Replies

***Not until you claim it, it does you no good, it remains in the bank. (real hard to understand)*** Yes, I understand. The is in an account with my name, but it not really mine until I withdrawl it. Of course, this is not how banks work at all. If the money is in my account, then it is mine. I don't have to claim it.

The money isn't in your account, it is a account that you have been given access to, but you have to claim it.

But, I guess that you can have your bank account and the money that is not really yours until you withrawal it. BTW, can I go get the money that is in your account but not really yours? I could do some things with it.

Not unless you came and claimed it you couldn't.

***No requirement to accept the gift, not even believing that it is there?*** Yes, you are correct that I am not required to accept the gift and no you are wrong about the belief. I said that all I have to do is enjoy the gift. In order to actually enjoy the gift, you have to know that it is there.

Now, that is quite amazing.

You know its there-how?

It is not really hard. I enjoy my salvation, the salvation that the Father elected me to, the Son secured for me with his Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and that the Holy Spirit communicated to me. I don't believe that it is there in order to make it real. That sounds kinda mystic. I believe that I am saved. I don't believe in order to get saved. All I have to do is enjoy the gift and glorify the giver.

I don't believe in order to get saved.

You have to believe to get saved, believe in the Person and Work of the saviour.

Of course, the funny thing here is that your analogy doesn't exist anywhere, especially not in a real bank. My analogy exits both in the Bible and used to be the way debtors prison worked in England.

Having the debt paid still did not make the debtor a rich man.

To get to heaven you need more then to have your sins forgiven, you need God's righteousness, which only comes by accepting the free gift of salvation. (Jn.1:12)

***The money isn't in your account, it is a account that you have been given access to, but you have to claim it.***

This is not what you said. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Here is EXACTLY what you said when you FIRST gave your analogy: "I put a million dollars in your bank account."

I think you need to go back and figure out what kind of analogy you want to present before you talk yourself into a corner and need to start contradicting yourself in order to try and make your analogy make sense.

I'm just going on EXACTLY what you told me in the beginning. You told me that the million dollars was in MY bank account. Now, you tell me that the million isn't in my account.

When you figure out exactly what it is that YOU believe, you be sure and get back to me. Ok!

***Now, that is quite amazing. You know its there-how?***

Well, I think that is self evidently obvious. You know that your debt has been paid because you don't get sent to debtors prison. This analogy isn't hard, ftd.

***You have to believe to get saved, believe in the Person and Work of the saviour.***

This is exactly the backward way that Arminians read such passages as John 10:26. In point of fact, people don't believe BECAUSE they are not sheep, exactly and explicitly as such passages as John 10:26 say.

Let's look at the modified analogy again:

"Let us say that you owe a million dollars and that if you don't pay, you will be cast into debtors prison until the full debt is paid. Some man comes along and pays your debt. There is not any requirement for you to accept this gift; it was legally applied to your account for your benefit. All you must do is enjoy the gift. Now, that makes more sense than this bank job weirdness."

First off, I'll point out that in your silly analogy you did EXACTLY say that "I put a million dollars in your bank account." I correctly pointed out that if the million is in MY account, then there is nothing I need do further. Of course, realizing that you had talked yourself into a corner, you've tried to change your analogy. Well, I've modified it for you to make it Biblical so there is no need now for you to contradict yourself. Simply admit that you had it all wrong and embrace something better. Just look....

Luke 7:41 "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?"

Now, the Lord Jesus used this analogy of a freely forgiven debt more than once. And, not once in any of the times did the Lord use the analogy was there an element of the debtor having to accept the gift of the payment in order for it to actually apply to him. It is just not to be found. IOW, you are just making up stuff which has no Biblical relevance. To be honest, it is in effect adding an unBiblical requirement to the gospel.

Now, I'm sure you will note if you check The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew that the wicked servant actually begged his master to forgive him. Before you wrongfully think that this somehow helps you out, let me point out something for you.

Boldly walking up to your Master and simply informing him that you freely accept his gift of forgiving your debt is tantamount to a blasphemy against the person of the Son. It is highly irreverent. The wicked servant actually got this part right: he BEGGED his master to forgive him. You see, first of all, our Master is under no obligation to forgive. To say that he is under obligation is to flat out declare that he actually owed something to man. And that is just plain blasphemy. Secondly, there is a big difference between begging for forgiveness and informing your master that you presumptuously accept his forgiveness. On both points, your Arminianism falls woefully short.

This isn't hard, ftd.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.