# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter

## Sola_Fide

> But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, 
> 
> and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* 
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10


Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.

The Bible teaches that all men are predestined to either salvation or reprobation.

----------


## moostraks

Oh goody, you are back to inform everyone they are not Christians unless they agree with each theory you propose. Must be nice to have such power...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hi Moostraks.  Do you have a comment on the text of the Bible I posted?

----------


## willwash

God please no

----------


## moostraks

> Do you have a comment on the text of the Bible I posted?


The above was referencing that, specifically your intention to start throwing down on people commanding they agree with (insert pet doctrine of the week) or YOU will say they are not Christian. Since He made some people to glorify your chosen ness, I suppose you'd like to lay it out so they are condemned to never rise above the position?

Why bother concerning oneself with any responsibility for one's actions? The save will be saved by their understanding they are saved and they can rape and molest children but the fact they believe proper doctrines shows they need just to repent and they are saved but those who disagree with your god of hate and contempt are condemned by not agreeing with your theories.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The above was referencing that, specifically your intention to start throwing down on people commanding they agree with (insert pet doctrine of the week) or YOU will say they are not Christian. Since He made some people to glorify your chosen ness, I suppose you'd like to lay it out so they are condemned to never rise above the position?
> 
> Why bother concerning oneself with any responsibility for one's actions? The save will be saved by their understanding they are saved and they can rape and molest children but the fact they believe proper doctrines shows they need just to repent and they are saved but those who disagree with your god of hate and contempt are condemned by not agreeing with your theories.


Um...actually I was just trying to get your take on 1st Peter 2:6-10.  What is your take on it?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.
> 
> *All Christians believe in the doctrine of double predestination.*


I wouldn't go this far.  Some new Christians don't know their Bible very well.  Some "for a time" to quote you from another thread, resist what they should know in their hearts to be true, despite the Bible being clear on it.  

Double predestination is definitively true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wouldn't go this far.  Some new Christians don't know their Bible very well.  Some "for a time" to quote you from another thread, resist what they should know in their hearts to be true, despite the Bible being clear on it.  
> 
> Double predestination is definitively true.



FF, what do you think this verse means? 




> * “Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son”. 
> 
> -2 John 1:9*

----------


## acptulsa

Well _that_ didn't take long.

God preserve us...

----------


## georgiaboy

Sola,

As one believer to another, why do you ask?  What are your motives?

The debate surrounding this topic has ensued for centuries, and will continue until glory.  Mountains of treatises, commentaries, etc., have been written on the subject, enough to stir your curiosity for a lifetime.

It's already been debated here ad nauseum, and to what end?

1 Cor. 13:1-3

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God preserve us...


That is a wonderful prayer, since it is God alone who makes one stand firm in Christ:




> * Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
> 
> -2nd Corinthians 1:21*

----------


## acptulsa

> That is a wonderful prayer, since it is God alone who makes one stand firm in Christ:


Here's another one:  God, help us to understand the Word, which is quite obviously what Peter said we are appointed to, and to preserve it and not twist it lest we become a stumbling-block ourselves.  Amen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's another one:  God, help us to understand the Word, which is quite obviously what Peter said we are appointed to, and to preserve it and not twist it lest we become a stumbling-block ourselves.  Amen.


Well...with all due respect,  that is not a Biblical prayer, because the verse in the OP says that Jesus Himself is the stumbling block that the ones appointed to destruction stumble over.

----------


## jmdrake

Yeah.  We were all "elected" to believe the OP doesn't understand election.  It's all pre ordained.  No need wasting time arguing over what's already set in stone right?    It's amazing that the same people that will take one verse out of context that supports their idea will either ignore or contort versus that don't.

_1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._

As to the verse in the OP, yes it was appointed that some would believe Jesus and some would not just like it is appointed that sometimes a coin will come up heads and sometimes tails.  It was not appointed who those specific people would be.  But if it is, then Christianity is a waste of time because either you're appointed to be saved or you aren't.  There's no need to preach to people that people should believe in Jesus, because either they will or they won't.  Oh you can say "But maybe God meant that's the way people will learn to believe."  Well..once you do that, you've injected man into salvation, specifically the preacher (or the Internet soap boxer) whether you are willing to admit that or not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola,
> 
> As one believer to another, why do you ask?  What are your motives?
> 
> The debate surrounding this topic has ensued for centuries, and will continue until glory.  Mountains of treatises, commentaries, etc., have been written on the subject, enough to stir your curiosity for a lifetime.
> 
> It's already been debated here ad nauseum, and to what end?
> 
> 1 Cor. 13:1-3


My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well...with all due respect,  that is not a Biblical prayer, because the verse in the OP says that Jesus Himself is the stumbling block that the ones appointed to destruction stumble over.


Actually acptulsa's prayer that God help us understand, and not twist, scripture is 100% biblical and straight from Peter.

_2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction._

----------


## moostraks

> Um...actually I was just trying to get your take on 1st Peter 2:6-10.  What is your take on it?


Reread what I wrote as that is my take on it. If you push double predestination as a defining principle between sheep and goats then I am inclined to ask who benefits? I think it is a bogus theory to apply to the individual and destroys the soul of the seeker who questions their sin being forced upon His creation by a loving God.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.
> 
> All Christians believe in the doctrine of double predestination.


Welcome back, S_F. 

I have to read these scriptures like eight times before I understand them. I don't know if it is the language or structure or what. I don't see why you've specifically chosen to mention an "elect race", though. Maybe have to read it a few more times. Heh...

----------


## moostraks

> My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.


If that were true then you would not have antagonized folks with this:




> All Christians believe in the doctrine of double predestination.


Which after years of your "discussion" devolves from there. You have had this argument in various forms here for years. So what do you think will be different this time?

----------


## jmdrake

> If that were true then you would not have antagonized folks with this:
> 
> 
> 
> Which after years of your "discussion" devolves from there. You have had this argument in various forms here for years. So what do you think will be different this time?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again.

----------


## otherone

> My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.


I really don't see a problem in believing that God created people knowing that they weren't saved.  It's similar to already having watched a movie and knowing who dies.  If one is saved by Grace, isn't God aware of his own future actions?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah.  We were all "elected" to believe the OP doesn't understand election.  It's all pre ordained.  No need wasting time arguing over what's already set in stone right?    It's amazing that the same people that will take one verse out of context that supports their idea will either ignore or contort versus that don't.
> 
> _1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._
> 
> As to the verse in the OP, yes it was appointed that some would believe Jesus and some would not just like it is appointed that sometimes a coin will come up heads and sometimes tails.  It was not appointed who those specific people would be.  But if it is, then Christianity is a waste of time because either you're appointed to be saved or you aren't.  There's no need to preach to people that people should believe in Jesus, because either they will or they won't.  Oh you can say "But maybe God meant that's the way people will learn to believe."  Well..once you do that, you've injected man into salvation, specifically the preacher (or the Internet soap boxer) whether you are willing to admit that or not.


Yes.  Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the elect throughout the whole world, not just the ones who were in the hearing when that letter was read to them.




> Revelation 5:9 
> 
> And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, *and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation*.


He didn't purchase every person, but He purchased men all around the world.

Also, I was wondering about what your take is on the verse in the OP, specifically  when it says that the disobedient ones were appointed as well as the elect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I really don't see a problem in believing that God created people knowing that they weren't saved.  It's similar to already having watched a movie and knowing who dies.  If one is saved by Grace, isn't God aware of his own future actions?


It's not a problem biblically of course.  The Bible teaches it.  But it is a problem to the sinful mind of man who recoils at the thought that he is not autonomous.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Welcome back, S_F. 
> 
> I have to read these scriptures like eight times before I understand them. I don't know if it is the language or structure or what. I don't see why you've specifically chosen to mention an "elect race", though. Maybe have to read it a few more times. Heh...


I agree.  There is certainly a language of the Bible that takes a little study to sort through.

----------


## presence

"It is very good to recite the mantra Om mani padme hum, but while  you are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning  of the six syllables is great and vast... The first, Om [...]  symbolizes the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; it also  symbolizes the pure exalted body, speech, and mind of a Buddha[...]" "The path is indicated by the next four syllables. Mani, meaning  jewel, symbolizes the factors of method: (the) _altruistic intention_ to  become enlightened, compassion, and love.[...]" "The two syllables, padme, meaning lotus, symbolize wisdom[...]" "Purity must be achieved by an indivisible unity of method and  wisdom, symbolized by the final syllable hum, which indicates  indivisibility[...]" "Thus the six syllables, om mani padme hum, mean that in dependence  on the practice of a path which is an indivisible union of method and  wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech, and mind into the  pure exalted body, speech, and mind of a Buddha[...]"

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

----------


## otherone

> It's not a problem biblically of course.  The Bible teaches it.  But it is a problem to the sinful mind of man who recoils at the thought that he is not autonomous.


So what you are saying is that one does not become saved, one recognizes that he IS saved. Thinking otherwise one:
a) fails to recognize the sovereignty of God and
b) believes they are the cause of their own salvation.
Is this close?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually acptulsa's prayer that God help us understand, and not twist, scripture is 100% biblical and straight from Peter.
> 
> _2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction._


I agree.  Let's not twist the Scriptures.   

So when the verse in the OP says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones, how should a bible - believer respond to that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So what you are saying is that one does not become saved, one recognizes that he IS saved. Thinking otherwise one:
> a) fails to recognize the sovereignty of God and
> b) believes they are the cause of their own salvation.
> Is this close?


Somewhat.   Although I think you are hinting at something that is called eternal regeneration,  which is not Biblical.  Eternal regeneration says that there is no time in the life of an elect person that they are not saved.  But the Bible clearly says that a saved person was at one time not saved:




> Ephesians 2:4-6 
> 
> But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, *even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ* (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,


So although a Christian man was predestined before the beginning of time,  salvation is a real experience in the life of a man.  A man was once dead and He was made alive purely by God's grace.

----------


## otherone

> Somewhat.   Although I think you are hinting at something that is called eternal regeneration,  which is not Biblical.  Eternal regeneration says that _there is no time in the life of an elect person that they are not saved._


If the elect are all ultimately saved beyond their doings, what difference would time make then?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If the elect are all ultimately saved beyond their doings, what difference would time make then?


Well, that is the argument of some hyper-calvinist eternal regeneration folks, but the Bible clearly says in several places that salvation in the life of man is a real event.   A man was dead in transgressions,  and then he is saved.

----------


## otherone

> Well, that is the argument of some hyper-calvinist eternal regeneration folks, but the Bible clearly says in several places that salvation in the life of man is a real event.   A man was dead in transgressions,  and then he is saved.


Is "being saved" God telling someone that he is chosen; that he was one of the preselected few?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is "being saved" God telling someone that he is chosen; that he was one of the preselected few?


No.  Salvation is God making a spiritually dead person alive by grace.  

God has a law that He holds all men accountable to.  Since man can't keep this law, God by His grace pardons a man's sins by imputing the sinless life of His Son on their behalf.  Also, the transgressions of that sinner are placed on the Son so that the Son bears the due penalty to that person.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is "being saved" God telling someone that he is chosen; that he was one of the preselected few?


Also, I would differ from the phrase "preselected few" because the Bible in many places says that the host of heaven at the end of time will be multidudinous.

----------


## otherone

> God has a law that He holds all men accountable to.  Since man can't keep this law, God by His grace pardons a man's sins by imputing the sinless life of His Son on their behalf.


...but not just _any_ man, but one that he had preselected for salvation?  Has God also preselected the time in a man's life that he saves him?  Could it be infancy?  In utero? Or on the deathbed?  Or even after death?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...but not just _any_ man, but one that he had preselected for salvation?  Has God also preselected the time in a man's life that he saves him?  Could it be infancy?  In utero? Or on the deathbed?  Or even after death?


Not after death, because in the book of Hebrews it says that it is appointed for man to live once and then face judgement.  But to all your other questions, yes.  God saves all kinds of men from all nations and all ages.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...but not just _any_ man, but one that he had preselected for salvation?  Has God also preselected the time in a man's life that he saves him?  Could it be infancy?  In utero? Or on the deathbed?  Or even after death?


Also, I see you hinting at the idea that men deserve to be saved from their sin against God.  Where do you get that idea?  Would God be a just judge to not hold the criminals accountable to their judgement?

----------


## otherone

> Not after death, because in the book of Hebrews it says that it is appointed for man to live once and then_ face judgement_.


Wait....what?
Judgement for what?  Aren't we ALL judged before we act, and ALL of us lacking?   What does the content of our life have to do with it?  If we are ALL guilty, and some saved by grace alone, what difference does judgement make?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wait....what?
> Judgement for what?  Aren't we ALL judged before we act, and ALL of us lacking?   What does the content of our life have to do with it?  If we are ALL guilty, and some saved by grace alone, what difference does judgement make?


So you have a problem with God being a just judge?  I know why you would have that problem as an atheist, but if what the Bible says is true, then God holds sinners accountable for their sins, forever.   He either holds them accountable for their sins personally, or He provides an atonement for that sin by His Son.

All of this is for His glory.  The just judgement of sinners glorifies His justice.  The salvation of His people glories His mercy.

----------


## otherone

> Also, I see you hinting at the idea that _men deserve to be saved from their sin against God_.  Where do you get that idea?  Would God be a just judge to not hold the criminals accountable to their judgement?


I'm not hinting at anything.  I am fascinated by your theology, and am trying to get up to speed, you've been gone awhile.  I have no ulterior motives.  Thanks for answering my questions.  As far as your italicized comment, God does what he wants.  He made us sin against him, as he is the author of everything.  A pot made for destruction can't save himself, a pot made for salvation can't destroy himself.  Whether we sin or not is immaterial.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not hinting at anything.  I am fascinated by your theology, and am trying to get up to speed, you've been gone awhile.  I have no ulterior motives.  Thanks for answering my questions.  As far as your italicized comment, God does what he wants.  He made us sin against him, as he is the author of everything.  A pot made for destruction can't save himself, a pot made for salvation can't destroy himself.  Whether we sin or not is immaterial.


That's certainly not the case.  It's as if you are treating the pardoning of sin as only "divine bookeeping" or something like that.  But when you become a Christian,  you for the first time realize how ugly your sin truly is....and how gracious the gift of mercy really is.

----------


## otherone

> So you have a problem with God being a just judge?  I know why you would have that problem as an atheist, but if what the Bible says is true, then God holds sinners accountable for their sins, forever.   He either holds them accountable for their sins personally, or He provides an atonement for that sin by His Son.


I have no problem with God's justice, just the timing of it.  Why bother judging someone based on their sins AFTER they've died, when you've already decided they're guilty before they were even born?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have no problem with God's justice, just the timing of it.  Why bother judging someone based on their sins AFTER they've died, when you've already decided they're guilty before they were even born?


Paul deals with this exact objection in Romans chapter 9.  Have you ever read Romans chapter 9?

----------


## otherone

> That's certainly not the case.  It's as if you are treating the pardoning of sin as only "divine bookeeping" or something like that.  But when you become a Christian,  you for the first time realize how ugly your sin truly is....and how gracious the gift of mercy really is.


What part is "not the case"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What part is "not the case"?


The part where you say God makes us sin.  Men are not puppets.  They want to do the sin they do. Men have wills.

----------


## otherone

> Paul deals with this exact objection in Romans chapter 9.  Have you ever read Romans chapter 9?


I'm NOT challenging you.  I don't see any practical distinction between what you are saying and "eternal generation".   To be consistent, if God is the creator, and exists outside time, then the whole shebang is His Will.   Evil, sin, salvation, who, what, where, when.  We have no choice; we ALL "should" be cast in the fire, but He selects some for salvation, based solely on His whim. 
I don't say this because I challenge God, or the Bible, I say this as how I see your interpretation of it.   Frankly, it is more logically consistent (IMO), than other interpretations.

----------


## otherone

> The part where you say God makes us sin.  Men are not puppets.  They want to do the sin they do. Men have wills.


How can man NOT sin?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, what do you think this verse means?


I think that you have to take the context of the verse as its given.  It clearly isn't talking about EVERY doctrine of Christ (after all, we'd both agree that paedobaptism or a belief in a wrong eschatological view wouldn't be damnable), so the question is, what is it talking about?  Its talking about the incarnation.  John is writing against gnostic heretics who denied that Christ had actually come to earth to die for us.  If you want to convince me that all who deny double predestination are unsaved (which I will note is huge, there are a lot of people who do believe in predestination unto salvation but deny predestination to damnation, which is illogical but being illogical doesn't mean you're damned) I need a better argument than that.  

What I think you are doing is you are taking a verse and eisegeting it to apply a doctrine you particularly hate to it when it was never intended.  You actually might have a better argument from Galatians, which you could possibly apply to Arminians (though that's a bit of a stretch) but I don't see how you could apply it to Calvinists who disagree with double pre.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can man NOT sin?


Your objection is the same one raised in Romans 9.  Remember, Romans 9 is where Paul is dealing with the issue of predestination. In verse 18 he lays everything out in plain language:




> *18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.*


Then he quotes a hypothetical objector to this doctrine.  He says in verse 19:




> *19 One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?*


Notice how the hypothetical objector is raising the exact objection you are raising.  Both of you are saying that if God has planned it to where some sin and go to destruction, why should you be responsible for that?  Why does God still blame us if we are just doing what His will has planned for us?

Then Paul answers your objection:




> *20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this? 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?*


And right there, you have your answer to your question.  God has the sovereign right to make some lumps of clay for noble use and some for destruction.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think that you have to take the context of the verse as its given.  It clearly isn't talking about EVERY doctrine of Christ (after all, we'd both agree that paedobaptism or a belief in a wrong eschatological view wouldn't be damnable), so the question is, what is it talking about?  Its talking about the incarnation.  John is writing against gnostic heretics who denied that Christ had actually come to earth to die for us.  If you want to convince me that all who deny double predestination are unsaved (which I will note is huge, there are a lot of people who do believe in predestination unto salvation but deny predestination to damnation, which is illogical but being illogical doesn't mean you're damned) I need a better argument than that.  
> 
> What I think you are doing is you are taking a verse and eisegeting it to apply a doctrine you particularly hate to it when it was never intended.  You actually might have a better argument from Galatians, which you could possibly apply to Arminians (though that's a bit of a stretch) but I don't see how you could apply it to Calvinists who disagree with double pre.


How about this:  A Christian won't object to the doctrine of double predestination when they read it in the Bible for the first time.

Agree or disagree?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your objection is the same one raised in Romans 9.  Remember, Romans 9 is where Paul is dealing with the issue of predestination. In verse 18 he lays everything out in plain language:
> 
> 
> 
> Then he quotes a hypothetical objector to this doctrine.  He says in verse 19:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the hypothetical objector is raising the exact objection you are raising.  Both of you are saying that if God has planned it to where some sin and go to destruction, why should you be responsible for that?  Why does God still blame us if we are just doing what His will has planned for us?
> ...


I've noticed that most Christians really do not like this.  And pretty much everyone struggles through it at some point.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've noticed that most Christians really do not like this.  And pretty much everyone struggles through it at some point.


"Christians" don't like this?  Are you sure?

----------


## moostraks

> Well _that_ didn't take long.
> 
> God preserve us...


Neither did it take long for this:




> Paul deals with this exact objection in Romans chapter 9.  Have you ever read Romans chapter 9?





> Your objection is the same one raised in Romans 9.  Remember, Romans 9 is where Paul is dealing with the issue of predestination. In verse 18 he lays everything out in plain language:
> 
> 
> 
> Then he quotes a hypothetical objector to this doctrine.  He says in verse 19:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the hypothetical objector is raising the exact objection you are raising.  Both of you are saying that if God has planned it to where some sin and go to destruction, why should you be responsible for that?  Why does God still blame us if we are just doing what His will has planned for us?
> ...


Good gravy, so all this time and you just want to ignore the years wasted in this subforum contradicting your claims and you will circle right back to your vomit?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How about this:  A Christian won't object to the doctrine of double predestination when they read it in the Bible for the first time.
> 
> Agree or disagree?


I think I disagree.  If you changed "won't" to "shouldn't" I would definitely agree.  But I think sometimes Christians do things they shouldn't do.  Doubly so if they've been brought up with Arminian teaching and they've been trained to think this isn't about individuals.




> "Christians" don't like this?  Are you sure?


No, I'm not.  The only person's salvation I am absolutely sure about is my own.  But I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says "oh, and if you don't believe this, you aren't saved" about double predestination.  We see something like that about salvation by works, or heresies about Christology, but I'm not seeing anything that says double predestination is a gospel essential.  Its Biblical.  Its true.  But I don't see anything in the Bible that would say a true Christian can't be wrong about it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Neither did it take long for this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good gravy, so all this time and you just want to ignore the years wasted in this subforum contradicting your claims and you will circle right back to your vomit?


I think Sola and I have both calmed down a lot since last year

----------


## otherone

> And right there, you have your answer to your question.  God has the sovereign right to make some lumps of clay for noble use and some for destruction.


With all due respect, none of what you write answers my question (thanks for answering at all, though).
What I don't understand is the idea of postmortem judgement.  As you write, God makes some lumps for destruction...he does not make them with the "potential" for destruction.  If I live a life trying to avoid sin, if I choose at times to do the right thing, what difference does it make?   Either I am made to be _destroyed_, or I am made to be_ judged_?   How can it be both?

----------


## Jamesiv1

Sola's back - YAAY!!

Been crickets around here... Who else can stir up piss and vinegar like Sola_Fide??

He's the undisputed champ.

----------


## acptulsa

> My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.





> How about this:  A Christian won't object to the doctrine of double predestination when they read it in the Bible for the first time.


Just a nice, civil discussion with the Thought Police...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think I disagree.  If you changed "won't" to "shouldn't" I would definitely agree.  But I think sometimes Christians do things they shouldn't do.  Doubly so if they've been brought up with Arminian teaching and they've been trained to think this isn't about individuals.


So a Christian can read about a doctrine like election in the Bible and disagree with it?  I don't see how that is possible.  A Christian believes all the word of God, especially on something so vital as the issue of salvation.






> No, I'm not.  The only person's salvation I am absolutely sure about is my own.  But I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says "oh, and if you don't believe this, you aren't saved" about double predestination.  We see something like that about salvation by works, or heresies about Christology, but I'm not seeing anything that says double predestination is a gospel essential.  Its Biblical.  Its true.  But I don't see anything in the Bible that would say a true Christian can't be wrong about it.


I'm not saying there is a verse that says "if you don't believe double predestination, then you're not saved".  Obviously there is not.  But if a person reads 2nd Peter 2:6-10 and "cannot stomach" the fact that God appoints both the disobedient and the elect, then there is a real problem there.  A soul problem.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yaaaay!!  Sola's back!!
> 
> Man, it was boring around here without SF - would go for days with nothing but crickets lol
> 
> Seriously.... hope you had a nice break.  I disagree with you 99% of the time but I respect your conviction and thoughtful replies.
> 
> I still have hope for you!


Thanks.  I will keep it in the guidelines this time.  I am aiming for civility even if people call my words "vomit".

----------


## otherone

> So a Christian can read about a doctrine like election in the Bible and disagree with it?  I don't see how that is possible.  A Christian believes all the word of God, especially on something so vital as the issue of salvation.


I see this a lot in this sub-forum.  Is labeling oneself, or others, "Christian" important when it comes to God's judgement?  Is there biblical evidence that confirms the importance of this label?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> With all due respect, none of what you write answers my question (thanks for answering at all, though).
> What I don't understand is the idea of postmortem judgement.  As you write, God makes some lumps for destruction...he does not make them with the "potential" for destruction.  If I live a life trying to avoid sin, if I choose at times to do the right thing, what difference does it make?   Either I am made to be _destroyed_, or I am made to be_ judged_?   How can it be both?


If you live a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing, you will surely be judged and go to destruction.

If you believe in the Son's perfect life on your behalf, and if you believe in Him ALONE, you will be saved and become a new creature in Him.  You will live forever with Him.

Instead of trying to pry into the hidden councils of God to find out who He has predestined and who He hasn't, focus on the main issue:  your sin.  How is your sin going to be dealt with when you die and face judgement?

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree.  Let's not twist the Scriptures.   
> 
> So when the verse in the OP says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones, how should a bible - believer respond to that?


You respond by comparing scripture with scripture.  Once you know that 1 John 2:2 teaching Jesus paid the price for all sins for the whole world you have to factor that into what you are saying regarding Peter.  So you have a choice.  Either you can choose to come up with a less than obvious interpretation for "the whole world" or a less than obvious interpretation for "appointed."  

Here is the "less than obvious interpretation" for appointed.  If I see a traffic sign saying "Speed limit 55", the placing of the sign has "appointed" me either to obey it, or to risk getting a ticket.  My choice is what makes the difference.  The sign didn't cause me to speed, but it set forward the consequences for my choice.  For someone looking for Jesus to come as an earthly king and overthrow the Romans, the very act of Him coming as a humble servant was a stumbling block.  Their preconceived notions, as opposed to their predestination, is what "appointed" the to stumble.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I see this a lot in this sub-forum.  Is labeling oneself, or others, "Christian" important when it comes to God's judgement?  Is there biblical evidence that confirms the importance of this label?


I think it's more of an in-house thing.  But when you become a Christian, you have an unceasing desire to want to know what exactly the Bible teaches, so it is no wonder that what may be perceived as little theological points to those on the outside are major things in the life of a Christian believer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You respond by comparing scripture with scripture.  Once you know that 1 John 2:2 teaching Jesus paid the price for all sins for the whole world you have to factor that into what you are saying regarding Peter.  So you have a choice.  Either you can choose to come up with a less than obvious interpretation for "the whole world" or a less than obvious interpretation for "appointed."  
> 
> Here is the "less than obvious interpretation" for appointed.  If I see a traffic sign saying "Speed limit 55", the placing of the sign has "appointed" me either to obey it, or to risk getting a ticket.  My choice is what makes the difference.  The sign didn't cause me to speed, but it set forward the consequences for my choice.  For someone looking for Jesus to come as an earthly king and overthrow the Romans, the very act of Him coming as a humble servant was a stumbling block.  Their preconceived notions, as opposed to their predestination, is what "appointed" the to stumble.


But the Bible directly contradicts the idea that the atonement was made for every man:




> Revelation 5:9
> 
> And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, *and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.*


There it is.  The Bible directly contradicts your idea that the atonement was made for every person in the world.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you live a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing, you will surely be judged and go to destruction.
> 
> If you believe in the Son's perfect life on your behalf, and if you believe in Him ALONE, you will be saved and become a new creature in Him.  You will live forever with Him.
> 
> Instead of trying to pry into the hidden councils of God to find out who He has predestined and who He hasn't, focus on the main issue:  your sin.  How is your sin going to be dealt with when you die and face judgement?


Desiring not to sin and trusting in Jesus' perfect life are not mutually exclusive.

_1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One._

_1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body._

_1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil._

----------


## otherone

> If you live a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing, you will surely be judged and go to destruction.
> 
> If you believe in the Son's perfect life on your behalf, and if you believe in Him ALONE, you will be saved and become a new creature in Him.  You will live forever with Him.
> 
> Instead of trying to pry into the hidden councils of God to find out who He has predestined and who He hasn't, focus on the main issue:  your sin.  _How is your sin going to be dealt with when you die and face judgement?_


In what way is that up to me?  I (and everyone else) am ONLY worthy of destruction.  If God chooses to save me, it is up to HIM. 




> If you live a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing, you will surely be judged and go to destruction.


This is not judgement...it is pre-judgement...heck...even YOU know what God is gonna do.




> If you believe in the Son's perfect life on your behalf, and if you believe in Him ALONE, you will be saved and become a new creature in Him.  You will live forever with Him.


This contradicts what you wrote before.  My "belief" is immaterial if I am made to be destroyed.  My belief is not required...only God's grace....

----------


## otherone

> I think it's more of an in-house thing.  _But when you become a Christian, you have an unceasing desire to want to know what exactly the Bible teaches,_ so it is no wonder that what may be perceived as little theological points to those on the outside are major things in the life of a Christian believer.


Is this concept biblical?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Desiring not to sin and trusting in Jesus' perfect life are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> _1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One._
> 
> _1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body._
> 
> _1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil._


Regardless,  I promise you that if anyone lives their life trying to avoid sin and do the right thing, that one will be in Hell forever.

The reason that this is the case is because that God does not require a life lived as best you could.  He requires a perfect life of complete sinlessness.  God will not allow sin into His presence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is this concept biblical?


Yes.

----------


## jmdrake

> But the Bible directly contradicts the idea that the atonement was made for every man:


No it doesn't.  You are putting your own interpretation on Revelation 5:9.  (And I *hate* when you misuse the quote tag like that).

_Revelation 5:9

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation._

Your interpretation of Revelation 5:9 is based on your belief that everyone purchased must be saved.  You exclude the possibility of someone having their salvation purchased and saying "That's okay God.  I don't want to be saved after all."

Matthew 18:23-34
_23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him._





> There it is.  The Bible directly contradicts your idea that the atonement was made for every person in the world.


Wrong.   See above.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In what way is that up to me?  I (and everyone else) am ONLY worthy of destruction.  If God chooses to save me, it is up to HIM. 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not judgement...it is pre-judgement...heck...even YOU know what God is gonna do.
> 
> 
> 
> This contradicts what you wrote before.  My "belief" is immaterial if I am made to be destroyed.  My belief is not required...only God's grace....


No.  It is absolutely required that all men everywhere believe the gospel:




> *Acts 17:30 
> 
> In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Regardless,  I promise you that if anyone lives their life trying to avoid sin and do the right thing, that one will be in Hell forever.
> 
> The reason that this is the case is because that God does not require a life lived as best you could.  He requires a perfect life of complete sinlessness.  God will not allow sin into His presence.


Okay.  So the apostle Paul and the apostle John are going to hell and their teachings are sending people to hell because they both taught, and I quoted their teachings, that people should try to avoid sin.  Thank you for clearing that up.  Please find one verse that says "Do not try to avoid sinning because if you do you are going to hell" okay?  Just one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your interpretation of Revelation 5:9 is based on your belief that everyone purchased must be saved.  You exclude the possibility of someone having their salvation purchased and saying "That's okay God.  I don't want to be saved after all."


I exclude the possibility because it is a something that doesn't exist.  I know that is your unbiblical tradition, but its nowhere in the Bible.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he was alive.  He did not choose to come alive (how could he, he was rotting in a tomb).  Jesus made alive something that was dead.  And He did that to show the perfect analogy to spiritual salvation.  God makes those who are spiritually dead, spiritually alive.  It is by His grace, and not anything in themselves.

And there is no possibility that a person made alive is dead.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You respond by comparing scripture with scripture.  Once you know that 1 John 2:2 teaching Jesus paid the price for all sins for the whole world you have to factor that into what you are saying regarding Peter.  So you have a choice.  Either you can choose to come up with a less than obvious interpretation for "the whole world" or a less than obvious interpretation for "appointed."  
> 
> Here is the "less than obvious interpretation" for appointed.  If I see a traffic sign saying "Speed limit 55", the placing of the sign has "appointed" me either to obey it, or to risk getting a ticket.  My choice is what makes the difference.  The sign didn't cause me to speed, but it set forward the consequences for my choice.  For someone looking for Jesus to come as an earthly king and overthrow the Romans, the very act of Him coming as a humble servant was a stumbling block.  Their preconceived notions, as opposed to their predestination, is what "appointed" the to stumble.


This analogy has nothing to do with what the verse is talking about.  The verse is talking about the elect who are saved, and the disobedient who are not saved...and how both of them were appointed by God:




> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10

----------


## erowe1

Welcome back Sola.

What a breath of fresh air. I was starting to get bored here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Welcome back Sola.
> 
> What a breath of fresh air. I was starting to get bored here.


I noticed that.

----------


## presence

eklhrwqhmen

*made* heirs?
*obtained* inheritance?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> eklhrwqhmen
> 
> *made* heirs?
> *obtained* inheritance?


What would be the qualitative difference between the two in your mind?

----------


## presence

> What would be the qualitative difference between the two in your mind?


effort

----------


## jmdrake

> I exclude the possibility because it is a something that doesn't exist.  I know that is your unbiblical tradition, but its nowhere in the Bible.


Actually my belief is in the Bible.  I gave you the reference and copied and pasted it.  You simply choose to ignore  parts of the Bible that disagree with you.  Note that you cut out my Bible quote and falsely claimed my belief is nowhere in the Bible.  Meanwhile you have *yet* to provide a *single verse* that says "If you try to avoid sin you are going to hell."  You just made that up.

----------


## jmdrake

> This analogy has nothing to do with what the verse is talking about.  The verse is talking about the elect who are saved, and the disobedient who are not saved...and how both of them were appointed by God:


Fine.  You don't like my example.  I don't care.  Now, where is your verse that says "Those who try to avoid sin are going to hell?"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> effort


"Obtained" there says nothing about man's effort.  When you obtain an inheritance, or you obtain a pardon from a judge, there is nothing that denotes effort on the part of the obtainee.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Obtained" there says nothing about man's effort.  When you obtain an inheritance, or you obtain a pardon from a judge, there is nothing that denotes effort on the part of the obtainee.


Nobody receives a pardon from a judge without asking for it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Fine.  You don't like my example.  I don't care.  Now, where is your verse that says "Those who try to avoid sin are going to hell?"


Well, what about the verse in 2nd Peter?  When we read that the elect are appointed as well as the disobedient, what do you do with that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nobody receives a pardon from a judge without asking for it.


That's not true at all.  Even if it was true, it is not a perfect analogy of salvation because the Bible describes man as DEAD and and enemy of God.  Dead men don't ask for anything...they can't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually my belief is in the Bible.  I gave you the reference and copied and pasted it.  You simply choose to ignore  parts of the Bible that disagree with you.  Note that you cut out my Bible quote and falsely claimed my belief is nowhere in the Bible.  Meanwhile you have *yet* to provide a *single verse* that says "If you try to avoid sin you are going to hell."  You just made that up.


I cut that verse out because it is not apt to what we are describing at all.  And the parables of Jesus are mysterious and have many diverse explanations.  Why not go to a didactic text like the one in Peter and see what it is clearly teaching about the elect and the disobedient?

----------


## presence

> "Obtained" there says nothing about man's effort.  When you obtain an inheritance, or you obtain a pardon from a judge, there is nothing that denotes effort on the part of the obtainee.


..



> What is OBTAIN? - The Law Dictionary
> thelawdictionary.org/obtain/
> Definition of OBTAIN: To acquire; to get hold of by effort; to get and retain possession of; as. in the offense of "obtaining" money or property by false pretenses.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not true at all.


In what state do you practice law again?  In Tennessee a pardon must be applied for.  And judges don't pardon.  Governors and presidents do.  A judge can sentence you to probation.  A judge can sentence you to expungible probation.  A judge can give you a suspended sentence.  But a judge pardoning?  I've never heard of that.  But maybe you know more than me.  You seem to be sure that you know everything.  I'm still waiting for the verse in the Bible that says "Anyone who tries to avoid sin is going to hell."

----------


## presence

> "Obtained" there says nothing about man's effort.  When you_ obtain an inheritance_, or you obtain a pardon from a judge, there is nothing that denotes effort on the part of the obtainee.


..



> be·queath
> bəˈkwēT͟H,bəˈkwiTH/
> verb
> verb: bequeath; 3rd person present: bequeaths; past tense: bequeathed; _past participle: bequeathed_; gerund or present participle: bequeathing
> 
>     leave (a personal estate or one's body) to a person or other beneficiary by a will.
>     "an identical sum was bequeathed by Margaret"
>     synonyms:    leave to, leave in one's will to, hand on/down to, will to, make over to, pass on to, entrust to, grant to, transfer to; More
>     donate to, give to;
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> I cut that verse out because it is not apt to what we are describing at all.  And the parables of Jesus are mysterious and have many diverse explanations.  Why not go to a didactic text like the one in Peter and see what it is clearly teaching about the elect and the disobedient?


That's not true.  When you gave your verse I dealt with it instead of pretending it didn't exist or that it didn't apply.  And this particular parable of Jesus isn't "mysterious" at all.  Jesus clearly said "If you don't forgive your fellow man then your heavenly Father will not forgive you."  How is that "mysterious"?  How is that "open to diverse explanations?"  Hint, it's *not*.  You simply want to believe that it is because it fits your viewpoint.  On the flipside since you believe in an eternal hell that non elect people go to immediately when they die, you interpret the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as if it the only interpretation of that was literal even though Jesus never claimed that was the purpose for telling that particular parable.  

Speaking of Lazarus, your attempt to use Jesus raising His friend Lazarus from the dead to prove double predestination is nonsense.  For one thing, Lazarus could have immediately committed suicide if he wanted to.  For another, Jesus never told anyone to draw any spiritual lesson from that, other than the fact that He (Jesus) is the resurrection and the life.  It's interesting that in parable where Jesus *gives you the interpretation* and *clearly states* that your being forgiven is conditional on you being forgiving, you falsely claim that is "mysterious."  But you take a miracle of Jesus raising a friend from the dead and inject into it a meaning that neither Jesus nor any Bible writer applied to it.  One should "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."  You've done the opposite.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the verse that says that those who follow Paul's advice to flee fornication are going to hell.  After all fleeing fornication is trying to avoid sin and you said that everyone who tries to avoid sin is going to hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In what state do you practice law again?  In Tennessee a pardon must be applied for.  And judges don't pardon.  Governors and presidents do.  A judge can sentence you to probation.  A judge can sentence you to expungible probation.  A judge can give you a suspended sentence.  But a judge pardoning?  I've never heard of that.  But maybe you know more than me.  You seem to be sure that you know everything.  I'm still waiting for the verse in the Bible that says "Anyone who tries to avoid sin is going to hell."


You're back on this American legal system thing, but what does this have anything to do with the description of salvation in the Bible?  It could be the case that the American legal system is one way and the Bible is the complete opposite.  So what?  Our notion of salvation does not come from the American legal system, it comes from Scripture.

----------


## presence

Is salvation bequethed by, or obtained from the unspoken?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus clearly said "If you don't forgive your fellow man then your heavenly Father will not forgive you."  How is that "mysterious"?  How is that "open to diverse explanations?"


Have you perfectly forgiven every single person in your life and will you continue to perfectly forgive everyone until you die?  If not, how do you expect to go to heaven?

----------


## jmdrake

> You're back on this American legal system thing, but what does this have anything to do with the description of salvation in the Bible?


You claimed I was flat out wrong about the legal system.  So I'm trying to see if you actually know what you are talking about or if you are just blowing smoke.  I think you are just blowing smoke.  If you make false claims about the legal system, why should anyone believe your claims about the Bible?

Edit: And I'm still waiting for your verse that says those who try to avoid sin are going to hell.  Or are you going to finally admit you just made that up as well?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You claimed I was flat out wrong about the legal system.  So I'm trying to see if you actually know what you are talking about or if you are just blowing smoke.  I think you are just blowing smoke.  If you make false claims about the legal system, why should anyone believe your claims about the Bible?


Who says I was talking about the American legal system?  What if I was talking about the medieval legal system of Europe?  Who cares about any legal system at all?  Shouldn't we be concerned about what the Bible says?

----------


## presence

> If not, how do you expect to go to heaven?


Action alone is thy province, never the fruits thereof;
let not thy motive be the fruit of action,
nor shouldst thou desire to avoid action.

M K Gandhi

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Edit: And I'm still waiting for your verse that says those who try to avoid sin are going to hell.  Or are you going to finally admit you just made that up as well?





> * Galatians 3:10
> 
> For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."*


There you go.  All who rely on doing good and avoiding sin are cursed because the law says you must do everything in it if you are to be saved.

----------


## moostraks

> Thanks.  I will keep it in the guidelines this time.  I am aiming for civility even if people call my words "vomit".


Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit
            Is a fool who repeats his folly.

Figured since you profess to be so knowledgeable on the Book that you would have picked up on the well known reference being used. Same old games...No, you are NOT aiming for civility or you would not have fired the shot across the bow with the very first thread you start throwing down against those who disagree on YOUR unique interpretations.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit
>             Is a fool who repeats his folly.
> 
> Figured since you profess to be so knowledgeable on the Book that you would have picked up on the well known reference being used. Same old games...No, you are NOT aiming for civility or you would not have fired the shot across the bow with the very first thread you start throwing down against those who disagree on YOUR unique interpretations.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again.



Please forgive me for my incivility.  I forgive you too.  I won't respond to any more personal posts so as to keep things on the issues.

----------


## Brett85

There are some verses in the Bible which seem to point to Calvinism.  There are other verses in the Bible which seem to point to Arminianism.  The idea that the Bible is 100% clear on which theology is correct is just ridiculous.  Christians wouldn't be so divided on this issue throughout the years if the Biblical data were just 100% clear.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are some verses in the Bible which seem to point to Calvinism.  There are other verses in the Bible which seem to point to Arminianism.  The idea that the Bible is 100% clear on which theology is correct is just ridiculous.  *Christians wouldn't be so divided on this issue throughout the years if the Biblical data were just 100% clear.*


I respectfully disagree with that.  The Bible is 100% clear on salvation.  It is the sinful heart of man that is unclear.  The sinful heart of man will do everything to reject the notion that God alone saves.  

The sinful heart of man in religion will always think "do, do, do".

But Jesus said "its done".

Salvation is all of God and none of man.

----------


## moostraks

> There you go.  All who rely on doing good and avoiding sin are cursed because the law says you must do everything in it if you are to be saved.




Romans 6:. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 6:. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
> 
> James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


Why did you quote those verses?  What do they have to do with what we were talking about?

----------


## moostraks

> I exclude the possibility because it is a something that doesn't exist.  *I know that is your unbiblical tradition, but its nowhere in the Bible.*





> Please forgive me for my incivility.  I forgive you too.  I won't respond to any more personal posts so as to keep things on the issues.


Again, then stop doing this ^^^ actions speak louder than words. And publicly forgiving someone who is not seeking your forgiveness is tacky and patronizing. You know what you are doing...

----------


## Brett85

> I respectfully disagree with that.  The Bible is 100% clear on salvation.  It is the sinful heart of man that is unclear.  The sinful heart of man will do everything to reject the notion that God alone saves.


Well, thanks for "respectfully disagreeing."  I respectfully disagree that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has anything to do with whether one is saved or not.  I think that John 3: 16 is pretty clear that "whosoever believes in him shall not perish but will receive everlasting life."  That includes both Calvinists and Arminians.

----------


## moostraks

> Why did you quote those verses?  What do they have to do with what we were talking about?





> I respectfully disagree with that.  The Bible is 100% clear on salvation.  It is the sinful heart of man that is unclear.  The sinful heart of man will do everything to reject the notion that God alone saves.  
> 
> The sinful heart of man in religion will always think "do, do, do".
> 
> But Jesus said "its done".
> 
> Salvation is all of God and none of man.


Because you need to read them and consider your position of not doing anything and thinking any effort to not live in sin results in damnation. 

The belief you attempt to sell others on is dangerous and provides cover for some of the most reprehensible folks that claim to be the elect. It paralyzes new believers who stumble upon it as they will second guess every thought and action and many give up feeling themselves hopelessly damned.

----------


## jmdrake

> There you go.  All who rely on doing good and avoiding sin are cursed because the law says you must do everything in it if you are to be saved.


LOL.  So now you've changed it from "All who try to avoid sin" to "all who *rely* on doing good and avoiding sin."  Sola, that is not honest debate.  Stick with what you originally said.

Edit: Here is an exact quote so that you can't falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth.




> If you live a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing, you will surely be judged and go to destruction.


If you don't know the difference between "living a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing" and "All who *rely* on doing good and avoiding sin" then you really lack the understanding of language needed to have this debate.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who says I was talking about the American legal system?  What if I was talking about the medieval legal system of Europe?  Who cares about any legal system at all?  Shouldn't we be concerned about what the Bible says?


Once again *you brought up the legal system!*  It's dishonest of you to try to put that back on me.  In fact your entire debate strategy is dishonesty put on top of logical fallacy.  You said you want civil discussion?  Well civil discussion begins with *honest* discussion.  It's a matter of character.  It is dishonest for you to attempt to use the legal system to make a point, and then when someone shows that the legal system makes the opposite point, for you to turn around and say "Who cares about the legal system?"  As for caring about what the Bible says, I do.  You don't.  At least you don't when the Bible disagrees with you.  Anything that doesn't fit your point of view you throw out as "mysterious" and "open to interpretation" even when Jesus Himself gave the clear interpretation.  "If you do not forgive your fellow man, God will not forgive you."

----------


## jmdrake

> Have you perfectly forgiven every single person in your life and will you continue to perfectly forgive everyone until you die?  If not, how do you expect to go to heaven?


Has God ever brought it to my attention that I have not forgiven someone and I then refused to forgive that person?  No.  I assume God is doing His job which is both to bring to my attention anyone I need to forgive and to give me the power to forgive.  I do not doubt the power of God.  I wonder why you do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Has God ever brought it to my attention that I have not forgiven someone and I then refused to forgive that person?  No.  I assume God is doing His job which is both to bring to my attention anyone I need to forgive and to give me the power to forgive.  I do not doubt the power of God.  I wonder why you do.


Wow.  You've forgiven every person that has asked.  Did you forgive them perfectly?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you don't know the difference between "living a life trying to avoid sin and trying to do the right thing" and "All who *rely* on doing good and avoiding sin" then you really lack the understanding of language needed to have this debate.


If you live a life trying to avoid sin...or rely on avoiding sin, you will go to Hell forever.

----------


## erowe1

> There you go.  All who rely on doing good and avoiding sin are cursed because the law says you must do everything in it if you are to be saved.


Your quote from JM doesn't have the word "rely" in it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow.  You've forgiven every person that has asked.


Yes.  You haven't?  Seriously?  




> Did you forgive them perfectly?


I trust God that I did.  It is God that works in us to will and to do His good pleasure.  If I rely on Him to flow forgiveness through me, and it is somehow "imperfect" (whatever that is supposed to mean), that's His fault, not mine.  What I'm *not* going to do is when someone asks for forgiveness to say "Well it is impossible for me to forgive you perfectly and so I'm not going to forgive you and it doesn't matter anyway because God has already forgiven me and that forgiveness is unconditional so I don't care what Jesus had to say on the matter."

----------


## jmdrake

> If you live a life trying to avoid sin...or rely on avoiding sin, you will go to Hell forever.





> Your quote from JM doesn't have the word "rely" in it.


What erowe1 said.  There is a difference between living your life a certain way and relying on that.  A man can live his life such that he buys his wife flowers once a week and not rely on that to make sure they always stay married for example.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I respectfully disagree that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has anything to do with whether one is saved or not.  I think that John 3: 16 is pretty clear that "whosoever believes in him shall not perish but will receive everlasting life."  That includes both Calvinists and Arminians.


I respectfully disagree with that.  How many times have either I or erowe1 gone over John 3:16 with you?  John 3:16 says the Son was given so that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.  Also, have you ever read the context of John 3:16?  It is a judgment passage:




> John 3:16-20 
> 
> 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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, *but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes.  You haven't?  Seriously?  
> 
> 
> 
> I trust God that I did.  It is God that works in us to will and to do His good pleasure.  If I rely on Him to flow forgiveness through me, and it is somehow "imperfect" (whatever that is supposed to mean), that's His fault, not mine.  What I'm *not* going to do is when someone asks for forgiveness to say "Well it is impossible for me to forgive you perfectly and so I'm not going to forgive you and it doesn't matter anyway because God has already forgiven me and that forgiveness is unconditional so I don't care what Jesus had to say on the matter."



You forgave every person perfectly?  You have not the slightest amount of anger at all?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What erowe1 said.  There is a difference between living your life a certain way and relying on that.  A man can live his life such that he buys his wife flowers once a week and not rely on that to make sure they always stay married for example.


Well then, why does a Christian strive to live a righteous life?   Is his striving in any way responsible for his salvation or the maintenance of his salvation?

----------


## Brett85

> If you live a life trying to avoid sin...or rely on avoiding sin, you will go to Hell forever.


So the way to make it to heaven would be to go out and have sex with prostitutes every night?  Interesting.

----------


## Brett85

> I respectfully disagree with that.  How many times have either I or erowe1 gone over John 3:16 with you?  John 3:16 says the Son was given so that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.  Also, have you ever read the context of John 3:16?  It is a judgment passage:


"The believing ones" also include non Calvinists.  It includes everyone who believes that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.

----------


## otherone

> Salvation is all of God and none of man.


except.....





> *If you believe* in the Son's perfect life on your behalf, and if you believe in Him ALONE, *you will be saved* and become a new creature in Him. You will live forever with Him.


so...there IS _that_...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So the way to make it to heaven would be to go out and have sex with prostitutes every night?  Interesting.


Is a man saved by his avoidance of prostitutes all his life?

----------


## Brett85

> Is a man saved by his avoidance of prostitutes all his life?


No, but his avoidance of prostitutes is evidence that he's truly saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> except.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so...there IS _that_...



There is that, but man's belief is itself a gift of God.  All of God, none of man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, but his avoidance of prostitutes is evidence that he's truly saved.



Well, then you agree with me.  Why even ask the question?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "The believing ones" also include non Calvinists.  It includes everyone who believes that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.


Died for..._whose_ sin?  Is this the Jesus that you propose who dies and fully atones for the sins of all the ones who will be in Hell?  How can you have confidence in an atonement that fails for so many for whom it was made?

----------


## otherone

> There is that, but man's belief is itself a gift of God.  All of God, none of man.


What of man's life is not a gift of God?  How can God judge a man he has not gifted?  Or is "judge" the wrong word? Condemn? Damn?  "Judge" seems like a waste of time, as we all know the verdict....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What of man's life is not a gift of God?  How can God judge a man he has not gifted?  Or is "judge" the wrong word? Condemn? Damn?  "Judge" seems like a waste of time, as we all know the verdict....


No one knows the verdict.  Jesus said the Spirit goes back and fourth like the wind.  No man knows who God will reveal Himself to.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, then you agree with me.  Why even ask the question?


Because you said that if someone was trying to avoid sin that was evidence that that person is *not* saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are some verses in the Bible which seem to point to Calvinism.  There are other verses in the Bible which seem to point to Arminianism.  The idea that the Bible is 100% clear on which theology is correct is just ridiculous.  Christians wouldn't be so divided on this issue throughout the years if the Biblical data were just 100% clear.





> Well, thanks for "respectfully disagreeing."  I respectfully disagree that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has anything to do with whether one is saved or not.  I think that John 3: 16 is pretty clear that "whosoever believes in him shall not perish but will receive everlasting life."  That includes both Calvinists and Arminians.


Not going to say you aren't saved if you disagree, but I think the Bible is 100% clear on this.  There are some issues that can honestly Biblically debated, but I think double predestination is incredibly clear.  Its "debated" because people with their sinful minds think its immoral and would rather go by what they say is immoral than what God says.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I respectfully disagree with that.  How many times have either I or erowe1 gone over John 3:16 with you?  John 3:16 says the Son was given so that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.  Also, have you ever read the context of John 3:16?  It is a judgment passage:


TC's point in this instance was to defend the idea that Arminians are saved, not that they are right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because you said that if someone was trying to avoid sin that was evidence that that person is *not* saved.


Is someone saved by his avoidance of sin?

----------


## jmdrake

> Well then, why does a Christian strive to live a righteous life?   Is his striving in any way responsible for his salvation or the maintenance of his salvation?


_Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven._

But yeah....living ratchet and just taking comfort in the idea that nothing that you do matters sounds like a lot more fun then living in a way to bring glory to God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is someone saved by his avoidance of sin?


No.  Is somebody lost by his avoidance of sin?  Because that's what *you* said.  Don't try to change it after the fact.  Or if you are, just be honest and say "I misspoke."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not going to say you aren't saved if you disagree, but I think the Bible is 100% clear on this.  There are some issues that can honestly Biblically debated, but I think double predestination is incredibly clear.  Its "debated" because people with their sinful minds think its immoral and would rather go by what they say is immoral than what God says.


Thanks...I'd like to get the discussion back to the verse in the OP.  I'd rather not get derailed in to who is this and who is that.  Let's just focus on the text of the Bible and flush out what it says.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> _Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven._
> 
> But yeah....living ratchet and just taking comfort in the idea that nothing that you do matters sounds like a lot more fun then living in a way to bring glory to God.


Is a man saved by letting his light shine before men?

----------


## Brett85

> Well, then you agree with me.  Why even ask the question?


I just thought the way you phrased your statement was kind of interesting...and funny.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not going to say you aren't saved if you disagree, but I think the Bible is 100% clear on this.  There are some issues that can honestly Biblically debated, but I think double predestination is incredibly clear.  Its "debated" because people with their sinful minds think its immoral and would rather go by what they say is immoral than what God says.


It's "incredibly clear" once you pretend that all of there verses that teach against it either don't mean what they clearly mean or are "mysterious."  Really FF, over the time of our conversations there have been multiple times where I throw a verse your way that disputes your TULIP belief and you say something to the effect of "Well....I don't know what that means, but it can't mean X because X doesn't agree with TULIP."  You don't say it quite like that.  You say "X doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible" which basically is your way of saying "it doesn't agree with TULIP."  SF posts *a single passage* from Peter and you and he act like your interpretation just can't be disputed.  

Tell me this.  Do you agree with the believe that those who seek to avoid sin are going to hell?

----------


## jmdrake

> Is a man saved by letting his light shine before men?


Are you incapable of honest rational thought?  You asked if there was a reason other than salvation for someone to avoid sin.  I gave you one.

----------


## Brett85

> Not going to say you aren't saved if you disagree, but I think the Bible is 100% clear on this.  There are some issues that can honestly Biblically debated, but I think double predestination is incredibly clear.  Its "debated" because people with their sinful minds think its immoral and would rather go by what they say is immoral than what God says.


I just don't see how issues like that can be 100% clear in the Bible when Christian theologians are about evenly divided on it.  There's no disagreement among Christian theologians when it comes to something like whether Jesus rose from the dead.  Every Christian theologian believes that Jesus rose from the dead.  So how can Calvinism be 100% clear from reading the Bible when there's such strong disagreement among Christian theologians on the issue?

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks...I'd like to get the discussion back to the verse in the OP.  I'd rather not get derailed in to who is this and who is that.  Let's just focus on the text of the Bible and flush out what it says.


That's not what you are interested in.  If it were then you would compare scripture to scripture and not falsely claim that all scripture that disagrees with you is somehow "mysterious."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you incapable of honest rational thought?


I'm asking you how you understand the command passages in the Bible.  It is very relevant.  Do you see them as things you do to become saved and stay saved?  Or do you see them as God setting fourth the perfect standard of holiness that no man can attain to?  It is directly relevant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's not what you are interested in.  If it were then you would compare scripture to scripture and not falsely claim that all scripture that disagrees with you is somehow "mysterious."


I simply said that when a passage is dealing directly with the topic we are talking about (double predestination), we should focus on that direct teaching and not go to a parable or a poem that is not teaching anything in a didactive sense.  The epistles focus on very narrow points of Christian doctrine and there is very little poetry or parable in them.

----------


## otherone

> No one knows the verdict.  Jesus said the Spirit goes back and fourth like the wind.  No man knows who God will reveal Himself to.


You said men aren't saved after they die.  My comment was about the postmortem judgement.  It's clear from your comments that all men are judged guilty; so any after-death "judgement" is pointless.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You said men aren't saved after they die.  My comment was about the postmortem judgement.  It's clear from your comments that all men are judged guilty; so any after-death "judgement" is pointless.


This might help you understand the Christian position on this:




> *Hebrews 9:27
> 
> Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment 
> *


Men are destined to die once, and after that face judgment for their life.  Only a man who has a perfect righteousness can stand in the presence of God.  Do you have this perfect righteousness?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm asking you how you understand the command passages in the Bible.  It is very relevant.  Do you see them as things you do to become saved and stay saved?  Or do you see them as God setting fourth the perfect standard of holiness that no man can attain to?  It is directly relevant.


You missed my edit so I will repost it here.  

*You asked if there was a reason other than salvation for someone to avoid sin. I gave you one.*

That's why I asked if you are capable of honest rational thought.  I will ask it again.  Because it is not honest and/or rational to ask for an example of a reason to avoid sin other than trying to be saved, and then upon receiving that answer asking "But what does that have to do with salvation?"

----------


## jmdrake

> I simply said that when a passage is dealing directly with the topic we are talking about (double predestination), we should focus on that direct teaching and not go to a parable or a poem that is not teaching anything in a didactive sense.  The epistles focus on very narrow points of Christian doctrine and there is very little poetry or parable in them.


Except Jesus followed up parable with a clear Biblical teaching "If you don't forgive others your Father will not forgive you."  And the relevance to your "narrow passage" is that I  gave 1 John 2:2 as a counter to your narrow interpretation of your narrow passage and you countered with your false claim that 1 John 2:2 could not mean that Jesus died for all sins because the Bible talks about Him dying for the sins of the saved.  I brought up the parable to bring up the point that Jesus clearly taught that someone's sins (debt) could be paid for but they could still end up having to pay for it.  Now, I know you want to stick to a "narrow passage" that you think supports your view, but that is a dishonest way to study the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just don't see how issues like that can be 100% clear in the Bible when Christian theologians are about evenly divided on it.  There's no disagreement among Christian theologians when it comes to something like whether Jesus rose from the dead.  Every Christian theologian believes that Jesus rose from the dead.  So how can Calvinism be 100% clear from reading the Bible when there's such strong disagreement among Christian theologians on the issue?


Everyone who calls themselves a "Christian" believes that Jesus rose from the dead?  Didn't someone just post a video of "Bishop" Spong not too long ago.  There's one nut job who doesn't fit your category.

The point is that what we call ourselves doesn't matter.  What matters is what the Bible teaches.  Does the passage in the OP say that both the elect and the disobedient ones have both been appointed by God.  Of course it does.  The task now is to believe what the Bible teaches or not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except Jesus followed up parable with a clear Biblical teaching "If you don't forgive others your Father will not forgive you."  And the relevance to your "narrow passage" is that I  gave 1 John 2:2 as a counter to your narrow interpretation of your narrow passage and you countered with your false claim that 1 John 2:2 could not mean that Jesus died for all sins because the Bible talks about Him dying for the sins of the saved.  I brought up the parable to bring up the point that Jesus clearly taught that someone's sins (debt) could be paid for but they could still end up having to pay for it.  Now, I know you want to stick to a "narrow passage" that you think supports your view, but that is a dishonest way to study the Bible.


Yes, and then I asked you if you have forgiven perfectly and will forgive perfectly for the rest of your life, so as to fulfill that command.  And the answer you gave was dishonest.  NO MAN has forgiven perfectly.  NO MAN can not harbor hate in his heart.  NO MAN can do what God commands of him to do.  

Romans chapter 3 very clearly says that no man will be righteous by the his working the law.  You cannot fulfill the command of Jesus and no man can.  That is why we must have a perfect life and a perfect righteousness imputed to our behalf.  This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------


## Brett85

> Does the passage in the OP say that both the elect and the disobedient ones have both been appointed by God.  Of course it does.  The task now is to believe what the Bible teaches or not.


It seems to, but then you have to try to reconcile that passage with the passages which teach that Jesus died for everyone.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, and then I asked you if you have forgiven perfectly and will forgive perfectly for the rest of your life, so as to fulfill that command.  And the answer you gave was dishonest.  NO MAN has forgiven perfectly.  NO MAN can not harbor hate in his heart.  NO MAN can do what God commands of him to do.


Then Paul is a liar.  

Philippians 4:13 *I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST WHO GIVES ME STRENGTH!*

If God chooses to perfect forgiveness through you then you can forgive perfectly.  That said *WHAT IS PERFECT FORGIVENESS?*  Seriously?  There is nothing in the Bible that qualifies "types" of forgiveness.  Either you've forgiven someone or you haven't.  You've made up the term "perfect forgiveness just like you make up all sorts of stuff.




> Romans chapter 3 very clearly says that no man will be righteous by the his working the law.  You cannot fulfill the command of Jesus and no man can.  That is why we must have a perfect life and a perfect righteousness imputed to our behalf.  This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.


So?  Forgiving someone is nowhere in the law.  And as for not "fulfilling the command of Jesus" *one of those commands is to believe!*  So you are in a pickle here.  You probably won't admit it.  You might not even understand it.  But here's your pickle.  There is no functional difference between Jesus' command to believe and His command to forgive.  So anything you say about forgiveness is also true about belief.  If forgiveness has nothing to do with salvation than belief has nothing to do with salvation.  You want to say God gives belief?  Well he also gives forgiveness.  You think that forgiveness doesn't matter because it can't be, in your opinion "perfect" whatever that is supposed to mean?  Well then belief doesn't matter because it can't be "perfect."  Really, you are just one walking talking theological "logical" fallacy.

----------


## jmdrake

> It seems to, but then you have to try to reconcile that passage with the passages which teach that Jesus died for everyone.


So his answer is to pretend those verses don't mean what they obviously mean.

----------


## otherone

> This might help you understand the Christian position on this:
> 
> 
> 
> Men are destined to die once, and after that face judgment for their life.  Only a man who has a perfect righteousness can stand in the presence of God.  Do you have this perfect righteousness?


You've avoided your earlier point...there is NO MAN with perfect righteousness, therefore, EVERYONE is judged guilty, not for their life, but for their existence.
Postmortem judgement is pointless.  The pots destined for destruction are destroyed, those for glory are not.   It's a prejudgement, not a postjudgement.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.
> 
> All Christians believe in the doctrine of double predestination.


LOL

The believers are the chosen, but they are chosen because they choose to submit, not the other way around. Likewise, those who refuse to hear will stumble and fall, it is the natural outcome and the appointed end of their choices. But you stretch it to suggest that this suggests their choices are per-appointed so they could do nothing but stumble and fall. Such an idea conflicts with the entire message Peter is seeking to convey in talking about those who disobey and those who obey. Those who choose Christ and obey become a chosen people, those who refuse fall into darkness and damnation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It seems to, but then you have to try to reconcile that passage with the passages which teach that Jesus died for everyone.


These are actually two separate questions.  In theory you could believe in double predestination and believe Jesus died for everyone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You've avoided your earlier point...there is NO MAN with perfect righteousness, therefore, EVERYONE is judged guilty, not for their life, but for their existence.
> Postmortem judgement is pointless.  The pots destined for destruction are destroyed, those for glory are not.   It's a prejudgement, not a postjudgement.


If you refer to one of my earlier posts,  I explained that you are discounting the life of man and his sin.  The Bible does not do this.  It says that every man will be judged for his sin.  After death judgement is not pointless.  It is the time when the books are opened and the righteousness of man is accounted for.  And I proclaim to you that you must have a perfect righteousness to stand in the presence of a holy God.

----------


## otherone

> If you refer to one of my earlier posts,  I explained that you are discounting the life of man and his sin.  The Bible does not do this.  It says that every man will be judged for his sin.  After death judgement is not pointless.  It is the time when the books are opened and the righteousness of man is accounted for.  And I proclaim to you that you must have a perfect righteousness to stand in the presence of a holy God.


Who possesses this?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who possesses this?


Jesus Christ, and by virtue of His sacrifice, all those in Him.

----------


## Brett85

> These are actually two separate questions.  In theory you could believe in double predestination and believe Jesus died for everyone.


I don't quite understand how that could be the case.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't quite understand how that could be the case.


I don't either.

----------


## otherone

> Jesus Christ, and by virtue of His sacrifice, all those in Him.


But doesn't God know who they are, prior to their deaths, prior to their births, actually?

----------


## jmdrake

> These are actually two separate questions.  In theory you could believe in double predestination and believe Jesus died for everyone.





> I don't quite understand how that could be the case.





> I don't either.


Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.  In a way that makes more sense than some heavenly measure of how many drops of blood came out of Jesus to know when the quota for the "elect" has been met.  But that ultimately begs the question, if God made man without freewill and if everything is "predestined" then why bother with all of that?  Why not simply "predestine" the elect not to sin in the first place and then Jesus wouldn't have to die for anyone?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't quite understand how that could be the case.





> I don't either.





> Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.  In a way that makes more sense than some heavenly measure of how many drops of blood came out of Jesus to know when the quota for the "elect" has been met.  But that ultimately begs the question, if God made man without freewill and if everything is "predestined" then why bother with all of that?  Why not simply "predestine" the elect not to sin in the first place and then Jesus wouldn't have to die for anyone?


I'm not saying its a particularly internally consistent position.  I'd say it becomes even less so the "higher" you get in your Calvinistic theology (really, it makes more sense with passive reprobation than it does with active reprobation*).  But its theoretically possible to believe that Christ died for everyone but still chose who would and who wouldn't accept his sacrifice.  Its kind of a weird position, and there would definitely be questions you'd have to deal with relating to that, but its not per say contradictory.

Denying double pre seems really hard to do from Romans 9.  There are better arguments for unlimited atonement, but the problem is that they don't make sense either in the context of what the Bible teaches (I think it would be difficult to hold double pre and unlimited atonement at the same time, technical possibility aside), nor does it really make sense in historical context.  Admittedly, I wouldn't say limited atonement is as clear as double predestination, since its inferred.  But I still think its hard to argue against.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But doesn't God know who they are, prior to their deaths, prior to their births, actually?


Of course. But men don't know.  That is the point.  The only person who can have assurance of their salvation is that Christian man himself.  And he only has that assurance because he clings in faith to the perfect Substitute,  Jesus.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think Jmdrake is misunderstanding the limited atonement position.  We aren't saying that its the exact amount of droplets of blood.  What Christ did on the cross, that one sacrifice, could have saved all humankind if He had wanted to do that.  After all, he's Jesus Christ.  His sacrifice is perfect.  The reason it didn't save everyone is because he CHOSE only to represent certain sinners, rather than everyone.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> _Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice._  In a way that makes more sense than some heavenly measure of how many drops of blood came out of Jesus to know when the quota for the "elect" has been met.  But that ultimately begs the question, if God made man without freewill and if everything is "predestined" then why bother with all of that?  Why not simply "predestine" the elect not to sin in the first place and then Jesus wouldn't have to die for anyone?


Wouldn't that constrain God _within_ the concept of time?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.


Right.  That's like a mixture of Arminianism and Amyraldianism, and there are several Biblical and logical problems with Amyraldianism.   I've posted about them before.

----------


## otherone

> Of course. But men don't know.  That is the point.


So postmortem judgement is simply informing the deceased of his fate?  It's a verdict, not a determination?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think Jmdrake is misunderstanding the limited atonement position.  We aren't saying that its the exact amount of droplets of blood.  What Christ did on the cross, that one sacrifice, could have saved all humankind if He had wanted to do that.  After all, he's Jesus Christ.  His sacrifice is perfect.  The reason it didn't save everyone is because he CHOSE only to represent certain sinners, rather than everyone.


I think I disagree with that.  When the Bible says that Jesus purchased with His blood men from every tribe, tongue, and nation, it meant just that.  The atonement was made for His people and His people only.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think Jmdrake is misunderstanding the limited atonement position.  We aren't saying that its the exact amount of droplets of blood.  What Christ did on the cross, that one sacrifice, could have saved all humankind if He had wanted to do that.  After all, he's Jesus Christ.  His sacrifice is perfect.  The reason it didn't save everyone is because he CHOSE only to represent certain sinners, rather than everyone.


I'm not misunderstanding it.  I'm taking it to its logical conclusion.  If atonement of Christ's blood is truly limited then choice, even His choice, is irrelevant.  Here's why.  Jesus could "chose" to apply it only to those who "chose" to accept it.  There's no reason to insist, as you have done in the past, that if Jesus paid the price for everyone then nobody could possibly be lost.  If it's based on choice, and not physical limitation, then there is no reason for the choice to be predestined.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wouldn't that constrain God _within_ the concept of time?


Of course it would.   All of these sub-biblical conceptions of God relegate Him to an actor that responds to events rather than decreeing them.  It's just not the God of the Bible.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wouldn't that constrain God _within_ the concept of time?


Can't God be constrained within the concept of time if He chooses to work that way?

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course it would.   All of these sub-biblical conceptions of God relegate Him to an actor that responds to events rather than decreeing them.  It's just not the God of the Bible.


Actually God picking who would choose to believe in Him is what *you* believe.  I agree that it's not in the Bible, but I'm surprised that you are denying your own belief.  Again, what Gunny bolded of what I said.

*Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.*

How is God "responding" rather than "decreeing" if He is "decreeing" who will choose to accept the sacrifice of Jesus and who won't?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can't God be constrained within the concept of time if He chooses to work that way?


The only way in which God was ever constrained in time was the incarnation.   And even then, He really wasn't.  No, God cannot be constrained in time.   He created time itself and directs it's every event for His own glory.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right.  That's like a mixture of Arminianism and Amyraldianism, and there are several Biblical and logical problems with Amyraldianism.   I've posted about them before.


I wasn't saying it was Biblical.  I was saying it isn't impossible to believe it.  




> I think I disagree with that.  When the Bible says that Jesus purchased with His blood men from every tribe, tongue, and nation, it meant just that.  The atonement was made for His people and His people only.


I agree that the atonement was made for his people and his people only.  What I'm saying is that that fact has nothing to do with limits to God's power; rather, its because Christ only represented the elect on the cross.  Had Christ wanted to save everyone, his sacrifice on the cross would have been sufficient.  God wouldn't have needed to add an additional sacrifice had he wanted to do that.  But, because God only wanted to save the elect, Christ represented the elect on the cross and the elect alone.

How could you disagree with that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Can't God be constrained within the concept of time if He chooses to work that way?


I don't think so, no.  He sees "the end from the beginning."  In order to do such a thing He would have to 'forget' most of what He already knew.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think so, no.  He sees "the end from the beginning."  In order to do such a thing He would have to 'forget' most of what He already knew.


Jesus doesn't know the day nor the hour of His own return and He's still God so that kind of undoes your point.

That said, I'm not even sure what your point is.  If Jesus picked ahead of time who would choose to accept Him and who wouldn't, how is that "forgetting" anything and/or how is that any kind of temporal restriction?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think so, no.  He sees "the end from the beginning."  In order to do such a thing He would have to 'forget' most of what He already knew.


Yes Gunny.  And if He sees the end from the beginning,  then He knows the events that have taken place and the events that will take place.  This logically implies that the future is a fixed one.  This why God's omniscience logically implies predestination.   Arminians who affirm omniscience yet deny predestination are woefully inconsistent.

----------


## jmdrake

> The only way in which God was ever constrained in time was the incarnation.   And even then, He really wasn't.  No, God cannot be constrained in time.   He created time itself and directs it's every event for His own glory.


Jesus said He didn't know the day or the hour of His own return.  That's a constraint.  Jesus is still God and was God even when He said "I don't know the day or the hour of my own return."  God, being God, can put restraints on God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes Gunny.  And if He sees the end from the beginning,  then He knows the events that have taken place and the events that will take place.  This logically implies that the future is a fixed one.  This why God's omniscience logically implies predestination.   Arminians who affirm omniscience yet deny predestination are woefully inconsistent.


Do you not realize how you (and perhaps Gunny) are tripping over yourself here?  I said that Jesus could pick who would choose Him (pure *Calvinism*) Gunny calls that a temporal constraint, you *agree* and call predestination Arminianism?  Really?

----------


## jmdrake

> I wasn't saying it was Biblical.  I was saying it isn't impossible to believe it.  
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the atonement was made for his people and his people only.  What I'm saying is that that fact has nothing to do with limits to God's power; rather, its because Christ only represented the elect on the cross.  Had Christ wanted to save everyone, his sacrifice on the cross would have been sufficient.  God wouldn't have needed to add an additional sacrifice had he wanted to do that.  But, because God only wanted to save the elect, Christ represented the elect on the cross and the elect alone.
> 
> How could you disagree with that?


Because it's unbiblical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus doesn't know the day nor the hour of His return and He's still God so that kind of undoes your point.
> 
> That said, I'm not even sure what your point is.  If Jesus picked ahead of time who would choose to accept Him and who wouldn't, how is that "forgetting" anything and/or how is that any kind of temporal restriction?


Ah, so now we have the argument that Muslims usually go to when they they try to discredit the deity of Jesus.  Jesus veiled some of His glory at the incarnation.   That is why He could say that he He didn't know the hour.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you not realize how you (and perhaps Gunny) are tripping over yourself here?  I said that Jesus could pick who would choose Him (pure *Calvinism*) Gunny calls that a temporal constraint, you *agree* and call predestination Arminianism?  Really?


We might be tripping at the same time but coming together.  Who knows?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because it's unbiblical.


Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that.  But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that.  But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.


I'm just really sensitive to what the Bible says about the limited atonement.  Any retreat on this article of faith and I think you lose Christianity altogether.  Some of the language you used is what Amyraldians would use when trying to bend on limited atonement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm just really sensitive to what the Bible says about the limited atonement.  Any retreat on this article of faith and I think you lose Christianity altogether.  Some of the language you used is what Amyraldians would use when trying to bend on limited atonement.


I'm not trying to bend on it.  What I'm saying is that God was powerful enough to save everyone in the world through Christ's sacrifice alone, but he decided to save only the elect.  This seems like literally the strongest stance you could take on this issue.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ah, so now we have the argument that Muslims usually go to when they they try to discredit the deity of Jesus.  Jesus veiled some of His glory at the incarnation.   That is why He could say that he He didn't know the hour.


Actually I feel you are taking the Muslim position and I've felt that before.  I say a sovereign God can limit Himself.  It's like Michael Jordan agreeing to play you in basketball while only using one hand.  He'd probably still beat you.  If you are saying "veiling some of His glory" = "self limiting His own power" then we are saying the same thing.  A sovereign God can self limit.

----------


## jmdrake

> We might be tripping at the same time but coming together.  Who knows?


LOL.  Yeah.  Anything is possible.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do you not realize how you (and perhaps Gunny) are tripping over yourself here?  I said that Jesus could pick who would choose Him (pure *Calvinism*) Gunny calls that a temporal constraint, you *agree* and call predestination Arminianism?  Really?


No, Yeshua choosing those who would ultimately choose Him is something that I actually believe.  He foreknew those who would be drawn to Him, those He foreknew he Preordained to become the sons of God.  How you worded it this time is what I actually believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not trying to bend on it.  What I'm saying is that God was powerful enough to save everyone in the world through Christ's sacrifice alone, but he decided to save only the elect.  This seems like literally the strongest stance you could take on this issue.


I think the strongest (and most Biblical) case you could make is that the ransom purchase of the atonement was sufficient and efficient for God's people only.  You don't even have to get in to the debate about how powerful it was or how it could have saved this one but didn't.   In the book of Hebrews it says that the atonement perfects all those who are being made holy.  That's all you need right there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually I feel you are taking the Muslim position and I've felt that before.  I say a sovereign God can limit Himself.  It's like Michael Jordan agreeing to play you in basketball while only using one hand.  He'd probably still beat you.  If you are saying "veiling some of His glory" = "self limiting His own power" then we are saying the same thing.  A sovereign God can self limit.


But even as Jesus was in the incarnated state and said what He said,  Yahweh was still in heaven knowing everything (and directing everything).  God knowing everything yet not knowing everything is a contradiction.   God being all-powerful yet not being all-powerful is a contradiction.  Contradictions don't exist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the strongest (and most Biblical) case you could make is that the ransom purchase of the atonement was sufficient and efficient for God's people only.  You don't even have to get in to the debate about how powerful it was or how it could have saved this one but didn't.   In the book of Hebrews it says that the atonement perfects all those who are being made holy.  That's all you need right there.


I was responding to the whole comment by Jmdrake that was mocking us by talking about the droplets of blood and so forth.  I'm not sure what you are arguing here.  Are you saying Christ couldn't have saved the non-elect even if he had wanted to?  Because that's a quick road to heresy

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that.  But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.


I said that in part tongue in cheek because that's SF's typical response.    But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons.  The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell?  Nonbiblical and nonsensical. I can see why the idea that Jesus' death wasn't enough for everybody, even the lost, is a problem for you because it cheapens the life and death of Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I said that in part tongue in cheek because that's SF's typical response.    But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons.  The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell?  Nonbiblical and nonsensical. I can see why the idea that Jesus' death wasn't enough for everybody, even the lost, is a problem for you because it cheapens the life and death of Christ.


I think there's some bad exegesis here but at least I get where you're coming from.  I'm not really sure what Sola is objecting to with me.  I think he's seeing Arminianism where it does not exist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons.  The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell?


Why don't you read Luke 13:31 right now and see what it says.  I promise you that it does not say what you just said it says here.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, Yeshua choosing those who would ultimately choose Him is something that I actually believe.  He foreknew those who would be drawn to Him, those He foreknew he Preordained to become the sons of God.  How you worded it this time is what I actually believe.


That's how I worded it the last time.

*Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.*

And I don't believe that.  What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice.  I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe.  But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved.  You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why don't you read Luke 13:31 right now and see what it says.  I promise you that it does not say what you just said it says here.


You're right.  It doesn't.

_At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."_



That said, Luke 13:*34* says *exactly* what I said it says.

_O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!_

I know you interpret it differently, but so what?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're right.  It doesn't.
> 
> _At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."_


 Sorry.  13:34.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sorry.  13:34.


That's cool.  To err is human.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're right.  It doesn't.
> 
> _At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."_
> 
> 
> 
> That said, Luke 13:*34* says *exactly* what I said it says.
> 
> _O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!_
> ...






> 34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather *your children* together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate.


This was not a statement of Jesus longing for someone and them not coming, it was a statement of judgment against the religious leaders of Jerusalem.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's how I worded it the last time.


no, the word "then" implies sequentialism or temporality.  that word was in your first statement, it was not in your second.




> *Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.*
> 
> And I don't believe that.  What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice.  I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe.  But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved.  You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And I don't believe that.  What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice.  I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe.  But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved.  You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.


Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:
> 
> Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]


I absolutely agree.  This is the problem with saying that only Jesus' sacrifice was predestined.   It's not supported by the text.  The text says that real people are predestined.  Real people are called.  Real people are justified.  Real people are glorified.  The grace of God is set on real people,  not simply an amorphous "group" or only on Jesus himself.

----------


## jmdrake

> This was not a statement of Jesus longing for someone and them not coming, it was a statement of judgment against the religious leaders of Jerusalem.


That's your misinterpretation of it.  Jesus clearly said *How I have longed to GATHER YOUR CHILDREN like a hen gathers her chicks*.  It's simply wrong to say Jesus was only concerned about the coming judgement against the religious leaders.

----------


## jmdrake

> no, the word "then" implies sequentialism or temporality.  that word was in your first statement, it was not in your second.


A) No it doesn't.  The word "then" is also used as an "if then" clause as in "if" this is true "then" that is true.

B) If you want to take this out of time remember that according to the Bible Jesus was slain "from the foundation of the world".  So from God's point of view Jesus died for everyone before anyone was created. 

C) If God chose to act temporally, being God, He could do that and still be God.  "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His son." 

God doesn't stop being God by working in a particular way.  It's wrong to say that He must work in a particular way, but it's also wrong to say He can't work in a particular way.

----------


## jmdrake

> I absolutely agree.  This is the problem with saying that only Jesus' sacrifice was predestined.   It's not supported by the text.  The text says that real people are predestined.  Real people are called.  Real people are justified.  Real people are glorified.  The grace of God is set on real people,  not simply an amorphous "group" or only on Jesus himself.


The problem for you in accepting Gunny's interpretation is that it links justification with sanctification and makes no distinction between the two.

----------


## jmdrake

> Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:
> 
> Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]


And the mechanism of how He did that?  Providing for the sacrifice that He knew they would accept.  It's like I have a picnic where kosher Jews are invited along with Southern Baptists and on one table I have all kosher food and on the other table everything has pork in it.  My making the provision that I know one group will choose and another will not is not making the choice on their behalf.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes Gunny.  And if He sees the end from the beginning,  then He knows the events that have taken place and the events that will take place.  This logically implies that the future is a fixed one.  This why God's omniscience logically implies predestination.   Arminians who affirm omniscience yet deny predestination are woefully inconsistent.


I don't know of any Arminians who deny predestination.  Arminians just don't believe that predestination is based on unconditional election.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know of any Arminians who deny predestination.  Arminians just don't believe that predestination is based on unconditional election.


I know they believe that .  That's what I said in that post.  It is an impossibility.  God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly.  Omniscience logically implies predestination.  If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's your misinterpretation of it.  Jesus clearly said *How I have longed to GATHER YOUR CHILDREN like a hen gathers her chicks*.  It's simply wrong to say Jesus was only concerned about the coming judgement against the religious leaders.


It's simply wrong?  No it's not.  Jesus is not saying he's longing that people would come to Him and they were not coming.  He's saying that judgment is coming against the leaders of Jerusalem because they have prevented the prophets from reaching their flock.  




> *34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate.*

----------


## jmdrake

> It's simply wrong?  No it's not.  Jesus is not saying he's longing that people would come to Him and they were not coming.  He's saying that judgment is coming against the leaders of Jerusalem because they have prevented the prophets from reaching their flock.


Now you are changing what you said.  At first you claimed the judgement was only on the religious leaders.  That's provably false.  But more importantly Jesus longed to "gather their children" but they (the leaders) were not willing.  Now, here's the part that totally destroys your argument.  *They were not willing!*  Jesus *longed* for something to happen but His longing *was resisted by HUMAN will!*  Point, set, match.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now you are changing what you said.  At first you claimed the judgement was only on the religious leaders.  That's provably false.  But more importantly Jesus longed to "gather their children" but they (the leaders) were not willing.  Now, here's the part that totally destroys your argument.  *They were not willing!*  Jesus *longed* for something to happen but His longing *was resisted by HUMAN will!*  Point, set, match.


No, it doesn't destroy my argument, because God has a revealed will that sinful men are not willing to submit to.  This is the difference between God's revealed will (come to me because I command you to) and God's decree (I have decided that My own people will reject me and I will save the Gentiles).

----------


## Brett85

> I know they believe that .  That's what I said in that post.  It is an impossibility.  God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly.  Omniscience logically implies predestination.  If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.


I thought you said that Arminians deny predestination.  Speaking for myself, (Although I'm really not 100% convinced of Arminianism, I just lean towards it) I believe the future is a fixed one.  But that doesn't mean that God actually controls us like puppets, causing us to do everything that we do.  I think the Bible teaches both predestination and free will, that God is sovereign but also gives us free will.  I think it puts God in a box to suggest that the only way he can be sovereign is if he denies free will to his creation.

----------


## jmdrake

> I know they believe that .  That's what I said in that post.  It is an impossibility.  God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly.  *Omniscience logically implies predestination.*  If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.


I already explained to Gunny why that's not true, but he seems singularly focused on the meaning of the word "then".  I'll repeat it here.

_And I don't believe that. What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice. I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe. But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved. You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into._

You are limiting God to 4 dimensions (the three physical dimensions +time).  But if there is a multiverse, and I believe there is, then God is the God of it too.  So it's no longer a case that the "choice" is predestined by God "foreseeing" it.  All choices, within the limit of what God will allow, are foreseen and happen.  Now why did I put in the caveat?  Because God will not allow a reality where He loses.  Herod can't kill baby Jesus in any universe.  Satan isn't allowed to kill whoever builds the ark in any universe.  Things that would prevent the plan of salvation from being carried out and/or would cause the premature extinction of the human race are not allowed.  Beyond that, everything is allowed.  Now is that in the Bible?  No.  But neither is a prophecy about man going to the moon.  My point is that the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost.  Everybody is saved and everybody is lost, it just depends on the particular universe you are looking at.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, it doesn't destroy my argument, because God has a revealed will that sinful men are not willing to submit to.  This is the difference between God's revealed will (come to me because I command you to) and God's decree (I have decided that My own people will reject me and I will save the Gentiles).


There are two wills of God, but not in the way you think.  God has a perfect will (I would that all come to me) and a permissive will (I will allow for man to decide not to come to me).  In fact your own response destroys your own argument.  _God has a revealed will that sinful men are not willing to submit to_.  If God was "appointing" sinful man to not submit then His "revealed will" of wanting them to submit becomes a lie.

----------


## jmdrake

> I thought you said that Arminians deny predestination.  Speaking for myself, (Although I'm really not 100% convinced of Arminianism, I just lean towards it) I believe the future is a fixed one.  But that doesn't mean that God actually controls us like puppets, causing us to do everything that we do.  I think the Bible teaches both predestination and free will, that God is sovereign but also gives us free will.  I think it puts God in a box to suggest that the only way he can be sovereign is if he denies free will to his creation.


Right.  Fixed meaning "In whatever universe of the multiverse that exists, God always wins.  That doesn't mean that everything happens in each universe of the multiverse."  That's the conclusion I'm settling on.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are limiting God to 4 dimensions (the three physical dimensions +time).  But if there is a multiverse, and I believe there is, then God is the God of it too.  So it's no longer a case that the "choice" is predestined by God "foreseeing" it.  All choices, within the limit of what God will allow, are foreseen and happen.  Now why did I put in the caveat?  Because God will not allow a reality where He loses.  Herod can't kill baby Jesus in any universe.  Satan isn't allowed to kill whoever builds the ark in any universe.  Things that would prevent the plan of salvation from being carried out and/or would cause the premature extinction of the human race are not allowed.  Beyond that, everything is allowed.  Now is that in the Bible?  No.  But neither is a prophecy about man going to the moon.  My point is that the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost.  Everybody is saved and everybody is lost, it just depends on the particular universe you are looking at.



This view is called Molinism.  It was created by a Catholic priest named Molina during the counter-reformation to attempt to explain predestination in a way that still gave autonomy to man.  It is NO WHERE in Scripture, and I mean no where.  It is a completely fabricated theory that is shoved in to the text to explain away the verses that teach God's sovereignty over time.

----------


## jmdrake

> This view is called Molinism.  It was created by a Catholic priest named Molina during the counter-reformation to attempt to explain predestination in a way that still gave autonomy to man.  It is NO WHERE in Scripture, and I mean no where.  It is a completely fabricated theory that is shoved in to the text to explain away the verses that teach God's sovereignty over time.


Really?  So some Catholic priest from the 16th century understood Quantum mechanics before it was invented?  Smart man!

Actually he didn't understand Quantum mechanics and you simply crafted a dishonest straw man as you seem "predestined" to do in these debates.  Molin was arguing that God limits his omniscience.  I'm arguing the opposite.  I'm arguing that not only does God know everything that will happen *but almost everything DOES happen*.  I say almost because some things are not allowed to happen in any universe of the multiverse.  So, not only does God know that I will waste time today arguing with someone like you who seems either incapable or unwilling to understand the multiverse and its implications for freewill, but He also knows that in some other universe I'm not wasting time with you, and in some other universe I'm making YouTube videos and writing books on the subject and getting mad rich.

And for the record, I read about Molinism years ago.  It's got absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  So some Catholic priest from the 16th century understood Quantum mechanics before it was invented?  Smart man!
> 
> Actually he didn't understand Quantum mechanics and you simply crafted a dishonest straw man as you seem "predestined" to do in these debates.  Molin was arguing that God limits his omniscience.  I'm arguing the opposite.  I'm arguing that not only does God know everything that will happen *but almost everything DOES happen*.  I say almost because some things are not allowed to happen in any universe of the multiverse.  So, not only does God know that I will waste time today arguing with someone like you who seems either incapable or unwilling to understand the multiverse and its implications for freewill, but He also knows that in some other universe I'm not wasting time with you, and in some other universe I'm making YouTube videos and writing books on the subject and getting mad rich.
> 
> And for the record, I read about Molinism years ago.  It's got absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse.


Oh ok. Its a multiverse theory then.  Where does it say that there is a multiverse in the Bible?

----------


## moostraks

> This view is called Molinism.  It was created by a Catholic priest named Molina during the counter-reformation to attempt to explain predestination in a way that still gave autonomy to man.  It is NO WHERE in Scripture, and I mean no where.  It is a completely fabricated theory that is shoved in to the text to explain away the verses that teach God's sovereignty over time.


Speaking of fabricated theories ran into this for those pondering the historical nature of double predestination. Fwiw, to those who might find this response of use on their path:



> Augustine is certainly the major patristic source that Calvin uses, for all topics. For his use of the Fathers in general, he was not particularly invested in finding out what they believed: the witness of Scripture was paramount. He did not take the practice of the Church in that era as normative. In his use of Augustine, Calvin wished to insulate himself against the charge that the Reformation amounted to inventing new doctrine (cf. his preface to the Institutes). So he needed someone respectable who (he could say) read the Bible in the same way as he did. There was also a polemical purpose, since the dependence of the Western theological tradition on Augustine meant that Calvin's "reclaiming" of him was an attack on the scholarly integrity of Catholic teaching.
> 
> From recent textual analysis of Calvin's writing, scholars have tried to guess at which sources he had available. (He, like other contemporary writers, did not provide detailed citations, and frequently reworded or paraphrased his sources. Nonetheless, painstaking analysis of word choices and errors, plus such hints as his occasional references like "on the next page, Basil says ...", has allowed patient people to gain some degree of certainty about specific editions of the books he owned.) Aside from Augustine, his patristic library included three works by Basil, one by Ambrose, the Contra Haereticos of Irenaeus, the Recognitiones of Pseudo-Clement, and the records of the councils of Carthage, Milevis and Orange.1, Introduction This is a significantly smaller collection than was available to his opponents. (He had read more works than these, but did not necessarily possess them and so was not able to consult them in detail when writing.)
> 
> Consequently, almost all of the evidence for his extra-Augustinian reading comes from his responses to critics. For (double) predestination, Albertus Pighius wrote against him in De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia (1542), including a full range of references to the Fathers. Calvin's response was in two parts: after only a few months, he published his "On the bondage and liberation of the will" 1, and ten years later "On the eternal predestination of God" 2. The latter work was delayed because after the death of Pighius, Calvin did not consider it an urgent matter to refute him.
> 
> The former work contains very little on predestination to damnation. Almost the only clear reference is the assertion (in Book 3, p183) that Augustine believed that the impious are predestined to death. Although other authors are discussed, there do not seem to be any other points where there is an unambiguous mention of the doctrine, as opposed to statements that are used primarily to support predestination in general. I choose not to count the Hypognosticon, because even though it wasn't written by Augustine, Calvin thought it was. And in any case, it is not from the correct era.
> 
> In the second treatise, I did find something: an extract from Ambrose's sermons on Luke (pp30-31). The following is Calvin's Latin and French, which differ a bit from one another:
> ...


http://christianity.stackexchange.co...ed-john-calvin

----------


## moostraks

> Oh ok. Its a multiverse theory then.  Where does it say that there is a multiverse in the Bible?


Does the fact the Bible does not discuss the Internet negate the existence of the Internet?

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh ok. Its a multiverse theory then.  Where does it say that there is a multiverse in the Bible?


Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I post or just respond.  From post #216.

_Now is that in the Bible? No. But neither is a prophecy about man going to the moon. My point is that the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost._

The Bible also doesn't mention black holes but they exist.  There's also no mention in the Bible of DNA or subatomic particles or whatnot.  My point about the multiverse is that it shows that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and there still be genuine freewill.

Edit: And I just want to make this point abundantly clear.  You made the claim that it is impossible to truly believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God and not believe that people are saved or lost based on double predestination.  I used the multiverse to debunk *that particular* claim.  Since your only response at this point was to either say I was following Molinism (which denies full omnipotence), or that "the multiverse is not in the Bible" (irrelevant to the logical question), I think we can agree that the idea that omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence does not logically require the doctrine of predestination.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does the fact the Bible does not discuss the Internet negate the existence of the Internet?


No but the fact that the Bible does describe the universe negates a multiverse.  Also, look at the lengths to which the opponents of the Lord will go to assert man's will over God.  They deny His omnipotence, then they deny His omniscience, then if that doesn't work they concoct fanciful theories about multiverses in the attempt to provide some autonomy to man.  Why not rather turn to the Lord of Glory who delights to show mercy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> _ the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost._


Right. The theory allows you to keep your fantasy of man's will.  But that is not Christianity my friend.  God _does_ choose who is saved and lost.  The Bible clearly teaches it.  Instead of denying it with these fanciful theories, why not turn to the God of the Bible?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I post or just respond.  From post #216.
> 
> _Now is that in the Bible? No. But neither is a prophecy about man going to the moon. My point is that the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost._
> 
> The Bible also doesn't mention black holes but they exist.  There's also no mention in the Bible of DNA or subatomic particles or whatnot.  My point about the multiverse is that it shows that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and there still be genuine freewill.
> 
> Edit: And I just want to make this point abundantly clear.  You made the claim that it is impossible to truly believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God and not believe that people are saved or lost based on double predestination.  I used the multiverse to debunk *that particular* claim.  Since your only response at this point was to either say I was following Molinism (which denies full omnipotence), or that "the multiverse is not in the Bible" (irrelevant to the logical question), I think we can agree that the idea that omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence does not logically require the doctrine of predestination.


Notice another thing too. 

ALWAYS be suspicious of anyone who is teaching something in the name of Christianity, but not using any of the concepts or language that the Bible uses in salvation.  The Bible uses specific language in regards to describing what salvation is.  Never be taken in by people who don't preach how the apostles preached salvation.

----------


## jmdrake

> Right. The theory allows you to keep your fantasy of man's will.  But that is not Christianity my friend.  God _does_ choose who is saved and lost.  The Bible clearly teaches it.  Instead of denying it with these fanciful theories, why not turn to the God of the Bible?


No.  The Bible does not "clearly teach" that.  The Bible teaches that man has the ability to resist the will of God.  That is logically impossible if God is dictating everything man does.  In order to believe your doctrine is Biblical you basically turn God into a liar.  "Oh I publicly say I want Jerusalem to repent, but secretly I'm forcing Jerusalem not to repent."  Now you bolstered your own "fantasy" with a logical claim that has now been disproven.  You needed to bolster your fanciful interpretation of the Bible with faulty logic in order to deal with the parts of the Bible that go against your belief system.  That's why you say parables *where Jesus gives the clear meaning of* are "mysterious."  Because if you take Jesus at His word on what *He* said the meaning of His own parables are, then your theology doesn't Biblically line up.  Your "freewill is logically impossible" argument backs up your faulty Bible scholarship, and when your logical argument fails you fall back on "But that's not in the Bible."  


There is no chapter and verse in the Bible that says "Since God is omniscient, the only logical conclusion is that double predestination is the truth."  You made an extra-biblical "logical" argument and I debunked it using an extra-biblical, logical refutation.

Point, set, match.

----------


## Brett85

> Right. The theory allows you to keep your fantasy of man's will.  But that is not Christianity my friend.  God _does_ choose who is saved and lost.  The Bible clearly teaches it.  Instead of denying it with these fanciful theories, why not turn to the God of the Bible?


God chooses us, and we also choose God.  It's like if a husband and wife get married, it's not the case that the husband chose the wife and the wife didn't choose the husband, or that the wife chose the husband but the husband didn't choose the wife.  Obviously it's the case that they chose each other.  It's also the case that it isn't that God chooses us and we don't choose God, or that we choose God and he doesn't choose us, but that we choose each other.  We both choose to have a relationship with each other.

----------


## jmdrake

> Notice another thing too. 
> 
> ALWAYS be suspicious of anyone who is teaching something in the name of Christianity, but not using any of the concepts or language that the Bible uses in salvation.  The Bible uses specific language in regards to describing what salvation is.  Never be taken in by people who don't preach how the apostles preached salvation.


And where does the Bible say that those who believe in freewill deny the sovereignty of God?  Oh yeah *THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT!*  Once again SF, you condemn yourself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No.  The Bible does not "clearly teach" that.  The Bible teaches that man has the ability to resist the will of God.  That is logically impossible if God is dictating everything man does.


Man always resist the revealed will of God.  But it is impossible that anything happen apart from God's decree.  Not only is there no contradiction, this very clear in Scripture.

----------


## jmdrake

> Man always resist the revealed will of God.  But it is impossible that anything happen apart from God's decree.  Not only is there no contradiction, this very clear in Scripture.


There is a difference between saying "Man can only do what God allows him to do" and "Man only does what God directs him to do."  The former is Biblical.  The latter is not.  The former shows a loving God.  The latter shows a dishonest tyrant.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is a difference between saying "Man can only do what God allows him to do" and "Man only does what God directs him to do."  The former is Biblical.  The latter is not.  The former shows a loving God.  *The latter shows a dishonest tyrant.*


I really think the people who describe the God of the Bible as a "tyrant" are going to have an awkward moment when they get to the gates of heaven if they do in fact get there...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is a difference between saying "Man can only do what God allows him to do" and "Man only does what God directs him to do."  The former is Biblical.  The latter is not.  The former shows a loving God.  The latter shows a dishonest tyrant.


Well, this is just more autobiographical of your feelings and not anything like an argument from Scripture.  Proverbs 16:9 says, *"The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps"*.  There you go.  Directly contradicting what you say here.  Why not just turn to the Lord, be converted, and give Him all the glory when He saves you?

----------


## moostraks

> No but the fact that the Bible does describe the universe negates a multiverse.  Also, look at the lengths to which the opponents of the Lord will go to assert man's will over God.  They deny His omnipotence, then they deny His omniscience, then if that doesn't work they concoct fanciful theories about multiverses in the attempt to provide some autonomy to man.  Why not rather turn to the Lord of Glory who delights to show mercy?


Concocted fanciful theories are those that negate His Love in preference for an arrogant philosophy which reared its head thanks to Calvin. It does allow the believer of double predestination to place themselves on a pedestal and glare down their noses at others who disagree with its inventiveness. Then they can write off savages who were created for destruction by the genetically superior believer because they have an inferior belief system and were created for the single purpose to be destroyed and glorify the elect. 

Nope, there is plenty not contained in the Book. Just 'cause it ain't in there doesn't negate its possibility. The Book is a good resource but it isn't the totality of Faith.

----------


## moostraks

> Why not just turn to the Lord, be converted, and give Him all the glory when He saves you?


This is why your discussions are not civil. You place your views above others and speak down to them declaring them to be without Faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Concocted fanciful theories are those that negate His Love in preference for an arrogant philosophy which reared its head thanks to Calvin. It does allow the believer of double predestination to place themselves on a pedestal and glare down their noses at others who disagree with its inventiveness. Then they can write off savages who were created for destruction by the genetically superior believer because they have an inferior belief system and were created for the single purpose to be destroyed and glorify the elect. 
> 
> Nope, there is plenty not contained in the Book. Just 'cause it ain't in there doesn't negate its possibility. The Book is a good resource but it isn't the totality of Faith.


Who is talking about Calvin in this thread?  Only you.  I'll repost what Peter, an apostle, wrote concerning the salvation of men:




> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10


Note that in this verse, Peter is paraphrasing and quoting Old Testament prophecies.  The elect and the disobedients appointing are so sure that prophecy has foretold it.

----------


## acptulsa

> No but the fact that the Bible does describe the universe negates a multiverse.


Seems to me the Bible talks a lot about the world, but I don't recall it mentioning the New World.  Yet there you are in Indiana.  Have you drowned yet?  Are you denying that God has the right to tell us only as much as He wanted us to know at the time?  Does the fact that He does so mean we're automatically sinning if we discover more than that?  Is that true of children who discover things their fathers never taught them, or is this the case only where it's something The Father chose not to mention?

Is that Biblical?  Can you back it up?  Can you cite a source for Thou Shalt Not Discover?




> Point, set, match.


Good luck with that.  You're up to eighty love or so, but he keeps swinging at your balls anyway.  And missing.




> I really think the people who describe the God of the Bible as a "tyrant" are going to have an awkward moment when they get to the gates of heaven if they do in fact get there...


Who's going to have an awkward moment--Galileo for having the audacity to discover something God did't send down the mountain with Moses, carved in stone, or the tyrants-in-God's-Name who barbequed him for it?

Or are you denying a loving Father the right to let His children figure some things out for themselves?

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, this is just more autobiographical of your feelings and not anything like an argument from Scripture.  Proverbs 16:9 says, *"The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps"*.  There you go.  Directly contradicting what you say here.  Why not just turn to the Lord, be converted, and give Him all the glory when He saves you?


How is that any different from saying "Man only does what God allows him to do?"  You don't believe that man "plans his way".  You've contradicted yourself again.  You are also contradicting Jesus if you believe that sin is not sin until a man acts on it when Jesus clearly taught that sin becomes sin when it originates in the mind.  Check out Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder if you don't believe me.  Also consider the case of Balaam.  He planned to go curse God's people (a sin itself) and God stopped him...at least temporarily.  Balaam was ultimately able to bring a curse upon God's people by tempting them to sin.

So...just to be perfectly clear, I never used the word "steps".  I'm talking about directing man's *mind*.  Your own Bible verse proves I'm right.  Point, set, match.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How is that any different from saying "Man only does what God allows him to do?"  *You don't believe that man "plans his way".  You've contradicted yourself again.*  You are also contradicting Jesus if you believe that sin is not sin until a man acts on it when Jesus clearly taught that sin becomes sin when it originates in the mind.  Check out Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder if you don't believe me.  Also consider the case of Balaam.  He planned to go curse God's people (a sin itself) and God stopped him...at least temporarily.  Balaam was ultimately able to bring a curse upon God's people by tempting them to sin.
> 
> So...just to be perfectly clear, I never used the word "steps".  I'm talking about directing man's *mind*.  Your own Bible verse proves I'm right.  Point, set, match.


Point, set, flop.  Here you go again with one of your conjured up "contradictions" because you are going to presume to tell me what I believe.  You obviously are confused about what I believe.  I believe the Bible.  The Bible says man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.  God has a sovereign purpose for all of man's plans.

Why don't you believe this?

----------


## Ronin Truth

I'm holding out for at least triple predestination, at the very minimum.

----------


## moostraks

> Who is talking about Calvin in this thread?  Only you.  I'll repost what Peter, an apostle, wrote concerning the salvation of men:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that in this verse, Peter is paraphrasing and quoting Old Testament prophecies.  The elect and the disobedients appointing are so sure that prophecy has foretold it.


Your thread is on double predestination which is a theory popularized by Calvin based upon his beliefs of Augustine's writings. It is a loveless theory foisted upon others so that critics can be treated as inferior by the elect who fancy themselves made with superior genetics. Note, you can continue to repost the verses and reiterate your opinions but it won't make them any more valid for doing so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your thread is on double predestination which is a theory popularized by Calvin based upon his beliefs of Augustine's writings. It is a loveless theory foisted upon others so that critics can be treated as inferior by the elect who fancy themselves made with superior genetics. Note, you can continue to repost the verses and reiterate your opinions but it won't make them any more valid for doing so.


Here we go with Calvin again.  What is it with you and John Calvin?  Who in this entire message board is talking about John Calvin except you?

Peter said about the disobedient ones:



> *But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed*.


We aren't talking about John Calvin.  We are talking about the Bible when it says that the disobedient ones are appointed to their destruction.  Why don't you believe the Bible?

----------


## jmdrake

> Point, set, flop.  Here you go again with one of your conjured up "contradictions" because you are going to presume to tell me what I believe.  You obviously are confused about what I believe.  I believe the Bible.  The Bible says man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.  God has a sovereign purpose for all of man's plans.
> 
> Why don't you believe this?


It's not conjured at all.  The argument was never "Is man able to do everything he desires to do."  Napoleon was not able to conquer England or Russia.  Neither was Hitler. But they both *planned* to do those things.  I believe the hand of God was involved in thwarting those plans.  But I do not believe the hand of God drafted those plans.  The Bible doesn't either.  Your belief system isn't based on man being lost by what he *does* but by what he *believes*.  I agree with that, though you've falsely claimed I don't.  But planning speaks to what a man *believes*.  Steps speak to what a man *does*.  Therefore a Bible verse that teaches that *man* makes the plans but that God ultimately directs what a man *does* with those plans supports my belief system and not yours.  

Point, set, match......again.

----------


## acptulsa

> Your thread is on double predestination which is a theory popularized by Calvin based upon his beliefs of Augustine's writings. It is a loveless theory foisted upon others so that critics can be treated as inferior by the elect who fancy themselves made with superior genetics. Note, you can continue to repost the verses and reiterate your opinions but it won't make them any more valid for doing so.


I want to know what version of the Bible he's using.  The New Calvinist Apologencia?  The King James Version goes like this:




> 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have.  There's some predestination for you.




> We are talking about the Bible when it says that the disobedient ones are appointed to their destruction.  Why don't you believe the Bible?


Better we should be talking about the Bible when it says *when* the disobedient ones are appointed.  When they disobey?  When they fail to or refuse to repent?  A thousand years ago?  At the Beginning of Time (if there was such a thing)?

Only problem is, it doesn't say.  I guess God loves you so that He wants to ensure you always have something to argue about.  Glory to God for providing us what we need in this life...

Pity more of us don't feel more need for peace, isn't it?  I'm sure He'd provide it if only we'd value it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God chooses us, and we also choose God.  It's like if a husband and wife get married, it's not the case that the husband chose the wife and the wife didn't choose the husband, or that the wife chose the husband but the husband didn't choose the wife.  Obviously it's the case that they chose each other.  It's also the case that it isn't that God chooses us and we don't choose God, or that we choose God and he doesn't choose us, but that we choose each other.  We both choose to have a relationship with each other.


Let's see if that analogy works with how the Bible describes salvation:




> *Ephesians1:5-6
> 
> But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,  made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.*


No, it doesn't work.  The correct analogy would be something like a man walking up to a tomb where a dead woman had been rotting for thousands of years.  He then makes that woman alive and sets in her a heart that loves him forever.

THAT is a more apt analogy.  Men are dead.  Dead men don't choose.

----------


## acptulsa

> Let's see if that analogy works with how the Bible describes salvation:


You figure if you ignore my post it'll go away?




> No, it doesn't work.  The correct analogy would be something like a man walking up to a tomb where a dead woman had been rotting for thousands of years.  He then makes that woman alive and sets in her a heart that loves him forever.
> 
> THAT is a more apt analogy.  Men are dead.  Dead men don't choose.


You say it's a more apt analogy.  I say that if God only chooses to show that mercy and forgiveness to those who choose God, even though those who choose God and those who don't are otherwise equal in having transgressed at risk of their souls, then that's God's right and glory to Him for showing _anyone_ mercy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Napoleon was not able to conquer England or Russia.  Neither was Hitler. But they both *planned* to do those things.  I believe the hand of God was involved in thwarting those plans.  But I do not believe the hand of God drafted those plans.  The Bible doesn't either.


Yes the Bible does.  How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament?  The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things).  God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.

This is the God of the Bible.  The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.




> *Isaiah 45:7
> 
> I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. 
> *

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes the Bible does.  How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament?  The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things).  God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.
> 
> This is the God of the Bible.  The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.


IIRC (though I could be misremembering) this passage is actually saying God brings calamity on people, not causes them to sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> IIRC (though I could be misremembering) this passage is actually saying God brings calamity on people, not causes them to sin.


Men want to sin.  Men have wills.  Men want to do the sin they do.  Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature.  And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes the Bible does.  How many times did the Lord carry out His judgment on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament?


Thus proving nothing.  Mr. Drake already said he believes that God engineered Napoleon's and Hitler's destruction.  And the Bible does not say God engineered the actions of Israel's enemies.




> The God of the Bible is one that controls all things and brings glory to Himself in all things (even the bad things).  God determines every single event that ever comes to pass, including the wars you mention.
> 
> This is the God of the Bible.  The just and Holy God who has wrath against man's sin.


The God of Isaiah only claimed credit for light and darkness, and for prosperity and disaster, so far as I can see there.  Not for micromanaging attacks on Israel.

So, has ignoring my post made it go away yet?  Is it inconvenient when I interrupt your imitation of a broken record or a tape loop?  Sorry.  God made me do it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes the Bible does.


Not the Bible you quoted to me.  It clearly said that man made the plans.  Are you doubting your own Bible now?  Again direct quote from you quoting directly from the Bible.




> Well, this is just more autobiographical of your feelings and not anything like an argument from Scripture.  Proverbs 16:9 says, *"The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps"*.  There you go.  Directly contradicting what you say here.  Why not just turn to the Lord, be converted, and give Him all the glory when He saves you?


The mind of man plans his way

The mind of man plans his way

The mind of man plans his way

----------


## jmdrake

> Men want to sin.  Men have wills.  Men want to do the sin they do.  Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature.  And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.


I'm confused.  Do you believe that those who reject Jesus are *appointed* to do so, or not?  Quit contradicting yourself.

Edit: The more I think it about, the more I realize *SOLA_FIDE JUST REJECTED DOUBLE PREDESTINATION!*

Oh, I know you're try to worm you way out of that.  But it's true.  Claiming "God only predestines some people to be saved but He doesn't predestine anyone to be lost", if that's what you are saying, is not double predestination.  It's single predestination.

Point.  Set.  Match.

/thread

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm confused.  Do you believe that those who reject Jesus are *appointed* to do so, or not?  Quit contradicting yourself.


Oh, come now.  If he's perfectly willing to contradict the Bible, and even to rewrite the Bible to fit his agenda, do you really think he'd let a little thing like contradicting himself bother him?

Everyone creates God in his own image.  What else can we do?  God boggles our limited imaginations; we cannot understand.  If the micromismanager wants to create a micromanaging God because he cannot understand any other, what can we do about it?  Except, of course, scratch our heads and wonder why it seems so important to him that others share his seemingly self-sufficient views...

----------


## otherone

> Oh, come now.  If he's perfectly willing to contradict the Bible, and even to rewrite the Bible to fit his agenda, do you really think he'd let a little thing like contradicting himself bother him?


He's not contradicting himself...he's just putting out contradicting biblical premises.   It's SUPPOSED to not make any sense, UNLESS you are one of the Elect.
Christ and the scriptures are SUPPOSED to be a stumbling block for the pots made for destruction!

_John 10:26
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…_

----------


## RJB

What about quadruple, super double secret predestination?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Claiming "God only predestines some people to be saved but He doesn't predestine anyone to be lost", if that's what you are saying, is not double predestination.  It's single predestination.


No, that's not what I said in any way shape or form.  I've never said that.  That is one of your many "contradictions" that are popping up in your head.




> Point.  Set.  Match.
> 
> /thread


Let's try to be a little more mature and just exchange on the issues.  It's just the internet, my friend.  No need to be so hostile.

----------


## Sola_Fide

And as is usual for this messageboard, I have again posted a verse up for discussion, and after 254 responses, not one post...not even one...was an exegesis of the verse in question.

I am still waiting for someone to exegete the verse I posted in the OP.

----------


## acptulsa

> Let's try to be a little more mature and just exchange on the issues.  It's just the internet, my friend.  No need to be so hostile.


That wasn't hostility.  

That was a fact.

And maybe a challenge for you to address what was said, instead of repeating your earlier dogma and hoping people forget the contradictions it poses.

Or shall we start quoting Jesus Himself, like we used to do, and see whose feet stumble over the stones His words are carved in?




> And as is usual for this messageboard, I have again posted a verse up for discussion, and after 254 responses, not one post...not even one...was an exegesis of the verse in question.
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to exegete the verse I posted in the OP.


Your selective blindness is still serving you well.




> I want to know what version of the Bible he's using.  The New Calvinist Apologencia?  The King James Version goes like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by I Peter 2:
> 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> A) No it doesn't.  The word "then" is also used as an "if then" clause as in "if" this is true "then" that is true.


I cannot agree with this.  If/then implies a sequence.  _If_ I flip the switch _then_ the light turns on.  Sequential action.  That is a sequence of events, thus if and then.




> B) If you want to take this out of time remember that according to the Bible Jesus was slain "from the foundation of the world".  So from God's point of view Jesus died for everyone before anyone was created.


That's kind of my whole point.  Yeshua was slain from the foundation of the world, so it's impossible for God to decide 'not to know' things that would be happening as a result of that action.




> C) If God chose to act temporally, being God, He could do that and still be God.  "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His son."


I never said God could not act temporally, I simply said He could not be _constrained_ by time.  There is a big difference.




> God doesn't stop being God by working in a particular way.  It's wrong to say that He must work in a particular way, but it's also wrong to say He can't work in a particular way.


That's actually a strawman (unintentional I am certain), because I never said God could not act in a certain way.  I said God could not be constrained by time, and He cannot.  He knows the end from the beginning, He cannot be limited to knowledge that is temporally sequenced.  

Indeed, if God acts upon the creation, then that activity must necessarily be temporal, because the creation is temporal.  Therefore any action which God takes to do action upon this world, must necessarily be temporal or it would not intersect with the space-time continuum.  Knowledge, however, is different.  The statement I objected to was the idea of temporal knowledge, which is why I quoted "God know the end from the beginning."

There are a few things that God cannot do.  He cannot be evil.  He cannot contradict Himself.  He cannot lie, and He cannot un-know the stuff He already knows.  God knows the end from the beginning.  Any argument that requires the sequential adoption of knowledge on the part of God cannot be valid, because God knows the end from the beginning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thus proving nothing.  Mr. Drake already said he believes that God engineered Napoleon's and Hitler's destruction.  And the Bible does not say God engineered the actions of Israel's enemies.


Yes it does.  Here is an instance where God engineered the action of Israel's enemies:



> Gods Judgment on Assyria
> 
> 
> 
> 5 
> Woe to the Assyrian, *the rod of my anger*,
>     in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
> 
> 6 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My last post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5766604


^^^ It is true that if/then _can_ be used atemporally, such as if the water is frozen to ice, then the temperature was below 0°C.  But in the statement I was responding to, it was not used atemporally.  It directly implied a sequence.  Paraphrasing: "First, Jesus sacrificed for all persons, *then* God decided whom to save."  I could not possibly disagree with that idea more vehemently.  Yeshua's sacrifice being effective for all, AND God decides whom to save I agree with completely.  They are simply two different statements. One implies sequential action, the other does not.  

Yeshua's sacrifice was already written before the world was made.  The names of the saved were in the Book of Life before Adam was cobbled together out of dust from the ground.  Unlike SF , I believe in free will.  I also believe in predestination.  I believe once you step outside of time, there is no conflict between free will and predestination.  I believe the appearance of a conflict between free will and predestination, is an artifact of temporality.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post 
> 
> I want to know what version of the Bible he's using. The New Calvinist Apologencia? The King James Version goes like this:
> 
>  I Peter 2: 
> 
> 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
> Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have. There's some predestination for you.



acptulsa,

It's 2nd Peter 2:10-16, not 1st Peter.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes it does.  Here is an instance where God engineered the action of Israel's enemies:


Says who?  You?

Says not any of _those_ verses.

Tell us otherwise without twisting them.  I dare you.




> acptulsa,
> 
> It's 2nd Peter 2:10-16, not 1st Peter.





> Um...actually I was just trying to get your take on 1st Peter 2:6-10.  What is your take on it?





> Who is talking about Calvin in this thread?  Only you.  I'll repost what Peter, an apostle, wrote concerning the salvation of men:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				“Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed. But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> ...


That's it.  I'm done.  I've never seen the verse that tells me I have to give the devil more than his due.

If the readers of this thread can't find the real path, and can't read Jesus' own words, then I can't get the logs out of their eyes.

And I'd suggest everyone else let him talk to himself, too.  That's what he's doing anyway.  His mind is better armored than a duck's back.

Oh, and I found that Second Peter passage you were looking for:




> Well...with all due respect,  that is not a Biblical prayer, because the verse in the OP says that Jesus Himself is the stumbling block that the ones appointed to destruction stumble over.





> Actually acptulsa's prayer that God help us understand, and not twist, scripture is 100% biblical and straight from Peter.
> 
> _2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction._





> I agree.  Let's not twist the Scriptures.


Yes, let's not.  Think I'll go a step farther, and stop encouraging it by paying attention to it.

----------


## moostraks

> Here we go with Calvin again.  What is it with you and John Calvin?  Who in this entire message board is talking about John Calvin except you?
> 
> Peter said about the disobedient ones:
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about John Calvin.  We are talking about the Bible when it says that the disobedient ones are appointed to their destruction.  Why don't you believe the Bible?


So wait a minute, YOU are entitled to bring up the origins of an idea but no one is allowed to question the origin of your position? And please enlighten us to how your intention was civil debate when you drop gems such as arguing with your egocentric position of double predestination is equivalent to not believing the Bible? The proof is in the pudding as to where your philosophy plays out in the manner you approach others for "civil" discussion.

----------


## moostraks

> Unlike SF , I believe in free will.  I also believe in predestination.  I believe once you step outside of time, there is no conflict between free will and predestination.  I believe the appearance of a conflict between free will and predestination, is an artifact of temporality.


Yep!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Says who?  You?
> 
> Says not any of _those_ verses.
> 
> Tell us otherwise without twisting them.  I dare you.


You...dare me?  Okay.  I'll break it down for.

God says he is going to use the Assyrian army to judge the people of Israel:




> Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
>  in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
> 
>  6 
> I send him against a godless nation,
>  I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
>  to seize loot and snatch plunder,
>  and to trample them down like mud in the streets.


But the Assyrians don't know they are part of God's plan, they are just simply murdering and pillaging like they always do: 




> 7 
>  But this is not what he intends,
>  this is not what he has in mind;
>  his purpose is to destroy,
>  to put an end to many nations.


After the Lord uses the evil Assyrians for His own purposes in judgment, He is going to punish them for their pride of heart!:




> 12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. 13 For he says:
> 
> 
> By the strength of my hand I have done this,
>  and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
>  I removed the boundaries of nations,
>  I plundered their treasures;
>  like a mighty one I subdued[a] their kings.


Then I love this part of the text, because God is chiding the person who possibly says that it was not God who did all these things.  Does the axe (the instrument being used) raise itself against the person swinging it (the person using it)?  No.  The person is in control of the axe.  Just as God is in control of the Assyrian armies.




> 15 
> Does the ax raise itself above the person who swings it,
>  or the saw boast against the one who uses it?
>  As if a rod were to wield the person who lifts it up,
>  or a club brandish the one who is not wood!
> 
>  16 
>  Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty,
>  will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors;
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He's not contradicting himself...he's just putting out contradicting biblical premises.   It's SUPPOSED to not make any sense, UNLESS you are one of the Elect.


This is actually _almost_ true, although probably not in the way you intended.  It's actually simple mechanics.  It's the perspective of temporality vs eternality.  Much of the scripture cannot be understood except from an eternal perspective.  I said _almost_ above because one has to be elect in order to have an eternal perspective, but _almost_ is because it is in fact just possible to grasp eternality in the same way it would be possible for a flatlander to grasp the concept of spacetime.  Vaguely, but the knowledge is not actually impossible.  One could obtain a working knowledge of the eternal perspective without themselves being eternal minded, and therefore understand (or 'unlock' if you prefer) verses which _appear_ to contradict from a temporal perspective, but do not _in fact_ contradict from an eternal perspective.




> Christ and the scriptures are SUPPOSED to be a stumbling block for the pots made for destruction!
> 
> _John 10:26
> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So wait a minute, YOU are entitled to bring up the origins of an idea but no one is allowed to question the origin of your position? And please enlighten us to how your intention was civil debate when you drop gems such as arguing with your egocentric position of double predestination is equivalent to not believing the Bible? The proof is in the pudding as to where your philosophy plays out in the manner you approach others for "civil" discussion.


We aren't talking about the origins of ideas.  We are talking about the text of the Bible right in front of your face.




> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10



Do you see that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The problem for you in accepting Gunny's interpretation is that it links justification with sanctification and makes no distinction between the two.


I'm pretty sure that I make a distinction between justification and sanctification.  (checking personal memory banks) Yep, I absolutely distinguish between them  




> And the mechanism of how He did that?  Providing for the sacrifice that He knew they would accept.  It's like I have a picnic where kosher Jews are invited along with Southern Baptists and on one table I have all kosher food and on the other table everything has pork in it.  My making the provision that I know one group will choose and another will not is not making the choice on their behalf.


It's not that your understanding is incorrect, it's that it's only half of the story.  You and SF _appear_ to have contradicting theologies.  From the realm of eternity they do not contradict, only within the temporal realm do they contradict.  Free will and predestination coexist, and they move around each other, together, like partners in a dance.  SF is a lot more militant about 'people who do not see it my way must be lost,' but there is a _little_ bit of that going on here too.  I can understand why.  Arguing with SF has a tendency to rub that spot raw and make it over-sensitive.

BOTH free will AND predestination are correct.  It's like the predestinators are looking at the head of the coin, and the free willers are looking at the tail of the coin, and both arguing with each other that the other side is wrong.  Just because I am at the moment describing the predestination side of the coin does not mean I disbelieve the free will side.

----------


## otherone

> Αυτό είναι στην πραγματικότητα σχεδόν αληθινό, αν και ίσως όχι με τον τρόπο που θέλετε. Είναι πραγματικά απλή μηχανική. Είναι η προοπτική της προσωρινότητας vs αιωνιότητα. Μεγάλο μέρος της Αγίας Γραφής δεν μπορούν να γίνουν κατανοητές, εκτός από μια αιώνια προοπτική. Είπα σχεδόν παραπάνω γιατί δεν έχει να εκλέξει, προκειμένου να έχουν μια αιώνια προοπτική, αλλά σχεδόν είναι επειδή είναι στην πραγματικότητα απλώς δυνατό να κατανοήσουμε αιωνιότητα με τον ίδιο τρόπο θα ήταν δυνατό για ένα *flatlander* να κατανοήσουν την έννοια του χωροχρόνου. Αόριστα, αλλά η γνώση δεν είναι πραγματικά αδύνατο. Κάποιος θα μπορούσε να λάβει γνώση εργασίας του αιώνια προοπτική, χωρίς οι ίδιοι να είναι αιώνιο πνεύμα, και ως εκ τούτου, να κατανοήσουν (ή «ξεκλειδώματος» αν προτιμάτε) εδάφια που φαίνεται να έρχονται σε αντίθεση από χρονική άποψη, αλλά δεν κάνουν αντίθεση με στην πραγματικότητα από μια αιώνια προοπτική.


Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but it's a pearls before swine thing....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I know they believe that .  That's what I said in that post.  It is an impossibility.  God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly.  Omniscience logically implies predestination.  If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.


Only if God is a part of time.  If God is _outside_ of time altogether, such constraints do not exist.  God knows the end from the beginning.  To Him it is not 'future' it is 'now.'  He knows what happens in the year 2055, because from His perspective, the year 2055 is happening RIGHT NOW.  Just like 2015 is happening RIGHT NOW, just like the year 1815 is happening RIGHT NOW.  We are in time, He is not.  God does not know the future in the sense that "this thing will happen after so much time passes," He knows the future in the sense that "this thing is _currently_ (1815) happening at this point, and that thing is _currently_ (2055) happening at that point."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

\


> Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but it's a pearls before swine thing....


Such was absolutely NOT my intent.  I was trying to open up a concept, I was making no implication (or if I was, certainly not intentionally) that you were unable to obtain an eternal perspective.

----------


## moostraks

> Notice another thing too. 
> 
> ALWAYS be suspicious of anyone who is teaching something in the name of Christianity, but not using any of the concepts or language that the Bible uses in salvation.  The Bible uses specific language in regards to describing what salvation is.  Never be taken in by people who don't preach how the apostles preached salvation.





> This view is called Molinism.  It was created by a Catholic priest named Molina during the counter-reformation to attempt to explain predestination in a way that still gave autonomy to man.  It is NO WHERE in Scripture, and I mean no where.  It is a completely fabricated theory that is shoved in to the text to explain away the verses that teach God's sovereignty over time.





> Speaking of fabricated theories ran into this for those pondering the historical nature of double predestination. Fwiw, to those who might find this response of use on their path:
> http://christianity.stackexchange.co...ed-john-calvin





> We aren't talking about the origins of ideas.  We are talking about the text of the Bible right in front of your face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see that?


Umm, NO, you wish to entitle yourself to different rules while posing the same argument I make to contradict your position. Read your own words. If you may argue that a position is invalid because it superimposes an idea on the text which contradicts the historical understanding, then I am likewise allowed, using your same exact argument, to put forth that YOUR understanding is based on a more modern theory popularized by Calvin. You are not addressing that issue but pretending it should be ignored even though you used the same method against someone else...

----------


## acptulsa

> You...dare me?  Okay.  I'll break it down for.


This is all the respect you're capable of showing me...




> acptulsa,
> 
> It's 2nd Peter 2:10-16, not 1st Peter.


...not only a non-response but a baldfaced lie, yet you expect me to consider and address what?

You first.  Give me a proper response to the earlier and I'll happily address what you've said since.




> Then I love this part of the text, because God is chiding...


No doubt.  But probably not as much as you enjoy uncharitably screaming at your poor, beleaguered chambermaids.

----------


## moostraks

> Only if God is a part of time.  If God is _outside_ of time altogether, such constraints do not exist.  God knows the end from the beginning.  To Him it is not 'future' it is 'now.'  He knows what happens in the year 2055, because from His perspective, the year 2055 is happening RIGHT NOW.  Just like 2015 is happening RIGHT NOW, just like the year 1815 is happening RIGHT NOW.  We are in time, He is not.  God does not know the future in the sense that "this thing will happen after so much time passes," He knows the future in the sense that "this thing is _currently_ (1815) happening at this point, and that thing is _currently_ (2055) happening at that point."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I already explained to Gunny why that's not true, but he seems singularly focused on the meaning of the word "then".  I'll repeat it here.


I've never been fixed on the word 'then.'  You made two different statements that said two different things.  The word 'then' just happened to be the key to why they said different things, while you believed they did not say two different things.  

You in post #210 are running into the same thing with SF.  He changed his wording, you perceive that the wording change changes the meaning, and he does not perceive that change.

In the exact same manner, I perceive that the 'then' statement totally changes the meaning of your original statement, while you do not perceive such a change.  

It's because you have eyes on the tail of the coin and he does not, therefore when he's trying to describe the tail of the coin, a subtle change in wording has a dramatic impact on it's meaning which you can see and he cannot.  In the same manner, when you were attempting to describe the head of the coin which I have eyes on, a subtle change in wording dramatically changes the meaning which I can see but you cannot.




> _And I don't believe that. What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice. I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe. But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved. You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into._


I have stated no multiverse theory wrt to God.  I have only stated a multiverse theory wrt science, science fiction, and conceptual time travel and the resolution of temporal paradox.  As to my understanding of God, I see the eternal realm is to spacetime, as spacetime is to flatland.  The realm of eternity is a dimension perpendicular to and transcendent from the realm of spacetime, in the same way that the realm of spacetime is perpendicular to and transcendent from flatland.




> You are limiting God to 4 dimensions (the three physical dimensions +time).  But if there is a multiverse, and I believe there is, then God is the God of it too.  So it's no longer a case that the "choice" is predestined by God "foreseeing" it.  All choices, within the limit of what God will allow, are foreseen and happen.  Now why did I put in the caveat?  Because God will not allow a reality where He loses.  Herod can't kill baby Jesus in any universe.  Satan isn't allowed to kill whoever builds the ark in any universe.  Things that would prevent the plan of salvation from being carried out and/or would cause the premature extinction of the human race are not allowed.  Beyond that, everything is allowed.  Now is that in the Bible?  No.  But neither is a prophecy about man going to the moon.  My point is that the multiverse theory of freewill allows for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without God dictating that any particular person or persons are saved or lost.  Everybody is saved and everybody is lost, it just depends on the particular universe you are looking at.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I really think the people who describe the God of the Bible as a "tyrant" are going to have an awkward moment when they get to the gates of heaven if they do in fact get there...


You....are aware.....that Drake did not describe God as a 'tyrant' right?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Only if God is a part of time.  If God is _outside_ of time altogether, such constraints do not exist.  God knows the end from the beginning.  To Him it is not 'future' it is 'now.'  He knows what happens in the year 2055, because from His perspective, the year 2055 is happening RIGHT NOW.  Just like 2015 is happening RIGHT NOW, just like the year 1815 is happening RIGHT NOW.  We are in time, He is not.  God does not know the future in the sense that "this thing will happen after so much time passes," He knows the future in the sense that "this thing is _currently_ (1815) happening at this point, and that thing is _currently_ (2055) happening at that point."


Well, I give you props for that formulation.  I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other.  I don't really know how anyone can know those things because the Bible certainly doesn't go into that kind of depth describing omnitemporality or anything like that.  The Bible uses much simpler formulations:





> *Isaiah 46:10
> 
> I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.*


He doesn't just see the future, he has made it known.  His purpose will stand in history.

----------


## RJB

God can and will do what ever he likes and we trust in his abundant mercy.

Believing or not believing in a doctrine developed by a man based on his biblical interpretation as he strives to understand God's infinite wisdom and action, does not equal his hope, faith, and love in God's power or wisdom.   

Meh... These threads that get that wind up getting 1000+ post are a forum version of the Tower of Babel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Believing or not believing in a doctrine developed by a man based on his biblical interpretation as he strives to understand God's infinite wisdom and action, does not equal his hope, faith, and love in God's power or wisdom.


It is very important to reject doctrines made up by men.  That is why it so vital to understand the Bible and what God says in it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Seems to me the Bible talks a lot about the world, but I don't recall it mentioning the New World.  Yet there you are in Indiana.  Have you drowned yet?


Tiny little minor nitpick that does not actually impact the meat of your post, but:

John 10:16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. [NASB]

I know that Mormons use this to point to the Americas, and while I am _not_ a Mormon, I _do_ believe this points to aboriginal peoples with a compatible understanding of the spiritual realm.

----------


## otherone

> Meh... These threads that get that wind up getting 1000+ post are a forum version of the Tower of Babel.


rep.....

I submit that this "Peace through Religion" subforum be renamed "The Tower of Babel"
(or possibly "Angry Apologetics"?)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Tiny little minor nitpick that does not actually impact the meat of your post, but:
> 
> John 10:16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.” [NASB]
> 
> *I know that Mormons use this to point to the Americas, and while I am not a Mormon, I do believe this points to aboriginal peoples with a compatible understanding of the spiritual realm*.


No.  The other sheep that Jesus is talking about is the Gentiles there.

----------


## moostraks

> Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but it's a pearls before swine thing....


 I hope you don't really feel that way. Think of it like one of those old fashioned wooden puzzles where you have to move the ring. Those who have sat and puzzled and become intimate with it then can see in their mind the concept of how it works, but when you hand it to someone else they don't grasp it until they work through the motion themselves. Some think they get it but won't really grasp it till they run through the different solutions in their mind. IMO everyone gets handed the puzzle and some throw it in the trash, others become intimate with it and they become the elect when they are of the right mindset. Now to get really funky about the concept you then move outside of the timeline you are operating within and are discussing how, why, when, and who received the puzzle...my go to argument is not so much a matter of how they suppose they solved the puzzle but what did their method turn them into in the process. Does that make any sense?

----------


## acptulsa

> No.  The other sheep that Jesus is talking about is the Gentiles there.


So there you go, Gunny.  How dare you be so presumptuous as to assume God might love, and have grace to spare for, those pesky native Americans?  Naming a state for them is one thing; actually letting them into _Heaven_ is quite another.

Oh, wait--aboriginal Americans are as much Gentiles as aboriginal Europeans, aren't they?  So why is this guy trying to keep them out of heaven?

----------


## moostraks

> No.  The other sheep that Jesus is talking about is the Gentiles there.


The historic position of the church would argue against what you are stating so matter of fact like.

----------


## otherone

> I hope you don't really feel that way. Think of it like one of those old fashioned wooden puzzles where you have to move the ring. Those who have sat and puzzled and become intimate with it then can see in their mind the concept of how it works, but when you hand it to someone else they don't grasp it until they work through the motion themselves. Some think they get it but won't really grasp it till they run through the different solutions in their mind. IMO everyone gets handed the puzzle and some throw it in the trash, others become intimate with it and they become the elect when they are of the right mindset. Now to get really funky about the concept you then move outside of the timeline you are operating within and are discussing how, why, when, and who received the puzzle...my go to argument is not so much a matter of how they suppose they solved the puzzle but what did their method turn them into in the process. Does that make any sense?


Yes.  The bible is a puzzle.  Thankfully there are people who can help us with the metaphysics therein.

----------


## jmdrake

> I cannot agree with this.  If/then implies a sequence.  _If_ I flip the switch _then_ the light turns on.  Sequential action.  That is a sequence of events, thus if and then.
> 
> That's kind of my whole point.  Yeshua was slain from the foundation of the world, so it's impossible for God to decide 'not to know' things that would be happening as a result of that action.


Okay.  You just proved my point.  I never made a claim about God not knowing anything so that's  non issue.  But *if* Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" *then* it is possible for Jesus to act on that action of being slain from the foundation of the world and decree "These people will benefit from the action that has already occurred outside of time prior to being actualized inside of time" without there being any kind of "temporal restriction" on God.  In other words, you are reading far too much into a simple if/then statement.

----------


## moostraks

> So there you go, Gunny.  How dare you be so presumptuous as to assume God might love and have grace to spare for those pesky native Americans?
> 
> Oh, wait--aboriginal Americans are as much Gentiles as aboriginal Europeans, aren't they?  So why is this guy trying to keep them out of heaven?


 I think it is American egotism that can make it so difficult to grasp this position. I was taught in the baptist churches the black and white argument S_F puts forth. It never made sense to me until I left the church, detoxed, and then found the EOCs position on those outside of their church.

----------


## jmdrake

> ^^^ It is true that if/then _can_ be used atemporally, such as if the water is frozen to ice, then the temperature was below 0°C.  But in the statement I was responding to, it was not used atemporally.  It directly implied a sequence.  Paraphrasing: "First, Jesus sacrificed for all persons, *then* God decided whom to save."  I could not possibly disagree with that idea more vehemently.  Yeshua's sacrifice being effective for all, AND God decides whom to save I agree with completely.  They are simply two different statements. One implies sequential action, the other does not.  
> 
> Yeshua's sacrifice was already written before the world was made.  The names of the saved were in the Book of Life before Adam was cobbled together out of dust from the ground.  Unlike SF , I believe in free will.  I also believe in predestination.  I believe once you step outside of time, there is no conflict between free will and predestination.  I believe the appearance of a conflict between free will and predestination, is an artifact of temporality.


Except the Bible doesn't say Yeshua's sacrifice was "written about before the world was made."  It said *it happened* before the world was made.  Now put whatever interpretation that you wish, but my use of the if/then statement fits squarely with the atemporal description of Christ's sacrifice.  Mountain meet molehill.

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay.  You just proved my point.  I never made a claim about God not knowing anything so that's  non issue.  But *if* Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" *then* it is possible for Jesus to act on that action of being slain from the foundation of the world and decree "These people will benefit from the action that has already occurred outside of time prior to being actualized inside of time" without there being any kind of "temporal restriction" on God.  In other words, you are reading far too much into a simple if/then statement.


Both in his thread and over his head.

Now, I ask you.  Is that nice?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The historic position of the church would argue against what you are stating so matter of fact like.


Oh really?  Source?

----------


## moostraks

> Yes.  The bible is a puzzle.  Thankfully there are people who can help us with the metaphysics therein.


Ah, I am wary of anyone who wants to explain it to the point of not letting me work through it myself. I can only give you my understanding of the elephant, as I only grasp one portion. It is my advice to come up and check it out yourself. if your motives are pure, Truth will reveal itself to you.

----------


## moostraks

> Oh really?  Source?


Gotta go outside your network. EOC churches have a clause that gives room for the Creator not to be confined to the limitations of the constructs of man.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, that's not what I said in any way shape or form.  I've never said that.  That is one of your many "contradictions" that are popping up in your head.


Why did you snip out the point that showed the contradiction?

_I'm confused. Do you believe that those who reject Jesus are appointed to do so, or not? Quit contradicting yourself._

Here is the contradiction you don't want to own up to.  On the one hand you claimed that God appoints men to sin.  Then you claimed that God doesn't do that, but that man sins on his own.  That's a contradiction.  You can clear this up by stating which conflicting idea you actually believe.




> Let's try to be a little more mature and just exchange on the issues.  It's just the internet, my friend.  No need to be so hostile.


Nothing that I've said in this thread is at all hostile or immature.  We have exchanged ideas.  You have contradicted yourself and changed tactics midstream.  At one point you say "Let's talk logic."  So I talk logic.  When that fails you say "Why are you talking logic when we are talking Bible."  Calling you out on that isn't being hostile.  It's being honest.

----------


## acptulsa

A nice, tidy, completely inescapable little box.

Has he resorted to starting a new thread yet?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm pretty sure that I make a distinction between justification and sanctification.  (checking personal memory banks) Yep, I absolutely distinguish between them


The verse you quoted did not, at least from the viewpoint of this discussion.  The people "predestined" to be justified are "predestined" to be sanctified.  The idea that SF posits that sanctification has nothing to do with salvation doesn't fit the view.  If the exact same people are justified and sanctified by God, with no human will involved at all, then the distinction between the two on salvation by faith becomes a distinction without a difference.




> It's not that your understanding is incorrect, it's that it's only half of the story.  You and SF _appear_ to have contradicting theologies.  From the realm of eternity they do not contradict, only within the temporal realm do they contradict.  Free will and predestination coexist, and they move around each other, together, like partners in a dance.  SF is a lot more militant about 'people who do not see it my way must be lost,' but there is a _little_ bit of that going on here too.  I can understand why.  Arguing with SF has a tendency to rub that spot raw and make it over-sensitive.
> 
> BOTH free will AND predestination are correct.  It's like the predestinators are looking at the head of the coin, and the free willers are looking at the tail of the coin, and both arguing with each other that the other side is wrong.  Just because I am at the moment describing the predestination side of the coin does not mean I disbelieve the free will side.





> It's because you have eyes on the tail of the coin and he does not, therefore when he's trying to describe the tail of the coin, a subtle change in wording has a dramatic impact on it's meaning which you can see and he cannot.  In the same manner, when you were attempting to describe the head of the coin which I have eyes on, a subtle change in wording dramatically changes the meaning which I can see but you cannot.
> 
> I have stated no multiverse theory wrt to God.  I have only stated a multiverse theory wrt science, science fiction, and conceptual time travel and the resolution of temporal paradox.  As to my understanding of God, I see the eternal realm is to spacetime, as spacetime is to flatland.  The realm of eternity is a dimension perpendicular to and transcendent from the realm of spacetime, in the same way that the realm of spacetime is perpendicular to and transcendent from flatland.


Okay, where did I say that *you* had a multiverse theory?  I don't know if you do or not.  I have one.  And the multiverse theory goes beyond the temporal eternity theory.  Being restricted to 4 dimensions (temporal eternity) indeed creates a conflict between omnipotence and free will.  There is only one possible outcome in 4 dimensions so man's choice becomes an illusion.  But in infinite dimensions (a multiverse) there are inifinite outcomes.  What's fixed (predestined) in each dimension is that in all of them there are people that are saved.  But the people who are saved can vary from one dimension to another.  In fact in many dimensions the same people don't even exist.

Note that I recall you once saying that there are infinite possible realities but God only actualized one of them.  That still only leaves the illusion of choice if you think about it.  But if God actualized an *infinite* number of realities then there are really an *infinite* number of possible outcomes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here is the contradiction you don't want to own up to.  On the one hand you claimed that God appoints men to sin.  Then you claimed that God doesn't do that, but that man sins on his own.  That's a contradiction.  You can clear this up by stating which conflicting idea you actually believe.


No it isn't a contradiction.  That men act volitionally within God's decree is not contradictory at all and has been explained to you countless times with countless verses to support it.






> Nothing that I've said in this thread is at all hostile or immature.  We have exchanged ideas.  You have contradicted yourself and changed tactics midstream.


I've contradicted myself?  Or maybe as the above example shows, you are mistaken about what is contradictory?

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree.  Let's not twist the Scriptures.   
> 
> So when the verse in the OP says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones, how should a bible - believer respond to that?


Sola_Fide, please clear up this contradiction.  What are you saying the disobedient ones were appointed by God to do?  Did they make their own plans to sin as the Bible verse you quoted states, or did God make their plans?

----------


## acptulsa

> No it isn't a contradiction.  That men act volitionally within God's decree is not contradictory at all and has been explained to you countless times with countless verses to support it.


But you haven't explained how that makes them disobedient.  Sounds like quite the contradiction...




> I've contradicted myself?  Or maybe as the above example shows, you are mistaken about what is contradictory?


Are you asking me...?  

Speaking of Ignored Contradictions...




> I Peter 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The people "predestined" to be justified are "predestined" to be sanctified.  The idea that SF posits that sanctification has nothing to do with salvation doesn't fit the view.


I didn't say that sanctification "has nothing to do with" salvation. Sanctification in the life of a justified believer is very real and is a part of salvation.  

I said a person is not saved by his sanctification.  There is a major difference.

----------


## jmdrake

> No it isn't a contradiction.  That men act volitionally within God's decree is not contradictory at all and has been explained to you countless times with countless verses to support it.


If by "within God's decree" you are saying "Man is allowed to make choice A, B or C but the ultimate choice is man's" then that isn't predestination as you have been advocating it.  If by "within God's decree" you are saying "God decreed man X would only make choice A but man X is making that choice", that's nonsense and it's not supported by scripture and it flatly contradicts the verse that said "Man makes the plans, but God orders the steps." 






> I've contradicted myself?


Yep.  Multiple times.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yep.  Multiple times.


Last I checked he still hadn't decided whether or not he was citing what he was citing.

----------


## otherone

> Ah, I am wary of anyone who wants to explain it to the point of not letting me work through it myself. I can only give you my understanding of the elephant, as I only grasp one portion. It is my advice to come up and check it out yourself. _if your motives are pure, Truth will reveal itself to you._


More metaphysics.  Frankly, it gets a bit tedious.  Nothing in the bible actually means what is written, UNLESS it works within a preexisting theology.  "Kill" does not mean "Kill".  "Love your neighbor", does not mean "Love your neighbor".  "Sell your purse and buy a sword" ACTUALLY is God's law permitting self-defense.
Or, I don't understand the time-space continuum, OR I don't know koine Greek, or Hebrew, or understand the social or historical "context" in which the bible was written, OR I am not "Elect", or have not been blessed with a visit by he Holy Ghost, or my motives/intent/heart is not pure.    Yet, some are quick to say that it is the UNERRING Word of God, that early men road dinosaurs, that time has warped, or any of the myriad little snippets that make discourse of it so unrewarding.
That anyone could study the thing and come to the conclusion that torture is "sometimes" moral is repugnant...but MILLIONS have through the course of Christendom (ah....I forgot the "but they are/weren't "real" Christians; the insult must frequently hurled even among our little RPF flock). 
TWO flipping commandments....and people want to argue the circumstances to obey them.  Ah, but I don't understand what those commandments REALLY mean, because of, um....any of the above.

----------


## moostraks

> The verse you quoted did not, at least from the viewpoint of this discussion.  The people "predestined" to be justified are "predestined" to be sanctified.  The idea that SF posits that sanctification has nothing to do with salvation doesn't fit the view.  If the exact same people are justified and sanctified by God, with no human will involved at all, then the distinction between the two on salvation by faith becomes a distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, where did I say that *you* had a multiverse theory?  I don't know if you do or not.  I have one.  And the multiverse theory goes beyond the temporal eternity theory.  Being restricted to 4 dimensions (temporal eternity) indeed creates a conflict between omnipotence and free will.  There is only one possible outcome in 4 dimensions so man's choice becomes an illusion.  But in infinite dimensions (a multiverse) there are inifinite outcomes.  What's fixed (predestined) in each dimension is that in all of them there are people that are saved.  But the people who are saved can vary from one dimension to another.  In fact in many dimensions the same people don't even exist.
> 
> Note that I recall you once saying that there are infinite possible realities but God only actualized one of them.  That still only leaves the illusion of choice if you think about it.  But if God actualized an *infinite* number of realities then there are really an *infinite* number of possible outcomes.


The idea of a multiverse is fascinating. It takes the discussion to the next level of outside time. So what is the reasoning for why it is not palatable? If there is a multiverse, how could that play into dissociative disorder?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide, please clear up this contradiction.  What are you saying the disobedient ones were appointed by God to do?  Did they make their own plans to sin as the Bible verse you quoted states, or did God make their plans?


The verse in 2nd Peter says:



> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10



So the Bible says the disobedient are appointed just as the elect are.

Also, the verse in the Psalms doesn't say that a man plans his way apart from God's decree.  The entire point of the verse is that God is above all directing everything.

----------


## acptulsa

> The verse in 2nd Peter says:


You're going to have to come up with a better citation than that.  I don't recall either the word 'stone' nor the word 'corner' ever appearing in II Peter.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're going to have to come up with a better citation than that.  I don't recall either the word 'stone' nor the word 'corner' ever appearing in II Peter.


Yes sorry.  I am using a new Bible app and its so hard to read.  It's 1 Peter 2:6-10

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, I give you props for that formulation.  I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other.  I don't really know how anyone can know those things because the Bible certainly doesn't go into that kind of depth describing omnitemporality or anything like that.  The Bible uses much simpler formulations:
> 
> He doesn't just see the future, he has made it known.  His purpose will stand in history.


Yes, and as you implied (correctly) the verse in Isaiah 46:10 does not contradict my understanding.  

For one thing, my understanding of temporality vs eternality _completely_ reconciles the biblical doctrine of predestination and the the biblical doctrine of free will.  It also opens up (unfolds/unpacks) a great deal of prophecy and other passages describing the distinctions between Heaven and Earth, including eschatology.  The Book of Revelation, for example, is several orders of magnitude less complicated given this understanding, however I don't think it will really "unpack" there until you have seen it's operation elsewhere in scripture.

For another thing, logically, anything other than my understanding makes God a temporal being, which thing is impossible.  There are verses which do implicate my understanding as operative, but they will not 'unpack' until you already have a grip on it.  All I will ask is that you keep it somewhere in the back of your mind while studying scripture in the future, even if your purpose is to disprove it, and then decide for yourself whether it clarifies or clouds the revealed Word.  Once some of that has taken place, and you have had some experience applying this idea to the Scriptures, then the verses which point to the understanding will make sense, and we can treat this subject again at a future date.

I do have passages that back it up, but I also know that it is imperceptible until one has gained some experience at applying, or at least trying to apply the concept.  You particularly have experience with locating passages that appear to generate a conflict between free will and predestination, and it is in those passages that this understanding shines through the most.  Not just the ones that point to predestination more than free will, but also the ones that point to free will more than predestination.  Apply the concept to Calvinists favorite passages, and also apply the same understanding to Arminian's favorite passages (you likely have a rolodex list of such passages on both sides of the debate) and the apparent contradictions vanish.  Those passages do not _reveal_ the understanding per se as much as they are _opened up by_ the understanding.  

After that, then passages that actually point _to_ the understanding will begin to make sense.  You have to be able to perceive it's operation before passages that point to it's operation are perceptible, and the only way to perceive it's operation is to actually look for it.  So what I will ask is over the next month or two, while studying the Word, just keep the understanding I have shared (regarding God being _completely_ outside of time such that 1855 and 2055 are both happening in the _now_ from His eternal perspective) in your mind over the next couple months of Bible studies, and then let's talk about it again and then I will be able to treat passages that actually point to this concept.

Here is a brief sketch I just made to help illustrate:



God abides in Eternity, outside of space-time.  He sees the end from the beginning.  Prophecy and fulfillment happen at the same eternal moment to Him.  He can 'adjust' the details of prophecy "in real time" (for lack of a better phrase) and adjust the effects of fulfillment to suit His will.  Sometimes to describe prophecy and fulfillment, I use the illustration of a guitar string.  God wants a certain "note" so He uses prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy to achieve that note.  Delivering the prophecy is like a finger plucking the string, and fulfilling the prophecy is like the finger pressing on the fret.  

It's not one thing and then another.  It's _both_ at the same time.  From the eternal realm, the prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy are coincident. (NOT 'coincidence')

----------


## Sola_Fide

Or maybe I'm going blind.  That's the second time I've done that in this thread

----------


## Sola_Fide

> For one thing, my understanding of temporality vs eternality _completely_ reconciles the biblical doctrine of predestination and the the biblical doctrine of free will. )


Gunny no, it doesn't.  Because the problem between the will and predestination is not _time_, it is _sin_.  There is a _moral_ reason that man's will is not free.  It is because he is fallen, dead in sin, a slave to sin, not able to will any spiritual good, and an enemy of God.  There is no formulation that can break that moral chasm.

----------


## acptulsa

> Or maybe I'm going blind.  That's the second time I've done that in this thread


Help is all around you.  You've only got to reach out and take it in the spirit in which it is offered.




> It is because he is fallen, dead in sin, a slave to sin, not able to will any spiritual good, and an enemy of God.  There is no formulation that can break that moral chasm.


Of course there is.  And God has that formulation.

And even that doesn't mean he has no free will.  Man could choose, for example, _which_ sin to indulge in or _how_ to indulge in it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The verse you quoted did not, at least from the viewpoint of this discussion.  The people "predestined" to be justified are "predestined" to be sanctified.  The idea that SF posits that sanctification has nothing to do with salvation doesn't fit the view.  If the exact same people are justified and sanctified by God, with no human will involved at all, then the distinction between the two on salvation by faith becomes a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Okay, where did I say that *you* had a multiverse theory?





> _I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe._





> I don't know if you do or not.  I have one.  And the multiverse theory goes beyond the temporal eternity theory.  Being restricted to 4 dimensions (temporal eternity) indeed creates a conflict between omnipotence and free will.  There is only one possible outcome in 4 dimensions so man's choice becomes an illusion.  But in infinite dimensions (a multiverse) there are inifinite outcomes.  What's fixed (predestined) in each dimension is that in all of them there are people that are saved.  But the people who are saved can vary from one dimension to another.  In fact in many dimensions the same people don't even exist.


I recognize (at least) 7 dimensions, not 4.  The space-time continuum is comprised of 4 dimensions (presuming _against_ string theory) the top three dimensions being the dimensions of the eternal realm.  If string theory is accurate, that becomes 21 dimensions, which would take far too long to explain.  For the purpose of our discussion here, a non-string-theory paradigm and 7 dimensions will suffice.




> Note that I recall you once saying that there are infinite possible realities but God only actualized one of them.


I never recall having said anything like that.




> That still only leaves the illusion of choice if you think about it.  But if God actualized an *infinite* number of realities then there are really an *infinite* number of possible outcomes.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny no, it doesn't.  Because the problem between the will and predestination is not _time_, it is _sin_.  There is a _moral_ reason that man's will is not free.  It is because he is fallen, dead in sin, a slave to sin, not able to will any spiritual good, and an enemy of God.  There is no formulation that can break that moral chasm.


Yes, it does, and no, it's not sin.  The apparent conflict between free will and predestination is an artifact of temporality.  Free will is the gift of God.  God does not gift people with sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> The verse in 2nd Peter says:
> 
> So the Bible says the disobedient are appointed just as the elect are.


But it doesn't say what that appointment means or when that appointment is actualized.  And frankly, so far you haven't really said that either.  That allows you to flow from one contradictory theory to the next without ever taking a real stand on anything.




> Also, the verse in the Psalms doesn't say that a man plans his way apart from God's decree.


Again you are failing to specify what you mean by what God decrees.  If you are saying God decrees men can make choice A or B that's one thing.  But if you are saying that God decrees that man X must make choice A and man Y must make choice B, that flatly contradicts the verse you quoted.  In that case man isn't "making plans."  Man is only thinking about a plan already made for him.




> The entire point of the verse is that God is above all directing everything.


Saying "God is above all directing everything" is not the same as saying "God plans every single action."  Again I'm not disagreeing that God limits man's choices.  God limited Hitler's choice, Napoleon's choice and Stalin's choice.  God did not let their plans come to fruition.  But did God *make* the plans?  The Bible doesn't say that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it's not.  The apparent conflict between free will and predestination is an artifact of temporality.  Free will is the gift of God.  God does not gift people with sin.


No Gunny, the problem is _sin_, not time.  It is the will that is the issue.  

There is no verse in the Bible that says free will is a gift of God.  It's not there.  The Bible says that man's heart is a slave to sin, and dead in trespasses.

----------


## jmdrake

> I recognize (at least) 7 dimensions, not 4.  The space-time continuum is comprised of 4 dimensions (presuming _against_ string theory) the top three dimensions being the dimensions of the eternal realm.  If string theory is accurate, that becomes 21 dimensions, which would take far too long to explain.  For the purpose of our discussion here, a non-string-theory paradigm and 7 dimensions will suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> I never recall having said anything like that.


Okay.  Then maybe we are saying the same thing.

----------


## jmdrake

> No Gunny, the problem is _sin_, not time.  It is the will that is the issue.  
> 
> There is no verse in the Bible that says free will is a gift of God.  It's not there.  The Bible says that man's heart is a slave to sin, and dead in trespasses.


The Bible says that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and they were not slaves to sin until Adam sinned.  The only way Adam could sin is if either Adam was a flawed creation or if Adam was created with freewill.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Except the Bible doesn't say Yeshua's sacrifice was "written about before the world was made."  It said *it happened* before the world was made.


How does that contradict anything that I've ever said?  I'm not the one constraining God to being within time, such that He has to write about stuff before it (temporally) happens.  I'm the one saying that our concept of time is completely irrelevant to the activity of God.  It is my paradigm that asserts that the sacrifice took place before the world was made, nit that it was foreseen and written about.  That's all stuff you added artificially to my words to try and make sense of what I am saying.




> Now put whatever interpretation that you wish, but my use of the if/then statement fits squarely with the atemporal description of Christ's sacrifice.  Mountain meet molehill.


If you like, but you are still seeing only half the story, which is why you keep trying to stuff me into 4 dimensions which thing I have openly rejected from the beginning.  You keep asserting that I am saying the exact opposite of what I am actually saying, which can only be a perception thing.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No Gunny, the problem is _sin_, not time.  It is the will that is the issue.  
> 
> There is no verse in the Bible that says free will is a gift of God.  It's not there.  The Bible says that man's heart is a slave to sin, and dead in trespasses.


No Sola, free will and predestination ONLY contradict when perceived from within the temporal realm.  They coexist perfectly from the eternal perspective.  No amount of your insistence that this understanding is sin, will change that.

----------


## moostraks

> More metaphysics.  Frankly, it gets a bit tedious.  Nothing in the bible actually means what is written, UNLESS it works within a preexisting theology.  "Kill" does not mean "Kill".  "Love your neighbor", does not mean "Love your neighbor".  "Sell your purse and buy a sword" ACTUALLY is God's law permitting self-defense.
> Or, I don't understand the time-space continuum, OR I don't know koine Greek, or Hebrew, or understand the social or historical "context" in which the bible was written, OR I am not "Elect", or have not been blessed with a visit by he Holy Ghost, or my motives/intent/heart is not pure.    Yet, some are quick to say that it is the UNERRING Word of God, that early men road dinosaurs, that time has warped, or any of the myriad little snippets that make discourse of it so unrewarding.
> That anyone could study the thing and come to the conclusion that torture is "sometimes" moral is repugnant...but MILLIONS have through the course of Christendom (ah....I forgot the "but they are/weren't "real" Christians; the insult must frequently hurled even among our little RPF flock). 
> TWO flipping commandments....and people want to argue the circumstances to obey them.  Ah, but I don't understand what those commandments REALLY mean, because of, um....any of the above.


Lol! Yep. Fwiw, I think you get it better than many. Of course, I get ritually taken to task by others who say I have no claim to Love. The elect nonsense is petty imo, but when one bypasses the starting point of love and sprints towards the finish line of proclaiming themselves elect and others damned for their pleasure, well, I get royally aggravated because I have seen the damage of those who wouldn't touch a Bible again thanks to this particular belief. (Then I chastise myself for my short temper on this subject)

I'd say there aren't circumstances where one ignores those two, ever, and it is right. People are fallible though. I am always critiquing myself. It's too easy to go autopilot and come up with excuses later to soothe the conscience. Trust me, I know this all too well about myself.

The Bible was a massive source of frustration for me, I thought, years ago. Then I realized it wasn't the Bible but contradictory people who wanted to tell me my faith. Even people I will agree with on most issues get annoyed with me because they want me to conform to their system. The Bible is a guidebook but my faith, well I had to let go of other's ideas to figure out where I fit in and how I relate to the universe. If I am being told to do something that conflicts with either of the two commandments, for me it is automatically discarded. Sometimes you have to put effort to figuring out how the situation can be reasoned to conform to such. In the end, imo, what matters is the tracks we leave. My faith is what keeps me going in hopefully a positive direction.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay.  Then maybe we are saying the same thing.


With respect to free will, we are absolutely saying the same thing.  It's my exposition of predestination that you are having a rough time with.  I believe in BOTH.  I believe that my understanding of ontological reality reconciles the two concepts _completely_.  Sola is rejecting that idea out of hand because of a distaste for the idea of free will, such that he thinks I am justifying sin by explaining it.  He is so married to the idea of the concept of free will being sinful, that any theological construction which reconciles predestination and free will must necessarily be sinful.  You have been putting me in a similar box to Sola because my support for his style of predestination makes it hard for you to understand how I could logically accept free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Bible says that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and they were not slaves to sin until Adam sinned.  The only way Adam could sin is if either Adam was a flawed creation or if Adam was created with freewill.


What does the pre-fall condition of man's will have to do with man's will post-fall?

----------


## jmdrake

> How does that contradict anything that I've ever said?  I'm not the one constraining God to being within time, such that He has to write about stuff before it (temporally) happens.  I'm the one saying that our concept of time is completely irrelevant to the activity of God.  It is my paradigm that asserts that the sacrifice took place before the world was made, nit that it was foreseen and written about.  That's all stuff you added artificially to my words to try and make sense of what I am saying.


No Gunny.  You are the one that has artificially added something.  You're claiming, for no reason that I can ascertain, that my use of the word "then" actually means something when it doesn't.  However you interpret the verse "Jesus the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to mean, when that happened it's possible that Jesus' sacrifice was "properly allocated."  If you think "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" means that's when the prophecy was made, then attach the then to that then.  If you believe it means "Since God exists outside of time Jesus was actually slain prior to the creation of the world and man just experienced that within man's concept of time" then attach the then to that then.  This really is a non issue.

----------


## jmdrake

> What does the pre-fall condition of man's will have to do with man's will post-fall?


Gunny said man was given the gift of freewill.  Do you agree with that or not?  It's funny that when you are faced with a fact that shatters your belief system you always follow up with "What does X have to do with it?"  Prior to the fall God knew man was going to fall right?  If that God's prior knowledge means no freewill then that's true even before the fall.

----------


## jmdrake

> With respect to free will, we are absolutely saying the same thing.  It's my exposition of predestination that you are having a rough time with.  I believe in BOTH.  I believe that my understanding of ontological reality reconciles the two concepts _completely_.  Sola is rejecting that idea out of hand because of a distaste for the idea of free will, such that he thinks I am justifying sin by explaining it.  He is so married to the idea of the concept of free will being sinful, that any theological construction which reconciles predestination and free will must necessarily be sinful.  You have been putting me in a similar box to Sola because my support for his style of predestination makes it hard for you to understand how I could logically accept free will.


Not really.  From any particular multiverse things would indeed appear to be predestined done to every single act.  And my theory is that certain things *are* totally scripted.  Again, God would not allow Herod to kill baby Jesus in any universe.

----------


## acptulsa

> What does the pre-fall condition of man's will have to do with man's will post-fall?


Where in the Bible does it say that the Fruit of the Tree of Life turned Adam and Eve into something other than what God created?  Or did that somehow make God more, or less, omnipotent?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Gunny said man was given the gift of freewill.  Do you agree with that or not?  It's funny that when you are faced with a fact that shatters your belief system you always follow up with "What does X have to do with it?"  Prior to the fall God knew man was going to fall right?  If that God's prior knowledge means no freewill then that's true even before the fall.


So are you saying there is no difference between man's will before and after the fall?  Not even Pelagius said that!

----------


## acptulsa

> So are you saying there is no difference between man's will before and after the fall?  Not even Pelagius said that!


Did that rather amazing fruit alter God's creation, or did it alter God?

If man was only a slave to sin after eating the fruit, what made Adam and Eve disobey God and eat it?

----------


## jmdrake

> The idea of a multiverse is fascinating. It takes the discussion to the next level of outside time. So what is the reasoning for why it is not palatable? If there is a multiverse, how could that play into dissociative disorder?


I don't think it's a problem for science at all.  In fact I'm finding all sorts of science articles investigating the idea of what the multiverse means for freewill versus determinism.  The scientific community uses "determinism" instead of "predestination" because determinism doesn't imply a supernatural being, but those who believe in determinism and those who believe in predestination are otherwise arguing the same thing.  Everything that will happen was predetermined eons ago and is unfolding exactly as it always would happen either by the had of God or by the laws of physics.  The idea of the multiverse and quantum mechanics introduces the possibility that choices actually mean something to that matrix.

See: http://www.axonnsays.com/2014/10/fre...tum-paradoxes/

I think the problem many have with this is that they feel beholden to theological ideas from hundreds of years ago when the multiverse wasn't even being thought about, at least not by most people, and once having "locked in" or theory A, B or C, adherents to said theory are afraid of the implications of being possibly wrong.

----------


## jmdrake

> So are you saying there is no difference between man's will before and after the fall?  Not even Pelagius said that!


I never said there was no difference between man's will before or after the fall and you know that or you should know that.  I'm saying that if God's foreknowledge meant that man doesn't have freewill then man never had freewill.  Are you saying that God didn't have foreknowledge before the fall?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No Gunny.  You are the one that has artificially added something.  You're claiming, for no reason that I can ascertain, that my use of the word "then" actually means something when it doesn't.


I haven't mentioned that in like 2 pages.  You said you didn't believe either statement anyway so I deemed the whole discussion of it irrelevant.  You made two statements that said two different things.  You do not recognize that they were different.  I disbelieve the first, I believe the second.  You do not believe either one because you believe they are the same.  I shrugged my shoulders and dropped that subject long ago.  If you want to I can go back and re-quote both statements and diagram bothe statements to show how and why they are syntactically different, but since you disbelieve both statements I really don't see the point.  




> However you interpret the verse "Jesus the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to mean, when that happened it's possible that Jesus' sacrifice was "properly allocated."  If you think "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" means that's when the prophecy was made, then attach the then to that then.  If you believe it means "Since God exists outside of time Jesus was actually slain prior to the creation of the world and man just experienced that within man's concept of time" then attach the then to that then.  This really is a non issue.


Neither really captures my understanding very well.  My position is that time is wholly irrelevant to the operation of God, it is only relevant to us, temporal beings.  God could have looked set Himself at the beginning and looked at the end of the universe and decided He didn't want it to end that way, so He then chose to accomplish the sacrifice to make a different end, and this would still have been done before the foundation of the world, because He was sitting at the beginning of the timeline when He decided that was how He was going to fix it.  It was the sacrifice of Yeshua which redeemed David the King, Abraham, Moses, Seth, and Adam.  I'm pretty sure you agree with that. I honestly don't understand why you keep bringing up the stuff that we actually agree on and saying that we don't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Proverbs 16:9 NASB
> 
> The mind of man plans his way, But the L ord directs his steps.*


Jmdrake reads this and thinks "man is doing his part in history, and then God does his part too".

What it really mean is "man makes his plans,  but (either knowingly or unknowingly to him) God is directing everything."

----------


## jmdrake

> Neither really captures my understanding very well.  My position is that time is wholly irrelevant to the operation of God, it is only relevant to us, temporal beings.  God could have looked set Himself at the beginning and looked at the end of the universe and decided He didn't want it to end that way, so He then chose to accomplish the sacrifice to make a different end, and this would still have been done before the foundation of the world, because He was sitting at the beginning of the timeline when He decided that was how He was going to fix it.  It was the sacrifice of Yeshua which redeemed David the King, Abraham, Moses, Seth, and Adam.  I'm pretty sure you agree with that. I honestly don't understand why you keep bringing up the stuff that we actually agree on and saying that we don't.


Okay, I honestly don't understand the difference between:

_"Since God exists outside of time Jesus was actually slain prior to the creation of the world and man just experienced that within man's concept of time" then attach the then to that then._

and

_My position is that time is wholly irrelevant to the operation of God, it is only relevant to us, temporal beings._

Maybe it's that I gave a description of what *might* have happened?  Anyway, it's fine.  I'm not arguing with you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jmdrake reads this and thinks "man is doing his part in history, and then God does his part too".
> 
> What it really mean is "man makes his plans,  but (either knowingly or unknowingly to him) God is directing everything."


I don't think you can actually point to Drake and tell him what he thinks.  Both of y'all have been doing that to me, and both of y'all have been totally missing the mark on that score.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I never said there was no difference between man's will before or after the fall and you know that or you should know that.  I'm saying that if God's foreknowledge meant that man doesn't have freewill then man never had freewill.  Are you saying that God didn't have foreknowledge before the fall?


In what way is man's will different after the fall?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake reads this and thinks "man is doing his part in history, and then God does his part too".


No.  What I read that and know, not "think" is that God allows man to make plans and those plans may or may not line up with God's will and God intervenes and overrules those plans as necessary.  Now whatever it is that you believe is unclear.




> What it really mean is "man makes his plans,  but (either knowingly or unknowingly to him) God is directing everything."


So here is your chance to actually be specific.  Do you believe that man just *thinks* he makes the plans but God really is the one making them?  Yes or no?  Make up your mind.  If "yes" then when man makes a plan to sin, that's really God's plan.  If no, then you really aren't arguing against my point, and the most obvious interpretation of the verse, which is man makes his plans but God limits the outcome.  Hitler planned to kill all the Jews in Germany but God didn't allow that to happen.

----------


## jmdrake

> In what way is man's will different after the fall?


In what way is God's foreknowledge different after the fall?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think you can actually point to Drake and tell him what he thinks.  Both of y'all have been doing that to me, and both of y'all have been totally missing the mark on that score.


Actually I take your word on what you believe.  I'm not sure you've done that with me, but that's okay.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In what way is God's foreknowledge different after the fall?


God doesn't change.   Man did change.   In your view, how is man's will different now?  You just said it was different.   How?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay, I honestly don't understand the difference between:
> 
> _"Since God exists outside of time Jesus was actually slain prior to the creation of the world and man just experienced that within man's concept of time" then attach the then to that then._
> 
> and
> 
> _My position is that time is wholly irrelevant to the operation of God, it is only relevant to us, temporal beings._
> 
> Maybe it's that I gave a description of what *might* have happened?  Anyway, it's fine.  I'm not arguing with you.


That's certainly by far the closest of the three mentioned.  The difference in my understanding is that it's not just man's _concept_ of time, but that space-time is very real thing, it's not just a concept that we constrain ourselves within by our conceptualization of it, but we are constrained within spacetime by the reality of our condition while God is not, He is totally outside of it.  The two statements above are different enough to fundamentally affect the paradigm I am describing, even if they are effectively the same from within a spacetime perspective.  This is why I perceive them as different.

----------


## otherone

> I'd say there aren't circumstances where one ignores those two, ever, and it is right. People are fallible though. I am always critiquing myself. It's too easy to go autopilot and come up with excuses later to soothe the conscience. Trust me, I know this all too well about myself.


Thank you for your post.  By the way, my frustration wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular.  I have a great deal of respect for those who bother posting at all here, and am attentive to what is being written.
The reason that I hangout here, in particular, is because Americans, and by extension, America, claim to be a Christian nation.  I've studied scriptures, I've had (too many) theology classes, I've studied other faiths, animism, and mythology.  I recall a priest struggling to explain transubstantiation in catechism class (a million years ago), and the best he could do was: (paraphrasing) "it depends on what the definition of is, is."  Mentioning the RCC is like spreading chum in the water here, so I do so with trepidation.

I have no difficulty stating that Christianity is a pacifist religion, without exception, violence is never moral.  I see people twist the bible to justify whatever is practical and expedient. Yes, we are all fallible....what I have a problem with is when we say sin is not sin, or sin is sometimes not sin, based on circumstances...God's law, corrupted by temporal conditions.   We have no chance individually, or as a nation, to "get right" when we _deliberately_ disobey God's two commandments and then say "it's ok".   We GLORIFY war.  GLORIFY it.  We say it's HONORABLE.  We call murderers HEROES.   It won't change until we call it what it actually is....EVIL.   But when we say evil is "sometimes" moral...then we have NO MORAL motivation to end it.   Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.",  but how can we comply if we deny what sin is?

There is kindness and compassion in the world, there is real morality in the world, but it is very rare coming from professed "Christians".
If Christians stood up and acknowledged what is going on, maybe we could end this.   But, you know, Romans 13 and all...

If one strives to follow those two commandments, does any of this other metaphysical dung being thrown around this board even matter?

----------


## jmdrake

> God doesn't change.   Man did change.   In your view, how is man's will different now?  You just said it was different.   How?


Right.  God doesn't change.  But you have repeatedly said that *the* proof that freewill doesn't exist is God's foreknowledge.  So if God's foreknowledge existed before the fall, and it did, then you can't use His foreknowledge as proof that freewill doesn't exist.  Understand now?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's certainly by far the closest of the three mentioned.  The difference in my understanding is that it's not just man's _concept_ of time, but that space-time is very real thing, it's not just a concept that we constrain ourselves within by our conceptualization of it, but we are constrained within spacetime by the reality of our condition while God is not, He is totally outside of it.  The two statements above are different enough to fundamentally affect the paradigm I am describing, even if they are effectively the same from within a spacetime perspective.  This is why I perceive them as different.


Okay.

----------


## erowe1

Bryan should pay SF to post here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  God doesn't change.  But you have repeatedly said that *the* proof that freewill doesn't exist is God's foreknowledge.  So if God's foreknowledge existed before the fall, and it did, then you can't use His foreknowledge as proof that freewill doesn't exist.  Understand now?


No, I've never said that THHHHEEEE proof freewill doesn't exist is because of God's omnipotence and foreknowledge.   Man's will is not free because man is fallen and the Bible says that man is a slave of sin, and can will no spiritual good.

This is the reason why you won't answer my question about what happened to the will of man after the fall.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Bryan should pay SF to post here.


Almost 2000 views and 343 replies in a day and half.

And the best part about it is that Jesus is being glorified.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think you can actually point to Drake and tell him what he thinks.


Especially when you don't understand it.

And I don't know why you're too busy stuffing words in their mouths and butting in on their conversation to answer the questions of people who are actually willing to risk wasting their time trying to talk to you.




> Almost 2000 views and 343 replies in a day and half.
> 
> And the best part about it is that Jesus is being glorified.


Is that why you make an ass of yourself?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  God makes you make an ass of yourself.  What a wonderful alternative to personal responsibility.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Especially when you don't understand it.
> 
> And I don't know why you're too busy stuffing words in their mouths and butting in on their conversation to answer the questions of people who are actually willing to risk wasting their time trying to talk to you.


Okay,

1) tell me what it is that you think I do not understand. 

2) tell me what words I have stuffed into anybody's mouth.

3) this is a forum.  Getting involved in conversations is why forums exist.

4) thank you for calling a conversation with me a waste of time.

Thanks in advance.

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay,
> 
> 1) tell me what it is that you think I do not understand.


That I was talking to S_F.

I quoted your two cents by way of agreement, prior to chipping in my own.

Does that explain two through four?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thank you for your post.  By the way, my frustration wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular.  I have a great deal of respect for those who bother posting at all here, and am attentive to what is being written.
> The reason that I hangout here, in particular, is because Americans, and by extension, America, claim to be a Christian nation.  I've studied scriptures, I've had (too many) theology classes, I've studied other faiths, animism, and mythology.*  I recall a priest struggling to explain transubstantiation in catechism class (a million years ago), and the best he could do was: (paraphrasing) "it depends on what the definition of is, is."*  Mentioning the RCC is like spreading chum in the water here, so I do so with trepidation.
> 
> I have no difficulty stating that Christianity is a pacifist religion, without exception, violence is never moral.  I see people twist the bible to justify whatever is practical and expedient. Yes, we are all fallible....what I have a problem with is when we say sin is not sin, or sin is sometimes not sin, based on circumstances...God's law, corrupted by temporal conditions.   We have no chance individually, or as a nation, to "get right" when we _deliberately_ disobey God's two commandments and then say "it's ok".   We GLORIFY war.  GLORIFY it.  We say it's HONORABLE.  We call murderers HEROES.   It won't change until we call it what it actually is....EVIL.   But when we say evil is "sometimes" moral...then we have NO MORAL motivation to end it.   Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.",  but how can we comply if we deny what sin is?
> 
> There is kindness and compassion in the world, there is real morality in the world, but it is very rare coming from professed "Christians".
> If Christians stood up and acknowledged what is going on, maybe we could end this.   But, you know, Romans 13 and all...
> 
> If one strives to follow those two commandments, does any of this other metaphysical dung being thrown around this board even matter?


Yeah, transubstantiation is really complicated.  I don't think it can be explained coherently in less than a full lecture.  JMHO.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, transubstantiation is really complicated.  I don't think it can be explained coherently in less than a full lecture.  JMHO.


It is comforting to see you say that.

I have sometimes heard that doctrine's adherents insist that it involves nothing more than simply accepting the plain meaning of the words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood."

Isn't it at all problematic to you that believing this doctrine, as complicated as it is, would be treated by some as a prerequisite for membership in the One True Church?

----------


## RJB

> Yeah, transubstantiation is really complicated.  I don't think it can be explained coherently in less than a full lecture.  JMHO.


I would say better experienced than theorized.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That I was talking to S_F.
> 
> I quoted your two cents by way of agreement, prior to chipping in my own.
> 
> Does that explain two through four?


Aye, sorry, I thought that's what you were doing in #1.  #2-4 I was like, oh, what?? lol

----------


## otherone

> Isn't it at all problematic to you that believing this doctrine, as complicated as it is, would be treated by some as a prerequisite for membership in the One True Church?


Why draw a distinction between this and any of the other hard-to-swallow (pun intended) dogma?

----------


## erowe1

> Why draw a distinction between this and any of the other hard-to-swallow (pun intended) dogma?


It isn't.

----------


## otherone

> It isn't.


???
It isn't different from the rest of Christian dogma?  Then why single it out?

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I've never said that THHHHEEEE proof freewill doesn't exist is because of God's omnipotence and foreknowledge.   Man's will is not free because man is fallen and the Bible says that man is a slave of sin, and can will no spiritual good.


Okay.  So you are ready now to complete drop the foreknowledge is *AAAAAA* reason freewill doesn't exist?  Because you can't have it both ways.  If foreknowledge *in any way shape or form* then it equally applies before or after the fall.





> This is the reason why you won't answer my question about what happened to the will of man after the fall.


Wrong. You are highly disrespectful in not answering my questions and then demanding that I answer yours.  But to answer your question man had a bent towards sin after the fall but the ability to respond to God.  "When the knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave them up to a reprobate mind."  Man is not born with a reprobate mind even after the fall according to the Bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thus proving nothing.  Mr. Drake already said he believes that God engineered Napoleon's and Hitler's destruction.  And the Bible does not say God engineered the actions of Israel's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> The God of Isaiah only claimed credit for light and darkness, and for prosperity and disaster, so far as I can see there.  Not for micromanaging attacks on Israel.
> 
> So, has ignoring my post made it go away yet?  Is it inconvenient when I interrupt your imitation of a broken record or a tape loop?  Sorry.  God made me do it.


Well, in Isaiah 10 God sort of does claim credit for leading Assyria to attack Israel.  He predestined it.  You could possibly get out of this by claiming that the initial attack wasn't "sin" because God commanded it, and it was only the pride that followed that was sinful.  I'm going to check the text right after I finish this post and see if that's even potentially workable.  But its hard to deny that he predestined it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I just read the text of Isaiah 10 and it seems to me that God isn't holding the Assyrians morally responsible for invading and plundering Israel as such.  It seems that God actually wanted them to do that.  What he is condemning them for is their boastful pride.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, in Isaiah 10 God sort of does claim credit for leading Assyria to attack Israel.  He predestined it.  You could possibly get out of this by claiming that the initial attack wasn't "sin" because God commanded it, and it was only the pride that followed that was sinful.  I'm going to check the text right after I finish this post and see if that's even potentially workable.  But its hard to deny that he predestined it.


In Isaiah 10, God uses the evil Assyria armies to judge Israel for their pride, then afterward, judges the Assyrians themselves for their pride!  And God says the Assyrians don't even know that they are the "axe in the hand" of God.  You won't see an Arminian-type get anywhere near Isaiah 10.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just read the text of Isaiah 10 and it seems to me that God isn't holding the Assyrians morally responsible for invading and plundering Israel as such.  It seems that God actually wanted them to do that.  What he is condemning them for is their boastful pride.


I agree.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Does 'double predestination' actually exist? Because if I were a cynic, I'd say that is way too close to 'double penetration' and anoint Sola as the greatest troll in the history of RPF, and one of the better ones I've seen in my 18 years on the internet.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay.  So you are ready now to complete drop the foreknowledge is *AAAAAA* reason freewill doesn't exist?  Because you can't have it both ways.  If foreknowledge *in any way shape or form* then it equally applies before or after the fall.


Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.





> Wrong. You are highly disrespectful in not answering my questions and then demanding that I answer yours.  But to answer your question man had a bent towards sin after the fall but the ability to respond to God.  "When the knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave them up to a reprobate mind."  Man is not born with a reprobate mind even after the fall according to the Bible.


Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"???  That is not what the Bible says at all.  




> *Romans 8:7
> 
> The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
> 
> *


You are saying that fallen men can do something good like respond to God, but the Bible says that fallen men can't do anything good.  Who do you think is right?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And even that doesn't mean he has no free will.  Man could choose, for example, _which_ sin to indulge in or _how_ to indulge in it.


If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free.  Man's will is a slave to sin.

Jesus said:




> * John 8:34 NASB
> 
> Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.


So did God put into Eve's mind the plan to disobey Him and eat the fruit?  Yes or no?




> Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"???  That is not what the Bible says at all.


What part of "When they knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave the over to a reprobate mind" do you not understand?  Clearly that describes a condition of man that got worse.  If man was born "totally depraved" then he couldn't get worse.  You don't believe the Bible?

----------


## jmdrake

> If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free.  Man's will is a slave to sin.
> 
> Jesus said:
> 
> _John 8:34 NASB
> 
> Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin._


Did Adam and Eve commit sin because they were slaves to sin, or did they become slaves to sin by committing sin?

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, in Isaiah 10 God sort of does claim credit for leading Assyria to attack Israel.  He predestined it.  You could possibly get out of this by claiming that the initial attack wasn't "sin" because God commanded it, and it was only the pride that followed that was sinful.  I'm going to check the text right after I finish this post and see if that's even potentially workable.  But its hard to deny that he predestined it.


And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan.  Your point is?  There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin.  And make no mistake about it.  The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin.  Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did Adam and Eve commit sin because they were slaves to sin, or did they become slaves to sin by committing sin?


The Bible doesn't say what kind of will Adam had.  The point is that the Bible says what kind of will men have *now*.  We are fallen, dead in sin, and slaves of sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan.  Your point is?  There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin.  And make no mistake about it.  The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin.  Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.


Jmdrake....here's a question for you.

God is the author of sin (in the sense that He has a purpose for it in that it will glorify His justice).

So what?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So did God put into Eve's mind the plan to disobey Him and eat the fruit?  Yes or no?


Yes.  God purposes everything that comes to pass, including the sin of men.  The sin of men glorifies the justice of God.  This is explained in Romans chapter 9.




> What part of "When they knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave the over to a reprobate mind" do you not understand?  Clearly that describes a condition of man that got worse.  If man was born "totally depraved" then he couldn't get worse.  You don't believe the Bible?


You are inserting your false theology into the verse. When you read the chapter of Romans 1, and then you get into chapters 2,3,4 you find the point being made that all men are alike condemned by God's law.  No one seeks for God and no man does good.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  God purposes everything that comes to pass, including the sin of men.  The sin of men glorifies the justice of God.  This is explained in Romans chapter 9.


So now you're saying God is the author of sin and you are flatly contradicting your earlier statement.  Please read your own words.




> Men want to sin.  Men have wills.  Men want to do the sin they do.  Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature.  And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.


Either God "purposes men to sin" or He doesn't.  You can't say "Men aren't forced to sin" and then turn around and say "God purposes men to sin."  And that's why conversations with you are so insufferable.  You flip flop on theology more than Mitt Romney flip flops on politics.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake....here's a question for you.
> 
> God is the author of sin (in the sense that He has a purpose for it in that it will glorify His justice).
> 
> So what?


1) It means that you have contradicted yourself *again*.

2) What "glory" is there in that other than in your own twisted mind?

3) The belief that God is the author of sin flatly contradicts the Bible.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The part where you say God makes us sin.  Men are not puppets.  They want to do the sin they do. Men have wills.





> If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free.  Man's will is a slave to sin.
> 
> Jesus said:


smh

----------


## moostraks

> Thank you for your post.  By the way, my frustration wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular.  I have a great deal of respect for those who bother posting at all here, and am attentive to what is being written.
> The reason that I hangout here, in particular, is because Americans, and by extension, America, claim to be a Christian nation.  I've studied scriptures, I've had (too many) theology classes, I've studied other faiths, animism, and mythology.  I recall a priest struggling to explain transubstantiation in catechism class (a million years ago), and the best he could do was: (paraphrasing) "it depends on what the definition of is, is."  Mentioning the RCC is like spreading chum in the water here, so I do so with trepidation.
> 
> I have no difficulty stating that Christianity is a pacifist religion, without exception, violence is never moral.  I see people twist the bible to justify whatever is practical and expedient. Yes, we are all fallible....what I have a problem with is when we say sin is not sin, or sin is sometimes not sin, based on circumstances...God's law, corrupted by temporal conditions.   We have no chance individually, or as a nation, to "get right" when we _deliberately_ disobey God's two commandments and then say "it's ok".   We GLORIFY war.  GLORIFY it.  We say it's HONORABLE.  We call murderers HEROES.   It won't change until we call it what it actually is....EVIL.   But when we say evil is "sometimes" moral...then we have NO MORAL motivation to end it.   Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.",  but how can we comply if we deny what sin is?
> 
> There is kindness and compassion in the world, there is real morality in the world, but it is very rare coming from professed "Christians".
> If Christians stood up and acknowledged what is going on, maybe we could end this.   But, you know, Romans 13 and all...
> 
> If one strives to follow those two commandments, does any of this other metaphysical dung being thrown around this board even matter?


This is why I relate to the peace churches because of their message against wars and violence. The FOX news Christians (as I now think of warmongering Christians) are no different than their so called enemy the extremists they are always going on about needing to eradicate.

Does this other stuff matter? Yeah. It does because double predestination cuts to the very heart of how many "Christians" view others outside of their belief system. When you elevate yourself because of a self proclaimed superior genetic status claiming yourself to be elect, and then anyone who disagrees with you is then told they were made genetically inferior to be tortured forever (and not just that but tortured for the purpose of showing the superiority of the elect), you are warping the message of Peace and Love, and made any person outside of your tribe subhuman. It is this superiority complex that gives people the type of entitlement to commit acts such as having wiped out Native Americans because they worshipped differently, treated slaves from Africa as inferior animals to do ones bidding, or believe that one should turn the ME into a sheet of glass.

So some of us bother to argue this metaphysical dung because we understand that it is our responsibility to speak up and hope that those who are preaching an unloving philosophy can see the detriment of such positions and to hopefully curtail others from accepting the unloving beliefs as being an accurate representation of a loving Creator.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"???  That is not what the Bible says at all.  
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that fallen men can do something good like respond to God, but the Bible says that fallen men can't do anything good.  Who do you think is right?


These verses has been given to you a number of times, but I will repost them here, again.

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

----------


## moostraks

> Bryan should pay SF to post here.


 I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too? 



> Almost 2000 views and 343 replies in a day and half.
> 
> And the best part about it is that Jesus is being glorified.


You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.

----------


## otherone

> So some of us bother to argue this metaphysical dung because we understand that it is our responsibility to speak up and hope that those who are preaching an unloving philosophy can see the detriment of such positions and to hopefully curtail others from accepting the unloving beliefs as being an accurate representation of a loving Creator.


IMO. an unloving philosophy is only harmful if it leads to an unloving action.  I wish Christians would spare the metaphysical fisticuffs against one another and turn that zealotry against those who murder with "Christs blessing".   Two commandments; follow them and whether you believe God zips around in a time machine, or the bad people are nephalim, or the world is only 5000 years old all become moot.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too? 
> 
> 
> You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.


He's competing with naked girls with guns :P

----------


## jmdrake

> I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too? 
> 
> 
> You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.


It's funny but people have forgotten the original meaning of the word "troll" when it comes to the internet.  A "troll" isn't some ugly person who sits under a bridge.  A "troll" is someone who is "trolling for a response", kind of a like a "trolling" motor on a fishing boat.  I remember back in the days of USENET there was an epic troll where this one sick woman cross posted a thread claiming "God must have a really big penis to rape Mary" to multiple Christian and atheist forums along with soc.culture.african.american (a forum I read a lot at the time) for the sole purpose of getting people arguing with each other.  (Why did she post this to the AA forum?  No other reason than she enjoyed trolling that forum.)  Not surprisingly there was soon a ridiculously high number of responses.  By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."

----------


## moostraks

> IMO. an unloving philosophy is only harmful if it leads to an unloving action.  I wish Christians would spare the metaphysical fisticuffs against one another and turn that zealotry against those who murder with "Christs blessing".   Two commandments; follow them and whether you believe God zips around in a time machine, or the bad people are nephalim, or the world is only 5000 years old all become moot.


In theory, but it is like trying to deal with Hannity folks who claim they are libertarians and the actions speak louder than words. If all those who claimed to be libertarian understood and applied the NAP that would be awesome. If all those who claimed to be Christians would really behave as though they loved their neighbor that would be unbelievably wonderful. Yet, approach either of those two groups you will find a number of members who believe that are applying the principles properly even when their actions show differently.

One of the main reasons why I am seriously thinking it is time to withdraw contributing anything to the forum is because of how it negatively effects my faith and causes a ripple effect. I feel for others who like myself have struggled with faith after dealing with the S_Fs of religion. Yet, by being drawn into a discussion, I fuel the fire. But by not responding, it is just like not calling out fake liberty positions. 

You cannot advocate for liberty when your core principles are wrong. If your mistakes aren't addressed by others then the message of liberty looks just like fascism. You cannot advocate Love when your core principles are wrong. If the mistakes are not addressed then eventually no one knows the difference between love and hate.

Many of these metaphysical discussions from your pov might seem frivolous but those participating likely realize why it is so important and that is why they become so heated. Usually, the fluff discussions are just pushing a person's own boundaries and they are the conversations that don't get heated.

----------


## moostraks

> He's competing with naked girls with guns :P


Lol! Yep...



> It's funny but people have forgotten the original meaning of the word "troll" when it comes to the internet.  A "troll" isn't some ugly person who sits under a bridge.  A "troll" is someone who is "trolling for a response", kind of a like a "trolling" motor on a fishing boat.  I remember back in the days of USENET there was an epic troll where this one sick woman cross posted a thread claiming "God must have a really big penis to rape Mary" to multiple Christian and atheist forums along with soc.culture.african.american (a forum I read a lot at the time) for the sole purpose of getting people arguing with each other.  (Why did she post this to the AA forum?  No other reason than she enjoyed trolling that forum.)  Not surprisingly there was soon a ridiculously high number of responses.  By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."


 yep, tossing the bait in the water and fishing for responses to bite that hook. It is discouraging to see the threads that have been bumped and know someone is chumming the waters. This thread is just a reiteration of previous threads in shorthand, including insults and the potter's verse. Same song different day.

----------


## acptulsa

> By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."





> One of the main reasons why I am seriously thinking it is time to withdraw contributing anything to the forum is because of how it negatively effects my faith and causes a ripple effect. I feel for others who like myself have struggled with faith after dealing with the S_Fs of religion. Yet, by being drawn into a discussion, I fuel the fire. But by not responding, it is just like not calling out fake liberty positions.


Oh, maybe God was glorified.  Maybe.

But if any spectator popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.

And if anyone popped up who was thinking of trying church out, I sincerely doubt they still are.  I just wish he'd name his denomination out of courtesy to sane and innocent other denominations, so their attendance won't suffer for sins beyond their control.

----------


## otherone

> Many of these metaphysical discussions from your pov might seem frivolous but those participating likely realize why it is so important and that is why they become so heated.


From my unenlightened pov, these discussions appear more hubris than apologetic.

----------


## otherone

> But if any spectator popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.


_"Knowlier" than Thou_

----------


## moostraks

> Oh, maybe God was glorified.  Maybe.
> 
> But if any spectators popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.
> 
> And if anyone popped up who was thinking of trying church out, I sincerely doubt they still are.  I just wish he'd name his denomination out of courtesy to sane and innocent other denominations, so their attendance won't suffer for sins beyond their control.


Pretty sure he has previously claimed Baptist at one point. The arguments are Reformed in their essence. Reminds me of a number of churches down South. 




> From my unenlightened pov, these discussions appear more hubris than apologetic.


 This is what they descend into usually. To live in a vacuum with one's belief has its own pitfalls. Some of us don't attend brick and mortars due to their corruption so these conversations provide opportunities for growth. Unfortunately, it seems that some prefer the theatrics and fireworks and think that is beneficial to the forum as opposed to the non-argumentative threads. Thus we have folks crowing about thread views and post counts instead of quality of material provided. 

Calling them the Tower of Babel was spot on for these threads. People talk past each other.  The only thing gained in the end is harsh feelings toward others and more isolation for the individual.

----------


## acptulsa

> BRADY:  I do not think about things... things that I do not think about.
> 
> DRUMMOND:  Do you ever think about things that you _do_ think about?


Hubris is the right word.  If you don't worship exactly the same way I worship, then God isn't big enough for the both of us.

Libeling and slandering God, and calling it glorification.

----------


## erowe1

> ???
> It isn't different from the rest of Christian dogma?  Then why single it out?


Sorry. I must have read your question too fast.

But yes, that's what I meant. The remark I made about transubstantiation is the same thing I would say about many other similar dogmas. Salvation doesn't require belief in things that require lectures in order to be understood well enough to believe.

----------


## erowe1

> He's competing with naked girls with guns :P


Where?

I'm asking for a friend.

----------


## otherone

> Sorry. I must have read your question too fast.
> 
> But yes, that's what I meant. The remark I made about transubstantiation is the same thing I would say about many other similar dogmas. Salvation doesn't require belief in things that require lectures in order to _be understood well enough to believe._


No problem.
Why is it important to understand the mechanics of transubstantiation?  Why must we understand something in order to believe?   How can a bush burn, or a snake speak, or a sea part, or someone rise from the dead?   I don't understand how any of these things could occur.  With all due respect, it seems that your comment was an unsolicited shot at a particular church?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Either God "purposes men to sin" or He doesn't.  You can't say "Men aren't forced to sin" and then turn around and say "God purposes men to sin."  And that's why conversations with you are so insufferable.  You flip flop on theology more than Mitt Romney flip flops on politics.



Hehe....another one of your "contradictions" now huh?

Did God purpose the sin that led to the cross?  Yes.  Did God purpose the Assyrians to judge Israel militarily?  Yes.  

Did God _make_  the men do their sin? NO.  Men have wills.  They want to do the sin they do.

That is the difference between predestination and pure fatalistic determinism: man's will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too? 
> 
> 
> You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.



Respectfully, I disagree.   This thread has been very civil with good discussions.  So, people must be viewing it for some other reason.  There's no drama here.

----------


## Brett85

> I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too? 
> 
> 
> You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.


I don't know.  SF posting here at least makes things a lot less boring.    There's hardly any activity on this sub forum when he's not posting.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> These verses has been given to you a number of times, but I will repost them here, again.
> 
> Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, *so that they are without excuse,* 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


Yes, and a number of times I have explained that you don't know what that verse means.  The revelation that God gives in nature is enough to CONDEMN man and MAKE HIM WITHOUT EXCUSE. It does not save him or give him any saving knowledge.

----------


## acptulsa

> Gunny no, it doesn't.  Because the problem between the will and predestination is not _time_, it is _sin_.  There is a _moral_ reason that man's will is not free.  It is because he is fallen, dead in sin, a slave to sin, not able to will any spiritual good, and an enemy of God.  There is no formulation that can break that moral chasm.





> No Gunny, the problem is _sin_, not time.  It is the will that is the issue.  
> 
> There is no verse in the Bible that says free will is a gift of God.  It's not there.  The Bible says that man's heart is a slave to sin, and dead in trespasses.





> No, I've never said that THHHHEEEE proof freewill doesn't exist is because of God's omnipotence and foreknowledge.   Man's will is not free because man is fallen and the Bible says that man is a slave of sin, and can will no spiritual good.
> 
> This is the reason why you won't answer my question about what happened to the will of man after the fall.





> If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free.  Man's will is a slave to sin.
> 
> Jesus said:





> Jmdrake....here's a question for you.
> 
> God is the author of sin (in the sense that He has a purpose for it in that it will glorify His justice).
> 
> So what?





> Hehe....another one of your "contradictions" now huh?
> 
> Did God purpose the sin that led to the cross?  Yes.  Did God purpose the Assyrians to judge Israel militarily?  Yes.  
> 
> Did God _make_  the men do their sin? NO.  Men have wills.  They want to do the sin they do.
> 
> That is the difference between predestination and pure fatalistic determinism: man's will.


The comparison to Mitt Romney is apt.

No wonder he talks religion on a political forum.  This stuff might look like Christianity.  And it might sound like Christianity.  But don't let that fool you.  It's all political.




> Respectfully, I disagree.   This thread has been very civil with good discussions.  So, people must be viewing it for some other reason.  There's no drama here.





> I don't know.  SF posting here at least makes things a lot less boring.    There's hardly any activity on this sub forum when he's not posting.


I personally could do without this non-boring non-drama.

Attention whores can operate in the name of God.  But they aren't operating on behalf of God.

----------


## otherone

> I don't know.  SF posting here at least makes things a lot less boring.    There's hardly any activity on this sub forum when he's not posting.


Some people are Pavlov, the dog, and the bell all rolled into one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The comparison to Mitt Romney is apt.
> 
> No wonder he talks religion on a political forum.  This stuff might look like Christianity.  And it might sound like Christianity.  
> but don't let that fool you.  *It's all political*.


What you mean by that?

----------


## pcosmar

> whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.


You are so stuck on relatively few passages. 

God"s Will?? (as if you,,me, or any could fully comprehend the Mind of God)
are you convinced that God wanted the world to become so Corrupted that it needed to be wiped out?




> Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."


Some translations say God "Repented".

There are other instances of him changing his mind. Sometimes at the request of someone. 
Does Gods Will change?  

Is everything in scripture true? (careful,,it is a trick question)

I don't mean to be antagonistic,, But the books balance,, and there is error in too much focus on one aspect to the exclusion of others,,or trying to make everything fit some preconceived doctrine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Either God "purposes men to sin" or He doesn't.  You can't say "Men aren't forced to sin" and then turn around and say "God purposes men to sin."  And that's why conversations with you are so insufferable.  You flip flop on theology more than Mitt Romney flip flops on politics.



Hehe....another one of your "contradictions" now huh?

Did God purpose the sin that led to the cross?  Yes.  Did God purpose the Assyrians to judge Israel militarily?  Yes.  

Did God _make_  the men do their sin? NO.  Men have wills.  They wanted to do the sin they did.  The Assyrians wanted to murder people.  The conspirators of the cross wanted to murder Jesus.

That is the difference between predestination and pure fatalistic determinism: man's will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  SF posting here at least makes things a lot less boring.    There's hardly any activity on this sub forum when he's not posting.


True.  SF posting also makes it fun




> The Bible doesn't say what kind of will Adam had.  The point is that the Bible says what kind of will men have *now*.  We are fallen, dead in sin, and slaves of sin.


This.  We can perhaps speculate on what kind of will Adam had, but that's all it would be... speculation.



> And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan.  Your point is?  There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin.  And make no mistake about it.  The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin.  Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.


The terminology in Isaiah 10 is ultra-clear.  God used the Assyrian king like an axe.  He had absolutely no credit for what he did.  And, based on the way God condemned him for taking pride in it, it seems to me that God wasn't just doing that in that one situation.  Now, I suppose you could argue that the exception is sin, and that the Assyrian king wasn't actually sinning by invading Israel (since God told him to.)  That might be an argument.



> Oh, maybe God was glorified.  Maybe.
> 
> But if any spectator popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.
> 
> And if anyone popped up who was thinking of trying church out, I sincerely doubt they still are.  I just wish he'd name his denomination out of courtesy to sane and innocent other denominations, so their attendance won't suffer for sins beyond their control.


He's a Reformed Baptist, IIRC.  I'd be roughly in line with the LBCF as well (except for a few points.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some people are Pavlov, the dog, and the bell all rolled into one.


Oh stop it.  These are interesting conversations.  You wouldn't be a part of them if they weren't interesting.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hehe....another one of your "contradictions" now huh?


No.  Another one of *your* contradictions.




> Did God purpose the sin that led to the cross?  Yes.


Okay.  So you were lying when you said that man wills to sin.  Got it.




> Did God purpose the Assyrians to judge Israel militarily?  Yes.


1) Who said the Assyrians were sinning when they did that?

2) Even if we assume they were sinning, how is God pointing a warlike nation that's going to go around pillaging and killing anyway in a particular direction Him "purposing" them to sin?

When David had Uriah put in the heat of the battle and told Joab to pull the troops back, the end result was obvious.  Uriah would be killed by the enemy.  But David didn't send a message to the enemy saying "Go kill Uriah today."  




> Did God _make_  the men do their sin? NO.  Men have wills.  They wanted to do the sin they did.  The Assyrians wanted to murder people.  The conspirators of the cross wanted to murder Jesus.


LOL  So man has *free will*.  Except you're going to turn right around and say that he doesn't.  Again what you are describing as God "purposing" man to do something is no different that Zbignew Brezinsky "purposing" the Russians to invade Afghanistan.  There is nothing "godlike" or "predestined" about that.




> That is the difference between predestination and pure fatalistic determinism: man's will.


Except you deny that man has freewill.  You can't have it both ways.

For reference, this is the point I made regarding Brezinsky earlier.




> And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan.  Your point is?  There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin.  And make no mistake about it.  The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin.  Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

[QUOTE=jmdrake;5767627]No.  Another one of *your* contradictions.



Okay.  So you were lying when you said that man wills to sin.  Got it.



1) Who said the Assyrians were sinning when they did that?

2) Even if we assume they were sinning, how is God pointing a warlike nation that's going to go around pillaging and killing anyway in a particular direction Him "purposing" them to sin?

When David had Uriah put in the heat of the battle and told Joab to pull the troops back, the end result was obvious.  Uriah would be killed by the enemy.  But David didn't send a message to the enemy saying "Go kill Uriah today."  



LOL  So man has *free will*.  Except you're going to turn right around and say that he doesn't.  Again what you are describing as God "purposing" man to do something is no different that Zbignew Brezinsky "purposing" the Russians to invade Afghanistan.  There is nothing "godlike" or "predestined" about that.



Except you deny that man has freewill.  You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE]


Oh dear...  you are so confused about this that it is really hard to have a conversation with you.  And I know you'll quote this and then insult me in some and get a zippy one liner in there against me.   Go ahead.


Man does not have a free will, but he does have a will.  The parties of the crucifixion all wanted to kill Jesus for their own reasons, but the Bible said they were planned and predestined by God, for another purpose....a good purpose.  They WANTED to do their sin.  They didn't know or care that they were fulfilling God's decree.




> * Acts 4:27-28 
> 
> For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.*

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh stop it.  These are interesting conversations.  You wouldn't be a part of them if they weren't interesting.


You're telling us why We're participating in this conversation now?  Really?

And I suppose the reason I shoved a burning vehicle away from the gas pumps a few years back is because I don't like having eyebrows?

Pray, tell me more about why I do things.  God micromanages me and Sola_Fide tells me why.  Behold the Prophet from Indiana!

Arrogance.




> The parties of the crucifixion all wanted to kill Jesus for their own reasons...


Do tell.  Let's have a complete list.  Rattle them off.

----------


## pcosmar

> Man does not have a free will, but he does have a will.


SMH.  

Ah,, so we are nothing but robots..Programmed and switched to perform a pointless ballet.

Puppets on the string of a tyrant and tortured for his pleasure..

No,, I neither believe this nor accept it.* It is absurd.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> SMH.  
> 
> Ah,, so we are nothing but robots..Programmed and switched to perform a pointless ballet.
> 
> Puppets on the string of a tyrant and tortured for his pleasure..
> 
> No,, I neither believe this nor accept it.* It is absurd.*


Robots don't have wills.  They don't want to do anything.  Men do have wills.  They want to do what they do.  The analogy is not valid.

----------


## Brett85

> Robots don't have wills.  They don't want to do anything.  Men do have wills.  They want to do what they do.  The analogy is not valid.


But they only want to do what God wills them to do, right?  They can't ever go against God's will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Robots don't have wills.  They don't want to do anything.  Men do have wills.  They want to do what they do.  The analogy is not valid.


Just to play devil's advocate, what if I programmed a robot to have a will?  It wanted to do what it did.  It even thought it was a real person, with genuine desires and feelings, but I actually programmed it deliberately in such a way that it actually would only do what I programmed it to do.

Is this robot still not analogous to man?  And if not, why not?

----------


## acptulsa

> Robots don't have wills.  They don't want to do anything.  Men do have wills.  They want to do what they do.  The analogy is not valid.


No?

Tell you what you do.  You go to Detroit and try to physically restrain one of those robot welders from making its welds without killing it by pulling its plug or blowing it up.

Be sure to post pics of your injuries.

----------


## pcosmar

> Robots don't have wills.  They don't want to do anything.  Men do have wills.  *They want to do what they do.*  The analogy is not valid.


No they don't,, by your doctrine. 
They have no choice. the choice is made for them They must do what they must do and have no choice in the matter.

If I believed this (and I do not) I would immediately kill myself and upon meeting this being I would jump head first into the Lake of fire, for it would be better to endure eternal torment than to serve such a vile and malevolent being.

I do not believe for a second that God is such.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No they don't,, by your doctrine. 
> They have no choice. the choice is made for them They must do what they must do and have no choice in the matter.
> 
> If I believed this (and I do not) I would immediately kill myself and upon meeting this being I would jump head first into the Lake of fire, for it would be better to endure eternal torment than to serve such a vile and malevolent being.
> 
> I do not believe for a second that God is such.


I believe that even saying this proves that you aren't saved.  That makes me sad, but its the truth.

Read Romans 9, please.  Look carefully at what its saying.  And believe what the Bible tells you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No they don't,, by your doctrine. 
> They have no choice. the choice is made for them They must do what they must do and have no choice in the matter.
> 
> If I believed this (and I do not) I would immediately kill myself and upon meeting this being I would jump head first into the Lake of fire, for it would be better to endure eternal torment than to serve such a vile and malevolent being.
> 
> I do not believe for a second that God is such.


We already know you don't believe it.  That's not the question.   It's *should* you believe it?

Man does choose.  Man desires to do things.  But God is sovereign above everything in this universe, including man's desire.

----------


## pcosmar

> I believe that even saying this proves that you aren't saved.  .


And I am quite pleased to know that you are not my Judge.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I am quite pleased to know that you are not my Judge.


I'm pleased to know to.  I don't say what I say in order to judge, but out of concern.  If you aren't willing to say you'll worship God no matter how he is, that's a problem.  Good is defined by God.

----------


## acptulsa

> I believe that even saying this proves that you aren't saved.  That makes me sad, but its the truth.
> 
> Read Romans 9, please.  Look carefully at what its saying.  And believe what the Bible tells you.


Stop being arrogant.

He has read Romans 9.  He first read it before you were born.  And what's more, he didn't rip the words of Jesus out of his Bible before he read Paul's letter to the Romans.

Only arrogance and a desire to be willfully blind could lead you to assume anything else about Pete.  But it's all good.  It wasn't even the devil who led you to the sin of vanity and a desire not to be confused with facts, as you have made up your mind.  God did it Himself, so it's all good, right?




> I'm pleased to know to.  I don't say what I say in order to judge, but out of concern.  If you aren't willing to say you'll worship God no matter how he is, that's a problem.  Good is defined by God.


He didn't say he wouldn't walk with God no matter what, or die trying.  He said that whoever that was you were talking about isn't God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No?
> 
> Tell you what you do.  You go to Detroit and try to physically restrain one of those robot welders from making its welds without killing it by pulling its plug or blowing it up.
> 
> Be sure to post pics of your injuries.


Robots don't want to do anything.   Wanting or desire is an attribute of will.  Robots don't have wills.  The analogy is not valid.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Stop being arrogant.
> 
> He has read Romans 9.  He first read it before you were born.  And what's more, he didn't rip the words of Jesus out of his Bible before he read Paul's letter to the Romans.
> 
> Only arrogance and a desire to be willfully blind could lead you to assume anything else about Pete.  But it's all good.  It wasn't even the devil who led you to the sin of vanity and a desire not to be confused with facts, as you have made up your mind.  God did it Himself, so it's all good, right?


So you think Jesus contradicts Paul?  Where?

----------


## acptulsa

> Robots don't want to do anything.   Wanting or desire is an attribute of will.  Robots don't have wills.  The analogy is not valid.


If robots don't have wills, go stand in one's way.  What have you got to lose?

There is no difference between a robot's impulse to weld a car body and man's irresistible impulse to sin in your worldview.  Now, feel free to methodically deny it in a kneejerk fashion.  I have no illusions that I can stop you.




> So you think Jesus contradicts Paul?  Where?


Asked and answered a thousand times.  And I didn't say Jesus contradicted Paul, I said Jesus contradicted your twisted view of what Paul says.

And I don't see any reason to rehash it, because you'll ignore my answer to your question and then ask it again as though I never answered it.  As you always do.

One of us is dumb enough to resist the will of robots.  And that one isn't me.  I'm just here to warn others of the folly of it.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm pleased to know to.  I don't say what I say in order to judge, but out of concern.  If you aren't willing to say you'll worship God no matter how he is, that's a problem.  Good is defined by God.


I worship God because of who he is. If he was not so,, If my Knee was bent by force,, I would resent it,,and reject him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If robots don't have wills, go stand in one's way.  What have you got to lose?
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered a thousand times.  And I didn't say Jesus contradicted Paul, I said Jesus contradicted your twisted view of what Paul says.
> 
> And I don't see any reason to rehash it, because you'll ignore my answer to your question and then ask it again as though I never answered it.  As you always do.
> 
> One of us is dumb enough to resist the will of robots.  And that one isn't me.  I'm just here to warn others of the folly of it.


So you can't wrap your head around the fact that men are different than robots.  Ok no problem. 

Can you please cite one place where you think Jesus and Paul contradict?  I'd be interested to see what you think.

----------


## pcosmar

> But God is sovereign above everything in this universe,


This is true.. God can do whatever he chooses.. He could wipe all from existence if he were to choose to do so.

And yet the entire book (or collection of books) paints quite another picture.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No?
> 
> Tell you what you do.  You go to Detroit and try to physically restrain one of those robot welders from making its welds without killing it by pulling its plug or blowing it up.
> 
> Be sure to post pics of your injuries.


You just gave me a 90's flashback

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is true.. God can do whatever he chooses.. He could wipe all from existence if he were to choose to do so.
> 
> And yet the entire book (or collection of books) paints quite another picture.


Yes.  And per the verse in the OP, both the elect and the disobedient have been appointed by God for their purpose.  The elect glorify God's mercy, and the reprobate glorify God's justice.

----------


## acptulsa

> So you can't wrap your head around the fact that men are different than robots.  Ok no problem. 
> 
> Can you please cite one place where you think Jesus and Paul contradict?  I'd be interested to see what you think.


Excuse me?

Me saying that robots have a will to do what they're programmed to do means I say robots and men are indistinguishable?  You're the one saying that men are incapable of rising above their programming, not me.

And I told you where the contradiction between Paul and Jesus is.  And predicted you'd ignore the answer and repeat the question.  What's more, you'll do it again.  But not immediately, because I'm about to temporarily cure you of your robotic ways:

*IT'S IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.  IN YOUR HEAD.*

And it makes you blind to the words of Jesus.




> Yes.  And per the verse in the OP, both the elect and the disobedient have been appointed by God for their purpose.  The elect glorify God's mercy, and the reprobate glorify God's justice.


So God glorifies Himself by being a micromanager and a tyrant, because creating children out of dust and being secure enough and loving enough to make them free doesn't glorify God.

And the only people who could consider that sick and twisted are sick and twisted.  Suit yourself.




> 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
> 
> 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh dear...  you are so confused about this that it is really hard to have a conversation with you.  And I know you'll quote this and then insult me in some and get a zippy one liner in there against me.   Go ahead.


If I was going to do a zippy one liner it would be *please learn how to use quote tags!  Sheesh!*




> Man does not have a free will, but he does have a will.  The parties of the crucifixion all wanted to kill Jesus for their own reasons, but the Bible said they were planned and predestined by God, for another purpose....a good purpose.  They WANTED to do their sin.  They didn't know or care that they were fulfilling God's decree.


Several pages back that's what I said and you claimed I was wrong (well, not the "will but not free will" part).  So....you are contradicting yourself whether you have the decency to admit that or not.  That said, man has free will.  Romans makes that clear.  Man is not born reprobate.  If man were born reprobate then God would not bother "giving them over" to a reprobate mind "because they didn't worship Him as God and were not thankful".  Instead the Romans would read "Man is born with a reprobate mind and that's while he doesn't worship God as God and is not thankful."

So, not only do you contradict yourself, but you contradict the Bible.  Adam and Eve, created perfect, misused their freewill and brought us all under the curse of sin.  Men are "born in sin and shaped in iniquity" meaning they have a nature that prefers sin.  But that nature, fallen as it is, can respond to God.  Some men choose not to and become "reprobate" according to Romans.  Men become reprobate *because of their own free will*.  But even men we are willing to write off as reprobate can and do respond to the love of Jesus.  The penitent thief is an example of that.  And all Jesus had to do to be crucified is to stop escaping.  More than once men were trying to kill Him and he vanished through the crowd.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  And per the verse in the OP, both the elect and the disobedient have been appointed by God for their purpose.  The elect glorify God's mercy, and the reprobate glorify God's justice.


The word appointment doesn't mean what you think it means.  Or rather it doesn't mean what you claimed it to mean at one point but you seem to be backing away from now.  God does not force, plan, predestine, program, fill-in-the-blank, men to be lost.  Double predestination is a fallacy that even you don't consistently agree with.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If I was going to do a zippy one liner it would be *please learn how to use quote tags!  Sheesh!*
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back that's what I said and you claimed I was wrong (well, not the "will but not free will" part).  So....you are contradicting yourself whether you have the decency to admit that or not.  That said, man has free will.  Romans makes that clear.  Man is not born reprobate.  If man were born reprobate then God would not bother "giving them over" to a reprobate mind "because they didn't worship Him as God and were not thankful".  Instead the Romans would read "Man is born with a reprobate mind and that's while he doesn't worship God as God and is not thankful."
> 
> So, not only do you contradict yourself, but you contradict the Bible.  Adam and Eve, created perfect, misused their freewill and brought us all under the curse of sin.  Men are "born in sin and shaped in iniquity" meaning they have a nature that prefers sin.  But that nature, fallen as it is, can respond to God.  Some men choose not to and become "reprobate" according to Romans.  Men become reprobate *because of their own free will*.  But even men we are willing to write off as reprobate can and do respond to the love of Jesus.  The penitent thief is an example of that.  And all Jesus had to do to be crucified is to stop escaping.  More than once men were trying to kill Him and he vanished through the crowd.



So according to you, a sinful man can do something to please God.  But what does the Bible say?




> *  Romans 8:7-8
> 
> because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.*


You are saying man can do good and respond to God.  The Bible says that man can't do that.  Who do you think is right?

----------


## jmdrake

> So according to you, a sinful man can do something to please God.  But what does the Bible say?


I just quoted the Bible.  You didn't.  I believe the Bible.  You don't.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Answer that question and you will see the error of your ways.




> You are saying man can do good and respond to God.  The Bible says that man can't do that.  Who do you think is right?


I just quoted the Bible.  You didn't.  I believe the Bible.  You don't.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Answer that question and you will see the error of your ways.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just quoted the Bible.  You didn't.  I believe the Bible.  You don't.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Answer that question and you will see the error of your ways.
> 
> I just quoted the Bible.  You didn't.  I believe the Bible.  You don't.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Answer that question and you will see the error of your ways.





> *Romans 8:7-8 
> 
> because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.*


Do you find it strange that Paul says the flesh can't please or choose God, but you say the flesh can?

----------


## otherone

> Oh stop it.  These are interesting conversations.  You wouldn't be a part of them if they weren't interesting.


LOL.
More edifying than interesting.  In a Dian Fossey way.

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you find it strange that Paul says the flesh can't please or choose God, but you say the flesh can?


He didn't say that.  You put those words in his mouth.

Both Mr. Drake and Paul are talking about whether the minds of men are in the flesh or in the spirit.  Does this scare you so because it bodes not well for men who have no minds?

And you're taking that verse out of context.




> 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
> 
> 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
> 
> 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
> 
> 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
> 
> 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
> ...


And Mr. Drake asked you a question about another verse which you are deflecting for all you're worth because your flawed dogma cannot answer it.




> What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?
> 
> What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?


And while we're on the subject of questions your dogma can't answer...




> 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Were not a people, but are now the people of God and had not obtained mercy, but now have. There's some predestination for you.

If your dogma requires all these sophist tricks and deflections and destruction of context in order to survive, your dogma is built on sand.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you find it strange that Paul says the flesh can't please or choose God, but you say the flesh can?


Are you going to answer this question?

_What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?_

My guess is no.

Do you find it strange that James says this?

_James 4:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you going to answer this question?
> 
> _What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?_
> 
> My guess is no.
> 
> Do you find it strange that James says this?
> 
> _James 4:8King James Version (KJV)
> ...


No that's not strange, because the book of James is written to Christians.  The book is a primer on Christian living.  He is calling Christians to draw near to God, not non-Christians.  

And again, no exegesis of Romans 8.  You don't "answer" the verse by clipping another verse, changing it's meaning, and putting it at odds with this verse.  

Paul says the flesh can't please God, you say it can.  Paul is right.

----------


## jmdrake

> No that's not strange, because the book of James is written to Christians.  The book is a primer on Christian living.  He is calling Christians to draw near to God, not non-Christians.  
> 
> And again, no exegesis of Romans 8.  You don't "answer" the verse by clipping another verse, changing it's meaning, and putting it at odds with this verse.  
> 
> Paul says the flesh can't please God, you say it can.  Paul is right.


Once again you refuse to answer my question.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Why are you afraid to answer that question?  I will keep asking it until you answer it.

As for Romans 8 it doesn't say what you think it says.  Nowhere does it say that man cannot make a choice.  Quite the opposite.  It says that one should walk after the spirit and not walk after the flesh.  Read it again, this time without your preconceived beliefs.  But first...answer the question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Once again you refuse to answer my question.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Why are you afraid to answer that question?  I will keep asking it until you answer it.


If Paul says that the flesh can't please God, and you are saying the verse in Romans 1 says that it can, why don't you think your interpretation of that verse is incorrect?

----------


## jmdrake

> If Paul says that the flesh can't please God, and you are saying the verse in Romans 1 says that it can, why don't you think your interpretation of that verse is incorrect?


If you are referring to Romans 8, Paul doesn't say what you said he said.  Why do you want me to respond to your misinterpretation of the Bible as if it is correct when it clearly is not?  Also, if you think my interpretation of Romans 1 is incorrect then the burden is on you to give the correct interpretation.  So...once again, what mind did men have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  It's a simple question.  No "interpretation" is necessary.

----------


## acptulsa

> And again, no exegesis of Romans 8.  You don't "answer" the verse by clipping another verse, changing it's meaning, and putting it at odds with this verse.  
> 
> Paul says the flesh can't please God, you say it can.  Paul is right.


You can't either.  Paul said the *mind* in the flesh cannot please God, but the *mind* in the spirit can.




> Once again you refuse to answer my question.  What kind of mind did the men in Romans have before God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Why are you afraid to answer that question?  I will keep asking it until you answer it.
> 
> As for Romans 8 it doesn't say what you think it says.  Nowhere does it say that man cannot make a choice.  Quite the opposite.  It says that one should walk after the spirit and not walk after the flesh.  Read it again, this time without your preconceived beliefs.  But first...answer the question.


And I will keep asking it, too.  What kind of mind did they have before God gave them over?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you are referring to Romans 8, Paul doesn't say what you said he said.  Why do you want me to respond to your misinterpretation of the Bible as if it is correct when it clearly is not?


Paul doesn't say this?  What?




> *Romans 8:7-8 NASB
> 
> because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.*



Are the fallen people on Romans 1 "in the flesh" or not?  Yes or no?

----------


## acptulsa

> Paul doesn't say this?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the fallen people on Romans 1 "in the flesh" or not?  Yes or no?


Asked and answered.  Multiple times.  On this very page.

What kind of mind did the Romans have before God gave them over to the reprobate mind, you reprobate?  And how can people be predestined to lack mercy and predestined to have it?

----------


## jmdrake

> Paul doesn't say this?  What?


No he doesn't.  That's your *interpretation* of Paul.  What he said was "in the flesh".  And further in that same passage he talks about people "Walking after the flesh."  Now, someone can't "walk after himself."  Not physically anyway.




> Are the fallen people on Romans 1 "in the flesh" or not?  Yes or no?


Before or after they made the choice that caused God to give them over to a reprobate mind?  I see you are afraid to actually answer the question.

Edit: And this will help "unstick" you.  There is more than one definition of the word "flesh."  There is "flesh" meaning earthly passions and there is "flesh" meaning human body.  Jesus had a body of flesh.  He talked metaphorically of people eating His flesh and drinking His blood.  (Literally according to the RCC and the EOC).  But Jesus never walked *after* the flesh as in He never gave in to base passions.  So, you cannot please God while you are living to please your flesh.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What kind of mind did the Romans have before God gave them over to the reprobate mind, you reprobate?  And how can people be predestined to lack mercy and predestined to have it?


That's what I'm asking.   What kind of mind did they have?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's what I'm asking.   What kind of mind did they have?


I asked you first.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I asked you first.


I already told you.  A fallen mind.  All men in Adam are fallen.  But you are saying some aren't?   What kind of mind did they have?

----------


## moostraks

> Respectfully, I disagree.   This thread has been very civil with good discussions.  So, people must be viewing it for some other reason.  There's no drama here.


No it hasn't. You have repeatedly told people they aren't saved. Your lack of manners publicly forgiving people (and at your age, really?) who don't ask for it to make them feel like they are in the wrong and shame them is classless and tacky. Don't attempt to tell me why I am participating because you never have been able to appropriately surmise my thoughts or intentions.  It has not been good discussion. It is a revival of every thread you bolted on in the past. You have brought nothing of new value to the table, including your worn out insults. And you of course, have given yourself the customary pat on your own back.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, and a number of times I have explained that you don't know what that verse means.  The revelation that God gives in nature is enough to CONDEMN man and MAKE HIM WITHOUT EXCUSE. It does not save him or give him any saving knowledge.


Your em-pha-sis is on the wrong sy-lla-ble. It ain't me that has such a conflicted philosophy that I have to rip out books and ignore verses and live in Romans to the exclusion of most of the rest of the good Book.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 *because what may be known of God is manifest in them,* for God has shown it to them. 20 *For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,* so that they are without excuse, 21 *because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.* 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

You miss the greater point because you are superimposing upon the paragraph your predetermined opinion according to your own wisdom. Professing to be wise, you ignore His very nature, Love, and decide to create a god in your own image of legalism and contempt for those who disagree with you. I'm not out to change your beliefs, and you won't change mine. I just wish you could realize the damage you cause by commanding others they must agree with you or they are damned.

~~peace on your path

----------


## acptulsa

> I already told you.  A fallen mind.  All men in Adam are fallen.  But you are saying some aren't?   What kind of mind did they have?


He gave men with fallen minds over to the reprobate mind?

When?  Right then, as the Bible indicates?  Or a thousand years before they were born?

Are you going to answer my question now?  How did they have two different predestinations?




> You miss the greater point because you are superimposing upon the paragraph your predetermined opinion according to your own wisdom. Professing to be wise, you ignore His very nature, Love, and decide to create a god in your own image of legalism and contempt for those who disagree with you. I'm not out to change your beliefs, and you won't change mine. I just wish you could realize the damage you cause by commanding others they must agree with you or they are damned.


God is Love.

Unfortunately, this makes it hard for those who do not love to even begin to comprehend Him.  They wind up denying that God can do things out of love because they don't consider them _efficient_ enough.

It is pitiful, isn't it?

----------


## erowe1

> No problem.
> Why is it important to understand the mechanics of transubstantiation?  Why must we understand something in order to believe?   How can a bush burn, or a snake speak, or a sea part, or someone rise from the dead?   I don't understand how any of these things could occur.  With all due respect, it seems that your comment was an unsolicited shot at a particular church?


Not just one particular church, but any church that has that kind of list of hard-to-understand dogmas that must be believed, and that anyone who disagrees is excluded from the one true church if they don't.

It's true that the one particular church that does this most obviously is the Roman Catholic Church, which, over the centuries has come up with a list of hundreds of dogmas that, if anyone denies them they are anathematized. But on these forums it seems like Eastern Orthodoxy tends to get more press. And the point about transubstantiation would apply equally to them. Specifying churches by name wasn't necessary though, to make the point.

I don't think either of those churches, or any other I know about, has dogmas like those concerning talking snakes or parting seas.

----------


## moostraks

> God is Love.
> 
> Unfortunately, this makes it hard for those who do not love to even begin to comprehend Him.
> 
> It is pitiful, isn't it?


 I have tried a number of times to discuss the false nature this presumes but am then told the potter's verse. It is irrational to try and continue discussion when every contradiction that gets pointed out is ignored or the critic is told poster's verse, potter's verse. Some folks lose their own concept of self when attempting to proselytize and assume that any refutation of their beliefs is equivalent to arguing with the Creator. Um, no, I just disagree with another person's opinion.

----------


## otherone

> Not just one particular church, but any church that has that kind of list of hard-to-understand dogmas that must be believed, and that anyone who disagrees is excluded from the one true church if they don't.
> 
> It's true that the one particular church that does this most obviously is the Roman Catholic Church, which, over the centuries has come up with a list of hundreds of dogmas that, if anyone denies them they are anathematized. But on these forums it seems like Eastern Orthodoxy tends to get more press. And the point about transubstantiation would apply equally to them. Specifying churches by name wasn't necessary though, to make the point.
> 
> I don't think either of those churches, or any other I know about, has dogmas like those concerning talking snakes or parting seas.


I'm not familiar w/ the EOC.  Are people anathematized for not understanding , or for not believing?   I understand your point about the OT dogma, but certainly one must believe in the Resurrection?   The virgin birth?  Could anyone explain _how_ these things happen?  I see no difference between that and transubstantiation, unless the concern is that the formers are literally biblical, and the latter not?

----------


## acptulsa

> I have tried a number of times to discuss the false nature this presumes but am then told the potter's verse. It is irrational to try and continue discussion when every contradiction that gets pointed out is ignored or the critic is told poster's verse, potter's verse. Some folks lose their own concept of self when attempting to proselytize and assume that any refutation of their beliefs is equivalent to arguing with the Creator. Um, no, I just disagree with another person's opinion.


Is it irrational?

Well, one thing is certain--it's very _inefficient._  But when you love others, it's hard to give up.  No matter how resistant they are to facts, having made up their minds.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not familiar w/ the EOC.  Are people anathematized for not understanding , or for not believing?


In the case of transubstantiation, I don't know. In the RCC it's in the Council of Trent, which the EOC does not accept, that those anathemas are found.




> I understand your point about the OT dogma, but certainly one must believe in the Resurrection?   The virgin birth?  Could anyone explain _how_ these things happen?  I see no difference between that and transubstantiation, unless the concern is that the formers are literally biblical, and the latter not?


Yes, one must believe in those things. But explaining them is not necessary. Nor is believing a list of ancillary tenets about them.

To illustrate the difference, check out the canons and decrees of the 13th session of the Council of Trent.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Notice how it says, "[this synod] forbids all the faithful of Christ, to presume to believe, teach, or preach henceforth concerning the holy Eucharist, otherwise than as is explained and defined in this present decree."

And notice the 11 canons at the bottom, each one specifying some fine point about transubstantiation, and saying, "let him be anathema," about anyone who denies it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I already told you.  A fallen mind.  All men in Adam are fallen.  But you are saying some aren't?   What kind of mind did they have?


So then you believe that all men have the same mind before God gives them over to a reprobate mind or do you believe a reprobate mind is different from a fallen mind?  I believe a reprobate mind is different from a fallen mind.  That's the only logical conclusion one can draw from the fact that God gives some men over to a reprobate mind because of their choices.  All men have a fallen mind.  All men do not have a reprobate mind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So then you believe that all men have the same mind before God gives them over to a reprobate mind or do you believe a reprobate mind is different from a fallen mind?  I believe a reprobate mind is different from a fallen mind.  That's the only logical conclusion one can draw from the fact that God gives some men over to a reprobate mind because of their choices.  All men have a fallen mind.  All men do not have a reprobate mind.


Is Paul talking about all men in Romans 1?  In Romans 1, all the men that were spoken of were given over to a reprobate mind.  So all men have a reprobate mind now?

----------


## acptulsa

> Is Paul talking about all men in Romans 1?  In Romans 1, all the men that were spoken of were given over to a reprobate mind.  So all men have a reprobate mind now?


Why are you asking him if something is the case when responding to a post in which he said it is not the case?




> All men do not have a reprobate mind.


Do you have a point?  Or are you merely attempting in vain to glorify God by demonstrating that He made you blind as a bat?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why are you asking him if something is the case when responding to a post in which he said it is not the case?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?  Or are you merely attempting in vain to glorify God by demonstrating that He made you blind as a bat?




You don't have to be so insulting with your posts.  We are discussing things here.  In Romans 1, *all* the men that are talked about are given over to a depraved mind:




> 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
> 
> 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
> 
> 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> 
> 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


JMdrake said he thinks that all men have a choice and then God gives them over to the depraved mind.  But Paul in Romans 1, 2, and 3 is talking about ALL men.  If men had a choice, they've already chosen it.  And God has given them over.

This proves my point ALL men are fallen and cannot will in spiritual good.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.
> More edifying than interesting.  In a Dian Fossey way.


Edifying?  Good.  I take that as a step in the right direction.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is Paul talking about all men in Romans 1?  In Romans 1, all the men that were spoken of were given over to a reprobate mind.  So all men have a reprobate mind now?


Is understanding scripture that difficult for you?  In the same chapter he talked about men giving themselves over to unseemly lust and doing with each other what they would normally do with women.  

_26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;_

Obviously that's not all men so obviously Paul was not talking about all men.  And considering I said that all men have a fallen mind but not all men have a reprobate mind then I don't believe all men have a reprobate mind.

----------


## jmdrake

> You don't have to be so insulting with your posts.  We are discussing things here.  In Romans 1, *all* the men that are talked about are given over to a depraved mind:
> 
> 
> 
> JMdrake said he thinks that all men have a choice and then God gives them over to the depraved mind.  But Paul in Romans 1, 2, and 3 is talking about ALL men.  If men had a choice, they've already chosen it.  And God has given them over.
> 
> This proves my point ALL men are fallen and cannot will in spiritual good.


Romans 1, 2 and 3 does not say that all men have a reprobate mind anymore than it says all men are gay.  You really are stretching it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 1, 2 and 3 does not say that all men have a reprobate mind anymore than it says all men are gay.  You really are stretching it.




In Romans 2 Paul is talking about every person:



> *9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.*


In Romans 3 Paul is talking about every person:



> *9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
> 
> 
> “There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 
> 11 
>     there is no one who understands;
>  there is no one who seeks God.
> 
> ...




So why do you say Romans 1 is not talking about every person???

----------


## acptulsa

> You don't have to be so insulting with your posts.


And you don't have to be so insulting as to look straight at a thoughtful answer, then ignore it and ask the question again.




> We are discussing things here.  In Romans 1, *all* the men that are talked about are given over to a depraved mind:


Is that so?




> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Let's try again, shall we?




> 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


You figure that's everybody, do you?

I guess that means you burn with lust for other men?  And I presume that if I told you I don't, you'll call me a liar?

----------


## jmdrake

> In Romans 2 Paul is talking about every person:
> 
> 
> In Romans 3 Paul is talking about every person:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you say Romans 1 is not talking about every person???


In Romans 2 Paul doesn't use the term reprobate.

In Romans 3 Paul doesn't use the term reprobate.

Why do you think Paul is calling everyone reprobate when he isn't calling everyone gay?  Or do you believe he is calling everyone gay?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In Romans 2 Paul doesn't use the term reprobate.
> 
> In Romans 3 Paul doesn't use the term reprobate.
> 
> Why do you think Paul is calling everyone reprobate when he isn't calling everyone gay?  Or do you believe he is calling everyone gay?  Are you gay?






> *9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
> 
> 
> “There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 
> 11 
>     there is no one who understands;
>  there is no one who seeks God.
> 
> ...




Jews and Gentiles alike (everyone) are under the power of sin.

Why do you say that men under the power of sin can do good things like choose God?  Then they wouldn't be under the power of sin, would they?

----------


## acptulsa

Even you don't believe that.




> In Romans 1, all the men *that were spoken of...*





> In Romans 1, *all* the men *that are talked about* ...


No wonder you favor the epistles so much.  They're often so vague you can use the same one to support completely contradictory points--and all within the space of an hour. 

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but you are doing a fine job of convincing casual onlookers that Christians are crazy as bedbugs.

And I certainly hope that I've successfully made the point that not *all* Christians fit that description, because I have better things to do than to continue to play this silly-assed game.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even you don't believe that.
> 
> I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but you are doing a fine job of convincing casual onlookers that Christians are crazy as bedbugs.
> 
> And I certainly hope that I've successfully made the point that not *all* Christians fit that description, because I have better things to do than to continue to play this silly-assed game.







> *9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
> 
> 
> “There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 
> 11 
>     there is no one who understands;
>  there is no one who seeks God.
> 
> ...




Jews and Gentiles alike (everyone) are under the power of sin.

Why do you say that men under the power of sin can do good things like choose God?  Then they wouldn't be under the power of sin, would they?

----------


## moostraks

> Jews and Gentiles alike (everyone) are under the power of sin.
> 
> Why do you say that men under the power of sin can do good things like choose God?  Then they wouldn't be under the power of sin, would they?


Which is a thought preceding this point:

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Gods Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Boasting Excluded
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Which goes back to this:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Your point is what? The just live by faith, the law is established, not voided, and those that knew God have their foolish hearts darkened.

----------


## dannno

This is the second time a debate thread about Christian doctrine has shared an extreme amount of similarity with a phrase that is very sexual in nature. Do you guys do that on purpose??

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is the second time a debate thread about Christian doctrine has shared an extreme amount of similarity with a phrase that is very sexual in nature. Do you guys do that on purpose??





> *Titus 1:15
> 
> To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 
> *


...

----------


## jmdrake

> Jews and Gentiles alike (everyone) are under the power of sin.
> 
> Why do you say that men under the power of sin can do good things like choose God?  Then they wouldn't be under the power of sin, would they?


Sure.  Being under the power of sin is being fallen.  That doesn't mean that's the same as being reprobate.  How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in?  Here's the fact.  Paul said God gave people over *after they had quit worshiping Him as God* to a reprobate mind.  So if the already had a reprobate mind then God was being redundant.  That's just silly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure.  Being under the power of sin is being fallen.  That doesn't mean that's the same as being reprobate.  How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in?  Here's the fact.  Paul said God gave people over *after they had quit worshiping Him as God* to a reprobate mind.  So if the already had a reprobate mind then God was being redundant.  That's just silly.


If people are under the power of sin, as Paul says, why does he then say that "no one seeks for God"?





> *9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
> 
> 
> “There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 
> 11 
>     there is no one who understands;
>  there is no one who seeks God.
> 
> ...


You are saying people under the power of sin still seek God.  Paul is saying people under the power of sin don't seek God.  Why are you saying that?

----------


## moostraks

> If people are under the power of sin, as Paul says, why does he then say that "no one seeks for God"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying people under the power of sin still seek God.  Paul is saying people under the power of sin don't seek God.  Why are you saying that?


Maybe because He initiates the contact but everyone is aware of Him at some point:
Revelation 3:Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

----------


## dannno

> ...


Well I think sex is pure and churches are corrupt and cause violence and further statism, that's just my opinion of course.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Maybe because He initiates the contact but* everyone* is aware of Him at some point:
> Revelation 3:Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit *says to the churches*.’”


In your verse, the contact was to the churches, not everyone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well I think sex is pure and churches are corrupt and cause violence and further statism, that's just my opinion of course.


I know you do.

----------


## jmdrake

> If people are under the power of sin, as Paul says, why does he then say that "no one seeks for God"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying people under the power of sin still seek God.  Paul is saying people under the power of sin don't seek God.  Why are you saying that?


People who are fallen but not reprobate can *respond* to God.  Tell me this.  You keep asking questions but you lack the decency to give a straightforward answer.  Why do you think there is no difference between the state of mind of men before God gave them over to a reprobate mind and the state of mind after?  That makes no sense.  Either there is something wrong with God or there is something wrong with Paul or ther is something wrong with you.  I personally think God and Paul are fine.

----------


## jmdrake

Acts 17:27 _God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us._

----------


## RJB

> This is the second time a debate thread about Christian doctrine has shared an extreme amount of similarity with a phrase that is very sexual in nature. Do you guys do that on purpose??

----------


## erowe1

> This is the second time a debate thread about Christian doctrine has shared an extreme amount of similarity with a phrase that is very sexual in nature. Do you guys do that on purpose??


What was the first?

Again, asking for a friend.

----------


## RJB

> What was the first?
> 
> Again, asking for a friend.


I'm guessing the "submission" thread.

----------


## moostraks

> In your verse, the contact was to the churches, not everyone.


You emphasize the weirdest portions of the text as though it contains some point you claim is there but it isn't. Uh, yeah the Spirit is speaking to the churches, but now you are ignoring Romans 1 at this point. Behold He stands at the door and knocks, if anyone hears and opens the door, ...he who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with me parallels the description in Romans 1, they knew God, all things that are made, as He stood at the door and knocked, yet they did not hear Him and open the door, they did not worship Him, they became futile in their thoughts, then their hearts were darkened and they were abandoned to the desires they placed above the Creator they knew. The just lived by faith, which is Love. Those that did not overcome became foolish in their thoughts and their hearts were darkened.

You cannot proof text. The entire Book has to be viewed in context of the totality and continuity of the text.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> People who are fallen but not reprobate can *respond* to God.  Tell me this.  You keep asking questions but you lack the decency to give a straightforward answer.  Why do you think there is no difference between the state of mind of men before God gave them over to a reprobate mind and the state of mind after?  That makes no sense.  Either there is something wrong with God or there is something wrong with Paul or ther is something wrong with you.  I personally think God and Paul are fine.


But the verse in Romans 1 is talking about ALL men.  This culminates in the *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought in Romans 3:




> *Romans 3:9-11 
> 
> What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;   there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.*



The *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought from the preceding 2 chapters is that ALL men, Jew and Gentile, are alike under the power of sin and no one seeks for God.

Your use of "reprobate" doesn't even appear in most versions.  Most use the word "depraved".  There is no textual support for the ridiculous separation you are making.

----------


## dannno

> What was the first?
> 
> Again, asking for a friend.


Well, this one..

* The Scope of Passover and Penal Substitution Theory* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...itution-Theory

And I could have sworn there was another one about a year ago that was up on the front page for days.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, this one..
> 
> * The Scope of Passover and Penal Substitution Theory* 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...itution-Theory
> 
> And I could have sworn there was another one about a year ago that was up on the front page for days.



Could it be possible that you are a sexual pervert?  I ask in the most respectful way possible.

----------


## dannno

> Could it be possible that you are a sexual pervert?  I ask in the most respectful way possible.


No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.


And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.


So according to you, sexual mores are determined by the society and time that you live in.  What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> People who are fallen but not reprobate can *respond* to God.  Tell me this.  You keep asking questions but you lack the decency to give a straightforward answer.  Why do you think there is no difference between the state of mind of men before God gave them over to a reprobate mind and the state of mind after?  That makes no sense.  Either there is something wrong with God or there is something wrong with Paul or ther is something wrong with you.  I personally think God and Paul are fine.


But the verse in Romans 1 is talking about ALL men.  This culminates in the *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought in Romans 3:




> *Romans 3:9-11 
> 
> What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;   there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.*



The *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought from the preceding 2 chapters is that ALL men, Jew and Gentile, are alike under the power of sin and no one seeks for God.

Your use of "reprobate" doesn't even appear in most versions.  Most use the word "depraved".  There is no textual support for the ridiculous separation you are making.

----------


## acptulsa

> And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?


You know, danno, when _most_ of us hear the phrase 'penal system' it triggers an aversion to orange jumpsuits.

We don't generally look at our crotches and scratch our heads.

----------


## dannno

> So according to you, sexual mores are determined by the society and time that you live in.  What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?


I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved. 

Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.

Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved. 
> 
> Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.
> 
> Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.


There is, however, still no cure for hepatitis.  Or herpes...

----------


## dannno

> And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?


I think it brought up some type of gang bang scenario.

----------


## otherone

> And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved. 
> 
> Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.
> 
> Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.



Yes I know you think that.  What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

----------


## dannno

> There is, however, still no cure for hepatitis.  Or herpes...


Ya but that is still like maybe 5-10% of the risks you had 100 years ago, if that.. I mean, pregnancy is a pretty big deal, I'd say at least 50% of the total risk right there.

----------


## dannno

> Yes I know you think that.  What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?


Then they would be imposed against reality.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then they would be imposed against reality.


Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live.  This is the is/ought fallacy.  So arguments from nature are not sufficient.   

If we were to accept your argument,  then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then they would be imposed against reality.


We see murder and statism all around us, so why do we need some other ethical system to tell us how it should be different?   Murder and statism is the reality, so it must be the way we should live, right?

----------


## otherone

> Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live.  This is the is/ought fallacy.  So arguments from nature are not sufficient.   
> 
> If we were to accept your argument,  then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.


Pavlov.dog.bell.  The SF Trinity.  Beautiful, in it's way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Pavlov.dog.bell.  The SF Trinity.  Beautiful, in it's way.


Murder and statism is our reality,  isn't it?  So if the nature of things determine what we accept as right, murder and statism would be right.

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the thinking there.

----------


## dannno

> Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live.  This is the is/ought fallacy.  So arguments from nature are not sufficient.   
> 
> If we were to accept your argument,  then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.


I see no reason why a person would have it in their nature to murder if they lived in a compassionate society. 

Remember, I did say that sexual mores should also be determined by relative risks which means that we may consciously go against our nature at times - it's just that we would do so using reason rather than convention.

I believe in karma, the universal version, that putting out positive energy leads to more positive energy in the universe and putting out negative energy leads to more negative energy in the universe (I don't believe in karma that good things will automatically happen to people who do good things or vice versa). Therefore we can consciously make decisions to do positive things and positively affect the universe in order to help combat the negative energy that some others consciously or unconsciously are putting out.

----------


## otherone

> Murder and statism is our reality,  isn't it?  So if the nature of things determine what we accept as right, murder and statism would be right.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the thinking there.


Yes you did.  Nice job.  The world is a fallacious place; you have your work cut out for you.
Speaking of controlling our naughty natures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

----------


## RJB

> Yes you did.  Nice job.  The world is a fallacious place; you have your work cut out for you.
> Speaking of controlling our naughty natures:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers



Wow.




> Turnover was high; the group reached maximum size of about 5,000 full members in 1840,[49] and/or 6,000 believers at the peak of the Shaker movement. There were only 12 Shaker communities left by 1920.[50] The Shaker communities continued to lose members, partly through attrition, *since believers did not give birth to children,* and also due to economics; hand-made products by Shakers weren't as competitive as mass-produced products and individuals moved to the cities for better livelihoods.
> 
> The only remaining active Shaker community in the United States is Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village in Maine, *which as of 2012 had only three members:* Sister June Carpenter, Brother Arnold Hadd, and Sister Frances Carr.[51][52][53]

----------


## dannno

> We see murder and statism all around us, so why do we need some other ethical system to tell us how it should be different?   Murder and statism is the reality, so it must be the way we should live, right?


It's up to humanity to recognize these flaws and work to correct them. That's what we are trying to do here at this forum and within this movement. It's a conscious decision. Some of us are religious, some aren't. Some of our enemies are religious, some aren't.

I don't think sex is a flaw. It's healthy and largely necessary for most people to engage in with some frequency in order to function properly and maintain psychological, mental, physical and spiritual stability.

It's only been the last 100+ years that society decided that young adults should stop having kids at around age 14-17 and wait until they are 18 or even much older by essentially imposing mandatory education until age 18 and now it is being extended to 22 and beyond. That is really what has screwed up society, people haven't started having sex at a younger age, they are failing to commit at a young age because they are told it is too early for them to commit. They can't support a child until they finish their education.

I'm not against monogamy, I'm against the concept of telling 16 and 17 year olds, or anybody who isn't married to wait to have sex until marriage and especially for younger folks, not to get married for several years to come. That's a really $#@!ed up thing to do if you've ever been that age and had a strong libido, male or female. It's like putting a person in a cage and starving them of food. But realistically, it was probably birth control that allowed society to make that transition since it probably would have completely failed before birth control.

So since the reality of society entails that we go to school and not commit to somebody before we graduate, it is reasonable to use birth control in the mean time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's up to humanity to recognize these flaws and work to correct them. That's what we are trying to do here at this forum and within this movement. It's a conscious decision. Some of us are religious, some aren't. Some of our enemies are religious, some aren't.
> 
> I don't think sex is a flaw. It's healthy and largely necessary for most people to engage in with some frequency in order to function properly and maintain psychological, mental, physical and spiritual stability.
> 
> It's only been the last 100+ years that society decided that young adults should stop having kids at around age 14-17 and wait until they are 18 or even much older by essentially imposing mandatory education until age 18 and now it is being extended to 22 and beyond. That is really what has screwed up society, people haven't started having sex at a younger age, they are failing to commit at a young age because they are told it is too early for them to commit. They can't support a child until they finish their education.
> 
> I'm not against monogamy, I'm against the concept of telling 16 and 17 year olds, or anybody who isn't married to wait to have sex until marriage and especially for younger folks, not to get married for several years to come. That's a really $#@!ed up thing to do if you've ever been that age and had a strong libido, male or female. It's like putting a person in a cage and starving them of food. But realistically, it was probably birth control that allowed society to make that transition since it probably would have completely failed before birth control.
> 
> So since the reality of society entails that we go to school and not commit to somebody before we graduate, it is reasonable to use birth control in the mean time.


Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion.   I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.

----------


## jmdrake

> But the verse in Romans 1 is talking about ALL men.  This culminates in the *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought in Romans 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought from the preceding 2 chapters is that ALL men, Jew and Gentile, are alike under the power of sin and no one seeks for God.
> 
> Your use of "reprobate" doesn't even appear in most versions.  Most use the word "depraved".  There is no textual support for the ridiculous separation you are making.


Sola_Fide, it's really simple.  Romans 1 clearly states that the men Paul was talking about had a change of mind from whatever state they were in to a reprobate state.  You can prevaricate all you want to about this, but you are just making yourself look foolish.  Answer the question that you are afraid to answer.  What changed in the men in Romans 1 when God gave them over to a reprobate mind?  Nothing?  That's just ridiculously illogical.

Being under the power of sin != being reprobate.  When the men "Knew God but did not worship Him as God and were not thankful" they were already under the power of sin but they were not reprobate.  If they were they God wouldn't have given them over to a reprobate mind because they already would have had a reprobate mind.

----------


## jmdrake

> Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion.   I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.


Dannno, for all his faults, doesn't prevaricate.  You always know where he stands.

----------


## dannno

> Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion.   I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.


I still don't think you know what that word means..




> The alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.


Sex was meant to be pleasurable and we weren't meant to engage in it for survival reasons. More people in your tribe meant more protection and kids could help with hunting, gathering and chores. It didn't matter who the father was so much as how many people were pitching in and able to help defend the tribe.

 As societies changed and grew, the tribal unit shrunk to a smaller family unit because the family had protection from a larger force that would defend the town or country. More people became in impediment to growth in some cases where they could not support themselves, namely because a woman was not desirable to men if she had children without a commitment. That is why religion was born and why morally it was largely focused on reproduction. Now we have birth control so women can engage in sex without commitment. Men didn't like being responsible for their family and not getting sex from his wife then having to take care of kids she had with other men, thus religion has laws against adultery. There are reasons all these things in religion came about.

But today, things are different than 100 years ago. I explained why, and that should tell you a lot about why society is the way it is. If anything, we are a sexually repressed society, not over-sexed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I still don't think you know what that word means..
> 
> 
> 
> Sex was meant to be pleasurable and we weren't meant to engage in it for survival reasons. More people in your tribe meant more protection and kids could help with hunting, gathering and chores. It didn't matter who the father was so much as how many people were pitching in and able to help defend the tribe.
> 
>  As societies changed and grew, the tribal unit shrunk to a smaller family unit because the family had protection from a larger force that would defend the town or country. More people became in impediment to growth in some cases where they could not support themselves, namely because a woman was not desirable to men if she had children without a commitment. That is why religion was born and why morally it was largely focused on reproduction. Now we have birth control so women can engage in sex without commitment. Men didn't like being responsible for their family and not getting sex from his wife then having to take care of kids she had with other men, thus religion has laws against adultery. There are reasons all these things in religion came about.
> 
> But today, things are different than 100 years ago. I explained why, and that should tell you a lot about why society is the way it is. If anything, we are a sexually repressed society, not over-sexed.


You know I love ya dannno, but your making a critical error here.  You confuse "is" and "ought".  Just because we _can_ have orgies and such doesn't mean we _should_.  This isn't even a uniquely religious concept.  Among the "endeavours" of Buddhists(as it was explained to me) is "I shall endeavor not to abuse my sexuality".  They understood that there is a powerful mind-spirit-body connection, and being destructive to any one of these damages the others.

----------


## acptulsa

> Answer the question that you are afraid to answer.


I asked him about these two in another thread.

He hasn't posted in it since.




> 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
> 
> 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.





> 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


But considering he thinks a publican collects taxes, we probably expect too much.

----------


## otherone

> I still don't think you know what that word means..


That's an interesting idea, one could argue that it's a perversion to_ not_ have sex.  
IRT tribal society and sex, I don't believe you can say that primitive cultures always made a connection between intercourse and pregnancy...the aboriginal Australians did not, it may be fair to say that other primitive matriarchal societies did not as well; the power of women being demonstrated by their seeming parthenogenetic magic. Patriarchism occurs when the fellows realized they had a magic part to play, too.

----------


## jmdrake

> I asked him about these two in another thread.
> 
> He hasn't posted in it since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But considering he thinks a publican collects taxes, we probably expect too much.


God uses the simple things to confound the wise.  1 Corinthians 1:27.  And this is *really really* simple.  If everyone was "totally depraved" then nobody could ever become "more depraved."  So God couldn't give someone over to a reprobate mind because that would be a condition they were already in.  SF wants to confound that as to saying "Paul says nobody is good."  That's true.  Being good implies perfection.  Nobody is perfect.  In fact, nobody is perfectly evil. though some try real hard to reach that.  Here is the deal.  God is trying to reach everyone.  He does things to cause all to seek Him.  (Acts 17:26-27)

----------


## acptulsa

> Here is the deal.  God is trying to reach everyone.  He does things to cause all to seek Him.  (Acts 17:26-27)


Exactly.  Which is the second reason I argued Paul's 'what if' doesn't mean that God's sole purpose is to glorify Himself (the first being that Paul's 'what ifs' hardly trump Jesus' hard facts, and to focus on the inferior over the superior is to desperately try to prove an agenda).




> 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


God, for whatever reason, doesn't make a habit of doing Public Announcements to the whole world, probably because He seems to prefer we come to Him through faith rather than fear.  This does not mean He doesn't want us to hear His words.  So, if He sets up Pharaoh as His bully pulpit, that certainly doesn't glorify Himself as much as having a Worldwide Burning Bush Network, but it obviously got the job He wanted done done.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Back to the OP (when it says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones), remember that the word "appointed" is also used in other places to denote prededtination:




> *Acts 13:48
> 
> When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
> 
> *


Notice that it is the appointment to eternal life that is the reason the Gentiles believed.  There were some comments in this thread that said "appointment" could mean something other than predestination,  but it is clear from other places in the Bible that "appointment" does mean predestination.

----------


## acptulsa

> Back to the OP (when it says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones), remember that the word "appointed" is also used in other places to denote prededtination:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that it is the appointment to eternal life that is the reason the Gentiles believed.  There were some comments in this thread that said "appointment" could mean something other than predestination,  but it is clear from other places in the Bible that "appointment" does mean predestination.


Using the New Calvinist Apologencia again?




> 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming . 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold , and said , It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you , and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo , we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Gentiles heard this , they were glad , and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed . 49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.


I could have sworn the English language differentiated between 'ordained' and 'preordained'...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Using the New Calvinist Apologencia again?
> 
> 
> 
> I could have sworn the English language differentiated between 'ordained' and 'preordained'...



There is no difference.   Also, note that the reason they believed was because of the appointment.

----------


## acptulsa

> There is no difference.







> Also, note that the reason they believed was because of the appointment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 



God is an eternal being.  There can't be conditionality or temporality to anything He does.  He knows the end from the beginning and has purposed everything from the end to the beginning.

----------


## acptulsa

> God is an eternal being.


I've read that before--in a reliable source, too.




> There can't be conditionality or temporality to anything He does.


I haven't read that anywhere reliable, and it certainly doesn't logically follow from immortality.




> He knows the end from the beginning...


Surely seems to.




> ...and has purposed everything from the end to the beginning.


I don't believe you.

Are you still afraid to tackle these two?  Do you avoid them because Jesus said them and you'd have to call Him a liar, or because you're afraid of being called a false prophet?




> 12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
> 
> 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.





> 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


Are you _ever_ going to tell us where the 'believes in preordination' and 'doesn't believe in preordination' groups are in this prophesy?




> 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
> 
> 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
> 
> 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
> 
> 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
> 
> 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

(I'll answer your post acptulsa,  but I do want to note that it is always the sovereign grace believers on the board who always attempt to perform exegesis on verses that are offered here.  With the exception of TC, I don't see any of the others trying to exegete verses. With almost 500 posts in this thread, not one person has exegeted the verse in the op.)

Let's take Matthew 12.  Why did you post that verse as if it something I would disagree with?  What do you think that verse is saying.

I don't want any insults or snappy one liners.  Just briefly explain to me what you think it means.

----------


## acptulsa

> (I'll answer your post acptulsa,  but I do want to note that it is always the sovereign grace believers on the board who always attempt to perform exegesis on verses that are offered here.  With the exception of TC, I don't see any of the others trying to exegete verses. With almost 500 posts in this thread, not one person has exegeted the verse in the op.)


Thank God I'm a Presbyterian.  We just have to read verses and try to understand them.  We don't have to dissect them, scramble the pieces, and try to sew them back together again.

And you're the one who refuses to address the exegesis where I asked you how those people were, as mentioned in Verse 10, predestined to both Heaven and Hell.




> Let's take Matthew 12.  Why did you post that verse as if it something I would disagree with?  What do you think that verse is saying.
> 
> I don't want any insults or snappy one liners.  Just briefly explain to me what you think it means.


Your exegesis is asking me for my exegesis?

Oh, no.  I'm not taking questions as answers to my questions.  Either stuff Jesus' words into your mold or call Him a liar.  I have no intention of helping you do either.

You've proven your prowess at reading things into Romans that aren't there.  Let's see why you're avoiding Matthew like the plague.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thank God I'm a Presbyterian.  We just have to read verses and try to understand them.  We don't have to dissect them, scramble the pieces, and try to sew them back together again.
> 
> And you're the one who refuses to address the exegesis where I asked you how those people were, as mentioned in Verse 10, predestined to both Heaven and Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> Your exegesis is asking me for my exegesis?
> 
> Oh, no.  I'm not taking questions as answers to my questions.  Either stuff Jesus' words into your mold or call Him a liar.  I have no intention of helping you do either.
> ...



What?   I'm not avoiding any verse.  I'm asking you why you posted the verse in Matthew 12 as if you think it would disagree with what I believe?   What are your thoughts on that verse.

Do I have to beg for your thoughts on that verse?  Ok.  Please?

----------


## acptulsa

You don't want to perform exegesis on the verses, you want to perform exegesis on me.

Tell you what.  Tell me where the 'believes in preordination' and 'doesn't believe in preordination' groups are in the quoted prophesy from Matthew 25 and I might be willing to play.

----------


## RJB

> Thank God I'm a Presbyterian.


Sorry, a bit off topic, but I thought Presbyterians were Calvinist/Reformed leaning folks?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sorry, a bit off topic, but I thought Presbyterians were Calvinist/Reformed leaning folks?


 Nah.  Most Presbyterian churches are country clubs or day care centers where the Bible isn't preached anymore. Much like many other "Protestant" denominations nowadays.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nah.  Most Presbyterian churches are country clubs or day care centers where the Bible isn't preached anymore. Much like many other "Protestant" denominations nowadays.


Flattery won't get you out of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Flattery won't get you out of it.


What did your Presbyterian Church tell you about Matthew 25?

----------


## acptulsa

> What did your Presbyterian Church tell you about Matthew 25?


Nothing that can only be true if Jesus lied.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nothing that can only be true if Jesus lied.


So...just another snappy one liner.  But this is a discussion,  right?  It's a give and take exchage. So why don't you provide some discussion about it.  Or at least tell me how you think Jesus in Matthew 25 would disagree with anything I believe.

----------


## acptulsa

> So...just another snappy one liner.  But this is a discussion,  right?  It's a give and take exchage. So why don't you provide some discussion about it.  Or at least tell me how you think Jesus in Matthew 25 would disagree with anything I believe.


In a give and take exchange, you'd have told me where the 'believes in preordination' and 'doesn't believe in preordination' groups are in Jesus' prophesy _years_ ago.

Don't try to pretend I have no reason to be tired of waiting for you to give.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nah.  Most Presbyterian churches are country clubs or day care centers where the Bible isn't preached anymore. Much like many other "Protestant" denominations nowadays.


I'm guessing that depends on the Presbyterian denomination.  From what I understand the OPC and PCA are both a lot better than the PCUSA.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm guessing that depends on the Presbyterian denomination.  From what I understand the OPC and PCA are both a lot better than the PCUSA.


By 'better' do you mean 'less likely to call Jesus a liar' or 'more likely to call Jesus a liar'?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> By 'better' do you mean 'less likely to call Jesus a liar' or 'more likely to call Jesus a liar'?


The PCUSA is more liberal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In a give and take exchange, you'd have told me where the 'believes in preordination' and 'doesn't believe in preordination' groups are in Jesus' prophesy _years_ ago.
> 
> Don't try to pretend I have no reason to be tired of waiting for you to give.


So...no commentary on the verse or anything coming from you. Ok I get it.  I'll just take this as you not wanting to really discuss anything..   Cool.


Here I'll give you something about the verse that you've probably never thought of.  Verse 40:



> The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'



Jesus is concerned about how believers treat other believers here.  

Have you ever considered this?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> By 'better' do you mean 'less likely to call Jesus a liar' or 'more likely to call Jesus a liar'?


No, he's right.  PCUSA is left wingnut batshirt crazy.  PCUSA recently launched an effort to remove Israel from the Bible, for example.

----------


## acptulsa

> So...no commentary on the verse or anything coming from you. Ok I get it.  I'll just take this as you not wanting to really discuss anything..   Cool.


That's fine.

I don't mind you calling me a liar nearly as much as you calling Jesus a liar.

And please don't refuse to talk with me, attempt to deflect from my questions by cross examining me, insult the church in which I was raised, and then lecture me on how to treat my bretheren.  It makes me too sad for your soul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's fine.
> 
> I don't mind you calling me a liar nearly as much as you calling Jesus a liar.
> 
> And please don't refuse to talk with me, attempt to deflect from my questions by cross examining me, insult the church in which I was raised, and then lecture me on how to treat my bretheren.  It makes me too sad for your soul.


You're incredibly frustrating.

----------


## acptulsa

> You're incredibly frustrating.


I'm also frustrated.  And tired.

I don't suppose _you'd_ like to tell me where in His prophesy about the Judgement Day as related in Matthew 25 Jesus tells us about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?

No?  Oh, well.  Good night, FF.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's fine.
> 
> I don't mind you calling me a liar nearly as much as you calling Jesus a liar.
> 
> And please don't refuse to talk with me, attempt to deflect from my questions by cross examining me, insult the church in which I was raised, and then lecture me on how to treat my bretheren.  It makes me too sad for your soul.



Huh?  I made a comment about the verse you posted.  You haven't told me anything about what you believe about the verse.  You just threw it up there and what....call me a liar?  I already believe everything Jesus says, so that's a given.  All I asked you was to tell me what you think this verse means, and how you think I would disagree with it.  And you won't do it.

----------


## acptulsa

> Huh?  I made a comment about the verse you posted.  You haven't told me anything about what you believe about the verse.  You just threw it up there and what....call me a liar?  I already believe everything Jesus says, so that's a given.  All I asked you was to tell me what you think this verse means, and how you think I would disagree with it.  And you won't do it.


Where in that prophesy does Jesus talk about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?

Jesus is the stumbling block.  And I won't let you walk around Him.

Good night, S_F.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm also frustrated.  And tired.
> 
> I don't suppose _you'd_ like to tell me where in His prophesy about the Judgement Day as related in Matthew 25 Jesus tells us about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?
> 
> No?  Oh, well.  Good night, FF.


Oh that's your issue?   Jesus mentions predestination in that passage:



> 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm also frustrated.  And tired.
> 
> I don't suppose _you'd_ like to tell me where in His prophesy about the Judgement Day as related in Matthew 25 Jesus tells us about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?
> 
> No?  Oh, well.  Good night, FF.


I didn't claim that predestination appears in every single Bible text.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't claim that predestination appears in every single Bible text.





> Oh that's your issue?   Jesus mentions predestination in that passage:


Not to mention that it appears in this one.  Thanks SF

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh that's your issue?   Jesus mentions predestination in that passage:


Especially when you seemed to come here to lead the impressionable down the same garden path.

So, the Kingdom was prepared long ago.  So what?

Where does He talk about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?

Do you really think that, if what you say is true, that these two groups are too incidental to the story of the Day of Judgement to mention?  Really...?

Really...?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Especially when you seemed to come here to lead the impressionable down the same garden path.
> 
> So, the Kingdom was prepared long ago.  So what?
> 
> Where does He talk about the group that believes in preordination and the group that doesn't?
> 
> Do you really think that, if what you say is true, that these two groups are too incidental to the story of the Day of Judgement to mention?  Really...?
> 
> Really...?



Ok.  So what do you think the passage means then?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, the Kingdom was prepared long ago.  So what?


Yes, it was prepared "for" the sheep.  That's what the passage says.  God knows everything beginning to end.  He knew who would be there before He created the world...and He _purposed_ who would be there before the creation of the world.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, it was prepared "for" the sheep.  That's what the passage says.


That's what the passage says.




> God knows everything beginning to end.  He knew who would be there before He created the world...and He _purposed_ who would be there before the creation of the world.


That's not what the passage says.

You're awfully desperate to look away from the prophesy of the Judgement Day (in particular and Jesus' Own Words in general) and get your needle back in the broken groove and comfortably stuck again.

Tell me where He mentions the 'believes in preordination' group and the 'doesn't believe in preordination' group in His prophesy.  Or tell me why, if that's the whole trick, the whole purpose, the entire point to all creation, they aren't worth mentioning.  Or give me a good reason why Jesus would lie about it.  Or stop with the false prophesying, or at the very least have enough respect for us to go try to lead people down the garden path to Hell from some other forum.

You're frustrated too, aren't you?  You were taught from infancy how to lead people by the nose to a false conclusion by asking them a certain set of leading questions designed to solicit incorrect and illogical answers.  This is the exact same tactic cops use to get confessions out of the innocent.  And when someone won't play that game you assume the devil has hold of them.  But their stubbornness isn't the devil in them, it's their defense from the devil.  It's them not letting their vanity, which your questions are designed to tickle, and their herd instinct, which your questions are designed to prey on, make them susceptible to the devil.

And how can I be so sure the devil's in _your_ details?  Simple.  The Bible tells me so.  _Where are the 'believes in preordination' and 'doesn't believe in preordination' groups in Jesus' account of the Day of Judgement?_




> 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.





> Ok.  So what do you think the passage means then?


_What it says._

Jesus had (unsurprisingly) a God-like ability to anticipate future attempts to find loopholes and to knit His language so closely that they just weren't there.

No wonder you spend all your time in Romans.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, it was prepared "for" the sheep.  That's what the passage says.  God knows everything beginning to end.  He knew who would be there before He created the world...and He _purposed_ who would be there before the creation of the world.


Sola,,
You are stuck.. you are stuck in just one (one of many) branch of the reformers. And all of the reformers was trying to correct errors.. And all had some valid points.. and retained some error.

Let me ask you a question,,and don't jump to an answer,, but think on it.

Do you agree with the Counsel of Laodicea ? 

Because they defined your bible. ( it is still sufficient,and balances all doctrine)

----------


## jmdrake

> Back to the OP..


Right.  Failing to respond to the argument that destroys the premise of the OP you want to go back to the OP.  Again, what change happens in a man when God gives him over to a reprobate mind?  I've rephrased the question so that maybe you will attempt to answer it this time.

----------


## moostraks

> Right.  Failing to respond to the argument that destroys the premise of the OP you want to go back to the OP.  Again, what change happens in a man when God gives him over to a reprobate mind?  I've rephrased the question so that maybe you will attempt to answer it this time.


He uses proof texting to force a position outside of the text. Then he complains when people spend the time to show the error of the position he is forcing, and he demands everyone let him play the game of isolated verses and erroneous ideas. Then he claims some sort of victory that never existed when no one plays by his ridiculous rules. 

The Bible is not fortune cookie sayings collected together, but it is a guidebook of thought for righteous living. The entire book must be read together as a complete thought. Wolves in sheeps clothing, like the examples provided within Matthew and Luke 4, seem to enjoy this method of conversion to their beliefs. No one should feel insulted by someone who plays this game. The wolves' actions speaking volumes while their words say little. This is why people should constantly stay grounded in their faith because the wolves operate on the fringes to pick off those that only know Scripture through small bites of wisdom.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  Failing to respond to the argument that destroys the premise of the OP you want to go back to the OP.  Again, what change happens in a man when God gives him over to a reprobate mind?  I've rephrased the question so that maybe you will attempt to answer it this time.


It's so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.  The idea that there are two groups of sinners, one "kind of depraved" and the other "really depraved" has absolutely no biblical support and is contradicted by the passages in Romans 2 and 3 that I posted for you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He uses proof texting to force a position outside of the text. Then he complains when people spend the time to show the error of the position he is forcing, and he demands everyone let him play the game of isolated verses and erroneous ideas. Then he claims some sort of victory that never existed when no one plays by his ridiculous rules. 
> 
> The Bible is not fortune cookie sayings collected together, but it is a guidebook of thought for righteous living. The entire book must be read together as a complete thought. Wolves in sheeps clothing, like the examples provided within Matthew and Luke 4, seem to enjoy this method of conversion to their beliefs. No one should feel insulted by someone who plays this game. The wolves' actions speaking volumes while their words say little. This is why people should constantly stay grounded in their faith because the wolves operate on the fringes to pick off those that only know Scripture through small bites of wisdom.



You're right.  The Bible should be read in context.  When Romans 2 and 3 says that all men alike are fallen and do not seek God, we shouldn't create an artificial distinction in Romans 1 and say that some fallen men can actually choose God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola,,
> You are stuck.. you are stuck in just one (one of many) branch of the reformers. And all of the reformers was trying to correct errors.. And all had some valid points.. and retained some error.
> 
> Let me ask you a question,,and don't jump to an answer,, but think on it.
> 
> Do you agree with the Counsel of Laodicea ? 
> 
> Because they defined your bible. ( it is still sufficient,and balances all doctrine)


What did the council of Leodicia say?

Yes, the Reformers had many errors.  Most of their errors came from the fact that they had not sufficiently separated their theology from Rome.   They still didn't fully accept the Scripture alone.

----------


## pcosmar

> What did the council of Leodicia say?


Aside from unilaterally defining what was heresy,, and codifying a hierarchy and removing several books of both historical and spiritual significance.
 But then,,, christianity was the official state religion they needed Authority to maintain control and discipline.

They removed much before the reformers (in the same error) removed even more.

Essentially,, the bible was decided by them.

----------


## moostraks

> You're right.  The Bible should be read in context.  When Romans 2 and 3 says that all men alike are fallen and do not seek God, we shouldn't create an artificial distinction in Romans 1 and say that some fallen men can actually choose God.





> Maybe because He initiates the contact but everyone is aware of Him at some point:
> Revelation 3:Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.





> You emphasize the weirdest portions of the text as though it contains some point you claim is there but it isn't. Uh, yeah the Spirit is speaking to the churches, but now you are ignoring Romans 1 at this point. Behold He stands at the door and knocks, if anyone hears and opens the door, ...he who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with me parallels the description in Romans 1, they knew God, all things that are made, as He stood at the door and knocked, yet they did not hear Him and open the door, they did not worship Him, they became futile in their thoughts, then their hearts were darkened and they were abandoned to the desires they placed above the Creator they knew. The just lived by faith, which is Love. Those that did not overcome became foolish in their thoughts and their hearts 
> You cannot proof text. The entire Book has to be viewed in context of the totality and continuity of the text.


~~~It is like a record which just skips skipping. Romans 1, Revelation 3, provide the context to understand the concept. 

This thread is just a repeat of every thread you have abandoned in the past...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ~~~It is like a record which just skips skipping. Romans 1, Revelation 3, provide the context to understand the concept. 
> 
> This thread is just a repeat of every thread you have abandoned in the past...


Yes, in Romans 1, it says that the revelation that God gives to man in nature is enough to render him without excuse.  It condemns man before God.  That is the "weird part" of the text that you don't like,  but it is what refutes your idea. In Romans 3, it says that no man seeks for God and all men are under the powerof sin.  That may be another "weird part" to you, but that is how you can tell your theology isn't biblical.

----------


## moostraks

Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. 

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.




> Thread: The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter
> Good Point! 5000 views and 550 responses!
> 01-31-2015 12:11 PM
> Sola_Fide





> Thread: The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter
> almost 4000 views and 458 responses! Thank you for contributing.
> 01-29-2015 06:02 PM
> Sola_Fide

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Aside from unilaterally defining what was heresy,, and codifying a hierarchy and removing several books of both historical and spiritual significance.
>  But then,,, christianity was the official state religion they needed Authority to maintain control and discipline.
> 
> They removed much before the reformers (in the same error) removed even more.
> 
> Essentially,, the bible was decided by them.


The councils didn't "decide" what books would be in the Bible, they merely identified what books Christians had always known to be Scripture in the face of new obvious forgeries.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others.


Right.  The Pharisees put the burden of working the law on the people when they themselves were lawbreakers.   All the people here who say that man's efforts are the cause of salvation are putting heavy burdens on man.  "Christianity" today is full of modern-day Pharisees.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, in Romans 1, it says that the revelation that God gives to man in nature is enough to render him without excuse.  It condemns man before God.  That is the "weird part" of the text that you don't like,  but it is what refutes your idea. In Romans 3, it says that no man seeks for God and all men are under the powerof sin.  That may be another "weird part" to you, but that is how you can tell your theology isn't biblical.


This is not your church and you do not have the authority to pass proclamations as to my beliefs. You ignore the continuity between what was said in Revelation 3 which backs up the position being made for Romans 1. Your weird emphasis is to pick a handful of words out of one verse to the exclusion of a running explanation within other texts. You see what you want to see...

~~~peace on your path

----------


## pcosmar

> The councils didn't "decide" what books would be in the Bible, they merely identified what books Christians had always known to be Scripture in the face of new obvious forgeries.


They removed many,
Books the early church used,, and quoted.



> *And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,* saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
>  These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.





> And *Enoch* walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.





> By faith *Enoch* was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.


The early Church knew about Enoch. The books of Enoch,, a prophet of God,,Who walked with God..was banned. I would say that is significant,

My point is,,the history of errors.. some are very old and have stuck around.. even through reform.
They skew the understanding.

----------


## otherone

> The councils didn't "decide" what books would be in the Bible, they merely identified what books Christians had always known to be Scripture in the face of new obvious forgeries.


...and "decided" to not include the ones that were "forgeries".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...and "decided" to not include the ones that were "forgeries".


Right.  Christians for centuries knew what came from the apostles.  So when new books claimed to be written by Thomas came 500 years later, the church said no, these are not what we have had from the beginning from the apostles.

----------


## moostraks

> Right.  The Pharisees put the burden of working the law on the people when they themselves were lawbreakers.   All the people here who say that man's efforts are the cause of salvation are putting heavy burdens on man.  "Christianity" today is full of modern-day Pharisees.


The Pharisees elevated themselves and placed their beliefs above Love and made sure that everyone was aware of their accomplishments. Their interests were self serving yet they professed concern for others by dripping insincere statements and burdened others with their false philosophy that shut people out from having a relationship with the Creator. The unwitting professed them to be wise and sincere, and were made twice the child of hell of the Pharisee.

Being genetically shut out from the kingdom of heaven is a massive burden to heap upon the souls of other seekers. When the seekers turn their backs at the knock they thought they heard but question due to erroneous teachings which proclaim them to be pots destined for destruction before they even turned the knob, it is the Pharisee who came as a sheep which was their undoing and caused their foolish hearts to be darkened.

----------


## erowe1

> Being genetically shut out from the kingdom of heaven is a massive burden to heap upon the souls of other seekers.


Did SF really ever say he was talking about seekers?

----------


## moostraks

oh, and when S_F is crowing about thread views he has inflated the number in his rep responses to me. The first one, S_F, you were 400 shy of 4000 when you made the comment, today you had not yet hit 5000, but you have no problem inflating your numbers like any good politician does...

----------


## moostraks

> Did SF really ever say he was talking about seekers?


No, SF doesn't care about the light of Love in everyone, he cares about those who will parrot his viewpoint. Some of us don't have such a limited view of the Creator's love for His creation.

----------


## erowe1

> No, SF doesn't care about the light of Love in everyone, he cares about those who will parrot his viewpoint. Some of us don't have such a limited view of the Creator's love for His creation.


So he's not actually heaping the burden of being shut out of the kingdom of Heaven on seekers? Because that's what you implied.

----------


## moostraks

> So he's not actually heaping the burden of being shut out of the kingdom of Heaven on seekers? Because that's what you implied.


Yes he is. The philosophy he espouses shuts people out and there are incidents that have evidenced this by which other people having said as much to him. His claims about my views are numerous in which he placed himself in judgement of my faith and were I to listen to him and be discouraged it would be to his credit for deciding he has the authority to sit in judgement of my relationship with the Creator. (the deciding factor to my faith in his view being that I am to agree with him or I am condemned)(y'all are no different than the faiths you suppose you reformed but you seem to just make it the tyranny of a less centralized nature)

Being as you are a member of the elect I would not expect for you to understand this as he is in mutual agreement with you on the larger issue of us condemned pots created to glorify you, SF, and FF.

----------


## acptulsa

> Right.  The Pharisees put the burden of working the law on the people when they themselves were lawbreakers.   All the people here who say that man's efforts are the cause of salvation are putting heavy burdens on man.  "Christianity" today is full of modern-day Pharisees.


Excuse me?  You consider clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, comforting the grieving, visiting the incarcerated and things like that a heavy burden?  Sorry to hear that.

Or are you about to say that the only alternative to believing in preordination (a mighty heavy burden, since Jesus described the Judgement Day, told how the goats will be divided, and didn't mention it, which means if believing in preordination is the key Jesus is a liar) or obeying every little aspect of Judaic Law all your life long (a doubly heavy burden since Jesus didn't say that either)?

I'm sorry you consider being humane to humans a heavier burden than believing Jesus to be a liar.  I don't.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes he is.


If you can't show how he is using his own words, then wouldn't it be better and more honest on your part to interact with what he actually does say?

----------


## erowe1

> Excuse me?  You consider clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, comforting the grieving, visiting the incarcerated and things like that a heavy burden?


Is that so strange a thing to think, given the fact that nobody has yet succeeded at doing any of those things?

----------


## otherone

> Excuse me?  You consider clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, comforting the grieving, visiting the incarcerated and things like that a heavy burden?  Sorry to hear that.


Yeah...I saw that.  Loving God and your neighbor is a "burden", apparently, because "love" is a burden.

----------


## otherone

> Is that so strange a thing to think, given the fact that nobody has yet succeeded at doing any of those things?


Why are you guys so concerned about what other people have done?

----------


## erowe1

> Why are you guys so concerned about what other people have done?


Did you accidentally quote the wrong person?

I don't see how your question relates to what I said.

----------


## otherone

> Did you accidentally quote the wrong person?
> 
> I don't see how your question relates to what I said.





> Quote Originally Posted by erowe1
> Is that so strange a thing to think, *given the fact that nobody has* yet succeeded at doing any of those things?


Why should that concern you?    You are responsible for you, not others.

----------


## erowe1

> Why should that concern you?    You are responsible for you, not others.


I still don't understand your question.

You see that I was asking a question. Right? And that my question was in response to someone else's rhetorical question, which said that the accomplishments listed were not a burden.

I never said anything about anything being anyone's responsibility. Nor did I say anything about being concerned about anything.

----------


## otherone

> I still don't understand your question.
> 
> You see that I was asking a question. Right? And that my question was in response to someone else's rhetorical question, which said that the accomplishments listed were not a burden.
> 
> I never said anything about anything being anyone's responsibility. Nor did I say anything about being concerned about anything.


You proclaimed that: "*fact* that nobody has yet succeeded at doing any of those things" despite
a) having no way of actually knowing this fact and
b) whether or not you BELIEVE that others have failed, in what way should others failure influence your attempt at compliance?

----------


## erowe1

> You proclaimed that: "*fact* that nobody has yet succeeded at doing any of those things" despite
> a) having no way of actually knowing this fact and
> b) whether or not you BELIEVE that others have failed, in what way should others failure influence your attempt at compliance?


The fact is irrefutable, since poor and hungry people still exist. Do you need a source to show that they do?

----------


## otherone

> The fact is irrefutable, since poor and hungry people still exist. Do you need a source to show that they do?


You are saying that because there are poor and hungry people, that no one has fed or clothed poor and hungry people?  How could we possibly help people if there were none to help?
Eating a ham sandwich doesn't rid the world of ham sandwiches.

----------


## erowe1

> You are saying that because there are poor and hungry people, that no one has fed or clothed poor and hungry people?  How could we possibly help people if there were none to help?
> Eating a ham sandwich doesn't rid the world of ham sandwiches.


If there were none to help, then it wouldn't be an issue. In that case, people could say that there did not exist hungry people whom they failed to feed.

But as it is, nobody can say that. All people must confess that there exist hungry people they failed to feed. And judged by the standard of Matthew 25 (if we apply it as a general test for salvation the way Acptulsa does--for the record I don't, but I only give this in light of accepting his application of the passage for the sake of argument), all people fail.




> 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
> 
> 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, *inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these,* you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


Is there a hungry person that I haven't fed? Then I meet that criterion of being bound for Hell.

Is that criterion a heavy burden? I should say so.

Has anyone ever not met it? Apparently not.

In the context of this conversation, it was SF's claim that the burden was heavy that some found objectionable. But reality supports his claim.

----------


## otherone

> If there were none to help, then it wouldn't be an issue. In that case, people could say that there did not exist hungry people whom they failed to feed.
> 
> But as it is, nobody can say that. All people must confess that there exist hungry people they failed to feed. And judged by the standard of Matthew 25 (if we apply it as a general test for salvation the way Acptulsa does--for the record I don't, but I only give this in light of accepting his application of the passage for the sake of argument), all people fail.


Again, why are you people so hung up on salvation?   We aren't supposed to love because of a reward.  That isn't love.  Does confessing that you haven't ended hunger in the world absolve you from the command to love others?  To help those you can?  Is it possible in your worldview to believe that there are those who help others with no expectation of salvation?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Pharisees elevated themselves and placed their beliefs above Love and made sure that everyone was aware of their accomplishments. Their interests were self serving yet they professed concern for others by dripping insincere statements and burdened others with their false philosophy that shut people out from having a relationship with the Creator. The unwitting professed them to be wise and sincere, and were made twice the child of hell of the Pharisee.
> 
> Being genetically shut out from the kingdom of heaven is a massive burden to heap upon the souls of other seekers. When the seekers turn their backs at the knock they thought they heard but question due to erroneous teachings which proclaim them to be pots destined for destruction before they even turned the knob, it is the Pharisee who came as a sheep which was their undoing and caused their foolish hearts to be darkened.


But that is not anything like the verse you quoted.  The verse you quoted says (and I will bold the "weird parts" for you:



> Matthew 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.* For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.* 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others..


So the Pharisees were preaching that man's efforts through good deeds were the way to heaven, but they themselves were not doing good deeds.  They were law-breakers as much as anyone else.  This is why they were hypocrites.  Paul echoes this sentiment in Romans 2 when he was condemning the Jews as sinners and law-breakers:




> *3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape Gods judgment?*


So when people like yourself (no disrespect intended) attempt to teach people that something they do gets them in to heaven, you are foisting a heavy burden on them.  The reason it is heavy is because man cannot do enough good deeds to be righteous in the sight of God.  You make them "twice the sons of Hell" that you are, as Jesus said.

For a man to be righteous, he must have a perfect righteousness.  That perfect righteousness is Christ ALONE.  The one who trusts in Christ's righteousness ALONE will be able to stand before God blameless on the last day.

----------


## otherone

> In the context of this conversation, it was SF's claim that the burden was heavy that some found objectionable. But reality supports his claim.


Right.  Because the LAW that he finds so burdensome is to LOVE.  I find that objectionable.

----------


## erowe1

> Right.  Because the LAW that he finds so burdensome is to LOVE.  I find that objectionable.


Can you quote him saying that?

Or is this another case of charging him with something that can't be gotten from his own words?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  Because the LAW that he finds so burdensome is to LOVE.  I find that objectionable.


You haven't loved God or your fellow man enough.  By your own standard you condemn yourself.  

Why would you want to be judged based on your imperfect and sinful works of love?   Why not trust ALONE in Jesus' perfect acts of love?

----------


## moostraks

> If you can't show how he is using his own words, then wouldn't it be better and more honest on your part to interact with what he actually does say?


The fact that you cannot comprehend his words ill effect does not negate the existence of the harm of his philosophy. But again, what concern is it of yours to see the detriment of his words when you are not a member of the harmed and benefit from his deceptions?

----------


## erowe1

> Again, why are you people so hung up on salvation?


That was the context of the discussion. I wasn't the one who brought it up.




> We aren't supposed to love because of a reward.  That isn't love.


I'm glad you think that.




> Does confessing that you haven't ended hunger in the world absolve you from the command to love others?


No. Nor is there any possible way you can construe anything I've said in this thread to imply that it does.




> Is it possible in your worldview to believe that there are those who help others with no expectation of salvation?


Yes. If you want to change the subject to be about that, I'm game. But where I entered the thread, that's not what was being talked about. I was only interacting with the topic of the conversation that was ongoing at that point.

----------


## erowe1

> The fact that you cannot comprehend his words ill effect does not negate the existence of the harm of his philosophy.


The fact that you can't present his actual words and show what's wrong with them, and how they imply what you pretend they do, does negate any substance to your charge.

You're concerned about use of harmful words. Shouldn't being honest in your own use of words be a part of that?

----------


## otherone

> Can you quote him saying that?
> 
> Or is this another case of charging him with something that can't be gotten from his own words?





> Right.  *The Pharisees put the burden of working the law on the people* when they themselves were lawbreakers.   All the people here who say that man's efforts are the cause of salvation are putting heavy burdens on man.  "Christianity" today is full of modern-day Pharisees.


What is OT law vs. NT law?  What notions of "salvation" did the Pharisees have?
Did the Pharisees enforce the law because they loved God?  Or because they loved their brothers? 
Without love, the law is nothing.  This was Christ's NEW law.   Love IS the law.  Is love a burden?

----------


## erowe1

> Can you quote him saying that?





> Right. The Pharisees put the burden of working the law on the people when they themselves were lawbreakers. All the people here who say that man's efforts are the cause of salvation are putting heavy burdens on man. "Christianity" today is full of modern-day Pharisees.
> 			
> 		
> 
> What is OT law vs. NT law?  What notions of "salvation" did the Pharisees have?
> Did the Pharisees enforce the law because they loved God?  Or because they loved their brothers? 
> Without love, the law is nothing.  This was Christ's NEW law.   Love IS the law.  Is love a burden?


Gotcha.

So that's a "No."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We aren't supposed to love because of a reward.  That isn't love.    Is it possible in your worldview to believe that there are those who help others with no expectation of salvation?


Yes, every Christian agrees.  I've told you this 3 times already.  No Christian loves God and his brother because of an expectation of a reward.  He already has his reward.  It was free.

----------


## otherone

> Gotcha.
> 
> So that's a "No."


Ok.  In the NT, What is the "law"?

----------


## moostraks

> But that is not anything like the verse you quoted.  The verse you quoted says (and I will bold the "weird parts" for you:
> 
> 
> So the Pharisees were preaching that man's efforts through good deeds were the way to heaven, but they themselves were not doing good deeds.  They were law-breakers as much as anyone else.  This is why they were hypocrites.  Paul echoes this sentiment in Romans 2 when he was condemning the Jews as sinners and law-breakers:
> 
> 
> 
> So when people like yourself (no disrespect intended) attempt to teach people that something they do gets them in to heaven, you are foisting a heavy burden on them.  The reason it is heavy is because man cannot do enough good deeds to be righteous in the sight of God.  You make them "twice the sons of Hell" that you are, as Jesus said.
> 
> For a man to be righteous, he must have a perfect righteousness.  That perfect righteousness is Christ ALONE.  The one who trusts in Christ's righteousness ALONE will be able to stand before God blameless on the last day.


Let me type this slowly for you...I am applying the verse to YOU in the context of your behavior. You claim a faith of love but shut others out according to your philosophy because they are genetically inferior to your elect status. You crow about your thread count as the Pharisee with tasseled frock. 

No do NOT preach to me about what _I_ am telling them to do. _I_ am not the one passing judgement upon others walk of Faith nor making demands of them. If I share my faith it is to allow others to know that each and every one has the Light of Love within them. No one is made genetically inferior to another. It is up to each person to respond to the knock they receive on the door of their hearts.

You only believe in the individual right of interpretation when the interpretation mimcs your own as your idol is the very specialness of your self proclaimed chosen status with no need to listen to the voice of the Master who told you how the sheep and goats shall be separated. You pick and choose which verses you will acknowledge pertain to you.

----------


## otherone

> You haven't loved God or your fellow man enough.  By your own standard you condemn yourself.  
> 
> Why would you want to be judged based on your imperfect and sinful works of love?   Why not trust ALONE in Jesus' perfect acts of love?


a)  worry about yourself, not what I've done.  And no, I haven't condemned myself, by your OWN words, I don't have that power.
b)  I have NO CONTROL over how I am judged, so WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

----------


## moostraks

> You haven't loved God or your fellow man enough.  By your own standard you condemn yourself.  
> 
> Why would you want to be judged based on your imperfect and sinful works of love?   Why not trust ALONE in Jesus' perfect acts of love?


Matthew 25:The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[c] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,[d] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


SF can keep making his own rules up as if he is a god but this^^^ is what separates us in the end. SF can prattle on all he wants about his special status but what matters is whether we loved.

I John 4:7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

      15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19We love, because He first loved us. 20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Let me type this slowly for you...I am applying the verse to YOU in the context of your behavior. You claim a faith of love but shut others out according to your philosophy because they are genetically inferior to your elect status.


So according to you, when Paul was defining the gospel in Galatians 5 (like I am trying to do on this board), he was "shutting people out because of his behavior", right?  He said:




> *4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace*.


So when he defined the gospel in chapters 3 and 5, and then condemned others for trying to pervert it, was he "shutting people out"?  Was Jesus "shutting" the Pahrisees out when he condemned their perverted theology?

----------


## moostraks

> So according to you, when Paul was defining the gospel in Galatians 5 (like I am trying to do on this board), he was "shutting people out because of his behavior", right?  He said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when he defined the gospel in chapters 3 and 5, and then condemned others for trying to pervert it, was he "shutting people out"?  Was Jesus "shutting" the Pahrisees out when he condemned their perverted theology?


Dude, you are no Paul. You go to extraordinary ends to shut people off from doing acts of love by claiming their acts are acts of law. You need to stop sitting in the judgement seat because the Master has the seat filled. 

He knows the heart, you don't. I have wasted years of my time on this sub forum explaining how acts of Love work and that it is not me but Christ who lives in me that does the work He will judge as good or condemns the work that is not of the Spirit. You then spend an inordinate amount of time making claims of what you say I believe no matter how erroneous the claims are and then pat yourself on the back for outing me as condemned. Your attitude towards your neighbor is repulsive. It is the reason why I bother to continue to respond to your nonsense because I know how damaging your attitude is to those whose faith has been damaged by it.

This isn't your church and you have no authority to pass judgement on my faith.

----------


## RJB

> you were 400 shy of 4000 when you made the comment, today you had not yet hit 5000, but you have no problem inflating your numbers like any good politician does...


I think it's a cry for your attention, Moostraks.  

Although I gotta say, that is an interesting way to get noticed.  Most people pray, find the love of their lives, or even get a cat.  Whatever gets one by, I guess.

----------


## otherone

> Although I gotta say, that is an interesting way to get noticed.  Most people pray, find the love of their lives,* or even get a cat.*


Should Sola get a cat?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think it's a cry for your attention, Moostraks.  
> 
> Although I gotta say, that is an interesting way to get noticed.  Most people pray, find the love of their lives, or even get a cat.  Whatever gets one by, I guess.


I don't want attention.  I do however know that people out there want answers from the Bible about their lives.  People have a yearning to know what is truth.  And the view counts from these threads confirm that this is an interesting area of discussion.

----------


## moostraks

> I think it's a cry for your attention, Moostraks.  
> 
> Although I gotta say, that is an interesting way to get noticed.  Most people pray, find the love of their lives, or even get a cat.  Whatever gets one by, I guess.


I feel screwed. For one I don't want rep this way as I feel as though I am allowing myself to be manipulated as well as the rep. I feel as though I am being antagonized to shut up as I am increasing thread/response count. It is smarmy gloating. Yet, if no one responds, if I as new poster wandered in here to see what the spiritual values are of the RPF folks, I would wander right back off the whole forum.  I posted these so some other folks can see just what type of a game is being played behind the scenes. Bunch of childishness...just like the old threads which are being bumped to yank chains.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I feel screwed. For one I don't want rep this way as I feel as though I am allowing myself to be manipulated as well as the rep. I feel as though I am being antagonized to shut up as I am increasing thread/response count. It is smarmy gloating. Yet, if no one responds, if I as new poster wandered in here to see what the spiritual values are of the RPF folks, I would wander right back off the whole forum.  I posted these so some other folks can see just what type of a game is being played behind the scenes. Bunch of childishness...just like the old threads which are being bumped to yank chains.


I posted that to you because I wanted to remind you of how interesting people thought these threads were.  You find them interesting or else you wouldn't post here.  You have an interest in knowing what the truth is, and I commend you for that.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't want attention.  I do however know that people out there want answers from the Bible about their lives.  People have a yearning to know what is truth.  And the view counts from these threads confirm that this is an interesting area of discussion.


Riiiigghhhttt! It has nothing to do with you making people repeat themselves or your posting antagonistic nonsense about the validity of their faith for which they feel the responsibility to respond.

----------


## moostraks

> I posted that to you because I wanted to remind you of how interesting people thought these threads were.  You find them interesting or else you wouldn't post here.  You have an interest in knowing what the truth is, and I commend you for that.


I have an interest in keeping you from maligning the Light within other people. Check your ego and stop proclaiming how I feel or what I believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Riiiigghhhttt! It has nothing to do with you making people repeat themselves or your posting antagonistic nonsense about the validity of their faith for which they feel the responsibility to respond.


Like yourself, all people have an interest in knowing what the truth is.  These threads are great because they can see both (3 or 4) sides go at it and they can decide for themselves what the Scriptures really say.

----------


## otherone

> Like yourself, all people have an interest in knowing what the truth is.  These threads are great because they can see both (3 or 4) sides go at it and they can decide for themselves what the Scriptures really say.



That was remarkably open-minded.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That was remarkably open-minded.


Thanks.  I love interacting with all points of view.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok.  In the NT, What is the "law"?


Lots of things. Yes, love is essential to it. The same is true of the OT. You will notice that when Jesus says that the two greatest commandments are loving God and your neighbor, he is quoting the OT, and that when he does so, the scribes agree with him (and in fact, in Luke 10, it isn't Jesus who says it, but the lawyer, and it was Jesus who agreed with him). So whatever you say about the NT law of love applies to the OT too.

However, that still misses the point in this discussion. SF's position is that obedience of the Law (including love) is not to earn salvation. Others apparently disagree and think it is. In a recent post you seemed to side with SF in saying that the motivation for loving others should not be in order to get to Heaven, and yet, instead of directing your objection to those who criticize that view, you actually directed it at the very person who was most clearly saying it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Dude, you are no Paul. You go to extraordinary ends to shut people off from doing acts of love by claiming their acts are acts of law.


Acts of love are acts of law.  Acts of love and charity are commanded by God.  We are commanded to love our God and our neighbor.  Acts of charity are also commanded.  





> He knows the heart, you don't. I have wasted years of my time on this sub forum explaining how acts of Love work and that it is not me but Christ who lives in me that does the work He will judge as good or condemns the work that is not of the Spirit. You then spend an inordinate amount of time making claims of what you say I believe no matter how erroneous the claims are and then pat yourself on the back for outing me as condemned. Your attitude towards your neighbor is repulsive. It is the reason why I bother to continue to respond to your nonsense because I know how damaging your attitude is to those whose faith has been damaged by it.



You think that my pointing out non-Biblical theology is because I'm mean or want to hurt people.  But I think the opposite.  I think not pointing out these things and letting people be deceived is one of the most un-loving things a person could do.  We have a difference of opinion on this subject.

----------


## otherone

> However, that still misses the point in this discussion. SF's position is that obedience of the Law (including love) is not to earn salvation. Others apparently disagree and think it is. In a recent post you seemed to side with SF in saying that the motivation for loving others should not be in order to get to Heaven, and yet, instead of directing your objection to those who criticize that view, you actually directed it at the very person who was most clearly saying it.


I have no objection, I'm simply trying to understand Sola's view.  I understand the view of those who are critical of him.  Frankly, at this point, I don't know what to think.   For instance, Reading the Parable of the Rich Young Man, it seems to support both viewpoints:

_16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wifee or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

_

----------


## moostraks

> Acts of love are acts of law.  Acts of love and charity are commanded by God.  We are commanded to love our God and our neighbor.  Acts of charity are also commanded.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that my pointing out non-Biblical theology is because I'm mean or want to hurt people.  But I think the opposite.  I think not pointing out these things and letting people be deceived is one of the most un-loving things a person could do.  We have a difference of opinion on this subject.


Acts of law as merely law is different from the acts of Love (which I should have capitalized to differentiate, I was out at the time and trying to get going). I was referring to the misrepresentation of legalistic acts versus those done by the Spirit within, which is Love. 

Yeah, I know the whole line of thinking you guys blow off at people as you talk down to us useless pieces of garbage made solely to show your wonderful elect status because we have a difference of opinion on what Love looks like. It is a line of crap you are feeding me. If people are made genetically inferior to be destroyed or saved then there is nothing your loving conversation about our worthlessness will change. The only reason you do so is because you are obligated to as it is in the secret sauce to activate the elect by the hearing of your beliefs and some folks glomming on to the same philosophy to be special snowflakes and ridicule others they attempt to activate. It is such a wonderful act of kindness you are doing for humanity telling everyone how screwed they are and there is nothing that can be done about,....unless...., well, unless....that is, if one were to agree you are a special snowflake and wants to be a special snowflake too, well then, they can become just...like...you, and they can call the philosophy of some animals are greater than others by virtue of their genes love too.

If I sound hostile, it is because I am. It is a vile belief which snuffs out the Light in other believers before they even get to know Him. Saying it is a difference of opinion is putting it mildly.

----------


## moostraks

> However, that still misses the point in this discussion. SF's position is that obedience of the Law (including love) is not to earn salvation. Others apparently disagree and think it is. In a recent post you seemed to side with SF in saying that the motivation for loving others should not be in order to get to Heaven, and yet, instead of directing your objection to those who criticize that view, you actually directed it at the very person who was most clearly saying it.


I want to clarify my position, in that I don't believe anyone earns His Love. He freely gives it to anyone as any parent does for their child. It is the people who turn their backs on Him that make the choice to turn down the Gift. Love is not love if one is manipulating for an end goal. You either have love or you don't, and no matter of song and dance, must recite this philosophy in just such a manner, will get it for you. One either opens their heart to Love or their foolish hearts are darkened and trying to cover over a dark heart with a bunch of special incantations gets you no where.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have no objection, I'm simply trying to understand Sola's view.  I understand the view of those who are critical of him.  Frankly, at this point, I don't know what to think.   For instance, Reading the Parable of the Rich Young Man, it seems to support both viewpoints:
> 
> _16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 18“Which ones?” he inquired.
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> ...


Don't you see that in this encounter,  Jesus was showing the rich young ruler that he was a law breaker?  He said he followed the law and did everything right, and Jesus agreed with him....but then Jesus brought him to the place where he was a law-breaker.  He loved his possessions more than God.  He went away sad and Jesus said it was harder for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person be saved.


This is a perfect example of Jesus showing the self-righteous that they truly don't have the righteousness needed to stand before God.

----------


## otherone

> *Don't you see* that in this encounter,  Jesus was showing the rich young ruler that he was a law breaker?
> This is a perfect example of Jesus showing the self-righteous that they truly don't have the righteousness needed to stand before God.


I DO see, which is why I posted it.  I *also* see that those who choose to follow him will inherit eternal life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I DO see, which is why I posted it.  I *also* see that those who choose to follow him will inherit eternal life.


But to choose to follow Jesus is to cease your efforts and rest in His efforts alone.  When the rich young ruler stands before God on the last day, he will pleadto God and say "God, I've honored my parents,  given to charity, and done this good work and that good work" and God will say, "you have been found wanting".  And he will go into eternal punishment because of his self-righteousness.

When the Christian stands before God, Christ will say, "My perfect works are this man's works, imputed on his behalf", and God will accept this work.

----------


## otherone

> But to choose to follow Jesus is to cease your efforts and rest in His efforts alone. .


I understand, but the choice still has to be made...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Acts of law as merely law is different from the acts of Love


No.  There is no difference.   All men are commanded to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and love their neighbor as themselves.   That is the law.  There are not "two laws".

----------


## moostraks

> Acts of law as merely law is different from the acts of Love (which I should have capitalized to differentiate, I was out at the time and trying to get going). *I was referring to the misrepresentation of legalistic acts versus those done by the Spirit within, which is Love.* 
> 
> ...





> No.  There is no difference.   All men are commanded to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and love their neighbor as themselves.   That is the law.  There are not "two laws".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again._

No ma'am.   There is still no difference.   Whether the works are done by the Spirit's sanctifying work or not, the law is the law.  God never lowers His standards for any man, Christian or non-believer.   The standard is a life of complete sinless perfection.  This is why sanctification is not salvific in any way.  Justification is what saves a man.

----------


## Ender

Judging

John 8

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 
16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.


Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 
3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 
4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 
> 2*For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 
> 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 
> 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye*.



I'm glad you posted that verse because it illustrates exactly what we have been talking about.  This verse is a judgment verse against the Pharisees who were lecturing everyone else about doing good works for salvation when they themselves were lawbreakers.  They were hypocrites.  The judgment they used (the law) is going to be used on them....as it will be for all men.

Far from saying men shouldn't judge anything,  this verse confirms the view of TOTAL DEPRAVITY.  ALL men, including the most "religious" ones, are lawbreakers before God.  The only way for a man to be righteous is to have the righteousness of Christ.  A man has that by faith.

----------


## jmdrake

> He uses proof texting to force a position outside of the text. Then he complains when people spend the time to show the error of the position he is forcing, and he demands everyone let him play the game of isolated verses and erroneous ideas. Then he claims some sort of victory that never existed when no one plays by his ridiculous rules. 
> 
> The Bible is not fortune cookie sayings collected together, but it is a guidebook of thought for righteous living. The entire book must be read together as a complete thought. Wolves in sheeps clothing, like the examples provided within Matthew and Luke 4, seem to enjoy this method of conversion to their beliefs. No one should feel insulted by someone who plays this game. The wolves' actions speaking volumes while their words say little. This is why people should constantly stay grounded in their faith because the wolves operate on the fringes to pick off those that only know Scripture through small bites of wisdom.


Yes.  Sola_Fide is a case study in the spiritual dangers of proof texting.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.  The idea that there are two groups of sinners, one "kind of depraved" and the other "really depraved" has absolutely no biblical support and is contradicted by the passages in Romans 2 and 3 that I posted for you.


LOL.  In other words deep down you know you are wrong.  Romans 1 clearly points out the fact that there are levels of depravity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  In other words deep down you know you are wrong.  Romans 1 clearly points out the fact that there are levels of depravity.


If that is true, why would Paul contradict himself 2 chapters later?  In chapter 3 he said ALL are under the power of sin and NO ONE seeks for God:





> *For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
> 
> 
> “There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 
> 11 
>     there is no one who understands;
> there is no one who seeks God.
> 
> ...


So did Paul contradict himself, or are you wrong?  I have a feeling which one it is.

----------


## pcosmar

> Like yourself, all people have an interest in knowing what the truth is.  These threads are great because they can see both (3 or 4) sides go at it and they can decide for themselves what the Scriptures really say.


That contradicts your "predestination" theory. 
In your theory you have no choice or say in the matter. You will do whatever you are predestined to do. and it is all controlled. 

Heaven or Hell,, you are just along for the ride.

I do not accept this..

----------


## jmdrake

> If that is true, why would Paul contradict himself 2 chapters later?  In chapter 3 he said ALL are under the power of sin and NO ONE seeks for God:


No one *on their own* seeks God.  That's why God did things to cause people to seek Him. 

Here is Paul preaching.

_Acts 17:26-27King James Version (KJV)

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:_





> So did Paul contradict himself, or are you wrong?  I have a feeling which one it is.


Option 3.  *You* are wrong.  Paul was quoting from Psalms where it said that God looked down from heaven and saw that no one was seeking Him.  So He *did* something to cause men to seek Him.  (Acts 17:26-27).  Are you saying that God is incapable of carrying out His purposes?

Now here is John Calvin on the meaning of "reprobate mind" in Romans 1.

_[b]And as they chose not, etc. There is an evident comparison to be observed in these words, by which is strikingly set forth the just relation between sin and punishment. As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right._

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.v.vii.html

Calvin is saying the same thing that I am saying which is the same thing that Paul said.  Because these men *chose* to reject God, He gave them a reprobate mind.   You have no argument against the truth but to pretend it doesn't exist.

----------


## jmdrake

> That contradicts your "predestination" theory. 
> In your theory you have no choice or say in the matter. You will do whatever you are predestined to do. and it is all controlled. 
> 
> Heaven or Hell,, you are just along for the ride.
> 
> I do not accept this..


LOL.  Sola_Fide is a walking study is self contradiction.

----------


## moostraks

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again._
> 
> No ma'am.   There is still no difference.   Whether the works are done by the Spirit's sanctifying work or not, the law is the law.  God never lowers His standards for any man, Christian or non-believer.   The standard is a life of complete sinless perfection.  This is why sanctification is not salvific in any way.  Justification is what saves a man.


You never shut your mouth long enough to hear what was being said in context because you are so busy trying to make things all about your pet arguments. 

You shut people out who are beginning their walk and make them twice the child of hell by telling them the Love they feel is not Love but some misguided effort to save their sorry butts from the flames of hell. They become discouraged and the Light within them is snuffed out because of the seeds of confusion you sow with your self absorbed concern for whether someone is elect or not according to whether they parrot the works of your brain. Then when they don't agree you crow about how disagreeing with YOU makes them created to be destroyed for you to be glorified to honor the Creator. This last part where you crow about their damnation is where you put the nail in the coffin of their relationship with the Love they knew. 

In the end, He is not asking for us to recite our opinions on the workings of justification/salvation. He says our hearts will be known by our actions because the actions of Love are Christ inside the soul of the believer. You cannot think yourself Love. Love is Not merely thoughts but thoughts in action. You cannot force some random separation upon the process because it isn't how perfect ones Love is because Love is perfect. Every time you pass judgement upon the Love of another person you heap coals upon your own head but in your arrogance you cannot even see how you are blaspheming the Spirit with your self absorbed concern with the works and efforts of your mind. (Irony of the situation is that the people you are blaming for being works Salvationists by and large aren't while you and your little gang are by making efforts of the meaty mass in your skull a necessity rather than letting Love work through you to do His Will and what will be will be)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No one *on their own* seeks God.  That's why God did things to cause people to seek Him. 
> 
> Here is Paul preaching.
> 
> _Acts 17:26-27King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
> 
> 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:_
> ...



Here is what Calvin said about Romans 1:




> He first condemns *all mankind from the beginning of the world* for ingratitude, because they recognized not the workman in his extraordinary work: nay, when they were constrained to acknowledge him, they did not duly honor his majesty, but in their vanity profaned and dishonored it. *Thus all became guilty of impiety*, a wickedness more detestable than any thing else. And that he might more clearly show that* all had departed from the Lord*, he recounts the filthy and horrible crimes of which men everywhere became guilty: and this is a manifest proof, that they had degenerated from God, since these sins are evidences of divine wrath, which appear not except in the ungodly. And as the Jews and some of the Gentiles, while they covered their inward depravity by the veil of outward holiness, seemed to be in no way chargeable with such crimes, and hence thought themselves exempt from the common sentence of condemnation, the Apostle directs his discourse against this fictitious holiness; and as this mask before men cannot be taken away from saintlings, (sanctulis — petty saints,) he summons them to the tribunal of God, whose eyes no latent evils can escape. Having afterwards divided his subject, he places apart both the Jews and the Gentiles before the tribunal of God. He cuts off from the Gentiles the excuse which they pleaded from ignorance, because conscience was to them a law, and by this they were abundantly convicted as guilty. He chiefly urges on the Jews that from which they took their defense, even the written law; and as they were proved to have transgressed it, they could not free themselves from the charge of iniquity, and a sentence against them had already been pronounced by the mouth of God himself. He at the same time obviates any objection which might have been made by them — that the covenant of God, which was the symbol of holiness, would have been violated, if they were not to be distinguished from others. Here he first shows, that they excelled not others by the right of the covenant, for they had by their unfaithfulness departed from it: and then, that he might not derogate from the perpetuity of the divine promise, he concedes to them some privilege as arising from the covenant; but it proceeded from the mercy of God, and not from their merits. So that with regard to their own qualifications they were on a level with the Gentiles. *He then proves by the authority of Scripture, that both Jews and Gentiles were all sinners*; and he also slightly refers to the use of the law.


You did not cite John Calvin correctly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You never shut your mouth long enough to hear what was being said in context because you are so busy trying to make things all about your pet arguments. 
> 
> You shut people out who are beginning their walk and make them twice the child of hell by telling them the Love they feel is not Love but some misguided effort to save their sorry butts from the flames of hell. They become discouraged and the Light within them is snuffed out because of the seeds of confusion you sow with your self absorbed concern for whether someone is elect or not according to whether they parrot the works of your brain. Then when they don't agree you crow about how disagreeing with YOU makes them created to be destroyed for you to be glorified to honor the Creator. This last part where you crow about their damnation is where you put the nail in the coffin of their relationship with the Love they knew.


Ouch.  Those were rough words.  I guess I'm "crowing" too much again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now here is John Calvin...


By the way, John Calvin held the Biblical view on the subject of double predestination:




> "God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.”

----------


## moostraks

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again._
> .


A person with Love for their neighbor would realize that the person they are doing this rep to has already informed them they are uncomfortable and feeling manipulated by it. Instead of apologizing for any misunderstanding and refrain from causing any more difficulty, you immediately turn around and do this:




> 01-31-2015 05:41 PM
> Sola_Fide
> Thread: The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter
> point we'll taken. over 5000 views and almost 600 posts!


Then:

9:06 pm last night


> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again.
> 
> _


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...emselves/page2

And this one at 11:47 pm.

Matthew 23:5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others

Jeremiah 9:8
"Their tongue is a deadly arrow; It speaks deceit; With his mouth one speaks peace to his neighbor, But inwardly he sets an ambush for him.

Proverbs 20:
11Even small children are known by their actions,
so is their conduct really pure and upright?

----------


## jmdrake

> Here is what Calvin said about Romans 1:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not cite John Calvin correctly.


I cited him 100% correctly.  You are just too full of yourself to admit it.  Nothing that you bolded of what Calvin wrote in anyway contradicts anything I've said.  I never said that any men were not sinners.  I never said that there was anybody that did not depart from the Lord.  (Note the word "depart".  You can't "depart" from a place that you were you never were.)  You are still left with the truth that destroys your argument.

*As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right.*

It is dishonest of you to claim I did not cite Calvin correctly.  Here is the link to my source.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.v.vii.html

----------


## jmdrake

> By the way, John Calvin held the Biblical view on the subject of double predestination:


Yeah...John Calvin was wrong about a lot of things.  That just strengthens my point about how bat guano crazy your position is.  Calvin didn't try to rewrite the Bible the way you do just to fit his flawed theory.

----------


## acptulsa

> Is that so strange a thing to think, given the fact that nobody has yet succeeded at doing any of those things?


People succeed at doing all of those things every single day.

Jesus didn't say one had to figure out how to do these things for every single person in the whole world who needs them.

Heavy burdens.  Jesus forgave our sins in advance so that when we woke up and realized we need to turn to Him, we wouldn't consider our past sins too heavy a burden to slough off.  Why would you heap burdens on people by saying they can only pass the test Jesus says is the path through the 'strait (narrow) door' by figuring out how to help _every single person who needs it_ when Jesus dedicated Himself to reducing our burdens and making us courageous enough to try?




> Thanks.  I love interacting with all points of view.


Then tell us why in Jesus' prophesy of the Day of Judgement He makes no mention of the group of people who believe in preordination and the group who doesn't.

Please.

----------


## erowe1

> People succeed at doing all of those things every single day.


No they don't. Not a single person can say that there are no hungry people they haven't fed.




> Jesus didn't say one had to figure out how to do these things for every single person in the whole world who needs them.


Yes he did, right there in the passage you quoted. "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

----------


## acptulsa

> No they don't. Not a single person can say that there are no hungry people they haven't fed.


So, the fact that some hungry people don't get fed means that no hungry people do get fed?  I don't think that _quite_ escapes the category 'logical fallacy'




> Yes he did, right there in the passage you quoted. "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."


'...one of the least of these...'  is not quite the same thing as '..._all_ of the least of these...'

Did Jesus mean what you said, or say what He meant?

----------


## moostraks

> No they don't. Not a single person can say that there are no hungry people they haven't fed.


I guess your Bible doesn't have this passage:

Matthew 25:37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

Because by your explanations this will never occur because there will not be a group of righteous to respond to query their separation. And being as you are so perceptive of language please do explain why _you_ are changing the phrase "did it to one of these"...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I cited him 100% correctly.  You are just too full of yourself to admit it.  Nothing that you bolded of what Calvin wrote in anyway contradicts anything I've said.  I never said that any men were not sinners.  I never said that there was anybody that did not depart from the Lord.  (Note the word "depart".  You can't "depart" from a place that you were you never were.)  You are still left with the truth that destroys your argument.
> 
> *As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right.*
> 
> It is dishonest of you to claim I did not cite Calvin correctly.  Here is the link to my source.
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.v.vii.html


Yes you did cite him incorrectly, because you used that quote to attribute to him a belief he didn't hold.  John Calvin believed in total depravity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then tell us why in Jesus' prophesy of the Day of Judgement He makes no mention of the group of people who believe in preordination and the group who doesn't.
> 
> Please.



acptulsa,

In that single particular passage, Jesus didn't mention anything about faith.  So by your logic, we shouldn't have faith, right?

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes you did cite him incorrectly, because you used that quote to attribute to him a belief he didn't hold.  John Calvin believed in total depravity.


If pretending someone said something they didn't is 'cit[ing] him incorrectly' then I'm not convinced you've ever cited anyone correctly.

But you have cited people correctly, and incorrectly (I Peter _vs._ II Peter comes to mind), and I think you're better off citing them incorrectly because it gives you more time to change the subject before everyone else finds it and requotes it _in context._




> acptulsa,
> 
> In that single particular passage, Jesus didn't mention anything about faith.  So by your logic, we shouldn't have faith, right?


Wrong.

I ain't your strawbitch.  Remember that.

You say faith is the whole point.  The fact that I disagree does not mean that faith is not the best way to achieve the whole point.

Where are the groups 'believes in preordination' and 'don't believe in preordination' in Jesus' account of what will happen on the Judgement Day?  Hmmm?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess your Bible doesn't have this passage:
> 
> Matthew 25:37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
> 
> Because by your explanations this will never occur because there will not be a group of righteous to respond to query their separation. And being as you are so perceptive of language please do explain why _you_ are changing the phrase "did it to one of these"...



Is a man saved by his feeding the poor?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, the fact that some hungry people don't get fed means that no hungry people do get fed?  I don't think that _quite_ escapes the category 'logical fallacy'
> 
> 
> 
> '...one of the least of these...'  is not quite the same thing as '..._all_ of the least of these...'
> 
> Did Jesus mean what you said, or say what He meant?


Is a man saved by his feeding the poor?

----------


## acptulsa

> Is a man saved by his feeding the poor?


Are there two groups in that passage?  Is one of those groups 'the sheep' and is the other one 'the goats'?  Is one of them 'people who believe in preordination'?

Do I need to number those questions to get you to answer them 'yes' or 'no'?  I've only been asking you those questions for years.  It's only Jesus' own Words we're talking about.

Please answer those questions.  They aren't rhetorical.  Unlike ninety percent of the ones you ask us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If pretending someone said something they didn't is 'cit[ing] him incorrectly' then I'm not convinced you've ever cited anyone correctly.
> 
> But you have cited people correctly, and incorrectly (I Peter _vs._ II Peter comes to mind), and I think you're better off citing them incorrectly because it gives you more time to change the subject before everyone else finds it and requotes it _in context._
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I ain't your strawbitch.  Remember that.
> ...


It doesn't mention a belief in preordination in that passage, nor does it mention faith.  Is faith something someone should have?  Why isn't it mentioned in the verse?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are there two groups in that passage?  Is one of those groups 'the sheep' and is the other one 'the goats'?  Is one of them 'people who believe in preordination'?
> 
> Do I need to number those questions to get you to answer them 'yes' or 'no'?  I've only been asking you those questions for years.  It's only Jesus' own Words we're talking about.


Where in that passage does it say that one of the two groups is "people who have faith"?  It doesn't does it?

So by your logic here, people don't have to have faith according to this verse.

----------


## otherone

> Where in that passage does it say that one of the two groups is "people who have faith"?  It doesn't does it?
> 
> So by your logic here, *people don't have to have faith* according to this verse.


wait...what....do they or don't they?

----------


## acptulsa

> It doesn't mention a belief in preordination in that passage, nor does it mention faith.


Then how can you assert that belief in preordination is the thing that will get a person into heaven without calling Jesus a liar?  If that is the deciding factor, or a deciding factor, why would Jesus not say so?  Is He a liar or not?




> Is faith something someone should have?


Works for me.  I recommend it.  If everyone were like me, then I could give an unqualified 'yes' without hesitation.  As it is, I can still strongly recommend it.




> Why isn't it mentioned in the verse?


I don't speak for Jesus.  I'm too foolish to do an adequate job of it, but not foolish enough to try anyway.   All I know is Jesus does say what the bottom line is, does not say it's faith, and if there's someone here arrogant enough to call Him a liar, it isn't me.




> Where in that passage does it say that one of the two groups is "people who have faith"?  It doesn't does it?
> 
> So by your logic here, people don't have to have faith according to this verse.


I _told_ you that I am _not_ your strawbitch.  Is faith necessary for one to do what is right?  It might be.  It just might be.  I am _not_ saying it isn't.

_You_ keep saying that faith _in preordination_ is necessary to be among the sheep on the Day of Judgement.  _You_ keep _refusing_ to back that up.  _You_ keep stuffing _your_ words in other people's mouths in an effort to inflame passions _in order to distract from that._

And you _still_ haven't answered the question.  _Where does Jesus say you have to believe in preordination in order to get into heaven_?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then how can you assert that belief in preordination is the thing that will get a person into heaven without calling Jesus a liar?  If that is the deciding factor, or a deciding factor, why would Jesus not say so?  Is He a liar or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me.  I recommend it.  If everyone were like me, then I could give an unqualified 'yes' without hesitation.  As it is, I can still strongly recommend it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't speak for Jesus.  I'm too foolish to do an adequate job of it, but not foolish enough to try anyway.   All I know is Jesus does say what the bottom line is, does not say it's faith, and if there's someone here arrogant enough to call Him a liar, it isn't me.



So a person can have no belief in God, but he feeds the poor, and be saved?  Do you think that is what Jesus is saying there?  

Are these people saved?
http://www.atheistshelpingthehomeles...ffiliates.html

----------


## acptulsa

> So a person can have no belief in God, but he feeds the poor, and be saved?  Do you think that is what Jesus is saying there?


I don't know.  Jesus is not my strawbitch, and neither the devil nor you will never, ever trick me into putting words in His mouth.  Jesus did not say you could do the right thing without faith.  He also did not say you couldn't.




> Are these people saved?
> http://www.atheistshelpingthehomeles...ffiliates.html


Running around telling people whether or not they're going to heaven is your game, not mine.  I do my level damndest every day to judge not other people.  I do judge whether or not I have reason to believe they're mistaken, or lying, or other things.  But I don't tell anyone what Jesus has reserved the right to tell them Himself.

Where is the 'believes in preordination' group in Jesus' prophesy of the Day of Judgement?  Just because you're inviting me to step into your traps does not mean that people are distracted from the fact that you've been refusing to answer that question, and _desperately_ trying to distract people from that question, for years.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know.  Jesus is not my strawbitch, and neither the devil nor you will never, ever trick me into putting words in His mouth.  Jesus did not say you could do the right thing without faith.  *He also did not say you couldn't.*


*
*

Yes He did:



> *
> John 8:34
> 
> Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.*








> Running around telling people whether or not they're going to heaven is your game, not mine.  I do my level damndest every day to judge not other people.  I do judge whether or not I have reason to believe they're mistaken, or lying, or other things.  But I don't tell anyone what Jesus has reserved the right to tell them Himself.
> 
> Where is the 'believes in preordination' group in Jesus' prophesy of the Day of Judgement?  Just because you're inviting me to stop into your traps does not mean that people are distracted from the fact that you've been refusing to answer that question, and _desperately_ trying to distract people from that question, for years.


Where is the "has faith" group in Jesus Prophecy of the Day of Judgement?  Where is the "good to parents" group?  Where is the "does not steal or murder" group?  Where is the "honest" group?  Where is the "sexually moral" group?  None of those occur in that passage do they?

(acptulsa...did you know that is not the only prophecy of the day of judgement that Jesus describes in the Bible?)

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes He did:


That isn't proof.  Not a bad basis for an opinion, admittedly.  But no proof.




> Where is the "has faith" group in Jesus Prophecy of the Day of Judgement?  Where is the "good to parents" group?  Where is the "does not steal or murder" group?  Where is the "honest" group?  Where is the "sexually moral" group?  None of those occur in that passage do they?
> 
> (acptulsa...did you know that is not the only prophecy of the day of judgement that Jesus describes in the Bible?)


Why should I answer one of your questions for each of the Churches, one for each of the Seals, one for each of the Trumpet Plagues, when you don't have the decency to answer a _single_ question for me?

Where is the 'believes in preordination' group in Jesus' account of the Judgement Day?  Where is it?  Where?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That isn't proof.  Not a bad basis for an opinion, admittedly.  But no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I answer one of your questions for each of the Churches, one for each of the Seals, one for each of the Trumpet Plagues, when you don't have the decency to answer a _single_ question for me?
> 
> Where is the 'believes in preordination' group in Jesus' account of the Judgement Day?  Where is it?  Where?



There are MANY MANY things of the Christian life not in that passage.  Faith isn't even described in that passage.  That passage was NOT MEANT to be a detailed description of Christian theology.

----------


## moostraks

> Is a man saved by his feeding the poor?


John 21:15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?
He said to Him, Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.
He said to him, Feed My lambs.
16 He said to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?
He said to Him, Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.
He said to him, Tend My sheep.
17 He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah,do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, Do you love Me?
And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.
Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep. 

Philippians 3:4-11
though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;  as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.  But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ  and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.  I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,  and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shamewho set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

I John 4:10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

      15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 

I Corinthians 15:10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me

II Corinthians 3:5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

James 1: 22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is a man saved by his feeding the poor?





> John 21:15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?”
> He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
> He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
> 16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”
> He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
> He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”
> 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah,do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”
> And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
> Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.


That is talking about discipleship and feeding the people of God spiritual food.  But that's not an answer to what I asked yet.  But the next one you post is a GREAT answer to my question "are you saved by feeding the poor"? 

You posted:




> Philippians 3:4-11
> though I myself have reasons for such confidence. *If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;  as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.  But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ  and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.  I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,  and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
> *


I promise you that if you understand this verse that Paul says right here, you will understand what the gospel is.  Paul is saying all of his good works, all of his zeal, all of his efforts he now considers garbage.  He says, *"that I may gain Christ and be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."
*

There it is, right there!  Paul answers the question.  All of his feeding of the poor he did to gain salvation he now considers garbage.  He wants to be found in Christ, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS OWN.

----------


## acptulsa

> There are MANY MANY things of the Christian life not in that passage.  Faith isn't even described in that passage.  That passage was NOT MEANT to be a detailed description of Christian theology.


So now you are once again setting yourself up as an authority on what Jesus meant.  But that doesn't mean that I don't agree with you.  I, too, don't believe that Jesus was trying to prophesy about what Christian theology, which did not yet exist, would become.

But it was a mighty detailed prophesy about the Day of Judgement.  And the group that you're here to tell us will be the entirety of 'The Sheep' on that day doesn't figure into it _at all._

Not at all.

----------


## RJB

> You shut people out who are beginning their walk and make them twice the child of hell by telling them the Love they feel is not Love but some misguided effort to save their sorry butts from the flames of hell. They become discouraged and the Light within them is snuffed out because of the seeds of confusion you sow with your self absorbed concern for whether someone is elect or not according to whether they parrot the works of your brain. Then when they don't agree you crow about how disagreeing with YOU makes them created to be destroyed for you to be glorified to honor the Creator. This last part where you crow about their damnation is where you put the nail in the coffin of their relationship with the Love they knew.


You credit him with power that he only dreams of attaining.

----------


## moostraks

> That is talking about discipleship and feeding the people of God spiritual food.  But that's not an answer to what I asked yet.  But the next one you post is a GREAT answer to my question "are you saved by feeding the poor"? 
> 
> You posted:
> 
> 
> 
> I promise you that if you understand this verse that Paul says right here, you will understand what the gospel is.  Paul is saying all of his good works, all of his zeal, all of his efforts he now considers garbage.  He says, *"that I may gain Christ and be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."
> *
> 
> There it is, right there!  Paul answers the question.  All of his feeding of the poor he did to gain salvation he now considers garbage.  He wants to be found in Christ, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS OWN.


And yet that is where you choose to stop the discussion every time, isn't it? You clipped the rest of the verse off of your response. Now why is that?

Here is the rest of what I posted:

17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

I John 4:10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 

I Corinthians 15:10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me

II Corinthians 3:5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

James 1: 22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does

----------


## moostraks

> You credit him with power that he only dreams of attaining.


 The responses pop up from time to time which indicate the level to which his method of philosophy has played into reaffirming stereotypes others belief about Christians.

----------


## jmdrake

> No they don't. Not a single person can say that there are no hungry people they haven't fed.


Well technically Jesus couldn't say that either.  During His life on earth how many hungry people did He feed in China?

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes you did cite him incorrectly, because you used that quote to attribute to him a belief he didn't hold.  John Calvin believed in total depravity.


That is simply not true.  Citing him incorrectly would mean that I either misquoted him (I did not) or I gave an incorrect reference (I didn't do that either).  The fact Calvin's own words don't always back up his ultimate beliefs is his fault, not mine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That is simply not true.  Citing him incorrectly would mean that I either misquoted him (I did not) or I gave an incorrect reference (I didn't do that either).  The fact Calvin's own words don't always back up his ultimate beliefs is his fault, not mine.


Or....wait for it...possibly you misunderstood him and took him out of context?

Anyway, like all of my threads, I have no hope of ever staying on topic, which hey, I don't mind.  But still, I would love if there was one person here who would interact with the text of the OP.

----------


## acptulsa

> Or....wait for it...possibly you misunderstood him and took him out of context?
> 
> Anyway, like all of my threads, I have no hope of ever staying on topic, which hey, I don't mind.  But still, I would love if there was one person here who would interact with the text of the OP.


Been there, done that, you didn't like it.

How does a belief in double predestination help people feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and etc. again...?

----------


## jmdrake

> Or....wait for it...possibly you misunderstood him and took him out of context?


Nope.  Not possible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nope.  Not possible.


Of course not.  You couldn't be wrong. John Calvin didn't believe in total depravity. 

He didn't write this either:



> *2.3.2 -*Romans, ch. 3, as witness for man's corruption
> 
> Now his intention in this passage is not simply to rebuke men that they may repent, but rather to teach them that they have all been overwhelmed by an unavoidable calamity from which only God's mercy can deliver them.
> 
> Let this then be agreed: that men are as they are here described not merely by the defect of depraved custom, but also by depravity of nature. The reasoning of the apostle cannot otherwise stand: Except out of the Lord's mercy there is no salvation for man, for in himself he is lost and forsaken [Rom. 3:23 ff.]...it is futile to seek anything good in our nature.
> 
> *


That's was probably John Calvin's institutionalized cousin Gene Claymore who wrote that....

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course not.  You couldn't be wrong.


I didn't say that.  But in this case I'm not wrong.  My citation was 100% accurate.




> John Calvin didn't believe in total depravity.


I never claimed that he didn't.  But he actually stated the meaning of Romans 1:28 which taken as it is written, and as he gave the exact interpretation of *that verse* that I did.  I find Calvin's straightforward and honest interpretation of Bible verses that don't support his point of view refreshing.  I wish you could learn to appreciate that and "go and do though likewise."

----------


## acptulsa

Thought you wanted to get back on track.




> 10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


How were they preordained to hell and heaven at the same time again?  How does God choosing to allow us free will make Him less omniscient or less omnipotent again?  How does a belief in preordination make people's hearts more generous again?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thought you wanted to get back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> How were they preordained to hell and heaven at the same time again?  How does God choosing to allow us free will make Him less omniscient or less omnipotent again?  How does a belief in preordination make people's hearts more generous again?


Oh I'm sorry.  I think you are mistaken about the verse I wanted to talk about.  Specifically the underlined portion:



> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10


Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh I'm sorry.  I think you are mistaken about the verse I wanted to talk about.  Specifically the underlined portion:
> 
> 
> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.


Keep ripping pages out of that Bible.

So they were appointed to the Word.  Heck of a deal.  Who isn't?

And in the King James, they are a 'chosen generation'.  Doesn't say when they were chosen or why.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Keep ripping pages out of that Bible.
> 
> So they were appointed to the Word.  Heck of a deal.  Who isn't?
> 
> And in the King James, they are a 'chosen generation'.  Doesn't say when they were chosen or why.


"Ripping pages out of the Bible"???  Excuse me sir, but why are you unwilling to engage with the underlined portion of that text?  The text says they were appointed to _disobedience._  Just as the the elect are appointed to their belief.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed.
> *


The disobedient are _appointed to their disobedience to the Word._

Why do you deny that?  Why? Why not turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy to His people?

----------


## acptulsa

> 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


If you say so...  

Or is your New Calvinist Apologencia more authoritative than the King James now?

Now that we have that settled, do tell how belief in preordination helps one feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and do the things that help them confirm what you say and Jesus' prophesy too.

----------


## Ender

> The disobedient are _appointed to their disobedience to the Word._
> 
> Why do you deny that?  Why? Why not turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy to His people?


It does NOT say that. It says:

 "being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed."

*The disobedient were ALSO appointed to THE WORD. They were NOT appointed to be disobedient.*

Rocket Science.

----------


## acptulsa

However you read it, this does talk about a very particular group of people.  It doesn't claim to be talking about everyone who ever was.

But keep grasping those straws.  By page 22, anyone you're still fooling wants to be fooled.  I'm out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It does NOT say that. It says:
> 
>  "being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed."
> 
> *The disobedient were ALSO appointed to THE WORD. They were NOT appointed to be disobedient.*
> 
> Rocket Science.


How can disobedient people be appointed the the Word?  That makes absolutely no sense.   The entire passage is talking about two groups of people, the disobedient and the elect, both of which are appointed by God to their respective roles.

----------


## Ender

> How can disobedient people be appointed the the Word?  That makes absolutely no sense.   The entire passage is talking about two groups of people, the disobedient and the elect, both of which are appointed by God to their respective roles.


It is talking about people who were ALL appointed to the Word, but some have become disobedient.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is talking about people who were ALL appointed to the Word, but some have become disobedient.


No it isnt.  Read this sentence.  I will post the NIV translation which may be easier to understand.



> *7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
> 
> “The stone the builders rejected
> has become the cornerstone,”
> 
> 8*and,
> 
> “A stone that causes people to stumble
> and a rock that makes them fall.”
> ...


"They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for."

Instead of trying every single way to deny this obvious truth, why not turn to the living God and trust in Him ALONE for salvation?

----------


## moostraks

> No it isnt.  Read this sentence.  I will post the NIV translation which may be easier to understand.
> 
> 
> "They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for."
> 
> Instead of trying every single way to deny this obvious truth, why not turn to the living God and trust in Him ALONE for salvation?


My personality is such that I am destined to confront the unloving nature of the philosophy you preach. You post 5 verses, underline a portion, then command folks proof text with you the minute section you utilize to elevate your chosenness according to you. You wouldn't even engage with someone who tried to stay with the 5 verses because it wasn't the underlined portion. 

Your god is a small minded, petty tyrant. He creates evil. He creates evil people. He breathes hell into very specific souls so he and his chosen group of followers can party around their sizzling flesh. Sizzling, rotting flesh which was never given any capacity or opportunity for anything but TORMENT for the REST of ETERNITY. Then you smugly call this love and proclaim anyone who disagrees with YOU is to suffer eternal torture at the hands of your petty god. 

You look down your nose from your self proclaimed seat of glory and use slight of hand manipulation of Scripture to winnow down even 5 small verses to a small, out of context phrase because your philosophy is so disjointed and your debate skills so dishonest that you won't even discuss the entirety of the verses _you_ posted in the first place. Then you have the audacity to act as though you made some point because no one has played your game of isolated phrases and erroneous ideas properly? This debate is like monopoly with a cheating child who brags that he is winning when he had to break every rule and is still in hock to the bank for a ton of cash. But the child doesn't care because it is all about saying he is winning and seeing how many folks aren't paying attention to the facts that dispute the credibility of the statement.


Maybe you can keep inflating your post/thread view count by these stupid, dishonest debate tactics followed by asking "what are you talking about" when people respond?

----------


## otherone

> Your god is a small minded, petty tyrant. He creates evil. He creates evil people. He breathes hell into very specific souls so he and his chosen group of followers can party around their sizzling flesh. Sizzling, rotting flesh which was never given any capacity or opportunity for anything but TORMENT for the REST of ETERNITY. *Then you smugly call this love* and proclaim anyone who disagrees with YOU is to suffer eternal torture at the hands of your petty god.


Actually I think he calls this Justice, because God does exactly what he says he'll do.
example:
If I promise to punch someone in the face, and then I follow through, I am Just.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually I think he calls this Justice, because God does exactly what he says he'll do.
> example:
> If I promise to punch someone in the face, and then I follow through, I am Just.



But even in that analogy, the guiltiness of the person being punched is not explained.  Man IS guilty.  Man is condemned by the Judge because of his sin.  

God has determined that He would glorify His mercy by saving people who didn't deserve it, and glorify His justice by condemning people that do deserve it.  Both mercy and justice glorifies God.

----------


## erowe1

> It does NOT say that. It says:
> 
>  "being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed."
> 
> *The disobedient were ALSO appointed to THE WORD. They were NOT appointed to be disobedient.*
> 
> Rocket Science.


That is not a possible way to read the passage.

Logos (word) is a masculine noun. Ho (which) is a neuter relative pronoun. Since it's neuter, logos cannot be its antecedent. It looks to me like the only thing that can be its antecedent is the whole clause ("falling they disobey the word"), since neuter pronouns are often used that way. So, yes, it is saying that they were appointed to disobedience.

----------


## otherone

> But even in that analogy, the guiltiness of the person being punched is not explained.


ok...I'll embellish it.

I capture a guy, starve him, and then place a ham sandwich in his pocket and tell him not to eat it, or I'll punch him in the face.
Upon inspecting his pocket, I see the sandwich is gone, so I punch him in the face.  This is God's Justice.
I capture a different guy, same thing happens, except I DON"T punch him in the face, even though he ate the sandwich.  This is God's Love.
Do I get the Calvin cookie?

----------


## otherone

> But even in that analogy, the guiltiness of the person being punched is not explained.  Man IS guilty.


You can't be guilty when you have no choice to be innocent.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My personality is such that I am destined to confront the unloving nature of the philosophy you preach. You post 5 verses, underline a portion, then command folks proof text with you the minute section you utilize to elevate your chosenness according to you. You wouldn't even engage with someone who tried to stay with the 5 verses because it wasn't the underlined portion. 
> 
> Your god is a small minded, petty tyrant. He creates evil. He creates evil people. He breathes hell into very specific souls so he and his chosen group of followers can party around their sizzling flesh. Sizzling, rotting flesh which was never given any capacity or opportunity for anything but TORMENT for the REST of ETERNITY. Then you smugly call this love and proclaim anyone who disagrees with YOU is to suffer eternal torture at the hands of your petty god. 
> 
> You look down your nose from your self proclaimed seat of glory and use slight of hand manipulation of Scripture to winnow down even 5 small verses to a small, out of context phrase because your philosophy is so disjointed and your debate skills so dishonest that you won't even discuss the entirety of the verses _you_ posted in the first place. Then you have the audacity to act as though you made some point because no one has played your game of isolated phrases and erroneous ideas properly? This debate is like monopoly with a cheating child who brags that he is winning when he had to break every rule and is still in hock to the bank for a ton of cash. But the child doesn't care because it is all about saying he is winning and seeing how many folks aren't paying attention to the facts that dispute the credibility of the statement.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can keep inflating your post/thread view count by these stupid, dishonest debate tactics followed by asking "what are you talking about" when people respond?


Well, this is a personal post, and I said I wouldn't respond to personal posts.  But if I can pull out anything of substance it may be this:



> Your god is a small minded, petty tyrant. He creates evil. He creates evil people. He breathes hell into very specific souls so he and his chosen group of followers can party around their sizzling flesh. Sizzling, rotting flesh which was never given any capacity or opportunity for anything but TORMENT for the REST of ETERNITY. Then you smugly call this love and proclaim anyone who disagrees with YOU is to suffer eternal torture at the hands of your petty god.


What this totally ignores, and what all non-Christian theologies ignore, is the _severity of man's sin._  You emphasize God's justice and wrath, and you "crow" about how this is so "over-the-top", but what it really belies is how little you treat the sacrifice of Jesus.  Man's sin required the death of _God's own Son_.  He bore the penalty of God's wrath due to the elect.  What your lashing out at God for His justice really is, is the minimizing of your sin.  And your sin cannot be minimized.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You can't be guilty when you have no choice to be innocent.


Man does choose.  Man has chosen against God.  Man has a will.  Men aren't puppets.  They want to do their sin.  men have volition, puppets don't.

----------


## jmdrake

> Man does choose.  Man has chosen against God.  Man has a will.  Men aren't puppets.  They want to do their sin.  men have volition, puppets don't.


LOL.  Don't like Sola_Fide's position on whether man can chose or not?  Wait a few posts.

----------


## otherone

> Man does choose. * Man has chosen against God.*  Man has a will.  Men aren't puppets.  They want to do their sin.  men have volition, puppets don't.


Can man NOT choose against God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  Don't like Sola_Fide's position on whether man can chose or not?  Wait a few posts.


The fact that man has chosen against God is all over the Scriptures.   This is called total depravity.   It's what Paul is talking about in Romans 1, 2, and 3.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can man NOT choose against God?


No.  He is depraved.  He is a slave to sin.  He can not will any spiritual good.

----------


## moostraks

> Man does choose.  Man has chosen against God.  Man has a will.  Men aren't puppets.  They want to do their sin.  men have *volition*, puppets don't.





> No.  He is depraved.  He is a slave to sin.  He can not will any spiritual good.


vo·li·tion noun \vō-ˈli-shən, və-\
: the power to make your own choices or decisions

Full Definition of VOLITION

1
:  an act of making a choice or decision; also :  a choice or decision made
2
:  the power of choosing or determining :  will
— vo·li·tion·al  adjective

----------


## otherone

> No.  He is depraved.  He is a slave to sin.  He can not will any spiritual good.


What's the difference between a slave and a puppet?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's the difference between a slave and a puppet?


Puppets have no volition.  Men have wills, volition, and want to do the sin they do.

----------


## jmdrake

> The fact that man has chosen against God is all over the Scriptures.   This is called total depravity.   It's what Paul is talking about in Romans 1, 2, and 3.


Except you went into this long tirade that people were totally depraved before they made a choice to be totally depraved.  And you rejected the idea that men were capable of rejecting Jesus.  Like I said, you're a walking bundle of contradictions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> vo·li·tion noun \vō-ˈli-shən, və-\
> : the power to make your own choices or decisions
> 
> Full Definition of VOLITION
> 
> 1
> :  an act of making a choice or decision; also :  a choice or decision made
> 2
> :  the power of choosing or determining :  will
> — vo·li·tion·al  adjective


Yes.  Men choose and want to do the sin they so.

----------


## erowe1

> What's the difference between a slave and a puppet?


Slaves have minds, for one thing. I'm sure that with a little brain storming you could come up with lots more.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except you went into this long tirade that people were totally depraved before they made a choice to be totally depraved.  And you rejected the idea that men were capable of rejecting Jesus.  Like I said, you're a walking bundle of contradictions.


No.  You created a false distinction that Romans 1 does not make...which is evidenced by Romans 2 and 3....which I showed you was wrong and John Calvin showed you was wrong.  Men are totally depraved, unable to will any spiritual good.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes.  Men choose and want to do the sin they so.





> No.  He is depraved.  He is a slave to sin. * He can not will* any spiritual good.





> vo·li·tion noun \vō-ˈli-shən, və-\
> : *the power to make your own choices or decisions
> *
> Full Definition of VOLITION
> 
> 1
> :  an act of making a choice or decision; also :  a choice or decision made
> 2
> :  *the power of choosing or determining* :  will
>  vo·li·tion·al  adjective


~~~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ~~~


Yes.  Man chooses, every day.  And the natural man wakes up and goes to sleep choosing to be at war with God.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  You created a false distinction that Romans 1 does not make...which is evidenced by Romans 2 and 3....which I showed you was wrong and John Calvin showed you was wrong.  Men are totally depraved, unable to will any spiritual good.


Liar.  You claimed that man couldn't reject God.  Now you are claiming that man choose to reject God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  Man chooses, every day.  And the natural man wakes up and goes to sleep choosing to be at war with God.


You say that men are dead and that dead men aren't capable of rejecting anything.

----------


## jmdrake

> Slaves have minds, for one thing. I'm sure that with a little brain storming you could come up with lots more.


But SF says that men are "dead" and that dead men can't "reject" anything.  What's the difference between a dead man and a puppet?

----------


## moostraks

> No.  You created a false distinction that Romans 1 does not make...which is evidenced by Romans 2 and 3....which I showed you was wrong and John Calvin showed you was wrong.  Men are totally depraved, unable to will any spiritual good.


Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

Jeremiah 35:Also I have sent to you all My servants the prophets, sending them again and again, saying: 'Turn now every man from his evil way and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to worship them. Then you will dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your forefathers; but you have not inclined your ear or listened to Me. 16'Indeed, the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have observed the command of their father which he commanded them, but this people has not listened to Me.

Romans 1:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

----------


## otherone

> Slaves have minds, for one thing. I'm sure that with a little brain storming you could come up with lots more.


You are so _clever_!
Ok then, what are the_ similarities_ between a slave and a puppet?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You say that men are dead and that dead men aren't capable of rejecting anything.


He's not capable to will any spiritual good:




> *Romans 8:7
> 
> The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
> 
> *

----------


## erowe1

> You are so _clever_!
> Ok then, what are the_ similarities_ between a slave and a puppet?


Both are subject to the sovereignty of someone else.

----------


## moostraks

> No.  He is depraved.  *He is a slave to sin.*  _He can not will_ any spiritual good.





> Yes.  Man chooses, every day.  And the natural man wakes up and goes to sleep choosing to be at war with God.


No, you may not have it both ways and expect honest folks to let this go uncontested.

----------


## jmdrake

> He's not capable to will any spiritual good:


You said *he's not capable of REJECTING God!*  Are you now going to say that *rejecting* God is a "spiritual good?"

----------


## Ender

> Except you went into this long tirade that people were totally depraved before they made a choice to be totally depraved.  And you rejected the idea that men were capable of rejecting Jesus.  Like I said, you're a walking bundle of contradictions.


Yep.

My God is a God of Love- I will continue with Him.

The god of force is Luciferian- any who want to follow that are welcome to it.

----------


## erowe1

> No, you may not have it both ways and expect honest folks to let this go uncontested.


Yes you can. If you don't accept that, it has nothing to do with being more honest than those with whom you disagree.

----------


## otherone

> Both are subject to the sovereignty of someone else.


Yes.  Both are not free.

----------


## erowe1

> The god of force is Luciferian- any who want to follow that are welcome to it.


Actually, Luciferianism emphasizes free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism

----------


## jmdrake

> Both are subject to the sovereignty of someone else.


Well here's a difference.  A slave can desire to be free even if he is powerless to free himself.  But a dead man can't.  A dead man can't choose to be at war with God or choose to reject God.  At least that's what Sola_Fide said yesterday.  I wonder what he ate for breakfast today to change his mind?

----------


## otherone

> Yep.
> 
> My God is a God of Love- I will continue with Him.
> 
> The god of force is Luciferian- any who want to follow that are welcome to it.


No one can follow anything....the dead can't do anything other than rot.
Calvin cookie, please.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes.  Both are not free.


I don't think we needed to go through all this to reach that conclusion. Obviously SF's whole point in using the word "slave" was to emphasize some way that person is not free.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually, Luciferianism emphasizes free will.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism


No no.  Freewill doesn't exist.  Luciferianism isn't emphasizing anything.  That's God controlling Luciferianism doing that.  /sarcasm.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You said *he's not capable of REJECTING God!*  Are you now going to say that *rejecting* God is a "spiritual good?"


I said Lazarus was not capable of choosing to be made alive because he was dead, rotting in a tomb.  In the spiritual sense, man is dead as well, so in this way he is in a constant state of rejection.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes you can. If you don't accept that, it has nothing to do with being more honest than those with whom you disagree.


No, unless you are debating a term that is not volition which is choice, but utter depravity folks have no problem acting as though is only means is when they want it to mean is...Now, he is saying two separate things that do not work in the context he is stating them. One cannot have volition and not have choice.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think we needed to go through all this to reach that conclusion. Obviously SF's whole point in using the word "slave" was to emphasize some way that person is not free.


Sola_Fide's point *today*.  But what will be his point *tomorrow?*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, Luciferianism emphasizes free will.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism


Yes sir, you are correct.

----------


## otherone

> I don't think we needed to go through all this to reach that conclusion. Obviously SF's whole point in using the word "slave" was to emphasize some way that person is not free.


Obviously.
What I'm reading is that man does not have the ability to choose righteousness, but even if he could, he would still choose sin, because he is depraved.

----------


## otherone

> .Now, he is saying two separate things that do not work in the context he is stating them. One cannot have volition and not have choice.


If you were the _Elect_, you'd get it....

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes.  Man chooses, every day.  And the natural man wakes up and goes to sleep choosing to be at war with God.


Some do and some do not..
The scripture is full of those that choose God.. from long before the law.. and before the covenants.



> And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
> 
> 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: *then began men to call upon the name of the Lord*.


Men began to call on the name of the Lord.  These natural men called on God. (unregenerated men)

Job,, was one of such. even before Israel was a people. and before the Law was given. Before Religion.

----------


## erowe1

> No, unless you are debating a term that is not volition which is choice, but utter depravity folks have no problem acting as though is only means is when they want it to mean is...Now, he is saying two separate things that do not work in the context he is stating them. One cannot have volition and not have choice.


You can. And many do. Both inside and outside Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

And in fact, you don't even have to go as far as compatibilism in this case, since SF didn't refer to free will, but only to the making of a choice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some do and some do not..
> The scripture is full of those that choose God.. from long before the law.. and before the covenants.
> 
> 
> Men began to call on the name of the Lord.  These natural men called on God. (unregenerated men)
> 
> Job,, was one of such. even before Israel was a people. and before the Law was given. Before Religion.



No.  That's not true.  No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit:



> *1st Coeinthians 12:3
> 
> Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> *

----------


## erowe1

> Obviously.
> What I'm reading is that man does not have the ability to choose righteousness, but even if he could, he would still choose sin, because he is depraved.


There's a whole lot of philosophizing wrapped up in those words "could" and "would" and what makes them different when it comes to the making of choices.

Some apparently have no problem wrapping their minds around it. I can't though.

----------


## otherone

> There's a whole lot of philosophizing wrapped up in those words "could" and "would" and what makes them different when it comes to the making of choices.
> 
> Some apparently have no problem wrapping their minds around it. I can't though.


let me offer an edit, then:

What I'm reading is that man does not have the ability to choose righteousness, but even if he DID, he would still choose sin, because he is depraved.

----------


## pcosmar

> If you were the _Elect_, you'd get it....


If language had not been confused so very long ago,, we would be able to communicate without the confusion.

----------


## erowe1

> let me offer an edit, then:
> 
> What I'm reading is that man does not have the ability to choose righteousness, but even if he DID, he would still choose sin, because he is depraved.


I can't answer for SF.

For me though, I still see the problem of the could (ability) and the would.

If it is 100% certain that under certain circumstances someone will do something, does that mean that they cannot do otherwise? I think it depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.

----------


## moostraks

> You can. And many do. Both inside and outside Christianity.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
> 
> And in fact, you don't even have to go as far as compatibilism in this case, since SF didn't refer to free will, but only to the making of a choice.


Do they, yes. As is obviously the point in a number of asinine posts made in this subforum alone by "wordsmiths" who wish to convolute the language. Thing is, folks aren't nearly as stupid as those trying to lead folks into perdition believe them to be. To those who have ears...

----------


## erowe1

> Do they, yes. As is obviously the point in a number of asinine posts made in this subforum alone by "wordsmiths" who wish to convolute the language. Thing is, folks aren't nearly as stupid as those trying to lead folks into perdition believe them to be. To those who have ears...


It's not word smithing. You are just insistent that your view is the only view that any honest person can have. You don't present reasons that disagreeing with you means a person has to be dishonest. You just assume it and insist on it. But I see, hear, and read people all the time who make what look to me like very honest attempts to understand the problems of determinism and free will better without reaching the same conclusions you do (in fact most don't). Just closing them all off as dishonest seems like the tactic of someone putting their head in the sand for fear of encountering anything that challenges their world view.

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  That's not true.  No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit:


A great many that you condemn have said just that.

I blame much on the Tower of Babel. but I think you have gotten hold of a bag of magic beans (bad teaching) and are peddling them to others.

I have heard the teaching before,, when I was new in The Lord,, and before I read much of the scripture.
The man who baptized me taught such.

I am not unfamiliar with it.

----------


## moostraks

> It's not word smithing. You are just insistent that your view is the only view that any honest person can have. You don't present reasons that disagreeing with you means a person has to be dishonest. You just assume it and insist on it. But I see, hear, and read people all the time who make what look to me like very honest attempts to understand the problems of determinism and free will better without reaching the same conclusions you do (in fact most don't). Just closing them all off as dishonest seems like the tactic of someone putting their head in the sand for fear of encountering anything that challenges their world view.


My argument was to his use of the word volition, my disagreement with his argument is separate from that. Do not attempt to muddy the water as to the separate nature of the disagreements being proposed. It is dishonest to use a term that is inaccurate and demand others accept the term just because one person feels entitled to lord over the debate and change language itself to suit their argument. It isn't honest discussion he is after though as actions speak louder than words. Or shall we review what he has posted and his refusal of discussion on verse 10 with acptulsa of his 5 verse proposal?

----------


## Ender

> Actually, Luciferianism emphasizes free will.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism


Incorrect- because it came from wikipedia does not make it so.

Free will or agency is necessary for the salvation of man. It must be a choice. Force is the condition of Satan.

----------


## pcosmar

> Force is the condition of Satan.


Actually,,deception. Lies. and accusations are the MO of satan.
Free will still applies..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No.  That's not true.  No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit:





> A great many that you condemn have said just that.


People can say Jesus is Lord and not be saved.  Jesus said:




> * Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'*



It's not that everyone who calls Jesus Lord is a Christian, it is that to call Jesus Lord and mean it, you must have the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Incorrect- because it came from wikipedia does not make it so.
> 
> Free will or agency is necessary for the salvation of man. It must be a choice. Force is the condition of Satan.


This is Mormon mythology.  In Mormon polytheistic mythology, the gods had a council and sought the best way to save the spirit children on earth.  The god Jesus came up with a wonderful idea: free will.  The god Lucifer came up with the idea of predestination.  The council of the gods chose Jesus' idea over Satan.

This childish mythology is not worthy to be take seriously.  Joseph Smith was merely expressing his own hate for the Bible's description of salvation when he came up with these myths.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My argument was to his use of the word volition, my disagreement with his argument is separate from that. Do not attempt to muddy the water as to the separate nature of the disagreements being proposed. It is dishonest to use a term that is inaccurate and demand others accept the term just because one person feels entitled to lord over the debate and change language itself to suit their argument. It isn't honest discussion he is after though as actions speak louder than words. Or shall we review what he has posted and his refusal of discussion on verse 10 with acptulsa of his 5 verse proposal?


I'm glad you're willing to debate the issue, and I appreciate all of your comments (except for the ones that just berate me and call me dishonest...those should be moderated).  

But I don't "refuse" to talk about verse 10, in fact I really really want to talk about it!  Verse 10 says:



> *But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> *


I love to talk about election, because it is humbling and intensely edifying.





> *"They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for".
> *


Some people don't see the beauty in that.  They would never worship a God like this.  But the "elect race" as Peter says, loves this God who softens and hardens whom He will.

----------


## pcosmar

> People can say Jesus is Lord and not be saved.
> 
> It's not that everyone who calls Jesus Lord is a Christian, it is that to call Jesus Lord and mean it, you must have the Holy Spirit.


You just contradicted yourself again.



> No.  That's not true.  No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit:


People lie.




> For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


And this is why I continually say that the scriptures will balance the scriptures. It takes the whole story as a whole.
Not just bits and pieces.. strung together into a doctrine.

Doing that is how you get Snake Handlers or in the extreme,, the Crusades and Inquisitions.

----------


## otherone

> This childish mythology is not worthy to be take seriously.  Joseph Smith was merely expressing his own hate for the Bible's description of salvation when he came up with these myths.


That didn't take long.
Insulting another's faith doesn't make your theology any more attractive; perhaps less so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You just contradicted yourself again.
> 
> 
> People lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why I continually say that the scriptures will balance the scriptures. It takes the whole story as a whole.
> Not just bits and pieces.. strung together into a doctrine.
> ...


No I did not contradict myself.  I corrected your misunderstanding.

----------


## pcosmar

> No I did not contradict myself..


OK,, but I posted both your quotes.. and it is clear contradiction.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That didn't take long.
> Insulting another's faith doesn't make your theology any more attractive; perhaps less so.


The point I was trying to make is that Joseph Smith created the myth of Satan and Jesus arguing about free will/determinism because it was a reflection of his own views on the debate.  Remember, in his myth, Jesus was the good one who chose free will, and Satan was the bad who thought predestination was better.

To me, that is just a childish way to mythologize your theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK,, but I posted both your quotes.. and it is clear contradiction.


No Pete.  It is not a contradiction at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK,, but I posted both your quotes.. and it is clear contradiction.


He contradicts himself all the time.  That's his modus operandi.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He contradicts himself all the time.  That's his modus operandi.


What I said wasn't a contradiction.  I don't even think that you would say it was a contradiction.  You believe the same thing I do about false confessions (I think).  Instead of being a follower and jumping on the bandwagon, think for yourself and be confident.

----------


## moostraks

> Thought you wanted to get back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> How were they preordained to hell and heaven at the same time again?  How does God choosing to allow us free will make Him less omniscient or less omnipotent again?  How does a belief in preordination make people's hearts more generous again?





> Oh I'm sorry.  I think you are mistaken about the verse I wanted to talk about.  Specifically the underlined portion:
> 
> 
> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.





> I'm glad you're willing to debate the issue, and I appreciate all of your comments (except for the ones that just berate me and call me dishonest...those should be moderated).  
> 
> But I don't "refuse" to talk about verse 10, in fact I really really want to talk about it!  Verse 10 says:
> 
> 
> I love to talk about election, because it is humbling and intensely edifying.


He tried and you redirected him to the underlined portion. This is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. When a situation has been pointed at as being dishonest, it is not wrong to call it what it is. To use a term that is the opposite of what is being stated and demand others accept your false use of the word is dishonest debate. 

As for being moderated, now why is it you should with no proof or evidence be allowed to slander other's spiritual beliefs and not be moderated but pointing out with evidence a dishonest tactic should be moderated?




> Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing[1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language...
> 
> Educating students has been suggested by experts to be one of the ways to counter doublespeak. Educating students in the English language is important to help them identify how doublespeak is being used to mislead and conceal information.
> 
> Charles Weingartner, one of the founding members of the NCTE committee on Public Doublespeak mentioned: people do not know enough about the subject (the reality) to recognize that the language being used conceals, distorts, misleads. There is a crucial need for English language teachers to educate and become experts in teaching about linguistic vulnerability. Teachers of English should teach our students that words are not things, but verbal tokens or signs of things that should finally be carried back to the things that they stand for to be verified. Students should be taught a healthy skepticism about the potential abuse of language but duly warned about the dangers of an unhealthy cynicism.[23]
> 
> According to William Lutz: "Only by teaching respect and love for the language can teachers of English instill in students the sense of outrage they should experience when they encounter doublespeak." "Students must first learn to use the language effectively, to understand its beauty and power." "Only by using language well will we come to appreciate the perversion inherent in doublespeak."[2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

----------


## pcosmar

> No Pete.  It is not a contradiction at all.


Statement #1



> No. That's not true. *No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit*:


Statement #2



> People* can say* Jesus is Lord and not be saved.
> 
> It's not that everyone who calls Jesus Lord is a Christian, it is that to call Jesus Lord and mean it, you must have the Holy Spirit.


They can't say it.. or they can say it.
Or do unsaved people have the Power of the Holy Spirit?
*contradiction*
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction

----------


## otherone

> The point I was trying to make is that Joseph Smith created the myth of Satan and Jesus arguing about free will/determinism because it was a reflection of his own views on the debate.  Remember, in his myth, Jesus was the good one who chose free will, and Satan was the bad who thought predestination was better.
> 
> To me, that is just a childish way to mythologize your theology.


There are nearly 14 million Mormons.  One man's childish mythology is another's revered faith.

----------


## RJB

> There are nearly 14 million Mormons.  One man's childish mythology is another's revered faith.


I always hear off the wall beliefs that Mormons supposedly believe from non-Mormons, but when I ask actual Mormons they tell me that isn't true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He tried and you redirected him to the underlined portion. This is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. When a situation has been pointed at as being dishonest, it is not wrong to call it what it is. To use a term that is the opposite of what is being stated and demand others accept your false use of the word is dishonest debate.


OK moostraks, let's talk about verse 10:




> *But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.*


I think verse 10 is a wonderful, edifying passage that speaks to a God's purposes in election.  What do you think about it?

----------


## jmdrake

> What I said wasn't a contradiction.  I don't even think that you would say it was a contradiction.  You believe the same thing I do about false confessions (I think).  Instead of being a follower and jumping on the bandwagon, think for yourself and be confident.


Well it's obvious what Peter believes.  He believes someone can say Jesus is Lord but be lying.  In fact he said "people lie."  You said people can't say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit's prompting.  Maybe what you meant is that nobody can *honestly* say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit's prompting.  If that's the case then fine.  But that means you were imprecise in your language.  Why not just say that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I always hear off the wall beliefs that Mormons supposedly believe from non-Mormons, but when I ask actual Mormons they tell me that isn't true.


Well, why don't you ask Pierzstyx about the freewill/predestination debate Jesus and Satan had?  I'm pretty sure he will tell you the truth.

----------


## RJB

> Well, why don't you ask Pierzstyx about the freewill/prefestination debate Jesus and Satan had?  I'm pretty sure he will tell you the truth.


He can jump in if he wants.

----------


## Ender

> This is Mormon mythology.  In Mormon polytheistic mythology, the gods had a council and sought the best way to save the spirit children on earth.  The god Jesus came up with a wonderful idea: free will.  The god Lucifer came up with the idea of predestination.  The council of the gods chose Jesus' idea over Satan.
> 
> This childish mythology is not worthy to be take seriously.  Joseph Smith was merely expressing his own hate for the Bible's description of salvation when he came up with these myths.


No- Jesus said THY WILL be done- to God, the Father.

Funny how you slam Joseph Smith and worship John Calvin.

----------


## erowe1

> No- Jesus said THY WILL be done- to God, the Father.
> 
> Funny how you slam Joseph Smith and worship John Calvin.


Can you quote SF saying anything about John Calvin?

----------


## moostraks

> OK moostraks, let's talk about verse 10:
> 
> 
> 
> I think verse 10 is a wonderful, edifying passage that speaks to a God's purposes in election.  What do you think about it?


You need to take this up with acptulsa. He was the one who attempted to deal with you and even stayed within your absurd limits just for you to move the bar further. You just wanted to play games with him. Seems as though he became disgusted with your tactics enough to blow this thread off. Maybe you should stop screwing with people?

I discussed your verses but I am not going to play by your absurd rules.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No- Jesus said THY WILL be done- to God, the Father.
> 
> Funny how you slam Joseph Smith and worship John Calvin.



I "worship" John Calvin? I'm sorry, but that is highly offensive to me.  I disagree with several things John Calvin taught.

----------


## moostraks

> Here is what Calvin said about Romans 1:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not cite John Calvin correctly.





> By the way, John Calvin held the Biblical view on the subject of double predestination:





> Yes you did cite him incorrectly, because you used that quote to attribute to him a belief he didn't hold.  John Calvin believed in total depravity.





> Or....wait for it...possibly you misunderstood him and took him out of context?
> 
> Anyway, like all of my threads, I have no hope of ever staying on topic, which hey, I don't mind.  But still, I would love if there was one person here who would interact with the text of the OP.





> Of course not.  You couldn't be wrong. John Calvin didn't believe in total depravity. 
> 
> He didn't write this either:
> 
> 
> That's was probably John Calvin's institutionalized cousin Gene Claymore who wrote that....





> Can you quote SF saying anything about John Calvin?


There was a whole conversation that took place last night on this thread...

----------


## jmdrake

> There was a whole conversation that took place last night on this thread...


LOL.  Erowe1 was too being enjoying the "fresh air" to notice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You need to take this up with acptulsa. He was the one who attempted to deal with you and even stayed within your absurd limits just for you to move the bar further. You just wanted to play games with him. Seems as though he became disgusted with your tactics enough to blow this thread off. Maybe you should stop screwing with people?
> 
> I discussed your verses but I am not going to play by your absurd rules.


 
What rules?  I just wanted to know what you thought about the verse.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  Erowe1 was too being enjoying the "fresh air" to notice.


You are the one that brought John Calvin into this conversation.  Remember?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There was a whole conversation that took place last night on this thread...


If you go back and look at the thread, Jmdrake brought John Calvin up first.  It is unfair to say I did.  I was responding to someone else.

----------


## moostraks

> Can you quote SF saying anything about John Calvin?





> If you go back and look at the thread, Jmdrake brought John Calvin up first.  It is unfair to say I did.  I was responding to someone else.


Read the question. What you are saying is irrelevant to the question which was asked.

----------


## moostraks

> Thought you wanted to get back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> How were they preordained to hell and heaven at the same time again?  How does God choosing to allow us free will make Him less omniscient or less omnipotent again?  How does a belief in preordination make people's hearts more generous again?





> Oh I'm sorry.  I think you are mistaken about the verse I wanted to talk about.  Specifically the underlined portion:
> 
> 
> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.





> What rules?  I just wanted to know what you thought about the verse.


These rules for one. Where someone starts to talk to you and you keep moving the bar. I made numerous attempts in this thread to discuss the OP with you but you act as though discussing outside of the confines of the 5 verses was irrelevant discussion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> These rules for one. Where someone starts to talk to you and you keep moving the bar. I made numerous attempts in this thread to discuss the OP with you but you act as though discussing outside of the confines of the 5 verses was irrelevant discussion.


If you didn't have to stay within the confines of the 5 verses, what is your thought on the passage?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Read the question. What you are saying is irrelevant to the question which was asked.


Well, when Jmdrake tried to use, of all people, John Calvin for the view that not all men were depraved, I had to interject and correct that.  For all of Calvin's faults,  he did believe in Total Depravity and he did believe in double predestination.   It's what the Bible teaches.

I had no intention to bring up Calvin, and I NEVER,  EVER do.  Ever.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, when Jmdrake tried to use, of all people, John Calvin for the view that not all men were depraved, I had to interject and correct that.


Wrong.  I used Calvin to back up my interpretation of that particular verse.  And I was 100% right.  You had to use other quotes from Calvin from other verses to back up your bogus claim.  Huge fail on your part as I never claimed Calvin agreed with me, only that his interpretation of *that* verse is exactly the same as mine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That is not a possible way to read the passage.
> 
> Logos (word) is a masculine noun. Ho (which) is a neuter relative pronoun. Since it's neuter, logos cannot be its antecedent. It looks to me like the only thing that can be its antecedent is the whole clause ("falling they disobey the word"), since neuter pronouns are often used that way. So, yes, it is saying that they were appointed to disobedience.


Yes, thank you erowe1.  The antecedent there is "disobeying the word " to which they were appointed.

The NIV is clearer to understand in the english:



> *They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.
> *

----------


## pcosmar

> You are the one that brought John Calvin into this conversation.  Remember?


Perhaps so,, But what you have been pushing (predestination-ism) is classic Calvin. I have heard it before from Calvinist preachers.

And it is every much a distortion as Snake Handlers,, who also have legitimate Scriptures that they base their teaching on.

It is scriptural,, but unbalanced.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wrong.  I used Calvin to back up my interpretation of that particular verse.  And I was 100% right.  You had to use other quotes from Calvin from other verses to back up your bogus claim.  Huge fail on your part as I never claimed Calvin agreed with me, only that his interpretation of *that* verse is exactly the same as mine.


Regardless....you brought him up first.  I dont ever want to bring him up and I never talk about Calvin, because the bandwagon starts going "oooooo you worship Calvin".  What an offensive thing to say.  Would you like it if I said you worship Arminus every time you interperet a verse the way he did?  Of course not.

And let alone there are VITAL, key points of doctrine I disagree with Calvin on....common grace, the atonement,  baptism, etc.  Also, I am a Baptist.  I would have been persecuted in Geneva like many other religious groups were at that time.  I HATE Calvin's statism.

----------


## moostraks

> If you didn't have to stay within the confines of the 5 verses, what is your thought on the passage?


Already tried and it is a wasted effort to have a discussion with you on such matters. 




> Well, when Jmdrake tried to use, of all people, John Calvin for the view that not all men were depraved, I had to interject and correct that.  For all of Calvin's faults,  he did believe in Total Depravity and he did believe in double predestination.   It's what the Bible teaches.
> 
> I had no intention to bring up Calvin, and I NEVER,  EVER do.  Ever.


Oh you bring him up first? Not so much anymore, you have passed Calvin up and moved even more hardcore than he was on matters it appears. You do, though, attack the underpinning of other's beliefs based on their similarity to historical figure's beliefs quite regularly and get your knickers twisted when the same is done to those which you possess which resemble Calvin's. Bit unfair, if you were to ask me. Maybe you should look back and realize why others do the same to you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Perhaps so,, But what you have been pushing (predestination-ism) is classic Calvin. I have heard it before from Calvinist preachers.
> 
> And it is every much a distortion as Snake Handlers,, who also have legitimate Scriptures that they base their teaching on.
> 
> It is scriptural,, but unbalanced.


Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes.

----------


## Theocrat

> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.
> 
> All Christians believe in the doctrine of double predestination.


An "elect race"? Sounds racist...

----------


## moostraks

> This is Mormon mythology.  In Mormon polytheistic mythology, the gods had a council and sought the best way to save the spirit children on earth.  The god Jesus came up with a wonderful idea: free will.  The god Lucifer came up with the idea of predestination.  The council of the gods chose Jesus' idea over Satan.
> 
> This childish mythology is not worthy to be take seriously.  Joseph Smith was merely expressing his own hate for the Bible's description of salvation when he came up with these myths.





> Regardless....you brought him up first.  I dont ever want to bring him up and I never talk about Calvin, because the bandwagon starts going "oooooo you worship Calvin".  What an offensive thing to say.  Would you like it if I said you worship Arminus every time you interperet a verse the way he did?  Of course not.
> 
> And let alone there are VITAL, key points of doctrine I disagree with Calvin on....common grace, the atonement,  baptism, etc.  Also, I am a Baptist.  I would have been persecuted in Geneva like many other religious groups were at that time.  I HATE Calvin's statism.


How hypocritical of you to complain about someone being offensive when you responded like this to Ender...Why do you think you are so special that everyone should have to do as you say and not as you do? Oh yeah, THIS is where your philosophy has taken you...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> An "elect race"? Sounds racist...


I like the NIV 's rendering:



> *But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
> 
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How hypocritical of you to complain about someone being offensive when you responded like this to Ender...Why do you think you are so special that everyone should have to do as you say and not as you do? Oh yeah, THIS is where your philosophy has taken you...


I don't think I've ever told a Mormon that he worships Joseph Smith.  But I have said that they worship an idol, and I believe that based on God's Word in the Scripture.

----------


## RJB

> because the bandwagon starts going "oooooo you worship Calvin".  What an offensive thing to say.  Would you like it if I said you worship Arminus every time you interperet a verse the way he did?


You used to do that with Roman Catholics and their Pope, such as those fabricated quotations you posted, but in fairness, you recently seemed to have turned over a new leaf for the better.  Good job.

----------


## moostraks

> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes.



You mean like this:
Mark 16:18 - They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

----------


## moostraks

> I don't think I've ever told a Mormon that he worships Joseph Smith.  But I have said that they worship an idol, and I believe that based on God's Word in the Scripture.


And you are entitled to do as you do but they are offensive why?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You mean like this:
> Mark 16:18 - They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover


Right.  Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere?  Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?

*Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *

----------


## pcosmar

> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  *That is absurd.*


Now you sound like Rudy Giuliani .



> "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; *they will pick up serpents*, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."


It is in there,, and there is so much more.. But get it unbalanced and it becomes error.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now you sound like Rudy Giuliani .
> 
> 
> It is in there,, and there is so much more.. But get it unbalanced and it becomes error.


Where are snakes in Christian worship?  Where?  The Bible has a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where are snakes mentioned?

----------


## otherone

> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.


How about Santarians?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where are snakes in Christian worship?  Where?  The Bible has a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where are snakes mentioned?


There's a verse, in a Biblical passage that is unlikely to be canonical, that promises that if a Christian is in fact bitten by a snake, he won't be poisoned.  False teachers twist that passage and create a whole doctrine out of it (and, I don't even believe its a scripture passage.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can you quote SF saying anything about John Calvin?


Of course not, but this forum is filled with morons who have every bit as little reading comprehensibility as the establishmentarians they rightfully criticize.  There are only a few people here who are actually intelligent, just like there are only a few people in most places that are actually intelligent.  

SF, quite frankly, is being exceptionally nice considering the ridiculous attacks he's getting because of stuff he sort-of did a long time ago.

----------


## Christian Liberty

When somebody compares scriptural evidence for predestination with scriptural evidence for snake-handling, you know you're dealing with a double-digit IQ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's a verse, in a Biblical passage that is unlikely to be canonical, that promises that if a Christian is in fact bitten by a snake, he won't be poisoned.  False teachers twist that passage and create a whole doctrine out of it (and, I don't even believe its a scripture passage.)


Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way.

----------


## moostraks

> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes.





> Right.  Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere?  Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?
> 
> *Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *


Oh, so you are moving the bar again? You SAID they have no Scripture to back up what they are doing. They do, in their understanding of Scripture, just like you think you are abiding by Scripture, as do I.

Why ask me about icons? You must have missed the memo that they are one of a number of reasons I am neither EO or RC.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way.


Not that I'm arguing for this ridiculous snake-handling stuff, but where is the regulative principle in the Bible?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh, so you are moving the bar again? You SAID they have no Scripture to back up what they are doing. They do, in their understanding of Scripture, just like you think you are abiding by Scripture, as do I.
> 
> Why ask me about icons? You must have missed the memo that they are one of a number of reasons I am neither EO or RC.


The people who are doing the snake - handling are doing it in the worship service.  This is not Biblical.  I did not move the bar.  You simply don't understand (but I hope you one day see) how the Bible describes Christian worship.

----------


## pcosmar

> Where are snakes in Christian worship?  Where?  The Bible has a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where are snakes mentioned?


Who said anything about Worship?

You said it was not in the bible.. 



> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing. *That is absurd*.


I just showed you that it is in the Bible. Mark 16:18.. and there is an example in Acts.
It is not absurd. 

Why do you lack Faith?  No,,Sorry,, that was not serious. 

It is scripture taken out of context and made into doctrine,, unbalanced by other scripture.
But such is common.. and some errors have persisted for 2000 years. Just because they are generally accepted does not mean they are not error.

I disagree with much religion.. There is a lot of error. Some old,, some newer. And most is not relevant to salvation.
A person can hear the simple Gospel and believe.. He does not need to understand all the mechanics behind it.

I am sure there are believers in every denomination and sect. I know Mormons that are Christian believers,, I know Catholics.. and I believe that our Eastern believers are as well. 

I only try to correct error when I find it.. not condemn those that have been taught it.

I am still learning and growing too.



> For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


I long to sit at the Masters feet,, and know the fullness of all..  and to meet some of the old saints too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not that I'm arguing for this ridiculous snake-handling stuff, but where is the regulative principle in the Bible?


Here's a Reformed Presbyterian perspective that I liked which had many Bible verses in it.  I agree with everything except the paedobaptism part.


http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/bo...f/foundref.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who said anything about Worship?
> 
> You said it was not in the bible.. 
> 
> 
> I just showed you that it is in the Bible. Mark 16:18.. and there is an example in Acts.
> It is not absurd. 
> 
> Why do you lack Faith?  No,,Sorry,, that was not serious. 
> ...


Pete, you're still not understanding the point.  Where does the Bible prescribe snakes in worship?   That is the question.  These people use snakes in worship.  The Bible prescribes many things in worship.  It doesn't prescribe snakes.

The problem with the snake people is that they DONT follow the Bible's prescription for worship.  Most churches today do not either.

----------


## moostraks

> The people who are doing the snake - handling are doing it in the worship service.  This is not Biblical.  I did not move the bar.  You simply don't understand (but I hope you one day see) how the Bible describes Christian worship.


Get over yourself. Yes, you did move the bar because that was not what you initially said. They take a verse, as you frequently do, and by their reading and understanding of Scripture they express their faith by trusting in the safety of their beliefs. 

I advocate a more holistic reading of Scripture. I am not the one who gets twisted over a thought expressed in one isolated phrase in the Book, unlike some people.

----------


## moostraks

> Pete, you're still not understanding the point.  Where does the Bible prescribe snakes in worship?   That is the question.  These people use snakes in worship.  The Bible prescribes many things in worship.  It doesn't prescribe snakes.
> 
> The problem with the snake people is that they DONT follow the Bible's prescription for worship.  Most churches today do not either.


Curious since you are being so persnickety on this, what is your churches position on the headship veil?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Curious since you are being so persnickety on this, what is your churches position on the headship veil?


There is the cessationist argument that says since women's headcovering were worn in the presence of prophecy, and since prophecy was only for the foundation of the early Church and has now ceased, headcoverings have ceased as well.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not that I'm arguing for this ridiculous snake-handling stuff, but where is the regulative principle in the Bible?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulat...ple_of_worship

It's a Calvinist thing.

Remember when King David danced before the Lord..

They would have not approved.



> *Make a joyful noise unto the Lord,* all ye lands.
> 
>  Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
> 
>  Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
> 
>  Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
> 
>  For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.





> Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.


They don't approve of shouting either.



> with trumpets and the blast of the ram's horn-- shout for joy before the LORD, the King.





> Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals.…


Oh heck no,, Guitars and drums... and loud.. heavens no.




> Pete, you're still not understanding the point.  Where does the Bible prescribe snakes in worship?   That is the question.  These people use snakes in worship.  The Bible prescribes many things in worship.  It doesn't prescribe snakes.
> 
> The problem with the snake people is that they DONT follow the Bible's prescription for worship.  Most churches today do not either.


Oh,, I understand quite well.. I called the snake handlers error.
And I agree,, most churches do not shout and dance and play loud music..

but I like those that do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulat...ple_of_worship
> 
> It's a Calvinist thing.
> 
> Remember when King David danced before the Lord..
> 
> They would have not approved.
> 
> 
> ...


There isn't anything wrong with shouting and loud music.  I love loud music.   I'm a metal head.  But we're talking about what the Bible says about public worship.  So it's different.

----------


## jmdrake

> Regardless....you brought him up first.  I dont ever want to bring him up and I never talk about Calvin, because the bandwagon starts going "oooooo you worship Calvin".  What an offensive thing to say.  Would you like it if I said you worship Arminus every time you interperet a verse the way he did?  Of course not.
> 
> And let alone there are VITAL, key points of doctrine I disagree with Calvin on....common grace, the atonement,  baptism, etc.  Also, I am a Baptist.  I would have been persecuted in Geneva like many other religious groups were at that time.  I HATE Calvin's statism.


Moostracks was specifically responding to erowe1's false claim that you hadn't said anything about Calvin.  I agree that you don't worship Calvin although at first it seemed to take you a while to realize you didn't agree with him on everything.




> Of course not, but this forum is filled with morons who have every bit as little reading comprehensibility as the establishmentarians they rightfully criticize.  There are only a few people here who are actually intelligent, just like there are only a few people in most places that are actually intelligent.  
> 
> SF, quite frankly, is being exceptionally nice considering the ridiculous attacks he's getting because of stuff he sort-of did a long time ago.


 Really FF, I like you but you just made yourself look exceptionally stupid.  Erowe1's claim and your response is probably false.

----------


## jmdrake

> Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way.


Rock music didn't exist when the Bible was written.  Neither did organ music.  Neither did English.  All worship should be done in Aramaic?

----------


## Theocrat

> Rock music didn't exist when the Bible was written.  Neither did organ music.  Neither did English.  All worship should be done in Aramaic?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rock music didn't exist when the Bible was written.  Neither did organ music.  Neither did English.  All worship should be done in Aramaic?


No.  The Bible doesn't prescribe a certain language to be used in worship.

----------


## pcosmar

> and since prophecy was only for the foundation of the early Church and has now ceased,





> 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.…


I had no idea that the last days were ended.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  The Bible doesn't prescribe a certain language to be used in worship.


Where does it prescribe a certain type of music be used in worship?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does it prescribe a certain type of music be used in worship?


Here's one:



> Ephesians 5:18
> 
> And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;*20always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;…


Psalms,  hymns,  and spiritual songs is the usual designation of the book of Psalms.  Theocrats video was right on.

----------


## pcosmar

> There isn't anything wrong with shouting and loud music.  I love loud music.   I'm a metal head.  But we're talking about what the Bible says about public worship.  So it's different.


Those were specifically regarding Public Worship. And there are many more.. That was just a few,,

Please consider the Kings daughter who was offended by David's worship. (and apply it)

----------


## pcosmar

> Where does it prescribe a certain type of music be used in worship?


Or instrument. (generally it names all of them).

Except when some narrow minded individual decides that some instrument (Fiddle, Sax, etc.) is the "devils" instrument.

Dumbest thing since rocks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


Gospel and Epistle texts are chanted instead of simply read every liturgy.  The most enjoyable way to take them in, IMO. 




(this is a full liturgy.  Chanted text-20:30-Epistle 24:00-Gospel)

----------


## jmdrake

> Here's one:
> 
> 
> Psalms,  hymns,  and spiritual songs is the usual designation of the book of Psalms.  Theocrats video was right on.


Theocrat's video was Psalms done in hip hop fashion.  You're fine with hip hop in church as long as it's a Psalm or a hymn?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Or instrument. (generally it names all of them).
> 
> Except when some narrow minded individual decides that some instrument (Fiddle, Sax, etc.) is the "devils" instrument.
> 
> Dumbest thing since rocks.


There's nothing about music accompanying worship in the NT.  Hence, there are no instruments in liturgical services.  The complex orchestration in protestant worship is often musically interesting, but does distract from the pure sound of the text.

----------


## pcosmar

> There's a verse, in a Biblical passage that is unlikely to be canonical, that promises that if a Christian is in fact bitten by a snake, he won't be poisoned.  False teachers twist that passage and create a whole doctrine out of it (and, I don't even believe its a scripture passage.)


You have read the book,,haven't you?



> There's a verse, in a Biblical passage that is unlikely to be canonical


I believe that Mark is cannon.



> and, I don't even believe its a scripture passage.


Well it is.. and there is an example of it happening in Acts.. to the salvation of many.

That does not change the fact that it is an out of context and unbalanced teaching. But it is scripture.

How could you NOT know that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Theocrat's video was Psalms done in hip hop fashion.  You're fine with hip hop in church as long as it's a Psalm or a hymn?


No.  Theocrats video sang about whatever happened to singing psalms in church.   And that is what my point is, and the Bible's point is and (I think) the rapping guys point as well.

----------


## pcosmar

> There's nothing about music accompanying worship in the NT.  Hence, there are no instruments in liturgical services.  The complex orchestration in protestant worship is often musically interesting, but does distract from the pure sound of the text.


There is nothing about program handouts either,, or special robes..

What is your point?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is nothing about program handouts either,, or special robes..
> 
> What is your point?


You brought up the topic.  I just threw in my 2 cents.   I'm a church musician myself on the weekend.   Not trying to start a debate or anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here's a Reformed Presbyterian perspective that I liked which had many Bible verses in it.  I agree with everything except the paedobaptism part.
> 
> 
> http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/bo...f/foundref.htm


I'm not convinced by the arguments there.  A lot of them deal with "forcing someone to engage in worship that's against his conscience" which churches typically don't do, and there's a lot of assumptions being made about church worship that aren't actually in the scriptural texts.  The verse that came closest to convincing me was the one in Leviticus about the strange fire.  I'll have to think more on it.  



> There is the cessationist argument that says since women's headcovering were worn in the presence of prophecy, and since prophecy was only for the foundation of the early Church and has now ceased, headcoverings have ceased as well.


Where is cessasionism taught in the Bible?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You have read the book,,haven't you?
> *
> I believe that Mark is cannon.
> *
> Well it is.. and there is an example of it happening in Acts.. to the salvation of many.
> 
> That does not change the fact that it is an out of context and unbalanced teaching. But it is scripture.
> 
> How could you NOT know that.


Truth.  Mark is the first Gospel to be written after existing in oral tradition for ~30-40 years or so (depending on who you ask).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Theocrat's video was Psalms done in hip hop fashion.  You're fine with hip hop in church as long as it's a Psalm or a hymn?


No.  Theocrats video sang about whatever happened to singing psalms in church.   And that is what my point is, and the Bible's point is and (I think) the rapping guys point as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You have read the book,,haven't you?
> 
> I believe that Mark is cannon.
> 
> Well it is.. and there is an example of it happening in Acts.. to the salvation of many.
> 
> That does not change the fact that it is an out of context and unbalanced teaching. But it is scripture.
> 
> How could you NOT know that.


Of course Mark is canon.  The earliest manuscripts that we have don't include the last 11 verses, so I question their canonicity and whether they were in the original text.

----------


## pcosmar

Psalms were songs set to music,, usually stringed instruments.

I love the Psalms of old.. and some of the newer ones..

Amazing Grace is one of my favorite Psalms/songs. Though I like it set to "house of the rising sun". 

This guy mixes both quite nicely.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  Theocrats video sang about whatever happened to singing psalms in church.   And that is what my point is, and the Bible's point is and (I think) the rapping guys point as well.


So if someone sings the Psalms in church in a hip hop fashion you're fine with that?  If not, what style of Psalm singing counts as Psalm singing in your book?  Does it have to be in Judaic cantor fashion?

----------


## jmdrake

> Psalms were songs set to music,, usually stringed instruments.
> 
> I love the Psalms of old.. and some of the newer ones..
> 
> Amazing Grace is one of my favorite Psalms/songs. Though I like it set to "house of the rising sun". 
> 
> This guy mixes both quite nicely.


Beautiful!  Makes me wish I learned to play the guitar.

----------


## pcosmar

> Beautiful!  Makes me wish I learned to play the guitar.


I "learned" a little,, long ago. But that is not my talent.. though I could wish it was.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So if someone sings the Psalms in church in a hip hop fashion you're fine with that?  If not, what style of Psalm singing counts as Psalm singing in your book?  Does it have to be in Judaic cantor fashion?


No. That's not what I said.  I said the singer in that video lamented the fact that the psalms aren't sung in church anymore like the Bible prescribes.   The way they are sung is not the issue.  But that they are sung is the issue (and arguably the absence of musical instruments is the issue too).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Beautiful!  Makes me wish I learned to play the guitar.


Never too late, man.  You just have to find a good teacher.

----------


## moostraks

> Right.  Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere?  Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?
> 
> *Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *





> There is the cessationist argument that says since women's headcovering were worn in the presence of prophecy, and since prophecy was only for the foundation of the early Church and has now ceased, headcoverings have ceased as well.


And would I find this cessation description in the same place you are saying all other aspects are to conform? Would that be I Corinthians or I Timothy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And would I find this cessation description in the same place you are saying all other aspects are to conform? Would that be I Corinthians or I Timothy?


Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible.   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".  It's not there specifically, rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible.   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".  It's not there specifically, rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:
> 
> http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism


I'm not convinced.  A big part of his argument rests on the abuses of gifts.  I'm skeptical of most of what comes out of today's "charismatic" churches because they don't practice the gifts in a Biblical fashion.  That doesn't mean I think that its impossible or that the miraculous gifts definitively cannot exist today.  I also do not believe that saying the gifts can continue today undermines scripture.  In fact, I'm not sure why Paul would give instructions for the proper usage of gifts which made it into the canon if they were irrelevant.

I'm "open but cautious" not because I want to please everybody, but because I don't really feel comfortable saying more than that from scripture.  I understand that most Reformed people are cessasionists but that doesn't mean they are right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not convinced.  A big part of his argument rests on the abuses of gifts.  I'm skeptical of most of what comes out of today's "charismatic" churches because they don't practice the gifts in a Biblical fashion.  That doesn't mean I think that its impossible or that the miraculous gifts definitively cannot exist today.  I also do not believe that saying the gifts can continue today undermines scripture.  In fact, I'm not sure why Paul would give instructions for the proper usage of gifts which made it into the canon if they were irrelevant.
> 
> I'm "open but cautious" not because I want to please everybody, but because I don't really feel comfortable saying more than that from scripture.  I understand that most Reformed people are cessasionists but that doesn't mean they are right.


He specifically said that the position does not eliminate miraculous healing or things like, but simply that the gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues were especially given by God to the foundation that the apostles were building for edification and were not needed after the Spirit of God was in written form.

----------


## pcosmar

> You brought up the topic.  I just threw in my 2 cents.


Nope,, came up elsewhere,, I  just followed along.

----------


## Ender

> Where are snakes in Christian worship?  Where?  The Bible has a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where are snakes mentioned?


*SIGH*

Numbers 21:8

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."

The snake was the symbol of Jesus- this is the reason that Eve was fooled.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *SIGH*
> 
> Numbers 21:8
> 
> "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."
> 
> The snake was the symbol of Jesus- this is the reason that Eve was fooled.



Well,  you sighed, but didn't answer the question.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope,, came up elsewhere,, I  just followed along.


Very well.  My apologies, brother.   ~hugs~

----------


## Ender

> Sola_Fide: Well,  you sighed, but didn't answer the question.


Wow- I don't think I've met anyone on this forum who is as deliberately obtuse, as you.




> Quote Originally Posted by *Sola_Fide* 
> Where are snakes in Christian worship? Where? The Bible has a lot to say about Christian worship. Where are snakes mentioned?






> *Ender:*
> 
> *SIGH*
> 
> Numbers 21:8
> 
> "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."
> 
> The snake was the symbol of Jesus- this is the reason that Eve was fooled.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow- I don't think I've met anyone on this forum who is as deliberately obtuse, as you.


You still don't understand the question.

----------


## Ender

> You still don't understand the question.


Read much?

OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

AND-

I answered it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Read much?
> 
> OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
> 
> AND-
> 
> I answered it.


I'm sorry sir.  But we are talking about the context of Christian worship. Anyone can Google "snake Bible" and find hundreds of references.  But that is not the question.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He specifically said that the position does not eliminate miraculous healing or things like, but simply that the gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues were especially given by God to the foundation that the apostles were building for edification and were not needed after the Spirit of God was in written form.


I'm not sure if I believe that either, though.  Its clear from scripture that the gift of apostleship has ceased, but I'm not sure if the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing have ceased.  Its possible that they have, but I don't have enough information to say.

----------


## Ender

> I'm sorry sir.  But we are talking about the context of Christian worship. Anyone can Google "snake Bible" and find hundreds of references.  But that is not the question.


So, you are saying that Christians don't believe in Moses and that his people were cured by looking at the symbol of the snake on his staff.

Right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, you are saying that Christians don't believe in Moses and that his people were cured by looking at the symbol of the snake on his staff.
> 
> Right.


No, I'm not saying that.

----------


## pcosmar

> So, you are saying that Christians don't believe in Moses and that his people were cured by looking at the symbol of the snake on his staff.
> 
> Right.


He is trying to Ignore the fact that there is error in the Church,, or at least in his doctrine. I had stated that unbalanced teaching led to sects like the Snake Handlers. (and in extreme cases,,to things like the Crusades and Inquisitions)

The point of the snake handlers was that they take a few scriptures and built a doctrine around it. Without balancing it with other scripture.

This is the same as the error he is trying to defend.  but now he is twisting it to say it is about worship,, and how his manner of worship is the only right way,, regardless of what the scriptures say.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He is trying to Ignore the fact that there is error in the Church,, or at least in his doctrine. I had stated that unbalanced teaching led to sects like the Snake Handlers. (and in extreme cases,,to things like the Crusades and Inquisitions)
> 
> The point of the snake handlers was that they take a few scriptures and built a doctrine around it. Without balancing it with other scripture.
> 
> This is the same as the error he is trying to defend.  but now he is twisting it to say it is about worship,, and how his manner of worship is the only right way,, regardless of what the scriptures say.



Not quite.  The error that snakehandlers do is to_ take a verse that has nothing to do with Christian worship_, and apply it to their worship.  That is the error.  And it doesn't come from an "unbalanced" view of faith, it comes from an unbiblical reading of the Bible.  The dividing line for error is not "balance", it is the Bible.

----------


## moostraks

> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning *the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes*.





> Right. * Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere? * Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?
> 
> *Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *





> Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. *Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way*.





> *Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible*.   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".*  It's not there specifically,* rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:
> 
> http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism


So you are being a what now? Oh, I know the word, it is on the tip of my tongue...

I Corinthians 11: 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Prays OR prophesies, and I have heard the extra biblical arguments used for the purpose of no longer needing a head covering. It is a modern phenomena. 

So snake handling is in Scripture but your method goes directly against the very books YOU put forth and proclaimed *no other way* is allowable for worship. No why on earth do you get special pleadings here?

----------


## moostraks

> Not quite.  The error that snakehandlers do is to_ take a verse that has nothing to do with Christian worship_, and apply it to their worship.  That is the error.  And it doesn't come from an "unbalanced" view of faith, it comes from an unbiblical reading of the Bible.  The dividing line for error is not "balance", it is the Bible.


And your error is to formulate an excuse for your women not using a head covering as put forth in the very books you command snake handling be found. At least snake handlers have a Scripture to apply to their thinking.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you are being a what now? Oh, I know the word, it is on the tip of my tongue...
> 
> I Corinthians 11: 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
> 
> Prays OR prophesies, and I have heard the extra biblical arguments used for the purpose of no longer needing a head covering. It is a modern phenomena. 
> 
> So snake handling is in Scripture but your method goes directly against the very books YOU put forth and proclaimed *no other way* is allowable for worship. No why on earth do you get special pleadings here?



There are all kinds of things "in Scripture".  And there have been all kinds of things that have nothing to do with Christian worship included in Christian worship over the years.  "In Scripture" is not the standard for what Christian worship looks like.  There are several passages that have to do with Christian worship in the Bible.  Snakes are not included in those passages.

And "prayer" there refers to "praying in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:14)....again it is a sign of those special gifts which the early Church alone had and does not have today. There are several articles dealing with this out there:
http://allsaintsreformed.org/2014/03...nist-argument/

----------


## pcosmar

> And your error is to formulate an excuse for your women not using a head covering as put forth in the very books you command snake handling be found. At least snake handlers have a Scripture to apply to their thinking.


The Error is that the head covering was a sign of Marriage. the shaved head was a hooker.

Today women wear a ring to denoted marriage,, not a head scarf or veil. (at least in this culture)
It is yet another scripture that is bent to fit.

The scripture was about marriage,, and the marriage relationship.  Not about hair.. nor specifically about worship.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not quite.  The error that snakehandlers do is to_ take a verse that has nothing to do with Christian worship_, and apply it to their worship. .


NO,, the problem is that they build a whole religion based on the handling of snakes.
If you don't pick up deadly snakes,,you have no faith.. you don't really believe.. 

They Tempt God.. It is presumption.

That is the error. and they got there by by unbalanced teaching. Cherry picking scripture.

----------


## moostraks

> There are all kinds of things "in Scripture".  And there have been all kinds of things that have nothing to do with Christian worship included in Christian worship over the years.  "In Scripture" is not the standard for what Christian worship looks like.  There are several passages that have to do with Christian worship in the Bible.  Snakes are not included in those passages.
> 
> And "prayer" there refers to "praying in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:14)....again it is a sign of those special gifts which the early Church alone had and does not have today. There are several articles dealing with this out there:
> http://allsaintsreformed.org/2014/03...nist-argument/


Nope, you are moving the goal posts again to give yourself special privileges here. I'm not the one passing judgements on other people and proclaiming they have to abide by what is specifically put forth in those two books, you were. And you can continue to try and spin your wheels with your but, but, this means this and here read this long treatise to see my extra biblical argument here. Imo you need to take your case up with the icon folks you have problems with since you were the one throwing down on their position which comes about in the same manner by which you are promoting a modern phenomena. I could care less other than the fact that it points out your hypocrisy on the argument of Christian worship.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And your error is to formulate an excuse for your women not using a head covering as put forth in the very books you command snake handling be found. At least snake handlers have a Scripture to apply to their thinking.


If you want to argue for continuationism, go ahead.  Every debate I've listened to on the subject, they get squashed.  There are simply too many reasons that those special gifts have ceased today in an age when we have the Spirit's words in written form.  And continuationism historically has been the grounds for all kinds of heresy and cultism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Error is that the head covering was a sign of Marriage. the shaved head was a hooker.
> 
> Today women wear a ring to denoted marriage,, not a head scarf or veil. (at least in this culture)
> It is yet another scripture that is bent to fit.
> 
> The scripture was about marriage,, and the marriage relationship.  Not about hair.. nor specifically about worship.


No, that's not the issue.  If that were the issue, then culture would dictate the practice of Christian worship.  But culture doesn't determine Christian worship, Scripture does.

----------


## moostraks

> The Error is that the head covering was a sign of Marriage. the shaved head was a hooker.
> 
> Today women wear a ring to denoted marriage,, not a head scarf or veil. (at least in this culture)
> It is yet another scripture that is bent to fit.
> 
> The scripture was about marriage,, and the marriage relationship.  Not about hair.. nor specifically about worship.



Um, this is going off in the thickets, but those who are interested can look into the history of the wedding ring and its connection to slavery if they are curious. It is an interesting history as to how we come to where we are today wrt wedding bands esp. at the expense of a head covering.

Imo, the head covering is about respect. Folks who have the yearning to learn more can do their own research on the history and various arguments and listen to the still, small voice inside. 

Now, not being a woman, or having had the privilege of the experience, I venture a guess that neither you nor SF are to qualified to pass judgement on the head coverings benefit to one's personal worship. It would be like asking you guys to describe the physical experience of child birth. Kwim?

----------


## moostraks

> No, that's not the issue.  If that were the issue, then culture would dictate the practice of Christian worship.  But culture doesn't determine Christian worship, Scripture does.


And yet your church is holding a modern position on the head covering.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And yet your church is holding a modern position on the head covering.


No it isn't.  Continuationism is the cultic, heretical, modern view.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, that's not the issue.  If that were the issue, then culture would dictate the practice of Christian worship.  But culture doesn't determine Christian worship, Scripture does.


Actually,, culture does. Because the head covering was a sign of marriage.. That is what was being discussed (in the whole context..

and he also says something that is purely cultural and not actually correct.



> Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


Nature does not teach that at all. Nowhere in nature. In nature it is the Male that has plumage,,, bright colors,, a Lions Mane etc.
Nature teaches just the opposite of what he said. And there were notable examples of men with Long Hair. 
Sampson comes to mind..
There was also a Jewish sect at the time,, the Nazirite. And long Hair is one of their defining teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite

So no,, that was something that was purely cultural.

----------


## pcosmar

> Um, this is going off in the thickets,


Yes it is,,but rabbit trails are common here.
It is another of those places where one scripture is used to build a whole doctrine,, instead of taking the whole of scripture and balancing it.

and very often,, it is some verse out of context,, and of minor importance that is elevated to salvation or condemnation status.

----------


## moostraks

> No it isn't.  Continuationism is the cultic, heretical, modern view.


Lol! Okay, if you say so. I am not addressing that position. I am addressing the fact that YOU are going against the standards you set for the argument. Twice now. You are taking a modern cultural attitude and formulating an excuse to go against an expressed statement of worship as itemized in I Corinthians, one of the two books you demanded the rules come from, and demanded there is no other practice but as expressed in the Scriptures. You do not even have history on your side. The dropping of the head covering is a modern practice.

Just a few from this source:




> It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.266
> 
> 
> And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.290   
> 
> 
> Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.28
> 
> "If any," he says, "is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God." So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.32-33


http://www.earlychristiandictionary.com/Veil.html

Art through the ages, women and head coverings:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/stor...g-history.html




> Throughout history it has been common for women to wear head coverings. This is something that has precedent in St. Pauls epistles (see 1 Cor. 11:2-16).
> 
> It was mandated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262 states:  
> 
> 
> In the 1983 Code of Canon Lawthe one in effect todaythe canon about head veils was not re-issued. Now, you might be thinking, Well, just because they didnt reissue it doesnt mean that its not still in effect, right? Wrong.
> 
> Canon 6 of the current code states that all subsequent laws that are not reissued in the new code are abrogated:


http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fr...erings-at-mass




> John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), in a sermon at the Feast of the Ascension, spoke both of angels and the veiling of women:
> 
> The angels are present here . . . Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! . . . Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels. ...
> 
> Origen,another prominent teacher in the early Church, said,
> 
> There are angels in the midst of our assembly . . . we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels . . . And since there are angels present . . . women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.


https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.co...headcoverings/




> Have you ever wondered why the use of head coverings has been the common and undisputed practice of the Church for 2000 years in every denomination we could mention? It is because the interpretation given above is the uniform understanding of this passage through all of Christian history. Here are a few quotes from some of our forefathers on verse 16...
> 
> John Calvin
> But if any man seem. A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs  raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful  who do not yield to reasonings  who cannot endure that any one should be above them For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:16)
> 
>  Scottish Divine David Dickson
> If any perhaps should not bee moved by these Arguments, but should contend, the Apostle opposeth to their contentious Apologies, the received and established custome of the Jews, and the rest of the Churches: Other Churches have no such custome, that women should bee present at publick assemblies, with their heads uncovered, and the man with his head covered: Therefore your custome not agreeing with decency, either according to natural use, or of the Churches, is altogether unseemly (David Dicksons Commentaries on the Epistles. Printed 1659. Chapter 11, Seventh Article Concerning Order and Decency)...
> 
> Adam Clarke
> ...


http://reformedresource.net/index.ph...ch-custom.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *1st Corinthains 14:21-22
> 
> In  the Law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me," says the Lord.  So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
> 
> *


So we see that both prophecy and tongues are simply a sign, and signs pass away.  Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, and prophecy was sign to believers in the church.  Both signs pass away.  Tongues pass away because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.  Prophecy passes away because now the Spirit's words are in written form.

But both are importantly designated as signs, not normative prescriptions for the church today.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Getting back to the issue of the OP, here are some other verses which prove that unbelievers are predestined:




> *- - "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
> 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
>  Lest they should see with their eyes,
>  Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
>  So that I should heal them.' " 
> 
> -John 12:39-40*






> *"Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills,
> and whom He wills He hardens." 
> 
> -Romans 9:18*





> *"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,"  
> 
> -Romans 9:22*







> *"What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." 
> 
> -Romans 11:7*







> *"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,"  
> 
> -2 Thessalonians 2:11*

----------


## moostraks

> Getting back to the issue of the OP, here are some other verses which prove that unbelievers are predestined:


The recent discussion on headcoverings pertains directly to the OP. You have a double standard by which you discern positions. You apply one argument to others whilst you do your merry little thing. You have ignored the historical and Scriptural evidence for one position in favor of an extra Biblical theory you surmise to be true and which is not relevant considering the argument you are applying it to, unless you are going to say cessation is also a modern theory which sort of blows your whole argument on both angles. I want to know why you are ignoring the pp and continue to act as though the argument is about cessation. 

Say cessation was the rule and not a matter of argument. It still does not follow that you may use the rule to apply to a new cultural choice. 




> Peter Martyr (1500-1562). A woman ought seeing her hair is given her of God, to follow this his institution, and to imitate her Maker, and cover her head; which if she will not do, as much as is in her, she throws off the natural veil.
> 
> Henry Bullinger (1504-1575). But the apostle Paul biddeth the woman to pray, or to come into the congregation to hear a sermon, with her head covered, for none other cause, but for that she is not in her own power, but subject to another, that is to her husband.
> 
> John Knox (1505-1572). First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As St. Paul does reason in these words: Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of the man; and therefore ought the woman to have power upon her head (that is, a cover in sign of subjection)...Chrysostom, explaining these words of the apostle, The head of woman is man, compares God in his universal regiment to a king sitting in his royal majesty, to whom all his subjects, commanded to give homage and obedience, appear before him, bearing every one such a badge and cognisance of dignity and honour as he has given to them; which if they despise and contemn, then do they dishonour their king. Even so, says he, ought man and woman to appear before God, bearing the ensigns of the condition which they have received of him. Man has received a certain glory and dignity above the woman; and therefore ought to appear before his high Majesty bearing the sign of his honour, having no cover upon his head, to witness that in earth man has no head. Beware Chrysostom what you say! You shall be reputed a traitor if Englishmen hear you, for they must have my sovereign lady and mistress;...He proceeds in these words, But woman ought to be covered, to witness that in earth she had a head, that is man. True it is, Chrysostom, woman is covered in both the said realms, but it is not with the sign of subjection, but it is with the sign of superiority: to wit, with the royal crown. (The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, Work vol. 4, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp. 383-4 & 402-403)...
> 
> William Greenhill 1581-1671
> 
> They (the angels - DS) reverence the greatness and majesty of Christ. Though they be high and glorious, yet they see so vast a distance between Christ and themselves, that they cover their faces, Isa. vi. And their bodies, here; they come not into his presence rudely, but with great respect and reverence. As God is to be had in reverence of all that are about him, Psalm 89:7, so Christ is reverenced of all the angels that are about him. Women are to be veiled in the assemblies, because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered, to show their reverence and subjection to Christ. It is an honour to the angels, that in reverence to them the women are to be veiled; and it is a great honour to Christ, that angels reverence and adore him. Commentary on Ezekiel (Ch. 1:23), by William Greenhill, member of the Westminster Assembly.
> ...


http://www.the-highway.com/headcover...lversides.html

The devil is in the details. No one should seriously discuss philosophy with someone who applies double standards and refuses to be held accountable for their own beliefs under the conditions they assert others should comply by in arguments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Say cessation was the rule and not a matter of argument. It still does not follow that you may use the rule to apply to a new cultural choice.


I have_ never, ever, ever_ said that culture defines Christian worship.  If you read my posts and got that from _anything_ I said, I respectfully don't think that you have the mental clarity to label me as someone who uses double standards.


And besides, look at all the mangled twists and turns this thread has taken.  People want to talk about snakes, headcoverings, homosexuality... but I take that as indication that people don't really want to talk about the main issue here:  the sovereignty of God in salvation.  This is the issue that divides Christians from non-Christians.  That is why people want to avoid it.

----------


## moostraks

> I have_ never, ever, ever_ said that culture defines Christian worship.  If you read my posts and got that from _anything_ I said, I respectfully don't think that you have the mental clarity to label me as someone who uses double standards.
> 
> 
> And besides, look at all the mangled twists and turns this thread has taken.  People want to talk about snakes, headcoverings, homosexuality... but I take that as indication that people don't really want to talk about the main issue here:  the sovereignty of God in salvation.  This is the issue that divides Christians from non-Christians.  That is why people want to avoid it.


You don't practice what you preach. I _have_ mental clarity, which is why I am not going to give you a pass on ignoring the head covering. Not using a head covering is a modern practice. It is extra biblical to proclaim that the philosophy lies outside of Scripture. You have no Scripture verse nor historical proof for your position. It does not follow that it is tied to cessation unless you also wish to say cessation is a modern practice.

 You have offered nothing to rebut the evidence I asked for you to consider which relates directly to the manner by which you claim to wish to discuss your philosophy. In short, you move the bar as it suits your purpose, and proclaim special pleadings for the logic you employ.

I attempted to discuss the OP with you a number of times but you wish to play games. You insult then complain about others. You argue the root of others faith, then complain when others respond in kind. You hold beliefs that are not defined in Scripture but then insult and deny other people their faith on the exact same basis by which you form your own.

Your threads are only long because of your dishonest tactics and disgusting attempts to silence and extinguish the Light in other people.

You are not even moral enough to apologize when you continually abuse the rep system and have been told how awkward and uncomfortable you are making someone feel. You use every possible opportunity to insult and intimidate other people on this forum. Yeah, that is just what this forum needs, much less the spiritual sub forum.

So thanks for this morning's rep and thinking by crowing about your post/thread count I will bugger off and not bother you with pesky little issues of accountability. I ain't gonna be intimidated and I am the sort of person who makes lemonade from lemons. Keep trolling my rep. Jack up the value of my position and neg reps. You know there is a first time for everything so you might want to think out your tactic since it is quite clear your intentions of your heart are clearly visible through the actions you have undertaken.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you want to argue for continuationism, go ahead.  Every debate I've listened to on the subject, they get squashed.  There are simply too many reasons that those special gifts have ceased today in an age when we have the Spirit's words in written form.  And continuationism historically has been the grounds for all kinds of heresy and cultism.





> No it isn't.  Continuationism is the cultic, heretical, modern view.


Are you saying that continuationism AS SUCH is a heretical view, or are you saying that its easy for continuationism to LEAD to heretical views?  I know this is off topic, but I really need to know your position on this, one way or the other.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't practice what you preach. I _have_ mental clarity, which is why I am not going to give you a pass on ignoring the head covering. Not using a head covering is a modern practice. *It is extra biblical to proclaim that the philosophy lies outside of Scripture. You have no Scripture verse nor historical proof for your position.* It does not follow that it is tied to cessation unless you also wish to say cessation is a modern practice.



You're right.  I don't have one verse, I have several.  Just as the Trinity is a combination of different propositions with not one explicit verse, so is cessationism, and several other Biblical arguments.  That is NOT extra-Biblical.  All the propositions of Scripture and all the deductions from those propositions is what the Christian uses for knowledge.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you saying that continuationism AS SUCH is a heretical view, or are you saying that its easy for continuationism to LEAD to heretical views?  I know this is off topic, but I really need to know your position on this, one way or the other.


It's obvious that it leads to all kinds of heretical views and cults.  There are any number of insane movements that have sprung up over the years because of "ecstatic utterances" and stuff like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's obvious that it *leads to all kinds of heretical views and cults.*  There are any number of insane movements that have sprung up over the years because of "ecstatic utterances" and stuff like that.


Yes, but that doesn't make it heretical in and of itself.  Look, I'm not trying to convince you that most of what goes on in charismatic churches is real, because I don't believe that it is.  They typically don't do it in the way the Bible prescribes.

Let me put it this way.  I lean toward a moderate contiunationist position.  While I am skeptical of most claims of tongues, healings, etc. I am not convinced that individual Christians do not have these gifts today.  I believe it is possible, though not certain, that some do.  I do not claim to have any of these gifts myself.  Am I a heretic?

----------


## moostraks

> You're right.  I don't have one verse, I have several.  Just as the Trinity is a combination of different propositions with not one explicit verse, so is cessationism, and several other Biblical arguments.  That is NOT extra-Biblical.  All the propositions of Scripture and all the deductions from those propositions is what the Christian uses for knowledge.


You said:




> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning *the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes*.





> Right. * Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere? * Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?
> 
> *Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *





> Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. *Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way*.





> *Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible*.   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".*  It's not there specifically,* rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:
> 
> http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism


So listen to what I am saying to you. You are not applying the same demands to your position that you are commanding of others.

You demand a specific Scripture within the 2 books YOU chose and it must be in the way that the Bible alone describes for worship.

You attach your opinion to a theory based on a combination of verses and interpretation of theories outside of the Bible to discredit a specific series of verses within the 2 books YOU chose which give a specific command AND the historical evidence abounds that you are excusing a modern cultural development upon the basis of this theory.




> extrabiblical:
> The term 'extra-Biblical' can refer to two things:
> 
> Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture
> Teachings, concepts and practices claimed to be supported by or taught in the Bible, but which are based on incorrect interpretation. In hermeneutics, the study of the methodological principles of interpretation, this is known as "eisogesis" (super-imposing a meaning onto the text), as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing the meaning out of the text).


http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical

Discussing philosophy with someone who is not even honest to the framework of the system they propose to enforce upon others is futile. 

Where is your evidence that not wearing a head covering is not a recent cultural decision?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, but that doesn't make it heretical in and of itself.  Look, I'm not trying to convince you that most of what goes on in charismatic churches is real, because I don't believe that it is.  They typically don't do it in the way the Bible prescribes.
> 
> Let me put it this way.  I lean toward a moderate contiunationist position. * While I am skeptical of most claims of tongues, healings, etc. I am not convinced that individual Christians do not have these gifts today.  I believe it is possible, though not certain, that some do.*  I do not claim to have any of these gifts myself.  Am I a heretic?


Cessationsists don't deny that the Holy Spirit works and heals and operates in this world today in miraculous ways.  Although, the Bible does say that prophecy and tongues were a sign (and signs pass away).





> *1st Corinthains 14:21-22
> 
> In the Law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me," says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.*


 
Both prophecy and tongues are simply a sign, and signs pass away. Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, and prophecy was sign to believers in the church. Both signs pass away. Tongues pass away because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Prophecy passes away because now the Spirit's words are in written form.

But both are importantly designated as signs, not normative prescriptions for the church today.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You attach your opinion to a theory based on a combination of verses and interpretation *of theories outside of the Bible to discredit*...


No I have not.  And you can't post one time where I have.

----------


## Ender

> So we see that both prophecy and tongues are simply a sign, and signs pass away.  Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, and prophecy was sign to believers in the church.  Both signs pass away.  Tongues pass away because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.  Prophecy passes away because now the Spirit's words are in written form.
> 
> But both are importantly designated as signs, not normative prescriptions for the church today.


Baloney.

And if you are going to live your life by scripture, best to live by Christ's words and not Paul's.




> Matthew 5-7
> 
> Matthew 5-7King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 5 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
> 
> 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
> 
> 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> ...

----------


## moostraks

> *Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible.*   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".  *It's not there specifically*, rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:
> 
> http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism





> No I have not.  And you can't post one time where I have.


You linked me to a long diatribe on a personal opinion by a modern individual. You have yet to provide historical evidence to tie your extra biblical opinion, "Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture", to the practice of the modern lack of head covering. 

You ignore all the evidence provided by the spiritual leaders in the faith for a modern cultural phenomena.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You linked me to a long diatribe on a personal opinion by a modern individual. You have yet to provide historical evidence to tie your extra biblical opinion, "Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture", to the practice of the modern lack of head covering. 
> 
> You ignore all the evidence provided by the spiritual leaders in the faith for a modern cultural phenomena.


You said that my arguments were extra biblical.  That was wrong.  They are not extra biblical.  So what is the issue now?

----------


## jmdrake

> No. That's not what I said.  I said the singer in that video lamented the fact that the psalms aren't sung in church anymore like the Bible prescribes.   The way they are sung is not the issue.  But that they are sung is the issue (and arguably the absence of musical instruments is the issue too).


Rock and roll is a style of music.  You began this subthread complaining about rock and roll in church.  But someone could sing psalms in a rock and roll format.  Same with hymns.  If your issue is instruments, and I've heard that argument and always thought it was lame, you have to realize that it's possible to sing rock music without instruments.

----------


## moostraks

> You said that my arguments were extra biblical.  That was wrong.  They are not extra biblical.  So what is the issue now?


Read the definition. And you are intentionally being obtuse. Your argument to not wear head coverings is a modern cultural choice which you are excusing with an extra biblical idea. Even if you want to play the semantics game of claiming it is not extra biblical, it is a modern cultural choice which goes directly against a specific teaching in one of the two books you demand be the only method by which worship standards are valid.

----------


## moostraks

> You said that my arguments were extra biblical.  That was wrong.  They are not extra biblical.  So what is the issue now?


You said:




> Snake handlers do not have Scripture to back up what they are doing.  That is absurd.   You should never have a "balanced" approach to Scripture, you should have a Biblical approach to Scripture, meaning *the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, and a Christian should worship and believe how the Bible ALONE prescribes*.





> Right. * Where in the Bible does it say snakes are to be used in the worship service?  Is that in 1st Corinthians or 1st Timothy somewhere? * Those books have a lot to say about Christian worship.  Where does it mention snakes in those books?
> 
> *Here's a better question:  where does the Bible mention icons in the worship service? *





> Even if it was supported by the earliest texts and meant to be there, these morons use them in worship. *Where does the Bible say that snakes, or icons, or statues, or rock music, or anything like that is to be used in worship?   It doesn't.   You see, this is what is known as the regulative principle of worship.   It says that a Christian should worship in the way that Bible alone desribes, and in no other way*.





> *Cessationism or continualtionism are not specified verses that you find in the Bible*.   That's like asking "where is the verse in the Bible that says the Trinity exists".*  It's not there specifically,* rather it's a combination of several different propositions in Scripture.    There are all kinds of biblical arguments for cessationism.   Here's an article that goes through some of them:
> 
> http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-cessationism





> extrabiblical:
> The term 'extra-Biblical' can refer to two things:
> 
> Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture


http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical




> It is dishonest to use a term that is inaccurate and demand others accept the term just because one person feels entitled to lord over the debate and change language itself to suit their argument. It isn't honest discussion he is after though as actions speak louder than words.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You said:


Yes, I know what I said.  My argument is not extra-biblical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your argument to not wear head coverings is a modern cultural choice


No it is not.  I've already explained to you that it is not.




> which you are excusing with an extra biblical idea.


No I am not.  I have not used extra-biblical arguments.

----------


## jmdrake

> No it is not.  I've already explained to you that it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not.  I have not used extra-biblical arguments.


On the prayer covering argument you make the claim that it applies to women praying in tongues even though the Bible never says that.  And your rock music argument is just silly as rock music didn't exist back then.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> On the prayer covering argument you make the claim that it applies to women praying in tongues even though the Bible never says that.


Yes it does say that.  And that is not the only argument.




> And your rock music argument is just silly as rock music didn't exist back then.


That is not my argument...not even close.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it does say that.  And that is not the only argument.


No it doesn't.




> That is not my argument...not even close.


Actually that's right because you don't really have an argument.  But you started out with "Rock and roll isn't mentioned in the Bible" as if that fact is at all relevant when it isn't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually that's right because you don't really have an argument.  But you started out with "Rock and roll isn't mentioned in the Bible" as if that fact is at all relevant when it isn't.


I never said that and that was not my argument in any way.  After going back fourth, post by post, you still don't understand my argument.

----------


## moostraks

> No it is not.  I've already explained to you that it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not.  I have not used extra-biblical arguments.


You don't get to redefine words and expect others not to call you on it. Per the definition and your own description of the belief it is but that is irrelevant to the better part of the discussion which you are avoiding.

If the cessation argument applies as a long standing belief from Biblical understanding of Scripture then why are you misapplying it to allow a modern cultural behavior to corrupt the practice set forth specifically in I Corinthians which you command others must have as their only system for worship. 

Oh, and the EO or RCC left can argue icons with you but suffice it to say you need to put that sword down with regards to acting smug and righteous because they have just as much right to icons as you do your cessation belief.

----------


## jmdrake

> I never said that and that was not my argument in any way.  After going back fourth, post by post, you still don't understand my argument.


I would understand it if it existed.  It doesn't.

----------


## moostraks

> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's right because you don't really have an argument.  But you started out with "Rock and roll isn't mentioned in the Bible" as if that fact is at all relevant when it isn't.



Rules are good for thee but not for me in SF's world. That is why he doesn't cooperate with trivial matters like the definition of a term applying to his misappropriation of it. Smh.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would understand it if it existed.  It doesn't.


It's there a couple of pages back.  You just didn't understand it.

----------


## RJB

> I'm a metal head.


Awesome!  So am I.  We should hang out, man!   We'll party like it's 1555!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Awesome!  So am I.  We should hang out, man!   We'll party like it's 1555!


Who do you like?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Cessationsists don't deny that the Holy Spirit works and heals and operates in this world today in miraculous ways.  Although, the Bible does say that prophecy and tongues were a sign (and signs pass away).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both prophecy and tongues are simply a sign, and signs pass away. Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, and prophecy was sign to believers in the church. Both signs pass away. Tongues pass away because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Prophecy passes away because now the Spirit's words are in written form.
> 
> But both are importantly designated as signs, not normative prescriptions for the church today.


My intent wasn't to argue for my position here.  My point was to ask if you considered it heretical.

----------


## jmdrake

> Awesome!  So am I.  We should hang out, man!   We'll party like it's 1555!


LOL

----------


## jmdrake

> It's there a couple of pages back.  You just didn't understand it.


You made some statements but no argument.  You never said "The reason rock and roll should not be part of worship is because X."  All I got was you agreeing with Theorcrat posting a rap video about the why don't we sing Psalms in church.  Cool!  But that begs the question "What about rock and roll psalms?"  Pete hit the nail on the head when he posted a mashup of "The House of the Rising Sun / Amazing Grace."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You made some statements but no argument.  You never said "The reason rock and roll should not be part of worship is because X."  All I got was you agreeing with Theorcrat posting a rap video about the why don't we sing Psalms in church.  Cool!  But that begs the question "What about rock and roll psalms?"  Pete hit the nail on the head when he posted a mashup of "The House of the Rising Sun / Amazing Grace."


When the New Testament says that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be sung in the public worship, does it mention musical instruments?

----------


## jmdrake

> When the New Testament says that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be sung in the public worship, does it mention musical instruments?


As I have already pointed out, you have can rock and roll without musical instruments.   You can also have musical instruments without having rock and roll.  Fail.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As I have already pointed out, you have can rock and roll without musical instruments.   You can also have musical instruments without having rock and roll.  Fail.


Fail?  OK jmdrake.  Good night sir.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When the New Testament says that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be sung in the public worship, does it mention musical instruments?


I disagree with the regulative principle.  I don't think that its sinful to use instruments just because God doesn't mention them (IIRC instruments are mentioned in the book of psalms, but that's a side issue.)  I think taking the position you're taking is somewhat legalistic.

----------


## Ender

> When the New Testament says that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be sung in the public worship, does it mention musical instruments?


Dude, the voice is a musical instrument. There is nothing evil or unChristlike about musical instruments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Dude, the voice is a musical instrument. There is nothing evil or unChristlike about musical instruments.


Instruments are ..."evil"?  Where did anyone say that?  Tell me where a person said that and I will show them in Scripture where they are wrong.  We are talking about what the New Testament prescribes about public worship.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63

----------


## Ender

John 3:16 & 17

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 

17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.…

----------


## Ender

> Instruments are ..."evil"?  Where did anyone say that?  Tell me where a person said that and I will show them in Scripture where they are wrong.  We are talking about what the New Testament prescribes about public worship.
> 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63


The New Testament mentions singing? THAT is a musical instrument.

----------


## otherone

> When the New Testament says that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be sung in the public worship, does it mention musical instruments?


How is this not Pharisaical?

----------


## jmdrake

> Instruments are ..."evil"?  Where did anyone say that?  Tell me where a person said that and I will show them in Scripture where they are wrong.  We are talking about what the New Testament prescribes about public worship.
> 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63


_Revelation 15:2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass glowing with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and its image and over the number of its name. They held harps given them by God._

----------


## moostraks

Still waiting for SF to explain his decision to allow a modern cultural phenomena to usurp the authority of the worship practice of women with headcoverings...

----------


## moostraks

> Still waiting for SF to explain his decision to allow a modern cultural phenomena to usurp the authority of the worship practice of women with headcoverings...


Still waiting...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Still waiting...


No one has ever said in this thread that modern culture is what determines our practice.  That is what you (I think intentionally now) have accused me of saying.  But I gave you a few links and my own arguments from the Bible that describe my view.  

If anyone here says that modern culture determines our worship, show me who that person is and I will tell them how they are wrong.

----------


## otherone

> show me who that person is and I will tell them how they are wrong.


Nice to know one's purpose in life.

----------


## moostraks

> No one has ever said in this thread that modern culture is what determines our practice.  That is what you (I think intentionally now) have accused me of saying.  But I gave you a few links and my own arguments from the Bible that describe my view.  
> 
> If anyone here says that modern culture determines our worship, show me who that person is and I will tell them how they are wrong.


You have offered no evidence as to why your modern tradition trumps the evidence of the use and authority of the headship veil. Yet, you pontificate as to the validity of other's faith upon the same basis. See:icons, worship practices, snake handling

Now I am not questioning the validity of your faith but the hypocrisy of the standards you impose upon others to justify themselves in the face of your arbitrarily applied rules. So, why are you allowed to apply an argument for the modern practice, according to culture, of no veil for women whilst others must comply with your standards for other practices? 

What evidence have you to rebut the numerous historical quotes which show the headship veil has been a practice within the numerous churches such that the argument you are applying either does not apply to the veil or it is itself a modern invention? Or is it that you are uniquely qualified to justify your modern cultural practices but others are not so allowed?

----------


## moostraks

> My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.





> Hard to say.  I usually create threads in the theology forum to create division.  Division is_ good_.  Most of us wouldn't be libertarians today if someone didn't create a division in us when we were conservatives (or liberals).  Divisions determine truth.


~~~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ~~~


What do you see as the problem there?  Division invites discussion.  And I think we have had very civil discussions here lately.  In fact, I would like to commend everyone in the religion forum for their civility lately because so many good discussions have come about.

----------


## moostraks

> What do you see as the problem there?  Division invites discussion.  And I think we have had very civil discussions here lately.  In fact, I would like to commend everyone in the religion forum for their civility lately because so many good discussions have come about.


To someone who is constantly sowing seeds of confusion, I am sure you fail to see a conflict. Maybe you should have considered not adding "that is all"? It was not all, as you managed to be forthcoming enough to state today.

As for your pious compliments, I disagree with the so called civility you seem to be proclaiming. People who manipulate without apology through use of the rep system even after explanation of the discomfort they are causing, are rude and lack basic courtesy. Proclaiming knowledge as to the status of a relationship one is not a party is not only presumptuous but rude and discourteous.




> Hard to say.  I usually create threads in the theology forum to create division.  Division is_ good_.  Most of us wouldn't be libertarians today if someone didn't create a division in us when we were conservatives (or liberals).  Divisions determine truth.


Jude 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.

A Call to Persevere
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions. 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

Proverbs 6:16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.

Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. 

Galatians 5:17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
~~~

Am sure you were just about to get to a coherent explanation on your double standard on the headship veil...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To someone who is constantly sowing seeds of confusion, I am sure you fail to see a conflict. Maybe you should have considered not adding "that is all"? It was not all, as you managed to be forthcoming enough to state today.
> 
> As for your pious compliments, I disagree with the so called civility you seem to be proclaiming. People who manipulate without apology through use of the rep system even after explanation of the discomfort they are causing, are rude and lack basic courtesy. Proclaiming knowledge as to the status of a relationship one is not a party is not only presumptuous but rude and discourteous.
> 
> Am sure you were just about to get to a coherent explanation on your double standard on the headship veil...


The "double standard" is in your own head.  You tried to say that I was using "modern standards", but in several posts I explained my arguments from the Bible.

By the way, I appreciate all of the good dialogue we have been having lately and I thank you for contributing to these threads.

----------


## moostraks

> The "double standard" is in your own head.  You tried to say that I was using "modern standards", but in several posts I explained my arguments from the Bible.
> 
> By the way, I appreciate all of the good dialogue we have been having lately and I thank you for contributing to these threads.


 This is a modern cultural practice. I proved proof of its usage through the numerous sects. Proof that the usage of veil ceased would be? Not what your church is using to excuse it but evidence this has been the practice to NOT veil. Still waiting...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is a modern cultural practice. I proved proof of its usage through the numerous sects. Proof that the usage of veil ceased would be? Not what your church is using to excuse it but evidence this has been the practice to NOT veil. Still waiting...


I don't care what is or is not a modern practice.  That consideration has not entered into my mind.  If you would like to deal with my _Biblical arguments_, I would really like that.  They are a few pages back.  Thanks

----------


## moostraks

> I don't care what is or is not a modern practice.  That consideration has not entered into my mind.  If you would like to deal with my _Biblical arguments_, I would really like that.  They are a few pages back.  Thanks


If it was biblical then there would be some historical evidence of the practice instead of the historical evidence which indicates that not veiling is a modern cultural phenomenon. Now, if you would like to show evidence of this practice of not veiling such as I have provided to the extensive practice of veiling through the ages, go ahead. I am waiting. 

So far your "evidence" has been some long winded sermon by random guy to a concept which even were it true for the purpose of veiling, it would been evidenced in some manner historically. So your evidence of this practice of not veiling historically and not being a modern cultural phenomenon is??? Thanks 

(At least the snake handlers stand on explicit Scriptures and not some extra biblical concept)

----------


## Sola_Fide

11,000 views and 907 responses...

And only one person (Erowe1) dealt with the text of the verse in the OP.

----------


## acptulsa

> 11,000 views and 907 responses...
> 
> And only one person (Erowe1) dealt with the text of the verse in the OP.


Those verses have been chewed up one side and down the other.  And the main thing you had to say about the verses you quoted was, don't look at the whole thing, take this particular verse out of context!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Those verses have been chewed up one side and down the other.  And the main thing you had to say about the verses you quoted was, don't look at the whole thing, take this particular verse out of context!


I didn't take anything out of context.  The context of the verse is that Jesus is the stumbling block that those predestined to disobedience stumble over.  On the other hand, the elect who were predestined to glory are justified by Him.

----------


## acptulsa

> I didn't take anything out of context.  The context of the verse is that Jesus is the stumbling block that those predestined to disobedience stumble over.  On the other hand, the elect who were predestined to glory are justified by Him.


If you mean, 'Only one person parroted what I think of the text in the OP,' then don't say, 'Only one person dealt with the text in the OP.'

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you mean, 'Only one person parroted what I think of the text in the OP,' then don't say, 'Only one person dealt with the text in the OP.'


No one else dealt with it.  To deal with a verse, you usually quote it and explain it.  Usually you take apart the sentence, possibly using the Greek for greater understanding.

The only person to do this in this thread was Erowe1 in post 678:




> That is not a possible way to read the passage.
> 
> Logos (word) is a masculine noun. Ho (which) is a neuter relative pronoun. Since it's neuter, logos cannot be its antecedent. It looks to me like the only thing that can be its antecedent is the whole clause ("falling they disobey the word"), since neuter pronouns are often used that way. 
> 
> So, yes, it is saying that they were appointed to disobedience.

----------


## acptulsa

So your idea of 'dealing with' Bible verses is making them all Greek to people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So your idea of 'dealing with' Bible verses is making them all Greek to people.


Hey!  Another snippy one-liner.  But behind your sorry attempt at humor is the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek.  If you don't understand this and make no attempt to understand the Bible in light of it's Greek foundation, then it's no wonder you are so confused.

----------


## acptulsa

> Hey!  Another snippy one-liner.  But behind your sorry attempt at humor is the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek.  If you don't understand this and make no attempt to understand the Bible in light of it's Greek foundation, then it's no wonder you are so confused.


Says the guy who abandons the closest English translation to the ancient Greek--the King James--for the questionable accuracy of the NIV and their ilk for the sake of easy reading.

The practice of keeping the Bible in a dead language that precious few people are fluent in is a proven tactic though, for people who want to keep other people far removed from the Word of God.  The medieval Catholic Church was certainly fond of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Says the guy who abandons the closest English translation to the ancient Greek--the King James--for the questionable accuracy of the NIV and their ilk for the sake of easy reading.
> 
> The practice of keeping the Bible in a dead language that precious few people are fluent in is a proven tactic though, for people who want to keep other people far removed from the Word of God.  The medieval Catholic Church was certainly fond of it.


The KJV is not the closest to the Greek.  That's just ridiculous.  Not even KJV only advocates say that.  But anyway, here is the verse form the KJV:




> 1 Peter 2:6-10
> 
> 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
> 
> *7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
> 
> 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
> *
> 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;


So, there you go.  The disobedient ones who stumble over the Word were "also appointed".

What was your point again?

----------


## acptulsa

> The KJV is not the closest to the Greek.  That's just ridiculous.  Not even KJV only advocates say that.  But anyway, here is the verse form the KJV:


So, subsequent rewrites are closer to the archaic text than the very first serious attempt to translate it into English directly from that archaic text.  Interesting.




> So, there you go.  The disobedient ones who stumble over the Word were "also appointed".
> 
> What was your point again?


It was way, way, way back on Page 9.  And all the lame attempts to pretend we wake up in a new world every day can't change that.

If you want a repeat of Page 9 on Page 31, then cut Page 9 and paste it to Page 31.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, subsequent rewrites are closer to the archaic text than the very first serious attempt to translate it into English directly from that archaic text.  Interesting.


I don't even know what you mean to say here.  Could you elaborate?  Do you not know that the New Testament is the most well-attested ancient text in the history of the world?  Maybe not...





> It was way, way, way back on Page 9.  And all the lame attempts to pretend we wake up in a new world every day can't change that.


Could you post it or talk about it?  Thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Gunny said man was given the gift of freewill.  Do you agree with that or not?


Atheist:  There is no God and I am free

Arminian/Roman Catholic:  There is a God and I am free

Christian:  There is a God and I am a _slave_ in need of a savior




> *John 8:34
> 
> Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But to disobeying ones, He is the Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner, and a Stone-of-stumbling, 
> 
> and a Rock-of-offense to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, *to which they were also appointed.* 
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10


Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.

The Bible teaches that all men are predestined to either salvation or reprobation.

----------


## Dr. Dog

Sola, do you agree with this statement by St. Augustine on predestination?

"Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (Persever 14:35)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, do you agree with this statement by St. Augustine on predestination?
> 
> "Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (Persever 14:35)


No I don't.   Predestination absolutely IS something other than that.  Predestination is also the appointing of men to stumble over the Word and be damned, like the verse I mentioned says.

----------


## Dr. Dog

> No I don't.   Predestination absolutely IS something other than that.  Predestination is also the appointing of men to stumble over the Word and be damned, like the verse I mentioned says.


Thanks for the answer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thanks for the answer.


Does this verse not say that the disobedient ones were destined to be disobedient? 




> Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
> 
> “The stone the builders rejected
> ****has become the cornerstone,”
> 
> 8*and,
> 
> “A stone that causes people to stumble
> ****and a rock that makes them fall.”
> ...


How can the Bible be any more clear?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Not only are the chosen ones an "elect race", but the ones being disobedient were "appointed" as well.
> 
> The Bible teaches that all men are predestined to either salvation or reprobation.


I'm enjoying a couple of books by Homer Hoeksema on this subject.   

I'm just getting to the chapter on divine predestination, from the viewpoint of God's righteousness, the question is asked, "Can God be charge with injustice in election and reprobation?"

The book contains 800+ pages to answer that question.

----------

