Who says it's not the issue? You because you stuck your foot in your mouth?
My answer is as follows: ""word order does not establish temporal sequence", Tom the Provisionist
Determinism in Calvinism and the Reformed Confessions
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
My answer is as follows: ""word order does not establish temporal sequence", Tom the Provisionist
Sorry my argument was never based on word order but context
You cannot show where I ever suggested the word order of the verses selected was the important factor
so you are being disingenuous and that is not to your credit
Word order is not the issue context is
One must do something to obtain the result
John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.
here is another
John 6:53 (NASB 2020) — 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
and another
John 5:40 (NASB 2020) — 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
Try to honestly deal with those verses rather than the false diversion you resorted to
It really makes you look like someone who has determined to hide from the truth
Sorry I never argued word order in those verses proves my point, so you are being dishonest
Bearing false witness is no way for a Christian to behave
Word order is not the issue context is
One must do something to obtain the result
John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.
here is another
John 6:53 (NASB 2020) — 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
and another
John 5:40 (NASB 2020) — 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
Try to honestly deal with those verses rather than the false diversion you resorted to
It really makes you look like someone who has determined to hide from the truth and does not even care for the truth but only in defending an assumed doctrine
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Just thought this might be of value in any CvA discussion:
Let's quote out beloved Provisionist one more time violating his own principal.
"word order does not establish temporal sequence"
Exactly. Now all the sudden word order is important.
You are showing yourself dishonest as my argument was built on context not word order
Sorry my argument was never based on word order but context
You cannot show where I ever suggested the word order of the verses selected was the important factor
so you are being disingenuous and that is not to your credit
Word order is not the issue context is
One must do something to obtain the result
John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.
here is another
John 6:53 (NASB 2020) — 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
and another
John 5:40 (NASB 2020) — 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
Try to honestly deal with those verses rather than the false diversion you resorted to
It really makes you look like someone who has determined to hide from the truth
Rockson
Well-known member
Interesting. Just an added thought. All believe Calvinists and Non Calvinist alike that some people do hide from the TRUTH. Now if Jesus and God are the cause of such through ordaining then how can he be thought of as the Way, The Truth, and the Life? If he's ordaining Non-Truth then where does any of us stand. Fact he doesn't ordain Nontruth and Calvinism is wrong and has to be.
He could not be, but he doesn't
civic
Well-known member
Amen
atpollard
Well-known member
Ephesians 2 does not say that I am. It says that I WAS “dead” and God MADE (past tense) me “alive” … so:
- I was once dead.
- I once lived a life characterized by sin (in spades).
- God did ‘SOMETHING’ and that something which God did made me alive.
- If we read on … it was a gift (not of my works).
- If we read on … I am His workmanship (master creation, proof of His ability).
- If we read on … I am created (anew) to walk in good works which God prepared in advance.
I am what GOD says I am, because He said it.
atpollard
Well-known member
Faith is a gift from God. It is a Gift of the Spirit.
Man is not the author and finisher of his own faith.
[You KNOW all these verses … see the Truth!]
civic
Well-known member
If you use to be dead ( Eph 2) and are now Alive
And Paul used the same word dead in Roman’s 6 saying you are dead to sin
You can’t have you cake in eat it too since dead means the same thing in both passages.
You are either still dead as in Eph 2 or you are dead to sin.
Which is it ?
atpollard
Well-known member
You quote someone else’s facts and demonstrate no understanding of what you are reading.
What does the sentence that I advised you to learn the meaning of SAY and what does it MEAN? If you are going to quote someone, at least have the good sense to understand what they are saying.
Never clearly extolled in scripture
Certainly the bible never states God infuses faith in man
That God gives to some faith and from others withholds it
Rather a lack of faith the bible attributes to man
2 Thessalonians 2:10 (KJV 1900) — 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
You failed to read it in its context
but it should always be remembered that the Manicheism he describes is not the original system as developed by Mani, but a later adaptation to Christianity. This fundamental fact is sometimes forgotten (e.g., by Decret). To Augustine himself it was always clear that Manicheism was a fabula persica (Contra Secundinum, chap. 2).
civic
Well-known member
Yes the infused faith fallacy
atpollard
Well-known member
Not to argue against you, but do you even know what answer the London Confession (for TULIP-believing Baptists) or the Westminster Confession (for TULIP-believing Presbyterians) gives for that exact argument? The question has been asked and answered and they have an answer different from your answer.
[I am not suggesting you should believe their answer. I am merely inquiring if you have even bothered to HEAR their answer.]
atpollard
Well-known member
You keep beginning statements with “If” followed by a claim made by scripture.
I have got to ask …
- Is it the TRUTH of the scripture that you have doubts about?
- Is it my salvation that you have doubts about?
So to which does the “SINCE” become an “IF” … doubt over the truth of the scripture or doubt over the scripture applying to me?
Both seem like serious problems to me!
