Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If It Be Possible, Let This Cup Pass From Me

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by intojoy View Post
    I don't think that's right. I think if God foreknew who would be saved then they will be saved otherwise God was wrong about what He foreknew.
    So are you saying that Paul was wrong about the conclusion he arrived at?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
      So are you saying that Paul was wrong about the conclusion he arrived at?

      No I'm sayin' that you're sayin' that God didn't foreknow who would believe.

      Comment


      • #93
        So when are you coming out to Hawaii jerry?

        Fruchtenbaum will be here from December thru February

        It would be great to meet you and the mrs. Plus you could plant your seed faith offering to me for all of the good teaching I'm giving out . Just like Taughty says we r supposed to.

        But seriously if you can come, I'll treat you to a luau brother.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by intojoy View Post
          No I'm sayin' that you're sayin' that God didn't foreknow who would believe.
          The passage which I quoted proves that even those who are perishing could have believed the gospel if not for the fact that their minds were blinded to its truth by the god of this world.

          Do you think Paul was wrong about that?

          In answer to your point I will quote John Wesley, and his points are shared by most of the Calvinists:
          "The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge. This would be ill consistent with the Apostle's words, 'With him is no variableness or shadow of turning;' and with the account he gives of himself by the Prophet, 'I the Lord change not'...Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" [emphasis mine] (John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, 1771, Second Series, "On Predestination," Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

          Fruchtenbaum will be here from December thru February
          What a perfect time for a little debate on TOL concerning the beginning of the present dispensation and the beginning of the Body of Christ.

          But I doubt Arnold will be up to the challenge because he lacks the kind of confidence needed for such a debate.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
            The passage which I quoted proves that even those who are perishing could have believed the gospel if not for the fact that their minds were blinded to its truth by the god of this world.



            Do you think Paul was wrong about that?



            In answer to your point I will quote John Wesley, and his points are shared by most of the Calvinists:


            "The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge. This would be ill consistent with the Apostle's words, 'With him is no variableness or shadow of turning;' and with the account he gives of himself by the Prophet, 'I the Lord change not'...Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" [emphasis mine] (John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, 1771, Second Series, "On Predestination," Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).







            What a perfect time for a little debate on TOL concerning the beginning of the present dispensation and the beginning of the Body of Christ.



            But I doubt Arnold will be up to the challenge because he lacks the kind of confidence needed for such a debate.

            When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2 NASB)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by intojoy View Post
              When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2 NASB)

              Hmmm silenced

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2 NASB)
                After speaking with a person who knows Arnold he is anything but humble.

                He will refuse to debate me because he knows that I will defeat him soundly and his pride cannot take that.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                  After speaking with a person who knows Arnold he is anything but humble.



                  He will refuse to debate me because he knows that I will defeat him soundly and his pride cannot take that.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                    [ATTACH]18552[/ATTACH]
                    That is so typical of the attitude of the Acts 2 dispensationalists when they have no answer to verses which prove they are wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      That is so typical of the attitude of the Acts 2 dispensationalists when they have no answer to verses which prove they are wrong.
                      Do you have an example?
                      Eph 2:8 For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift --
                      Eph 2:9 not from works, so that no one can boast.
                      Eph 2:10 For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them. [HCSB]

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Saved.One.by.Grace View Post
                        Do you have an example?
                        Yes, I asked a question to Tony Garland concerning the beginning of the dispensation and our exchange can be found here:

                        http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/22.htm?x=x

                        In reply he quoted Charles Ryrie's words here:
                        "What the ultradispensationalist fails to recognize is that the distinguishableness of a dispensation is related to what God is doing, not necessarily to what He reveals at the time, and least of all to what man understands of His purposes."

                        I wrote him back and pointed out at another place in the same book Ryrie contradicted the answer which I was given. Here Ryrie says that before a new dispensation can start a new revelation must be given:
                        "Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revealation was given" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Moody Press, 1995],, p.34).

                        Of course Tony Garland had no answer so he did not even bother to write me backnor did he correct his web site.

                        These people are clueless if they think that a new revelation is not necessary in order for a new dispensation to begin but that is exactly what Ryrie teaches here:
                        "What the ultradispensationalist fails to recognize is that the distinguishableness of a dispensation is related to what God is doing, not necessarily to what He reveals at the time, and least of all to what man understands of His purposes."

                        these people are the most arrogant Christians on the face of the earth even though they do not even understand the most basic things in regard to the Biblical dispensational arrangement.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          That is so typical of the attitude of the Acts 2 dispensationalists when they have no answer to verses which prove they are wrong.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                            [ATTACH]18553[/ATTACH]
                            Perhaps you have an answer to my questions which I asked to the Acts 2 dispensationalists here:

                            http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/22.htm?x=x

                            Seems like they are more interested in defending what is taught at Dallas Theological Seminary than they are in actually coming to the knowledge of the truth.

                            I wonder if Arnold could provide a better answer than did Tony Garland.

                            I doubt it!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                              they do not even understand the most basic things in regard to the Biblical dispensational arrangement.
                              Actually most get it, Jerry.

                              http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/

                              Just sayin'.

                              Understanding the dispensationalist:
                              http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebook...nsationalists/

                              You will like this:
                              http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/links.html

                              AMR
                              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                              Do you confess?
                              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                              AMR's Randomata Blog
                              Learn Reformed Doctrine
                              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                              The best TOL Social Group: here.
                              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                              Why?


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                                [ATTACH]18553[/ATTACH]
                                The thing is, often, "verses" like survey's, may be interpreted in more than one way.
                                I consider what a particular verse meant to me at the age of 15,20, 30,40,50 or in my 70's for me. Meaning has deepened, evolved and been honed over the years of study and prayer.
                                Often, another person's input will change or enhance what I believe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X