praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Why would God need to overpower someone if His intent in primary cause was to create the event?
Simple things like this elude you....
Where in the Bible does God decree everything ?
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Why would God need to overpower someone if His intent in primary cause was to create the event?
Simple things like this elude you....
atpollard
Well-known member
Then YOU need to correct YOUR friend, because THAT is not what he responded to my post as he was correcting me.PY and I see eye to eye on this lol. Nice try though.
God can do anything but restrains His Sovereignty.
God is either in control or God is not in control.
You demand scripture that PROVES God is in control and reject it as "eisegesis" and he berates me for sarcasm agreeing with you that God is not in control (but offers no scripture).
You two "keystone cops" just leave me confused. Which is it?
civic
Well-known member
lets throw reason out the door lol. so much for come let us reason together.
civic
Well-known member
atpollard
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Correct. There are more choices than the option he demands.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
No. You've demand a specific outcome when more than one option is viable.
civic
Well-known member
But one must be granted eyes to see that from Gods decree.
otherwise one remains blind - calvinism 101.
atpollard
Well-known member
That's what you took away from that entire post?
The realization that you do not understand "secondary causes"?
That is why I generally "ignore" your posts.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You're the one that doesn't understand secondary cause. You ignore my posts because you have no foundation for your arguments. I force you to deal with the foundational aspects of those arguments. I have done this the vast majority of my adult life. When I say some or ask a question, I'm going somewhere with it. I'm back to the foundation.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
God is all powerful. You need to deal with this fact when referencing primary cause.
civic
Well-known member
The One who uses primary/secondary causes is the responsible party by His own decree.
Just more double talk/oxymornons.
atpollard
Well-known member
[KJV] "but the natural man ..." go ahead, finish the quote NOT from Calvin.
[KJV] "for flesh and blood hath not revealed ..." go ahead, finish the quote NOT from Calvin.
[KJV] "In whom the god of this world hath blinded ..." go ahead, finish the quote NOT from Calvin.
[KJV] "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart ..." go ahead, finish the quote NOT from Calvin.
civic
Well-known member
There goes the calvinist lens again- more eisegesis.
I believe all of those verses just not your spin on them.
civic
Well-known member
Lets just burry your first false premise above. Paul goes onto referring the the same ones ( believers ) in chapter 2 as natural/carnal- babes.
This os exactly what happens when one reads their man made doctrines into scripture and isolate a word or verse from its CONTEXT.
A text without the context is a pretext for a proof-text.
You just proved your post is nothing but proof texting. Thanks for the opportunity to prove its true,
Since I just proved the error of your first presupposition the other listed are the exact same false premise.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
I will quote @praise_yeshua on the Calvinists " natural/carnal " man dialogue.
Yep... The Calvinist talking points usually go like this....
Natural men cannot receive the Gospel....
Didn't you receive the Gospel?
Yes. I received the Gospel
How did you receive the Gospel since you're obviously a natural man?
God chose me
Okay, how does that equal "the natural man cannot receive the Gospel"?
God regenerated me first.
God did? Then you're not an "natural man"?
No. I'm a natural man.
If God regenerated you, then you're not a natural man.
Yes. I am. I'm just like everyone else.
I don't see how that works? Can you give more details?
No. Just believe it. It is all according to "God's good pleasure".
So it is good and pleasurable to God to regenerate you (someone that is supposedly just like everyone else) and not everyone one else that you claim you're just like?
Yes.
Is Grace unmerited?
Correct.
Then how do you establish the lack of "merit" within your theology with "God's Good Pleasure"?
Just believe it.
@atpollard
hope this helps !!!
Yep... The Calvinist talking points usually go like this....
Natural men cannot receive the Gospel....
Didn't you receive the Gospel?
Yes. I received the Gospel
How did you receive the Gospel since you're obviously a natural man?
God chose me
Okay, how does that equal "the natural man cannot receive the Gospel"?
God regenerated me first.
God did? Then you're not an "natural man"?
No. I'm a natural man.
If God regenerated you, then you're not a natural man.
Yes. I am. I'm just like everyone else.
I don't see how that works? Can you give more details?
No. Just believe it. It is all according to "God's good pleasure".
So it is good and pleasurable to God to regenerate you (someone that is supposedly just like everyone else) and not everyone one else that you claim you're just like?
Yes.
Is Grace unmerited?
Correct.
Then how do you establish the lack of "merit" within your theology with "God's Good Pleasure"?
Just believe it.
@atpollard
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Why did Jesus speak in parables if calvinism is correct and the above is true in calvinists soteriology ?
The fact is calvinism's view on dead is wrong, the natural man/the carnal man otherwise there would be no need to hide it from them.
Why does Jesus need to hide truth from a dead corpse ?
See the contradiction ?
See the oxymoron ?
See the calvinists dilemma ?
In the real world we call this though process cognitive dissonance, an inconsistent and contradictory belief. So much for total inability and Jesus need for parables. This is just another example of the inconsistent calvinist/reformed position. Why would God have to harden a dead corpse, a dead man having no ability to hear, see or perceive ?
Let’s look at the uses of the term “DEAD” in the scripture for you to decide:
1) Jesus referred to the church in Sardis as “DEAD” and called them to “wake up” (Rev 3). Given Christ’s use of the idiomatic term “DEAD” in reference to this church, should we presume that his hearers cannot respond positively to Christ’s appeal in this passage as well?
2) The Prodigal was “DEAD/lost” then “alive/found” demonstrating that the term “DEAD” is idiomatic for “separated by rebellion” not “innate moral inability” (Luke 15:24).
3) “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” – James 1:13-15
Are we born “DEAD” according to James? Or is DEATH birthed in those who sin after its “full grown?”
4) “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.” – Romans 7:7-11
Are we born “DEAD” according to Paul? Or was it through the commandment, after “sin sprang to life” that DEATH came?
5) “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath…And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,” -Ephesians 2:1-3, 6
This passage says nothing about how or when they died, nor does it relate their condition to any type of innate moral inability.
It does say God raised them up with Christ. Is this meant to represent the special inner work of regeneration which effectually causes them to believe after they are raised up? Let’s observe what else Paul says about being raised up in Christ.
“In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which *you were also raised up with Him through faith* in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions” (Col. 2:11-13).
They were raised up THROUGH FAITH, not unto faith according to Paul.
Calvinists have the burden to produce just one clear biblical example of the term “DEAD” meaning “the moral incapacity to respond willingly to God from birth.”soteriology101
@atpollard what say you ?
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Calvinists usage of flesh exposed below to show their contradictions. They say the natural man, carnal man is the flesh man, the sinful fallen nature inherited from adam.
John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we have and was like us in every way.
So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7) then His humanity disproves the sin nature misnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and thus born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of Original Sin and TD. ( Total Depravity )
You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner. Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty until they sin.
Original Sin is false see below
Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die
Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."
Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.
hope this helps !!!
atpollard
Well-known member
Was that a real question or just rhetorical?
I can no longer tell the difference in your posts since when I respond to a question, you ignore my answer (making it appear rhetorical) and when I ignore a statement, you repeat it (making it appear to be a genuine question).
atpollard
Well-known member
Arminians failure to actually READ what is written is the source of their confusion, as illustrated in the above quote. I had challenged the reader to "finish the verse" which, if he had done so, would have revealed that "FLESH" was not the important point that all those verses had in common. Since this reader failed to follow the instructions and search out "the rest of the verse", the Truth contained within was lost to him and we all suffer this nonsensical rabbit trail into what I do not believe.
Failure to LISTEN; just waiting for an opportunity to TALK ... typical "Anti-GRACE 101" [help save yourself by the power of Human Will - semi-Pelagianism] rhetoric.
Similar threads
