Subject: Who determines our destiny? |
Bible Note: John... You assumed something wrong about what I believe. You said.... "Where we still may disagree is on whether fallen man is capable (absent the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration) of having a desire that would be pleasing to God. I say he (fallen man) cannot." There is nothing in our flesh that can please God. Nothing. You said... "I believe them for one reason and one reason only: They agree with Scripture." They do not agree with Scripture. I am neither Arminian, nor TULIP. I do agree with most of the acrostic, but Beza (not Calvin) came up with that notion. The key is one of knowing what grace does. And, that the soul is not part of the flesh. I wish not to argue, but when someone makes a closed statement like you have ( " They agree with Scripture.") Then I see a preconceived wall erected prejudicially against any reasoning that may show the error to your dogma. I will discuss as long as you do not become rigid with me. If not, I will simply drop the subject with you. Are you willing to be shown that you can be wrong? That things are not as simple and black and white as you like them to be? You would be an exception to the rule if you agreed on my terms. It seems that a certain mind set has a natural affinity for Calvinism. I have found it, so far, to be a rigid one. To explain what I have to give, in order to show you how I see grace works in salvation, it will require avoiding being sidetracked by the usual cliches and conditioned responses. You must be willing to first hear me out and let me finish. Ask questions to clarify what I specifically said, if you wish. But, please do not have us wander off and ask me to explain (at that point) what a certain passage that you have come to accept and seems to contradict free will of man in salvation, means to me at that time. Let me first complete my understanding with you. When I finish, then you can give me such questions if you wish. If you can agree to that, then I will explain myself as to why Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong. Almost everyone knows Calvinism and Arminianism. Both make no sense to the other. Both are attracted to by believers with an natural affinity for such reasoning. I am here to reveal something that neither reveal. Remember, you can question what I am saying and ask for clarification about what I am specifically speaking on. But, I will refuse at that point to get sidetracked into refuting TULIP dogma directly. For, I believe what I have to say will clear it up as I go along. Agree? Or, do we just move on? Grace and peace, Gene |