God's Ability To Save

[Reformationist]

Sure is a pretty baby you'r holding there God's blessings to your house.

Thank you so much for your kindness. I pray that the Lord blesses you greatly as well.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Perhaps you haven't read enough of what Paul had to say:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

-- Romans 8:5

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
-- Romans 8:13

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.-
- Galatians 5:16


​

Now, I can see an obvious direction for an argumentative soul to pursue, but hopefully you can think things through before you go down that path.


Cheers,
engue

Engue, is it your intent to waste my time with your repetitive claims that I am an "argumentative soul?" If so, please tell me now. If you came here thinking you were going to waltz in with your unbiblical beliefs and everyone was just going to defer to your knowledge you had unrealistic expectations. If you'd like to discuss this topic, even debating the merits of each others views when necessary, let me know and we'll continue.

 

[enegue]

You do understand that this is a debate, right?

No, this is not a debate. It's a discussion, or at least that's what it is supposed to be. Your perception of what this forum represents is testimony to the way you present yourself - argumentative.

In a spirit of discussion, and not debate, will you please re-read my last few posts? If/When you have done this, would you respond again please. I'm sure the parable of the sower has more to say about why some people take the message of the Gospel and others don't, than you were able to comprehend (because of your frame of mind) at first reading. The glibness of your comment is indicitive of a lack of ears to hear.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

No, this is not a debate. It's a discussion, or at least that's what it is supposed to be. Your perception of what this forum represents is testimony to the way you present yourself - argumentative.

In a spirit of discussion, and not debate, will you please re-read my last few posts? If/When you have done this, would you respond again please. I'm sure the parable of the sower has more to say about why some people take the message of the Gospel and others don't, than you were able to comprehend (because of your frame of mind) at first reading. The glibness of your comment is indicitive of a lack of ears to hear.

Cheers,
enegue

I would encourage you to refer to the post at the top of the soteriology forum titled, "FORUM ANNOUNCEMENT - All Must Read."

There you will find the rules for debate. You will not find rules of discussion.

 

[enegue]

Mike,

Surely it's not necessary to use the "letter of the law". In the announcement ti which you drew my attention, a definition of debate was given: Debate is defined as to engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

I presented Jesus' parable of the sower as the reason why some people hear the Gospel and others don't, and it was clear that Reformationist couldn't have read the rest of the parable.

At the beginning of his explanation of the parable, Jesus says:

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
-- Luke 8:10
​

Cheers,
enegue

 

[Reformationist]

No, this is not a debate. It's a discussion, or at least that's what it is supposed to be. Your perception of what this forum represents is testimony to the way you present yourself - argumentative.

A debate is a discussion enegue. The fact that you don't recognize that is representative of your inability to defend your beliefs without being accusatory.

If you want to give me a straight answer as to why you believe some people accept Christ as Lord then please do so. Your citation of the parable is pointless as I have no clue whether you even understand the point of the parable. My guess would be, since you offer it in support of your view, that you do not start off with the understanding that it is God who determines which type of soil someone is created as.

If, instead, you are going to continue with the unsubstantiated name calling I'll not waste my time discussing this issue with you.

 

[Reformationist]

Debate is defined as to engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

So, just possibly, debate is a form of discussion. You think?

 

[enegue]

Reformationist,

If you claim that God does it all, and man has no active part to play in the process, then why did He not just do it all for Adam and Eve in the first place? What is the point of this whole creation groaning and travailing in pain until now?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist,

If you claim that God does it all, and man has no active part to play in the process, then why did He not just do it all for Adam and Eve in the first place?

Enegue, man's part to play in his eternal salvation is that of passive recipient. Man does play a part in his progressive salvation from the sin in his members as he is sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ. My point is simply that God's choice to elect him, His work of atonement, His monergistic imputation of Christ's righteousness through His gracious gift of faith, all of it is done by God alone and based solely on the counsel of the Godhead and Their purpose in the covenant of redemption. None of this is instituted because of any participatory action on the part of man.

 

[enegue]

Why did God wait 1500 years or so before he brought the flood? Why did he bring the flood?

Why did God wait another 1500 years or so, to establish the Law? Why did he establish the Law?

Why did God wait another 1500 years or so, to send Jesus? Why did he send Jesus?

Why has Jesus not returned already and everything been concluded?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[stabalizer]

Enegue, man's part to play in his eternal salvation is that of passive recipient. Man does play a part in his progressive salvation from the sin in his members as he is sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ. My point is simply that God's choice to elect him, His work of atonement, His monergistic imputation of Christ's righteousness through His gracious gift of faith, all of it is done by God alone and based solely on the counsel of the Godhead and Their purpose in the covenant of redemption. None of this is instituted because of any participatory action on the part of man.

I can't believe you believe this. It negates faith at least faith as I understand it! When Abraham raised the knife it wasn't passive or was it non participatory.

the cross was non participatory or passive?

Salvation begins with Psa 119:130,

1st the ear then the head then the heart and back out the mouth.

By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. (Matt 12:37)

In it's simplist format. (Rom 10:10) None of which is passive or non participatory. (Faith w/o works is dead)

It begins with faith and continues with faith. In fact what would make one believe you put down your faith after you cross over? In the words of John Wayne; (In the cowboys) Thats when school really begins.

 

[Reformationist]

I can't believe you believe this. It negates faith at least faith as I understand it!

I'm not sure you understand what I was putting forth so I cannot say whether your "shock" is accurately based.

When Abraham raised the knife it wasn't passive or was it non participatory.

Was Abraham's salvation based on his act of "raising the knife?"

the cross was non participatory or passive?

Two things. First, "the Cross" was God's work, not man's. My statement regarding man's passivity in his eternal salvation dealt with his role in his eternal salvation. Secondly, I mentioned the work of God in the Atonement:

My point is simply that God's choice to elect him, His work of atonement, His monergistic imputation of Christ's righteousness through His gracious gift of faith, all of it is done by God alone and based solely on the counsel of the Godhead and Their purpose in the covenant of redemption.

It begins with faith and continues with faith.

Before I address the myriad of unbiblical and anthropocentric implications in what you are professing, please enlighten me. From where does that faith come? How does man come to have it? How do the words of God come to generate faith within some but not others who hear the same message?

 

[depthdeception]

Two things. First, "the Cross" was God's work, not man's.

Actually, the cross was just as much "man's" work as it was God's... It was not God who died there...

Before I address the myriad of unbiblical and anthropocentric implications in what you are professing, please enlighten me. From where does that faith come? How does man come to have it? How do the words of God come to generate faith within some but not others who hear the same message?

Faith does not come from anywhere. It is not a force roaming the universe that is "somewhere" and can be "here" but not "there." An act of "faith" is an act of one that is faithful.

 

[enegue]

Reformationist,

You have some unanswered questions to address:

1. If you claim that God does it all, and man has no active part to play in the process, then why did He not just do it all for Adam and Eve in the first place? What is the point of this whole creation groaning and travailing in pain until now?
2. Why did God wait 1500 years or so before he brought the flood? Why did he bring the flood?
3. Why did God wait another 1500 years or so, to establish the Law? Why did he establish the Law?
4. Why did God wait another 1500 years or so, to send Jesus? Why did he send Jesus?
5. Why has Jesus not returned already and everything been concluded?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[Reformationist]

Actually, the cross was just as much "man's" work as it was God's... It was not God who died there...

LOL! Good one....oh, my bad. Are you being serious?

Faith does not come from anywhere. It is not a force roaming the universe that is "somewhere" and can be "here" but not "there." An act of "faith" is an act of one that is faithful.

One either has faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ or one doesn't. If one does, they have it. It's a part of their being, which, so far as I can tell, is "somewhere." If they do not have faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ then faith is not "there," that is, it is not part of their being.

"Acts of faith" are based on a person's faith, obviously. If they have no faith in the risen Lord then they can do no faithful acts.

As seems to be the regular case with your posts, they make no sense to me.

If I have missed your point, maybe you could rephrase in a less obtuse manner.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

You have some unanswered questions to address:
If you claim that God does it all, and man has no active part to play in the process, then why did He not just do it all for Adam and Eve in the first place?

If by "process" you mean "eternal salvation" then the answer to this is that God did do it all for Adam and Eve.

What is the point of this whole creation groaning and travailing in pain until now?

Not positive what you're asking but if I understand you correctly, the point is to glorify God.

None of the rest of your questions are pertinent at this point so I'm going to disregard them in the interest of not getting off track.

 

[depthdeception]

LOL! Good one....oh, my bad. Are you being serious?

Well, unless you wish to say that the eternal God died, then yes I am being serious. Of course, if you do wish to say that the eternal God died on the cross, you would be speaking heresy.

Are you denying that Christ was human?

One either has faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ or one doesn't. If one does, they have it. It's a part of their being, which, so far as I can tell, is "somewhere." If they do not have faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ then faith is not "there," that is, it is not part of their being.

No, I am talking about "faith" as some force that is independant of the faithful as if it is something that can abstractly be quantified in and of itself. However, faith is no such thing.

As seems to be the regular case with your posts, they make no sense to me.

If I have missed your point, maybe you could rephrase in a less obtuse manner.

Interesting. Few others on the myriad threads in which I participate have this difficulty. Perhaps the crux of the issue lies somewhere else...

 

[stabalizer]

I'm not sure you understand what I was putting forth so I cannot say whether your "shock" is accurately based.

Thank you for responding, i guess maybe i'm not posotive what you're saying so i'll try to explaiN.

Nothing about faith is passive,



Was Abraham's salvation based on his act of "raising the knife?"

No, but the covenant was. God saw his faith through the raising of the knife and received Isaac in a figure, iow God countd Isaac as dead



Two things. First, "the Cross" was God's work, not man's. My statement regarding man's passivity in his eternal salvation dealt with his role in his eternal salvation. Secondly, I mentioned the work of God in the Atonement:

YES but God was man at the cross!





Before I address the myriad of unbiblical and anthropocentric implications in what you are professing, please enlighten me. From where does that faith come? How does man come to have it? How do the words of God come to generate faith within some but not others who hear the same message?

I can't receive your statement of , "unbiblical professions", as accurate.

"anthropocentric", please that's just being critical. : " I will come to revelations and visions of God" ( by grace of course).

I'm not sure you understand what faith is and isn't. It's not only the definition but it's the objective of faith that matters, ( it's about service)

I assure , I KNOW WHAT FAITH IS AND HOW IT WORKS.

It's the process of faith that most don't get. Mental assent isn't salvation.

I look forward to enlightening you to the best of my ability. Be patient please

If I might quote Will Rodgers; "all men are ignorant, but just about different things.

To some; that means I'm saying you're stupid, (I'm not), to others I'm saying I can learn from every single person, if I'm willing to listen. I can control neither.

You might want to look at my post, "this Rock" and "Peter's daystar" before your reply!

Thanks and blessing in Jesus' name.

 

[Reformationist]

Interesting. Few others on the myriad threads in which I participate have this difficulty. Perhaps the crux of the issue lies somewhere else...

Perhaps. In that case, I'll take your thinly veiled derision for what it is and move on to more productive dicussion.

 

[Reformationist]

I can't receive your statement of , "unbiblical professions", as accurate.

Okay. That is certainly your perrogative.

"anthropocentric", please that's just being critical. : " I will come to revelations and visions of God" ( by grace of course).

Man centered doctrine is not the revelation of God so this claim, though possibly true, is not applicable.

I'm not sure you understand what faith is and isn't.

I am well aware of what saving faith is.

It's not only the definition but it's the objective of faith that matters, ( it's about service)

No clue what you mean here, nor does it sound like anything we were disagreeing about.

I assure , I KNOW WHAT FAITH IS AND HOW IT WORKS.

Why assure me? Shall I make you stand or fall?

It's the process of faith that most don't get. Mental assent isn't salvation.

Never claimed that mental assent was salvation so, once again, I fail to see your point.

I look forward to enlightening you to the best of my ability. Be patient please

I'll do my best but, please understand that I am not going to just take what you say as the Gospel. You'll need to qualify it with biblical support.

If I might quote Will Rodgers; "all men are ignorant, but just about different things.

John Wayne, Will Rodgers...like westerns do you?