Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70158 | ||
Joe Your absolutely correct for a studied Mormon that is what they are taught and I have met some that do not buy into this. I think you will agree most Mormons do not understand or relate to this church doctrine unless they have been in the church for longer than a few years. That line of teaching is brought upon the Mormon convert slowly and very carefully in fear they may bolt and run. If you won't agree then your being argumentative and not dealing truthfully here. Now let's take a new Mormon. What are they seeking? I have yet to find one that hasn't said forgivenness of sin. They will quote you Romans 3:23. Where do they think the forgiveness comes from? From their belief in Jesus Christ and they will quote you John 3:16. Now admittedly the Jesus they put their hope in is a conterfeit, but they reached the point you said is impossible for man to reach unless he is elected? Why is Calvinism offensive? (seriously I never heard it described as offensive) He is the one that developed the Tulip that defined what you believe and made men like Jacob Arminius stand to defend what they held as truth? Joe I understand your belief on guilt and how man is helpless to do anything about it unless he is elected. Even in the face of the John 3:16 which says God so loved the world (not just the elect or the ones that would choose Him but the world) that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever (again not just the elect) would believe in Him and have everlasting life. 1 John 2:2 even says it clearer. "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Now we can argue what "WHOLE" means. Or would you like to argue over how many angels fit on the head of a pin? Explain why a newbie Mormon isn't at the place you say a man can't reach unless he is elected. EdB |
||||||
2 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70175 | ||
I ask the gracious permission of "Ed the Moderator" to diverge slightly for a commercial break in order to type a paragraph without mentioning the word "Mormon." You wrote: "Joe I understand your belief on guilt and how man is helpless to do anything about it unless he is elected. Even in the face of the John 3:16 which says God so loved the world (not just the elect or the ones that would choose Him but the world) that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever (again not just the elect) would believe in Him and have everlasting life." I respond (NOT pulling statements out of nowhere to distract as "someone" has been falsely accusing me of): http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.McLaughlin.LA.20.html Sorry about the link, but cut-and-paste takes up so much space, and not everyone is as fascinated by this debate (as you yourself have claimed not to be, despite your active part in continuing it). Now, back to the LDS! :) You wrote: "Explain why a newbie Mormon isn't at the place you say a man can't reach unless he is elected." "Now let's take a new Mormon. What are they seeking? I have yet to find one that hasn't said forgivenness of sin." And how many Mormons have you witnessed to? That is a pretty blanket statement you are making about the mindset of the Mormon convert. And if they are seeking true, godly repentance, then surely all of them abandon Mormonism when you witness to them, since their hearts were already pre-disposed to embracing the truth you were giving them. Right? It is very hard to make a general statement as to why someone converts to a false religion. However, we can clearly see (if we believe the gospel) that Mormons have not exhibited a repentance leading to eternal life, which is "the place I say a man can't reach unless he is elected." For at least the third time, the doctrine of radical depravity does NOT hold that humans are unaware of their own guilt and need for forgiveness. I hope you will let that sink in so that we can finally put this to rest. What the doctrine of radical depravity DOES hold is that the non-elect are morally incapable of ever exhibiting the repentance that leads to eternal life. Whatever path they choose in their "search," it will be away from true Christianity. When confronted with true Christianity, they will either reject it, or profess to embrace it while not truly repenting and believing. They simply do not want to submit to God's law; indeed, they cannot. Take it up with Paul and his letter to the Romans if that seems to be contrary to Ed's perceived personal EXPERIENCE with the LDS. Lastly, you do see the logical consequence of your view that many Mormons really want to become Christians, don't you? What kind of a God would deny the opportunity to a "true seeker" (you still haven't gievn me a definition of such a person that jibes with Romans 3:11)? Couldn't He have provided the "right fork" for such an individual to walk toward instead of letting this true, honest seeker go without finding the Christ he really needed? To suggest that those who are truly seeking do not find Jesus is calling that same Jesus a liar (Matthew 7:7-8); and it is also making a pretty horrible statement on the power and sovereignty of God by suggesting that sometimes God wants the person to be saved, the person himself wants to be saved, and still things work out where the guy goes to hell. Perhaps the "interrogation lamp" could come off of me for a moment so we can discuss these ramifications. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70189 | ||
Joe And how many Mormons have you witnessed to? That is a pretty blanket statement you are making about the mindset of the Mormon convert. And if they are seeking true, godly repentance, then surely all of them abandon Mormonism when you witness to them, since their hearts were already pre-disposed to embracing the truth you were giving them. Right? You know as well as I do converting a Mormon is nearly impossible because they believe they already believe as we do only with enlightened teaching. For them to become an orthodox Christian in their opinion would require a step back. Mormons when they become Mormon believe they are accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Master into their life. In the past I asked you if you felt God would allow someone consummed in sin to die that way without the chance of salvation just because they were not elected. You said a non elected man could never reach that point. Now are you changing that statement? Lastly, you do see the logical consequence of your view that many Mormons really want to become Christians, don't you? What kind of a God would deny the opportunity to a "true seeker" Joe you know as I do they consider themselves true Christians. When asked what they depend on for salvation they response is the Blood of Jesus. If asked the "three questions" many will provide the correct answer. Yet when you peel back the onion you see they serve a different Jesus. Couldn't He have provided the "right fork" for such an individual to walk toward instead of letting this true, honest seeker go without finding the Christ he really needed? To suggest that those who are truly seeking do not find Jesus is calling that same Jesus a liar (Matthew 7:7-8); and it is also making a pretty horrible statement on the power and sovereignty of God by suggesting that sometimes God wants the person to be saved, the person himself wants to be saved, and still things work out where the guy goes to hell. Perhaps the "interrogation lamp" could come off of me for a moment so we can discuss these ramifications I'm sure you would like the lamp off you and nice try to once again change the subject. The subject is how can a depraved man be enlightened enough to seek God unless all are able not just the elect. EdB |
||||||
4 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70195 | ||
Ed: The "interrogation lamp" comment was supposed to be a hint toward your un-Christlike attitude toward this conversation, but -- surprise! -- you didn't get it, but rather picked it up and ran with it. I am going to say this as nicely as I can. Our relationship is not that of a superior-to-subordinate or teacher-to-student. My purpose here is not to answer your question (which I have consistently done) If you want to have a dialogue, that is fine. That involves you responding to my comments just as I have to yours. If you want to converse, let's converse. If not, I will just pick up my pearls and move on. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70199 | ||
Joe I'm sorry I was merely trying to keep the subject on track. That is hard to do at times, especially when asked questions that would lead to another area. My hope is this Calvinism Arminiamism debate will cease. Not just in this thread but every apparition of it, such as inferences, suggestions or hints. I’m sick of hearing Calvinism is right and everything else is wrong. If that were true it would be provable without question and this debate would have ended dare I say hundreds of years ago. EdB |
||||||
6 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70212 | ||
"I’m sick of hearing Calvinism is right and everything else is wrong." Well, Ed, you think I am as wrong as I think you are, and you have said so on numerous occasions. I do not get all bent out of shape about it or go off on a crusade to tear you down because of it. I defend the Reformed position when misrepresented or criticized not because I feel any need to boost my self-esteem, but because it is what I believe the Bible teaches. It is the same thing when someone comes on here promoting anti-Trinitarian doctrine or WOF teaching or the notion that the Bible is not a sufficient guide for faith and practice. I do not mind the hard questions at all. God put us together in a body -- a community -- so that we could wrestle with His revelation to know Him and obey Him more. The great orthodox creeds of the faith, such as the Nicene Creed, were by and large a product of wrangling and debate among brothers, which I am sure got very intense at times. I do not take it personally that you disagree with me and think I am wrong. What I am concerned about is that in a public forum a system of doctrine held to by many significant men of God dating as far back as Augustine of Hippo, a system that falls well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, is not misrepresented or maligned. "If that were true it would be provable without question and this debate would have ended dare I say hundreds of years ago." Try telling that to Oneness pentecostals, or to those who believe in infant baptism or that tongues have ceased. You have a position on these as well, and all of these arguments have been going on. :) One of us HAS to be wrong; neither one of us is damnably wrong. I like what James White once said to a Mormon in a public debate (bringing us back on track!). He said that a significant reason so many denominations exist because people pick and choose what parts of the Bible thay are going to believe. I am certain I am guilty of that as well, and believe it or not, my Calvinist confession even backs up the idea of no church being 100 percent right. :) But I am convinced from the Bible that I am right on this one, and until I can be convinced from sacred Scripture that I am not, I am going to hold to this view. I didn't grow up Reformed; I examined it in great detail from both sides before affirming that that is what the Bible teaches. I can evaluate the other point of view because I used to subscribe to that point of view (since it was the one in which I was raised). That is why I bear no animosity toward you whatsoever, Ed, while at the same time I think that you are in error on this one. And it is a big one, even if it is not a salvific one. May God bless you! --Joe! |
||||||
7 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | EdB | 70219 | ||
Joe I guess the difference between us is you said one of us is wrong and the other is right. I believe we are both wrong that all the mysteries of God have not been revealed, that finite man can not define the infinite. You believe that to be untrue and you feel you have scriptures to prove your point, however the counter to your point has an equal number of scriptures to disprove your point. Since neither point is totally provable in the light of the others then I submit both are missing the mark. My fight is not against Calvinism (again I’m sorry for the slur) I defend against the position it is provably correct. If you want to present it in the future as this is my position fine, or this is the Calvinistic position fine. But to state it emphatically as this is the one true position is in effect distorting the truth. Is that so unreasonable? EdB |
||||||