Christopher000 wrote: ..I wonder why we have to pray for anyone at all if God has already foreordained those He wants by His side. I can understand them being witnessed to in order to get God's Invitation out to them, but why the prayer if God has already chosen them? I can understand why it's so difficult to break free from the "God chose me, I chose Him scenario". I think it's difficult because it would mean that those destined for eternal suffering had no choice in the matter...God didn't want them. I think of a parent not wanting their newborn and giving him/her away. I know it's not that simple but can it really be explained? Why He chooses some, and rejects others...before they are even born? I have to think hard about "Many are called, but few are chosen", as well, because it says, "many", as opposed ti "all". Hmmm.
God has also foreordained that we should eat to stay alive. Yet, we still have to pray for our daily bread and eat it.
The fact is that God ordains many things but the means are ordained as well as the end. Prayer brings many of God's foreordained blessings to his people.
Michael Hranek wrote: Check it out. Spurgeon was not in favor of using musical instruments in church which as a personal preference I can respect (it doesn't affect being saved one way or another, maybe aggrevating to some, certainly not a heresy I am being battered into accepting either), especially with his spot on preaching and teaching in so many areas If we go overboard on the "Regulatory Principle" as some would push it onto us regarding musical instruments we might just have to do away with other things not directly mentioned in Scirpture for our churches like: electronic microphones, projection screens, central heat and air and even indoor plumbing. Courtesy a Q&A with Dr. Rober Morey author of Islamic Invasion.
I believe I read somewhere that he did have an organ in church. I may be mistaken. I will see if I can track down the source.
Mike wrote: Not at all. Romans 1:30 refers to those who hold the truth in unrighteousness, (v18) who have been shown that which may be known of God,(v19) who are without excuse,(v20) who when they knew God, glorified him not,nor were thankful(v21) who did not like to retain God in their knowledge. (v28) Yes these surely do hate God.
Not that you have a theory to serve Mike, but you might like to consider who these people are. Look at Romans 1.18 and 19.
I recall you explaining verse 19 a while back. Seems that you now wish to jettison that explanation!
Mike wrote: Hostility. The Lord hold all that are not subject to him as hostile. The issue is not whether he holds them hostile, but whether they hate him whom they cannot relate to being it requires spiritual discernment to discern spirit. One must be able to discern God, who is a Spirit, in order that he may care enough to hate him. From God's perspective he is at enmity already, but the man may not even believe there is a God. That makes him at enmity, but doesn't require him to hate that which he does not believe in. He may not believe in the devil either, but we wouldn't then conclude he must hate the devil...
The verse says the carnal mind is enmity not that this is how God views it whether it is or not!!
And if we follow your ridiculous logic Romans 1.30 must be utter nonsense when it says that sinners are 'haters of God"!!
Mike wrote: Hatred of God is well beyond holding the preaching of the cross to be foolishness. The natural man cannot even know the things of the Spirit of God. How then can he hate God, with whom there is no relationship at all?
Mike wrote: What will a man do who offers the gift of an engagement ring to the one he desires, but his beloved refuses the gift? She can receive the gift, for it certainly is true she cannot receive it unless it is given her. But must she? Is it irresistible? Will he make her willing to put forth her hand, that she may receive it, or will he say so be it, you will not be my bride?
What difference, if any, does GRACE make in the matter of salvation?
It would appear reading your posts that Grace determines nothing. If that is the case then you clearly don't believe in salvation by Grace.
Michael Hranek wrote: (The saved being His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works which He has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them) Genuine experiantial faith if you will for the saints of God who abides in His word (ref Isaiah 55, John 8:31,32) btw I don't identify myself as a 'free willer' whatever that is - God (not Calvinists) is indeed sovereign in election and salvation.
Now I am totally confused! I am not sure with your last statement what precisely it is about the doctrines of Grace that you object to.
Can you please clarify?
BTW I don't think any 'calvinists' say they are sovereign in the matter of election or salvation. Not sure where you get that idea.
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK A bit of a headshake here: The way some hyper-guys seem to put it is that they are indeed incapable of trusting in Jesus Christ at all, let alone only BUT they are more than able to trust in traditional 5 point Tulip Calvinism, Dort, and the WCF and pretty much demand others do to, just not in Christ. Go figure....
What do you understand by the following verse?:
Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Surely Free willers would say 'to will' was already present even in the unconverted, so why the need for God to work in us (the saved) to will?!
Also since repentance and faith go hand in hand, what do you make of:
2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth
Now I can understand God enlightening someone and the truth convicting. But God giving repentance? What's that about?
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
What do you understand by will of the flesh and will of man?
Dorcas wrote: Yes we do not know what spirit is behind some of the screen names.There seems to be an animosity on these threads that was not here when I first began to read them and occasionly post ,about a year ago.
Wouldn't happen to coincide with the appearance of SteveR on here would it?
Neil wrote: The Emperor has no clothes: What few Christians (lay or professional) seem to realize, along with their atheistic opponents, is that *all* empirical truth claims for various origin views, including those of Young-Earthers who do not want to appear odious by appealing to Scripture, are fatally flawed. One doesn't even have to be a Christian to see the logical problems, e.g. Bertrand Russell in ‚ÄúIs Science Superstitious?‚ÄĚ If one of the most notorious atheists of the 20th century admitted fatal weaknesses in Science, then Christians better take note ‚Äď¬†and point this out to Darwinists! The mistake many Creationists make usually consists of Special Pleading: spinning the evidential speculation towards Genesis instead of Descent With Modification. But in any case, it's still a fallacy to Affirm the Consequent. I know the Flood occurred because the Bible Tells Me So, not because of fossils in sediment, which prove nothing.
What does the Bible tell you about the age of the earth?
Inhofe wrote: Do you think the Jewish europeans would have left their comfortable life as the local rich folks, to go to a mideast desert, if God had not allowed the persecutions of 1930/40's WWII Germany?
Excuse me chiming in, but this is a strange piece of logic to justify the persecution.
I could equally ask, what good has it done them? I mean both the persecution and/or the move to a mideast desert!