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.
I said this:
"Prove that he was, before Peter preached. That's the issue. I know that regeneration and salvation occur together. Can't have one without the other. And I know from Scripture that he wasn't saved until Peter preached, per Acts 11:14."
Uh, no it doesn't.The people that God sent Peter to preach and be saved, justified, baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit, God tells Peter they have been cleansed, meaning regenerated.
The context for ch 11 is found in ch 10 and Peter's vision. Specifically, v.28 - He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.Acts 11
8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’10 Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.
Refuted by the context of Acts 10:28.So not common, they have the new hearts, as the Psalm says.
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
When God declared them clean, this is as when Christ tells the disciples,
John 15:3
You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
And that would be Christ's words to them, not Peters words. Spoken to them by His Spirit.
You need to show that in Calvinism, sin and unbelief are the same thing. If you cannot (and you cannot), then this is nothing more than a straw man.I said this:
"OK. What do children of God have for hearts then? And why do they sin if they dont have hearts of stone?
Isn't the Calvinist view that the unregenerate cannot do anything but sin and cannot believe? If that were true, how come believers, who have a changed heart, still sin??"
There is no straw man. Just a straight forward question, which I see, you cannot answer, and instead, try to deflect from it. OK.
The challenge is obvious. Calvinism claims that those with a heart of stone cannot believe the gospel, until God gives them a heart of flesh.
So, how come those with a changed heart CAN still sin? Why doesn't it go both ways, in Calvinist thinking?
If those with a heart of stone cannot believe, then those with a changed heart should not be able to sin.
But I do see the quandry this question creates for Calvinism. Even though believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit, we are able to sin. There is NO REASON for any unbeliever to be unable to believe.
So you think Hevrews 11 is the exception? Funny that Paul didn't mention that in Romans 8.Hebrews 11 is clear: by faith. Apart from faith, there is no pleasing God.
And the first issue of faith is to believe that God exists (Heb 11:6). And Rom 1:20 says that no one has any excuse for not being thankful or glorifying Him.
Now, how would one suppose that God is glorified, if not by recognizing His existence? That's were the issue of faith begins.
There can be no faith in Christ until there is faith that God exists. Believing the evidence from creation that He is Creator God.
As I've proved from Scripture, Cornelius wasn't saved until Peter preached to him. And I have given the verses that indicate that regeneration and faith occur at the same time. Not really that difficult.Your claim was that he was not regenerated. I asked where in the text it says this.
Because you believe the opposite; that he was regenerated before Peter came and preached. So prove it.Then you said I had to prove he wasn't.
The proof isn't IN the text. The proof is in the verses I've shown.I'm not the one who made the claim about the text, so I'm not the one who needs to show anything.
Once again, wrong. I have given proof, and from Scripture.That would be you. You keep wanting to shift the burden on me to disprove something you've given no evidence for. That's not how it works.
How easy can this be??You need to show that in Calvinism, sin and unbelief are the same thing. If you cannot (and you cannot), then this is nothing more than a straw man.
What you did was assume your conclusion. You believe that faith comes before regeneration, so you assume that's what happened in Acts 11. That's called eisegesis. There's nothing in the narrative that says anything about when he was regenerated, justified, sanctified, or glorified.As I've proved from Scripture, Cornelius wasn't saved until Peter preached to him. And I have given the verses that indicate that regeneration and faith occur at the same time. Not really that difficult.
Because you believe the opposite; that he was regenerated before Peter came and preached. So prove it.
The proof isn't IN the text. The proof is in the verses I've shown.
And you disagree. So prove your own point, if you have one that is supported by Scripture.
Once again, wrong. I have given proof, and from Scripture.
But I'll repeat myself for your benefit.
1 Jn 5:1a - Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God
Greek grammar dictates that present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb.
So, what is the present participle? "everyone who believes", which is literally from the Greek, "believing ones".
Now, what is the action of the main verb? "has been born of God".
They occur at the same time.
So, Calvinism claims that one is regenerated before they can believe. Where is that taught? If you don't provide a verse or 2, then I'll know that you believe something that is not supported by Scripture. That's how it works.
I cannot imagine why you think that I think that Heb 11 is the exception. Please explain why you think that.So you think Hevrews 11 is the exception? Funny that Paul didn't mention that in Romans 8.
Not quite. While that which is not of faith is sin, it does not say all sin is unbelief.How easy can this be??
Rom 14:23 - And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Your challenge has been taken and your view has been refuted. What is not of faith (unbelief) is sin. Therefore, sin and unbelief are the same thing.
I asked how one can please God in the flesh if Romans 8 says you cannot. You posted Hebrews 11, which says nothing about pleasing God in the flesh, but you act as if it does. That makes it an exception.I cannot imagine why you think that I think that Heb 11 is the exception. Please explain why you think that.
Why would Paul mention Hebrews in Rom 8 anyway?
But, as usual, just another question in order to deflect from the fact that you've got no answer.
Please actually read my posts before firing off an unprepared post.What you did was assume your conclusion. You believe that faith comes before regeneration, so you assume that's what happened in Acts 11. That's called eisegesis.
So what? Where's the evidence to support Calvinism's claim about the need for regeneration in order to believe?There's nothing in the narrative that says anything about when he was regenerated, justified, sanctified, or glorified.
So what? I proved from Scripture that they are the same. The issue wasn't "what is the full scope of sin".Not quite. While that which is not of faith is sin, it does not say all sin is unbelief.
OK, since you still believe that regeneration is necessary in order for one to believe the gospel; prove it from Scripture.I asked how one can please God in the flesh if Romans 8 says you cannot. You posted Hebrews 11, which says nothing about pleasing God in the flesh, but you act as if it does. That makes it an exception.
You still are not showing that faith came before regeneration in Acts 11. If you'll admit that you cannot because it's not in the narrative, we can move on.Please actually read my posts before firing off an unprepared post.
We don't find the order in Romans. That principe is found elsewhere. And I noticed that you've not provided ANY Scripture for the order you keep claiming.
Eph 2:5 indicates that regeneration and salvation occur at the same time. Not different times.
Eph 2:8 gives the order between faith and salvation. Faith precedes salvation. iow, one must believe before they will be saved. Exactly what Paul told the jailer who asked what he MUST DO to be saved. Believe was the answer.
And Calvinism cannot support their claim that one must be regenerated before they can believe.
So what? Where's the evidence to support Calvinism's claim about the need for regeneration in order to believe?
What would be interesting is if you could demonstrate how anyone could be judged if all sins are atoned for.Calvinism is so obviously false. If it were true, then that would mean the Judgment is a joke or a farce and man could not be held accountable to a creator God for his actions (If it was God who was the One who made some to be saved or unsaved). For Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the entire world so as to offer every man the free gift of salvation openly. This life would be meaningless non-sense to live if God was the one who was pulling everyone's strings. It would not matter what I would do then. Life would be a cruel joke or prank. But if I did have the capacity to choose Christ (God), then my actions and what I do does indeed matter. Life is not meaningless. What I do does matter and I am not some puppet being moved around like some kind of rag doll.
...
If you agree that it's undeserved, why did you disagree with Marvin when he said it?
There you go again. I'm asking how one pleases God in the flesh, and this is your reply. Does this mean you agree with Paul that we cannot please God in the flesh?OK, since you still believe that regeneration is necessary in order for one to believe the gospel; prove it from Scripture.
No, you proved from scripture that lack of faith is a sin. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.So what? I proved from Scripture that they are the same. The issue wasn't "what is the full scope of sin".
Do you think emphasizing that grace is undeserved is the wrong way to go about it?Because putting the emphasis on a subset of something isn't the same thing as emphasizing the thing itself.
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?