Plodding on at Steve Gregg's board....
Author: tartanarmy (11:10 pm)
Still discussing issues here with Steve and others.
Did not last long..I have been banned.
The last post from the board Open Theist is for me, and it says
I think those who post here have been very patient with the man, and have exhibited Christ-like attitudes in your responses.
Steve has been patient, reprimanding him and warning him many times. I
think he has been given every opportunity to conduct himself in a respectful and Christ-like manner. But he did not change.
There is a proverb that might be somewhat applicable:
Proverbs 29:1 He that, being often reproved, stiffeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
Wow! This threat, for defending the simple fact that Christ shall save His people and that He is an actual Redeemer rather than a potential Redeemer .
The battleline seems obvious from where I am standing on this issue.
And as Steve Gregg has banned me and also asked me a question, I respond here.
You wrote to Homer:
"You pervert the Word of God and I will prove it yet again.
Jesus says that 'NO MAN' can come to Him. Joh 6:44 and repeats it again in John 6:65...So Homer, if Jesus clearly says that 'NO MAN' can come to Him, what perversion of His Words will you offer in response?"
Just curious. Why do you say that Jesus said no man can come to Him? The verses you cite indicate that some men come to Him, but only in response to the drawing of the Father. Therefore, some men do come to Him, but only because of God's drawing. That is stated in the verses you selected.
It is your assertion that the drawing of the Father is restricted to those who have been elected beforehand to be drawn, while others are not being drawn. It seems equally likely that all men are drawn (John 1:9; 12:32), and some actually come. The rest resist the drawing (John 3:19/ Matt.23:37/2 Thess.2:10). If all men are drawn, then any might come, according to your verses.
You also wrote:
"But, I am just quoting the text and exegeting it in context and using valid hermeneutical principals [sic]. I am consistent and you are not. "
Could you give an example of a text that you have exegeted in this thread, and identify which hermeneutical principles you employed?
Steve, if all are drawn as indicated by you above, then all shall be raised up on the last day according to the valid hermeneutical principals employed in John 6.
Are all raised up on the last day?
No, the group called is the same group raised on the last day. Only the elect are called efficaciously and raised on the last day to eternal life.
All men resist the call of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus teaches that some men shall be effectually called, and I have more than proven the case at your boards with regards to John 6.
You want all men called with the focus upon some men having a better ability to choose than other men.
Away with such a man centred gospel, for it perverts the truth that God alone provides salvation for His people, and it is by grace, through faith and not of yourselves, but the free gift of God.
Monergism vs Synergism Steve, and you are on the wrong end of the battle sadly, and now you have decided to close the matter in a less than open handed way.
You hide behind a wall of self righteousness and ignorance and lead others into profound errors, including the heresy of Open Theism.
I have opposed your doctrine from the start nearly three years ago when I engaged you, and I will continue to do so, praying that God will open your eyes to His amazing grace, and that you will cease and desist from promoting a man centred theology and being Open to Open Theism. God help those influenced by you and your teachings.
The last couple of posts from the same thread nearly floored me!
Its too bad that he couldn't behave.
However, could we address his last post here?
For instance, why do the 2 calls of God as he describes them support Calvinism?
It seems that a non-Calvinist would also agree that there is an outward and an inward call.
Anyone want to take a shot?
Hi Dave, Smile
Anyone want to take a shot?
Personally, it just gets too weird for me.
God, imo, is a Person (a personal being!) -- NOT -- some kind of "Universal Rationale" or "Cosmic First Cause," THE ULTIMATE MIND (gets sorta new-agey huh?), imo. Augustine was a Manichean and a Neo-Platonist: Go figure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idea
True, there is a kind of "outward call" via when the Gospel is preached (you hear the words when they go in your ears). And I suppose there might be some sort of "inside of me call" when I really hear HIM (talking to me personally).
Rinnnng, Rinnnng, Rinnnng: Hello? << How odd is that?
(Wait a minute...did I "will" that they call me...or did they "will" I answer the phone...or could I have chosen to not answer it even if they "willed" I HAD to...or Wait: Was I totally deaf my whole life? but suddenly could hear the phone ring? coz who called me "willed" it? or WHAT)???????
To me it's (precisely the same as) talking to another person coz God is a Person....
Why does anyone have to analyze that: God used His people to "talk to me for the first time" (they proclaimed the Good News, I heard it, heard HIM in the insides of me, and believed)? I know I don't. Why?
Paul said what I mean right here:
2 Thess (ESV)
2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
Jesus sed, Paul sed, a guy who witnessed to me (a lot) later sed.......
Dave, I feel talking with God is about like you reading my posts & me yours -- it's a personal exchange -- not all that complicated, to me. Not at all, really. Btw, did you "hear the call" of this post? lol Wink (Also, and this is pretty important (sarcasm): You don't HAVE to post back. Rilly, you don't: Unless ya wanna).....Right? ROFLMArminianismOff!!!
Anyways, I can't stand too much of this kind of stuff (though I did take it upon myself to study Calvinism as one of my relatives is a Calvinist preacher...and it about drove me BONKERZ).
It makes God seem like A ROBOT and me some kind of "cog" or something, or a computer chip or whatever, Shocked, cept I'm a person, just like: GOD.
P.S. This may not say much about my "orthodoxy"...but I've wondered that: If I had to become something other than what I am and had the choices of: JW, Mormon, or Calvinist; all three options would be difficult...and the last one is probably impossible (I'll put it like that & leave it there)......
Incredible really. Maybe those that say we are talking about different religions, actually have a point!