The Tulip is broken

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

JDS,


"This is the work of God, that you believe on him...."
Yes it is the work of God. Which means it is God's work. Which means it is only God's work. Which means it is not your work.Here you go again! Insinuating that faith is a work.
Here you go again! Insinuating that faith is a work.
Eh......what is the 4th word in the first sentence above, which was written by you?

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Ro 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (What is the "it" here? Right, if you said it was his believing)
Try to follow the logic.
Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. IOW, if righteousness came by Abraham's efforts, i e work, then God would have owed hinm righteousness because he would have earned it.
Goodness me. This is so dum, I almost had a heart attack reading it.

When the bible says we are not justified by works, it is speaking of our works as opposed to God's work in us. As you have even quoted "this is the work of God, that you believe on him". Do you think when you write, or do you let your fingers do the thinking?

 

[Eric_C]

Eh......what is the 4th word in the first sentence above, which was written by you?

I almost fell off my chair laughing at this..., hahahahahah....., oh my...

 

[JDS]

JDS,


"This is the work of God, that you believe on him...."
Yes it is the work of God. Which means it is God's work. Which means it is only God's work. Which means it is not your work.Here you go again! Insinuating that faith is a work.
Here you go again! Insinuating that faith is a work.
Eh......what is the 4th word in the first sentence above, which was written by you?

The 4th word is the word "work" and the 6th word is "God". The word "man" is not in the sentence anywhere. Your contention is that faith is a work of man if he exercises it in obedience to God to receive the gift of God, eternal life, the Holy Ghost, salvation, all synonyms.

The Jews asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. But, here, let me just quote some of the context for you:

Jn 6:24 When the people (The people are most always Jews in the scriptures) therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. (Something that Calvinists say lost men cannot do)
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour (Labour means work) not for the meat which perisheth, but (Labour) for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which (eternal life) the Son of man shall give (Future tense) unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

So, what have we learned here so far? We have learned that Jesus Christ has instructed the Jews to labour for something that has to do with eternal life! That cannot be denied by anyone with common reasoning and the ability to read.

What was the response of the Jews who understood this language? They knew that "labour" meant to do something, henceforth their question:

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

THERE IT IS!!!!!

1) Jesus said for them to Labour!

2) The Jews asked him what labour they should do?

3) Jesus said TO BELIEVE ON HIM!

The work necessary for eternal life has already been done by the Father by sending his eternal life giving and eternal life sustaining son in the same way that the manna sustained the life in the wilderness in the physical realm. One must understand the types of scripture. It was God who sent the manna but they must gather it. He did not send it to the kitchen table!

Both the manna and the son were the work of God and the one typified the other!

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

The word "man" is not in the sentence anywhere. Your contention is that faith is a work of man if he exercises it in obedience to God to receive the gift of God
No my contention is that faith can only possibly be a work of God, for faith is the evidence of unseen things.

When man believes, such is actually the indwelling Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the only evidence possible of unseen things.

So your dichotomy of "faith" vs "receiving the gift of God" is false: faith is itself the gift of God, for faith is trust in God, and only Christ trusts God. Therefore the faith that we have, is Christ's mind in us. And Christ's mind in us, is itself the gift of God.

 

[JDS]

The word "man" is not in the sentence anywhere. Your contention is that faith is a work of man if he exercises it in obedience to God to receive the gift of God
No my contention is that faith can only possibly be a work of God, for faith is the evidence of unseen things.

When man believes, such is actually the indwelling Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the only evidence possible of unseen things.

So your dichotomy of "faith" vs "receiving the gift of God" is false: faith is itself the gift of God, for faith is trust in God, and only Christ trusts God. Therefore the faith that we have, is Christ's mind in us. And Christ's mind in us, is itself the gift of God.

Faith is not the gift of God and I will give you two weeks to find a single statement in the Scriptures that says it is!

Everything you have said here is in error. You have advance a philisophical viewpoint that I am challenging you on. You offered no proof from the Scriptures and you totally ignored my scriptural and in context proof that God requires a man to believe on his son, Jesus Christ, to be saved. It is like I didn't even say it.

Refute the argument from the text if you disagree and show where I have taken any liberties with the text in reaching my conclusuions.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Faith is not the gift of God
Yes it is, for it is the evidence of unseen things.

So faith is the indwelling Holy Spirit. For He is the evidence of unseen things.

It is not possible to have faith in God, without experiencing God. Therefore faith in God and the experiencing of God, are the same.

 

[JDS]

Faith is not the gift of God
Yes it is, for it is the evidence of unseen things.

So faith is the indwelling Holy Spirit. For He is the evidence of unseen things.

It is not possible to have faith in God, without experiencing God. Therefore faith in God and the experiencing of God, are the same.

Well, you haven't proven it yet? Your ideas are coming from your own mind until you do!

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

The proof is in itself.

Faith is the evidence of unseen things. No man can access this evidence.

Faith is therefore the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is the only evidence of unseen things. That is the reason He is needed.

But your doctrine is a doctrine which renders the Holy Spirit a mere add-on. It is therefore false.

 

[JDS]

The proof is in itself.

Faith is the evidence of unseen things. No man can access this evidence.

Faith is therefore the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is the only evidence of unseen things. That is the reason He is needed.

But your doctrine is a doctrine which renders the Holy Spirit a mere add-on. It is therefore false.

I have made my argument from John chapter 6. You have not responded and I suspect it is for a very good reason, it is because you can't. Now, you are wanting to change the subject and I am dimissing you as one to take seriously until you offer some proof and address my argument scripturally.

The manna was lying on the desert floor, put there by the efforts of God. It was given by God because there was nothing for the Children of Israel to eat. They had a choice. Come to the desert floor and gather the manna and eat it and live, or just simply die.

The TULIP is broken! Every proof text for it in scriptures teaches exactly the opposite of what you say.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

I have made my argument from John chapter 6. You have not responded and I suspect it is for a very good reason, it is because you can't.
It is the other way around.

Unless you can show that the Holy Spirit is not the evidence of unseen things, then my statement that faith is the indwelling Holy Spirit stands, and you are defeated.

You are aware of the axiomatic logic I have presented. Bluffing will get you nowhere.

 

[JDS]

RTE is on my ignore list!

These lazy calvinists in typical fashion state a false and unscriptural premise without proof and then expect someone to argue against it. They do not even know how they came to their conclusions ....and they expect me to?????

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

(Apparently JDS feels he cannot show that the Holy Spirit is not the evidence of unseen things. So what does he do? Admit defeat? No! He's an Arminian, so he sticks his fingers in his ears instead.)

 

[Van]

Hi JDS, post #170 is spot on!

 

[Van]

The TULIP is broken, and all the Calvinist acolytes cannot put it together again.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregenerate folks receive the gospel with joy, teaching they were both seeking God and believed God rewards those who seek Him.

Unconditional election is demonstrated false by James 2:5 where God chooses those who are rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinists, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2 where Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where folks who are entering heaven are turned aside by false teachers.

Folks, God loves you and desires that all men be saved. What must you do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus with all your heart! God has set this choice before you and because it is your choice, He has not foreordained the outcome. Trust in Christ, He died for you, and says to you, "take the water of life without cost." God Bless

 

[nobdysfool]

I speak for myself here but my attacks are not against you personally. I do not even know you. However, you hold to views that cannot be supported by the scriptures IN CONTEXT and you present them as truth. I will continue to challenge Calvinists to prove their assertions while attempting to correct them with the truth.

You said you were sick and tired of the debate. May I suggest you take a break?

Let me correct a misrepresentation. I did not question the intelligence of the reformed. I said this;

"The darkness is so very great over them that it reduces men with very high IQ's to reasoning on a grade school level or below."

This is not a questioning of their intelligence but their wisdom.

Here is a verse for you that will help you in a debate:

Ps 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

And here is an admonition if you do get offended.

Jer 12:5A If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?

Sorry, but the tone of your posts is all too clear. You're trying to cover your hind-end now. It is you who needs the break, when the kind of vile, insulting, and scurrilous charges that are flying around here from the keyboards of the non and anti-Calvinists. Can you not see the hatred being manifested? Or are you as blinded as you falsely claim Calvinists are?

One thing the anti-Calvinists seem to be unable or unwilling to do, and that is to discuss the varying viewpoints without all the invective, personal insults, disparagement and hatred that has been going on here. What are they so afraid of, that they cannot drop the sinful behavior and just discuss and debate on a high plane?

Calvinists have been accused of having their intelligence reduced simply for believing the doctrines of Grace, and the Absolute Sovereignty of God. Seems to me that the Calvinists have been the ones showing more intelligence, and higher IQ's because we don't generally wallow in emotional, selfish, self-exalting arguments.

This purposeful incitement to anger that the anti-Calvinists are engaging in must be seen for what it is: carnal, worldly, and sinful.

 

[nobdysfool]

RTE is on my ignore list!

These lazy calvinists in typical fashion state a false and unscriptural premise without proof and then expect someone to argue against it. They do not even know how they came to their conclusions ....and they expect me to?????

Yet more hatred. The Calvinists you call "lazy" are actually smart enough to realize that you're looking for a fight, not Truth. It's smarter for us to just remain calm, and let you and the other anti-Calvinists manifest all sorts of carnal, fleshly evil and hatred, and to leave it out there in stark relief, so that the readers can clearly see whose doctrines exalt Christ, and whose doctrines exalt man, self, and sinful behavior as a debate strategy.

Keep it up. You're providing a clear object lesson in what NOT to believe. We don't have to defeat you, you're defeating yourselves....

 

[frumanchu]

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregenerate folks receive the gospel with joy, teaching they were both seeking God and believed God rewards those who seek Him.

In typical fashion, you put words in Christ's mouth for the sake of attacking Calvinism at all costs. Where does Christ say that that both were seeking God? That's right...He doesn't. But because you are desperate to twist any verse of Scripture you can into an attack on Calvinism, you put words in Christ's mouth and make claims the text simply cannot support.

Unconditional election is demonstrated false by James 2:5 where God chooses those who are rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him.

Van's version of salvation: God helps those who help themselves.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinists, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2 where Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

Here is where the "grade school logic" really resides. You claim that Christ is the propitiation (satisfaction) for all sins of all man for all time...yet those sins simply cannot be actually and truly satisfied or there would be no grounds for the condemnation of unbelievers. What sin could they possibly be condemned for if all have been actually satisfied by Christ?

Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where folks who are entering heaven are turned aside by false teachers.

Taking a page from Ben Johnson, you too draw fallacious conclusions from this verse. Is your God so small that He cannot contend with the Pharisees? That He sits helplessly by while false teachers actually thwart the will of God and set up blockade in front of the gates of the Kingdom? Rather than understand Christ's words as focused on indicting the legalism of the Pharisees you twist it into yet another attack on Calvinism at the cost of the very sovereignty of God. God's will is reduced to a mere cosmic wish list in your theology, helpless before the will of men.

Folks, God loves you and desires that all men be saved. What must you do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus with all your heart! God has set this choice before you and because it is your choice, He has not foreordained the outcome. Trust in Christ, He died for you, and says to you, "take the water of life without cost." God Bless

So sad that you must taint the call of the Gospel with your Anti-Calvinist hatred, unable to resist any opportunity to attack Calvinism at any cost. Your desire to preach Christ is clearly subordinate to your desire to attack Calvinists. Over and over, thread after thread, it continues. May God release you from this hatred, regardless of whether you are convinced of the truth of the Reformed view.

 

[Van]

Folks, Calvinism cannot be defended from scripture, witness post #195 by Fru.
I am charged with putting words in Christ's mouth, twisting scripture, and on and on. But no rebuttal of scripture is offered, just "taint so."

For example I say Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, and Fru then say I said all the sins have been satisfied. LOL This in a sentence where logic appeared. To be the means of salvation for everybody does not equate with saving everybody. It is one thing to provide the means of salvation and yet another to utilize that means. Christ died for all mankind, not for the supposedly pre-selected elect. That contention of Calvinism is fiction.

And Fru closes with this, Matthew 23:13 does not mean what it says, nor does God will to save those who fully believe in Christ, for if they do not fully believe in Christ, God's will is thwarted. LOL

And so it goes. Folks, the TULIP is broken and all of Calvinism's acolytes cannot put it together again.

 

[frumanchu]

Folks, Calvinism cannot be defended from scripture, witness post #195 by Fru.
I am charged with putting words in Christ's mouth, twisting scripture, and on and on. But no rebuttal of scripture is offered, just "taint so."

I asked you to show me where in that passage Christ says that "both were seeking God." You cannot because Christ does not say it. Christ does not even imply it. So, in the absence of substantiation, when called on the carpet, you trump up this ridiculous "no rebuttal of scripture" defense. You are the one claiming Christ is saying something he clearly is not. I do not have to actually quote the verse to point out the fact that it is not there. The burden of proof is upon you since it CLEARLY AND IRREFUTABLY does not say that they were seeking God.

For example I say Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, and Fru then say I said all the sins have been satisfied. LOL This in a sentence where logic appeared. To be the means of salvation for everybody does not equate with saving everybody. It is one thing to provide the means of salvation and yet another to utilize that means. Christ died for all mankind, not for the supposedly pre-selected elect. That contention of Calvinism is fiction.

Propitiation means satisfaction, Van. Christ is the satisfaction of God's justice for sin. You cannot say on the one hand that Christ has satisfied God's justice for a particular sin, then at the same time have God satisfying his justice in the condemnation of the individual for all eternity. But that is precisely what you are implying in claiming that that verse applies to all men individually and without exception. Either He actually satisfied God's justice for those sins and all men are saved, or you are incorrectly applying the verse.

It's not my fault that you lack the ability to grasp such a simple logical argument, but it's patently absurd that you then presume to critique my logic as being flawed when you cannot demonstrate it to be so.

And Fru closes with this, Matthew 23:13 does not mean what it says, nor does God will to save those who fully believe in Christ, for if they do not fully believe in Christ, God's will is thwarted. LOL

Again, you run from the clear logical implications of your position by ridiculing me, again without offering anything even resembling a structured argument. But that's to be expected from a rabid Anti-Calvinist who is more concerned with attacking Calvinists than being accurate or truthful.

And so it goes. Folks, the TULIP is broken and all of Calvinism's acolytes cannot put it together again.

Show us all where Christ says that both were seeking God, Van. Please provide us with the verse where Christ says this or show us with a rational logical argument why it is necessarily implied...

You will not, because you cannot. You can only continue to cast aspersions at Calvinists to cover for your own lack of substantive argument.