
I believe the bible is error free when it is seen as written in the form of communicating thoughts, principles and concepts.

I believe the bible is error prone, when it is seen as every word taken LITERALLY.

Now if you tell me that you take the bible to be inerrant, I'll call you immature in your spirit life, unable to render an accurate interpretation.

Funny Wes, how many cults and false religions such as Catholicism like to interpret the Bible they way you do. Are you sure you wish to be associated with their hermenutics?

The Bible sir is inerrant, and if you deny that fundamental truth, you leave yourself open to heresy of the worst kind. It would do you well to stop an think about what you are saying for a moment. Some of it is incredibly dangerous. You have made the Scriptures to be merely the work of men.

 

[rc]

I just do not believe in taking every word at its literal meaning

Jesus seemed to think otherwise Wes. Notice Jesus not only used one WORD to bring out a point but also the TENSE. THUS showing how important it is to understand GRAMMAR!
i.e.

Matthew 22:32 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

The point made is hinging on the word AM. This signifies present tense, thus proving Jacob etc. ARE LIVING. Showing the difference if the text said I WAS... which would indicate Jacob etc. where dead. So the whole teaching is on ONE WORD, AM.

Seems to me Jesus hung teachings on one word, so you better reconsider your position.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
I
I believe the bible is error free when it is seen as written in the form of communicating thoughts, principles and concepts.

I believe the bible is error prone, when it is seen as every word taken LITERALLY.

Now if you tell me that you take the bible to be inerrant, I'll call you immature in your spirit life, unable to render an accurate interpretation.

Funny Wes, how many cults and false religions such as Catholicism like to interpret the Bible they way you do. Are you sure you wish to be associated with their hermenutics?

The Bible sir is inerrant, and if you deny that fundamental truth, you leave yourself open to heresy of the worst kind. It would do you well to stop an think about what you are saying for a moment. Some of it is incredibly dangerous. You have made the Scriptures to be merely the work of men. </font>[/QUOTE]Take the bible at it pinnacle of literalness and prove to me that the bible is inerrant!

 

[Wes Outwest]

Rc, in the example you gave I agree with the literalness of meaning of the phrase I AM! However, when Paul says something about Jesus, it is not necessarily Jesus who is saying it! Therefore to take what Paul says with the same literalness that we take Jesus declaration about Himself, is simply foolishness! But in your Cavalier Calvinist fashion you insist that we take every word of the bible at its face value, and that sir renders the bible prone to error in the way that Calvinism is full of errors!

 

[rc]

ALL Scripture is from GOD by God, it is God "breathed" Wes. Peter called Pauls teaching "scripture".

Even the "words" of Christ were not written by Jesus but by the eye witnesses. You are extremely misguided and hope you stop teaching yourself and lay down your unparalleled pride and learn for a change.

 

[4His_glory]

Wes said:

Take the bible at it pinnacle of literalness and prove to me that the bible is inerrant!

First of all I ditto what rc said, he is right on target.

To which I will add:

2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

How can a person deny that the words penned, which we call the Bible, done so by the will of the Holy Spirit, are inerrant?

Would a Holy God write somthing that is error? To claim the Scriptures as being errent erodes the faith, is a direct attack on orthodoxy and, indirectly calls God imperfect.

You would do well as rc said to swallow your pride and start learning what is truth.

 

[Wes Outwest]

4His_glory,
What is the difference between a prophet and an Apostle?

Would a Holy God write somthing that is error? To claim the Scriptures as being errent erodes the faith, is a direct attack on orthodoxy and, indirectly calls God imperfect.

NO, but man has a propensity to accept what is conceiveable and believeable, even if man has to twist the words to fit his own understanding.

I am not eroding orthodoxy nor AM I calling God imperfect. That is YOUR slant on what I am saying. You are not seeing the whole picture.

I have no pride about this, I am simply stating facts. You must open your eyes to see the truth that what is real to one man may not be real to another! You are proud to take scriptures out of their Context to support your doctrines, when the scripture in its context does not support your doctrine. YOU are making slapping orthodoxy in the face, you are spitting in Gods face when you do that! WAKE UP!

 

[4His_glory]

Excuse me! Others and myself have pointed you to context again and again "mr. their-is-not absoulute-truth." Your accusation that I spit in God's face is absolutly asinine. What a thing to say!

I was point out to you that your view that the Bible is errant is not the side of what conservative scholars, and church leaders have taken since early Christianity. You are taking the side of the liberal theologian sir.

 

[Wes Outwest]

You cannot take the same insults that you hand out? Then don't hand them out!

I take no sides!

Prove to me that the bible is inerrant! Prove to me there is no reason to have "versions" of the bible! Prove to me that man has not changed the meaning of terms used. Prove to me that YOUR use of select scriptures is in accordance with God's will! The burden of proof is ON YOU!

 

[4His_glory]

I tried Wes, you just ignore Scripture. I did not hand out insults, I merely was stating the fact of history. Those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture are not holding the traditional, conservative position that has been held since the beginning of church history as truth.

How can anyone prove anything to a man with an unteachable spirit?

I have come to the conclusion that it impossible to have a decent debate with you. It is a waste of time.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
I tried Wes, you just ignore Scripture. I did not hand out insults, I merely was stating the fact of history. Those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture are not holding the traditional, conservative position that has been held since the beginning of church history as truth.

How can anyone prove anything to a man with an unteachable spirit?

I have come to the conclusion that it impossible to have a decent debate with you. It is a waste of time.

The burden is on the teacher to find the key to teaching those he/she considers to be unteachable.
What scripture do you provide that says the scripture is inerrant?

Calvinism it appears to me is based on numbered verses taken out of the context of the thought. Therefore Calvinism is in error because those verses in their context do not support the calvinist doctrine. The verse as used by calvinists then becomes errant from the bible! And you say that the bible is inerrant.

Well I told you that I believe the bible is inerrant! What part of "I believe the bible is inerrant" do you not understand?

I told you that I do not believe the bible taken literally is inerrant! What part of that do you not understand?

You state that the bible is inerrant, therefore it is upon you to prove your statement!

 

[4His_glory]

You can not make the unteachable, teachable. Only God can do that, and I pray that one day He will for you.

I can't help it if you reject the biblical evidence pointed out to you that the Bible is indeed inerrant.

For the record, you also said that the Bible is NOT inerrant, or at least you implied that so which is it Wes? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Wes Outwest]

4His_glory,
This is the post in question!

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
I did answer your question, you just don't like my answer! But I'll answer it another way for you.........YES!

I just do not believe in taking every word at its literal meaning because CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

I believe the bible is error free when it is seen as written in the form of communicating thoughts, principles and concepts.

I believe the bible is error prone, when it is seen as every word taken LITERALLY.

Now if you tell me that you take the bible to be inerrant, I'll call you immature in your spirit life, unable to render an accurate interpretation.

end of post.

For the record, you also said that the Bible is NOT inerrant, or at least you implied that so which is it Wes? You can't have it both ways.

It is both ways whether or not you see and understand it! READ my explanations! Understand that the bible taken LITERALLY is full of errors. The bible taken as a book of "teachings" is INERRANT!

The Calvinist approach of taking numbered verses out of their context to support Calvinist doctrine, is taking the scriptures LITERALLY! And that approach makes the bible ERRANT! It also makes the doctrine ERRANT!

Paul seemingly contradicts himself repeatedly if you take his teachings out of their context. That is, in Ephesians he may say one thing about something, and in Corinthians something quite the opposite about the same thing. Even the words attributed to Jesus can be, taken out of context, meant to state opposing views about the same thing. That makes the scriptures errant! However, the teachings in Context are completely INERRANT!

I can't help it if you reject the biblical evidence pointed out to you that the Bible is indeed inerrant

I have posted the context of scriptures and You ignore them! so don't accuse me of ignoring scripture! Your accusation is a the case of "the pot calling the kettle black".

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
Paul seemingly contradicts himself repeatedly if you take his teachings out of their context. That is, in Ephesians he may say one thing about something, and in Corinthians something quite the opposite about the same thing. Even the words attributed to Jesus can be, taken out of context, meant to state opposing views about the same thing. That makes the scriptures errant! However, the teachings in Context are completely INERRANT!

Could you give some examples to demonstrate the above for us poor deluded souls?

 

[Wes Outwest]

I don't have time to do that right now, but yes, I can do that!

You should be able to do that yourself by simply studying each of the Calvinist proof texts, IN THEIR CONTEXT!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by whetstone:

A person is not REGENERATED before they accept Christ.

A person IS BEING regenerated before they accept Christ.

Ok so in this redefinition of the refinition of terms "again" - what part of "regeneration" DOES NOT include the New Birth, the New Creation or any acceptance at all of salvation --- according to SCRIPTURE.

Because it appears you ARE saying that this regeneration-A is what occurs BEFORE conversion. (If I may be allowed to clarify your redefinition of a Calvinist redefinition)

OldRegular defines that unconverted unforgiven unrepentant kind of "regeneration" event as

The initial event in salvation is regeneration, the theological term synonymous with rebirth or being born again. Regeneration is solely the work of God the Holy Spirit whereby those who are spiritually dead in trespass and sin are made spiritual alive and are brought into union with Jesus Christ.

Is this union with Christ and NEW creation is the state of the sinful - totally depraved unconverted person?

Is there a text showing that an unconverted person is not sinful and depraved as in Rom 3:9-11?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
I don't have time to do that right now, but yes, I can do that!

Wasn't that the excuse that Felix used [Acts 24:25]?