Spiritual Deadness?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace, for by grace through faith are we saved.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace, for by grace through faith are we saved.
Romans 9:16 indicates salvation does not depend on the man that wills. This included placing our faith in Christ. Nothing we do causes salvation. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace, for by grace through faith are we saved.

Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace, for by grace through faith are we saved.

Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture
Romans 9:16 indicates salvation does not depend on the man that wills. This included placing our faith in Christ. Nothing we do causes salvation. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
See post #43, folks, RT is demonstrated false by Romans 9:16.
Romans 9:16 indicates salvation does not depend on the man that wills. This included placing our faith in Christ. Nothing we do causes salvation. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. See post 43 for the details.

what is wrong with this ?


Romans 9:16 indicates salvation does not depend on the man that wills. This included placing our faith in Christ. Nothing we do causes salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace (Romans 5:2), for by grace through faith are we saved (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God. Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Our faith provides the access to God's grace (Romans 5:2), for by grace through faith are we saved (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture


well , I did what you asked , and I find nothing here to describe what you said , nothing !

Romans 9:16 (King James Version)

http://www.biblegateway.com/help/faq/?id=2#10



So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Van said:
Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. It shows that unregenerate men can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken view because if the RT argument was valid the Spiritually dead would not seek the righteousness of God.
Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture


As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom 9:13-16) ESV

There is absolutely no way that this passage can be shown to assert that unregenerate men can will to be saved. In fact, it shows just the opposite, for the context shows that God does with men as He Wills, saving some, and hardening others, so that His Will and Purpose are accomplished. Read the chapter, folks. Van is blowing smoke here because this verse emphatically does not teach what he claims it does.

I find it laughable that after nearly 500 years, it is Van who claims to have found the “one verse” that collapses Reformed Theology. As though in 500 years, no one else ever saw that, or realized that. When you read the2 verse, and then read Van’s claim, the two do not match. Since scripture is far more authoritative than Van’s claims, I will stick with scripture, and call Van’s view what it is: deception.

Van said:
Second, even if we put our faith in Christ, that does not save us, for it is God who puts us in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. (1Co 1:30) ESV

The claim Van makes is actually not what is said here, but it reinforces another point Van tries to avoid, that of the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to us.

Van said:
Our faith provides the access to God's grace (Romans 5:2), for by grace through faith are we saved (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Rom 5:2)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:1-10) ESV


Romans 5:2 states that Through Him (Christ) we have obtained access. The access is by faith, but the obtaining of the access is through Christ, not our own faith. Van is confusing the teaching here, and has missed the point of the passage. He makes too much of our faith, and downplays who has made our faith possible. Not surprising for one who has a biased view (RT is wrong). The semi-Pelagian underpinnings of his hybrid Arminian/Open Theist/Conditionalist theology are showing here. We’ve seen Van try to adopt both sides of a point, where a contradiction is evident, while claiming to not be contradictory.


Ephesians 2 has a wealth of info regarding this issue, and while Van makes a correct statement in saying we are saved by grace though faith, he has ignored and some cases denied the clear teaching that we were dead in trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath, the same as the rest of mankind, but it was God who made us alive (not our faith, as Van claims), and that “making alive was by Grace. And the culmination is in verses 8 and 9. By Grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Now, we all agree that the Grace is not of ourselves, and I think we all agree that Salvation is not of ourselves, for if we could save ourselves, then where is the need for God’s Grace? So that leaves faith. Reformed Theology teaches that saving faith is not sourced within ourselves, but comes as a result of hearing the Gospel (faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God), and the ability to hear the Gospel such as it produces that faith in the hearer is granted by God, in the form of monergistic regeneration (while we were dead, God made us alive; and hearing [is by] the Word of God). Therefore, By God’s Grace, through the faith which comes by hearing the Word with opened spiritual ears, we are saved, and that (referring to Grace and the faith from hearing the gospel) is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.

Boast of what? That he saved himself? No, that’s obvious.

That he obtained Grace? No, because Grace is not man’s to claim, but God’s to give, as He wills.

That he believed? Now we’re getting warm, because the Arminian/semi-Pelagian teaching is that it was OUR faith, OUR belief, which caused us to be saved. Those who believe and teach this are claiming for themselves something that Paul specifically said was a gift of God, for the express purpose of preventing man from doing what the Arminian/semi-Pelagian majority are doing: Claiming that they are saved by their faith.

So, as we examine Van’s verse references, we can see that they not only do not say what he claims they do, but they also do not show that Reformed Theology is a mistaken view of scripture, but rather that Van’s view is the mistaken view of scripture.

Case Closed, QED.
 
Upvote 0

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Romans 9:16 refers to the fact that salvation does not depend on the man that wills. Now the RT advocate says this in no way indicates unregenerate men will to be saved. Judge for yourselves.

I do not claim to have found the one verse that demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture, I assert that all of scripture, every single verse demonstrates that four of the five points of the TULIP, the TULI are mistake views, for they either do not address the point, or they are equivical, or as in Romans 9:16 they teach the asserted RT doctrines are false.

1 Corinthians 1:30 says God puts us in Christ, just as I claim. Here are several translations:

30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (NIV)

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (NASB)

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— (NKJV)

In sum, we do not put ourselves in Christ by placing our faith in Christ, but rather, God puts us in Christ based on His sovereign will, just as I stated.

In Him we are holy and blameless, which is imputed righteousness, so the assertion that I avoid this point is simply yet another false charge, misrepresenting my position. And the constant false charges are for the purpose of diversion away from the fact that Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture.

NBF said:
Romans 5:2 states that Through Him (Christ) we have obtained access. The access is by faith, but the obtaining of the access is through Christ, not our own faith.
Here are several versions of the Romans 5:2 text:
2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (NIV)

2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (NASB)

2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (NKJV)

By placing our faith in Christ Jesus we obtain our access to the grace of salvation. And so the meaning of "through Him" or through whom (referring to Christ Jesus) is that He is the person in whom we place our faith. The RT view that through Him means He supernaturally instills the gift of faith is not what Paul is teaching. God credited Abraham's faith as righteousness, so the faith in view is our faith, which God accepts, see Romans chapter 4. The "gift of faith" is demonstrated invalid because God would not need to credit our faith as righteousness if it was a gift from God, it would already be righteous. RT takes vague phrases like through him, and pours their own doctrine in, when if you read the passage in context, nothing of the sort is said or implied. Of course God made our faith possible, by sending His Son to save that which was lost!
NBF said:
he has ignored and some cases denied the clear teaching that we were dead in trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath, the same as the rest of mankind, but it was God who made us alive (not our faith, as Van claims), and that “making alive was by Grace.

Yet another false charge, with no quote offered! Read the Opening post of this thread folks, Van is the author and I embrace that we were made sinners, and thus we are dead in our tresspasses and sins. I embrace that because of our sinful nature we were children of wrath, and I embrace that it is God who puts us in Christ, making us alive together with Christ. My position is exactly opposite of the NBF distortion, posted as a diversion, of the idea that our faith makes us alive. Pay no attention to RT advocates presentation of my position, they post false presentations as a diversion.

My position is not that our faith caused us to be saved, but rather we are saved by grace through faith which provides our access to God's saving grace. It is God who puts us in Christ, we do not put ourselves in Christ. If God does not accept our faith, and credit it as righteousness, He does not put us in Christ, that folks is my position. Matthew 13:20-21 tells us of a kind of person whose faith is rootless, and rejected by God.

And so, as we revisit the verses, we see that they demonstrate RT is a mistaken view of scripture, and that my assertions simply accept the plain reading of the text. Case closed.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9:16 refers to the fact that salvation does not depend on the man that wills. Now the RT advocate says this in no way indicates unregenerate men will to be saved. Judge for yourselves.

could you be clearer ?

I do not claim to have found the one verse that demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture, I assert that all of scripture, every single verse demonstrates that four of the five points of the TULIP, the TULI are mistake views, for they either do not address the point, or they are equivical, or as in Romans 9:16 they teach the asserted RT doctrines are false.
:confused:

1 Corinthians 1:30 says God puts us in Christ, just as I claim. Here are several translations:

30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (NIV)

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (NASB)

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— (NKJV)
No , none of these translations say we are "put" or Placed " in Christ ..... they say we are in Christ!

In sum, we do not put ourselves in Christ by placing our faith in Christ, but rather, God puts us in Christ based on His sovereign will, just as I stated.
:scratch:

In Him we are holy and blameless, which is imputed righteousness, so the assertion that I avoid this point is simply yet another false charge, misrepresenting my position. And the constant false charges are for the purpose of diversion away from the fact that Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture.
You have in the past denied imputed righteousness are you now acknowledging your errors ?

Here are several versions of the Romans 5:2 text:[/size][/font]
2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (NIV)

2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (NASB)

2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (NKJV)
The text is clear that it is through Christ (whom) that we have access (to salvation which is by faith) into this grace .......... what Grace ? The Grace that saves.
This text does not and cannot contradict the scripture that states we believe by Grace .....

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Acts 18:27
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASB: And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, (NASB ©1995)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

KJV: And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Romans 9:16 refers to the fact that salvation does not depend on the man that wills. Now the RT advocate says this in no way indicates unregenerate men will to be saved. Judge for yourselves.

If it does not depend on the man who wills, as scripture says, then who does salvation depend on? There is only one other it could depend on: God. How then can you say that this verse says that unregenerate men can will to be saved? You are stating something specifically eliminated by the verse.

Van said:
I do not claim to have found the one verse that demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture, I assert that all of scripture, every single verse demonstrates that four of the five points of the TULIP, the TULI are mistake views, for they either do not address the point, or they are equivical, or as in Romans 9:16 they teach the asserted RT doctrines are false.

You most certainly did:

Van said:
Folks, just read Romans 9:16, it demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture

Your statement says that this verse proves that RT is a mistaken view of scripture. Now you want to add qualifiers. But your original statement stands as quoted, that you claimed the RT could be proven wrong from this verse. The normal reading of such a statement would indicate that you believed that this verse alone refuted RT. I called you on it, and now you're back-pedalling. Thus the anti-RT zealot tries to avoid accountability for what he says, while holding others to account for what they say.

A double standard is not from the Lord.
Van said:
1 Corinthians 1:30 says God puts us in Christ, just as I claim. Here are several translations:

30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (NIV)

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (NASB)

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— (NKJV)

In sum, we do not put ourselves in Christ by placing our faith in Christ, but rather, God puts us in Christ based on His sovereign will, just as I stated.

All the while avoiding and ignoring what the verse actually says, which is that we are in Christ, not by anything we do or say, but totally by Him, because of Him, which eliminates the Arminian concept of man having a part in causing his salvation.

Van said:
In Him we are holy and blameless, which is imputed righteousness, so the assertion that I avoid this point is simply yet another false charge, misrepresenting my position. And the constant false charges are for the purpose of diversion away from the fact that Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture.

Again, the anti-RT zealot claims to know the thoughts and intents of the hearts of his opponents. Any questioning of his statements is called diversion, ploys, disruptive, etc, and all the while he never actually addresses what questions are raised, but simply repeats a claim as though it were a self-evident fact. He calls for this to cease, but then perpetuates it by employing the very diversionary tactics he decries in his opponents.

Van said:
Here are several versions of the Romans 5:2 text:[/size][/font]
2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (NIV)

2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (NASB)

2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (NKJV)

By placing our faith in Christ Jesus we obtain our access to the grace of salvation. And so the meaning of "through Him" or through whom (referring to Christ Jesus) is that He is the person in whom we place our faith.

Do you not understand that even the ability to believe on Him is Grace from God?

Van said:
The RT view that through Him means He supernaturally instills the gift of faith is not what Paul is teaching.

I did not say that, now did I, Van? let me remind you of wghat I actually said:

NBF said:
Ephesians 2 has a wealth of info regarding this issue, and while Van makes a correct statement in saying we are saved by grace though faith, he has ignored and some cases denied the clear teaching that we were dead in trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath, the same as the rest of mankind, but it was God who made us alive (not our faith, as Van claims), and that “making alive" was by Grace. And the culmination is in verses 8 and 9. "By Grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God". Now, we all agree that the Grace is not of ourselves, and I think we all agree that Salvation is not of ourselves, for if we could save ourselves, then where is the need for God’s Grace? So that leaves faith. Reformed Theology teaches that saving faith is not sourced within ourselves, but comes as a result of hearing the Gospel (faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God), and the ability to hear the Gospel such as it produces that faith in the hearer is granted by God, in the form of monergistic regeneration (while we were dead, God made us alive; and hearing [is by] the Word of God). Therefore, By God’s Grace, through the faith which comes by hearing the Word with opened spiritual ears, we are saved, and that (referring to Grace and the faith from hearing the gospel) is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.

I explained exactly what I meant, and Van falls back to a canard that has been shown to be false many, many times in these forums, but the Anti-Calvinists and Anti-RT zealots simply cannot let go of their favorite false charge.

Van said:
God credited Abraham's faith as righteousness, so the faith in view is our faith, which God accepts, see Romans chapter 4. The "gift of faith" is demonstrated invalid because God would not need to credit our faith as righteousness if it was a gift from God, it would already be righteous. RT takes vague phrases like through him, and pours their own doctrine in, when if you read the passage in context, nothing of the sort is said or implied. Of course God made our faith possible, by sending His Son to save that which was lost!


Inaccurate, because the Word specifically says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by (or through) the Word of God.

Van said:
Yet another false charge, with no quote offered! Read the Opening post of this thread folks, Van is the author and I embrace that we were made sinners, and thus we are dead in our tresspasses and sins. I embrace that because of our sinful nature we were children of wrath, and I embrace that it is God who puts us in Christ, making us alive together with Christ. My position is exactly opposite of the NBF distortion, posted as a diversion, of the idea that our faith makes us alive. Pay no attention to RT advocates presentation of my position, they post false presentations as a diversion.


Again with the claim to know the thoughts and intents of the hearts of your opponents. You simply cannot accept that we have serious problems with your doctrines, and especially how you state them, because they keep being adjusted by you, as we shine light on them. You have made contradictory statements, and refuse to be held accountable to them. Any attempt to examine what you say is immediately decried by you as some sort of persecution, diversion, ploys, and the like, and it is clear that your intent in such claims is to cast aspersions on RT believers, by accusing them of dishonety, subterfuge, deceit, and duplicity, with the express aim of planting in the reader's mind that RT is wrong, not based on scripture, but based on the supposed dishonesty of those who support, and proclaim it. As such it is a veiled ad hominem attack on those who question your doctrines, and attempt to do so on scriptural grounds.

Van said:
My position is not that our faith caused us to be saved,

Good. Please try to get Ben johnson, your sometimes supporter, to see the truth of that.

Van said:
but rather we are saved by grace through faith which provides our access to God's saving grace.

Good, but do you realize what you've just said? it could be interpreted as a circular argument: We are saved by Grace through faith which provides access to Grace. So which comes first? Grace or faith?

Van said:
It is God who puts us in Christ, we do not put ourselves in Christ.

A true statement.

Van said:
If God does not accept our faith, and credit it as righteousness, He does not put us in Christ, that folks is my position. Matthew 13:20-21 tells us of a kind of person whose faith is rootless, and rejected by God.

This is where we start to part ways. A detailed examination of Romans 4 does not support your position. Perhaps I can find such an examination which can be posted here. I'm not opposing you just to be contrary, I have good reason to oppose your conclusions on this point.

Van said:
And so, as we revisit the verses, we see that they demonstrate RT is a mistaken view of scripture, and that my assertions simply accept the plain reading of the text. Case closed.


And he closes with another opinion stated as though it were fact. He is so in need of being "right" and having the last word, that he will claim closure when there is none. The jury is still out, and Van has stated his opinion, and it is ONLY opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
If it does not depend on the man who wills, as scripture says, then who does salvation depend on? There is only one other it could depend on: God. How then can you say that this verse says that unregenerate men can will to be saved? You are stating something specifically eliminated by the verse
Yet another argument from the absurd. Just read it and see if it makes any sense at all. I say salvation depends on God, and NBF posts my position is wrong because salvation depends on God. Twaddle.

The RT advocate posts are diversions, posts that attempt to divert attention from the truth that Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. Just read post 52, the case is closed.

No , none of these translations say we are "put" or Placed " in Christ ..... they say we are in Christ!
Is the RT position that we are not put in Christ by God? Nope. So what is the point? None. Hence a diversion.

You have in the past denied imputed righteousness are you now acknowledging your errors ?
Yet another lie, another false charge in a stream of false charges, all without any quotes or support. The false charges are a ploy to divert attention away from Romans 9:16.


Acts 18:27 does not say we believe because of the inner call, Iresistible grace. If you read the passage, you see that Apollos refuted the Jews, teaching from scripture that Jesus was the Christ. So again, RT attempts to use a verse that says when we trust in Christ, we are trusting in Christ who is the grace of God. So every one who trusts in Christ believes through or because of God's grace in sending His Son as a witness. No inner call, the supernature gift of faith, according to RT is mentioned, the verse like the rest does not support the RT invention of Irresistible grace in the slightest. Just read it folks the meaning is clear.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Which comes first faith or grace? Grace. God sent His Son to save that which was lost. Thus God's grace comes before we were aware of Jesus, God incarnate. But this prior grace is God's revealing grace, not His saving grace. After we receive the gospel, which means we hear it and believe in it, God has mercy on us and accepts our faith and credits it as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5. Now our trust in the revealed grace of Christ is therefore through Christ, for if God had not sent Christ, we would have no Christ to put our trust in. . We are saved by grace through faith, with God accepting our faith and placing us in Christ which results in our eternal salvation, never to be lost.
 
Upvote 0

PETE_

Count as lost, every moment not spent loving God
Jun 11, 2006
170,116
7,562
59
✟212,561.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
As a fallen sinner, were you just spiritually sick, or spiritually dead?

"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17)

"you...who were dead in trespasses and sins...even when you were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph. 2:1, 5)

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive" (Col. 2:13)

The spiritually dead can't raise themselves. They must be raised by God.

Could you spiritually see the gospel, or were you spiritually blind?

"yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive & eyes to see & ears to hear" (Deut. 29:4)

"I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand...For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them." (Mt. 13:13-15)

"Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'" (Jn. 12:38-40)

"to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18)

"there is none who understands" (Rom. 3:11)

"But their minds were blinded." (2 Cor. 3:14)

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." (2 Cor. 4:3-4)

The blind can't see, until God first gives them sight.

Could you spiritually hear the gospel, or were you spiritually deaf?

"yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive & eyes to see & ears to hear" (Deut. 29:4)

"I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand...For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them." (Mt. 13:13-15)

When you were spiritually dead, blind, & deaf, did you desire & seek God?

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5)

"men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." (Jn. 3:19)

"For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light" (Jn. 3:20)

"haters of God" (Rom. 1:30)

"There is none who seeks after God." (Rom. 3:11)

"I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me." (Rom. 10:20)
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Yet another argument from the absurd. Just read it and see if it makes any sense at all. I say salvation depends on God, and NBF posts my position is wrong because salvation depends on God. Twaddle.

I'm beginning to wonder if English is not Van's primary language. I asked a very straightforward question, and Van's reply does not even address the question I asked, but rather heaps invective and scorn on me for daring to question his supposed "understanding" of Romans 9:16. Not only that, but he accuses me of saying something I did not say, to wit: "NBF posts my position is wrong because salvation depends on God." the careful reader will note that I did not say that. I asked Van, based on his statement that Rom 9:16 proved that unregenerate men can will to be saved, that since scripture says that it (salvation) does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs (works) but on God who shows Mercy, then who does salvation depend on? Obviously God. Van now claims that is what he was saying but it is clear from not only his posts, but my own quotes of his posts, that this is NOT what he said. He specifically said that unregenerate men can will to be saved, that is, exercise their own will to choose God, the obvious implication being an autonomous choice, which precludes any prior action of God in that choice. Van's own previous statements show that is what he meant. That is the Arminian position, the position that Van holds, but now wants to run away from.

Now he tries to deny it, and claim that I am holding a non-scriptural position. Folks, what are we to think of such things? I have been consistent in my pursuit of showing that Van's position is untenable, so he heaps abuse on me every time I show his error, and then claims that I am engaging in "ploys" and diversionary tactics, in an attempt to besmirch my character as a defense against his doctrine being examined.

Van said:
The RT advocate posts are diversions, posts that attempt to divert attention from the truth that Romans 9:16 demonstrates RT is a mistaken view of scripture. Just read post 52, the case is closed.

Examining the words of Romans 9:16 is a diversion? In what alternate reality would that be the case? I asked a specific question based on the wording of the scripture, and I am accused of "diversions" to avoid the truth of the scripture in question!

Van said:
Is the RT position that we are not put in Christ by God? Nope. So what is the point? None. Hence a diversion.

Actually, the diversion is in the fact that you assert that specific scriptures say things that they don't actually say in so many words. I believe we are right to examine and question your assertions. You evidently do not want such examination, and view any such scrutiny as an attack on your character, which it is not. So far you have not provided any exegetical proof of those assertions, you have simply made bold statements that such-and-such a scripture proves your position, and call any attempt to question your unproven assertions to be "ploys", diversions", lies, and what ever else you can invent, to divert attention from the evident fact that you HAVE NOT provided the exegetical proofs we ask for.

Cygnusx1 said:
You have in the past denied imputed righteousness are you now acknowledging your errors ?
Van said:
Yet another lie, another false charge in a stream of false charges, all without any quotes or support. The false charges are a ploy to divert attention away from Romans 9:16.

Seeing how Romans 9:16 does not even address imputed righteousness, and the question Cygnus asked was in reply to a statement you made which Cygnus and I both know that you have in the past denied. It will take some time, but I'm sure we can find the actual quote, since you will no doubt demand it.

Van said:
Acts 18:27 does not say we believe because of the inner call, Iresistible grace.

Now it is YOU who is lying, because Cyg never used the word "irresistible", as you are asserting here. Do you deny that we are saved by Grace, and that we believe through (or by) Grace?

Van said:
If you read the passage, you see that Apollos refuted the Jews, teaching from scripture that Jesus was the Christ. So again, RT attempts to use a verse that says when we trust in Christ, we are trusting in Christ who is the grace of God. So every one who trusts in Christ believes through or because of God's grace in sending His Son as a witness. No inner call, the supernature gift of faith, according to RT is mentioned, the verse like the rest does not support the RT invention of Irresistible grace in the slightest. Just read it folks the meaning is clear.

Now who is inventing straw men? You are attempting to indict Cyg, and all Calvinists for something that Cyg never said. Yes, the meaning in the verse is clear: We believe through Grace.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Seeing how Romans 9:16 does not even address imputed righteousness, and the question Cygnus asked was in reply to a statement you made which Cygnus and I both know that you have in the past denied. It will take some time, but I'm sure we can find the actual quote, since you will no doubt demand it.



Now it is YOU who is lying, because Cyg never used the word "irresistible", as you are asserting here. Do you deny that we are saved by Grace, and that we believe through (or by) Grace?



Now who is inventing straw men? You are attempting to indict Cyg, and all Calvinists for something that Cyg never said. Yes, the meaning in the verse is clear: We believe through Grace.


it took me quite some time to find this , start digging about here , and re-discover van's denial of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ (he thinks it is faith not Christ that makes us righteous)

http://www.christianforums.com/t2683017&page=33
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
it took me quite some time to find this , start digging about here , and re-discover van's denial of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ (he thinks it is faith not Christ that makes us righteous)

http://www.christianforums.com/t2683017&page=33
Cyg, could you be more specific? Which post, or posts, is it? The link took me to the last post in the thread.

Thanks,

NBF
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.