come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
Little Toe,
Unfortunately this misses the fact that God's work begins beforehand (far, far beforehand, if you count "election in eternity").
Could not have said it better!
All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?Did you mean "...there is not one instance..."?
That would make more sense.
I suppose my question was rhetorical.
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
You picked up on the keyword. I'm glad that wasn't lost on you.
I didn't misapply it, I applied it, to lessen the impact of UnDis's position...
What would the "experiential value" be when the choice is the latter? re: Holyspirits "enlightenment?
But then doesn't man have to accept, by faith (which is given as a "gift of the Spirit"), grace (which is freely offered by God)?
Ahhh......Yeah. I do believe we're on the same pg.
Do you mean "regeneration" when you speak of enlightenment?
I ask because the spirit of man may surely be regenerated before the senses are engaged?
I believe this to be the course.
Your wit is over my head. E.All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?Which specific account are you refering to? You just undermined the strength of your own argument - LOL.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
LittleToe,
The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice. I would suggest that man is involved in "Conversion" (and so UNDF';ed is correct in an experiential way), but that Regeneration precedes this, enabling a man to avail himself of the good that has been graciously provided (since before this he was unable, being "Totally Depraved", with nothing "good" in him to desire this).
I want to understand the wording "experiential way" I believe you misapply this term to lesson the impact of Udis' position.
The fact remains, he gives man a choice. You stating experiential way, would indicate to me that said enlightenment was the catalyst for his right decision. Which is half of Undis' position. He never speaks of the other half of his position, the man that rejects the calling. He has clearly stated that after being enlightened man has a choice to accept or reject. If he accepts this calling/enlightenment then only would your term of "experiential way" apply.The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice .
I would disagree with you. It was not in my plans to seek God. Let alone his Son as my redeemer. I believe God knows beforehand the condition of my heart. Whether or not he makes himself known to me.
God in his all knowing wisdom, knows the beginning of time to the end, enlightens someone and sits there and says gee I wonder if this one is going to choose me. The biggest debate IMHO is 'can man reject Gods will'. All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods? In the end Undis turns God ito a spectator, waiting to see if man will decide to come to him with a little coaxing from the Holyspirit. E. edit to add; lets not forget the name of this thread. "Freedom to Choose God"
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
LT, the problem with this thread has been identify what Undis will commit to actually believing.
pg.9 I agree that all humans (left by themselves, without God's intervention) would all die in their sins and go to Hell because they are born with a sinful corrupted nature.
So on this hand he contends that mans nature is no good whatsoever period.
pg.9 But I also believe that my God has the power and the will to enlighten a spiritually dead human with the truth of the Gospel and allow that person the freedom to choose to repent and believe or reject and be lost eternally
But on this hand he claims that mans nature will ultimately decide.
But dont we all know by now what mans nature is???????
If he says otherwise he has the HolySpirit rejecting itself. The end.
I will split hairs with the best of them. But when Im told something is in scripture, and it aint there, that person needs to be refuted.
Is he a brother in Christ? I suppose so.But I cant say for sure. I hope he is. Do we see Jesus in the same saving light? well that is to be determined.
E.
Edited to add;
I had a similar conversation (on treating each other with love) in "real life", recently, with one of my Calvinist brothers, who seemed quite happy to dismiss Arminians out of hand. He went kinda silent when I pointed out to him that although I believe their doctrine to be in error, it certainly causes them to work hard, perhaps far harder than us...I like that.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
I agree DDog,
The drowning guy thing has to go. Its just a bad example.
Difference of doctrine doesn't mean a different Christ...
Really?
Undis..The Apostle Paul said that the Gospel that he was ordained to preach to the Gentiles was that Christ Jesus "gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL."
LT, what does the above atatement(red part) do with the entire human race since Adam?
I believe the Dee Dog hit it right on the head, Undis' Christ ransoms just makes mankind savable!
E.
i am working on a david letterman type of ?top ten list?
to publicize my seminars with local churches.
sort of the top ten reasons a pastor would want his parishioners to become more familiar with the beliefs and practices of jehovah's witnesses.
The problem I see is that mainline Christians do not know enough about their own faith let alone the belief system of the Jw to at least shut the Jw down in their tracks.
IMHO theres plenty of information out there to dismantle the Jw doctrines, but thats to much like work for "joe christian"
The fact that a Jw can awe "joe christian" at the door with scriptural smoke and mirror is enough for the "householder" to slam the door and forget about it. (reinforcing to the Jw "they dont want the truth")
There are many, many pastors who just do not know how to handle the Jw. Basically the average christian does not want to get invovled.
Were I live if you post a seminar about Witnessing to Jws in any church, you might get 1-5 people interested. Which is sad.
I recently posted a thread "do jws really want to study" because Ive found at least where I live they really do not want a study, or Im blackballed some how. The last couple of ladies that came to my door actually were holding "reasoning from scriptures" while trying to answer simple questions. But to someone who doesnt know much about the Jw could be bowled over by the appearance of "knowledge".
Ive studied with my moms elderhusband for 2+ years. I once veiwed him as a scriptural giant but after all the smoke and mirrors were cleared away, he really had nothing in scripture to support his position and after while it became almost laughable to sit and listen while he played spin-doctor with the scriptures.
All the while never answering the direct question. Granted this was a family member so I did take it easy on him but not all the time. All I really wanted him to do was think for himself.
Good luck with your seminar.
E.
i am working on a david letterman type of ?top ten list?
to publicize my seminars with local churches.
sort of the top ten reasons a pastor would want his parishioners to become more familiar with the beliefs and practices of jehovah's witnesses.
I agree with Andy,
Im third gen. out for 20+ years although I was Da-ed as a non-baptised dub, that never interupted the relationship with Mom. She's still in. At the time that was a no/no.
I ve thrown basically every theological virus at her (and managed to deliver the gospel) and maybe its found a chink in the armor, only time will tell.
She's emotionally tied to the cult.
The fact remains if Bethel wanted the r/f to blieve in the trinity they could do in about 3 years.
I hold the gray hairs in Bethel responsible. A fish rots from the head down.
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
I believe you used this illustration before,
If a man is drowning (because of his own mistake), and then someone offers his hand to pull him out of the water, if that drowning man accepts the hand and is saved, does the drowning man have any merit because he grabbed hold of the saving hand?
Just because that drowning person decided to grab onto the saving hand does NOT mean at all that he deserved to be saved or that he did some "good work" that entitled him to be saved.
Grabbing onto the saving hand is NOT a "good work" that entitles anyone to be saved.
I honestly understand the point you are trying to make. It does not work and I'll show you why.
Is the drowning man alive?
UD, when as an un-believer I myself was NOT alive. Therefore how could I make a choice to accept or reject the hand that saves?
You are stuck in your thinking that Jesus made you savable as DDog pointed out.
If your illustration is correct, make it work with what Paul describes the natural state of man to be.
Romans 3:11
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Romans 3:12
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." So the "drowning" man does not understand what the saving hand is for, so why would he grab it?
The "drowning" man is not seeking a saving hand.
Just because that drowning person decided to grab onto the saving hand does NOT mean at all that he deserved to be saved or that he did some "good work" that entitled him to be saved.
Why not, he saved himself. Look at Romans
Romans 8:7
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
The drowning man has no idea what the hand is for, and does not want it.
Furthermore you said of the death bed confession of faith, "that if I were truely, truely repentive" I could
in effect grab hold of the "saving hand" So I can save myself. Of course if I want to.
7. Knowing I was enlightened once in my life, can I make a death-bed confession to God and follow-up the original enlightenment?Only if you are truly repentant and humble yourself before God, and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and that He died for you.
Are you saying that the Bereans were born again BEFORE they became believers? I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.
Undis, you continue to deflect questions about what the Bible states.
Show where the Bereans get "enlightened" by God and have time to accept or reject his calling.
Or as you would have it, the Bereans are drowning and God is giving his hand to see if one of the Bereans is going to decide to grab the hand or sink.
Show me with your illustration how it applies to the following verses.
Romans 9:10
And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Romans 9:11
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Romans 9:12
it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Romans 9:13
Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
With your illustration, why is Esau not offered the "savinghand" because of his drowning?
What about Esau? Why does your thinking leave him without the hand that keeps him from drowning?Humans are saved only because of JESUS CHRIST.
Humans are saved only because of CHRIST's Sacrifice, Shed Blood, Resurrection, and LIFE!
Humans are saved only because CHRIST FIRST desires that they be saved.
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
LIttleToe:
My understanding of regeneration begins and ends with Gods sovereignty. With that "He is the potter"and the potters will is always done. (Not trying to preach to choir)
The whole idea that man can make a choice puts a termendous amout of presure on man. If Im left with choice I will do as the Bible says I will do. Opt out of the relationship with God, I cannot keep up my end of the agreement.
If God chooses me, Im his forever.
The Arminian IMHO will always end up with a "works salvation". Theres no way around it.
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
Undis, Also, just curious, but haven't you been using the King James Version all the way through this Thread until I posted a Verse that you didn't like the wording of?
Most all of scripture I post is Nasb. Your hanging most of your idea on "readiness of mind" Im simply showing you other words that work, in that sentence. Again if the sentence does not state the word mind your arguement falls.
Actually I use the Niv more than my Nasb. Only because I know where things are. Some of the comentary in the Niv is a little slanted, but, it somehow turned into my favorite.
In all those translations, the Bereans are using their Spirit-enlightened MINDS to see what the TRUTH is, and then to make a decision on whether to believe something based on FACTS and TRUTH.
I believe you are reading a little to much into the text. You keep saying these Bereans must have been enlightened. The problem is, scripture does not state this.
I would consider how Jesus handled the religious leaders in John.
John 5:39
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
John 8:43
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
Did not the religious leaders have ears on their heads?
This is the thought in a nutshell;
John 8:47
"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
How do you get around the fact that Jesus gives life to who he chooses? Its not us who choose, wouldnt the text say a little about this matter of choice.
John 5:21
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes
The Bereans could study all they want to, Just like the Pharisees' and Nicodemus was told he has to be born again. You must agree that the birth in reference does not originate with man. And if your spirit is Born of Gods spirit how can this reject itself?
John backs this up here;
John 6:37
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
It does'nt say " all the Father gives me will decide on their own and then come to me" If your given to Christ, why doesnt the text say you can reject this?
1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.
Born of who?
The "mind" of the inner man is the spirit of man.
I disagree,
1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
What catagory do you put the mind in, in a unbeliever? You did say we are born with a dead spirit.
Which I agree.
E.
