Re: You Will Surely Die

Msg # 996 of 1000 on RelayNet Bible Study
To: ALL, From: "MIGUEL" Time: Sunday, 8-12-7, 11:32
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/12/07 11:32:21 PM ---

 escribió en el mensaje
news:E60E1DC7-C9A1-EB4A-48E1-921113D84221@art.srcbs.org...
> 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.


But you didn't show where the scripture say that.

I said that to receive the Holy Spirit is necessary: Repentance + Faith

And I put you the verse

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.


>> > 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!


I said that, because that doctrine is chatter, like you constantly you show
with your answers.


>> > 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.


Because maybe you are expecting that respond with philosophy, but I'm sorry
but I don't agree with those conversations in this NG.


>> >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.


It is evident that you don't read about of criticisms about modern
evangelical ideologies.


> 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, this NG is to
have a conversation, and not for simply repeat what your spiritual guide
say.


>> > 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.


Only I say an appreciation of the answer that you gave and that already
before I have read and listened of other people with your same ideology.


>> > 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?


I'm sorry but your Calvinist position is evident.

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.


>> 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.


No, because clearly the Church condemns the semi-pelagianism.


>> 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?


In the teaching of the history, and how can the Church apply this teaching.


>> 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.


But not in a support falses because I don't agree to build on the sand.


> 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-evangelicalism
and then you will can see that your ideology is similar.


>> 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.


I only knows about the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but thanks for the
information about Organization that you say, I never listened about they.

I think that only the Lord Jesus Crist (that also is God) is the
internediaries between God and the men.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all
things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
(Ephesians 1:23, KJV)

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch
for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with
joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
(Hebrews 13:17, KJV)

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 give
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)


>> >> 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!!!


What grief!


>> 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?


Perhaps an expert in helping the people to leave the mind control can help
you.


> Besides, the RCO is best at mind control through its employment
> of indoctrinization, not biblical teaching.


Never I have gone to the Roman Catholic Organization (RCO), but I see that
you have with they a problem of competence.


>> > 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.


Yes I already read your arguments.


>> >> 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?


That is not the truth, already I have responded according to the Bible, but
up to now, you didn't show a verse where say clearly your position.


>> >> (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?


Sincerely I think that when you leave the ideology of your New Evangelical
friends, then you will be able to understand


>> > 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?


You have not wanted to see them.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
--

--- 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 - http://bbs.thenet.gen.nz. All rights reserved.