Stop looking for some excuse to hit the abuse button
Posted on 04/13/2002 1:33:01 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
This is why Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5. Paul's argument in that text is that they heard the message in a supernatural way because they were elect. The Arminian reads the verse backwards.
I told you what the lies were. A lie is a falsehood , not 'unpleasant things'
What I listed are falsehoods that were stated and never retracted
Now, you can check the threads for the posts and check with those involved and see how they defend what they said.
If you so anxious to prove that I am wrong, you prove it
I do not have to prove I am saved. What you have to prove is that Doc did not judge me unregenerate on the basis of what we were discussing-TULIP. Since we were not discussing the nature of salvation per se, the fact is that the only reason he could judge me unregenerate was because of my rejection of TULIP.
You are running around in circles.. Post the lies now or admit you were throwing mud...apologize
Apologize for telling the truth when you're gang does not even apologize for lying! LOL!
I think I finally figured it out... Your "s" jumped from faith to legs so it took me some time.
chen geber
You're reading an individual, personal, and unconditional election into the text, Doc. "...Knowing your [corporate] election of God" is the sense of the thing.
Being assured, from the doctrine which I have delivered to you, and which God has confirmed by various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, that he has chosen and called the Gentiles to the same privileges to which he chose and called the Jews; and that, as they have rejected the offers of the Gospel, God has now elected the Gentiles in their stead. This is the election which the Thessalonians knew; and of which the apostle treats at large in his Epistle to the Romans, and also in his Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians. No irrespective, unconditional, eternal, and personal election to everlasting glory, is meant by the apostle. As God had chosen the Jews, whom, because of their obstinate unbelief, he had now rejected; so he had now chosen or elected the Gentiles. And in neither case was there any thing absolute; all was most specifically conditional, as far as their final salvation was concerned; without any merit on their side, they were chosen and called to those blessings which, if rightly used, would lead them to eternal glory. That these blessings could be abused-become finally useless and forfeited, they had an ample proof in the case of the Jews, who, after having been the elect of God for more than 2000 years, were now become reprobates.
(Clarke's Commentary on 1 Thess. 1:4)
We are not word-loading. You are just misreading the Calvinist's position concerning the idea of irresistibility. So, your point is moot. And dressing up a moot point to confuse the issues with your own confusion--thereby attacking someone else's position when don't yet grasp it--is a form of dishonesty.
You are word-loading by making a word mean something that it does not mean, contextually, in the interest of your pet system. I understand full-well what your Calvinism says concerning irresistibility, and I reject it, as I do its logical corollary, the unconditional perseverance of the saints. I understand that you say that God "changes our nature" such that our Puritan friend that you quoted a while ago may say, "God saved me against my will with my full consent," but I deny that there is Scripture basis for such a thing. Irresistibility is irresistibility, whether it implies being "dragged" or it implies suddenly being "brainwashed" such that we are no longer opposed to grace.
This dishonesty is why you continue to charge us with word-loading. We will respond by accusing you of continuing to ignore the obvious!
And I will continue to accuse you of word-loading, until you cease from it.
With regard to your claim that I am falsely accusing you of denying the doctrine of total depravity, I will say that you are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you [grin]. You have not yet noticed what you are positively asserting (wrongly!) while you are trying to uphold a doctrine of total depravity.--the_doc
Nope, I haven't, Doc, because it's not there. You are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you of falsely accusing me.
The Biblical Doctrine of the Depravity of Man
From all these causes, appearances of good among unregenerate men will present themselves, without affording any ground to deduct any thing from those statements as to man's fallen state which have been just made; but these negative virtues, and these imitations of actions really good from interest, ambition, or honour, have no foundation in the fear of God, in a love to virtue as such, in a right will, or in spiritual affections; and they afford, therefore, no evidence of spiritual life, or, in other words, of religious principle. To other vices, to which there is any temptation, and to those now avoided, whenever the temptation comes, men uniformly yield; and this shows, that though the common corruption varies its aspects, it is, nevertheless, unrelieved by a real virtuous principle in any, so far as they are left to themselves. But virtues grounded on principle, though an imperfect one, and therefore neither negative nor simulated, may also be found among the unregenerate, and have existed, doubtless, in all ages. These, however, are not from man, but from God, whose Holy Spirit has been vouchsafed to "the world," through the atonement. This great truth has often been lost sight of in this controversy. Some Calvinists seem to acknowledge it substantially, under the name of "common grace;" others choose rather to refer all appearances of virtue to nature, and thus, by attempting to avoid the doctrine of the gift of the Spirit to all mankind, attribute to nature what is inconsistent with their opinion of its entire corruption. But there is, doubtless, to be sometimes found in men not yet regenerate in the Scripture sense, not even decided in their choice, something of moral excellence, which cannot be referred to any of the causes above adduced; and of a much higher character than is to be attributed to a nature which, when left to itself, is wholly destitute of spiritual life. Compunction for sin, strong desires to be freed from its tyranny, such a fear of God as preserves them from many evils, charity, kindness, good neighbourhood, general respect for goodness and good men, a lofty sense of honour and justice, and, indeed, as the very command issued to them to repent and believe the Gospel in order to their salvation implies, a power of consideration, prayer, and turning to God, so as to commence that course which, persevered in, would lead on to forgiveness and regeneration.It is a fact, too, which cannot be denied, that men have constitutional evil tendencies, some more powerfully bent to one vice, some to another. Whether it results from a different constitution of the mind that the general corruption should act more powerfully in one direction in this man, and in another in that; or from the temperament of the body; or from some law impressed by God upon a sinful nature, (which it involves no difficulty to admit, inasmuch as society could scarcely have existed without that balance of evils and that check of one vice upon another which this circumstance produces,)—such is the fact; and it gives a reason for the existence of much negative virtue in society.
(Watson's Theological Institutes, Part II, Chapter 18)
For the gentler emotions produced by the Spirit, these are, as the experience of all Christians testifies, the ordinary and general manner in which the Holy Spirit carries on his work in man; and, if all good desires, resolves, and aspirations, are from him, and not from our own nature, (and, if we are utterly fallen, from our own nature they cannot be,) then if any man is conscious of having ever checked good desires, and of having opposed his own convictions and better feelings, he has in himself abundant proof of the resistibility of grace, and of the superability of those good inclinations which the Spirit is pleased to impart. He is equally conscious of the power of complying with them though still in the strength of grace, which yet, while it works in him "to will and to do," neither wills nor acts for him, nor even by him, as a passive instrument. For if men were wholly and at all times passive under Divine influence; not merely in the reception of it, for all are, in that respect, passive; but in the actings of it to practical ends, then would there be nothing to mark the difference between the righteous and the wicked but an act of God, which is utterly irreconcilable to the Scriptures.
(Watson's Institutes, Part II, Chapter 28)
This is like saying a Christian is not a saint because the apostles were addressing groups of Christians in calling them "saints."
Besides, Romans 16:13 actually says "Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord."
where does your *denom stand
Is there confusion here because you thought the word was "demon?"
The way I read it, Revelation 911 was abbreviating "denomination."
Am I wrong Revelation 911?
yes - emphatically yes ! - but its too late now - hes made up his mind - Ive abbreviated like that before as well.
after being soundly bullwhipped
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time ;) ~ Revelation 911!
This is a famous Monty Python line and was also posted with the accompanying pic on the original post to Jean
does your denom let them (women) speak in Church - or wait until they get home to ask thier big smart husbands? ~ Revelation 911
denom=denomination - also presuming you are big & smart
I will also add another, where does your denom stand in regards to speaking in tongues? ~ Revelation 911
again - denom = denomination
and again for the last time, I used the term animal as a result of a personal attack on my wife which went unchallenged by any calvin for over a week, excepting of course moms apology
only problem being, it was splashing on my wife - again
You put that out as if it was a fact..it was nothing more than your opinion..and just as sinful as someone questioning your salvation..You need to get the log out of your eye there dec..you chose to color all of us as liars. I will say again
POST THE LIES
Stop looking for some excuse to hit the abuse button
Where is the compassion for others the Charity that is sorely lacking to do that to another?
Love is absent in many of the Calvinist, to let this continue – not a peep!
Its the Calvinist that need our prayers to help fill their heart with the Love of the Lord.
Wait a minute, it's coming to me. What we really need is another Calvinist word game? They haven't wrought enough havoc with their predestinarian construct, now they need to attack "the meaning of the Gospel" too. We need to have everyone pestered to see if they can guess some foolish Calvinist construct (which, of course, the Calvinists then equate with "the [otherwise undisclosed] meaning of the Gospel"). It's that good ol' 'mystery religion' nonsense again.
Now, of course, "the meaning of the Gospel" could not be found in a Biblical passage. Those are too long and wordy -- and, worse yet, the Scriptures are mixed with all that evil "Arminian" doctrine which those nice, 5-words-or-less Calvinist formulations neatly avoid. That's why the Calvinist formulations are soooooo much better than the Scriptural ones.
So, we need to learn and focus on the Calvinist "refined Gospel" (5 words or less) -- BTW, is that related to "reformed Egyptian"? -- and avoid the Scriptures at all cost.
No, Woody, I'm sorry. For the mid-double-digit-IQ Calvinists in the group, I have never learned the "Calvinist 5-words-or less gospel", nor do I care to -- this one is quite satisfactory for me:
"For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God."
Now, Woody, I realize that exceeds your 5-word attention span -- and, mirabile dictu, it omits all those 'wonderous' TULIP doctrines, all that double predestination nonsense and all that stuff about regeneration having to come before conversion and the other stuff which Calvin made up, but it is a pretty good summary of the Gospel nonetheless.
And I'll take God's Word over your silly 5 words anytime. Sorry, Woody, go pound sand.
Our old 'friend' doc doing that? I can hardly imagine it.
"Dressing up a moot point to confuse the issues with your own confusion--thereby attacking someone else's position when don't yet grasp it--is a form of dishonesty."
Doc engaging in a "form of dishonesty?" Oh, my, the walls are crumbling. -- Wait -- of course -- that is Doc accusing others of dishonesty. Well, that's more like it.
You are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you of falsely accusing me.
Oh, Grammarian, you have finally decoded doc's prolix, argument-dodging prose -- and so succinctly too.
"... if men were wholly and at all times passive under Divine influence; not merely in the reception of it, for all are, in that respect, passive; but in the actings of it to practical ends, then would there be nothing to mark the difference between the righteous and the wicked but an act of God, which is utterly irreconcilable to the Scriptures."
It's elementary, my dear Watson. Thank you, Grammarian, for elevating the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.