Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny wrote:

At the very least it says there is a co-operation in man which contributes to him being born again.

That is exactly my point. It has to be a cooperation. It can't be completely on God(that would be forced love), and it can't be completely man's freewill without God's quickening(man, in his sinful nature cannot accept nor understand spiritual things).
And, there's where the thread split comes back into one thread again.

Yes we co-operate, but never prior to being born again; co-operation comes after we are born again. IMVVVHO, of course

I don't agree completely, Danny. I'm saying that our cooperation begins after God's quickening, but, before being born again.

So if God grants the faith to believe, I ask again, why do some believe and others don't?

Because it isn't irresistible grace, as taught by Calvinism.

What is so special about those people who do end up believing as opposed to those who don't?

Nothing special, Byb. All that hear the gospel, have the same chance to accept or reject the gospel.

They both received the same faith, they both received the same message. Why did some believe and others didn't?

Some chose to believe, some didn't. I'm not sure what the difficulty is here.

Efficacious faith in the sense that if all have been granted the same faith by God, then why do some faiths end up accomplishing their purpose (salvation) and other faiths don't?

If the purpose of God's quickening is to accomplish salvation in all who hear the gospel, then yes it has failed. But I don't see that as the purpose of God's quickening. I see God's quickening, having the purpose of allowing people to get to the point, where they can choose, or reject Christ, without excuse. The choosing to accept the gospel, then leads to an eternal relationship with God. A relationship, that isn't forced, but is by man's choosing to accept God on God's terms. And the choice to reject the gospel, so that man can't blame God for eternal separation from God, in hell.

domokunrox wrote:Danny, to me, your Calvinist beliefs hold nothing to truth. Its only led me to conclude that it is NOT from God. Sorry to disappoint. At this point, I rank it as borderline abberent Christianity until it proves itself otherwise. Sorry.

I have so far responded to the T in TULIP. I see no response from your side.

Dom, I had to giggle, while reading this response to Danny. You hold to an aberrant belief of "baptismal regeneration", but you are deriding Danny for having a "borderline aberrant" belief in Calvinism.

Sorry, I missed this:

Rick, getting back to you. "Regeneration" has never made sense, so I don't know where you get that from.

From you, dom. If one isn't regenerated by the Holy Spirit, until after water baptism, then that is called" baptismal regeneration".

domokunrox wrote:Danny, to me, your Calvinist beliefs hold nothing to truth. Its only led me to conclude that it is NOT from God. Sorry to disappoint. At this point, I rank it as borderline abberent Christianity until it proves itself otherwise. Sorry.

Nice way to answer my objections, Dom. What have my "beliefs" to do with anything?

I have so far responded to the T in TULIP. I see no response from your side.

I'm sorry, I have been busy lately. Where have you done this?

RickD wrote:Sorry, I missed this:

Rick, getting back to you. "Regeneration" has never made sense, so I don't know where you get that from.

From you, dom. If one isn't regenerated by the Holy Spirit, until after water baptism, then that is called" baptismal regeneration".

Dom seems to think he has come to God all on his own.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Sorry, I missed this:

Rick, getting back to you. "Regeneration" has never made sense, so I don't know where you get that from.

From you, dom. If one isn't regenerated by the Holy Spirit, until after water baptism, then that is called" baptismal regeneration".

Dom seems to think he has come to God all on his own.

Rick, I've addressed those points already. Water is water. Not anionic fluid. I only laughed at the article as a comedy piece. I hope Rich Deem figures it out at one point. This is my position. Jesus turned water into wine. Not anionic fluid into wine. The Ethiopian didn't say "look anionic fluid!"

You guys are banking on that anionic fluid thing. If you're wrong, what do you think will happen?

Again, I don't believe in "regeneration", God calls us to come reason with him. He wants our consent so we can love him because he loved us first. We have to want to obey his command.

Rick, I've addressed those points already. Water is water. Not anionic fluid. I only laughed at the article as a comedy piece. I hope Rich Deem figures it out at one point. This is my position. Jesus turned water into wine. Not anionic fluid into wine. The Ethiopian didn't say "look anionic fluid!"

You guys are banking on that anionic fluid thing. If you're wrong, what do you think will happen?

Dom, you're focusing on amniotic fluid. The article doesn't even focus on amniotic fluid. Rich mentioned it in passing, to make his point here:

In stating that one must be born again, Jesus referred to 2 births - the first the physical birth on Earth. Nicodemus recognized this as the first requirement, since he stated that a man cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb (John 3:4). In the very next statement he explains the two kinds of birth. "Born of water" refers to the physical birth, whereas "born of the Spirit" refers to being "born again" or the second birth. In the next verse, Jesus clarifies the statement explaining that "born of water" refers to being "born of flesh." Jesus was clear and direct. There is no mention of baptism anywhere. "Born of water" never refers to baptism in any other verse in the entire Bible. The Greek word used is "hudwr" (Strong's number G5204).1 The Greek word for baptism is "baptisma" (Strong's number G908).2 If Jesus had wanted to refer to baptism, He would have used this word. In fact, the word (or a variation of it) occurs 112 times in the New Testament.

Again, I don't believe in "regeneration", God calls us to come reason with him. He wants our consent so we can love him because he loved us first. We have to want to obey his command.

I think you need to understand the definition of regeneration, before you say you don't believe in it.

domokunrox wrote:Rick, I've addressed those points already. Water is water. Not anionic fluid. I only laughed at the article as a comedy piece. I hope Rich Deem figures it out at one point. This is my position. Jesus turned water into wine. Not anionic fluid into wine. The Ethiopian didn't say "look anionic fluid!"

You guys are banking on that anionic fluid thing. If you're wrong, what do you think will happen?

You have failed to show that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.

domokunrox wrote:Again, I don't believe in "regeneration", God calls us to come reason with him. He wants our consent so we can love him because he loved us first. We have to want to obey his command.

John 6:63-65
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

65 He went on to say, This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Ephesians 2:4-5

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,

5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions— it is by grace you have been saved.

Dom, do you think this all happened once you were baptised with water? What prompted you to have a water baptism?

RickD wrote:

Again, I don't believe in "regeneration", God calls us to come reason with him. He wants our consent so we can love him because he loved us first. We have to want to obey his command.

I think you need to understand the definition of regeneration, before you say you don't believe in it.

Gee... you can say that again, Brother.

Danny wrote:

Gee... you can say that again, Brother.

Ok, I will.

Dom:

I think you need to understand the definition of regeneration, before you say you don't believe in it.

RickD wrote:Danny wrote:

Gee... you can say that again, Brother.

Ok, I will.

Dom:

I think you need to understand the definition of regeneration, before you say you don't believe in it.

That's a literalist's reading, Rick

RickD wrote:

So if God grants the faith to believe, I ask again, why do some believe and others don't?

Because it isn't irresistible grace, as taught by Calvinism.

I agree.

RickD wrote:

What is so special about those people who do end up believing as opposed to those who don't?

Nothing special, Byb. All that hear the gospel, have the same chance to accept or reject the gospel.

Nothing special? Really? In one it resulted in salvation, in another in damnation, I'd say the former was pretty special.

RickD wrote:

They both received the same faith, they both received the same message. Why did some believe and others didn't?

Some chose to believe, some didn't. I'm not sure what the difficulty is here.

That's some kind of powerful free well that resulted in one choosing salvation and another choosing damnation.

RickD wrote:

Efficacious faith in the sense that if all have been granted the same faith by God, then why do some faiths end up accomplishing their purpose (salvation) and other faiths don't?

If the purpose of God's quickening is to accomplish salvation in all who hear the gospel, then yes it has failed. But I don't see that as the purpose of God's quickening. I see God's quickening, having the purpose of allowing people to get to the point, where they can choose, or reject Christ, without excuse. The choosing to accept the gospel, then leads to an eternal relationship with God. A relationship, that isn't forced, but is by man's choosing to accept God on God's terms. And the choice to reject the gospel, so that man can't blame God for eternal separation from God, in hell.

Man's choosing is the ultimate works-based salvation, sorry. It's the only way I'm able to read it.

RickD wrote:

What is so special about those people who do end up believing as opposed to those who don't?


Nothing special, Byb. All that hear the gospel, have the same chance to accept or reject the gospel.



Nothing special? Really? In one it resulted in salvation, in another in damnation, I'd say the former was pretty special.

Byb, you asked what was special "about those people". I believe nothing about those people is special. I believe the gospel is special. As believing on Christ's finished work, is the only way one can have everlasting life. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

RickD wrote:

They both received the same faith, they both received the same message. Why did some believe and others didn't?


Some chose to believe, some didn't. I'm not sure what the difficulty is here.



That's some kind of powerful free well that resulted in one choosing salvation and another choosing damnation.

Byblos, now you're saying that I'm saying that mans "free will" holds the power to one's salvation.
Have you read anything I've said in these threads, that leads you to think that I believe man has free will powerful enough to save himself? It's God's grace, that enables man to make the choice.

Man's choosing is the ultimate works-based salvation, sorry. It's the only way I'm able to read it.

Either
1) God's quickening leads one to choose or reject the gospel(God's grace + mans choice in conjunction)

or
2) "God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel."(hyper calvinism)

or
3) man can come to accept the gospel message completely on his own, without any influence at all by God(works based salvation)