Sufficient vs Necessary

[janxharris]

Actually, he does. He just disguises it by calling God's providence in creation "grace".

Best if he replies.

 

[Hammster]

Best if he replies.

His future denial is noted. But the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Hammster]

Eternally separated from God.
Nobody can fulfill the law.

So everyone deserves hell. That's the Reformed position.

 

[janxharris]

So everyone deserves hell. That's the Reformed position.

I know.

 

[Hammster]

I know.

And, to further clarify, it is the ultimate cause.

 

[shturt678s]

So everyone deserves hell. That's the Reformed position.

This position stands on sinking ground. Only those that met the Truth from God's position deserves hell.

Old Jack

 

[Hammster]

This position stands on sinking ground. Only those that met the Truth from God's position deserves hell.

Old Jack

As usual, I have no idea what you mean.

 

[FreeGrace2]

More Pelagianism on display.

This the question at the end of my quote:
If any of this can be refuted from Scripture, please proceed.

So, instead of attempting a refutation, your choice of action was just to throw accusations?

I found this definition of Pelagianism:
The theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British monk, and condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in a.d. 416. It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will.

I totally reject this as heresy. I do NOT deny original sin, and in fact have noted many times that Adam's sin condemned the entire human race.

Further, I've always rejected the idea thaty humans can be righteous by their own choice.

In fact, righteousness is something that God declares one to be. And we know from Rom 4 that He declares the believer righteous.

I believe what these verses SAY:
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”

Rom 4:11 1and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them

Rom 4:25 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead

These verses refute Pelagianism. So your opinion is based on a very fallacious idea.

Can your charge be proven from what I said? Please proceed.

After posting for over a year and over 4,000 posts, it would seem that by now, everyone who has been posting to me over that time would actually understand my views. Apparently not.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, he does. He just disguises it by calling God's providence in creation "grace".

Actually, I don't, as I've just proven. And some have been paying attention and know that. The rest have no excuse for not knowing that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Best if he replies.

Yep. I completely refuted the false charge.

 

[FreeGrace2]

His future denial is noted. But the facts speak for themselves.

Why haven't you made any attempt to prove your charge that I am a Pelagian?

Because there is no evidence to bring forth. If there were, it would have been provided by now.

And throwing charges is a whole lot easier than actually proving them.

 

[Hammster]

This the question at the end of my quote:
If any of this can be refuted from Scripture, please proceed.

So, instead of attempting a refutation, your choice of action was just to throw accusations?

I found this definition of Pelagianism:
The theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British monk, and condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in a.d. 416. It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will.

I totally reject this as heresy. I do NOT deny original sin, and in fact have noted many times that Adam's sin condemned the entire human race.

Further, I've always rejected the idea thaty humans can be righteous by their own choice.

In fact, righteousness is something that God declares one to be. And we know from Rom 4 that He declares the believer righteous.

I believe what these verses SAY:
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”

Rom 4:11 1and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them

Rom 4:25 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead

These verses refute Pelagianism. So your opinion is based on a very fallacious idea.

Can your charge be proven from what I said? Please proceed.

After posting for over a year and over 6,000 posts, it would seem that by now, everyone who has been posting to me over that time would actually understand my views. Apparently not.

Your whole argument is based on man being righteous by free will. You may claim to affirm original sin, but your actual arguments deny it's effects.

 

[Hammster]

Why haven't you made any attempt to prove your charge that I am a Pelagian?

Because there is no evidence to bring forth. If there were, it would have been provided by now.

And throwing charges is a whole lot easier than actually proving them.

Your arguments do it well enough.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your whole argument is based on man being righteous by free will.

How in the world can one come to that false conclusion?? My argument was based on a number of verses in Rom 4, which were apparently ignored.

Let me be clear: man is declared righteous by God. And God declared ONLY believers righteous.

You may claim to affirm original sin, but your actual arguments deny it's effects.

You may claim to understand my view, but your repeated misrepresentations deny that claim.

I would prefer debating someone who actually not only understood my view, but acknowledged it in their attempt to refute it. I haven't met that person yet.

Been spending all my time correcting the misrepresentations of my view instead.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your arguments do it well enough.

I said this:
Why haven't you made any attempt to prove your charge that I am a Pelagian?

Because there is no evidence to bring forth. If there were, it would have been provided by now.

And throwing charges is a whole lot easier than actually proving them.

Once again, just another empty and false charge.

My arguments refute your misrepresentations of my view. And well enough.

 

[Hammster]

How in the world can one come to that false conclusion?? My argument was based on a number of verses in Rom 4, which were apparently ignored.

Let me be clear: man is declared righteous by God. And God declared ONLY believers righteous.


You may claim to understand my view, but your repeated misrepresentations deny that claim.

I would prefer debating someone who actually not only understood my view, but acknowledged it in their attempt to refute it. I haven't met that person yet.

Been spending all my time correcting the misrepresentations of my view instead.

And we know the common denominator.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And we know the common denominator.

I would prefer debating someone who actually not only understood my view, but acknowledged it in their attempt to refute it. I haven't met that person yet.

 

[Hammster]

I would prefer debating someone who actually not only understood my view, but acknowledged it in their attempt to refute it. I haven't met that person yet.

And the common denominator is....?

 

[FreeGrace2]

And the common denominator is....?

I have no idea what your point is. Elaborate, please.

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea what your point is. Elaborate, please.

Since you've yet to meet anyone who understands your view, where do you think the common denominator is?