Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Decisional Regeneration?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Does anybody else seem to think that discussing things with Dave is like discussing things with the Mormons.
    No, it's really more like discussing with a Troll who is parodying theology without really understanding it. It's why he handwaves away anything that disagrees with his private interpretation of Scripture.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post

      No, it's really more like discussing with a Troll who is parodying theology without really understanding it. It's why he handwaves away anything that disagrees with his private interpretation of Scripture.
      The one-liners that he repeats over and over, somehow thinking that carries some weight?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post

        No, it's really more like discussing with a Troll who is parodying theology without really understanding it. It's why he handwaves away anything that disagrees with his private interpretation of Scripture.
        I think you hit on it with the words "without really understanding it." He seems to be trying to learn but never gets to understanding. Now, he certainly doesn't seem open to being taught.
        "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

        "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Dave L View Post

          We are to preach the true gospel to the elect (already saved) to direct them into the truth. So It's a dirty job in places like this but someone has to do it.
          So the elect are never lost in the first place and never in danger of hell? Then from what are they saved?

          Calvin (and Augustine before him) had some pretty far out ideas.
          Last edited by alaskazimm; 01-11-2022, 02:32 PM.
          We know J6 wasn’t peaceful because they didn’t set the building on fire.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post

            I think you hit on it with the words "without really understanding it." He seems to be trying to learn but never gets to understanding. Now, he certainly doesn't seem open to being taught.
            And his schtick is to go from one board to another, stirring up stink, then getting banned or tossed out....

            As far as I'm concerned, he's a Romans 16:17 kind of guy.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Does anybody else seem to think that discussing things with Dave is like discussing things with the Mormons.
              No, he reminds me more of Mickiel than the Mormons. But most cultists are the same, they have their script and will revert to repeating it whenever they can't actually answer a serious point against their theology.

              Dave has taken normal Calvinism and put it on steroids to make it some sort of Hyper-Calvinism.

              From what I understand of Calvinism, they don't deny free will. They believe that our free will is subjugated to our sin nature and that until God sends them the Holy Spirit they are unable to freely choose to be saved. Once they are "awakened" then they can and will choose God. They also think that God only elects certain individuals (Predestination) and damns everyone else.

              But there is nothing about God controlling your every thought and action. He doesn't make you sin or do certain sins, your sin nature takes care of that. You might not be able to choose to be saved until God awakens your spirit, but you can freely choose to sin or do other things, even not sinning here and there. You are basically a slave to sin.
              Last edited by Sparko; 01-11-2022, 02:41 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                No, he reminds me more of Mickiel than the Mormons. But most cultists are the same, they have their script and will revert to repeating it whenever they can't actually answer a serious point against their theology.

                Dave has taken normal Calvinism and put it on steroids to make it some sort of Hyper-Calvinism.

                From what I understand of Calvinism, they don't deny free will. They believe that our free will is subjugated to our sin nature and that until God sends them the Holy Spirit they are unable to freely choose to be saved. Once they are "awakened" then they can and will choose God. Some of them also think that God only elects certain individuals.

                But there is nothing about God controlling your every thought and action. He doesn't make you sin or do certain sins, your sin nature takes care of that. You might not be able to choose to be saved until God awakens your spirit, but you can freely choose to sin or do other things, even not sinning here and there. You are basically a slave to sin.
                I kinda miss the Mormons.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                  I kinda miss the Mormons.
                  I think we were put on some sort of "avoid the heretics" list or something. We haven't had any mormons stop by since the olden days with LDSTrue and Crew.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    I think we were put on some sort of "avoid the heretics" list or something. We haven't had any mormons stop by since the olden days with LDSTrue and Crew.
                    Yup. Plus, several of them ended up dying young. (OC, NRAJeff, etc)
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Dave L View Post
                      What about Billy Graham? Charles Finney? And today’s popular “alter call” approach to the Gospel?

                      Jesus said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36 (KJV 1900)

                      First, Jesus said whoever believes has eternal life. So at what point does salvation happen? If God saved them, it would have been in eternity for it to be eternal life. They would have experienced this salvation when they first believed according to Jesus. This would be before they responded to the altar call. They would have obviously believed or they would not have followed the altar call.

                      The problem happens when the preacher leads them to believe in "Decisional Regeneration" as the savior. This is much like the Catholic’s "baptismal regeneration". It's the same principle. So the damage amounts to shifting them away from faith in Christ and salvation which they already had before going forward. Into saving themselves by going forward and deciding to believe, which they already did or they would not have gone forward. So while many were no doubt saved when they believed enough to "go forward", the false “decision-based” gospel directed their faith back into themselves as the savior. Thinking they met the conditions of a gospel Billy turned into law and grace into works. They are still saved, but horribly confused.
                      Dave, we are called to a "public profession" in Christ, as Jesus said (Matt 10: 32) "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. 33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven".

                      The altar call serves as part of that "public profession". Baptism is yet another step.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        If I throw out a life preserver to a drowning man and he grabs it, he cannot claim he saved himself. Making a decision to accept Jesus is not "saving yourself" it is grabbing the life preserver that Jesus threw to you. He is the one doing the saving. Making that choice is not a "work"


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          If I throw out a life preserver to a drowning man and he grabs it, he cannot claim he saved himself. Making a decision to accept Jesus is not "saving yourself" it is grabbing the life preserver that Jesus threw to you. He is the one doing the saving. Making that choice is not a "work"
                          I agree, but hardcore monergists would not. Even that step of grabbing the life-preserver is, to them, a "work."
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            If I throw out a life preserver to a drowning man and he grabs it, he cannot claim he saved himself. Making a decision to accept Jesus is not "saving yourself" it is grabbing the life preserver that Jesus threw to you. He is the one doing the saving. Making that choice is not a "work"
                            But he had to move his arms to grab the live preserver! WORKS!!!!
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                              But he had to move his arms to grab the live preserver! WORKS!!!!
                              But all I had to do to accept Christ's gift was make a mental decision to say "yes". No muscles!!

                              If someone gives you a present and you never open it, then you don't have what the gift is, you just have a pretty box.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                But all I had to do to accept Christ's gift was make a mental decision to say "yes". No muscles!!

                                If someone gives you a present and you never open it, then you don't have what the gift is, you just have a pretty box.
                                Yeah, it's nutty to strain at the bit to call something "works" just to justify your desire to accuse somebody of "works-based salvation".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X