Re: You Will Surely Die

Msg # 991 of 1000 on RelayNet Bible Study
To: ALL, From: "MIGUEL" Time: Saturday, 8-11-7, 11:05
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/11/07 11:03:52 AM ---

 escribió en el mensaje
> On Aug 7, 6:45 am, "Miguel"  wrote:
>> I don't know what you think (and I don't try to control your mind), but
>> like
>> an user of Usenet, I only want to remember the order of the system.
> I will only say this, when USENET use to be only DoD and then
> university
> students, such things were never much of an issue.  What was at issue
> was the issues being discussed.  I never was one to color inbetween
> the lines.

But since they can be read through a newsreader, the things are like

>> (Ephesians 1:13-14, NASB)
> And what were you quipping about?  Just quoting scripture is sort of
> frowned upon as well.  What was you point?

My point is same that I always says, any unbeliever that turn to God and
believe in the Lord Jesus Crist, receive the Holy Spirit, but your problem
is that you are trying to understand the Bible in a form philosophical.

>> Then, you can not show in which verses of the Bible, is your constant
>> teaching "But you cannot repent unless the Spirit baptises you in
>> regeneration"
> That's not what I said.

But you did not show it

> I said that it is taught vividly when one
> considers all of the scriptures involved even as the doctrine of
> total depravity.

I am sorry but that is chatter, and not obedience to the Word of God

> You want a single verse that declares "regeneration
> precedes and is the immediate cause of conversion."

I only liked some verses where say something about that.

> many doctrines, you won't find such a verse.  To the topic, JI Packer
> writes:
> In John's Gospel and 1st Epistle the figure of new birth .... is
> intergral
> to the presentation of personal salvation .... In the Gospel, Christ
> assurres Nicodemus that there are no special activities -no seeing or
> entering God's kindom, because (he had) no faith in himself-
> without regeneration (Jn 3:1ff); and John declares in the prologue
> that only the regenerate receive Christ and enter into the
> privilege of God's children (Jn 1:12-13).  Conversely, in the
> Epistle, Hohn insists that there is no regeneration that does
> not issue in spiritual activities.  The regenerate do righteousness
> (1 Jn 2:29) and do not live a life of sin (3:9; 5:18); the present
> tense indicates habitual law-keeping, not absolute sinlessness,
> cf. 1:8-10;  they love Christians (4:7); believe rightly in
> Christ and experience faith's victory over the world (5:4).  Any
> who do otherwise, whatever they claim, are still unregenerate
> children of the devil (3:6-10).  [Baker's Dictionary of Theology,
> pp. 440, 441.]

Really I liked to know your own understanding, and sincerely I don't want to
read some study neo-evangelical.

>> That is similar to your doctrine
> No, it is biblical.  Use the biblical definition of regeneration
> as opposed to conversion.

This is somewhat curious, seems that as someone did that you memorize it,
also you want that another do it.

> First off, its an act, an act of God.
> It's origin is before anything outside of God came into existence.
> Man is passive in regeneration but not in conversion.  It is
> a gracious act of God.  Man being dead (Eph 2:1) nulifies his
> involvement.

It would be interesting to know that verse you have to confirm the second
part of your ideology.

> Pelegianism presses the "free-will" theorum
> when it comes to regeneration.  Arminianism adopts
> synergism.  The is RC theology.  It is not biblical theology.
> Lazarus played no part in the causality of his resurrection.
> Synergism is at best, heretical.
> This involves a wide range of doctrines and discussion
> from the eternal decree to an understanding of enlighten-
> ment.

According I had read, the Roman Catholic theology is similar of the
Augustine of Hippo, and according the history, Augustine defended the
Christian faith against those concepts of the Pelegians, and the Pelagianism
was condemned by the Council of Ephesus.

About the history of Lazarus, It was a similar teaching to the expressed by
the apostle Paul.

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and
Christ shall give thee light.
(Ephesians 5:14, KJV)

>> But you continue without explaining your theology according to the Bible
>> says
> No, what I was saying was that it involves a great many
> scriptures and if you really wanted to understand the doctrine
> you wouldnt seek a resolve here but rather you would actually
> put forth a little effort of you own and study it.

Then finally I have to accept those concepts created by the neo-evangelicals
and from there understand the Bible, I'm sorry but I go directly to the
message of Word of God.

> You also need to study apologetical theory.    RC apologetics
> from the outset, its presupposition that man can still see, can
> still will his way to pleasing God, builds its superstructure on
> the proverbial sand dune.  By this presupposition (among others)
> it denys or at least puts into question the self-sufficiency and
> ultimacy of God.  The Roman Catholic Organization can't even
> get the Genesis record right.  If the foundation is out of
> square then any rendering of seeing straight and dealing
> honorably with facts is beyond hope.  RCO has never been
> honest in its approach to the Scriptures.  Just ask the
> Waldenses.  Just take a look at the history of the popes,
> say Innocent 8 for instance and his affinity for witchcraft.
> RCOism is anthropocentric not Theopocentric.

I'm sorry but I don't know about the Roman Catholic Organization (RCO), I
only know about the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

>> >> The Bible in Acts 17:30-31 says different.
>> > ??????  How does this prove your position that it is man's
>> > will which wins him salvation?
>> My position only is the same of the Bible.
>> "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring
>> to
>> men that all people everywhere should repent,
>> (Acts 17:30, NASB)
> So?  Do you know how to debate?  Again, you seem to
> be extremely uneducated in how to develop your position
> let alone how to defend it.
> "Should."  Now what does this word grammatically
> indicate?

Then, as already you don't have more arguments, then you try to indicate
supposed errors.

>> Yes, but if you don't believe to the Bible, I understand your surprise.
> I think you need to read more.

But not of texts of your neo-evangelical friends, I don't want mind control.

>> > He desires that all come to salvation.  That does
>> > not equate to say that He has determined all will come
>> > to salvation.  "Many are called but few are chosen."  In
>> > that it is the entire Godhead that determines salvation in
>> > the individual (Eph 1:3-14), one must allow for the
>> > difference between the offer being made to all and the
>> > ability of all to accept that offer.
>> It would be interesting to know that you understand in the sequence of
>> those
>> verses, according the context.
> Ya know, its really easy to make objections but its a little
> more difficult to present and defend a position.  Here you
> only object with no discourse on why this is.  It is even a little
> vague as to what you are actually objecting to.

But it is interesting that you continue without showing a real biblical

>> Yes, and I tried to explain you, according to the Bible.
> Explain?  No, you just drop in a verse of two and presuppose
> that they all too obviously support your supposition.  A bit
> presumptious don't you think?

I don't think so.

>> Really I'd like know that you understand in the sequence of those verses,
>> according the context.
> Is English your second language?  You're not making any sense.

I only liked to know if maybe there you have a biblical demostration about
your ideology "But you cannot repent unless the Spirit baptises you in

>> > Notes the use of the plural there after.  This is Adam's
>> > posterity.  Note the use of universals or absolute negatives.
>> > The RC idea that there are elements within man which
>> > were not affected by the fall, is balony.
>> The idea is of the Bible when, for example, clearly says:
>> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of
>> Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the
>> gift
>> of the Holy Spirit.
>> (Acts 2:38, NASB)
> Where is your exegesis?  Again, you are being presumptuous.
> 2 Cor 4:6; 1 Cor 2:12, 13; Eph 1:18; Phil 1:9; Col 3:10; 1 Jn 4:7;
> 5:20

I was who put initially the verse, I think you should first show that there
does not say about the Repentance how always has been teached in the

> Enlightenment, that distinquishing peculiarity of knowledge, is
> a product of regeneration.  It is also experimental, a cognition
> of immediate consciousness.  Your position seeks to defend
> a blind man's knowledge of color winning him salvation.
> Now you are willing to accept biblical propositions as a sure
> defense of true doctrine.  Fine.  In fact, there is no other
> authority.  John 8:19; Heb 5:2; Rom 10:3; 2 Pet 3:5; 1 P 1:14
> declare that the natural man's (unbeliever, unregenerate)
> mind is one defined to be "ignorant" of spiritual truth. Eph 4:18
> declares such a mind can no more understand the truth than
> a blind man can see a black cat in the deepest cave.  In
> contrast to your supposition, the bible (1 P 2:9) declares that
> being quickened or regenerated brings the soul into "God's
> marvelous light."
> Also, regeneration is accomplished without the use of
> means, in the strict sense of the term, for it is an act
> of direct, divine creation.  God speaks and it is done
> (1 P 1:23).
> Remember that regeneration is an act where as conversion
> is an activity or a process.  Regeneration is the origination
> of a life whereas conversion is and evolution or manifest-
> ation of life.  Regeneration is completely an act of God
> whereas conversion is an activity of man.  Regeneration
> is the cause whereas conversion is the effect.  Regener-
> ation is instanteous whereas conversion is continuous.
> Have you ever investigated what you are seeking to
> shed the light of wisdom on?

I subscribed me to this NG to speak about the Bible, not of Philosophy.

>> >> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name
>> >> of
>> >> Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive
>> >> the
>> >> gift
>> >> of the Holy Spirit.
>> >> (Acts 2:38, NASB)
>> > This proves nothing.  It is merely a call even as any
>> > street evangelist would do.  That does not lead to the
>> > conclusion, let alone the doctrine, that water baptism
>> > wins justification before God or that salvation is an
>> > act of the will.  The question was simple as was the
>> > answer, "What must I do to be saved?"  "Believe on
>> > the Lord Jesus Christ."  Baptism is very similar in
>> > nature to OT circumcision.  It is an outward sign
>> > of heritage.  Water baptism actuates nothing.  It
>> > is like putting on a wedding ring and before all the
>> > world declare ones allegience, "I do."  That ring
>> > does not actuate marriage.  Water baptism does
>> > not place one inside the body of Christ.  It is only
>> > the baptism of the Spirit that regenerates and
>> > places the chosen into the body of Christ.
> No response, hu?

But if all this conversation practically was a response about this verse.

>> About the history of the Jailer of Philippi:
>> - Heard the Word of God (Acts 16:32).
>> - Has Repentance (Acts 16:33).
>> - And the Baptism showed that he and his family believed in Christ (Acts
>> 16:34).
>> But of course if someone take a verse out of the context, create a new
>> gospel.
> Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be
> saved, you and your household."
> Just because there is water baptism in the story does not equate
> to say that it had causality.  You take great leaps of presumptiveness
> in your conclusion.  The question was simple and the answer was
> equally simple.  "Believe."  Obviously you have a rather naive
> comprehension of "believing."
> Rom. 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and
> believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be
> saved;
> The Gospel is an elemental message.  There is nothing you can
> take away from it for it is simple (element), "believe in the LORD
> Jesus."  But because you are syncretistic in your presupposition,
> you must add something to it like all heretics.  You want to add
> water baptism.  Placing a ring on your finger doesn't make you
> married and being circumcised doesn't make you Jewish.

Those arguments are very strange.

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the
eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:36-37, KJV)

And although Acts 8:37 be not in the original copies, It always was a part
of the teaching in the Church.

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

Miguel M. Yalán

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator.
(((   Read 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 | Next Message ]
Search this conference for:

© 2018 The Trashcan BBS - All rights reserved.