PREVENIENT GRACE: AN ARMINIAN ERROR

Who is attacking this?

I'm not here to argue what people have decided . I still see what your doing is taking one application which is specific and applying it general. I think its not a good way to read the scriptures. Its the difference between inductive method and inductive reasoning. I see you doing inductive reasoning.

Agreed. But TF seems to think this has nothing to do with the gospel.

I hear you. But in thread after thread, posting after posting, you do not ever lay down precise argument carried to its logical end. You either ignore your opponent's argument, and/or post verse that do not contain wording commensurate with your claims. Each scripture is designed and put in place by a Mastermind to make a point that can be used to explain other points. All this though remains true to the immediate context and the broader context. It is a masterpeice of puzzle-building and puzzle solving. Man can only do one thing. Read it carefully through, with prayer, and stick to the rules of that language in which it was written. The rest must light from the Writer.

And my experience is that if you are true to what is said, you receive more light. The minute you formulate your own theory you get a warning. This warning is that if you follow the argument to its logical end you get into a mire of contradiction and absurdities. If you do not back off and retrace your steps, and you still force something clearly wrong, God starts to shut off the light. This is what happened to Israel at His First Coming. Our Lord Jesus hurt no one, spoke graciously, healed and enlivened, and fulfilled a multitude of prophecies. Yet the Jews still called Him into question. So our Lord taught only in Parables. He turned off the light for those who ignored the truth of the matter.

Each of us starts on journey in God's Word. It is unavoidable that the average human mind will hold certain concepts. But just as the learning process is as a child, for a profession, and in life, we must adapt our thinking to what is reality - NOT make our own reality. I admit that the level of teaching in the average Local Assembly is low. In Hebrews 5 going into Chapter 6, six things are mentioned as BASICS of our Christian Faith, and that we should leave them behind and move onto maturity. But if you test all the posters on this Forum, you will find 80% unsure of these six things. What does that tell us? It tells us that the level of teaching is very low in general. And this inadequate level of teaching leaves the average Christian mind in vacuum which, because nature abhors a vacuum, will fill itself with other things.

The correct way to deal with an argument that differs from yours, is to analyze it and decide, (i) does it have merit, (ii) did it make a mistake as to God's exact Word, (iii) where it is wrong, and (iv) what is the correct understanding. If it has merit it must be considered. It it went wrong this must able to be pointed out. And, after all, the correct thing must be shown. Just because it is new, or you haven't heard it before, does not make it automatically wrong. It must be investigated.

Paul was not taught by any man ,receiving his revelation from Jesus . By the logic you gave about Peters revelation , do you also believe that we also have the same revelation as Paul had?

I hear you. But in thread after thread, posting after posting, you do not ever lay down precise argument carried to its logical end. You either ignore your opponent's argument, and/or post verse that do not contain wording commensurate with your claims. Each scripture is designed and put in place by a Mastermind to make a point that can be used to explain other points. All this though remains true to the immediate context and the broader context. It is a masterpeice of puzzle-building and puzzle solving. Man can only do one thing. Read it carefully through, with prayer, and stick to the rules of that language in which it was written. The rest must light from the Writer.

And my experience is that if you are true to what is said, you receive more light. The minute you formulate your own theory you get a warning. This warning is that if you follow the argument to its logical end you get into a mire of contradiction and absurdities. If you do not back off and retrace your steps, and you still force something clearly wrong, God starts to shut off the light. This is what happened to Israel at His First Coming. Our Lord Jesus hurt no one, spoke graciously, healed and enlivened, and fulfilled a multitude of prophecies. Yet the Jews still called Him into question. So our Lord taught only in Parables. He turned off the light for those who ignored the truth of the matter.

Each of us starts on journey in God's Word. It is unavoidable that the average human mind will hold certain concepts. But just as the learning process is as a child, for a profession, and in life, we must adapt our thinking to what is reality - NOT make our own reality. I admit that the level of teaching in the average Local Assembly is low. In Hebrews 5 going into Chapter 6, six things are mentioned as BASICS of our Christian Faith, and that we should leave them behind and move onto maturity. But if you test all the posters on this Forum, you will find 80% unsure of these six things. What does that tell us? It tells us that the level of teaching is very low in general. And this inadequate level of teaching leaves the average Christian mind in vacuum which, because nature abhors a vacuum, will fill itself with other things.

The correct way to deal with an argument that differs from yours, is to analyze it and decide, (i) does it have merit, (ii) did it make a mistake as to God's exact Word, (iii) where it is wrong, and (iv) what is the correct understanding. If it has merit it must be considered. It it went wrong this must able to be pointed out. And, after all, the correct thing must be shown. Just because it is new, or you haven't heard it before, does not make it automatically wrong. It must be investigated.

You are mixing two things. We are discussing the inward revelation that a man comes to the knowledge of Who Christ is. This is very different from Paul being "taught". Consider Paul's words as he is struck off his horse in Acts 9:4-5. In verse 4, "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" But in verse 5 Paul says a strange thing; "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? ... ." Is this not at best an anomaly, and at worst a contradiction? Paul calls Him "LORD" but asks Him "WHO ARE YOU?" If he knew it was the Lord, why ask? And if he didn't know, why call Him "Lord". I believe the answer is in the last part of the sentence

"... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Now, a "prick" is another name for a "cattle goad". It is used to get a stubborn cow to plunge into a anti-parasite bath. This all means that Paul was persecuting, interring and consenting to the killing of Christian while something was "pricking" him like a cattle goad. What was pricking Paul? It was the revelation that Christ was the Messiah. That's is why he straightaway called Him "Lord". The grammar of, "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", indicates Paul had been resisting the "pricks" for some time. A stubborn bull standing on the threshold of cattle dip, will, at first, do everything in his power not to jump into the stinking ant-pest water, including trying to backward kick the cow-boy with the goad.

It would seem that Paul, Pharisee who knew all the prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled, student of Gamaliel who taught to reason things out, already knew who Jesus was, but was RESISTING IT. This is a totally different revelation the what was REVEALED in the 14 years he was taught by Jesus and not men (2nd Cor.12:1, 7; Gal.1:12, 2:2).

The short of it is that Paul knew that Jesus was Who He was while still persecuting Christians! How? By the same revelation that Peter had in Matthew 16. Not a dream, not a vision, but something that dawns on your inner understanding.

Horse ? lol but do you see my point?

You are mixing two things. We are discussing the inward revelation that a man comes to the knowledge of Who Christ is. This is very different from Paul being "taught". Consider Paul's words as he is struck off his horse in Acts 9:4-5. In verse 4, "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" But in verse 5 Paul says a strange thing; "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? ... ." Is this not at best an anomaly, and at worst a contradiction? Paul calls Him "LORD" but asks Him "WHO ARE YOU?" If he knew it was the Lord, why ask? And if he didn't know, why call Him "Lord". I believe the answer is in the last part of the sentence

"... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Now, a "prick" is another name for a "cattle goad". It is used to get a stubborn cow to plunge into a anti-parasite bath. This all means that Paul was persecuting, interring and consenting to the killing of Christian while something was "pricking" him like a cattle goad. What was pricking Paul? It was the revelation that Christ was the Messiah. That's is why he straightaway called Him "Lord". The grammar of, "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", indicates Paul had been resisting the "pricks" for some time. A stubborn bull standing on the threshold of cattle dip, will, at first, do everything in his power not to jump into the stinking ant-pest water, including trying to backward kick the cow-boy with the goad.

It would seem that Paul, Pharisee who knew all the prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled, student of Gamaliel who taught to reason things out, already knew who Jesus was, but was RESISTING IT. This is a totally different revelation the what was REVEALED in the 14 years he was taught by Jesus and not men (2nd Cor.12:1, 7; Gal.1:12, 2:2).

The short of it is that Paul knew that Jesus was Who He was while still persecuting Christians! How? By the same revelation that Peter had in Matthew 16. Not a dream, not a vision, but something that dawns on your inner understanding.

You are mixing two things. We are discussing the inward revelation that a man comes to the knowledge of Who Christ is. This is very different from Paul being "taught". Consider Paul's words as he is struck off his horse in Acts 9:4-5. In verse 4, "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" But in verse 5 Paul says a strange thing; "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? ... ." Is this not at best an anomaly, and at worst a contradiction? Paul calls Him "LORD" but asks Him "WHO ARE YOU?" If he knew it was the Lord, why ask? And if he didn't know, why call Him "Lord". I believe the answer is in the last part of the sentence

"... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Now, a "prick" is another name for a "cattle goad". It is used to get a stubborn cow to plunge into a anti-parasite bath. This all means that Paul was persecuting, interring and consenting to the killing of Christian while something was "pricking" him like a cattle goad. What was pricking Paul? It was the revelation that Christ was the Messiah. That's is why he straightaway called Him "Lord". The grammar of, "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", indicates Paul had been resisting the "pricks" for some time. A stubborn bull standing on the threshold of cattle dip, will, at first, do everything in his power not to jump into the stinking ant-pest water, including trying to backward kick the cow-boy with the goad.

It would seem that Paul, Pharisee who knew all the prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled, student of Gamaliel who taught to reason things out, already knew who Jesus was, but was RESISTING IT. This is a totally different revelation the what was REVEALED in the 14 years he was taught by Jesus and not men (2nd Cor.12:1, 7; Gal.1:12, 2:2).

The short of it is that Paul knew that Jesus was Who He was while still persecuting Christians! How? By the same revelation that Peter had in Matthew 16. Not a dream, not a vision, but something that dawns on your inner understanding.

What happens is we've been sermonised to death . It starts with a verse or a theme and we glean ethereal ' wisdom' on what we can ' learn ' from this one verse and how it apply s in a general Liberal sense, because the man at the front had it placed on his heart after breakfast that morning. Yet when we actually read the text it says nothing of the sort .

Why would he call them foolish and slow to believe. Today its faith not by sight but by hearing the word of God .

Our faith is indeed activated by the hearing of the Word of God, but not all that hear believe. Why?

Are those of us who believe smarter, wiser, better people than those who do not believe?

That sounds like boasting to me!

This is really a discussion about the ordo salutis. I tend to lean toward the confessional orthodox formula.

Horse ? lol but do you see my point?

Which verse says Peter had a ' inner dawning / inner understanding?

What happens is we've been sermonised to death . It starts with a verse or a theme and we glean ethereal ' wisdom' on what we can ' learn ' from this one verse and how it apply s in a general Liberal sense, because the man at the front had it placed on his heart after breakfast that morning. Yet when we actually read the text it says nothing of the sort .