Re: You Will Surely Die

Msg # 995 of 1000 on RelayNet Bible Study
To: ALL, From: LSENDERS@HOTMAIL.COM
Time: Saturday, 8-11-7, 11:21
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/11/07 11:21:00 PM ---

On Aug 10, 7:23 pm, "Miguel"  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
yes, I understand and appreciate philosophy but your diagnosis is
wrong.
I understand the within the Bible is "theology" which includes
doctrine
which includes a system of thought or systematic theology.  Either you
made this reply without first reading through my entire response or
you
are being obtuse.  I am distinquishing between regeneration and
conversion, as the scriptures do.  I've already commented on this.
>
> > 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
>
If you do not have a mind for such things then perhaps you need
to reassess why you are posting in this NG!
>
> > 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.
>
You're rambling and your sentences make no sense.
>
> >Like
> > 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.
>
Neo!  Neo?  Is that some new term you heard today?  I suggest
you first learn its definition before you employ it.

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?
>
> > 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.
>
Now where is there any content in this?  You skirt the issues
entirely.  You try to dismiss an argument by overstating it.  Very
dishonest and very immature.  You present your self as being
very shallow in your considerations.
>
> > 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.
>
You seem not to know your bible very well.  My grade school glass
could
easily answer your question.  Do you not have the leading of Spirit to
recall those scriptures that speak toward such things?  Besides, I did
reference a verse and why it supports my position.  You are unable
to grasp this elementary thing?  How about Eph 2:8 and "not of your
selves." Also, as already noted, if we are "chosen before the
foundation of the world" and if we cannot come to Christ unless
the Father draws us, and if none seek after God and if all are
dead in sin, and all are living in darkness, then were in your
theology is the capacity for a self-willed response?
>
> 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.
>
Yet synergism and semi-Pelagianism is employed.  Aquinas
brought in Aristolism and RCism has ever since employed it.
>
> 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)
>
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?
>
> 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.
>
Eisegetically.  You bring your presuppositions and then read into
what is written to seek support for what you have already determined
to be so.

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."
>
> I'm sorry but I don't know about the Roman Catholic Organization (RCO), I
> only know about the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
>
It's not a church under the Biblical teaching.  The NT church has no
ecclesiastical priesthood.  No sacramentalism.  No new order of
sacrifice.  No intermediaries.  etc etc.  It is an organization.  It
is
an ecclesiastical organization but an organization none the less.
>
> >> 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.
>
This is like talking to a little child.  What is your point in
posting here?  Obviously it isn't to discuss.  Obviously it isn't
to grow in understanding or to allow steel to sharpen steel.  Cant
you even address this issue of "should" in regard to your proposition
that this verse supported your position?  Are you able to even
follow the progression or development of thought here?  Don't
get me wrong, I'm not pontificating here.  It's just that your
responses are, are, are...... non-responses.  There is no content
in them!!!
>
> But not of texts of your neo-evangelical friends, I don't want mind
control.
>
Again, your presuppositionalism is showing.  What is wrong with
the thought of being educated by your elders?  What is wrong
with the thought of learning from others who have tread the path
not only of a longer duration, but a deeper mining of the truth.  Do
you think you can walk this path all on your own?

Besides, the RCO is best at mind control through its employment
of indoctrinization, not biblical teaching.
>
> > 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
> argument.
>
> >> 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.
>
Actions speak louder than words.
>
> >> 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
> regeneration".
>
Do you reread what you write before you post it?  Are all your
pencils without erasers?  Your sentence structures either are
difficult
to make sense of or they are meaningless completely.

You keep make this request and I keep providing you with not only
scripture, but the theological reasoning for it.  I've already
answered
you several times.  Why not respond to those specific notations?
>
> >> (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
> Christianity.
>
Again, it seems that English is not your native tongue.  Is that so?

Look at the > >> and you will see that I did not deny your quoting the
verse.  But you have not replied to my question.  How do you think it
supports you?  As I have been saying, you present these verses as
if no development or defense be made that you are right in your
presupposition.  I asked for you exegesis.  Why are you ignoring the
request?  What do you think is actually be taught in the verse and
how do find support for that conclusion?  Is this too much to ask
of you?

>
> > 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
>
Plenty of scriptural references for my position and a discussion
on what is being distinquished and why.  Where is your equal?


((( 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  MoonDog BBS Brooklyn, NY (900:100/50)
 

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

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