What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

Yeah I see a pattern, you`ve made 25 posts to my thread going back to #289 and you haven`t quoted a single scripture.

Woops too late. I already did.

 

[RickReads]

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

See? You do believe in salvation by election after all.

 

[JAL]

Yeah I see a pattern, you`ve made 25 posts to my thread going back to #289 and you haven`t quoted a single scripture.

Besides:
(1) As I already told you, a self-contradictory position is wrong even if a million verses are given to "back it up"
(2) I also accused Calvinism of contradicting God's love. Was it really necessary for me to go find a thousand verses about God's love? Just to "back it up"? I could have done all that, but I hardly see the point.

 

[RickReads]

So the tree is fully clean but still manages to produce bad fruit, in many instances? That's an interesting position, given Christ's words:

3“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

More bad logic.

 

[JAL]

See? You do believe in salvation by election after all.

Absolutely. Look, I get it. Believe me I do. I understand that the Calvinist passages seem so Calvinist that the Arminian solutions seem too watered-down a reading of those verses.

What Calvin DIDN'T see is that you don't have to reduce the force of those verses to produce a non-Calvinistic reading.

I believe 100% in monergistic regeneration and salvation of the elect predestined before the foundation of the world. In NO SENSE do I try to reduce the force of those verses.

Calvin should have admitted that his understanding of regeneration was internally self-contradictory. And once that's admitted, an alternative to TULIP can be formulated.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Calvinistic assumptions don't necessitate the conclusion that only a limited number of people are eligible for salvation. Nor is it even clear that free will can't play a part in conversion.

 

[JAL]

Did I neglect to mention also that the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin is equally self-contradictory? Shouldn't that too, have given Calvin a clue that his soteriology was flawed?

 

[RickReads]

Besides:
(1) As I already told you, a self-contradictory position is wrong even if a million verses are given to "back it up"
(2) I also accused Calvinism of contradicting God's love. Was it really necessary for me to go find a thousand verses about God's love? Just to "back it up"? I could have done all that, but I hardly see the point.

The problem is you think you are the referee for this imaginary debate. A position isn`t self-contradictory
just because you say it is.

 

[JAL]

The problem is you think you are the referee for this imaginary debate. A position isn`t self-contradictory
just because you say it is.

It's generally an act of irrationality to embrace two seemingly blatantly contradictory propositions. One exception would be a conclusion based in Direct Revelation - but Direct Revelation isn't really arguable on a debate forum. And don't pretend I'm alone in this accusation. Heck, even Charles Hodge basically admitted that the Reformed God is a monster by human standards - but then he essentially claimed that we just suck it up and praise Him because He's God!!!!

 

[JAL]

More bad logic.

Anyone see a pattern here? On every alleged contradiction, you simply respond "bad logic". This is how you "debate" - and seriously want me to go back and read your posts? You're joking, right?

 

[RickReads]

Absolutely. Look, I get it. Believe me I do. I understand that the Calvinist passages seem so Calvinist that the Arminian solutions seem too watered-down a reading of those verses.

What Calvin DIDN'T see is that you don't have to reduce the force of those verses to produce a non-Calvinistic reading.

I believe 100% in monergistic regeneration and salvation of the elect predestined before the foundation of the world. In NO SENSE do I try to reduce the force of those verses.

Calvin should have admitted that his understanding of regeneration was internally self-contradictory. And once that's admitted, an alternative to TULIP can be formulated.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Calvinistic assumptions don't necessitate the conclusion that only a limited number of people are eligible for salvation. Nor is it even clear that free will can't play a part in conversion.

Well, this thread wasn`t supposed to be about Calvinism. I guess you missed the Calvin roast we had not long ago.

If you asked me instead of telling me what I believe then you would find out that I believe in limited free will and that I believe God will save whosoeverwill. As for the hell accusation, I don`t even have a firm opinion regarding what happens to the lost. I don`t think it`s necessary to have an opinion about that issue. The guy I made the Calvinist remark to doesn`t believe in salvation by election or Omniscience. So I was about to make a brief stay on the Calvan train. I consider most of it defensable

 

[RickReads]

It's generally an act of irrationality to embrace two seemingly blatantly contradictory propositions. One exception would be a conclusion based in Direct Revelation - but Direct Revelation isn't really arguable on a debate forum. And don't pretend I'm alone in this accusation. Heck, even Charles Hodge basically admitted that the Reformed God is a monster by human standards - but then he essentially claimed that we just suck it up and praise Him because He's God!!!!

I`m here to talk about scriptures. I`m tired of your philosophy class leftovers.

 

[RickReads]

Anyone see a pattern here? On every alleged contradiction, you simply respond "bad logic". This is how you "debate" - and seriously want me to go back and read your posts? You're joking, right?

I`m very serious. I think your logic is really bad and I expect someone to understand a thread before they jump in it and start taking it over. I said everything I have to say about progressive & Calvins before you arrived.

 

[JAL]

I`m here to talk about scriptures. I`m tired of your philosophy class leftovers.

Again, if a position is internally contradictory, there's no point in debating it against Scripture!

 

[Psalm 27]

I believe that when God forgives your sins He sends His Spirit to wash you clean in your heart and to sanctify you. As we worship and pray God will renew His Spirit within us. This is the Biblical sanctification.
It`s not progressive because you can`t get more clean than clean and you can`t get more saved than saved.

Tell me why you feel bitter and confused?

distracted (consumed) by ‘holiness’ teaching for years. Struggle to discern right teaching now and completely lost trust. Anyone can quote scripture! Am bitter because i believe in entire sanctification, but I’m not there yet

 

[JAL]

I`m very serious. I think your logic is really bad and I expect someone to understand a thread before they jump in it and start taking it over. I said everything I have to say about progressive & Calvins before you arrived.

Nobody cares what you "think" - what matters is what can be demonstrated, and that involves charges of inconsistency and a convincing effort to resolve those charges, which you are obviously not living up to.

 

[RickReads]

Did I neglect to mention also that the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin is equally self-contradictory? Shouldn't that too, have given Calvin a clue that his soteriology was flawed?

You are flogging a dead horse. We already tore Calvin to pieces.

 

[JAL]

You are flogging a dead horse. We already tore Calvin to pieces.

It's not dead because no one else (except one man I know of) has produced a viable, logically consistent theory of Adam. And that theory has direct bearing on regeneration and progressive sanctification. I already told you it is all connected.

 

[RickReads]

distracted (consumed) by ‘holiness’ teaching for years. Struggle to discern right teaching now and completely lost trust. Anyone can quote scripture! Am bitter because i believe in entire sanctification, but I’m not there yet

I want to talk to you in a private conversation. Is that ok? I understand where you are at.

 

[RickReads]

It's not dead because no one else (except one man I know of) has produced a viable, logically consistent theory of Adam. And that theory has direct bearing on regeneration and progressive sanctification. I already told you it is all connected.

Ok, tell me all about it. Load this thread up.

 

[Psalm 27]

I want to talk to you in a private conversation. Is that ok? I understand where you are at.

Yes please