There's too much static interference inhibiting our communication.You implied that Jesus did not die for unrepentant sinners who are in hell.
There's too much static interference inhibiting our communication.You implied that Jesus did not die for unrepentant sinners who are in hell.
Thank you for explaining .When I mentioned that eternity has been placed in man's heart, I was merely showing another avenue that God has given to reveal His existence.
Man himself comes into the world condemned already. The wrath of God abides on him. So I never meant to imply that the fact that he doesn't seek God is what condemns him. What I believe condemns man is his sin.
As I read Romans 1, I see the suppression of truth as the reason God gives people over to their sin. It is as if God stops striving with them and no longer refrains their sinful tendencies. This allows individuals to suffer the full consequences of their sinfulness and sin's repercussions. It is here that I believe man fits himself for destruction.
I've answered. He is always near. He is not always active. Where God is active, men respond to Him as a result of His activity.
Pentecost is a good example. The Spirit of God went forth, a messenger spoke forth the word of God, and where hearing was evidenced and hearts were pricked, men responded in faith. Where that didn't occur, no faith was exercised.
I believe largely as you do. I simply believe your presentation mutes your message.Hmmm...so then you believe God's saving grace is effectual? That his gracious activity will bear fruit, always accomplishing its purpose?
Pentecost was a one-time, historical event by which Jesus promised the outpouring of the Spirit and actually commanded his disciples to go to Jerusalem to wait for the day. But ever since Pentecost, I have to think that the Holy Spirit has always been active every day by imparting life to dead souls (regeneration) that would eventuate in their new birth.
I believe largely as you do. I simply believe your presentation mutes your message.
This post is an excellent example of what I meant. First you imply that I don't form my doctrine based on the Bible, while also implying your superiority because you do. Not the most endearing of tactics.Don't believe me; rather believe the Holy Word of God. The bottom line here to this "men seeking God" issue is that scripture basically says two things about this: The natural man [left to his own evil devices] does not seek after God (Rom 3:11). On the other hand, those who do seek God and his Christ do so entirely by God's grace (Jn 6:65) -- not by their natural ability or inclination or desires or the mighty power of their "autonomous free will".
If evil men cannot say anything good because the mouth can only speak by that which overflows the heart (Mat 12:34-35); or if, conversely, no one speaking by the Spirit of God can say, "Jesus be cursed", and no one can even say from his heart that "Jesus is Lord" either, except by speaking from the same Spirit (1Cor 12:3), then how much less can unregenerate, God hating, sworn enemies of God and rebels from birth (Ps 51:5; Job 25:4-6; Isa 48:8) change their hearts to have godly desires that would incline them to seek after the Lord God?
The devil has planted many tares (his sons and daughters) in Christ's Church, so verify everything by the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God. " Let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4)!
Obviously oblivious.This post is an excellent example of what I meant. First you imply that I don't form my doctrine based on the Bible, while also implying your superiority because you do. Not the most endearing of tactics.
Second, what you shared is already my position. You are tone-deaf to other posters. You don't actually hear what others are posting to you, but seem only interested in stopping to post long enough for others to respond. What you have to say is more important to you than the edifying of others.
We all are at times. But I don't think I'll ever understand putting so much effort into the study of a subject only to present it in a way that others won't receive it.Obviously oblivious.
We all are at times. But I don't think I'll ever understand putting so much effort into the study of a subject only to present it in a way that others won't receive it.
This post is an excellent example of what I meant. First you imply that I don't form my doctrine based on the Bible, while also implying your superiority because you do. Not the most endearing of tactics.
Second, what you shared is already my position. You are tone-deaf to other posters. You don't actually hear what others are posting to you, but seem only interested in stopping to post long enough for others to respond. What you have to say is more important to you than the edifying of others.
Unfortunately, I believe post #5047 is accurate. Grace and peace.You did say in your prior post that you "largely believe as I do". But I don't want anyone to take my word for anything, per se. The reason I either cite or quote numerous passages to support my premises is to encourage readers to check out the cites for themselves or to ponder and meditate on what I quote or to find other relevant, supporting passages.
As far as what I shared in my last post, I have no idea that would [also] be "your position" since I brought new passages to bear upon the topic. (But I'm glad you still agree with scripture.) Yes, you did basically say that where God is "active", men respond. All I did was emphasize the absolute necessity of God's sovereign, effectual grace (which you characterized as his actions through your use of the verb "active"). I just put a finer point on your verb "active".
Methinks, sir, you protests too much. You're reading things into my posts that I never said or implied.
Unfortunately, I believe post #5047 is accurate. Grace and peace.
Not sure I understand the question.Well, of course. Birds of a feather and all that...
But I do have a question to ask you for clarification. When you essentially said earlier that "where God is active, men respond", did you mean by that that all their responses would perfectly align with God's purpose?
…because they’re pretty helpless without a shepherd. right?I have a new question for one and all to ponder: God, throughout scripture, characterizes his chosen people as "sheep". Of all the numerous animals upon the earth, why did God choose "sheep" as his metaphor?
Not sure I understand the question.
We understand from Isaiah that when God's word goes forth it never returns to Him void, so His purpose is always accomplished in it. If this is what you mean, then yes.
Every letter of the Word of God is what Christians subscribe to.That's exactly what I meant! So, it appears that you pretty much subscribe to the "T" and "I" portions of TULIP. And if "I", then likely you adhere to the "U", as well. After all, who can frustrate God's decrees?
I have no problem with the basic tenets of TULIP. I arrive at my conclusions a little differently on some points. But there are hot button terms when used in conversation about salvation that lend themselves to those conversations becoming emotionally driven rather than scripturally driven. So, in my experience, if you want to have a productive and edifying discussion about the outworking of salvation, employing language that doesn't incite emotional responses might be more effective.That's exactly what I meant! So, it appears that you pretty much subscribe to the "T" and "I" portions of TULIP. And if "I", then likely you adhere to the "U", as well. After all, who can frustrate God's decrees?
To be honest, I don't know how Calvinists can even imply that God would have certain people predestined for damnation. Jesus went to the cross in order to offer everyone the chance to be saved, if only they would believe. Jesus paid an awesome price on that Cross. That’s how much God loved the world.
…because they’re pretty helpless without a shepherd. right?![]()
I have no problem with the basic tenets of TULIP. I arrive at my conclusions a little differently on some points. But there are hot button terms when used in conversation about salvation that lend themselves to those conversations becoming emotionally driven rather than scripturally driven. So, in my experience, if you want to have a productive and edifying discussion about the outworking of salvation, employing language that doesn't incite emotional responses might be more effective.