Absolutely Free or Not?

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

You just chose to ignore the order of events in Acts 11.

No, you ignore Acts 10 that preceeds 11, where there are believers who have the gift of the Holy Spirit that only the regenerate have and do so because it blows the CoC false doctrine to hell.

By the way, when are you going to tell us how the people in the OT were saved, since you say they are not saved the same way as the NT saints???

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Romans 3:21-22;

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe.

Anyone who says that "to all and on all" is not the righteousness of God directed to and laid on those who believe is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Is being seriously stiff-necked and contumacious.

And self righteous without contrition.

Satan has his workers on the ball.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

No.

So when are you going to explain to us the different means of salvation for the OT than that of the NT?

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you have another way, let's hear it.

By the way, if you do, then you are saying Jesus was mistaken.

 

[jmacvols]

No, you ignore Acts 10 that preceeds 11, where there are believers who have the gift of the Holy Spirit that only the regenerate have and do so because it blows the CoC false doctrine to hell.

You have ignored:

1) Acts 11:14 that Peter would tell Cornelius WORDS whereby he would be saved. Nowhere here does it say Cornleius would be saved by 'belief alone' or by the HS falling upon him.

2) Acts 10:47,48 the WORDS Peter COMMANDED Cornelius was to be water baptized.

3) Acts 11:15 these saving WORDS were not told until AFTER the HS had fallen upon Cornelius.

4) Acts 10:2,22 Cornelius was already a "believing" man, yet his 'belief alone' was not sufficient, Peter was sent to tell him WORDS COMMANDED FROM GOD. v33, as to what he "oughtest", v6, (necessary) to do

5) Acts 10:35 those that feareth God and worketh righteousness are accepted by God. "Belief alone" is not accepted by God.

By the way, when are you going to tell us how the people in the OT were saved, since you say they are not saved the same way as the NT saints???

Were those under the OT law told to believe, repent, confess and be water baptized for remission of sins? Were those in the NT church told to sacrifice animals for their sins?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

You have ignored:

1) Acts 11:14 that Peter would tell Cornelius WORDS whereby he would be saved. Nowhere here does it say Cornleius would be saved by 'belief alone' or by the HS falling upon him.

2) Acts 10:47,48 the WORDS Peter COMMANDED Cornelius was to be water baptized.

3) Acts 11:15 these saving WORDS were not told until AFTER the HS had fallen upon Cornelius.

4) Acts 10:2,22 Cornelius was already a "believing" man, yet his 'belief alone' was not sufficient, Peter was sent to tell him WORDS COMMANDED FROM GOD. v33, as to what he "oughtest", v6, (necessary) to do

5) Acts 10:35 those that feareth God and worketh righteousness are accepted by God. "Belief alone" is not accepted by God.

Dealt with already.



By the way, when are you going to tell us how the people in the OT were saved, since you say they are not saved the same way as the NT saints???

Were those under the OT law told to believe, repent, confess and be water baptized for remission of sins? Were those in the NT church told to sacrifice animals for their sins?

Why don't you quit obfuscating and deflecting and simply tell us how OT saints were saved differently from NT saints.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Were those in the NT church told to sacrifice animals for their sins?

I don't want to misunderstand you, so, are you saying that the OT saints were saved by animal sacrifice?

 

[jmacvols]

Dealt with already.

And you accuse me of 'obfuscating and deflecting'?

By the way, when are you going to tell us how the people in the OT were saved, since you say they are not saved the same way as the NT saints???

Why don't you quit obfuscating and deflecting and simply tell us how OT saints were saved differently from NT saints.

I just showed that the OT law is different from the NT. From Heb 9:15, Jesus died "..for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament..." yet the terms of obedience under the OT is different from the NT. As I mentioned already, obedience under the OT required animal sacrifices, whereas the NT requires water baptism.

 

[mlqurgw]

jmacvols; Just to claer it up in my foggy, deficient brain, do you really think that those in the OT were saved in a different way than those of the NT? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[nobdysfool]

You have ignored:

1) Acts 11:14 that Peter would tell Cornelius WORDS whereby he would be saved. Nowhere here does it say Cornleius would be saved by 'belief alone' or by the HS falling upon him.

2) Acts 10:47,48 the WORDS Peter COMMANDED Cornelius was to be water baptized.

3) Acts 11:15 these saving WORDS were not told until AFTER the HS had fallen upon Cornelius.

4) Acts 10:2,22 Cornelius was already a "believing" man, yet his 'belief alone' was not sufficient, Peter was sent to tell him WORDS COMMANDED FROM GOD. v33, as to what he "oughtest", v6, (necessary) to do

5) Acts 10:35 those that feareth God and worketh righteousness are accepted by God. "Belief alone" is not accepted by God.

Ah, so it's WORDS that are important. I suppose you believe that if a person says the words of the sinner's prayer, the saying of the words themselves has power? That's akin to a belief in incantations and such.

As in all legalistic cults, the CoC places great stock in outward actions to "prove" an inward reality. It's so much easier to be able to point to actions and works for approval and reassurance. It also is a convenient way to categorize people into "us" and "them". In reality, that is a lack of faith, and an overly judgmental and proud spirit. "We don't drink, smoke, cuss or chew, and don't run around with them that do". While that can be a true statement, it is more often than not a prideful and divisive statement.

Salvation is not dependent on what I do, it is dependent on what Christ has done.

 

[jmacvols]

jmacvols; Just to claer it up in my foggy, deficient brain, do you really think that those in the OT were saved in a different way than those of the NT? A yes or no will suffice.

The form of obedience was different. I already pointed out Heb 9:15, so did Christ's death redeem the transgressions of all those that lived under the OT law, that is, do you think all that lived under the OT law are saved?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

And you accuse me of 'obfuscating and deflecting'?

Yes I do, because you DO obfuscate and deflect, beating around the bush and unable to give a straight, honest answer.

I have responded to your Acts 11 falacy several times, this one making the FOURTH, by clearly demonstrating that the legalistic formula of the CoC cult fails in Acts 10 where there are believers who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is ONLY given to believers, before they are water baptized. If your formula were true, it would be true in every single case, which clearly is not the case as proven by Scripture in Acts 10.

Now you can continue to respond dishonestly and say I have not responded, but it will only be a lie.

I just showed that the OT law is different from the NT. From Heb 9:15, Jesus died "..for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament..." yet the terms of obedience under the OT is different from the NT. As I mentioned already, obedience under the OT required animal sacrifices, whereas the NT requires water baptism.

You cannot give a straight answer can you?

Just so I understand you correctly, then what you are saying is that it is obedience that saves you? Yes or no?

Please give a straight answer, yes or no?

 

[jmacvols]

Ah, so it's WORDS that are important. I suppose you believe that if a person says the words of the sinner's prayer, the saying of the words themselves has power? That's akin to a belief in incantations and such.

Not just any words, but the words God commanded, Acts 10:33. Peter did not command Cornelius to repent some "sinner's prayer", Peter commanded him to be water baptized in the name of the Lord.

As in all legalistic cults, the CoC places great stock in outward actions to "prove" an inward reality. It's so much easier to be able to point to actions and works for approval and reassurance. It also is a convenient way to categorize people into "us" and "them". In reality, that is a lack of faith, and an overly judgmental and proud spirit. "We don't drink, smoke, cuss or chew, and don't run around with them that do". While that can be a true statement, it is more often than not a prideful and divisive statement.

If you would put your faith and trust in the Lord instead of John Calvin, you might understand what I am talking about.

Salvation is not dependent on what I do, it is dependent on what Christ has done.

What Christ has done was to make himself a propitiation for the whole world. So are you suggesting the whole world will be saved?

 

[JustinWindsor]

AWC -

I haven't seen a straight answer from jmacvols yet. I'm still waiting for him to show me in Scripture, the Apostolic principles of 'free-will' and 'prevenient grace'. In fact, I'm still waiting for any Arminian thinker to demonstrate these to me as Scriptural principles. All I've ever heard has been conjecture. Rather than try to answer the question, he deflects as usual.

 

[jmacvols]

Yes I do, because you DO obfuscate and deflect, beating around the bush and unable to give a straight, honest answer.

I have responded to your Acts 11 falacy several times, this one making the FOURTH, by clearly demonstrating that the legalistic formula of the CoC cult fails in Acts 10 where there are believers who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is ONLY given to believers, before they are water baptized. If your formula were true, it would be true in every single case, which clearly is not the case as proven by Scripture in Acts 10.

Now you can continue to respond dishonestly and say I have not responded, but it will only be a lie.

You have not yet disproven the order of events in Acts 11 that being the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius BEFORE Peter told him the words whereby Cornelius would be saved. From Acts 2:38 that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not given until one believes, repents and is baptized. James says the devils believe and tremble, did their belief mean that have the gift? Did the chief rulers of Jn 12:42 receive the gift also?

The Jews (apostles) in Acts 2 and the Genitles (Cornelius) in Acts 10 receiving the baptism with the Holy Ghost was the fulfillment of Joel's prohecy, Joel 2, hence baptism with the Holy Spirit no longer exists. The reason God baptized Cornelius with the HS was to show the Jews that God accepted Gentiles, that they have also been granted repentance unto life like the Jews hadAct 11:18, not to show that Cornelius was saved. There are instances in the bible where the HS came upon 'unsaved' individuals.

You cannot give a straight answer can you?

Apparently you cannot handle my straight answers.

Just so I understand you correctly, then what you are saying is that it is obedience that saves you? Yes or no?

Please give a straight answer, yes or no?

Yes, obedience saves, but not obedience alone.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

You have not yet disproven the order of events in Acts 11 that being the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius BEFORE Peter told him the words whereby Cornelius would be saved. From Acts 2:38 that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not given until one believes, repents and is baptized.

Acts 10 disproves the CoC cult's legalistic formula. Now you can try to claim that those believers in Acts 10 did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit, but you will have to pervert the Scripture in the worst way to do so.

Apparently you cannot handle my straight answers.

You do not give straight answers.

Yes, obedience saves, but not obedience alone.

But obdience is the determing factor, yes or no?

 

[jmacvols]

AWC -

I haven't seen a straight answer from jmacvols yet. I'm still waiting for him to show me in Scripture, the Apostolic principles of 'free-will' and 'prevenient grace'. In fact, I'm still waiting for any Arminian thinker to demonstrate these to me as Scriptural principles. All I've ever heard has been conjecture. Rather than try to answer the question, he deflects as usual.

I am the one who has not received straight answers. Many of my posts to you, Augustine_was_Calvinist, nobdysfool have been ignored and gone unanswered. Example, on 2 or 3 occasions you all have argued that "none are righteous" yet 2 Pet 2:8 refers to that righteous man Lot and his righteous soul and Heb 11:4 refers to righteous Abel. Why would Paul say none are righteous when clearly there are?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

AWC -

I haven't seen a straight answer from jmacvols yet. I'm still waiting for him to show me in Scripture, the Apostolic principles of 'free-will' and 'prevenient grace'. In fact, I'm still waiting for any Arminian thinker to demonstrate these to me as Scriptural principles. All I've ever heard has been conjecture. Rather than try to answer the question, he deflects as usual.

In all my dealings with jmacvols I have yet to have him give a staight answer.

In many cases, just as he has done here in the case of Acts 10, he totally denies that I have responded and presented any case whatsoever. That kind of abject intellectual dishonesty should not be allowed to continue on this site.

It's one thing to present even a distorted or deluded response to an argument, but to deny that an argument has even been presented is an dishonest as it gets.

 

[JustinWindsor]

If Paul is mistaken, why not just throw out all his letters? Take every reference to him from Luke and Peter's writing and use that as a Bible. His letters represent inspired, inerrant Scripture or not. Which is it to you? Obviously Lot and Job and Noah were righteous because of the faith with which God had gifted them.

There's my answer. Now where's yours regarding your Scriptural principle of 'prevenient grace'.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

jmacvols,


What we do is attempt to keep you from deflecting and obfuscating after you have not given a straight answer. We come back to the same topic in hopes of getting a straight answer, dealing with the issue at hand before moving on. But what you do, is either act as if we have not presented a case, as in your dishonest treatment of Acts 10 as I have presented, or you deflect to another subject or you refuse to give a straight answer.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

If Paul is mistaken, why not just throw out all his letters? Take every reference to him from Luke and Peter's writing and use that as a Bible. His letters represent inspired, inerrant Scripture or not. Which is it to you? Obviously Lot and Job and Noah were righteous because of the faith with which God had gifted them.

There's my answer. Now where's yours regarding your Scriptural principle of 'prevenient grace'.

Has jmacvols made a case for "prevenient grace"? I haven't seen it.

Prevenient Grace is not part of the CoC cult's doctrine. They are not Weslyan. Their soteriological construct is works based, though not a crass works system, it is still reliant on a legalistic works system not unlike that of the Pharisees. They are real big on legalistic formulas and heavy control of it's members, especially.

As a cult, I'm not sure that they should be even posting in the "Christians Only" section.