What abilities does a corpse have?

"There is a difference between making an assertion and proving your assertion. I asked you to prove it. You simply went on to a different subject like you normally do."

I was addressing the subject in RK's post regarding the "ordu salutis" and his post of Rom. 8.

Sometimes Yamil, there are more than one topic going on at the same time and I try my best to cover them. It is not all about you Yamil there are others here as well!

DB wrote:
I have not proudly admitted to "converting" to any theological system and challenge you to find that quote.

"Yeah, tell that to your pastor and see if he will be convinced. It's kinda like me saying that I am not a JW. I just happen to believe in the 144,000, that Jesus is not God, and that there is no hell."

Until one comes to the end of themselves and sees that they are totally depraved of any righteousness of their own and in their own power cannot merit eternal life. It is when they see their life hopeless except for the grace and mercy of God, then we see the beginnings of a heart that has been turned by God. When they begin confession and denouncing of sin, we see the work of the Holy Spirit on their soul and bringing them to a saving knowledge of the precious redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Just as a newborn babe cannot breath on his won after coming out of the womb, but needs a tap to bring it to life, so is a sinner that needs to be quickened by the Holy Spirit to bring it to life.

I challenge you to show me where I quoted any divines as you call them or the WCF. I quoted a brief excerp from A.W. Pink, which I hrdly call a divine.

I change no definitions. "dead = dead"
Quicken means to be make alive which is the opposite of being dead. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

To draw means to draw in a net of fishes. To draw someone out of the temple means to drag them out.

No there is no changing definitions here.

I gave you verb tenses and how they applied to John 3:16, so there was no bailing out.

I have not proudly admitted to "converting" to any theological system and challenge you to find that quote.

I do not convert to any system if I don't fully agree with it. I am independant from any system. I may hold strong leanings to one or the other or combination thereof.

God is indeed sovereign and can save anyone He so chooses. He didn't have to save any of us. He was not obligated one way or another and it was by His grace that he sent His Son to die on the cross so that we didn't have to.

What JD and Yamil cannot come to grips with is the simple word in Romans 8:29, "foreknow" προεγνω which is also used in Rom 11:2 "foreknew" which is talking about the children of Israel that were the elect of God.

The word also means "foreordain"

God foreordained a remnant according to the election of grace.

Applying that to Romans 8:29 & 30,

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

We clearly see that if God did predestine a remnant to be conformed to the image of Christ, they had to be effectually called unto salvation and then justified. Then they were glorified. It is also clear that these who were predestined had to also be foreoedained, that means ordained or appointed ahead of time (i.e. before the foundation of the world).

So we see from these two verses

Let God be the judge of that. If it wrong to give Him more glory than He deserves, then I guess I'll just have to be wrong.

Very true RK, they want to move presedtinate after justification in the ordo salutis. That would eliminate the need for the Holy Spirit to quicken and regenerate the sinner who is dead in tresspasses and sin. That would eliminate the need for God to change and turn the heart, giving him a willing heart and draw the sinner to Christ. There way puts man at the helm of his salvation and not God. And they call us humanistic!

Don't you just love it how some of these guys can just eplain away the word of God to mean whatever their presuppositions want them to say.

Verb tenses has everything to do with the subject and context until it challenges their presupposition, then they accuse us of promoting bad grammar.

Does it really matter to you that the verb tense of "believeth" is in the present, active tense "is believing".

It would mean that this verse is a promise to believers that they will not perish, but have eternal life. It is not a promise to unbelievers that if they say a 1-2-3 repeat after me prayer to invite Jesus in their heart that they will be saved.

The "whosoever" is qualified by those who are already believers.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Can you find anywhere in scripture any Greek or Hebrew word that is translated "rapture"? If not then your point is moot. Why do you use it if the word itself is not found in the entire KJV bible? You employ a word that means:

"1. an expression or manifestation of ecstasy or passion
2 a: a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotion b: a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

to describe a catching up and translation of the church.

Why don't you just use the proper terminology "caught up" instead.

I don't need to post the WCF, the bible is very capable of describing the sovereignty of God. It may not use the exact word, but the fact He is God declares His supremecy over all His creation. There is nothing humanistic in recognizing that God reigns supreme. There is nothing humanistic is recognizing that He is the potter and we are the clay and that He has every right to fashion us any way He chooses.

What is humanistic is that you can draw yourself to God and save yourself by your own free will. What is humanistic is saying that we have more power than God in the salvation of souls.

"As for the (of being in authority)the problem is in the fact that you give autority to people instead of the Srcipture."

1 Timothy 2. "11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The error of Arminians is that they diminish the sovereignty of God and exalt the responsibility of man. The error of the hyper-calvinist is that they exalt the sovereignty of God and eliminates the responsibility of man. What the scriptures set out to prove is that God is completely sovereign and that man is fully responsible to God for his actions.

If God was not completely sovereign, then man could establish his own means of salvation.

It is true that God established moral and natural laws, but we see the results when man is left to his own devices, anarchy, corruption, degradation of society and destruction, etc. This is a result of (a word that you reject) "total depravity".

It has to be particular or limited to those who believe on Christ or else everybody would be saved without believing.

JD, You are right, the bible tells us that we were "dead" in tresspasses and sin, but you still won't believe that it took the power of God to quicken those who were dead spiritually, but that of your free-will. Just as the body is graveyard dead when the soul is separated from it, it is dead none the less. Same goes for the spirit of man, it is separated from God and is dead none the less and needs the quickening power of God to bring it to life.

The bible describes the lost sinner as the "natural man" in 1 Cor. 2:14 and does not receive the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness unto them. However you preach that the natural man can indeed understand and receive the things of the Spirit and by his own power repent of his sins and turn to God.

Don't be so hard on RK. He is a Louisiana fellow which makes him dear to my heart.

You may also be interested in hearing one of his sermons before casting judgment on him.

How Shall You Believe?
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9300717108

I think it was a great message.

Your main objection is the word "sovereign" because to declare that God is truly sovereign according to the quote by A.W. Pink I gave below, it abases man.

When you recognize that God is the Most Holy, it reduces us to total depravity when compared to a holy and righteous God.