Foreknowledge

[Carbon]

We must RESPOND to be saved. Have you responded on not?

Of course we respond. It's irresistible actually.


I think part of the problem here is your understanding of the ordo salutis.

 

[fastfredy0]

Option 1 above. It is saying that God predestined those who He knew would believe. But friend, the only reason why they believe is because God predestined them to believe, through regeneration. Do you see the difference?

Again, option 1 doesn't state the reason one believes and thus is correct. It's only when you insert 'free will' into option 1 that one makes option 1 incorrect. But option 1 does not state the reason for responding.
Everyone who is saved has responded by faith. Have you not responded by faith?????

 

[Carbon]

And it is always good to consider things. We sharpen each other. No one is cramming anything down anyone's throats.

 

[fastfredy0]

fastfredy, would you show me where foreseen faith, good works, etc are in this verse?

My point of John 6:29 is to show God does the work of causing us to believe. I think you agree.
The crux of the matter is option 1 does not address the cause of our responding. Please address option 1 and show how it is invalid .... quote it and specifically show what part contradicts scripture.

 

[Carbon]

Again, option 1 doesn't state the reason one believes and thus is correct.

But you are stating the reason God chose and predestined. So, it is incorrect.

 

[Carbon]

My point of John 6:29 is to show God does the work of causing us to believe. I think you agree.

Yes, I agree bro. Though I probably wouldn't say it like that.

The crux of the matter is option 1 does not address the cause of our responding.

But it does show the cause of God responding. Cant you see this?

Please address option 1 and show how it is invalid .... quote it and specifically show what part contradicts scripture.

I believe I already did.

 

[fastfredy0]

But I digress, you're not willing to see your errors.

Well, one of us is not willing... agreed.

You didn't answer my questions. You didn't say if you did not respond to God's grace that you would or would not be saved.

Anyways, I'll drop it. I think our doctrine is the same... our reading of english is what separates us.... maybe it's me. *giggle*

 

[David1701]

Again, option 1 doesn't state the reason one believes and thus is correct. It's only when you insert 'free will' into option 1 that one makes option 1 incorrect. But option 1 does not state the reason for responding.
Everyone who is saved has responded by faith. Have you not responded by faith?????

I think the point you're missing is that option 1 is to do with election being because the person will believe (i.e. conditional), rather than in order that the person will believe.

 

[fastfredy0]

But you are stating the reason God chose and predestined. So, it is incorrect.

I stated that Option 1 doesn't state why we respond ... or if anything it states the God is the cause of our response because predestines means "God determined it". So if you respond per option 1 because God determined it, how can option 1 be contrary to scripture.
We got to stick to the words of option 1... our doctrine is the same in my option. We just don't interpret the meaning of option 1 the same.
I think you insert the cause of our response is free will while I don't see that in option 1.
I hope we agree that one must RESPOND to be saved. I bet you responded, didn't you??

 

[Carbon]

I stated that Option 1 doesn't state why we respond ... or if anything it states the God is the cause of our response because predestines means "God determined it". So if you respond per option 1 because God determined it, how can option 1 be contrary to scripture.
We got to stick to the words of option 1... our doctrine is the same in my option. We just don't interpret the meaning of option 1 the same.
I think you insert the cause of our response is free will while I don't see that in option 1.
I hope we agree that one must RESPOND to be saved. I bet you responded, didn't you??

I do believe we do agree for the most part. And neither of us has perfect knowledge. I'm good with the subject being left here for now. I don't think I have to answer your question again since I already have, did you read it?

 

[fastfredy0]

I think the point you're missing is that option 1 is to do with election being because the person will believe (i.e. conditional), rather than in order that the person will believe.

Well, I think we all agree that election is unconditional. I want someone to dissect OPTION 1 and point out Conditional Election.
I stress that just because one responds to the gospel with faith does not mean it was Conditional Election for ALL Christians respond to the gospel. My point is option #1 does not say that our response is Conditioned on anything we do independent of God.

 

[fastfredy0]

You're teaching conditional election and decisional regeneration, so, it would be you.

That's false. I stated 4ish times that I believe in uncondtional election. I pointed out our difference of opinion is with semantics. You don't want to address the grammar of option 1 or answer my questions.... so I'm letting the matter drop. You can blame me, that's fine.

 

[fastfredy0]

I don't think I have to answer your question again since I already have, did you read it?

I might have missed it.... so many things going so fast ... my apology if I 'blew it'...

 

[Carbon]

I might have missed it.... so many things going so fast ... my apology if I 'blew it'...

No reason to apologize. I think it's going to be nice having you here. I like how we almost agree, Iron sharpens Iron.

 

[fastfredy0]

So what? Everyone has a statement of faith, and then their actual teaching either affirms or contradicts their SoF. Yours does the latter, yor teaching is conditional election and merited grace. "We are saved by our response."

You believe you are saved by not responding. This is a logical fallacy.

You've failed the semantics part.

You wouldn't respond to my questions .... I doctor can't fix a patient if the patient won't take the medicine

Stop being disingenuous, you were answered. You're unable to accept being refuted.

Well, this method of communication has it's difficulties. Perhaps you didn't answer and perhaps I missed your answer. Who cares... we were going to drop this.

 

[fastfredy0]

Iron sharpens Iron.

Yeah, I think I will like you guys ... even @preacher4truth ... though it might take longer *giggle* I've talked to him before

Re: Iron sharpens Iron ..... that's the cup half full analysis......... cup half empty is "Iron dulls iron" ...

@Iconoclast sent me over here ... I'm not as bad as my 1st impression ... (but maybe I got that wrong too)

 

[Carbon]

Yeah, I think I will like you guys ... even @preacher4truth ... though it might take longer *giggle* I've talked to him before

Re: Iron sharpens Iron ..... that's the cup half full analysis......... cup half empty is "Iron dulls iron" ...

@Iconoclast sent me over here ... I'm not as bad as my 1st impression ... (but maybe I got that wrong too)

Lol. Looking forward to getting to know you brother.


Blessings

 

[fastfredy0]

Yes, I remember you from I believe "christianchat" then you got zapped iirc.

Yeah, I got zapped once. Not even sure why. Some guy who had most posts on the site said I did something that to this day I am scratching my head in bewilderment ... and I got the boot.

A lot of reformed guys on this site ... kewl... only be able to argue about semantics *giggle*

 

[David1701]

Well, I think we all agree that election is unconditional. I want someone to dissect OPTION 1 and point out Conditional Election.
I stress that just because one responds to the gospel with faith does not mean it was Conditional Election for ALL Christians respond to the gospel. My point is option #1 does not say that our response is Conditioned on anything we do independent of God.

Election is not because we respond, irrespective of the fact that our response is by God's grace.

 

[fastfredy0]

For preaching decisional regeneration?

I got booted for preaching "decisional regeneration"? Gee, I don't even believe in "decisional regeneration". Maybe the ultimate cause of for preaching "NON-decisional regeneration". All I know is some guy with 35,000ish post at the time said I misrepresented his views and next thing I know I was gone. Not even a warning. I am still "ticked" a little.
Gee, one of the things I like about God choosing us and we not being the cause in any way it the idea that we CAN'T BLOW IT. I suppose that doesn't help my assurance, but at least I'm not worried that I've done everything possible to save myself.

It's OK that you're wrong. In fact I'm all for it.

O.K. ... you win by attrition if nothing else.