Re: You Will Surely Die

Msg # 1000 of 1000 on RelayNet Bible Study
To: ALL, From: "MIGUEL" Time: Wednesday, 8-15-7, 12:38
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/15/07 12:37:39 AM ---

 escribió en el mensaje
news:18269ECE-C2B5-63C7-BF94-4779864E00A4@art.srcbs.org...
> On Aug 12, 10:21 pm, "Miguel" 
> wrote:
>>  escribi=F3 en el
>> mensajenews:E60E1DC7-C9A1-EB4A-48=
> E1-921113D84221@art.srcbs.org...
>>
>> > are being obtuse.  I am distinquishing between regeneration and
>> > conversion, as the scriptures do.  I've already commented on this.
>>
>> But you didn't show where the scripture say that.
>>
> I gave you several verses.  Truth is, the whole tenor of scripture
> speaks
> of this.  "For HE (the Father) delievered us from the domain of
> darkness."
> Col 1:13.  The scriptures repeatedly state that man is dead and
> incapable
> of seeking after God in a true heart.  It declares that Satan blinds
> and
> binds.  Christ declared that God hides the truth from unbelievers (Mt
> 11:25;
> cp. 1 Cor 1:23ff).  I've already given you numerous references and
> you've
> just chose to ignore them.  We are*His* craftsmanship."  "But by HIS
> doing
> you are in Christ Jesus."  (1 Cor 1:30)  "NO ONE comes unto Me except
> the Father draw him."  and "You did not choose Me, but I chose you,"
> in
> Jn 15:16.  Mt 11:27 continues the thought that it is only as God moves
> to re-incline us toward Him and only as He enlightens the mind that
> man
> can then come to repentance and faith, i.e. conversion.  If man is
> dead
> (Rom, Eph) then he first needs to be "born again" before he has the
> capacity
> to see (enlightenment) the kingdom.  Regeneration must proceed any
> turning to God.
>> I said that to receive the Holy Spirit is necessary: Repentance + Faith
>>
> Then you make salvation a work.  You make it depend upon something I
> do.  That is NOT the gospel of the Apostles.  Paul repeatedly states
> that
> it solely a work of God.  Total depravity leads to total dependence
> and the
> RCO humanisitic tenor denies that man is dead.  The "I will give you
> rest"
> in Mt 11:28 speaks to the fact that man is passive in regeneration.
> The
> only thing man brings to his salvation is the sin that requires that
> it be a
> work of God to not only merit a righteousness for him but to suffer
> the
> wrath that abides on all men outside of Christ.
>
> You keep asking for scripture but that is not the RCO way.  In fact,
> unless
> you are a priest, you have no authority to interpret the scriptures
> according
> to Vatican 1.


I'm sorry but I don't know about RCO and his Vatican 1, I only know about
the RCC and Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, and while you mention the RCO, I can't
answer you.


>> Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
>> the
>> name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
>> gift of the Holy Ghost.
>> (Acts 2:38, KJV)
>>
>> Where it says clearly that the Repentance is before of receive the Holy
>> Spirit.
>>
> What happened to you NASB quotation?  Note what the verse is actually
> saying.  It is not saying that you shall receive the HS, but that you
> will
> receive His gift.  1 cor 12:4  Your exegesis does not correctly divide
> the
> Word.  You are seeking to make repentance the causality of
> regeneration,
> when the scriptures (which I have already refered you to) declare that
> NO movement can be made toward God in the way HE requires until one
> "first be born from above."  Now in Eph 1:3-14, please show me where
> any effort on the part of man is required for his regeneration and his
> subsequent salvation/conversion.  Notice that Paul is teaching in this
> passage what he concludes in Rom 11 that it is ALL a work of God.
>> > Neo!  Neo?  Is that some new term you heard today?  I suggest
>> > you first learn its definition before you employ it.
>>
>> It is evident that you don't read about of criticisms about modern
>> evangelical ideologies.
>>
> Sigh.  You can't even give a definition of "neo-evangelicalism."  You
> brandished the term but you offer no defense for having done so.  You
> can not even respond on this point with any adequacy.
>
> Neo-evangelicalism are those who have revised the historical
> evangelical
> position and have skipped off to World Council of Churches and other
> such
> venues to seek a synthesis of RC theology and their own.  A couple of
> years ago Packer was involved in a conference where evangelicals did
> sit down with RC authorities but if you had kept up todate with the
> current
> tensions, you would know that Packer denounced the whole thing because
> too many on the Evangelical side of the table were modernist in their
> position.  He separated himself from them.  Where have you been?


Neo-evangelicalism is not only that, also is the creation of New Evangelical
doctrines, for example traditional evangelicals like the Fundamental
Baptists, believe that to receive the Holy Spirit is necessary Repentance
and Faith, but the New Evangelicals believe that first the person has to
receives the Holy Spirit and only after, can has Repentance and Faih.


>> > Besides that rediculous miscalculation on your part, you chose not
>> > to reply to the content of Packers statement, which is my own
>> > thoughts on this as well.  Again I ask, what are you doing here if
>> > you are unwilling to discuss point -counter point?
>>
>> I can ask you that why I have to response to a Copy & Paste,
>
> It was not a "copy and paste."  I typed it out because I own the book.
>
>> this NG is to
>> have a conversation, and not for simply repeat what your spiritual guide
>> say.
>>
> A true student of the Word seeks the counsel of others, esp those who
> are held in high regard for their expertise.  This is patentedly
> obvious
> because Packer was on that tribunal.  Not everyone gets asked to such
> things.
>
> Beside that, if you had been the least bit observant in this NG,
> quotations
> are often used.  How often is Augustine quoted here I wonder?
>>
>> I'm sorry but your Calvinist position is evident.
>>
> So?  The position isn't "Calvinistic" it is Biblical.
>>
>> God Father shows to Christ through of the Bible (Word of God), and the
>> unbeliever has the responsibility of accepts to Crist how the Lord and
>> Savior.
>>
> No.  Absolutely  no.  Man cannot respond unless God first regenerates
> him (born again).  Also, you are mistaken in your absolutest
> conclusion
> that only those who have the scriptures quoted to them can be saved.
> Does not Paul conclude in Rom 2 that the Gentiles who don't have the
> Word yet do the things revealed in the Word?  What of those prior to
> the flood or those prior to the giving of the Law?  Did all of them
> die
> because they did  not have the "Word of God."  Certainly with the
> advent of the church and the canon, today the Scriptures are paramount
> but that is not to marry to say that they absolute.  If one believes
> in
> the Promise, the Promise of Gen 2:15, it reveals a faith that is
> acceptable
> to God.   Look at Heb 11.
>
> Yet this is all secondary for no one believes in true faith (a gift,
> not a
> merited response) unless he is first capacitated to receive the gift.
> ALL
> are dead.  All are "children of wrath by nature."  "Even when we were
> DEAD in our transgressions, [He] made us alive..."  He "raised us up
> [from the dead] with Him and seated us with Him i the heavenly
> places."
>
> Now where is your puny little "reason" and "repentance" and human
> effort in all this?  This is the Great Lie, that man can add ANYTHING
> to
> the Work of Christ.  It is ALL from Him, through Him and to Him."
> Where
> is the exception?  "For who has first given to Him that it must be
> repaid?"
>>
>> > Yet synergism and semi-Pelagianism is employed.  Aquinas
>> > brought in Aristolism and RCism has ever since employed it.
>>
>> No, because clearly the Church condemns the semi-pelagianism.
>>
> Actions speak louder than words.  Besides, in times past, I have
> quoted
> ad nauseam, from your catechisms, from cardinals and bishops as well,
> all clearly teaching semi-pelagianism.  See what I mean when I before
> expressed how much easier it is to state such things than it is to
> deny
> it?


Sincerely only I like to speak in this NG about the Bible, maybe you should
speak with a catholic priest about these problems that you have with the
clergymen.


>> > And how does this support your supposition?  How do you think
>> > you actually answered the point I made concerning the dynamic
>> > of Lazarus rising from the dead and distinction to be made between
>> > regeneration and conversion?  You've answered nothing.  Where
>> > is you substantive rebuttal?
>>
>> In the teaching of the history, and how can the Church apply this
>> teachin=
> g=2E
>>
> What?  This is your "substantive rebuttal?"  Perhaps you should start
> quoting your scholars because you are unable to debate.
>>
>>
>> > Eisegetically.  You bring your presuppositions and then read into
>> > what is written to seek support for what you have already determined
>> > to be so.
>>
>> But not in a support falses because I don't agree to build on the sand.
>>
> childish, youthful, uneducated response.  As I before suggested to
> you,
> you need to look into the science of apologetics.
>>
>> > Again, you apply a term that you have no understanding of if its
>> > definition.  Neo-evangelicalism would not stand in opposition to
>> > your position.  You really do need to "study to show yourself
>> > approved."
>>
>> The problem is that you first need to read more about the
>> neo-evangelical=
> ism
>> and then you will can see that your ideology is similar.
>>
> What a joke.  First you raise the banner "Calvinist" and now you are
> attempting to raise the banner "neo-evangelical."  You cannot
> synthesize
> these two.  Thus you prove my point that you don't know what you are
> talking about.
>>
>> I think that only the Lord Jesus Crist (that also is God) is the
>> internediaries between God and the men.
>>
> Now who is the "Calvinist?"


I am not Calvinist, I am Roman Catholic since I received in the Church, the
Infant Baptism, and since I knew to God in the Bible, I try to guide me for
the message of Word of God, in agreement to the essence of the Apostolic
Tradition.


>> (Ephesians 1:23, KJV)
>> (Hebrews 13:17, KJV)
>>
> It would have been much easier to quote, "one Mediator, Christ Jesus,"
>>
>> Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus
>> Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or
>> g=
> ive
>> communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever
>> =
> has
>> his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and
>> valid.
>> (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8)
>>
> Where is the Scriptural support for this as you are so fond of
> requiring?  Anyone
> who is a born again believer can lead another to Christ and baptize
> them.  There
> is NO eccumenticalism to be found in the NT concerning the Church.
> You will
> find no scripture to support a transference of authority beyond that
> of the Apostles.  Paul taught Timothy how to discern and then select
> elders but this has no
> relation to the RCO's paradigm of apostolic succession.  There is no
> scriptural
> mandate that communion can only be administered over by an "authority"
> of
> the church.  That sentence uses the strict RCO theological teachings.
> It is
> solely a tradition of men as is the adding of works to the grace of
> God.


I'd like to do a summary of the conversation.

You position is that first is the New Birth, that appears when the
unbeliever, believe, and after is the Repentance and Faith, both as a
consequence of the regeneration through the Spirit, in the New Birth, and
the verse base in which you support is:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(John 3:3, KJV)

My position is like the one that always from beginnings of the Christianity
has been mentioned, that summarizing is:

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God,
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Acts 20:21, KJV)

There are interesting links about several aspects mentioned in the
conversation.

J.I. Packer - General Teachings/Activities
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/packer/general.htm

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
--


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator.
)))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100
 * Origin: RelayNet þ MoonDog BBS Brooklyn, NY (900:100/50)
 

[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | ]
Search this conference for:

© 2018 The Trashcan BBS - http://bbs.thenet.gen.nz. All rights reserved.