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'm not lending more force to what Paul said over Jesus since Jesus ultimately wrote it all. But Luke is a narrative describing what happened. Paul is explaining what happens in the foreground. They compliment each other.
No, God inspired it all. Men wrote it. Still doesn't answer my point.
Again these type of assertions prove NOTHING.
Then why say it does?
Yes, by grace through faith in Christ. Salvation is conditional.It explains Paul witnessing to the jailer, and the jailer and his family being saved.
Yes, by grace through faith in Christ. Salvation is conditional.
So, who is, then? If a lexicon is one of "many tools", what are the others?
Snarky replies about my level of consciousness don't aid discussion. I know that some here think I'm stupid, it screams from their every reply to my posts, talking down to me like i was some annoyance to squash like a bug. I'm not being overly sensitive, I understand words because words mean things. and the words people use reveal the thoughts of their heart.Maybe the amount of posts generated on this particular thread hasn't risen to your level of consciousness, but I asked for a specific post. That means post #. Not some vague response. I don't have the time to try to dig through possible pages of posts to determine what you might have meant. If you don't provide the exact post #, forget it. That only means there really isn't one.
What makes yours so true?What makes your opinion so true?
and where does it say that that knowledge alone is enough for man to be saved?An equally valid question is, why NOT? We know from Scripture that God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27), and that God has revealed His divine attributes and existence to everyone (Rom 1:19-20).
His sinful heart, and hatred of God, which is also referred to in Romans 1. You know, the part being glossed over...So, what's stopping man from believing?
I am insinuating nothing of the sort, It is YOU who has done so, by trying to knock what I say down by falsehoods and innuendo, rather than by Scripture. You have not shown that what you say is true, and Scripture says the opposite.Seems your insinuation is that God's creative attempt is less than satisfactory, if man cannot seek (or believe) in God or what He promises.
that's not my problem...And that view is quite unsatisfactory to me. Completely so.
Spiritually dead men are not capable of doing anything pleasing to God, which is what spiritually alive men can do, by virtue of their regeneration. So there is an issue of functionality involved, whether seen or not. Denials do not make it not so.Spiritual death only means separated from God, not lack of function as your next point is claiming.
Baseless accusations of red herrings are a diversionary tactic. Spiritually dead men can and do hear the voice of God WHEN GOD REGENERATES THEM! Not before.This isn't even close to the issue. Spiritually dead men CAN and DO hear the voice of the Son of God (Jn 5:25). No one here is arguing that man makes themselves alive, so please quit with all these silly red herrings.
And Paul is telling them what happened that made it possible for them to be believers: the quickening of God. Yes he's speaking to believers, reminding them of how they became believers.Sure. And who are the 'us' in THAT context? Paul included himself with his audience. So, who was his audience? Believers in Ephesians.
No, that's not what Paul said. He said you (believers) were made alive, SO THAT you (believers) could know the riches of His GraceHere is what Paul was saying: God quickens believers.
Why is it that you always want neat little one-line verses for everything? The bible is not a collection of stand-alone verses. Some theological points come to light after study, and comparing scripture with scripture, and considering ALL of Scripture. It isn't always jumping off the page at you, sometimes you have to look for it, dig for it, and spend time in prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you. I know that goes against the easy-believeism, fast-food mentality of most Churches today, but that doesn't mean that isn't the way it is. Ask any true biblical scholar and they will affirm what I'm saying.Except that there aren't any verses that say or teach that. So there is no reason on earth to believe any of this.
Regeneration is NOT salvation. It is UNTO salvation, AFTER one believes. But they must be regenerated first.God DOES require belief before He will save anyone. Seen in the myriads of verses that link belief to eternal life/salvation.
No, that doesn't follow. The will doesn't cause one to believe, but in order to believe, one must decide to do so. Belief is a decision.Not really. If your statement were true, then people could will themselves to believe anything, whether sane or not. But no one can will themself to believe anything. Yes, we choose what we will believe, but it is NOT based on man's will.
Now who's being silly and ridiculous? You throw down a ridiculous challenge, because deep down, you think I'm stupid. There is no other way to look at it. Why don't you just be honest and admit it?I will believe your claim here IF you can prove to me that you are able to will yourself to believe that Santa Claus actually exists and brings presents to everyone at Christmas time. Please let me know how that works out.
You have decided not to believe it. That's the other side of the same coin.Unless you can prove your claim that one wills what they believe, there is no reason to accept that view.
What is it then? An act of the emotions? Talk about unstable!This is all in error. It is NOT an act of the will.
The so-called 'challenge' is ridiculous, and silly, and would only be valid if there were a chance that i could actually prove it, which we both know is impossible. So the challenge is invalid, and of no consequence or use. It proves nothing. It's a waste of time.The challenge has been made. When you can prove to me and this thread that you can will yourself to believe in Santa Claus, I will believe it. But not until then.
Do you really think you have refuted me with a ridiculous and silly 'challenge' that cannot be fulfilled? Such a challenge is invalid, because it is bogus, and assumes an impossibility. One cannot prove truth with falsehood.I will be waiting for your proof of this claim. I've given a pretty simple thing to believe. Can you do it?
By whose measure? The employment of innuendo, and subtle wording that does hint at just those things lead to such a conclusion. If you don't see it, that's your problem, but when everyone else here can see it, including Oz, then I'd say that you do have a problem with it.Hold on right there. I've said NOTHING about 'studity or ignorance. Those most definitely ARE goading and flaming. But statements that ARE silly or ridiculous will be noted. If one doesn't want their posts to be described that way, it's imperative that one doesn't make a silly or ridiculous post.
We have been trying to with limited success so far, because there is an attitude of 'I can't be wrong' in many of your posts.This is just an ill-informed judgment of my standards. Please DO hold my words to account.
Then why resist so vehemently when we attempt to just that? Why attack us for doing so? Maybe you don't see it that way, but you're not on the receiving end of it. We are. That's the way it comes off.Why do you think I frequently ask other posters to refute my points specifically? Because if I say anything that can be proven false, I surely want to know about it.
]Not overly sensitive, I just don't like to be treated as though I were some sort of moron who should know better. It's insulting, it's rude, and Jesus would never speak to me that way, or to you that way either.We both don't want to be wrong. But the difference is that I ask for refutation of my points, and your response to any refutation or criticism is overly sensitive.
Refutation is not the be-all and end-all of discussion here. Would you speak to Jesus the way you speak to any of us here? My bet is, no, you would not. If Jesus told you that you were wrong about something, would you demand that He provide refutation? Again, I'm betting that you wouldn't.I've gotten very strong disagreements with all the Calvinists who post here. But I'm still waiting for actual refutation, which has not been presented. When I ask, the usual response is, 'already done that', when all that was done was to reject what I posted, or simply disagree with it, or worse, ignore or dodge what I posted. None of that counts as refutation.
I was responding to your mention of what I said and it's implication. I have no idea why you could not understand that?
OK, please provide any verse that uses the Greek equivalents of "elect/election" that link election to salvation. I'm specifically referring to these 3 words:
ekloge (noun), eklegomai (verb) and eklectos (adjective).
These are the 3 Greek words that have been translated "elect" (verb and adjective), and "election: (noun).
There are at least 2 other Greek words translated "choose/chose". Neither of them has ever been translated as "elect".
Okay so let's start back from square one. Do you interpret John 12:32 to mean that all men who have ever lived, are living and will live (without any qualification) have been drawn, are drawn, or will be drawn to Jesus Christ?
This is Hammster's eisegesis of what I wrote AGAIN.So there is a logical order. Thanks for affirming what you previously denied.
and what was Paul's instruction on HOW to be saved?
This is Hammster's eisegesis of what I wrote AGAIN.
Originally Posted by Hammster
And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. (Acts 16:31 ESV)I was affirming what the Scriptures COMMAND, '(You) believe' and you have the audacity to eisegete by saying I affirmed what I previously denied of a logical order.
I said nothing of the sort and I object strongly to your lying about what I said in regard to Acts 16:31. Please quit your eisegetical manipulation of what I wrote.
Oz
First of all, I think v32 is answered by v33, but to go further, it would mean all men as in more than the Jews. Then you can see their response in v34.
They didn't have an issue with the 'drawn' part and neither should we. The fact is the connotation of this word is more visual, or attraction, than spiritual in the context of this part of scripture.
The cross exerts a universal attraction, and people of all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews, are being be saved through it. All here means all kinds of people, without distinction, not all members of the human race without exception. Jesus knew some would NOT be attracted to His sacrifice, but He followed God's will anyway.
You refuse to write about exactly the issue I was dealing with in Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe...'.You said it all happened simultaneously. I said that faith logically preceded regeneration on your theology. You said no it didn't. I asked if faith preceded regeneration in your theology. You said it did.
No misrepresentation on my part.
You refuse to write about exactly the issue I was dealing with in Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe...'.
So please quit your eisegesis of what I wrote about this verse. Your red herring about getting into a logical order is eisegesis of what I wrote about Acts 16:31.
This is what happens when you impose your will on my theology. You got it wrong again. That is what you want Arminian theology to mean according to RT.
What did I write? 'This is why synergism is a misleading concept. Faith, repentance, regeneration-new birth, justification and conversion happen simultaneously - in my understanding. But that's not how you see it in RT'.
Please quit your misrepresentation of what I wrote and engaging in your eisegesis of what I stated.
Read Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe'.
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?