Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We are saved by grace through faith. Apart from faith in Christ, there is no salvation. Do you disagree with that?Then you would agree that faith is a gift by the grace of God? Then you would agree that God saves by grace alone, and not by your faith (or lack thereof)?
For the same reason there are so many religions in the world and liberals, conservatives, independents and idiots.Then why doesn't everyone who hears the Gospel have faith and be saved?
Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.Those who disagree with the Calvinist view see it as that. That's all. And those who disagree with the Calvinist view understand that the Calvinist doesn't see it that way. But that's why it is used because that's the way it appears to those who don't agree.
You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.Odd conclusion from what I posted.
What are the ways one would hear the gospel and the Word of God? Examples pleaseBut you said "faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ." So faith is a gift from God, not something we do. Heb 12:2 says "...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith". And Rom 12:3 says " ... God has allotted to each a measure of faith.” These other two verses, including the one you supplied, clearly tell us that faith is not something that we do or a presence of mind that we develop, but that faith is a gift from God. Faith is the enabling power of God, given to us by His grace and mercy.
You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe)................. the Bible gives clear examples of people who were seeking God. Cornelius was NOT saved until he heard the gospel from Peter, per Acts 11:14. And Lydia wasn't saved until she believed. And the Bible describes both of them as worshipers of God (they were seeking Him).
That is a great point. The Bible does not talk about this topic of regeneration at all. It is s big leap and assumption on their part.Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.
You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.
My point was that you seem to have a special knowledge of how the human spirit and the Spirit of God work in conjunction with each other in a case like this that my Bible doesn't talk about.
I said before that many Calvinists would see Lydia's case as an example of regeneration.
You say it can't be regeneration and I say, "quite possibly". I believe what you say is wrong and what I say is correct.
What evidence do you have that there is a regeneration before belief. Concrete verses. Not double talk or special interpretation.You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe).
But how do you know those seekers were not regenerated?
Again, it seems that you have some special insight into how the spirit and Spirit work than I have not been given.
It seems that the Calvinist view would go a long way toward getting rid of the "paradox" (no contradictions in God's Word) of natural men not seeking God and yet these two seeking God.
But you'll reject that outright, I suppose, because it smacks of election.
You'll have to define 'hear' first.What are the ways one would hear the gospel and the Word of God? Examples please
This is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the ChristiansFor the same reason there are so many religions in the world and liberals, conservatives, independents and idiots.
Unless one wants to argue that God created each human with an intellect that is drawn to any particular point of view, humans use their intellect to determine what they like.
God does what he wants to go. He doesn't need you telling him what to do
Again, I honestly do not care what you call it. Just make one already and show us that your belief is indeed true.Onc again, there was no parable in the conversation between the woman and Jesus. He used a metaphor, not a parable.
Well, the dictionary disagrees with you and so does the definition for the origin of the word, too. But if you think you are more of a word expert over the dictionary, then I will have you contact them so as to give them a piece of your mind.Seems you just keep demonstrating over and over how little you understand the difference between a metaphor and a parable.
This is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived.
Well let know one sayThis is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians
You can't say not at all. That simply isn't true.That is a great point. The Bible does not talk about this topic of regeneration at all. It is s big leap and assumption on their part.
Because the word is only used once and then in a rather vague way, it is not possible to show an exact verse that teaches that it happens either the Calvinist way or the other ways. This is especially true since there seem to be two views about what the word means.What evidence do you have that there is a regeneration before belief. Concrete verses. Not double talk or special interpretation.
Well, having a new heart (from a heart transplant) does not mean you are immune to destroying your life that would be any different than when you had your old heart. See, the problem in your parable is that you are minimizing sin. But let's look at one of them. Drinking heavily. Well, the Bible would call this drunkenness; And the Bible says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Also, the Bible says that if you defile the temple, God will destroy you. Also, your parable speaks nothing of the other horrible sins that a person can do whereby they would need to face some kind of proper justice. For I doubt a new heart transplant would make it okay with God if they decided to go out and kill a bunch of people or rape people. Surely these kinds of sins would not be covered by God.Well in that case why don't we take the example of a heart transplant. Once a heart is transplanted into a person, that becomes a permanent fixture. Now if this individual smokes heavily, drinks heavily, eats all the wrong foods, and disregards cholesterol build up, it will never change the fact that he was given a NEW HEART. But he will certainly pay for his transgressions.
Thus it is with a believer who receives the gift of eternal life. He does receive a new heart and a new spirit, but if he feeds his carnality and starves his spirituality, he will be taken to task. Please refer to 1 Cor 11:27-34.
The program that the alcoholic enters himself into would be paralled to a believer engaging with God so as to overcome his sin. So no. I am not suggesting a Man directed works salvation program. I am suggesting that a believer submits to God whereby they then let God work and move within their life.Well, one thing is clear with this parable. Your view is that man actually does save himself.
But the Bible clearly refutes such an idea. We are saved by God. And there is no God in your parable. So try again. This time with an actual real world example. Yours fell flat.
Your parable was only a self help program. And while many unbelievers have done that, it didn't save them. Even if you thought it did.
But again, that's how they see it.Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.
No, no special knowledge. But I do understand the difference in word meanings. To open the heart suggests providing understanding. Which is the ministry of the Holy Spirit in conviction. But opening a heart for understanding doesn't always result in a proper response.You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.
My point was that you seem to have a special knowledge of how the human spirit and the Spirit of God work in conjunction with each other in a case like this that my Bible doesn't talk about.
Oh, yes. I agree with that. And disagree with those many Calvinists.I said before that many Calvinists would see Lydia's case as an example of regeneration.
I think that's how these forums generally work.You say it can't be regeneration and I say, "quite possibly". I believe what you say is wrong and what I say is correct.
I must cite Eph 2:5 which indicates to me that "being made alive" and "having been saved" occur at the same time. This is also the indication from Greek grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 - Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe).
But how do you know those seekers were not regenerated?
Just what I have read from Scripture.Again, it seems that you have some special insight into how the spirit and Spirit work than I have not been given.
I see the Free Grace view totally compatible with all of Scripture. God created mankind with the freedom to choose for or against Him. Some seek, many do not.It seems that the Calvinist view would go a long way toward getting rid of the "paradox" (no contradictions in God's Word) of natural men not seeking God and yet these two seeking God.
My understanding of election is rather clear from Epoh 1:4 about who it is that God has elected. "us". And, who are the "us"? Paul defines that for us in 1:19 - "those who believe".But you'll reject that outright, I suppose, because it smacks of election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?