Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12-13, AKA The Word of God

Kevin Walker said: "Please notice that it is "as many as received him" are those who will be saved." (another thread)

Please notice the ones who "received him" do so BECAUSE they are born of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004

Answers

bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

David,

I don't see the point you are trying to make. "received Him" and "born of God" mean essentially the same thing. You cannot seperate one from the other. I think we get hung up on terminology too often. I prefer the NLT for this passage.

-- Darren Laine (dlaine@manitowoc.org), August 13, 2004.

Kevin Walker is basically mis-reading a text again.

Darren,

Does the human action of 'receiving' Christ lead to being born again? (Clearly from this verse the answer is no, as it excludes any aspect of human action)

I'm not sure what you mean by them being the same.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

I disagree with both of you,

To receive Christ results in being born again, and yes to "receive" does require human action.

Why would we want to constrew the most important message in human history? To make the entire process of salvation and sanctification independent of God, would imply that humans do not have free will.

-- Darren (dlaine@manitowoc.org), August 13, 2004.

Darren, Can you prove Libertarian "free will" from scripture?

Kevin, if you’re going make posts, as the ones you make in the Original Sin thread, don't bother posting on this one. I believe this is evident from reading recent threads you have been posting on, that you do not have any intent to carry on a meaningful conversation. If you do post, I'm just going to delete your posts so don't bother.

I only have one response to your inane comments like "Scripture Please!”

Context Please!

P.S. Oh, yes, I'm serious, don't bother posting in here. In doing so, you are breaking the rules, and will be threatened with a ban if you keep it up.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

BTW,

Here is the verse that states it.

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the [child] born of Him. (NASB)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

Don't do it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

Oh, so my words don't get mistaken, they only apply to this thread.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 13, 2004.

So, David can quote my words, accuse me of "mis-reading" text and then tell me that I cannot post in this thread???

Please...

I am not the one who is "mis-reading" the texts as you accuse me David. To say that I cannot post in this thread then you might as well say that I am not allowed to post in any thread.

Instead of carrying on a meaningful conversation in another thread, David closed another thread and accused me (again) of complaining.

How would you like it David if I made a thread that was with words that you posted and stated "David cannot post in here or else he will be banned"??? Does that make any sense???

You chastise me for posting information from anti-Calvinist websites and yet you turn right around and do the same thing from your Calvinist web sites. The Bible has a word for those like you David - Hypocrite.

You claim that I am "mis-reading" texts and attack me and yet when I do the same thing you prompt me to the forum rules. How about making the rules so that they apply even to the moderators and not only to those who disagree with your theology and this includes the Catholics who you have also threatened to ban.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 15, 2004.

David wrote, "Darren, Can you prove Libertarian "free will" from scripture?"

Did Joshua promote "Libertarian free will" when he said, "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Josh 24:15).

Were the Jews able to "choose" who they would serve despite their "sinful nature"???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 15, 2004.

David..,

What do the Scriptures say is the way that one is born again?

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent (natural as in flesh/natural child birth), nor of human decision or a husband's will (physical conception), but born of God.

John 3:5-7

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Being born-again is a spiritual baptism....it comes by faith. Faith comes from hearing the gospel and believing it.

1 Peter 1:23-25

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.

John 3:14-16

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

"So, David can quote my words, accuse me of "mis-reading" text and then tell me that I cannot post in this thread???"

Yes, I just did that.

"I am not the one who is "mis-reading" the texts as you accuse me David. To say that I cannot post in this thread then you might as well say that I am not allowed to post in any thread."

You really haven't shown otherwise, but you refuse to look at the imediate context of the passage. I asked you to prove that the context supports your interpretation and you have not done so and I have even shown you your very own words about what you have mentioned on that verse. "Yes it does, No it doesn't, this is your opinion" really doesn't not cut it.

You were not allowed to post in this thread because of a certain comment you made afterwards.

"Instead of carrying on a meaningful conversation in another thread, David closed another thread and accused me (again) of complaining."

You showed you did not want to carry on a meaningful conversation. Instead of reading your own words and maybe perhaps responding differently in your next response, you chose not too and then stopped the discussion. What got you "upset” was because of certain comments I made about animal crackers and a woodchuck. I was actually trying to make a point with that, as I got tired of hearing you say, "I answered the question" when in reality, you didn't. I was hoping that maybe my "smart alec" response would get you to think of those statements, considering the fact that I also answered your questions, but “you just didn't like the response”.

"How about making the rules so that they apply even to the moderators and not only to those who disagree with your theology and this includes the Catholics who you have also threatened to ban."

No.

Also, the bible has many words about you too, Kevin, but I prefer not to get into this.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Faith,

Please read John 3:17. I also am not sure why you brought up those other scriptures.

You bring up John 3:16 with two things already assumed before reading that verse ('world' means every single individual, and 'whosoever" implying the universal capacity and ablitiy). Are you trying to say that being "born-again" is a "decision" we make?

If so, why do you bring up John 1:12-13 when that leaves out any aspect of human will.

Also, take more into consideration John 3 when it states "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

David..,

How does John 1:12-13 leave out our responsibility to receive and accept Christ?

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent (natural as in flesh/natural child birth), nor of human decision or a husband's will (as in physical conception), but born of God.

Clearly this verse indicates that it is by our receiving and by our believing that one becomes a child of God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Faith, as I mentioned before, they only do so BECAUSE they are born of God. I have to go, bbiab.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

David...

The verse seems to indicate that it is because they received Jesus Christ--because they believed the gospel message, that they are given the right to be children of God. Just follow the order of events in the verse:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

Does the verse say that because they were adopted as children of God-- they were able to receive Jesus and believe the gospel??

Does the Bible teach that we are saved by faith or not?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Also David..,

I need to ask you,

Can the *elect* perish??

John 3:16 says that God so loved the world (but you say *world* means only the elect)., that he sent His Son so that whosoever believes (but you say that *whosoever* really means only the elect) will not perish but have everlasting life.

Am I to understand that the elect could be in danger of perishing and that they haven't been determined saved from before the begining of creation by God??

In my understanding--God predestines those who receive His Son--to eternal blessings such as being adopted children of God. In His forknowledge (knowing in advance about our decision) He predestines us to eternal life.......but it is based on our receiving His Son.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the [child] born of Him. (NASB)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

David..,

Could you answer my questions please? 1 John 5:1 confirms what I am saying. It does not support Calvins theory that we are regenerated or elected first--and then we can believe...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Faith, I am busy responding to you. I just reposted that so you can think about it :)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

"Can the *elect* perish??"

In a physical sense, yes they can. In a spiritual sense, no they cannot. This goes back to John 6 that stats Christ is not a failure and will save those drawn by the Father. To my knowledge, I think Lutherans have a different view.

"John 3:16 says that God so loved the world (but you say *world* means only the elect)., that he sent His Son so that whosoever believes (but you say that *whosoever* really means only the elect) will not perish but have everlasting life.

Am I to understand that the elect could be in danger of perishing and that they haven't been determined saved from before the begining of creation by God??"

Um....I really don't understand what you are trying to get at, can you rephrase that?

"In my understanding--God predestines those who receive His Son--to eternal blessings such as being adopted children of God. In His forknowledge (knowing in advance about our decision) He predestines us to eternal life.......but it is based on our receiving His Son."

No where in the Bible does it state we are predestined for eternal blessings.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

"You really haven't shown otherwise, but you refuse to look at the imediate context of the passage. I asked you to prove that the context supports your interpretation and you have not done so and I have even shown you your very own words about what you have mentioned on that verse. "Yes it does, No it doesn't, this is your opinion" really doesn't not cut it."

Your opinion David really does not cut it either, it works both ways.

"You were not allowed to post in this thread because of a certain comment you made afterwards."

What comment was that David???

"You showed you did not want to carry on a meaningful conversation. Instead of reading your own words and maybe perhaps responding differently in your next response, you chose not too and then stopped the discussion. What got you "upset? was because of certain comments I made about animal crackers and a woodchuck. I was actually trying to make a point with that, as I got tired of hearing you say, "I answered the question" when in reality, you didn't. I was hoping that maybe my "smart alec" response would get you to think of those statements, considering the fact that I also answered your questions, but ?you just didn't like the response?."

If you didn't like how I responded to your questions, that is just too bad. You have chided me when I tell you to respond to questions, and then when I don't respond to yours the way you like, then you throw a fit and respond like a 5 year old. You proved by your response that you really did not want to engage in any meaningful conversation. I answered a question, just not the one you wanted me to answer. When you got tired of me saying "I answered your questions" and then you say "in reality you didn't", that David is your opinion.

I wrote, "How about making the rules so that they apply even to the moderators and not only to those who disagree with your theology and this includes the Catholics who you have also threatened to ban."

To which David replied, "No."

There you have it readers, the moderators are above the rules of this forum when it serves their own interests.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 15, 2004.

Oh boy..here we go..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Faith,

You said,"1 John 5:1 confirms what I am saying. It does not support Calvins theory that we are regenerated or elected first--and then we can believe... "

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the [child] born of Him. (NASB)

You read the text as "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [as a result of believing] born of God"

If you are going to accept that interpretation of those verses, you must accept these as well with the same interpretation.

1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is [as a result of practicing righteousness] born of Him. (NASB, brackets added)

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is [as a result of loving] born of God and knows God. (NASB, brackets added)

The only person who I know of on this forum that would be consistent on this is Kevin (maybe Luke too).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Alright then David..,

So then in this:

"Can the *elect* perish??" In a physical sense, yes they can. In a spiritual sense, no they cannot. This goes back to John 6 that stats Christ is not a failure and will save those drawn by the Father. To my knowledge, I think Lutherans have a different view.

In John 3:16 when John says that God so loved the world that He gave His Son so that none would perish--he was speaking in physical terms??? God sent His Son so that the world (the elect) would not perish physically??

Am I to understand that the elect could be in danger of perishing and that they haven't been determined saved from before the begining of creation by God??"

Um....I really don't understand what you are trying to get at, can you rephrase that?

I am simply trying to point out to you that when John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whosoever believes will not perish--he is speaking about the world as in all people and not just the elect, because he says that God gave His Son so that as many as would believe will then not perish....

If the world and all and whosoever really means only the elect, those already deemed saved by God from before the creation of the world-- according to Calvin--then how does John 3:16 make sense? Can the elect perish?? And I am not speaking about a physical perishing--and neither is John.

"In my understanding--God predestines those who receive His Son--to eternal blessings such as being adopted children of God. In His forknowledge (knowing in advance about our decision) He predestines us to eternal life.......but it is based on our receiving His Son."

No where in the Bible does it state we are predestined for eternal blessings.

Actually David--if you look up every verse that mentions election or predestination--it is never to salvation or to hell for that matter. It always pertains to an eternal blessing such as eternal life and being adopted children of God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

If you didn't like how I responded to your questions, that is just too bad."

Likewise, then don't comment on how I answered your questions.

"You have chided me when I tell you to respond to questions, and then when I don't respond to yours the way you like, then you throw a fit and respond like a 5 year old."

I have already told you some subjects really cannot be discussed because of our foundational differences. Like discussing eternal security, which no Arminian has any basis for believing in. The core of eternal security is our belief in Total Depravity. I merely point out that you really don't answer the questions asked, when you say "answer them".

"You proved by your response that you really did not want to engage in any meaningful conversation."

Really?

"I answered a question, just not the one you wanted me to answer."

Right, because you re-defined the quetions.

"When you got tired of me saying "I answered your questions""

Of course, I even showed you your own words and showed you how you didn't answer them.

"and then you say "in reality you didn't", that David is your opinion."

Assertions.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Really Kevin, post this on another thread. Or discuss it in email.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

Sry Faith, perhaps you could create a new thread? I've been side-tracked.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

David..,

I actually am going to sign off soon because I have to settle my kids.

If you want to answer my questions--then you can start a new thread.

I am just trying to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me that God would send His Son to die for the elect--who, according to Calvin are already saved from before the begining of time anyway-- based on Calvin's interpretation of predestination and election. For that matter--the cross seems unnecessary as does evangelism.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

Ok Faith, I'll try and respond to you tonight on another thread, seeing as how I'll be busy responding to someone.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.