Why do Arminians...

[stan1953]

Read Acts 16:30.

Are you afraid to answer? BTW, the answer is in v31 not v30.

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", which was in response to the jailer asking, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

<staff edit>

 

[Hammster]

Are you afraid to answer? BTW, the answer is in v31 not v30.

&#8220;Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", which was in response to the jailer asking, &#8220;Sirs, what must I do to be saved?&#8221;

<staff edit>

Wrong reference. See v. 31.

 

[stan1953]

I am glad that we can agree on that. Therefore, we can further agree that you do not [by implication and fruition] believe in Universalism.
But you are still left with John 6:44 and the mention of &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#972;&#957; (him). Is the &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#972;&#957; of the drawing the same &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#972;&#957; of the raising?

As I have said repeatedly, no. Those who bring it up all the time are simply bringing up a straw man to deflect from the actual issue of Unlimited Atonement.
I have no idea what you mean I'm left with John 6:44?
Obviously the two uses of &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#972;&#962; (autos) refer to a HUMAN and not just a man.

 

[stan1953]

Wrong reference. See v. 31.

I just quoted it to you, so make your point or stop with the inane questions.

 

[Hammster]

I just quoted it to you, so make your point or stop with the inane questions.

I've already made my point. You're the one who started in with the questions in post 602.

 

[OzSpen]

What's your point?

You know!

 

[OzSpen]

You said it all happened simultaneously. I said that faith logically preceded regeneration on your theology. You said no it didn't. I asked if faith preceded regeneration in your theology. You said it did.

No misrepresentation on my part.

I NEVER said faith preceded regeneration in my theology. That's your invention. This is what I said:

Faith, repentance, regeneration-new birth, justification and conversion happen simultaneously - in my understanding.

Quit your misrepresentation (eisegesis) of my view.

 

[Hammster]

You know!

If you say so.

 

[Hammster]

I NEVER said faith preceded regeneration in my theology. That's your invention. This is what I said:

Quit your misrepresentation (eisegesis) of my view.

Your statement in post 564 says otherwise.

 

[stan1953]

I've already made my point. You're the one who started in with the questions in post 602.

For which you never answered. Is it your intention to just frustrate and annoy people until they say something you can report?

 

[Hammster]

Then why say it does?

I never said it did.

 

[Hammster]

For which you never answered.

You're right. My bad. I've answered it now.

 

[stan1953]

I never said it did.

Still not an answer. You get so lost in all your equivocating you can't actually remember what you say.

Here's the POST , now try answering it properly.

 

[Hammster]

Still not an answer. You get so lost in all your equivocating you can't actually remember what you say.

Here's the POST , now try answering it properly.

See post 596.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

As I have said repeatedly, no. Those who bring it up all the time are simply bringing up a straw man to deflect from the actual issue of Unlimited Atonement.

It isn't a strawman, because, from my experience, the normative position of synergists is to try and prove a prevenient grace from John 12:32, therefore believing that "all men" in 12:32 is "all men without qualification".

I have no idea what you mean I'm left with John 6:44?

Your left with a use of &#7957;&#955;&#954;&#969; which means something more than "empathy towards our inner heart", in your words.

Obviously the two uses of &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#972;&#962; (autos) refer to a HUMAN and not just a man.

Okay... I wasn't trying to draw a distinction between man/human, but whatever. My point is this:

(a)No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

And

(b)I will raise him up on the last day.

So the him who is drawn is clause (a) is the same him who is raised in clause (b). Drawing results in raising. There is no one who is drawn that is not raised. If this be the case (and it must be), then the drawing here is something greater than a simple "empathy".

 

[stan1953]

See post 596.

That's also not an answer, just an equivocal denial.

 

[stan1953]

It isn't a strawman, because, from my experience, the normative position of synergists is to try and prove a prevenient grace from John 12:32, therefore believing that "all men" in 12:32 is "all men without qualification".

Still a strawman regardless, based on what we were discussing. A topic on it's own merit is not automatically a logical fallacy.
Well that would be your opinion, however not my experience and you have my take on it.

Your left with a use of &#7957;&#955;&#954;&#969; which means something more than "empathy towards our inner heart", in your words.

Instead of changing your point in every post, please just make a complete one.

Okay... I wasn't trying to draw a distinction between man/human, but whatever. My point is this:
(a)No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

And

(b)I will raise him up on the last day.

So the him who is drawn is clause (a) is the same him who is raised in clause (b). Drawing results in raising. There is no one who is drawn that is not raised. If this be the case (and it must be), then the drawing here is something greater than a simple "empathy".

Oh I see, no this is eisegetical in nature, not what the scripture itself conveys.

The starting point is those that come to Jesus. They first must be drawn and if they do come to him, then He will raise them. Of course this is also contingent on them enduring as Jesus also states. Context is everything regardless of what scripture your are dealing with.

 

[Hammster]

That's also not an answer, just an equivocal denial.

Actually, it was a response. You didn't ask a question.

 

[OzSpen]

Your statement in post 564 says otherwise.

This is another false accusation by you against me. When will you quit your false representation of that I said.

This is my response at #564:

Originally Posted by Hammster

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.
​

OzSpen: And that's what the Scriptures teach:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 ESV)

​

There is not a word in my response at #564 that states that faith comes BEFORE regeneration. Not a word.

It's your eisegesis of my posts AGAIN.

 

[Hammster]

This is another false accusation by you against me. When will you quit your false representation of that I said.

This is my response at #564:

Originally Posted by Hammster

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.
​

OzSpen: And that's what the Scriptures teach:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 ESV)

​

There is not a word in my response at #564 that states that faith comes BEFORE regeneration. Not a word.

It's your eisegesis of my posts AGAIN.

The fact that you can't see that, logically, faith precedes regeneration in your view doesn't mean that I am misrepresenting you. The only way misrepresenting you is if you believe, logically, that regeneration precedes faith.