Re: You Will Surely Die

Msg # 999 of 1000 on RelayNet Bible Study
Time: Monday, 8-13-7, 11:46
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/13/07 11:46:11 PM ---
On Aug 12, 10:21 pm, "Miguel" 
>  escribi=F3 en el mensajenews:E60E1DC7-C9A1-EB4A-48=
> > 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
of this.  "For HE (the Father) delievered us from the domain of
Col 1:13.  The scriptures repeatedly state that man is dead and
of seeking after God in a true heart.  It declares that Satan blinds
binds.  Christ declared that God hides the truth from unbelievers (Mt
cp. 1 Cor 1:23ff).  I've already given you numerous references and
just chose to ignore them.  We are*His* craftsmanship."  "But by HIS
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,"
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
can then come to repentance and faith, i.e. conversion.  If man is
(Rom, Eph) then he first needs to be "born again" before he has the
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
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
in Mt 11:28 speaks to the fact that man is passive in regeneration.
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
wrath that abides on all men outside of Christ.
You keep asking for scripture but that is not the RCO way.  In fact,
you are a priest, you have no authority to interpret the scriptures
to Vatican 1.
> 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
receive His gift.  1 cor 12:4  Your exegesis does not correctly divide
Word.  You are seeking to make repentance the causality of
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
position and have skipped off to World Council of Churches and other
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
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?
> > 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
because Packer was on that tribunal.  Not everyone gets asked to such
Beside that, if you had been the least bit observant in this NG,
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
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
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
the Promise, the Promise of Gen 2:15, it reveals a faith that is
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.
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
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
the Work of Christ.  It is ALL from Him, through Him and to Him."
is the exception?  "For who has first given to Him that it must be
> > 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
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
> > 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=
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 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=
> 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
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?"
> (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=
> communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever =
> 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
mandate that communion can only be administered over by an "authority"
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
((( 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  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.