If LFW is true, how does sanctification work?

[janxharris]

And I said I don't do shallow theology. Shallow theology only uses select verses as if they tell the whole story. I don't do that.

So yes, you're right. I can't give a verse or two.

Admitting you cannot provide a verse that demonstrates that 'men wont seek God without regeneration' is striking. A fundamental element of Calvinistic doctrine is absent from scripture? That is an indictment, I would say.

 

[janxharris]

No you haven't.

And you told me that you believed regeneration is the same thing as being "born again" - of which I provided verses from John 3 that says EXACTLY what I believe. You are the one who had to make them mean something other than what they say - but too late. The minute you said being "born again" is the same thing as regeneration you lost the argument on scriptural grounds!

Why aren't they the same?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said it wasn't. You're gonna have to go back into some older threads to review what that is all about. The disagreement isn't over what regeneration is - its over when it occurs.

A number of the reformed here have said it occurs at the same time one believes. But they also indicated a "logical order" which I don't think is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Admitting you cannot provide a verse that demonstrates that 'men wont seek God without regeneration' is striking. A fundamental element of Calvinistic doctrine is absent from scripture? That is an indictment, I would say.

Actually, a number of fundamental elements are absent. Such as:
the limited scope of Christ's death
that God chooses who will believe
that regeneration occurs "logically" before believing.

 

[AndOne]

Why aren't they the same?

They are. The issue is when it occurs - before or after salvation.

 

[AndOne]

Admitting you cannot provide a verse that demonstrates that 'men wont seek God without regeneration' is striking. A fundamental element of Calvinistic doctrine is absent from scripture? That is an indictment, I would say.

Pretty uncool of you to accuse him of this. He said he doesn't limit his theology to just a few verses to explain the story. That's a big difference from saying he can't use any scripture at all to explain it.

If you must villainize someone to win an argument its a sure sign you are standing on shaky ground...

 

[janxharris]

Pretty dishonest of you to accuse him of this. He said he doesn't limit his theology to just a few verses to explain the story. That's a big difference from saying he can't use any scripture at all to explain it.

If you must villainize someone to win an argument its a sure sign you are standing on shaky ground...

Villainize? How have I villainized him?

If you are referring to my use of 'indictment' then you have misunderstood me. My intention was that Calvinism is indicted if a verse cannot be found to defend a doctrine.

I do not wish to villainize anyone Behe's Boy.

 

[Hammster]

Admitting you cannot provide a verse that demonstrates that 'men wont seek God without regeneration' is striking. A fundamental element of Calvinistic doctrine is absent from scripture? That is an indictment, I would say.

What's striking is that you came to that conclusion based on what I said.

 

[TannarDarr]

Admitting you cannot provide a verse that demonstrates that 'men wont seek God without regeneration' is striking. A fundamental element of Calvinistic doctrine is absent from scripture? That is an indictment, I would say.

In competitive Debate terminology, that was called a "Turn around".

 

[AndOne]

Villainize? How have I villainized him?

If you are referring to my use of 'indictment' then you have misunderstood me. My intention was that Calvinism is indicted if a verse cannot be found to defend a doctrine.

I do not wish to villainize anyone Behe's Boy.

None of what you say is how it appears. Ya might want to clean up some of your posts..l

 

[janxharris]

None of what you say is how it appears. Ya might want to clean up some of your posts..l

Okay.

 

[TannarDarr]

What's striking is that you came to that conclusion based on what I said.

Seems a pretty fair assumption.

The place's culture encourages people to make proclamations without substantiating their claims.

It seems to me, based on the culture, and your evasion that he just played yin to your yang.

 

[TannarDarr]

The INTENT of the comment I will quote after this comment, is for some substantiation.
The evasion was to pedantically skirt around the issue. It's the same as Bill Clinton's "depends on what sex is..." or however he commented.

Originally Posted by Hammster View Post
And I said I don't do shallow theology. Shallow theology only uses select verses as if they tell the whole story. I don't do that.

So yes, you're right. I can't give a verse or two.

you should have given three or four, or offered to back it up in another thread, or something, rather than just sit back and evade the prior two posts before this one and not substantiate your claim.

Fair is fair, you aren't playing fair here.

 

[Hammster]

Seems a pretty fair assumption.

The place's culture encourages people to make proclamations without substantiating their claims.

It seems to me, based on the culture, and your evasion that he just played yin to your yang.

I haven't evaded anything. FG has a "I have a verse" theology. In other words, he ignores context quite often, as we've shown ad infinitum. That's shallow theology.

So, no, I cannot give "a verse or two" to defend my view.

 

[crimsonleaf]

The INTENT of the comment I will quote after this comment, is for some substantiation.
The evasion was to pedantically skirt around the issue. It's the same as Bill Clinton's "depends on what sex is..." or however he commented.



you should have given three or four, or offered to back it up in another thread, or something, rather than just sit back and evade the prior two posts before this one and not substantiate your claim.

Fair is fair, you aren't playing fair here.

Bearing in mind the whole Bible substantiates our theology, showing that to be the case on the forum is a tall order and an equally unfair request. I refer you to the Holy Bible.

 

[Hammster]

The INTENT of the comment I will quote after this comment, is for some substantiation.
The evasion was to pedantically skirt around the issue. It's the same as Bill Clinton's "depends on what sex is..." or however he commented.



you should have given three or four, or offered to back it up in another thread, or something, rather than just sit back and evade the prior two posts before this one and not substantiate your claim.

Fair is fair, you aren't playing fair here.

I haven't evaded. In fact, I've already provided evidence in other threads for both members. You're new, so you are unaware.

Now you know.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I haven't evaded anything. FG has a "I have a verse" theology. In other words, he ignores context quite often, as we've shown ad infinitum. That's shallow theology.

So, no, I cannot give "a verse or two" to defend my view.

This is totally untrue. I have GIVEN verses that SAY what I believe, unlike reformed theology, which CAN'T do that.

At least hammster's right about not being able to provide a verse that SAYS what he believes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Bearing in mind the whole Bible substantiates our theology

Opinion is noted.

I refer you to the Holy Bible.

I do that for you guys all the time, to show you that the Bible SAYS what I believe.

 

[TannarDarr]

I haven't evaded anything.

Why, yes, in fact you have. You titled his request, removing the contextual request, and imposing a strawman term then used your strawman term/concept as justification to avoid the contextual request.

FG has a "I have a verse" theology.

I don't right you off when you pull the evasion stunt all the time, why would you put him off because he asked for some substantiation? Is your opinion really so great that we are insulting you to ask for substantiation? I don't get it.

In other words, he ignores context quite often, as we've shown ad infinitum. That's shallow theology.

Is this a challenge to go point out all your "social sins" ad infinitum on here? AND are they reason to not substantiate what we/I say?

So, no, I cannot give "a verse or two" to defend my view.

There you go again....

He didn't say give ONE, no more than TWO verses as you imply. That's just deliberately misrepresenting his views. It's a feigned attempt to a subtle passive aggressive insult that you have a pedantic means to save face if called on it.

he gave you an option so you didn't have to write a treatise on the subject. He was being polite, nice, using a common term, with a common meaning, that even my second grade nephew would understand. I have asked him, tell me a book or two you have liked in school and got a list of a dozen. (which btw, eliminated my christmas ideas, he reads too many too fast...)

You are not being intellectually honest hammie, and you are a moderator, that's disturbing. Am I going to be in "trouble" here for pointing it out?

 

[TannarDarr]

Bearing in mind the whole Bible substantiates our theology, showing that to be the case on the forum is a tall order and an equally unfair request. I refer you to the Holy Bible.

Bearing in mind, I can have you contradicting the Bible's words in three verses maximum, then defend it with the full context of the BIBLE, you are pretty dang bold to make such a pompous claim and pretend like "WE" whoever we are, your team? Your allies? Your coterie? Are right because you think you are? Gimme a break.

YOU PRESUME the Bible substantiates your view. This is "No It's Not, it's MY WAY" discussion, not adult discussion. You have just denied the man, whomever it was, your substantiated proof, EVEN if it was only a part. And then still sit there and pretended "WE" are the ones right.

It's ironic, the one claiming that they don't give one or two verses, is the one that answers with one line snide snips here and there and just presumes victory all the time in their posture of their posts. This is utterly ridiculous crimson. Your pomposity noted and allowed as a sincere and innocent flaw, it's still incredible.

You can't speak for the whole bible. You can speak for your understanding, and your interpretation. If you declare you can speak for the whole bible, I must counsel my friends AND ENEMIES for that matter, to stay away from the Kool Aid.

I can't even believe what I'm seeing here.

Who is this "WE" you speak of? Is there some sorta secret handshake I need to learn to be a "WE", or is it just I have to give the same cliche responses to certain topics, provide no substantiation for it, and proclaim I'm right and "they" are wrong. What's the standards for this elite group?