R. K. Borill wrote:
It was you who placed man in the position of giving God permission to do something or as you said man can "allow God to do it".

It's not really hard to conceive, especially when the Bible clearly declares it: One gives a gift and the receiver has a choice to accept it or to reject it.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Moreover, simply because man has been given the power to choose (volition) and just because God has told him what choice is the right choice to make in no way proves that he has the ability to make the right choice or that he will make the right choice.

It's high time the Calvinist begins with the Word of God for a change.

R. K. Borill wrote:
If men could "allow God to do it" would this not in itself be doing a "good"?

vs. 18-19 wrote:
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19If ye be willing ...

R. K. Borill wrote:
Furthermore, giving permission implies servitude. Is the Almighty a servant of man?

R. K. Borill wrote:
One cannot deny he is Arminian ...

Maybe... "I am of Paul, and Apollos..."?

R. K. Borill wrote:
The issue is not whether Calvinism is the truth but whether Calvinism is in agreement with the truth of the Word of God.

R. K. Borill wrote:
"Can the ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye do good which are accustomed to evil".

Ok you are excused now.

Go.

You do not want to admit that your emotional and intelligent faculties worked so you want to create a dichotomy where a dichotomy does not exist. It's kinda like creating a spiritual pizza and a carnal pizza.

Silly. Yes.

Even if what you said were possible, there is no record of such a state anywhere in the Bible. In fact the Bible is filled with examples that completely betray your position, like the centurion servant who worshiped God and feared him before he was baptized with the Holy Spirit.

In fact the Bible clearly state that we reject Christ, NOT because we cannot receive him, but rather because we WOULD not receive him.

The problem with depravity is not the lack of ability, but rather the lack of volition.

Your definition forces one to create a logical leap because:

1. You yourself stated that the center of intellect and emotion is the soul NOT the spirit.

2. Your definition cannot be consistently applied in all of its occurrences.

That is why I am here. To help you understand.

Physical death is the body separated from the spirit. Dead faith is faith separated from works.

One thing is for sure. It is not inability to have faith. That would be a self-contradiction. How can one have faith that he is unable to have.

So you see, your convoluted definition, does not make sense even using your own standard.
_______________________________________

DB wrote:
I never stated that faith comes after salvation, but is a fruit of the Spirit, that only a regenerated person has.

DB wrote:
BTW, I wasn't fooled by GLAS, I knew it you the whole time, unless you have a twin who is exactly like you.

Just remember, every time truth is spoken. It is me.

I doubt GLAS was asking you for your humanistic rationalization that only a leap in logic can take you there.

You state that faith comes after salvation. Where in God's word does it state it.

Lurker wrote:
Amen Josh!!!
Quoting from Yamil's blog, I wrote.... "they will never interact with integrity"
.... to which Yamil willfully misrepresented by stating....
"I get flagrantly attacked (a violation of SA forum policy by the way) for not having integrity."
.... to which I can truthfully respond by restating.... "they will never interact with integrity"
(Interesting to note that Yamil chose this thread "What do you mainly look for in your Pastor/Preacher and why?" to post a link to his blog. My answer... interacts with integrity.)
May God bless His Israel this Thanksgiving Day. (Gal 6:16)

Integrity?

Discerning Believer wrote:
You figure out the rest. You maintain that a corrupt tree can produce good fruit.

I suppose that according to his hermeneutic he would maintain that a good tree produces bad fruit unless he believes that the elect are sinlessly perfect.

You can't have it both ways folks.

Wayne M. wrote:
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16
This verse shows Jesus does the choosing.

You have two problems with your misinterpretation:

1. Jesus is not talking about salvation.

2. Even if he were it says nothing about his choosing being arbitrary to only a few.

Otherwise:

1. They would not attribute the ability to have faith to a works salvation.

2. They would not place the adoption of unconditional election as a requirement for the true Cristian.

To expose Calvinism for the knotted-up bundle of self-contradiction that it is.

I and other's have presented solid biblical expositions on all points of Calvinism and 98% of it has been met with crickets. The other 2% has been met with as hominems or a cut and paste section from the WCF. Out of all due respect, I am referring to you too.

You seem to be like a sincere Calvinist, and to see your fervor of the lost brings me much joy. I am not negating that.

I John 1:4 wrote:
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Michael Hranek wrote:
And perhaps the greatest loss in these kind of ongoing "debates" is that we loose sight of the Sovereignity of God, in that nothing is impossible to Him and if we as Christians are ever going to know this WE MUST PRAY!!! and in His answers to our praying actually experience something of His wonderful sovereignity to do in answer to prayer things that are impossible with men, like bringing people we love and care about to salvation, even the religious lost.
Pray On