Here is the rest of it that, you purposely left out in order to say that I proved your point.
The quote from me is what you are disagreeing with here. Do you disagree because it does not fit with what you have chosen to believe? Or is there some objective reason why you say it is incorrect? Simply saying you disagree is meaningless. No meat, no word.
This is downright egregious. It is not surprising to see it being done on a regular basis as the same thing is done in supporting the false beliefs being presented. Removing what I have said from it context to present my being in agreement with you, when you know full well that I am not. The same thing is done with God's word by removing sections from their context.
So here is the context of of my statement.
It has nothing to do with seeing the word as I do. Or with repenting of your faith and come to my faith, whatever that is intended to mean. It is simple fact that if someones understanding to Scripture is grounded on the absolute sovereignty of God, even in election, because they see the principle throughout Scripture, and it is consistent with the actual meaning of Sovereign; and if they or a particular theology (in this case Reformed theology) are not complacent in their attempt to make certain that what they believe, or how they interpret a scripture, is never contradicted elsewhere in Scripture, but keeps the teachings consistent with one another just as the Bible does; if all that exists, then it is bound to more align with what God means, than it will with one who is randomly finding scriptures and interpreting them to agree with a presupposition of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace in the theological debate over effectual grace, it is said to be the grace of God given to individuals (all without exception) that releases them from their bondage to sin (total depravity) and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man.
I, and many others of the Reformed camp, have had many, many, debates over this, over many years, and yet not one single person of the prevenient grace persuasion has proven their assumption. In order to attempt to do so, things are added to scriptures that are not there, and much of the whole of Scripture is never dealt with----not even when it is presented and the contradiction exposed.
My purpose in even engaging with you in this, is for your great benefit. In the hope that you will learn the importance of rightly handling the word of God and gain the knowledge of God that cannot be gained when one does not keep God's self revelation in mind when teaching what is no more than their subjective truth. The ability to do this has been stolen from the people of God in ever increasing measure since the 19th century, with the spreading of the idea of prevenient grace. For a long time, certainly with your lifetime and mine and I am much older than you, it is practically the exclusive teaching in congregations. Even though it was soundly condemned during the Reformation. The Catholic church even at that time, was teaching a form of prevenient grace and still does.
But all I can do is put these things before you. Only God can open your eyes and mind to receive it. I was exactly where you are for the first 23 years of my now 40 plus years of being in Christ. I had not so much as heard of Reformed theology or of any of its teachings. But I knew something was off, something was missing, and that something was hearing from the pulpit actual teaching about God. I did not know exactly what I meant by that but I knew I was thirsty. The very minute the teachings of Reformed theology were presented to me, I knew, that was what I thirsted for. Systematic, always consistent teaching about God, and all interpretations of scriptures consistent with who he is and consistent with one another. And it is as someone said, "No one gets it unless God gives it to them." So I can take no credit at all. I argued with that statement of God giving it to us by saying "But he does give it to us! In his word." I think perhaps we have to really desire his truth above all else, and he will open the eyes that have been blinded to it doctrinally and theologically, by the modern church. And even if we are satisfied with what we have, we can still go before him and tell him that we want to want, to know truth and to know him.
Blessings.
