# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Have we been perfected and do we have eternal security in this life?

## Terry1

No, we have not been perfected yet.  Eternal security is a future event based upon how we live our lives today and every day until the end of our lives.  We can rest in the assurance of our salvation as long as we continually abide in Christ to the very end of our lives.

Yes--God is patient as we stumble--as we grow in Faith.  The whole point of the test of faith in this life is *never giving up*.  We can stumble from the point of belief to the very end of our lives, while getting up and beginning again every day in the knowledge that we've been forgiven through our repentance of those thing that cause us to stumble.  At some point, we are called to be "overcomers" through our faith.  Overcoming that part of our lives that's causing us to stumble in faith.  This is how we grow in faith.  This is why Jesus said that "only the overcomers will He confess before the Father in Heaven. Revelation 3:5

Are we perfected yet---no, but we are perfect as long as we abide in Christ because we're still living in a state of human flesh and blood that wars with the Spirit and causes us to be tempted while in the state of human flesh.  We will always be susceptible to sin as long as we live in these bodies of flesh and bone.  This is why we are *CALLED* to continually abide in the Spirit of Christ the Lord.  As long as we do this, sin is held at bay and we are covered by the blood of the Lord.  

We are perfected once our physical bodies die and are resurrected to eternal life in Christ.  Jesus wasn't even perfected until the third day of His resurrection and neither can anyone be until they die the first death and resurrected to eternal life in the next life.

Until we die the first death and are perfected---no one has "eternal security", but we are given the promise and the hope that as long as we abide in Christ we will obtain the promise of eternal life.

This is what Paul is saying here:

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore *I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation* which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

And here:

*2 Timothy 4:
6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand.  7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.  8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.*

Nowhere in the NT does Paul give absolute assurance of his salvation until hours before his death.  This is because he knew at this point--he was ready, he'd fought the good fight---he'd kept the faith--*FINALLY* he says---he knows he has his crown of righteousness.

----------


## Brett85

I see what you're saying, and it does seem like the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of absolute eternal security.  But, it doesn't really seem very fun and pleasant to go through life basically walking on eggshells, worrying about losing your salvation every time you sin.  It almost seems like it would be better to be an animal, to just do whatever you want in this life and just live life, not having to worry about experiencing pain in the next life, or missing out on certain rewards.  That might be kind of a strange thought, but that's just what came to mind.  At least animals don't have to worry about anything.

----------


## Terry1

> I see what you're saying, and it does seem like the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of absolute eternal security.  But, it doesn't really seem very fun and pleasant to go through life basically walking on eggshells, worrying about losing your salvation every time you sin.  It almost seems like it would be better to be an animal, to just do whatever you want in this life and just live life, not having to worry about experiencing pain in the next life, or missing out on certain rewards.  That might be kind of a strange thought, but that's just what came to mind.  At least animals don't have to worry about anything.


Any good parent teaches their children through fear and love both what they should and shouldn't be doing.  God is patient with His children, He knows our hearts.  Some may go astray for a while and then return.  It's only those who don't return and there are some that do this as we've seen people in this very forum claim that they've been a part of the church, came into the knowledge and then went their own ways.  Some will return and some won't.  Only God knows who they are.

This is why Paul tells us along with the other Apostles to walk in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit---fearing only what God can do and no other.  We're instructed in this way because God loves His children and wants them to understand that there are consequences for our behavior and the way we live in this life---not much different than a good parent who loves their own children.  As long as we try to live and abide in Christ--our efforts to do so are seen by God, He knows our weaknesses and our strengths and tells us we will never be tempted beyond what we're able to bear or handle.


*Acts 9:31
31 Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.*

----------


## Nang

> We are perfected once our physical bodies die and are resurrected to eternal life in Christ.  Jesus wasn't even perfected until the third day of His resurrection and neither can anyone be until they die the first death and resurrected to eternal life in the next life.


Whoa!

Jesus Christ never experienced a process of perfectionism, for He was always without sin. 

There are several reasons why Jesus resurrected after the third day in the tomb, but this is not one of them.

This is a serious Christological error that must be corrected, for your sake and others.

----------


## Nang

> I see what you're saying, and it does seem like the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of absolute eternal security.  But, it doesn't really seem very fun and pleasant to go through life basically walking on eggshells, worrying about losing your salvation every time you sin.  It almost seems like it would be better to be an animal, to just do whatever you want in this life and just live life, not having to worry about experiencing pain in the next life, or missing out on certain rewards.  That might be kind of a strange thought, but that's just what came to mind.  At least animals don't have to worry about anything.


Jesus Christ is the Surety for our redemption and inheritance of everlasting life.  Christians persevere through life without worry of losing their standing in grace with God, because it is God Himself who preserves them.  

The Father has eternally decreed our inheritance; the Son has made us fit to inherit ; and the Holy Spirit guarantees us our inheritance.

All of the promises from God of everlasting life for those who have faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, are established and kept because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ . . . not ours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Whoa!
> 
> Jesus Christ never experienced a process of perfectionism, for He was always without sin. 
> 
> There are several reasons why Jesus resurrected after the third day in the tomb, but this is not one of them.
> 
> This is a serious Christological error that must be corrected, for your sake and others.



Exactly.  When Jesus speaks of being "perfected", it is in the sense of accomplishing His mission, or ending His mission.  

Terry1 googles words in the Bible, strings them together, and act like she knows what she's talking about.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus Christ is the Surety for our redemption and inheritance of everlasting life.  Christians persevere through life without worry of losing their standing in grace with God, because it is God Himself who preserves them.  
> 
> The Father has eternally decreed our inheritance; the Son has made us fit to inherit ; and the Holy Spirit guarantees us our inheritance.
> 
> *All of the promises from God of everlasting life for those who have faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, are established and kept because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ . . . not ours.*


Absolutely.  And the righteousness of Christ alone is the only assurance possible.

----------


## Terry1

> Whoa!
> 
> Jesus Christ never experienced a process of perfectionism, for He was always without sin. 
> 
> There are several reasons why Jesus resurrected after the third day in the tomb, but this is not one of them.
> 
> This is a serious Christological error that must be corrected, for your sake and others.


And you are WRONG.  Jesus Himself being in a tent of human flesh and bone could not be perfected until after His death and resurrection.  The flesh can not possibly be perfected in this life.  We are perfect through the blood of Christ while in a tent of human flesh---but we are not "perfected" until after the death of this life.

*Luke 13:32

32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.*

----------


## Brett85

> Jesus Christ is the Surety for our redemption and inheritance of everlasting life.  Christians persevere through life without worry of losing their standing in grace with God, because it is God Himself who preserves them.  
> 
> The Father has eternally decreed our inheritance; the Son has made us fit to inherit ; and the Holy Spirit guarantees us our inheritance.
> 
> All of the promises from God of everlasting life for those who have faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, are established and kept because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ . . . not ours.


It seems like Paul was concerned that he could lose his salvation, even though he had converted so many people to Christ.

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain in it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others *I myself should be disqualified.*" (1 Corinthians 9:24-27 RSV)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you are WRONG.  Jesus Himself being in a tent of human flesh and bone could not be perfected until after His death and resurrection.  The flesh can not possibly be perfected in this life.  We are perfect through the blood of Christ while in a tent of human flesh---but we are not "perfected" until after the death of this life.
> 
> *Luke 13:32
> 
> 32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.*


You are an idiot who flies off at the mouth and does damage to the Word of God. 

If you in ANY way propose that Jesus was not perfectly sinless from birth, then you might as well not even pretend to be a Christian anymore.  

I said (which you don't understand) is that "perfected" in the sense that Jesus was talking about _there is the completion of His mission on earth_.  It has nothing to do with his nature.

----------


## Nang

> It seems like Paul was concerned that he could lose his salvation, even though he had converted so many people to Christ.
> 
> "Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain in it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it,* lest after preaching to others* *I myself should be disqualified.*" (1 Corinthians 9:24-27 RSV)


Paul also penned Ephesians 1:11-14; II Corinthians 1:21, 5:5 . . .

What Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 9:24-27, is his witness that validates his preaching; it has nothing to do with his salvation.

To paraphrase:  "A Christian should practice what they preach."

----------


## Terry1

> Absolutely.  And the righteousness of Christ alone is the only assurance possible.


You are hanging onto belief by a thread and a thumbnail grip and will never understand where you are wrong until you let go of these preconceived teachings of false teachers.  I will never go as far to say that you are not eligible for salvation, but your belief is placing you and those like you in the danger zone because by your belief, no one needs to constantly repent of sin as Gods word instructs us.  You are living a very dangerous belief that could very well take you down a path you don't want to travel if you don't wake up.

----------


## Terry1

> Paul also penned Ephesians 1:11-14; II Corinthians 1:21, 5:5 . . .
> 
> What Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 9:24-27, is his witness that validates his preaching; it has nothing to do with his salvation.
> 
> To paraphrase:  "A Christian should practice what they preach."


Did you NOT SEE the scripture I just posted that proved you wrong?  Why aren't you acknowledging Luke 13:32?  You are blinded and as blind as Sola.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you are WRONG.  Jesus Himself being in a tent of human flesh and bone could not be perfected until after His death and resurrection.  The flesh can not possibly be perfected in this life.  We are perfect through the blood of Christ while in a tent of human flesh---but we are not "perfected" until after the death of this life.



Wrong.

Christians are perfected (past tense) by the sacrifice of Christ:




> *Hebrews 10:12-14 
> 
> But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*

----------


## Terry1

> You are an idiot who flies off at the mouth and does damage to the Word of God. 
> 
> If you in ANY way propose that Jesus was not perfectly sinless from birth, then you might as well not even pretend to be a Christian anymore.  
> 
> I said (which you don't understand) is that "perfected" in the sense that Jesus was talking about _there is the completion of His mission on earth_.  It has nothing to do with his nature.


Ah---personal attacks coming from you now Sola---I see you have an empty quiver as usual.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did you NOT SEE the scripture I just posted that proved you wrong?  Why aren't you acknowledging Luke 13:32?  You are blinded and as blind as Sola.


No Terry, _you_ did not see the verse, because you attach an unbiblical meaning to the words of Jesus.  "Perfected" there did not mean anything about Jesus' nature...it referred to His mission on earth.

----------


## Terry1

> Wrong.
> 
> Christians are perfected (past tense) by the sacrifice of Christ:


We are perfect as long as we abide in Christ while in the state of flesh and bone.  If Jesus couldn't be perfected until the day of His resurrection, what causes you to believe it's possible for you?  The flesh can not be *perfected* in this life.  We can only be *perfect* spiritually as long as we abide in Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you are WRONG.  Jesus Himself being in a tent of human flesh and bone could not be perfected until after His death and resurrection.  The flesh can not possibly be perfected in this life.  We are perfect through the blood of Christ while in a tent of human flesh---but we are not "perfected" until after the death of this life.



Wrong.

Christians are perfected (past tense) by the sacrifice of Christ:



> *Hebrews 10:12-14 
> 
> But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*

----------


## Brett85

> Paul also penned Ephesians 1:11-14; II Corinthians 1:21, 5:5 . . .
> 
> What Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 9:24-27, is his witness that validates his preaching; it has nothing to do with his salvation.
> 
> To paraphrase:  "A Christian should practice what they preach."


How can it have nothing to do with his salvation when he talks about being "disqualified from the race" where the winners will receive a crown that will last forever?

----------


## Terry1

> No Terry, _you_ did not see the verse, because you attach an unbiblical meaning to the words of Jesus.  "Perfected" there did not mean anything about Jesus' nature...it referred to His mission on earth.


You are sorely confused and wrong along with being blinded by your own pride to let go of what you think you know.  You are wrong Sola---and your little friend too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We are perfect as long as we abide in Christ while in the state of flesh and bone.  If Jesus couldn't be perfected until the day of His resurrection, what causes you to believe it's possible for you?  The flesh can not be *perfected* in this life.  We can only be *perfect* spiritually as long as we abide in Christ.


What do you not understand about this verse?




> *Hebrews 10:14 
> 
>  For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


For by one sacrifice (past tense) He has made PERFECT FOREVER those who are being made holy.

You do not believe what we believe.  You are not a Christian.

----------


## Nang

> And you are WRONG.  Jesus Himself being in a tent of human flesh and bone could not be perfected until after His death and resurrection.  The flesh can not possibly be perfected in this life.  We are perfect through the blood of Christ while in a tent of human flesh---but we are not "perfected" until after the death of this life.
> 
> *Luke 13:32
> 
> 32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.*



The Greek word used in this verse is "teleioo" which has been translated to describe Christ's finished achievements.  This speaks of Christ's works performed as Mediator, which only the sinless God/Man Jesus could accomplish.  I Timothy 2:5

For the sake of others, be careful of what you post.  Your error here is heretical (Arianism) and could lead others astray and cause them anguish of soul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Greek word used in this verse is "teleioo" which has been translated to describe Christ's finished achievements.  This speaks of Christ's works performed as Mediator, which only the sinless God/Man Jesus could accomplish.  I Timothy 2:5
> 
> For the sake of others, be careful of what you post.  Your error here is heretical (Arianism) and could lead others astray and cause them anguish of soul.


Thank you for your Biblical response, Nang.  Sadly, I cannot give you any more rep.

----------


## Brett85

> You do not believe what we believe.  You are not a Christian.


You're absolutely an arrogant, egotistical, selfish jerk who has absolutely no respect at all for other people.

----------


## erowe1

> I see what you're saying, and it does seem like the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of absolute eternal security.


How can you read this and think that there is any room left for someone who was predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, and subsequently justified, not to end up glorified?




> 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

----------


## Brett85

> How can you read this and think that there is any room left for someone who was predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, and subsequently justified, not to end up glorified?


I'm not sure how to interpret that, but it just seems to me that for every verse that appears to teach eternal security, there are 10 verses which teach that you can fall away from God and lose your salvation.  There are also countless examples of people who were Christians and went to church their entire lives, and then turned away from the faith and became unbelievers.

----------


## Nang

> You're absolutely an arrogant, egotistical, selfish jerk who has absolutely no respect at all for other people.



Persons who trample over the Word of God and teach heresy, do not deserve respect.

Terry is inferring Jesus was a sinner; thereby denying His Deity, which is anti-christian, and I for one will not encourage any anti-christ.

----------


## Terry1

> The Greek word used in this verse is "teleioo" which has been translated to describe Christ's finished achievements.  This speaks of Christ's works performed as Mediator, which only the sinless God/Man Jesus could accomplish.  I Timothy 2:5
> 
> For the sake of others, be careful of what you post.  Your error here is heretical (Arianism) and could lead others astray and cause them anguish of soul.


No it's not---it's speaking of Christ's transformation from the flesh to the Spirit as in "totally perfected".  No one is totally perfected in this life while in a state of human flesh. We can only be perfect as long as we abide in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 God can not and does not honor flesh and blood, nor can the flesh inherit the kingdom of heaven.  The only way anyone can inherit the kingdom of heaven is through the transformation of the first death into the Spirit.   All scripture supports this.

----------


## Terry1

> Persons who trample over the Word of God and teach heresy, do not deserve respect.
> 
> Terry is inferring Jesus was a sinner; thereby denying His Deity, which is anti-christian, and I for one will not encourage any anti-christ.


The sword cuts both ways--it's not I, but you who are doing what you have accused me of.

----------


## Nang

> No it's not---it's speaking of Christ's transformation from the flesh to the Spirit as in "totally perfected".  No one is totally perfected in this life while in a state of human flesh. We can only be perfect as long as we abide in Christ and the Holy Spirit.
> 
>  God can not and does not honor flesh and blood, nor can the flesh inherit the kingdom of heaven.  The only way anyone can inherit the kingdom of heaven is through the transformation of the first death into the Spirit.   All scripture supports this.


God honored the sacrifice of Jesus Christ's *SINLESS* flesh and blood, for it was substitutionally offered up on behalf of His elect children, for the propitiation of their sins.  If Jesus was less than perfect, He would have only been a human martyr, and His sacrifice would have been an abomination in the eyes of God . . . and none of us would have a *SAVIOR* at all.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure how to interpret that, but it just seems to me that for every verse that appears to teach eternal security, there are 10 verses which teach that you can fall away from God and lose your salvation.  There are also countless examples of people who were Christians and went to church their entire lives, and then turned away from the faith and became unbelievers.


I don't know of any verses at all that say that anyone who has been justified can not end up glorified.

But there we have a clear promise that all people who have been justified without exception will be glorified. And it's not just a verse out of context. That assurance of glorification is the whole point of Romans chapter 8. A similar argument is made in Romans 5:1-11.

The Bible does show us that both of the following are possible:
1) People who lack true saving faith can align themselves with the church and appear to be Christians, and even think they are Christians, and then later show their true colors by departing from that. The book of Hebrews has several warnings against such people.
2) People who have true saving faith can backslide and even appear to be an unbeliever to another observer who doesn't have the insight into their heart that God has.

Given both of those possibilities, we're never able to say that someone has actually been justified in God's sight and then will not end up being glorified.

I suspect that when you give your 1:10 ratio (and where did that number come from anyway?), that you're counting verses that don't actually say anything about genuinely saved people losing salvation with the kind of unmistakable clarity of the promises we have like the one I copied from Romans 8:28-30 that guarantee that all people who have ever been justified will end up glorified.

----------


## Brett85

> Persons who trample over the Word of God and teach heresy, do not deserve respect.
> 
> Terry is inferring Jesus was a sinner; thereby denying His Deity, which is anti-christian, and I for one will not encourage any anti-christ.


I don't think that's what he's saying.  Either way, Sola Fide constantly demeans and persecutes believers.  He's an extremely arrogant person.  He constantly tells self described Christians that they aren't Christians, even though that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  This isn't a thread about whether Arminians are Christians.  He just constantly brings that up and attacks people, when that has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

----------


## Deborah K

2 Timothy 2:23 recommends that we steer clear of foolish arguments that lead people into the sin of anger. 24-26 state we should not be quarrelsome but should be humble, patient teachers of those who are wrong. And that if we are courteous and gentle, with God's help, they may come around.

----------


## Terry1

> God honored the sacrifice of Jesus Christ's *SINLESS* flesh and blood, for it was substitutionally offered up on behalf of His elect children, for the propitiation of their sins.  If Jesus was less than perfect, He would have only been a human martyr, and His sacrifice would have been an abomination in the eyes of God . . . and none of us would have a *SAVIOR* at all.


Even the flesh of Jesus was not "sinless", what was the purpose of Jesus being tested for forty days and nights then?  Was this all for show?  Jesus was certainly susceptible to sin and temptation, otherwise He would not have been tested and there would have been no reason for Jesus to prove that temptation can be overcome while still in the flesh.  His life in the flesh was a pure example of what we can do and are capable of as long as we abide in Him spiritually.

*Matthew 4:1-11*

----------


## Brett85

> I don't know of any verses at all that say that anyone who has been justified can not end up glorified.
> 
> But there we have a clear promise that all people who have been justified without exception will be glorified. And it's not just a verse out of context. That assurance of glorification is the whole point of Romans chapter 8. A similar argument is made in Romans 5:1-11.
> 
> The Bible does show us that both of the following are possible:
> 1) People who lack true saving faith can align themselves with the church and appear to be Christians, and even think they are Christians, and then later show their true colors by departing from that. The book of Hebrews has several warnings against such people.
> 2) People who have true saving faith can backslide and even appear to be an unbeliever to another observer who doesn't have the insight into their heart that God has.
> 
> Given both of those possibilities, we're never able to say that someone has actually been justified in God's sight and then will not end up being glorified.
> ...


Would you say that Paul was a saved person?  He said in the verse that I quoted from earlier that even he was concerned about backsliding and being "disqualified from the race," even though he had brought other people to Christ.

And really, if you say that someone who's living a completely sinful life wasn't a Christian to begin with, then rather than someone who believes they're a Christian being worried about losing their salvation, they just have to worry about the possibility that they weren't ever really saved to begin with.  So there really isn't much of a difference regarding whether someone can be "secure" or not about their salvation.

----------


## Brett85

> 2 Timothy 2:23 recommends that we steer clear of foolish arguments that lead people into the sin of anger. 24-26 state we should not be quarrelsome but should be humble, patient teachers of those who are wrong. And that if we are courteous and gentle, with God's help, they may come around.


That verse doesn't appear in Sola Fide's Bible.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't think that's what he's saying.  Either way, Sola Fide constantly demeans and persecutes believers.  He's an extremely arrogant person.  He constantly tells self described Christians that they aren't Christians, even though that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  This isn't a thread about whether Arminians are Christians.  He just constantly brings that up and attacks people, when that has nothing at all to do with the discussion.


The reason Sola attacks the person is because he has nothing else, which is obvious.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're absolutely an arrogant, egotistical, selfish jerk who has absolutely no respect at all for other people.


Hold on a minute.  Someone can say Jesus sinned and still be a Christian?  Really?

If that's not a damnable heresy, I don't know  what is.  We might as well start going to Mormon churches, after all, they claim to be Christians, so who are we to say any different?  

With regards to the losing your salvation thing, it seems to me that Paul is talking about losing rewards in heaven (remember how we discussed that Christians will be rewarded for their good works in heaven) not loss of salvation.

----------


## Deborah K

> Even the flesh of Jesus was not "sinless", what was the purpose of Jesus being tested for forty days and nights then?  Was this all for show?  Jesus was certainly susceptible to sin and temptation, otherwise He would not have been tested and there would have been no reason for Jesus to prove that temptation can be overcome while still in the flesh.  His life in the flesh was a pure example of what we can do and are capable of as long as we abide in Him spiritually.
> 
> *Matthew 4:1-11*


And why was Jesus baptized?

----------


## Nang

> I don't think that's what he's saying.  Either way, Sola Fide constantly demeans and persecutes believers.  He's an extremely arrogant person.  He constantly tells self described Christians that they aren't Christians, even though that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  This isn't a thread about whether Arminians are Christians.  He just constantly brings that up and attacks people, when that has nothing at all to do with the discussion.



All I can say TC, is you should not give heed to_ anyone_ who denies the sinless humanity OR the deity of the One Mediator between God and men; the God/Man Jesus Christ.

Any person who attempts to denigrate the Person of Jesus Christ in either way, is caught up in heresy and lies.

----------


## Brett85

> Hold on a minute.  Someone can say Jesus sinned and still be a Christian?  Really?


For one thing, what he said and constantly says has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  He just constantly throws that around in order to insult people.

----------


## erowe1

> Would you say that Paul was a saved person?  He said in the verse that I quoted from earlier that even he was concerned about backsliding and being "disqualified from the race," even though he had brought other people to Christ.


Yes he was saved.

That verse is a great example of what I was talking about, where in order to support what you said you have to resort to verses that don't even come close to clearly teaching a loss of salvation. I don't know how you can jump from that statement about being disqualified to the possibility of God breaking his promise of future glorification for Paul.

It looks to me like he's talking about rewards for his ministry as an apostle, not salvation itself. Compare that with these other pauline passages:



> 1 Corinthians 3:5-15
> 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
> 
> 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.





> Philippians 4:1
>  Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved.





> 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
> 19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

----------


## Brett85

> All I can say TC, is you should not give heed to_ anyone_ who denies the sinless humanity OR the deity of the One Mediator between God and men; the God/Man Jesus Christ.
> 
> Any person who attempts to denigrate the Person of Jesus Christ in either way, is caught up in heresy and lies.


I'm not sure if you're understanding what she's saying.  I don't think she's saying that Jesus actually sinned when he was here on earth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

[QUOTE=Traditional Conservative;5444778]It seems like Paul was concerned that he could lose his salvation, even though he had converted so many people to Christ.




> I don't think that's what he's saying.  Either way, Sola Fide constantly demeans and persecutes believers.  He's an extremely arrogant person.  He constantly tells self described Christians that they aren't Christians, even though that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  This isn't a thread about whether Arminians are Christians.  He just constantly brings that up and attacks people, when that has nothing at all to do with the discussion.


Terry1 flat out said that.  he was very clearly saying it.  I don't see how his meaning can really be disputed.

Whether or not Arminians are Christians has been discussed several times here on these forums, so I can see why you'd suggest confining it to threads that are actually about that topic.  But this particular heresy hasn't been mentioned here before, and I for one will be painfully clear that I call no man brother who teaches blasphemous nonsense such as that.

There's a point where judgmentalism gets out of hand, and there's ALSO a time where non-judgmentalism gets out of hand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For one thing, what he said and constantly says has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  He just constantly throws that around in order to insult people.


Well, *in this case* I'm with SF.  And if you're so tolerant that you aren't with us *in this case*, I think you have a problem.

On the other hand, if you agree with us that a Christian cannot profess this particular heresy, but have an issue with Sola's judgment on other issues, then I think you're bringing up unrelated issues that are best discussed in another thread.

----------


## Brett85

> With regards to the losing your salvation thing, it seems to me that Paul is talking about losing rewards in heaven (remember how we discussed that Christians will be rewarded for their good works in heaven) not loss of salvation.


I suppose that's possible, but that's certainly not the only verse that seems to point to that.  I'm not necessarily 100% convinced on this issue, but I just don't think it's 100% clear cut that a Christian can never lose their salvation.

----------


## Nang

> For one thing, what he said and constantly says has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  He just constantly throws that around in order to insult people.


I would say that is what you are doing in this thread, by diverting attention from Terry's error, and focusing on SF.

This thread is not about SF.  It is about the Person and works of Jesus Christ.

Focus . . .

----------


## Brett85

> Well, *in this case* I'm with SF.  And if you're so tolerant that you aren't with us, I think you have a problem.


You're with SF that the eternal destiny of certain people have to be constantly brought up even when it's off subject and not part of what we're debating?

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW: I edited post #45 significantly two minutes after I wrote it.  So, if you read it immediately after it was posted, read it again.  I tried to reword it to make it a  little bit less offensive.

----------


## Terry1

> Wrong.
> 
> Christians are perfected (past tense) by the sacrifice of Christ:Hebrews 10:12-14 
> 
>  But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.


Which is exactly what I told you, that we are perfect as long as we abide in Christ spiritually.  The flesh is evil and sinful in all mankind and there is no way the flesh can be "perfected" in this life.  Jesus said only on the third day of His resurrection was He perfected.  We can not be perfected while in a state of flesh and blood.  Not even Jesus was perfected in the flesh as He told you.  That was the reason for Him being tested in the wilderness by the devil was to prove that by grace and through faith we can overcome temptation.  Yes---Jesus was tempted in the flesh and the only way He could be tempted was because nothing but evil and sin exist in the flesh of mankind.

----------


## Brett85

> I would say that is what you are doing in this thread, by diverting attention from Terry's error, and focusing on SF.
> 
> This thread is not about SF.  It is about the Person and works of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Focus . . .


I'm just not going to put up with the constant personal attacks by Sola Fide.  Someone needs to call him out on it.  If he doesn't want that, then he should stay civil and actually debate the issue at hand in a respectful way.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm not sure if you're understanding what she's saying.  I don't think she's saying that Jesus actually sinned when he was here on earth.


I don't think so either, and I don't think any of us believe he did.  Too much purposeful misunderstanding going on, and semantics seems to be at the crux.

----------


## erowe1

> And really, if you say that someone who's living a completely sinful life wasn't a Christian to begin with, then rather than someone who believes they're a Christian being worried about losing their salvation, they just have to worry about the possibility that they weren't ever really saved to begin with.  So there really isn't much of a difference regarding whether someone can be "secure" or not about their salvation.


If a person isn't really saved and they think they are, then yes, of course they should worry about that.




> 1 Peter 1:10
> 
> 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.





> 2 Corinthians 13:5
> 
> 5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.


Those warnings aren't about losing salvation. They're about making sure you actually have it, precisely the kind of thing you just mentioned. The same can be proven about all the warnings in Hebrews.

I don't see why you say it makes no difference regarding eternal security though. It makes the whole difference of the very meaning of the term "eternal security." The doctrine of eternal security is not that it's impossible for someone to think they're saved when they really aren't, it's that if someone really is saved, such that they have been declared righteous in God's sight, they are guaranteed to be eternally glorified.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I suppose that's possible, but that's certainly not the only verse that seems to point to that.  I'm not necessarily 100% convinced on this issue, but I just don't think it's 100% clear cut that a Christian can never lose their salvation.


I think perseverance of the saints is probably the least directly provable of the five points of Calvinism (though it obviously follows from the other four.)  Even still, erowe1 makes an argument that I believe is convincing.  But yes, I understand that there are certain problem passages for our position, such as Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10.  I think its MUCH better to interpret these passages the way erowe1 does, however.




> You're with SF that the eternal destiny of certain people have to be constantly brought up even when it's off subject and not part of what we're debating?


Well, I don't think SF ever said that.  But, if Sola starts going into unrelated threads and bringing up that he doesn't think this person is a Christian in a discussion where Terry professes no damnable heresy, I'll definitely agree with you that that's out of line.

By contrast, in this case, Terry1 said something that I think its clear no Christian could ever say (Unless I misunderstood his meaning, which I don't think he did) and SF correctly identified him as a false teacher for saying it.  I don't see the issue.

----------


## Nang

> I'm not sure if you're understanding what she's saying.  I don't think she's saying that Jesus actually sinned when he was here on earth.


She undoubtedly is making that charge and is insisting on comparing His humanity to our corrupted humanity.

That is the heresy of Arianism, believed by JW's, Mormons, Unitarians, etc.

All such end up denying the Trinity of God altogether.  It is very serious error that you are being warned about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm just not going to put up with the constant personal attacks by Sola Fide.  Someone needs to call him out on it.  If he doesn't want that, then he should stay civil and actually debate the issue at hand in a respectful way.


I've called him out before.  I've probably needed to be called out myself a couple times.  But in this instance, I don't think he's making personal attacks.

----------


## Brett85

> She undoubtedly is making that charge and is insisting on comparing His humanity to our corrupted humanity.
> 
> That is the heresy of Arianism, believed by JW's, Mormons, Unitarians, etc.
> 
> All such end up denying the Trinity of God altogether.  It is very serious error that you are being warned about.


I think you're misinterpreting what she was saying, and you should allow her to clarify.  Like Deborah K said, I think it's just semantics.

----------


## Terry1

> I would say that is what you are doing in this thread, by diverting attention from Terry's error, and focusing on SF.
> 
> This thread is not about SF.  It is about the Person and works of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Focus . . .


Sola and the subscribers of your doctrine of Calvinism teach that we have no need to continually repent throughout our lives to the very end of them.  This is not a teaching of God, Jesus or the Apostles, in fact it is in direct contradiction to the word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As believers we are called to repentance daily---hourly and every minute of our lives to the very end.  This is the ONLY WAY we can grow in faith spiritually.  You are both sadly mistaken and are on a very dangerous path with regard to your eternal destinies.

Why do you think that Hebrews 6:4 tells you that after being a partaker of the Holy Spirit then grieves the Spirit to the point of being cut off and unable to be renewed to repentance?  Because repentance is the only path to salvation in the life of any believer.  The only way we can grow in faith is by constantly changing our minds and moving in faith more towards God by improving our spiritual life in Him.  It's the only way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think you're misinterpreting what she was saying, and you should allow her to clarify.  Like Deborah K said, I think it's just semantics.


I really hope you're right about that.  If you are, I'll take back my accusations.  Terry1's posts often confuse me, and I wouldn't declare someone unsaved because they said something they didn't really mean because of poor articulation or whatever.

On the other hand, I feel like this excuse is used too often in general.  I really doubt its true more than a miniscule percentage of the time.  More often than not, if someone says something heretical, they probably actually believe it.

----------


## Nang

> I'm not sure if you're understanding what she's saying.  I don't think she's saying that Jesus actually sinned when he was here on earth.


She claims the flesh (humanity) of Jesus was susceptible to sin.

That is Gnostic teaching.  Not Christian teaching.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola and the subscribers of your doctrine of Calvinism teach that we have no need to continually repent throughout our lives to the very end of them.  This is not a teaching of God, Jesus or the Apostles, in fact it is in direct contradiction to the word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As believers we are called to repentance daily---hourly and every minute of our lives to the very end.  This is the ONLY WAY we can grow in faith spiritually.  You are both sadly mistaken and are on a very dangerous path with regard to your eternal destinies.


Let's forget about Calvinism for a minute.  Do you believe that Jesus Christ ever sinned?  Was Jesus Christ ever imperfect?

----------


## Brett85

> She claims the flesh (humanity) of Jesus was susceptible to sin.
> 
> That is Gnostic teaching.  Not Christian teaching.


But I don't think she's saying that Jesus sinned or that Jesus wasn't/isn't God.

----------


## erowe1

> She claims the flesh (humanity) of Jesus was susceptible to sin.


She said more than that. She said that he wasn't sinless. That doesn't just mean that he could have sinned but didn't. It means that he did sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> She claims the flesh (humanity) of Jesus was susceptible to sin.
> 
> That is Gnostic teaching.  Not Christian teaching.


I just said a blanket prayer that God would regenerate any of the unbelievers in this thread.  That's really all I have to say about this.  But I'm really beginning to wonder how tolerant a true Christian can be. 

TC, you're absolutely baffling me here.  It would be one thing if you stood with us against serious error, but hesitated to call someone lost.  I could understand that.  But you're actually defending the heretic in order to get at SF.  I really hope this is just personal against him rather than indicative of what you really believe.

Do you know what the gospel is?  Do you believe it?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> She said more than that. She said that he wasn't sinless. That doesn't just mean that he could have sinned but didn't. It means that he did sin.


I believed that Jesus could have sinned but didn't at one point, but I haven't believed that for awhile.  I'd consider that a heretical belief, but I don't know if everyone who holds to it is lost.  But certainly anyone who holds that Christ actually sins is lost.  That's a blatant denial of the gospel.  An imperfect sacrifice could not have paid for anyone's sins.

----------


## Nang

> Sola and the subscribers of your doctrine of Calvinism teach that we have no need to continually repent throughout our lives to the very end of them.  This is not a teaching of God, Jesus or the Apostles, in fact it is in direct contradiction to the word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As believers we are called to repentance daily---hourly and every minute of our lives to the very end.  This is the ONLY WAY we can grow in faith spiritually.  You are both sadly mistaken and are on a very dangerous path with regard to your eternal destinies.
> 
> Why do you think that Hebrews 6:4 tells you that after a partaker of the Holy Spirit grieves the Spirit to the point of being cut off and unable to be renewed to repentance?  Because repentance is the only path to salvation in the life of any believer.  The only way we can grow in faith is by constantly changing our minds and moving in faith more towards God by improving our spiritual life in Him.  It's the only way.


All of this pertains to sinners.  None of it pertains to the very holy, sinless Son of Man.  

You are changing the subject  . . .

----------


## Eagles' Wings

I have hesitated to say this for a long time.

I believe there is a strong Jezebel spirit on this forum, trying to destroy the true gospel of Jesus Christ.   May God bring us to His Truth.   

Rev. 2:20

----------


## Deborah K

Calvinists, please explain to me using Biblical text, why our Lord and Savior was baptized?

----------


## Nang

> But I don't think she's saying that Jesus sinned or that Jesus wasn't/isn't God.


Why don't you ask her?  Confront her.   Demand she either clarify herself, or repent of denying the deity of the Son of Man.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, you're absolutely baffling me here.  It would be one thing if you stood with us against serious error, but hesitated to call someone lost.  I could understand that.  But you're actually defending the heretic in order to get at SF.  I really hope this is just personal against him rather than indicative of what you really believe.
> 
> Do you know what the gospel is?  Do you believe it?


I just don't interpret what she said the way that you do.  I thought she was saying that Jesus was susceptible to sin but still lived a sin free life while on earth.

----------


## Terry1

> But I don't think she's saying that Jesus sinned or that Jesus wasn't/isn't God.


Correct, what I said is what the word tells us and why Jesus was sent into the wilderness to be tempted, is because nothing good of God resides in the flesh of mankind.  The flesh is pure evil and wars against the Spirit.  Jesus came in a tent of flesh to prove that with God all things are possible and that sin can be "overcome".  Jesus didn't sin, He "overcame" that sin by and through His belief, trust and faith in God.  His life was pure example of what we can do through the same.  But Jesus was most certainly susceptible to sin--He just never gave into it.

----------


## Brett85

> Correct, what I said is what the word tells us and why Jesus was sent into the wilderness to be tempted, is because nothing good of God resides in the flesh of mankind.  The flesh is pure evil and wars against the Spirit.  Jesus came in a tent of flesh to prove that with God all things are possible and that sin can be "overcome".  Jesus didn't sin, He "overcame" that sin by and through His belief, trust and faith in God.  His life was pure example of what we can do through the same.  But Jesus was most certainly susceptible to sin--He just never gave into it.


Ok, thanks for clarifying.  I was pretty sure you weren't saying that Jesus sinned or denied his deity.

----------


## Terry1

> I just don't interpret what she said the way that you do.  I thought she was saying that Jesus was susceptible to sin but still lived a sin free life while on earth.



Exactly TC.  What the Sola crowd are trying to say is that the flesh can be justified, glorified and perfected which is impossible in this life.  We can only be spiritually perfect, spiritually justified and spiritually glorified as long as we abide in Christ while in the state of flesh and bone.  You get it---they don't.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Calvinists, please explain to me using Biblical text, why our Lord and Savior was baptized?


Deb, perhaps this could be an other thread.  

I'd really like to stay on the topic and clarify, that Jesus Christ is the Sinless Son of God.

----------


## Brett85

> I'd really like to stay on the topic and clarify, that Jesus Christ is the Sinless Son of God.


No one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

----------


## Nang

> Calvinists, please explain to me using Biblical text, why our Lord and Savior was baptized?



To fulfill all righteousness.  See Matthew 3:15

----------


## Terry1

The only way Jesus was able to take on the sins of this world and for mankind was in a state of flesh and bone.  Sin can not inhabit the Spirit of the Lord---it is impossible.  Then after His resurrection Jesus was then perfected in the full and pure Spirit of God and not before.

----------


## Terry1

> To fulfill all righteousness.  See Matthew 3:15



Then read the full context of that chapter here:

Matthew 3:

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore *every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

*11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and *he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.*

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Jesus Christ is the Surety for our redemption and inheritance of everlasting life.  Christians persevere through life without worry of losing their standing in grace with God, because it is God Himself who preserves them.  
> 
> The Father has eternally decreed our inheritance; the Son has made us fit to inherit ; and the Holy Spirit guarantees us our inheritance.
> 
> All of the promises from God of everlasting life for those who have faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, are established and kept because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ . . . not ours.


So sorry to not be able to give you rep, although I know you do not seek it.

You are a wise woman.  Clear and knowledgable. 

People, please don't miss out on the gospel, that is written out so well, right here, by Nang, because you are threatened by Calvin.

----------


## Nang

> The only way Jesus was able to take on the sins of this world and for mankind was in a state of flesh and bone.  Sin can not inhabit the Spirit of the Lord---it is impossible.  Then after His resurrection Jesus was then perfected in the full and pure Spirit of God and not before.



From you first post, you said:

 "Jesus wasn't even perfected until the third day of His resurrection . ."

This infers Jesus Christ was imperfect and fighting off sinfulness up until the third day and His resurrection; completely oblivious to the definition of the word "perfect" as found in the original Greek. 

And now you infer that Jesus Christ did not possess His own Holy Spirit until after His resurrection.

You are full of errors, and show no spirit of repentance when corrected.  Guess you are going to stick to your heretical ideas . . . so be it.

All we Christians can do is warn others away from you, until and unless you repent of such anti-christian teachings.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Then read the full context of that chapter here:
> 
> Matthew 3:
> 
> 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore *every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> 
> *11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
> 
> 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and *he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.*


Terry1, I find you to be frivolous with the Word of God.

----------


## Nang

> Then read the full context of that chapter here:
> 
> Matthew 3:
> 
> 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore *every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> 
> *11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
> 
> 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and *he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.*



So?  How do you relate the words of John the Baptist, describing the upcoming baptism of the very *Judge* of all things in heaven and earth, to your claim that this same Jesus was imperfect?

----------


## Terry1

> From you first post, you said:
> 
>  "Jesus wasn't even perfected until the third day of His resurrection . ."
> 
> This infers Jesus Christ was imperfect and fighting off sinfulness up until the third day and His resurrection; completely oblivious to the definition of the word "perfect" as found in the original Greek. 
> 
> And now you infer that Jesus Christ did not possess His own Holy Spirit until after His resurrection.
> 
> You are full of errors, and show no spirit of repentance when corrected.  Guess you are going to stick to your heretical ideas . . . so be it.
> ...


Your confusion lies with not being able to distinguish the difference between how we are "perfect now spiritually through faith" vs "being bodily perfected" after this life.  Jesus clearly defines himself as only being "perfected on the third day".  While He was in a state of human flesh, Jesus was vulnerable to sin, although He overcame it, His flesh was no different than ours and just as capable of sinning.  The flesh is pure evil.  No flesh can inherit the kingdom of heaven, not here in this life nor the next.

----------


## Deborah K

> From you first post, you said:
> 
>  "Jesus wasn't even perfected until the third day of His resurrection . ."
> 
> This infers Jesus Christ was imperfect and fighting off sinfulness up until the third day and His resurrection; completely oblivious to the definition of the word "perfect" as found in the original Greek. 
> 
> And now you infer that Jesus Christ did not possess His own Holy Spirit until after His resurrection.
> 
> You are full of errors, and show no spirit of repentance when corrected.  Guess you are going to stick to your heretical ideas . . . so be it.
> ...


This is harsh and unyielding.  My take from what Terry states is that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin but WITHOUT that weakness.

----------


## Brett85

...

----------


## Nang

> Your confusion lies with not being able to distinguish the difference between how we are "perfect now spiritually through faith" vs "being bodily perfected" after this life.  Jesus clearly defines himself as only being "perfected on the third day".  While He was in a state of human flesh, Jesus was vulnerable to sin, although He overcame it, *His flesh was no different that ours and just as capable of sinning.*  The flesh is pure evil.  No flesh can inherit the kingdom of heaven, not here in this life nor the next.


Jesus Christ was fully Man and fully God, filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception.

He was one of a kind, due to the hypostatic union of human with divine within His Person.  He identified with His flesh and blood creatures, but He remained God.  He was like us in all ways, apart from sin.  Hebrews 4:15 

Arianism attempts to bring this Divine Son of God down to the corrupted, earthly level of created mankind, and such is very serious heresy.

You do not confuse me.  I have bolded your false teaching, so that it is easy for others to see your lies.

----------


## Terry1

> This is harsh and unyielding.  My take from what Terry states is that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin but WITHOUT that weakness.


Yes exactly.  The whole point of Jesus coming in the tent of human flesh was to be an example of the same suffering, trials and temptations we have to overcome in this life.  Jesus proved that while living in a state of the flesh through His own example of being tested, that we can overcome sin just as He did.  If Jesus was unable to be tempted, then there would have been no example in it.  He was tempted in the flesh and capable of sinning while in the flesh, but Jesus never gave into sin and overcame it through His belief in God the Father.

This is why while hanging on the cross in the state of flesh and bone, cried out "God why have you abandoned Me".  Because only through the sinful flesh was He able to take on the sins of this world and God can not look upon sin or flesh that does not have the Spirit of the Lord abiding in it.  At that point on the cross---Jesus literally became pure sin in the flesh and for that moment, even God could not look upon Him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even the flesh of Jesus was not "sinless", what was the purpose of Jesus being tested for forty days and nights then?  Was this all for show?  Jesus was certainly susceptible to sin and temptation, otherwise He would not have been tested and there would have been no reason for Jesus to prove that temptation can be overcome while still in the flesh.  His life in the flesh was a pure example of what we can do and are capable of as long as we abide in Him spiritually.
> 
> *Matthew 4:1-11*


Wow. ...just wow.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus Christ was fully Man and fully God, filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception.
> 
> He was one of a kind, due to the hypostatic union of human with divine within His Person.  He identified with His flesh and blood creatures, but He remained God.  He was like us in all ways, apart from sin.  Hebrews 4:15 
> 
> Arianism attempts to bring this Divine Son of God down to the corrupted, earthly level of created mankind, and such is very serious heresy.
> 
> You do not confuse me.  I have bolded your false teaching, so that it is easy for others to see your lies.


Can't you see what you are saying here?  You are literally taking away from the suffering of Christ to support what you choose to believe.  You're in essence saying that Jesus was never tempted while in the flesh for those forty days and nights by the devil.  

What possible purpose could there have been then for Jesus to endure such suffering if you're claiming here that He was incapable of giving in to sin?  Do you see what you are doing here?

----------


## Nang

> Yes exactly.  The whole point of Jesus coming in the tent of human flesh was* to be an example of the same suffering, trials and temptations we have to overcome in this life.*  Jesus proved that while living in a state of the flesh through His own example of being tested, that *we can overcome sin just as He did.*  If Jesus was unable to be tempted, then there would have been no example in it.  *He was tempted in the flesh and capable of sinning while in the flesh,* but Jesus never gave into sin and *overcame it* through His belief in God the Father.
> 
> This is why while hanging on the cross in the state of flesh and bone, cried out "God why have you abandoned Me".  Because *only through the sinful flesh was He able to take on the sins of this world* and God can not look upon sin or flesh that does not have the Spirit of the Lord abiding in it.  At that point on the cross---Jesus literally became pure sin in the flesh and for that moment, even God could not look upon Him.


Gnosticism.

I repeat:

Arianism attempts to bring the Divine Son of God down to the corrupted, earthly level of created mankind, and such is very serious heresy.

Jesus Christ bore the sins of His people on the cross, in His sinless flesh.  He was the perfect offering; without spot or blemish.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Jesus Christ was fully Man and fully God, filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception.
> 
> He was one of a kind, due to the hypostatic union of human with divine within His Person.  He identified with His flesh and blood creatures, but He remained God.  He was like us in all ways, apart from sin.  Hebrews 4:15 
> 
> Arianism attempts to bring this Divine Son of God down to the corrupted, earthly level of created mankind, and such is very serious heresy.
> 
> You do not confuse me.  I have bolded your false teaching, so that it is easy for others to see your lies.


I would add to that, Hebrews 5:9.

"and being Made Perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him"

----------


## Terry1

> Wow. ...just wow.



You just neg repped me and called me blasphemous, but the question still remains Sola---can you refute it with any semblance of Biblical truth?   All you have are insults, neg reps and "just wow".   Gods word has just owned you Sola.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> This is harsh and unyielding.  My take from what Terry states is that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin but WITHOUT that weakness.


Deb - please take a close look at what Terry is saying.

----------


## Terry1

> I would add to that, Hebrews 5:9.
> 
> "and being Made Perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him"


Yes, we are made "perfect" spiritually only as long as we abide in Him spiritually, but we are not bodily "perfected" while in a state of human flesh.  If we don't abide in Him continually and spiritually, then we are without spiritual protection and fall back into sin.

----------


## Terry1

> Deb - please take a close look at what Terry is saying.


Why don't you and tell me where I'm wrong.  Why put the burden on Deb here?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You just neg repped me and called me blasphemous, but the question still remains Sola---can you refute it with any semblance of Biblical truth?   All you have are insults, neg reps and "just wow".   God has just owned you Sola.


I have never neg repped anyone, Terry1.  You are the first.  What you are spewing is completely against the Holy, Sinless, Perfect, Son of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You just neg repped me and called me blasphemous, but the question still remains Sola---can you refute it with any semblance of Biblical truth?   All you have are insults, neg reps and "just wow".   God has just owned you Sola.


I already did.  




> Hebrews 10:14 NIV
> 
> For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.


All Christians are perfected by the sacrifice of Christ.


As for your attributing sin to the Son of God...I simply pray for your soul because the Sovereign Lord will judge the hearts of men.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Why don't you and tell me where I'm wrong.  Why put the burden on Deb here?


Others have exposed you better than I ever could.

----------


## Nang

> I have never neg repped anyone, Terry1.  You are the first.  What you are spewing is completely against the Holy, Sinless, Perfect, Son of God.



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

----------


## Terry1

> Others have exposed you better than I ever could.


Now you're neg repping me.  I could just as easily do the same thing to you, but why do you think I haven't done that Louise?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Yes, we are made "perfect" spiritually only as long as we abide in Him spiritually, but we are not bodily "perfected" while in a state of human flesh.  If we don't abide in Him continually and spiritually, then we are without spiritual protection and fall back into sin.


I simply can not abide anything you say.  I can not take the time to sort through the falsehooods.

----------


## Terry1

> I have never neg repped anyone, Terry1.  You are the first.  What you are spewing is completely against the Holy, Sinless, Perfect, Son of God.


So you're neg repping me because you don't like my opinion then.  Well, I guess the Lord must be making some progress then simply by evidence of those doing the neg repping.  Reps mean nothing to me, but the reasons behind them are very telling aren't they.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Why don't you and tell me where I'm wrong.  Why put the burden on Deb here?


Actually the burden is on Deb.  May God open her mind to His Truth.  

You are not responsible for the souls and beliefs of others.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, we are made "perfect" spiritually only as long as we abide in Him spiritually, but we are not bodily "perfected" while in a state of human flesh.  If we don't abide in Him continually and spiritually, then we are without spiritual protection and fall back into sin.


The scripture Louise gives you shows that Jesus was "made" perfect.  Conceived, born, and lived a perfect (complete)life in the flesh, full of Spirit and Truth from the womb.  Why?  In order to fulfill all righteousness on our behalf, in the flesh as a Man, apart from sin.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> So you're neg repping me because you don't like my opinion then.  Well, I guess the Lord must be making some progress then simply by evidence of those doing the neg repping.  Reps mean nothing to me, but the reasons behind them are very telling aren't they.


They are telling, indeed.   This is not simply about opinions, Terry1.   You are talking falsehood about God, who is Sovereign.

----------


## Terry1

> Actually the burden is on Deb.  May God open her mind to His Truth.  
> 
> You are not responsible for the souls and beliefs of others.


Why is my opinion any worse than yours? LOL --  Have I neg repped you and wrote something offensive in your rep center?  No, I haven't have I.

----------


## Deborah K

Very sad, this partaking has been.  Very sad.

These kinds of exchanges amongst the faithful make us all look foolish.  They're nothing but purposeful misunderstandings and semantic confusion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> She said more than that. She said that he wasn't sinless. That doesn't just mean that he could have sinned but didn't. It means that he did sin.


Scary indeed.  And this is a person who literally preaches on this message board.

----------


## Terry1

> They are telling, indeed.   This is not simply about opinions, Terry1.   You are talking falsehood about God, who is Sovereign.


I feel the very same way about you along with many others here as well.  Have the Catholics or the Seventh Day Advents or the other "Arminians" neg repped you that are so offensive to you, Sola and the other Calvinist crowd?  Have I?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> So you're neg repping me because you don't like my opinion then.  Well, I guess the Lord must be making some progress then simply by evidence of those doing the neg repping.  Reps mean nothing to me, but the reasons behind them are very telling aren't they.


You talk so frivilously about God, as if you know what He is progressing.   

I have been around people like you, Terry1.  Claiming to be flowing in the Spirit and listening to the Lord.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Very sad, this partaking has been.  Very sad.
> 
> These kinds of exchanges amongst the faithful make us all look foolish.  They're nothing but purposeful misunderstandings and semantic confusion.


Yes, there are fools here, Deb.

----------


## Terry1

> You talk so frivilously about God, as if you know what He is progressing.   
> 
> I have been around people like you, Terry1.  Claiming to be flowing in the Spirit and listening to the Lord.


Really Louise--weren't you the one running around preaching how we need to be nice to each other despite our differences and now look at what we're seeing here.  What does this say then?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I feel the very same way about you along with many others here as well.  Have the Catholics or the Seventh Day Advents or the other "Arminians" neg repped you that are so offensive to you, Sola and the other Calvinist crowd?  Have I?


I believe you have been exposed.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, there are fools here, Deb.


Now those of us who don't think and believe as you do are "fools"?  Are you sure you're affiliated with the right political and religous party here?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Really Louise--weren't you the one running around preaching how we need to be nice to each other despite our differences and now look at what we're seeing here.  What does this say then?


It means that false teaching needs to be exposed and that is what is happening here today.

----------


## Nang

> Very sad, this partaking has been.  Very sad.
> 
> These kinds of exchanges amongst the faithful make us all look foolish.  They're nothing but purposeful misunderstandings and semantic confusion.
> 
> [/Q




It may be painful to observe, but there are many who claim to be Christian, who preach strange gospels, and it is good to warn the world once and awhile.  

Otherwise, Christianity gets misrepresented . . .

----------


## Terry1

> I believe you have been exposed.


Really and what have you been then, proven to be that gentle soul who cries out for tolerance and civility amongst the diversity?

----------


## erowe1

> Calvinists, please explain to me using Biblical text, why our Lord and Savior was baptized?


To give attestation of who he was, both from John the Baptist, as a recognized prophet of God, and from the voice of God the Father.

John the Baptist recognized that his baptism of Jesus was of a different kind than the baptism of repentance that he gave everyone else. He acknowledged that he wasn't worthy to exercise that role for Jesus.




> Matthew 3:11-17
> 
> 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[a] 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
> 
> 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. *14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
> 
> 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.*
> 
> 16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”





> John 1:24-34
> 
> 24 Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
> 
> 26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. 27 It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”
> 
> 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
> 
> 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; *but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.*”
> ...


Also, why did you direct your question specifically to Calvinists? There's nothing distinctly Calvinist about the belief that Jesus never sinned. That belief is a hallmark of all forms of Christianity throughout history, and is clearly taught in the Bible. I've honestly never encountered any professed Christian of any kind before who denied that Jesus was sinless.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Really and what have you been then, proven to be that gentle soul who cries out for tolerance and civility amongst the diversity?


No, actually, not any longer. 

Now, I'd like to get back to the gospel of our Perfect, Lord Jesus Christ.

----------


## Deborah K

> It may be painful to observe, but there are many who claim to be Christian, who preach strange gospels, and it is good to warn the world once and awhile.  
> 
> Otherwise, Christianity gets misrepresented . . .


Christianity is also misrepresented when we are harsh and unyielding and downright insulting.  As I tried to point out earlier when I cited 2Timothy 2:23-26, we are supposed to handle situations like this one exactly the opposite of how it has been handled.  I must say, what I take from this most of all is that those who represent the Calvinist belief system are exacting judgment that in my opinion belongs to God.

----------


## Brett85

> They are telling, indeed.   This is not simply about opinions, Terry1.   You are talking falsehood about God, who is Sovereign.


Wow, people need to chill out a little bit.

----------


## Terry1

> ...


LOL, it certainly did.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, why did you direct your question specifically to Calvinists? There's nothing distinctly Calvinist about the belief that Jesus never sinned. That belief is a hallmark of all forms of Christianity throughout history, and is clearly taught in the Bible. I've honestly never encountered any professed Christian of any kind before who denied that Jesus was sinless.


Neither did Terry.  She clarified earlier that she said that Jesus was sinless, so at this point you're intentionally misrepresenting what she said.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Christianity is also misrepresented when we are harsh and unyielding and downright insulting.  As I tried to point out earlier when I cited 2Timothy 2:23-26, we are supposed to handle situations like this one exactly the opposite of how it has been handled.  I must say, what I take from this most of all is that those who represent the Calvinist belief system are exacting judgment that in my opinion belongs to God.


I am not a Calvinist, Deb, however, the proof of Christ's perfection has been made.  This is not a "situation", in your words.  It is fundamental to Christian witness.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Wow, people need to chill out a little bit.


TC, this is not a joke.  It is a very serious topic that can not be lightened with a cartoon and an LOL.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Neither did Terry.  She clarified earlier that she said that Jesus was sinless, so at this point you're intentionally misrepresenting what she said.


Where did she do that?

----------


## erowe1

> Neither did Terry.  She clarified earlier that she said that Jesus was sinless, so at this point you're intentionally misrepresenting what she said.


Quote where I misrepresent what Terry said please.

----------


## Brett85

> Where did she do that?





> Quote where I misrepresent what Terry said please.





> Correct, what I said is what the word tells us and why Jesus was sent into the wilderness to be tempted, is because nothing good of God resides in the flesh of mankind.  The flesh is pure evil and wars against the Spirit.  Jesus came in a tent of flesh to prove that with God all things are possible and that sin can be "overcome".  *Jesus didn't sin*, He "overcame" that sin by and through His belief, trust and faith in God.  His life was pure example of what we can do through the same.  But Jesus was most certainly susceptible to sin--He just never gave into it.


...

----------


## Terry1

> Where did she do that?


Several times I've clarified that--are you in that usual place Sola?

----------


## erowe1

> ...


I say again, quote what I said that misrepresented Terry. Or admit that I didn't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The christological heresy of Terry1 is one thing, but there is another error as well.  She said Christians are "perfect" only when they "abide in Christ".  But that is not what the Bible says:




> *Hebrews 10:12-14 
> 
> But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


_It is the sacrifice of Christ, not my imperfect obedience and abiding, that makes me perfect in the sight of God._  Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.

----------


## Nang

> Christianity is also misrepresented when we are harsh and unyielding and downright insulting.  As I tried to point out earlier when I cited 2Timothy 2:23-26, we are supposed to handle situations like this one exactly the opposite of how it has been handled.  I must say, what I take from this most of all is that those who represent the Calvinist belief system are exacting judgment that in my opinion belongs to God.


Proclaiming a sound Christology is necessary to uphold the one gospel that has the power to save, and countering anti-christian teachings cannot be considered merely a "foolish or ignorant dispute."

How do you think this matter could have been handled differently?

Do you think I should have flattered Terry, told her how much we all love her, and that it was ok for her to harbor the opinion that Jesus possessed no sinless perfection until He resurrected on the third day . . . all for fear I might insult her in some way?

In my opinion, she highly insults my God and Savior.

Ugh . . .

I will pray that she finds grace and correction from the Holy Spirit, to repent of her errors.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...





> But Jesus was most certainly susceptible to sin


TC, how can the holy, righteous God of the universe sin or be susceptible to sin?

----------


## Deborah K

> Also, why did you direct your question specifically to Calvinists? There's nothing distinctly Calvinist about the belief that Jesus never sinned. That belief is a hallmark of all forms of Christianity throughout history, and is clearly taught in the Bible. I've honestly never encountered any professed Christian of any kind before who denied that Jesus was sinless.


I wasn't trying to imply that there was.  I addressed Calvinists because their take on  some things is different than what I was taught as a Catholic.  I was curious.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, how can the holy, righteous God of the universe sin or be susceptible to sin?


I'm not saying that I agree with her.  I haven't really studied the issue of whether it was possible for Jesus to sin in human flesh or not.  I'm just pointing out that Terry never said that Jesus sinned.

----------


## Brett85

> I say again, quote what I said that misrepresented Terry. Or admit that I didn't.


...




> She said more than that. She said that he wasn't sinless. That doesn't just mean that he could have sinned but didn't. It means that he did sin.





> Also, why did you direct your question specifically to Calvinists? There's nothing distinctly Calvinist about the belief that Jesus never sinned. That belief is a hallmark of all forms of Christianity throughout history, and is clearly taught in the Bible. I've honestly never encountered any professed Christian of any kind before who denied that Jesus was sinless.

----------


## Terry1

> The christological heresy of Terry1 is one thing, but there is another error as well.  She said Christians are "perfect" only when they "abide in Christ".  But that is not what the Bible says:
> 
> 
> 
> _It is the sacrifice of Christ, not my imperfect obedience and abiding, that makes me perfect in the sight of God._  Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.


Yes, we are made perfect spiritually as long as we abide in Christ, I have never said otherwise.  What you and your friends can not understand is that we are not "perfected" yet in this life bodily while in a state of human flesh.  It is scriptural and I know I've posted it before, but I'll do it again just for clarity here:


Philippians 3:10-12


10* That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection*, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 *If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.*

12 *Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
*

So what do you think Paul is saying here then?  He's telling you that while he already knows he's been made spiritually perfect through Christ, he hasn't obtain perfection through the resurrection yet.  This is what Jesus told you here, that He wasn't perfected until His resurrection.

*Luke 13:32 
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.*

----------


## Deborah K

> Proclaiming a sound Christology is necessary to uphold the one gospel that has the power to save, and countering anti-christian teachings cannot be considered merely a "foolish or ignorant dispute."
> 
> How do you think this matter could have been handled differently?
> 
> Do you think I should have flattered Terry, told her how much we all love her, and that it was ok for her to harbor the opinion that Jesus possessed no sinless perfection until He resurrected on the third day . . . all for fear I might insult her in some way?
> 
> In my opinion, she highly insults my God and Savior.
> 
> Ugh . . .
> ...


I've already stated how I think situations (yes, Louis, this is a situation ) should be handled -  by abiding 2Timothy 2:23-26.  Pride rears its ugly head in this thread as well.

If the goal is to lead a soul to the truth, I can confidently state that insults and condescension will most assuredly defeat the purpose.

----------


## erowe1

> ...


Are you saying that I misrepresented her in quote 63? Because I didn't. Prior to that she did say that he was not sinless. And she didn't take it back until after that.

I'm still not certain that she really took it back either. Because even when she says he didn't sin, it still looks like she's trying to say that his own human flesh was entirely sinful and evil. But whether she did or not, you're the one misrepresenting me, if you've going to say that I misrepresented her on account of something she hadn't even said until after I said that.

----------


## Terry1

> Are you saying that I misrepresented her in quote 63? Because I didn't. Prior to that she did say that he was not sinless. And she didn't take it back until after that.
> 
> I'm still not certain that she really took it back either. Because even when she says he didn't sin, it still looks like she's trying to say that his own human flesh was entirely sinful and evil. But whether she did or not, you're the one misrepresenting me, if you've going to say that I misrepresented her on account of something she hadn't even said until after I said that.


I know exactly what you're attempting to do.  I took nothing "back" as you say.  You misunderstood what I was saying period.  Let's be honest here shall we.

----------


## erowe1

> I know exactly what you're attempting to do.  I took nothing "back" as you say.  You misunderstood what I was saying period.  Let's be honest here shall we.


You previously said that Jesus wasn't sinless, which means that he sinned or was a sinner. That's the only thing I claimed that you said.

I can't actually tell if you took it back for sure or not, as you can see from the quote you give from me. TC is the one who seems most convinced that you did. My point is that at the point that I represented you as having said that Jesus wasn't sinless, that was a completely accurate representation of what you had said. Whether you really did take that back later or not doesn't change that.

----------


## Terry1

> You previously said that Jesus wasn't sinless, which means that he sinned. That's the only thing I claimed that you said.
> 
> I can't actually tell if you took it back for sure or not, as you can see from the quote you give from me. My point is that at the point that I represented you as having said that Jesus wasn't sinless, that was a completely accurate representation of what you had said. Whether you really did take that back later or not doesn't change that.


Find the entire quote then, because I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition here for something I know I didn't mean to say even if the wording might indicate such to some.

----------


## erowe1

> Find the entire quote then, because I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition here for something I know I didn't mean to say even if the wording might indicate such to some.


Here is the entire post that I was referring to:



> Even the flesh of Jesus was not "sinless", what was the purpose of Jesus being tested for forty days and nights then?  Was this all for show?  Jesus was certainly susceptible to sin and temptation, otherwise He would not have been tested and there would have been no reason for Jesus to prove that temptation can be overcome while still in the flesh.  His life in the flesh was a pure example of what we can do and are capable of as long as we abide in Him spiritually.
> 
> *Matthew 4:1-11*


If you are saying that you didn't mean that Jesus wasn't sinless, then that's the same as taking it back, which would be a good thing.

----------


## Terry1

> Here is the entire post that I was referring to:
> 
> 
> If you are saying that you didn't mean that. Then that's the same as taking it back, which would be a good thing.


The flesh is pure sin and capable of sinning.    What I said was the flesh of Jesus wasn't sinless, meaning all flesh is capable of sin.  Jesus didn't sin, but His flesh was most certainly capable of sin and temptation--hence His test for forty days and nights in the wilderness.  I think you know and understand what I meant, you simply don't want to agree with it, so you made an issue of it.

There's no way Jesus could have taken on the sins of this world if he was already perfected because this doesn't happen until resurrection of the dead.  Sin can not inhabit pure perfection only flesh and blood.

----------


## Nang

> The flesh is pure sin and capable of sinning.    What I said was the flesh of Jesus wasn't sinless, meaning all flesh is capable of sin.  Jesus didn't sin, but His flesh was most certainly capable of sin and temptation--hence His test for forty days and nights in the wilderness.  I think you know and understand what I meant, you simply don't want to agree with it, so you made an issue of it.
> 
> There's no way Jesus could have taken on the sins of this world if he was already perfected because this doesn't happen until resurrection of the dead.  Sin can not inhabit pure perfection only flesh and blood.


You continue to compare and confuse mortal flesh with flesh assumed by the immortal Son of God.

Do you also deny that Jesus Christ resurrected* bodily?*

----------


## Terry1

> You continue to compare and confuse mortal flesh with flesh assumed by the immortal Son of God.


Jesus wasn't immortal and perfected until His resurrection.  What don't you get here?  This is not hard to understand.  The only way he could have become pure sin on that cross is by being flesh and blood.  Sin can not inhabit pure perfection.  Why do you think that God couldn't look upon Jesus when He was bearing the sins of this world.  God had to totally separate Himself from Christ at that moment.  Why do you think Jesus Cried out "my God my God why hast thou forsaken ME"?

----------


## Nang

> Jesus wasn't immortal


Then you deny God came in the flesh. 

What I thought . . .

----------


## Terry1

> Then you deny God came in the flesh. 
> 
> What I thought . . .


Read 1 Corinthians 15, it might help. 

I give up--shaking the dust off here.   Buh-bye

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The flesh is pure sin and capable of sinning.    What I said was the flesh of Jesus wasn't sinless, meaning all flesh is capable of sin.  Jesus didn't sin, but His flesh was most certainly capable of sin and temptation--hence His test for forty days and nights in the wilderness.  I think you know and understand what I meant, you simply don't want to agree with it, so you made an issue of it.
> 
> There's no way Jesus could have taken on the sins of this world if he was already perfected because this doesn't happen until resurrection of the dead.  Sin can not inhabit pure perfection only flesh and blood.


This is pure Gnosticism. Wow.....

----------


## Nang

> This is pure Gnosticism. Wow.....


Yep.  It is still alive and well . . .

----------


## erowe1

> The flesh is pure sin and capable of sinning.    What I said was the flesh of Jesus wasn't sinless, meaning all flesh is capable of sin.  Jesus didn't sin, but His flesh was most certainly capable of sin and temptation--hence His test for forty days and nights in the wilderness.  I think you know and understand what I meant, you simply don't want to agree with it, so you made an issue of it.
> 
> There's no way Jesus could have taken on the sins of this world if he was already perfected because this doesn't happen until resurrection of the dead.  Sin can not inhabit pure perfection only flesh and blood.


First of all, to say that Jesus wasn't sinless is to say more than that he was merely capable of sin. It is to say that he sinned. Do you now want to take that back and say that he really was sinless?

Second of all, even here, you continue to say that Jesus's flesh (which is Jesus) was pure sin. How are we to take that?

At the cross Jesus took on other peoples' sins, other peoples', not his own. He himself, in his flesh, over his entire life, was completely without sin. On the cross, he became sin for us. He did not become sin for us just by being a human being with a body of flesh, but only by being punished on our behalf and having our sins imputed to him.

----------


## Terry1

> Yep.  It is still alive and well . . .



Do either of you actually understand what Gnosticism is or what all that entails?  If you understood anything at all you wouldn't be accusing me of this either. lol

----------


## Brett85

> Are you saying that I misrepresented her in quote 63? Because I didn't. Prior to that she did say that he was not sinless. And she didn't take it back until after that.


I just don't see any quote from her where she said that Jesus sinned while he was here on earth.

----------


## erowe1

> You continue to compare and confuse mortal flesh with flesh assumed by the immortal Son of God.
> 
> Do you also deny that Jesus Christ resurrected* bodily?*


That's right. The resurrected body of Jesus was, and still is, flesh.



> Luke 24:39
> 
> 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Yep.  It is still alive and well . . .


No doubt you will, or have already been, accused of the same.  Did that happen to the Puritans and early Reformers?

----------


## Terry1

> First of all, to say that Jesus wasn't sinless is to say more than that he was merely capable of sin. It is to say that he sinned. Do you now want to take that back and say that he really was sinless?
> 
> Second of all, even here, you continue to say that Jesus's flesh (which is Jesus) was pure sin. How are we to take that?
> 
> On your last point, I agree. At the cross Jesus took on other peoples' sins, other peoples', not his own. He himself, in his flesh, over his entire life, was completely without sin. On the cross, he became sin for us. He did not become sin for us just by being a human being with a body of flesh, but only by being punished on our behalf and having our sins imputed to him.


I never said that Jesus sinned.  This has been made more than clear.  Stop with the strawman attacks erowe1.

----------


## erowe1

> I just don't see any quote from her where she said that Jesus sinned while he was here on earth.


I stated in that very post, quite clearly, that what she said was that he wasn't sinless. That is exactly what I claimed that she said, and that is exactly what she said.

She did not claim that he didn't sin until other posts after that. And, mind you, even in those other posts, she took away with her left hand what she gave with her right by saying that the flesh of Jesus was pure evil.

----------


## erowe1

> I never said that Jesus sinned.  This has been made more than clear.  Stop with the strawman attacks erowe1.


You said that he wasn't sinless, which is exactly what I claimed that you said. This doesn't merely mean that he was capable of sinning, but that he positively was a sinner.

Do you want to take that back? If not, then don't say I misrepresented you.

----------


## Brett85

> I never said that Jesus sinned.  This has been made more than clear.  Stop with the strawman attacks erowe1.


That's all I was trying to point out to him as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Do either of you actually understand what Gnosticism is or what all that entails?  If you understood anything at all you wouldn't be accusing me of this either. lol


There were lots of kinds of gnosticism. But the extreme flesh/spirit dichotomy of saying that absolutely everything flesh is pure evil is definitely a characteristic feature that they generally had in common.

----------


## Terry1

This is where I end the discussion with the Calvinists in this thread and their *supporter*.  All you people can do is insult, be intellectually dishonest by changing the narrative while ridiculing and neg repping with more insults.  

Hijack this thread---take it and tear it apart as far as I'm concerned I'm done in this thread with you Calvinists.  I believe I've taken enough abuse here and I'm simply through with the lot of you.  If none of you can be civil or even intellectually honest, there's no use in continuing. Buh-bye

----------


## Brett85

> I stated in that very post, quite clearly, that what she said was that he wasn't sinless. That is exactly what I claimed that she said, and that is exactly what she said.
> 
> She did not claim that he didn't sin until other posts after that. And, mind you, even in those other posts, she took away with her left hand what she gave with her right by saying that the flesh of Jesus was pure evil.


It was clear to me what she said.  She said that Jesus' flesh wasn't sinless, meaning that he was capable of sinning, but she's said throughout this thread that Jesus never actually sinned.  I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with her on this, but I'm just defending her from false accusations that she believes that Jesus sinned while he was here on earth.

----------


## Brett85

> This is where I end the discussion with the Calvinists in this thread and their *supporter*.  All you people can do is insult, be intellectually dishonest by changing the narrative while ridiculing and neg repping with more insults.  
> 
> Hijack this thread---take it and tear it apart as far as I'm concerned I'm done in this thread with you Calvinists.  I believe I've taken enough abuse here and I'm simply through with the lot of you.  If none of you can be civil, there's no use in continuing. Buh-bye


Yeah, I understand where you're coming from.  We should be able to have a conversation and debate here while being respectful and civil to other people.  I may have to consider not posting in this sub forum anymore as well.  We'll see.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus wasn't immortal and perfected until His resurrection.  What don't you get here?  This is not hard to understand.


So now you're denying that Jesus is the eternal Son of God as well?  Wow.....

----------


## Terry1

> That's all I was trying to point out to him as well.


Well, think about it TC, that's all they've really got left.  You're the only reason I'm still in this thread at all.  Thank you for being kind and civil.

----------


## erowe1

> It was clear to me what she said.  She said that Jesus' flesh wasn't sinless, meaning that he was capable of sinning, but she's said throughout this thread that Jesus never actually sinned.  I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with her on this, but I'm just defending her from false accusations that she believes that Jesus sinned while he was here on earth.


Correct me if I'm wrong. But the only times she ever said that he never actually sinned were after post 63.

And to say that he was not sinless is not just to say that he was capable of sinning. Prior to my making that comment in post 63 she clearly said that he was not sinless. And as of now she's dancing all over the place trying to have it both ways.

At any rate at no point did I make any false accusations. But you did, and it looks like you're sticking by them.

----------


## Brett85

> So now you're denying that Jesus is the eternal Son of God as well?  Wow.....


Jesus was immortal in the sense that God wasn't going to allow any harm to him until it was his time to die on the cross, but obviously his body wasn't immortal when he was here on earth.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus was immortal in the sense that God wasn't going to allow any harm to him until it was his time to die on the cross, but obviously his body wasn't immortal when he was here on earth.


Correct.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You continue to compare and confuse mortal flesh with flesh assumed by the immortal Son of God.
> 
> Do you also deny that Jesus Christ resurrected* bodily?*





> That's right. The resurrected body of Jesus was, and still is, flesh.



Absolutely.

----------


## Brett85

> Prior to my making that comment in post 63 she clearly said that he was not sinless.


She didn't say in a single post on this thread that Jesus wasn't sinless when he was here on earth.

----------


## Nang

> I just don't see any quote from her where she said that Jesus sinned while he was here on earth.


She is implying that Jesus possessed a sin nature.

The truth is:  *Jesus Christ assumed a human nature, but not a sin nature.  Being also God the Son, He had no part with sin, ever.*

To imply that Jesus possessed a sin nature, denies His deity and declares Him to a created man just like the rest of us mortals, which is Arianism.

----------


## erowe1

> Jesus was immortal in the sense that God wasn't going to allow any harm to him until it was his time to die on the cross, but obviously his body wasn't immortal when he was here on earth.


But before he ever had that mortal body he was an eternally existing being, and was always fully God, not only before his resurrection, but before his incarnation.

And he, as holy God, didn't just inhabit some foreign body of pure evil flesh, but he positively became flesh in his incarnation all the while being completely sinless.

----------


## erowe1

> She didn't say in a single post on this thread that Jesus wasn't sinless when he was here on earth.


Yes she did in post 34. My claim in post 63 was a completely accurate representation of what she had said then. As far as I know, she never took that back until after I said that.

----------


## Brett85

> She is implying that Jesus possessed a sin nature.
> 
> The truth is:  *Jesus Christ assumed a human nature, but not a sin nature.  Being also God the Son, He had no part with sin, ever.*
> 
> To imply that Jesus possessed a sin nature, denies His deity and declares Him to a created man just like the rest of us mortals, which is Arianism.


Again, I'm not saying that I agree with her.  I haven't really looked at this issue all that much.  I certainly believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, which no one on this thread has denied.  But, the Bible does say that even though Jesus was God, when he was here on earth he was lower than God and even made lower than the angels.  I don't know why this issue isn't at least debatable and why someone who disagrees with you needs to be slandered.

Hebrews 2:7

"YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS"

----------


## erowe1

> Being also God the Son, He had no part with sin, ever.


What do you mean by that? Not even on the cross, when he who knew no sin became sin for us?

----------


## Nang

> Jesus was immortal in the sense that God wasn't going to allow any harm to him until it was his time to die on the cross, but obviously his body wasn't immortal when he was here on earth.


The only reason Jesus Christ suffered death at all, was because He volitionally chose to die.   It was not His death, but the deaths of all His children that He experienced.  He paid the full death-sentence we owed God  . .  He suffered all God's wrath that we deserved, in our stead.  Isaiah 53:12

----------


## erowe1

> I certainly believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, which no one on this thread has denied.


Really?

Terry, do you agree with TC's representation of your position here? He says that you don't deny that Jesus lived a sin-free life.

----------


## Terry1

Just a last post here to erowe1




> Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 
> 
> That's right. The resurrected body of Jesus was, and still is, flesh.


Since when and where does the word of God say that flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom of heaven?

*1 Corinthians 15:50 
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.*

----------


## Terry1

> Really?
> 
> Terry, do you agree with TC's representation of your position here? He says that you don't deny that Jesus lived a sin-free life.


That last claim you made about Jesus still being "flesh" was about the biggest shocker I've seen yet flow from your mind to your finger tips in here and a sign that it's truly time for me to leave you all to your delusions.

----------


## Nang

> What do you mean by that? Not even on the cross, when he who knew no sin became sin for us?


The sins that Jesus bore were ours, not His.  There is no darkness of sin in His Being.

 It was not His death, but the deaths of all His children that He experienced. He paid the full death-sentence *we* owed God . . *He suffered all God's wrath that we deserved, in our stead.*  Isaiah 53:12

----------


## Brett85

> The only reason Jesus Christ suffered death at all, was because He volitionally chose to die.   It was not His death, but the deaths of all His children that He experienced.  He paid the full death-sentence we owed God  . .  He suffered all God's wrath that we deserved, in our stead.  Isaiah 53:12


Of course.  I completely agree.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Hold on a minute.  Someone can say Jesus sinned and still be a Christian?  Really?
> 
> If that's not a damnable heresy, I don't know  what is.  We might as well start going to Mormon churches, after all, they claim to be Christians, so who are we to say any different?


If Christians are meant to emulate Jesus, perhaps they should count how many times he went around telling people he was going to heaven and they were damned forever if they didn't subscribe to his theological interpretation in every detail.  Just saying. 

In that vein:



> There's a point where judgmentalism gets out of hand, and there's ALSO a time where non-judgmentalism gets out of hand.


Do you think Jesus would agree?  Jesus lived during the Roman Empire, a time when probably every single person on this board would have been crucified by the Romans, and the judgmental Pharisees and Sadducees would have cheered it on loudly.  He didn't exactly live during holy times, but he wasn't really big on judging people either based on accounts of his life in the gospels.  Would you make the argument that Jesus Christ's non-judgmentalism got out of hand?  If not, what does that tell you about how Christians should behave today?

----------


## Brett85

To clarify what I've said, I certainly believe that Jesus lived a sin free life here on earth.  I don't really know for sure whether he "was capable of sinning" as Terry asserts.  I haven't ever really thought about this for sure, so I'm just going to have to do some research and study the issue more.

----------


## erowe1

> If Christians are meant to emulate Jesus, perhaps they should count how many times he went around telling people he was going to heaven and they were damned forever if they didn't subscribe to his theological interpretation in every detail.  Just saying. 
> 
> In that vein:
> 
> Do you think Jesus would agree?  Jesus lived during the Roman Empire, a time when probably every single person on this board would have been crucified by the Romans, and the judgmental Pharisees and Sadducees would have cheered it on loudly.  He didn't exactly live during holy times, but he wasn't really big on judging people either based on accounts of his life in the gospels.  Would you make the argument that Jesus Christ's non-judgmentalism got out of hand?  If not, what does that tell you about how Christians should behave today?


Where did you get the idea that Jesus was nonjudgmental?

----------


## erowe1

> Just a last post here to erowe1
> 
> 
> 
> Since when and where does the word of God say that flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom of heaven?
> 
> *1 Corinthians 15:50 
> Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.*


The passage I quoted said flesh and bone, this one says flesh and blood.

But according to the Bible there's no denying that the risen Jesus is flesh.

----------


## erowe1

> The sins that Jesus bore were ours, not His.  There is no darkness of sin in His Being.
> 
>  It was not His death, but the deaths of all His children that He experienced. He paid the full death-sentence *we* owed God . . *He suffered all God's wrath that we deserved, in our stead.*  Isaiah 53:12


Right, but what you said before was that he had no part with sin ever.

----------


## Nang

> Right, but what you said before was that he had no part with sin ever.



Ontologically, no.

Judiciously, yes.

This entire thread argued by Terry, has demeaned the Person of Christ; ignoring His works on the cross . . .

All of which distorts the one, true gospel that has the power to save.

----------


## Sola_Fide

In one sense, it is very agreeable with Terry1's Arminianism to propose that Jesus did not posses a perfect human nature.  Why is it important for an Arminian that Christ lived a perfect life and followed the law in every detail?  The imputation of Christ's righteousness is absent from Arminianism...it's not important.   The modern popular false gospel of Arminianism is "accept Jesus and have a personal relationship with him".  This is completely foreign to what the apostles preached. Arminianism doesn't concern itself with these legal concepts.

Here is John Robbins talking about the difference between the true gospel that uses the concepts of law and business, and the false popular gospel that uses the language of "relationship":

----------


## Brett85

> TC, this is not a joke.  It is a very serious topic that can not be lightened with a cartoon and an LOL.


It's not good to go through life with no sense of humor at all.

----------


## Brett85

> In one sense, it is very agreeable with Terry1's Arminianism to propose that Jesus did not posses a perfect human nature.  Why is it important for an Arminian that Christ lived a perfect life and followed the law in every detail?  The imputation of Christ's righteousness is absent from Arminianism...it's not important.   The modern popular false gospel of Arminianism is "accept Jesus and have a personal relationship with him".  This is completely foreign to what the apostles preached. Arminianism doesn't concern itself with these legal concepts.
> 
> Here is John Robbins talking about the difference between the true gospel that uses the concepts of law and business, and the false popular gospel that uses the language of "relationship":


Yes, you only care about rigid doctrines and not at all about having a personal relationship with Christ and living the kind of lifestyle that honors him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, you only care about rigid doctrines and not at all about having a personal relationship with Christ and living the kind of lifestyle that honors him.


TC, quote me the chapter and verse where any of the apostles preached "have a relationship with Jesus".  Is that in Romans somewhere?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The only reason Jesus Christ suffered death at all, was because He volitionally chose to die.


He didn't actually die on the cross. He was made to appear dead, Joseph of Arimethea was given possession of him, and he was nursed out of his 'fake-dead' state, appeared to his disciples and then went to India where he lived out the rest of his life.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, quote me the chapter and verse where any of the apostles preached "have a relationship with Jesus".  Is that in Romans somewhere?


I guess it's in the chapter and verse where you see the terms "prescriptive will" and "decretive will."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He didn't actually die on the cross. He was made to appear dead, Joseph of Arimethea was given possession of him, and he was nursed out of his 'fake-dead' state, appeared to his disciples and then went to India where he lived out the rest of his life.





> *1 Corinthians 15:13-20 NIV
> 
> If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.   But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.*


...

----------


## Jamesiv1

> 1 Corinthians 15:13-20 NIV
> 
> If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.


Exactly. That's my whole point.  Paul either totally blew it, or has been totally mis-translated. Or totally edited to make it something else altogether -  i.e. a whole lot of dogma, rather than a whole lot of wisdom and liberty.

_edit: or maybe his meltdown on the road to Damascus made him a bit 'balmy'_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess it's in the chapter and verse where you see the terms "prescriptive will" and "decretive will."


But the concepts of the two wills of God are in the Scriptures even though the words are not there.  Where is even the _concept_ that the gospel is "have a relationship with Jesus"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly. That's my whole point.  Paul either totally blew it, or has been totally mis-translated. Or totally edited to make it something else altogether -  i.e. a whole lot of dogma, rather than a whole lot of wisdom and liberty.


So Paul was the only one to preach that Jesus was raised from the dead???

----------


## Brett85

> But the concepts of the two wills of God are in the Scriptures even though the words are not there.  Where is even the _concept_ that the gospel is "have a relationship with Jesus"?


Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that you have to have a relationship with Jesus to be saved, that you have to know him.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

When Jesus says "I never knew you," he's talking about people who claimed to be a Christian but never prayed to him or read their Bible.  These are people who think that they're saved simply because they attend church every week and go through all the motions.  But the rest of the week they never pray or open up their Bibles.  They don't have a relationship with Christ.  This verse is saying that only those who know Christ, those who have a relationship with him, will be saved.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> So Paul was the only one to preach that Jesus was raised from the dead???


Guys have been preaching it for centuries.  Doesn't mean it happened. Resurrection is a popular attribute when people want to deify someone:



It fooled the centurions - guess it could have fooled some of the disciples as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> TC, quote me the chapter and verse where any of the apostles preached "have a relationship with Jesus".  Is that in Romans somewhere?


Are you denying that we have a relationship with Jesus?  Or are you just denying that you can have one independently of the atonement?

I have a relationship with God BECAUSE of Christ's death which cleansed me of my sins.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that you have to have a relationship with Jesus to be saved, that you have to know him.
> 
> "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"
> 
> When Jesus says "I never knew you," he's talking about people who claimed to be a Christian but never prayed to him or read their Bible.  These are people who think that they're saved simply because they attend church every week and go through all the motions.  But the rest of the week they never pray or open up their Bibles.  They don't have a relationship with Christ.  This verse is saying that only those who know Christ, those who have a relationship with him, will be saved.


I disagree with a relationship with Christ being a *prerequisite* for salvation.  I'm saved by what Christ did on the cross, period, not because I have a relationship with Christ.  But I would hold that anyone who is saved does have a relationship with Christ, much like you describe.  I doubt Sola would disagree with this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you denying that we have a relationship with Jesus?  Or are you just denying that you can have one independently of the atonement?
> 
> I have a relationship with God BECAUSE of Christ's death which cleansed me of my sins.



The gospel cannot be something that man does, such as "repent" or "enter into a relationship with" or "be born again".  The gospel must be something that _God alone_ has done on behalf of man.  The gospel is not a command of God which men must perform to be saved.  If it was, man couldn't do it.

*What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Is Not*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Gospel-Is-Not

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If Christians are meant to emulate Jesus, perhaps they should count how many times he went around telling people he was going to heaven and they were damned forever if they didn't subscribe to his theological interpretation in every detail.  Just saying. 
> 
> In that vein:
> 
> Do you think Jesus would agree?  Jesus lived during the Roman Empire, a time when probably every single person on this board would have been crucified by the Romans, and the judgmental Pharisees and Sadducees would have cheered it on loudly.  He didn't exactly live during holy times, but he wasn't really big on judging people either based on accounts of his life in the gospels.  Would you make the argument that Jesus Christ's non-judgmentalism got out of hand?  If not, what does that tell you about how Christians should behave today?


Jesus was VERY judgmental toward the Pharisees and Saducees.  



> In one sense, it is very agreeable with Terry1's Arminianism to propose that Jesus did not posses a perfect human nature.  Why is it important for an Arminian that Christ lived a perfect life and followed the law in every detail?  The imputation of Christ's righteousness is absent from Arminianism...it's not important.   The modern popular false gospel of Arminianism is "accept Jesus and have a personal relationship with him".  This is completely foreign to what the apostles preached. Arminianism doesn't concern itself with these legal concepts.
> 
> Here is John Robbins talking about the difference between the true gospel that uses the concepts of law and business, and the false popular gospel that uses the language of "relationship":


In practice I agree that a lot of Arminians ignore the legal concepts, but I don't think this is implicit to Arminianism.

Does anyone know if Ray Comfort is a Calvinist or not?  I know he doesn't discuss it, yet he discusses the law all the time.



> Yes, you only care about rigid doctrines and not at all about having a personal relationship with Christ and living the kind of lifestyle that honors him.


Are you talkingh to SF or the late John Robbins?

I think essential gospel doctrine has to come before lifestyle matters.




> The gospel cannot be something that man does, such as "repent" or "enter into a relationship with" or "be born again".  The gospel must be something that _God alone_ has done on behalf of man.  The gospel is not a command of God which men must perform to be saved.  If it was, man couldn't do it.
> 
> *What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Is Not*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Gospel-Is-Not


This doesn't actually answer the question I asked.  I didn't ask you what the gospel was.  I asked you if you deny Christians have a relationship with Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> But before he ever had that mortal body he was an eternally existing being, and was always fully God, not only before his resurrection, but before his incarnation.
> 
> 
> And he, as holy God, didn't just inhabit some foreign body of pure evil flesh, but he positively became flesh in his incarnation all the while being completely sinless.


The flesh and blood body is pure evil--it is totally corrupted as the Word tells us and there's no good in the flesh and blood body.  Absent the Spirit of the Lord our flesh and blood bodies can do nothing but be evil and sin.

Jesus was God in the Spirit, but as mortal in the flesh as any man.  That was the entire point of Him coming in a tent of  human flesh was to show mankind, and to be an example in the same body of flesh and blood as us.  Jesus was capable of sin being in that same mortal body and was tempted in that same mortal body for forty days and nights, after which the angels of God had to minister to Jesus because He was hungry, thirsty and had been tempted to the point of exhaustion.  

Jesus overcoming sin and temptation was an example to mankind that we can also do the same by trust and faith in the Lord.  You're in the minority believing otherwise.

Also, why Jesus testified to being "flesh" after His resurrection and in His resurrected body, that is not the same mortal flesh and blood body that He died with.  His new flesh was spiritually transformed, glorified and perfected.  It wasn't the same as His old body that was flesh and blood.  You were attempting to say that it was, that is what I was disputing.

----------


## erowe1

> The flesh and blood body is pure evil--it is totally corrupted as the Word tells us and there's no good in the flesh and blood body.


What word? That's not in the Bible.




> Also, why Jesus testified to being "flesh" after His resurrection and in His resurrected body, that is not the same mortal flesh and blood body that He died with.  His new flesh was spiritually transformed, glorified and perfected.  It wasn't the same as His old body that was flesh and blood.  You were attempting to say that it was, that is what I was disputing.


Which is it? Was it not the same body? Or was it the same body transformed? It can't be both.

The Bible teaches that it was the same body transformed. And it was and still is flesh, as the Bible says. Jesus's body today is the very same body that died on the cross bearing the sins of others, and that still has the wounds of that crucifixion.




> Jesus overcoming sin and temptation was an example to mankind that we can also do the same by trust and faith in the Lord.  You're in the minority believing otherwise.


That's the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches about Jesus's temptation. Jesus, while being truly human, with a body of flesh, and while being genuinely tempted, proved by not sinning to be the one and only representative of the human race who could bear our sins in his own innocence. His sinlesslessness is not something anyone else can emulate. It sets him apart from all the rest of us.

----------


## Terry1

> The gospel cannot be something that man does, such as "repent" or "enter into a relationship with" or "be born again".  The gospel must be something that _God alone_ has done on behalf of man.  The gospel is not a command of God which men must perform to be saved.  If it was, man couldn't do it.
> 
> *What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Is Not*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Gospel-Is-Not


The Gospel is something we do.  It's the Good News from Jesus Christ.  The main theme of the Gospel is repent and be saved, otherwise you're just as sinful and evil as you were before you confessed belief.  Repentance is the beginning of Faith and we're called to repentance continually throughout our lives to the very end of them.  

Our personal relationship with Christ is based upon our willingness to repent and die to ourselves daily in faith.  It's the only way a believer can grow in faith, otherwise your faith dies if it's not maintained through obedience to the Spirit of the Lord and repentance daily--hourly.  Paul told you "I die daily" and that "we are killed all day long".  We sacrifice ourselves by giving up the old man in us and becoming the man or woman in Christ.  This can only be done by and through repentance and having a personal relationship with Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that you have to have a relationship with Jesus to be saved, that you have to know him.


Every single being in all of creation has a relationship with Jesus.

But what's interesting is the way you misquote that verse. It doesn't say that you have to know Jesus, but that he has to know you. I agree that it must refer to a particular kind of relational knowledge. And it's significant that Jesus apparently only knows certain people in this way. I think it's appropriate to connect this particular kind of relational knowledge with other passages like the following:




> Jeremiah 1:5-10
> 
> 4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
> 
> 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
> Before you were born I sanctified you;
> I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
> 6 Then said I:
> 
> ...





> Romans 8:28-30
> 
> 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.





> 1 Peter 1:1-2
> 
> Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
> 
> To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
> 
> Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

----------


## Brett85

The Bible also refers to election as concerning God's elect here on earth, the Jews.  Most verses in the Bible refer to the Jews as being elect, rather than that having anything to do with electing some to salvation and others to eternal damnation.  

Romans 11:1-2

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel.

----------


## Terry1

> What word? That's not in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it? Was it not the same body? Or was it the same body transformed? It can't be both..


If the old body is "transformed", then it's not the same body then is it.  He was transformed and perfected into a perfected, glorified state of being in a similar form, but not the same as "flesh and blood".  Jesus was sinless because He resisted sin, not because He was incapable of it.

1 Corinthians 15:50 
[ Our Final Victory ] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

4.Galatians 6:8 
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.


Genesis 6:12 
So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.




> The Bible teaches that it was the same body transformed. And it was and still is flesh, as the Bible says. Jesus's body today is the very same body that died on the cross bearing the sins of others, and that still has the wounds of that crucifixion.


No, Jesus was not resurrected in a flesh and blood body.  The earthly body is, mortal, dishonorable, weak and natural.  The resurrection body is immortal, glorified, powerful and spiritual.  They are in the same form as the old, but they are *not the same bodies* as the old as reference here:

*1 Corinthians 15:42
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.  43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.  44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.  45 And so it is written, The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.  47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
*




> That's the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches about Jesus's temptation. Jesus, while being truly human, with a body of flesh, and while being genuinely tempted, proved by not sinning to be the one and only representative of the human race who could bear our sins in his own innocence. His sinlesslessness is not something anyone else can emulate. It sets him apart from all the rest of us.


You're referring to two separate events.  Jesus being tempted in the wilderness was to give example that sin can be overcome while in the flesh through belief and faith in God.    Jesus taking the sins of the word upon Himself at the cross was to show what mankind could not do for himself, Jesus did for the world, that the world through Him might be saved.

Obviously, we can overcome sin while in our state of flesh and for you to say otherwise is wrong.  This was His example that we can overcome sin while in a state of human flesh and blood.  Taking the sins of the world upon Him was something only the Lord could do to show that only through Him we ourselves can overcome sin--by the Grace/power of God and through Faith/Jesus.

----------


## erowe1

> The Bible also refers to election as concerning God's elect here on earth, the Jews.  Most verses in the Bible refer to the Jews as being elect, rather than that having anything to do with electing some to salvation and others to eternal damnation.  
> 
> Romans 11:1-2
> 
> I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel.


Correct. And there are important parallels between God's election of Israel and his election of individuals unto salvation. Part of what Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 is drawing those parallels. One parallel is that God's choice of Israel was completely unconditional. He chose Abraham without respect for anything Abraham did or had within him to commend himself to God. Out of Abraham's sons, he chose Isaac unconditionally. Out of Isaac's sons he chose Jacob's unconditionally. And out of that nation of Jacob's descendants, he chose certain individuals unconditionally to be members of the believing remnant, the true Israel within Israel.

Significantly, Paul also uses the word foreknow of this election right there in your own quote. God's unconditional choosing to have the particular kind of relationship he would have with that nation was an act of "foreknowledge" on his part, just like he chose to know certain individuals so as to predestine them to salvation in eternity past in Romans 8:28-30.

----------


## erowe1

> You're referring to two separate events.  Jesus being tempted in the wilderness was to give example that sin can be overcome while in the flesh through belief and faith in God.


No I'm not. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what the Bible says about Jesus being tempted.




> 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, *yet without sin*.


Jesus being without sin (that is "sinless") is precisely the way in which he is different from any other human being. His sinlessness through temptation, while being truly human flesh, doesn't show how we can be like him, it shows how he did something we can never do, which is why we need his death for us.

----------


## Terry1

> Correct. And there are important parallels between God's election of Israel and his election of individuals unto salvation. Part of what Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 is drawing those parallels. One parallel is that God's choice of Israel was completely unconditional. *He chose Abraham without respect for anything Abraham did or had within him to commend himself to God*. Out of Abraham's sons, he chose Isaac unconditionally. Out of Isaac's sons he chose Jacob's unconditionally. And out of that nation of Jacob's descendants, he chose certain individuals unconditionally to be members of the believing remnant, the true Israel within Israel.
> 
> Significantly, Paul also uses the word foreknow of this election right there in your own quote. God's unconditional choosing to have the particular kind of relationship he would have with that nation was an act of "foreknowledge" on his part, just like he chose to know certain individuals so as to predestine them to salvation in eternity past in Romans 8:28-30.


Wrong.  Abraham's *faith* was *tested*, honored and rewarded by God here:

*Genesis 22: 1*
*Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!*

*And he said, Here I am.

2 Then He said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.*

God honored what Abraham *did in faith*---hence God spared Isaac because of Abraham's action in faith and belief in God.  God honors faith in anyone who makes that effort in obedience to the Spirit as referenced here:

*15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven,  16 and said: By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.  18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.  19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.*

----------


## erowe1

> Wrong.  Abraham's *faith* was *tested*, honored and rewarded by God here:


Notice that that was long after God had already made his unconditional covenant with Abraham, and long after God had declared Abraham righteous in his sight. The promise you bold at the end is a reiteration of a promise God had already made in chapters 12, 15, and 17.

----------


## Terry1

> No I'm not. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what the Bible says about Jesus being tempted.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus being without sin (that is "sinless") is precisely the way in which he is different from any other human being. His sinlessness through temptation, while being truly human flesh, doesn't show how we can be like him, it shows how he did something we can never do, which is why we need his death for us.


Do you realize what you're saying here?  Jesus being tempted and overcoming sin is exactly what we are able to do as a result of what Jesus did on the cross and not because of what He did in the wilderness when He was tempted by satan.  That is something we can do because of the cross.  We can and do overcome sin through our faith and belief by what Jesus accomplished at the cross.

When Jesus was born, He was born of the flesh and blood, not an immortal body.  There was a specific reason and purpose Jesus came in a tent of human flesh.  *John 3:5 Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.*

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth attempting to say that Jesus was immortal while in a tent of human flesh and then saying that the flesh and blood mortal bodies are the same as the perfected glorified spiritual bodies.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you realize what you're saying here?  Jesus being tempted and overcoming sin is exactly what we are able to do as a result of what Jesus did on the cross and not because of what He did in the wilderness when He was tempted by satan.  That is something we can do because of the cross.  We can and do overcome sin through our faith and belief by what Jesus accomplished at the cross.


No, it's something we are not able to do. And that's precisely the point of the cross. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what Jesus and his apostles taught. That "yet without sin" in Hebrews 4:15 is giving the way in which Jesus is not like us.

----------


## Terry1

> Notice that that was long after God had already made his unconditional covenant with Abraham, and long after God had declared Abraham righteous in his sight. The promise you bold at the end is a reiteration of a promise God had already made in chapters 12, 15, and 17.


God honors our actions of faith, this is why Abraham is called "The Father of Faith".  What was the point of testing Abraham if God was the one responsible for what Abraham chose?  It was a TEST of faith.  Obviously, Abraham could have refused to sacrifice Isaac, but he chose to obey God.  That is why God rewarded Abraham.  

This mindset and belief that you have that God somehow makes our choices for us and then as somehow gets pleasure watching us go through the motions of suffering and testing our faith as if it's pleasurable for God to do so is a very sick and perverted belief.

----------


## Terry1

> No, it's something we are not able to do. And that's precisely the point of the cross. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what Jesus and his apostles taught. That "yet without sin" in Hebrews 4:15 is giving the way in which Jesus is not like us.


Yes, it's the point of what Jesus did on the cross and not what He did in the wilderness.  Jesus was without sin because He resisted sin and not because He wasn't capable of it.  

Jesus had a choice, regardless of what you choose to believe.  It's all about our free will and choice in this life that determine our eternal destinies.  God's foreknowledge is just that.  His foreknowledge does not *cause* us to choose either way, it's simply Him foreknowing something, which He can also limit with regard to "remembering our sin no more and "blotting names from the Book of Life as if they never were".  God can and does limit His own foreknowledge of events to fulfill His own decree, which does not change as in God does not change.  His decree and His foreknowledge do not function in the same way.  His decree is set and unchangeable and who He is, His foreknowledge is changeable.

----------


## Terry1

> Correct. And there are important parallels between God's election of Israel and his election of individuals unto salvation. Part of what Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 is drawing those parallels. One parallel is that God's choice of Israel was completely unconditional. He chose Abraham without respect for anything Abraham did or had within him to commend himself to God. Out of Abraham's sons, he chose Isaac unconditionally. Out of Isaac's sons he chose Jacob's unconditionally. And out of that nation of Jacob's descendants, he chose certain individuals unconditionally to be members of the believing remnant, the true Israel within Israel.
> 
> Significantly, Paul also uses the word foreknow of this election right there in your own quote. God's unconditional choosing to have the particular kind of relationship he would have with that nation was an act of "foreknowledge" on his part, just like he chose to know certain individuals so as to predestine them to salvation in eternity past in Romans 8:28-30.


Also, regard the election of Israel, Paul tells us this in Romans 9

[B]Israels Rejection and Gods Purpose

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,  7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, In Isaac your seed shall be called.*  8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.  9 For this is the word of promise: At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.[c]
*

Paul is talking about the "spiritual seed" of Isaac as in the "Promise".  The Promise was always Jesus, then and today and forever.  The election is spiritual and not flesh.  No flesh can inherit the kingdom of heaven as we're told.  

Paul is telling the Jews here that they are not children of God by flesh and blood lineage, but only through the spirit can they be called the true Jews and the true Israel of God.

This is also where Paul tells the believers who are still practicing old Mosaic ceremonial laws by circumcising themselves in the flesh, that this is not part of the law of God through faith, but is a dead work in order to obtain righteousness of God.  This is the law that mankind failed to keep---the ceremonial laws that they were unable to keep perfectly and to the letter of them.  

Now Paul is telling them that in order to be a "true Jew of the spiritual Israel of God", they must become circumcised in their hearts spiritually by the indwelling spirit of the Lord as referenced here:

*Romans 2:29 
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.*

----------


## Mini-Me

> Where did you get the idea that Jesus was nonjudgmental?


By actually reading the Gospels and the accounts of his words and deeds?  Count how many times he walked around, heard a blasphemy, and told his followers, "That guy/priest/etc. is damned."  Count how many times he walked around, saw a prostitute, and told his followers, "That woman is damned."  In fact, I recall him saying something quite different in Matthew 7:1, which is quite congruent with how he lived his life in general and the kind of circles he hung around in.

Jesus became outraged at times, but when he overturned the tables in the temple, did he wax philosophic from his armchair about how they were all going to hell?  He railed at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:25-28, and he spoke of judgment in general terms at times, like Matthew 19:23-26, but how many times exactly did he ever say a specific person was damned or damn a specific person or group for theological differences?  *Count them and give me a number*, seriously.  Not that high, is it?  It's one thing to call John McCain a warmonger and a hypocrite, etc., but it's something quite different to say, "You're damned to hell [but I'm not, nyah, nyah]," and it's especially different to say that virtually every single time someone has a theological difference of opinion.  *And this was a guy who actually had standing to judge.*




> Jesus was VERY judgmental toward the Pharisees and Saducees.


Give me a specific number of times he engaged in the kind of "This person is damned/going to hell" judgment that you engage in several times a day.  Count them.

----------


## Nang

> By actually reading the Gospels and the accounts of his words and deeds?  Count how many times he walked around, heard a blasphemy, and told his followers, "That guy/priest/etc. is damned."  Count how many times he walked around, saw a prostitute, and told his followers, "That woman is damned."  In fact, I recall him saying something quite different in Matthew 7:1, which is quite congruent with how he lived his life in general and the kind of circles he hung around in.  He spoke of judgment in general terms at times, like Matthew 19:23-26, but how many times exactly did he ever say a specific person was damned or damn a specific person or group for theological differences?  *Count them and give me a number*, seriously.  He became outraged at times, but when he overturned the tables in the temple, did he wax philosophic from his armchair about how they were all going to hell?  *And this was a guy who actually had standing to judge.*



Ever read all the "woes" in the Book of Revelation?  

Those are warnings from Christ, you know.  Or maybe you don't?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Ever read all the "woes" in the Book of Revelation?  
> 
> Those are warnings from Christ, you know.  Or maybe you don't?


I have indeed read the Book of Revelations (thoroughly in high school), and it's sure as heck not an account of what Jesus said and did in his life on Earth, i.e. in the life he lived that Christians are meant to emulate.  Refer to the Gospels for someone leading by example, instead of using the general warnings of an ascended Son of God to rationalize living your life differently from how he lived his in the context of condemning others.

----------


## Nang

> I have indeed read the Book of Revelations (thoroughly in high school), and it's sure as heck not an account of what Jesus said and did in his life on Earth, i.e. in the life he lived that Christians are meant to emulate.


News:  No mortal can emulate the life Christ lived on earth.

News:  The Word of God from *heaven* inspired Johnto reveal the visions recorded in the Book of Revelation.  Such is all a part of the everlasting gospel, which permeates the entire bible; not just the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  See what Jesus said, in Luke 24:44-49






> Refer to the Gospels for someone leading by example, instead of using the general warnings of an ascended Son of God to rationalize living your life differently from how he lived his.


Frankly, I do not believe this suggestion on your part is going to get *you* very far . . .

----------


## Mini-Me

> News:  No mortal can emulate the life Christ lived on earth.


"So let's not even try to emulate him, and instead let's use that as an excuse to be extremely judgmental and condemn other people day in and day out in a way it's plainly apparent Jesus did not."  That's not really compelling.




> News:  The Word of God inspired John from *heaven* to reveal the visions recorded in the Book of Revelation.  Such is all a part of the everlasting gospel, which permeates the entire bible; not just the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  See what Jesus said, in Luke 24:44-49


News: You're still dodging in an attempt to rationalize/justify living your life differently from Jesus.  It's one thing to be imperfect and recognize that, but it's something entirely different to say, "Screw it, I'm saved and they're not, so it's perfectly dandy to rub it in their faces day in and day out and condemn specific people in a way that even Jesus with all his authority tended to refrain from."

Am I saying you're going to hell for it?  Obviously not.  I'm saying that if Jesus is a good example to go by, why be so *obstinate* about behaving in an almost polar opposite manner?  Where does it get anyone to minimize Matthew 7 and use the narrowest possible interpretation as a self-serving shield?  What's the point in using every possible excuse in the book to be as judgmental and condemning as the Bible might technically allow you to get away with if you squint hard enough?  Examine your motives.




> Frankly, I do not believe this suggestion on your part is going to get *you* very far . . .


I hear pride and hubris speaking, not a follower of Christ.  Christian or not, I'm trying to help you become a better Christian, whereas you are just sitting on your high horse saying what sounds like, "LOL, whatever.  You're damned, so why should I listen to you?  Why should I even bother trying to become more Christlike?  I'm SAVED, baby, because I'm getting 100 on the final theology exam, guaranteed!"

----------


## Terry1

> News:  No mortal can emulate the life Christ lived on earth..


Our sole purpose is to emulate the life of Christ.  Who's teaching you this stuff?  


*1 John 2:6  He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.*

*1 Corinthians 11:1
11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.*

*1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps

**Ephesians 5:1-2 
5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
*
*2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

**Galatians 3:27 
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.*




> News:  The Word of God inspired John from *heaven* to reveal the visions recorded in the Book of Revelation.  Such is all a part of the everlasting gospel, which permeates the entire bible; not just the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  See what Jesus said, in Luke 24:44-49
> 
> Frankly, I do not believe this suggestion on your part is going to get *you* very far . . .


You need to read your Bible and confirm your thoughts before you make the claim that they're biblically correct.

----------


## Nang

> "So let's not even try to emulate him,


To "emulate" is not the same as following one's example.

 Christ exemplified how we should live, but there is no way sinners can emulate His sinless life.

----------


## Mini-Me

> To "emulate" is not the same as following one's example.
> 
>  Christ exemplified how we should live, but there is no way sinners can emulate His sinless life.


Why do you think it's more important to argue over semantics than consider the larger message?

----------


## Nang

> Why do you think it's more important to argue over semantics than consider the larger message?



Because words matter.  Especially the Words of God.

He who pays attention to every word spoken by God, is wise.  Matthew 4:4

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you think it's more important to argue over semantics than consider the larger message?


But you are getting the message itself wrong.  Jesus didn't live a perfect life so that we can try to be good like Him and get to Heaven.  There is another reason why He lived a perfect life.

----------


## Mini-Me

> But you are getting the message itself wrong.  Jesus didn't live a perfect life so that we can try to be good like Him and get to Heaven.  There is another reason why He lived a perfect life.


If that's the case, then Jesus *certainly* didn't live his perfect life so others could spend all day telling everyone else they're condemned to hell for every reason under the sun, either.  Refer back to http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5446206, specifically:

"...why be so *obstinate* about behaving in an almost polar opposite manner? Where does it get anyone to minimize Matthew 7 and use the narrowest possible interpretation as a self-serving shield? What's the point in using every possible excuse in the book to be as judgmental and condemning as the Bible might technically allow you to get away with if you squint hard enough? Examine your motives."

----------


## Terry1

> Because words matter.  Especially the Words of God.
> 
> He who pays attention to every word spoken by God, is wise.  Matthew 4:4


You keep quoting scripture, but you're not paying attention to what the full context is actually saying.  You've been wrong in most of what you've posted already IMO.  Saying that we "can not emulate the life of Christ", when Gods word clearly is saying quite the opposite.  

If you're going to continue to pound out scripture, be well prepared to defend what you believe with the same.  Check your sources before you post them to see if that is indeed what the word is saying.

----------


## Terry1

> But you are getting the message itself wrong.  Jesus didn't live a perfect life so that we can try to be good like Him and get to Heaven.  There is another reason why He lived a perfect life.


Okay Sola, if Jesus didn't live a perfect life to be an example to mankind, then what reason do you think He came here for.  This should be interesting. lol

----------


## Mini-Me

> Okay Sola, if Jesus didn't live a perfect life to be an example to mankind, then what reason do you think He came here for.  This should be interesting. lol


Obviously, Jesus lived a perfect life to redeem the world from sin, so that only people with Sola_Fide's *precise* theology will not be damned, and so those chosen few would be free to spend half their time condemning specific other people to hell for myriad reasons, assured of their own saved seats in heaven.  He came for no other reason, and there's absolutely no reason in the world to even bother trying to live as he taught if you're already saved by your final theology exam score...or even if you're not for that matter, because it's not going to help anyway, and it's not like there's any point in following Christ's example (as best you can) for the sake of others either.

Apparently, none of Jesus's teachings were ever even meant to have practical application or impact on your actions beyond making sure you believed correctly regarding every theological minutiae.  Paradoxically, wherever he said otherwise, it's still only important for you to *believe* that you're supposed to behave a certain way, not to actually do so, except insofar as your actions might be construed as to constitute disbelief.  Matthew 7 especially should be downplayed and minimized into complete irrelevance to modern Christians' lives. 

I imagine Sola_Fide would phrase it a bit differently, but I've gathered that's the main idea.

----------


## Terry1

> Obviously, Jesus lived a perfect life to redeem the world from sin, so that only people with Sola_Fide's *precise* theology will not be damned, and so those chosen few would be free to spend half their time condemning specific other people to hell for myriad reasons, assured of their own saved seats in heaven.  He came for no other reason, and there's absolutely no reason in the world to even bother trying to live as he taught if you're already saved by your final theology exam score...or even if you're not for that matter, because it's not going to help anyway, and it's not like there's any point in following Christ's example (as best you can) for the sake of others either.   I imagine Sola_Fide would phrase it a bit differently, but I've gathered that's the main idea.


Yes you're right. That was the sole purpose of Jesus becoming flesh and blood and suffering as a human was to be an example of who we should be and how we should live as followers and believers of Him. If this were not true, there would have been no reason for His witness here on earth other than to die on the cross for people who didn't understand who He was and why He came here as one of us.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Yes you're right. That was the sole purpose of Jesus becoming flesh and blood and suffering as a human was to be an example of who we should be and how we should live as followers and believers of Him. If this were not true, there would have been no reason for His witness here on earth other than to die on the cross for people who didn't understand who He was and why He came here as one of us.


Unfortunately, anyone who can dismiss Jesus's specific teachings and examples regarding behavior as superfluous and minimize them in the most self-serving way possible (particularly Matthew 7, which is most relevant to the point I'm trying to make) may also be inclined to dismiss witnesses as superfluous too, or come up with an entirely different rationalization for the express purpose of continuing to dismiss said teachings or argue they don't apply.  Actually though, I suspect Sola_Fide's rationale for the witnesses is that they enabled everyone else to have a study guide for the final theology exam (specific to beliefs and nothing else).

Honestly though, I was mostly wanting to talk sense to FreedomFanatic in these posts rather than Sola_Fide, because FreedomFanatic is more willing to think critically in the general sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay Sola, if Jesus didn't live a perfect life to be an example to mankind, then what reason do you think He came here for.  This should be interesting. lol


This should be...interesting?  It blows me away that you come on these boards and preach and use the name of Jesus, yet you don't know the FIRST thing about Christianity.  You don't even know why Jesus came (also you don't believe in the Jesus I believe in because your Jesus had a sinful flesh...so it's a completely different idol altogether).

The second Person of the Trinity put on flesh, lived a sinless life, and died on a cross to save His people from the wrath of God against their sins.  This is just the simple, basic Christianity 101.  Christ lived a perfect life, and that perfect life is imputed to believers so that they can stand in the presence of God blameless.  

Jesus did not come to give us an example to follow so that we could be good and get to heaven by our works.  This is _antithetical_ to Christianity.

----------


## Terry1

> This should be...interesting?  It blows me away that you come on these boards and preach and use the name of Jesus, yet you don't know the FIRST thing about Christianity.  You don't even know why Jesus came (also you don't believe in the Jesus I believe in because your Jesus had a sinful flesh...so it's a completely different idol altogether)..


All you have to do is Google it Sola and you will see that there's almost no one in agreement with you on most Christian sites.  Don't believe me, Google it and see for yourself how many other Christians teach that very same message.  Jesus came in a tent of corrupt human flesh and was tested for forty days and nights.  If Jesus wasn't capable of sin---there wouldn't have been a need for Him to be *tested* now would there.  Use whatever common sense you have left here.




T


> he second Person of the Trinity put on flesh, lived a sinless life, and died on a cross to save His people from the wrath of God against their sins.  This is just the simple, basic Christianity 101.  Christ lived a perfect life, and that perfect life is imputed to believers so that they can stand in the presence of God blameless.  
> 
> Jesus did not come to give us an example to follow so that we could be good and get to heaven by our works.  This is _antithetical_ to Christianity.


You're denying that He came to be an example for us when I've just posted scripture that says the exact opposite. LOL


1 John 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

1 Corinthians 11:1
 11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

1 Peter 2:21
 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps

Ephesians 5:1-2 
 5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Galatians 3:27 
 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

----------


## Nang

> All you have to do is Google it Sola and you will see that there's almost no one in agreement with you on most Christian sites.



This is a good sign and a badge of honor to be worn . . .

----------


## Terry1

> This is a good sign and a badge of honor to be worn . . .


You really should take the same advice since nothing or no one else here seems to make a difference with the two of you.  You've both been proven wrong and with the words right in front of you---you both continually deny them and stay the course with your delusions. LOL

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus came in a tent of corrupt human flesh and was tested for forty days and nights.


Wow folks.  This is just blatant heresy (and blasphemy).  It is atrocious.  Shame on you.

----------


## Nang

> You really should take the same advice since nothing or no one else here seems to make a difference with the two of you.  You've both been proven wrong and with the words right in front of you---you both continually deny them and stay the course with your delusions. LOL


We are both considering the source of the accusations . . .

----------


## Terry1

> Wow folks.  This is just blatant heresy (and blasphemy).  It is atrocious.  Shame on you.


All flesh is corrupt.  The flesh of Jesus never saw corruption because He chose not to sin---plain and simple.  Still all flesh is corrupt by nature or else it wouldn't have the capability of sinning.  Jesus was capable of sin, but chose not to, hence his flesh never saw corruption.

You really crack me up Sola.  It's sad that you're this clueless, but I can't help laughing at some of the crap you say. LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow folks.  This is just blatant heresy (and blasphemy).  It is atrocious.  Shame on you.


I think there are probably more people who would agree with you on Christian sites than Terry.  The fact that people try to pin you on this point, in this case, I find exceptionally odd.

With regards to Mini-Me's question, I have NOT said that anyone here is going to Hell, or anywhere else.  I'd like to see someone quote me saying something to that effect.  You can't, because I haven't said anything like that.  Terry is blaspheming Christ here, but God can still save him, and I don't know if he will or not.

But to suggest that someone who says something blasphemous like that, with no real room for misinterpretation, IS CURRENTLY saved is absolutely ludicrous.

----------


## Terry1

> I think there are probably more people who would agree with you on Christian sites than Terry.  The fact that people try to pin you on this point, in this case, I find exceptionally odd.
> 
> With regards to Mini-Me's question, I have NOT said that anyone here is going to Hell, or anywhere else.  I'd like to see someone quote me saying something to that effect.  You can't, because I haven't said anything like that.  Terry is blaspheming Christ here, but God can still save him, and I don't know if he will or not.
> 
> But to suggest that someone who says something blasphemous like that, with no real room for misinterpretation, IS CURRENTLY saved is absolutely ludicrous.


Use your common sense FF.  If the word tells you that "ALL" flesh is corrupt and can not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  We know that Jesus was born into a body of corrupt human flesh.  Jesus's flesh never saw corruption as the Bible says, but His flesh was capable of sinning, He chose not to sin which kept His flesh without corruption itself, but the flesh by nature is capable of sin, otherwise Jesus would have never been tested in the wilderness.  Now this is how it's taught by more knowledgeable Christian teachers than not.  It's Bible common sense.

----------


## Brett85

> Terry is blaspheming Christ here, but God can still save him, and I don't know if he will or not.


Are you serious?  She's just saying the same thing that you claimed you believed not too long ago.

You're contradicting what you said just yesterday.




> I believed that Jesus could have sinned but didn't at one point, but I haven't believed that for awhile.  I'd consider that a heretical belief, but I don't know if everyone who holds to it is lost.  But certainly anyone who holds that Christ actually sins is lost.

----------


## Brett85

> I think there are probably more people who would agree with you on Christian sites than Terry.





> But the "Jesus" of postmodern Evangelicalism is a different matter. Reliable surveys show that today nearly half of self-professed Evangelical Christians not only believe that Jesus was capable of sinning while on earth, but that He did actually commit sin.


http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/...&columnid=5434

And that goes a lot farther than anything Terry has said.

----------


## Terry1

> Are you serious?  She's just saying the same thing that you claimed you believed not too long ago.
> 
> You're contradicting what you said just yesterday.


Thanks for catching that TC, I must've missed that post of his yesterday.

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/...&columnid=5434
> 
> And that goes a lot farther than anything Terry has said.


Fact is that Larry, Curly and Moe are all over the place contradicting themselves and then giving each other attaboys at the same time. pfft--LOL

----------


## Nang

> Use your common sense FF.  If the word tells you that "ALL" flesh is corrupt and can not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  We know that Jesus was born into a body of corrupt human flesh.  Jesus's flesh never saw corruption as the Bible says, but His flesh was capable of sinning, He chose not to sin which kept His flesh without corruption itself, but the flesh by nature is capable of sin, otherwise Jesus would have never been tested in the wilderness.  Now this is how it's taught by more knowledgeable Christian teachers than not.  It's Bible common sense.


Sin issues from the heart of man, not his flesh.

Jesus Christ possessed the mind and heart of God, even while incarnated in bodily form.

Have you ever been taught anything about the Trinity and the Incarnation?  Do you know about the hypostatic-union of natures in Christ?

----------


## Terry1

> Sin issues from the heart of man, not his flesh.
> 
> Jesus Christ possessed the mind and heart of God, even while incarnated in bodily form.
> 
> Have you ever been taught anything about the Trinity and the Incarnation?  Do you know about the hypostatic-union of natures in Christ?


So now you're going to attempt to crawl outside of your own professed doctrine in attempt to justify something that's not Biblical?

Save it Nang, I go by the word of God and nothing else.  If you can disprove anything I've written biblically---then you do that and do with scripture, not these convoluted platitudes you've picked up being blown around by the winds of false doctrines.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you serious?  She's just saying the same thing that you claimed you believed not too long ago.
> 
> You're contradicting what you said just yesterday.


I guess I missed his clarification because it certainly seemed like Terry1 was saying that Jesus actually had sinned.  Erowe1 thought he said the same thing, so it wasn't just me and SF.   But my point was more to clarify that I haven't actually claimed any particular person is destined for Hell.




> http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/...&columnid=5434
> 
> And that goes a lot farther than anything Terry has said.


I'll have to check that link out, if that's true its scary.  It wouldn't change my position though, it would simply solidify my belief that true Christians are an extreme minority.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/...&columnid=5434
> 
> And that goes a lot farther than anything Terry has said.


I just read the article.  The author assumes that going into a bar and having a drink is a sin, and thus assumes that to say Jesus could have done such is to say that he could have sinned.  The alternative, of course, being that drinking alcohol isn't necessarily a sin (And I don't think the scripture teaches that it is) nor is going to a bar inherently sinful (See above.) 

But, I'm amazed that a Presbyterian pastor said Jesus committed sin.  I really hope it was a PCUSA pastor, for the good of the Presbyterian churches that are actually decent.

----------


## Terry1

> I guess I missed his clarification because it certainly seemed like Terry1 was saying that Jesus actually had sinned.  Erowe1 thought he said the same thing, so it wasn't just me and SF.   But my point was more to clarify that I haven't actually claimed any particular person is destined for Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to check that link out, if that's true its scary.  It wouldn't change my position though, it would simply solidify my belief that true Christians are an extreme minority.


Is it a coincidence that TC actually pays attention and clearly sees what I've said and you Calvin people don't?  It's that old intellectual dishonesty working there wanting to misrepresent and change the narrative of what someone actually said whom they disagree with in order to win an argument.  That's called something in critical thinking.  It's just plain old dishonesty and once someone devolves to this level, they're of no good use for honest debate any longer.  They've revealed the level to which they're willing to stoop just to be considered right instead of corrected.

This is the same type of person you wouldn't want to trust your car keys with or have at your back in battle.

----------


## erowe1

> By actually reading the Gospels and the accounts of his words and deeds?  Count how many times he walked around, heard a blasphemy, and told his followers, "That guy/priest/etc. is damned."  Count how many times he walked around, saw a prostitute, and told his followers, "That woman is damned."  In fact, I recall him saying something quite different in Matthew 7:1, which is quite congruent with how he lived his life in general and the kind of circles he hung around in.
> 
> Jesus became outraged at times, but when he overturned the tables in the temple, did he wax philosophic from his armchair about how they were all going to hell?  He railed at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:25-28, and he spoke of judgment in general terms at times, like Matthew 19:23-26, but how many times exactly did he ever say a specific person was damned or damn a specific person or group for theological differences?  *Count them and give me a number*, seriously.  Not that high, is it?  It's one thing to call John McCain a warmonger and a hypocrite, etc., but it's something quite different to say, "You're damned to hell [but I'm not, nyah, nyah]," and it's especially different to say that virtually every single time someone has a theological difference of opinion.  *And this was a guy who actually had standing to judge.*
> 
> 
> Give me a specific number of times he engaged in the kind of "This person is damned/going to hell" judgment that you engage in several times a day.  Count them.


Counting them would take awhile. It's all through all four Gospels.

And please quote me saying someone was going to hell.

Here's a rough and dirty start at your challenge:




> Matthew 10:14-15
> 
> 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!





> Matthew 10:32-33
> 
> 32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.





> Matthew 11:20-24
> 
> 20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be[d] brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”





> Matthew 12:22-45
> 
> 22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and[e] mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
> 
> 24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,[f] the ruler of the demons.”
> 
> 25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
> 
> 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
> ...





> Matthew 13:36-43
> 
> 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
> 
> 37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!





> Matthew 16:1-4
> 
> Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites![a] You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet[b] Jonah.” And He left them and departed.





> Matthew 18:21-35
> 
> 21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
> 
> 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
> 
> 28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
> 
> 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”





> Matthew 21:12-13
> 
> 12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”





> Matthew 21:33-45
> 
> 33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. 37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
> 
> 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
> 
> 41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
> 
> 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
> ...





> Matthew 22:1-14
> 
> And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ 10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
> 
> 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and[a] cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
> 
> 14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”





> Matthew 23:1-36
> 
> Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
> 
> 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[c]
> 
> 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
> 
> 16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[d] the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
> ...





> Matthew 24:45-51
> 
> 45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’[g] 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





> Matthew 25:1-46
> 
> “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
> 
> 6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming;[a] go out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.
> 
> 11 “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ 12 But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’
> 
> 13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour[b] in which the Son of Man is coming.
> ...


That makes up a large portion of the Gospel of Matthew, without getting to the others yet.

----------


## erowe1

> Are you serious?  She's just saying the same thing that you claimed you believed not too long ago.
> 
> You're contradicting what you said just yesterday.


I don't see how you can read what Terry's saying and think it's no more than that.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't see how you can read what Terry's saying and think it's no more than that.


Because TC sees that I back everything I say up with the word of God.  You and some other Calvin folk here don't do that.  You'll post *articles* written by the same people who believe as you do or one of you will insert some convoluted phrase and platitude plucked from one or another doctrinal belief.  How does that Biblically confirm anything?  

I mainly use the KJV when backing something up Biblically, but it's always good to cross reference with other Bible sources such as concordances and lexicons in both Hebrew and the Greek.  But attacking someone by changing their narrative and misrepresenting what they're actually saying in order to argue based upon a false premise to win a debate is just plain dishonest.  

I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong, I'll run to truth, not away from it, but I haven't seen anything yet that the Calvin folk here have posted that can Biblically be confirmed, other than maybe a something obvious like "Jesus is Lord".  We all pretty much agree on that, so we can start from there.  Where we differ is on the points of the "elect", "salvation", "faith", "grace", "works of faith" vs "dead works", and "repentance".  All of these things are "gifts" and no one has disputed that, that I'm aware of.  What needs to be clarified and confirmed with the word of God is how all of these things function within the life of a believer.

It's more than clear to me that some would rather stick to what they've already settled on as *truth* rather than to actually discover and resign themselves to the fact that what they've been subscribing to doesn't reconcile with what they claim to believe as a whole.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I think there are probably more people who would agree with you on Christian sites than Terry.  The fact that people try to pin you on this point, in this case, I find exceptionally odd.
> 
> With regards to Mini-Me's question, I have NOT said that anyone here is going to Hell, or anywhere else.  I'd like to see someone quote me saying something to that effect.  You can't, because I haven't said anything like that.  Terry is blaspheming Christ here, but God can still save him, and I don't know if he will or not.
> 
> But to suggest that someone who says something blasphemous like that, with no real room for misinterpretation, IS CURRENTLY saved is absolutely ludicrous.


You usually use the phrase "damned," such as saying the current Pope is damned, etc.  Do you mean something different by it?

----------


## Terry1

Something else I've seen is that posting massive amount of scripture all at once does not lead anyone to a good understanding, all that serves is covering up and burying something under a pile of scripture that has nothing to do with what the topic of discussion is actually pertaining to.  This another tactic that's often used in attempt to confuse the issue out of existence by literally heaping tons of information on top of it in order to stifle the debate.  Again, this is not winning an argument, this is a cheap tactic used to cover the fact that they can't give a clear answer and simply don't know themselves.  It's just pride in other words and unwilling to admit that they just don't know.  Some people think they have to know the answer for everything when some things have no clear good answer that's humanly possible.

Make a point and post only those scriptures that pertain to that particular point.  This way people can actually be brought into the light of understanding of where you're coming from and they either choose to acknowledge that with the same or not.  Not acknowledging something that's been made more than clear to prove something else wrong is a sign they have nothing else left with to argue that point.  Insults and back-handed comments are also a sign of defeat because that's all they have left.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Counting them would take awhile. It's all through all four Gospels.
> 
> And please quote me saying someone was going to hell.
> 
> Here's a rough and dirty start at your challenge:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to look for examples, but I think you misunderstood me, because the vast majority of these examples do not actually fall under the specific kind of condemnation I'm arguing against.  Perhaps you're used to defending against people who interpret Matthew 7:1 overly broadly to include all forms of moral criticism?  I'm primarily referring to remarks to the effect of, "Pope Francis is damned [for XYZ]," which is dismissive condemnation for its own sake, and I'm also concerned over similar remarks that self-servingly declare others as less [than yourself, naturally ] in the eyes of God.  Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, remember?  Whenever you interpret the Bible in the way which gives you the most latitude possible to exalt yourself over others, it's time to reexamine your motives and priorities.

Jesus was far more reserved when it came to this, despite him having authority (John 5:22) while we do not.  Instead, most of Jesus's words of rebuke and condemnation are general warnings not levied at a specific person as a flippant or definitive judgment, and most of his rebukes of specific people do not include such explicit condemnation.  There is typically a separation between the two, because they are two different things.  Matthew 12:22-45, Matthew 21:33-45, and Matthew 23:13 *do* bear a resemblance to the kind of remarks I'm talking about, but not so cleanly or summarily (as in summary judgment) as the kind of modern language I'm referring to, *and they still serve primarily as warnings and lessons rather than dismissive condemnations for their own sake*.  Matthew 23:33 superficially resembles the language I'm talking about, but it's a rhetorical question answered by the following verse and Jesus's lamentations therein about the response prophets receive.

Can you see the distinctions I'm referring to, and why e.g. John 12:47 provides context as to what Jesus is doing, to contrast with the modern-day behavior and haughty motivations I'm referring to?  If not, what do Luke 6:37 and Matthew 7:1 (and the surrounding text) mean to you?  *Do they apply to you in any way, and if so, how?*

As a side note, some of your passages, including but not limited to Matthew 25:31-44, help make Terry's point as well, or at least the included point that works are indeed relevant to God.

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you for taking the time to look for examples, but I think you misunderstood me, because the vast majority of these examples do not actually fall under the specific kind of condemnation I'm arguing against.  Perhaps you're used to defending against people who interpret Matthew 7:1 overly broadly to include all forms of moral criticism?  I'm specifically referring to remarks to the effect of, "Pope Francis is damned [for XYZ]," which is dismissive condemnation for its own sake.  Instead, most of Jesus's words of rebuke and condemnation are general warnings not levied at a specific person as a flippant or definitive judgment, and most of his rebukes of specific people do not include such explicit condemnation.  There is typically a separation between the two, because they are two different things.
> 
> Matthew 12:22-45, Matthew 21:33-45, and Matthew 23:13 *do* bear a resemblance to the kind of remarks I'm talking about, but not so cleanly or summarily (as in summary judgment) as the kind of modern language I'm referring to, *and they still serve primarily as warnings and lessons rather than dismissive condemnations for their own sake*.  Matthew 23:33 superficially resembles the language I'm talking about, but it's a rhetorical question answered by the following verse and Jesus's lamentations therein about the response prophets receive.
> 
> Can you see the distinctions I'm referring to, and why e.g. John 12:47 provides context as to what Jesus is doing, to contrast with the modern-day behavior and haughty motivations I'm referring to?  If not, what do Luke 6:37 and Matthew 7:1 (and the surrounding text) mean to you?  *Do they apply to you in any way, and if so, how?*
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note, some of your passages, including but not limited to Matthew 25:31-44, help make Terry's point as well, and that works are relevant to God.


You are correct Mini, because what many fail to understand is that they're not God or Jesus.  What God does in the case of judging mankind's heart is not our calling in this life.  We're called to be sowers of seeds.  You're also correct that Jesus gives warnings to all and only God is the righteous judge of anyone's heart and only He decides whom He chooses in the end.  

Many of these doctrines such as John Calvin tend to place the believer in the judgment seat of God, they then accuse others who don't believe as they do that they're "not Christians" or they're "not believers" and others are "damned".

Jesus even told us not to pray as He did, but gave us our own prayer---"Our Father which art in heaven". Luke 11:1  

Many people used the example of Jesus turning over the money changers tables as an excuse to be cruel and judgmental, but that was Jesus who did that, while Jesus instructed us to love our neighbor as ourselves and to be patient, tolerant and kind to others.

Jesus even rebuked James and John who wanted to call fire down from heaven upon those who didn't accept the witness of Christ.  Jesus told them this:

*Luke 9:54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village*.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're also correct that Jesus gives warnings to all and only God is the righteous judge of anyone's heart and only He decides whom He chooses *in the end.*


Wrong.  God does not choose "in the end", He chooses at the beginning...before He even created the world:




> Ephesians 1:4-6
> 
> *For he chose us in him before the creation of the world* to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love *he predestined us for adoption to sonship* through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.


Your theology is not Biblical.

----------


## Terry1

> Wrong.  God does not choose "in the end", He chooses at the beginning...before He even created the world:
> 
> 
> 
> Your theology is not Biblical.


Where's your scripture to back up your claim here, because I can show you were you're wrong again Sola.  

Everyone's names was written in the Book of Life at the forming of the foundations of this worlds.  Names are never added---only blotted out from it.  Names have been being blotted out from that Book of Life since it's creation as referenced here:


*Revelation 13:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world*

Actually, until we die the first death and are bodily and spiritually perfected--no one has eternal security.  What we have in this life is the assurance along with the "HOPE" that it might be or may be and conditional upon continually abiding in Christ to the very end of our lives as referenced here:

*Revelation 20: 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.*


And this is what Paul has always said about being "predestined"---it is a future event that does not happen in this life as referenced here:

*Romans 8:29 
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
*

----------


## erowe1

> Thank you for taking the time to look for examples, but I think you misunderstood me, because the vast majority of these examples do not actually fall under the specific kind of condemnation I'm arguing against.  Perhaps you're used to defending against people who interpret Matthew 7:1 overly broadly to include all forms of moral criticism?  I'm primarily referring to remarks to the effect of, "Pope Francis is damned [for XYZ]," which is dismissive condemnation for its own sake, and I'm also concerned over similar remarks that self-servingly declare others as less [than yourself, naturally ] in the eyes of God.  Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, remember?  Whenever you interpret the Bible in the way which gives you the most latitude possible to exalt yourself over others, it's time to reexamine your motives and priorities.
> 
> Jesus was far more reserved when it came to this, despite him having authority (John 5:22) while we do not.  Instead, most of Jesus's words of rebuke and condemnation are general warnings not levied at a specific person as a flippant or definitive judgment, and most of his rebukes of specific people do not include such explicit condemnation.  There is typically a separation between the two, because they are two different things.  Matthew 12:22-45, Matthew 21:33-45, and Matthew 23:13 *do* bear a resemblance to the kind of remarks I'm talking about, but not so cleanly or summarily (as in summary judgment) as the kind of modern language I'm referring to, *and they still serve primarily as warnings and lessons rather than dismissive condemnations for their own sake*.  Matthew 23:33 superficially resembles the language I'm talking about, but it's a rhetorical question answered by the following verse and Jesus's lamentations therein about the response prophets receive.
> 
> Can you see the distinctions I'm referring to, and why e.g. John 12:47 provides context as to what Jesus is doing, to contrast with the modern-day behavior and haughty motivations I'm referring to?  If not, what do Luke 6:37 and Matthew 7:1 (and the surrounding text) mean to you?  *Do they apply to you in any way, and if so, how?*
> 
> As a side note, some of your passages, including but not limited to Matthew 25:31-44, help make Terry's point as well, or at least the included point that works are indeed relevant to God.


First of all, you keep adding the word "dismissive," which of course stacks the deck. No Jesus was not dismissive in his judgments, nor do I suspect anyone else considers themselves to be.

I think the passages that I gave you are prone not to count as examples of what you were saying are better examples than you let on. First of all, in some of the passages, he is clearly condemning actual people, not just giving hypothetical warnings. Second, once that is seen, it further becomes clear that some of the other passages where he gives warnings in the abstract are also intended to apply to those same actual specific people in Jesus's audience, and that they themselves took it that way.

Matthew 7:1 says that we should judge people by the right standard, which is the same standard by which we will be judged.

Where do you see Jesus being reserved in judging people, as you claim? I don't see that in the Gospels at all. The very same passage you mention to support your claim that he was very reserved shows that he wasn't.




> John 5:18-47
> 
> 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
> 
> 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
> 
> 31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. *39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.*
> 
> 41 “I do not receive honor from men. *42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you.* 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; *there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?*”


Finally, how do you imagine that Matthew 25 supports Terry's point? Are you talking about her accusation of Jesus's flesh being pure evil?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And this is what Paul has always said about being "predestined"---it is a future event that does not happen in this life as referenced here:


Only in Terry1's insane man-centered brain can the word "pre-destined" mean only something that happens in the future. Unbelievable.








> *Romans 8:29 
> For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
> *


Terry1, who is the firstborn among many brethren?

----------


## Terry1

The main point of debate in this entire forum between Christians is-- are believers chosen and predestined already in this life.  Think about what it is anyone is actually disputing here when they want to make the claim that people are always saved no matter what evil they do in this life after their confession of belief.  They're arguing the point that they don't have to continually abide in Christ or repent of anything that remaining in the state of elect entails.  

What they're actually doing here is arguing against the fact that a Christian must do more than confess belief alone---they have to actually live it in real life.  

What many here are attempting to pass off as Gospel, is that once they confess belief and get baptized, they're eternally secure and nothing can undo that.  Then they will attempt to once again justify that same belief by saying "we are instructed by our elders of the church to do good".  That is exactly what the Apostle Paul tells us *not to do*, because that is a "good work" and a "dead work" done out of ritual and tradition taught by their doctrines and not the leading spontaneous reaction in obedience to the Holy Spirit as in a "work of faith" which Paul tells us *to do*, along with James, Hebrews, John and Revelation where God also says we'll be judged by the very same.

Then you can ask, *is it bad then to do good absent the Spirit of the Lord leading*?  No--but, if it's not done in the Spirit of the Lord, then "FAITH" had nothing to do with that good deed and neither did God, because you may be doing something *you* perceive is good, but God may see it all together differently as filthy rags in His eyes.  This is why believers are instructed to listen to and obey the voice of the Holy Spirit--by grace and through faith so that whatever we do is of FAITH of God.  Then we know we're not doing something that God doesn't want us to be doing---no matter how good we may perceive that deed is.

People get into a lot of trouble doing things God didn't call them to do via His Holy Spirit and then they wonder why all of their efforts failed and turned to chaos.  If God is in it---it will succeed, if not--it won't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Let's try this again:




> And this is what Paul has always said about being "predestined"---it is a future event that does not happen in this life as referenced here:


Only in Terry1's insane man-centered brain can the word "pre-destined" mean only something that happens in the future. Unbelievable.








> *Romans 8:29 
> For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
> *


*Terry1, who is the firstborn among many brethren?*

----------


## Terry1

> Only in Terry1's insane man-centered brain can the word "pre-destined" mean only something that happens in the future. Unbelievable.
> 
> Terry1, who is the firstborn among many brethren?


Sola, take another look at the context of that scripture.  Paul is talking to people, telling them that *yes* "whom God foreknew" talking about the Christians there---and that God also did predestinate *to be conformed into the image of HIS SON*.  Paul is referring to believers here being conformed into the image of Christ---"that he/believer-- MIGHT BE the firstborn among many brethren"---again here--Paul is referring to believers that they might be firstborn among many brethren just the same as Jesus was the "firstborn" among His brethren.  

Paul certainly isn't referring to Jesus that God foreknew and that He "might be", because He is the Son of the Father and God Himself and always was, is and shall ever more be.  Paul is speaking to believers here and telling them that whom God foreknew He also did predestinate to be firstborn among many brethren. 


Romans 8:29 
 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, take another look at the context of that scripture.  Paul is talking to people, telling them that *yes* "whom God foreknew" talking about the Christians there---and that God also did predestinate *to be conformed into the image of HIS SON*.  Paul is referring to believers here being conformed into the image of Christ---"that he/believer-- MIGHT BE the firstborn among many brethren"---again here--Paul is referring to believers that they might be firstborn among many brethren just the same as Jesus was the "firstborn" among His brethren.




*WRONG.*  Paul is talking about _Christ._ _The Son_ is the firstborn among many brethren.



> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he [Jesus] might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*


Jesus is the firstborn: 




> *Colossians 1:18 
> 
> And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy*





Knowing now that you are wrong, and that the passage refers to THE SON as the firstborn, why do you think "might be" carries any idea of conditionality at all?  Was it possible that Jesus not be the firstborn among the brothers?   

In other words, you don't know how to read the Scriptures.

----------


## Terry1

> *WRONG.*  Paul is talking about _Christ._ _The Son_ is the firstborn among many brethren.
> 
> 
> Jesus is the firstborn: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sola, how is it possible you can't see that when Paul refers to believers being conformed to the "image of Christ" that he's not referring to Christ being conformed to His own image.  Now, use some common sense here.

----------


## Nang

> Sola, take another look at the context of that scripture.  Paul is talking to people, telling them that *yes* "whom God foreknew" talking about the Christians there---and that God also did predestinate *to be conformed into the image of HIS SON*.  Paul is referring to believers here being conformed into the image of Christ---"that he/believer-- MIGHT BE the firstborn among many brethren"---again here--Paul is referring to believers that they might be firstborn among many brethren just the same as Jesus was the "firstborn" among His brethren.  
> 
> Paul certainly isn't referring to Jesus that God foreknew and that He "might be", because He is the Son of the Father and God Himself and always was, is and shall ever more be.  *Paul is speaking to believers here and telling them* that whom God foreknew He also did predestinate to be firstborn among many brethren. 
> 
> 
> Romans 8:29 
>  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.



Yikes!

The believers are the "brethren," and the Son is the "firstborn."

Any person unable to properly parse a sentence, should not be attempting to teach the bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, how is it possible you can't see that when Paul refers to believers being conformed to "image of Christ" that he's not referring to Christ being conformed to His own image.  Now, use some common sense here.



Because the verse says that (He...JESUS...singular pronoun) is the firstborn among many brethren.  

Are you telling me that you are not aware that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the firstborn pre-eminent Son?

----------


## Terry1

> Because the verse says that (He...JESUS...singular pronoun) is the firstborn among many brethren.  
> 
> Are you telling me that you are not aware that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the firstborn pre-eminent Son?


I'll tell you also the same thing I just told Sola---how is it possible you can't see that when Paul refers to believers being conformed to the "image of Christ" that he's not referring to Christ being conformed to His own image. Now, use some common sense here.

----------


## Nang

> I'll tell you also the same thing I just told Sola---how is it possible you can't see that when Paul refers to believers being conformed to the "image of Christ" that he's not referring to Christ being conformed to His own image. Now, use some common sense here.



There aughta be a law . . .

----------


## Terry1

> There aughta be a law . . .

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll tell you also the same thing I just told Sola---how is it possible you can't see that when Paul refers to believers being conformed to the "image of Christ" that he's not referring to Christ being conformed to His own image. Now, use some common sense here.


I can't believe this...


Okay Terry1.  Let's walk through this, [mod delete].  Here is the verse:




> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*


Are you telling me that you cannot see that it is THE SON ("he"...the singular pronoun) that is the firstborn among many brothers???

Think about what you are saying.  All the people who God predestined, how could they be the "firstborn"?  Isn't "firstborn" the one that comes first?

[mod delete]

----------


## Terry1

> I can't believe this...
> 
> 
> Okay Terry1.  Let's walk through this, [mod delete]  Here is the verse:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that you cannot see that it is THE SON ("he"...the singular pronoun) that is the firstborn among many brothers???
> 
> ...



Paul certainly isn't indicating that Christ MIGHT BE firstborn, because He already is.  He's referring to believers Sola and that they too "might be" conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.  Paul isn't saying that Christ might be conformed to His own image. 
[mod delete]

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Paul certainly isn't indicating that Christ MIGHT BE firstborn, because He already is.  He's referring to believers Sola and that they too "might be" conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.  Paul isn't saying that Christ might be conformed to His own image.


I quit....

[mod delete]  One that can't even work through a simple sentence on a grammatical level...

----------


## Terry1

> I quit....
> 
> [mod delete] One that can't even work through a simple sentence on a grammatical level...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


It's funny to not understand what a singular pronoun is, isn't it?

How do you get through your day?  Do you refer to your family as "he"?

----------


## Brett85

Terry is correct.  The phrase "that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" isn't referring to Christ, since Christ already is the firstborn.  It wouldn't make any sense to say that Christ "might be" the firstborn.

----------


## Nang

[mod delete]

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Terry is correct.  The phrase "that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" isn't referring to Christ, since Christ already is the firstborn.  It wouldn't make any sense to say that Christ "might be" the firstborn of many nations.



Who else can be the firstborn if Christ already is?

----------


## Brett85

> [mod delete].


Ok, there's clearly no point of responding to that.  All the Calvinists can do is name call and insult.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Where's Erowe1 when you need him?  I seriously can't do this anymore....

----------


## Brett85

> Who else can be the firstborn if Christ already is?


Those who are conformed to his image.

----------


## Nang

> Terry is correct.  The phrase "that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" isn't referring to Christ, since Christ already is the firstborn.  It wouldn't make any sense to say that Christ "might be" the firstborn.


Terry is very incorrect.

It is the promise of divine sanctification that enables believers to conform as the image of Christ in this world; that defines and evidences them as being His brethren.  Christians are brother and sisters of the firstborn Son of God.

----------


## Terry1

> Where's Erowe1 when you need him?  I seriously can't do this anymore....


Yes you can Sola.  I really don't take offense at being called a "heretic", "idiot" and "troll" by people who clearly just can't back up anything they claim, so they have to resort to personal attacks.  I just see it for what it is.

----------


## Nang

> Ok, there's clearly no point of responding to that.  All the Calvinists can do is name call and insult.



Why did you omit Isaiah 5:20-21?  It is directed to you, from the word of God.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes you can Sola.  I really don't take offense at being called a "heretic", "idiot" and "troll" by people who clearly just can't back up anything they claim, so they have to resort to personal attacks.  I just see it for what it is.


I always think of this thread with the way that the Calvinists always act.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...erks-(article)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Those who are conformed to his image.


You said Christ is the firstborn which is correct (Col. 1:18).  How could someone else be the firstborn?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry is very incorrect.
> 
> It is the promise of divine sanctification that enables believers to conform as the image of Christ in this world; that defines and evidences them as being His brethren.  Christians are brother and sisters of the firstborn Son of God.


If I'm "incorrect" and a "troll" as you call me for being so, then just what does that make you when you refuse to back up any claim you make with the word of God.  I have begged and pleaded with you to stop the personal attacks and use the word of God as your source to prove what you're claiming is true so we can discuss it.  Have you done that yet?  No, you haven't, instead you call people names while instead of attacking the message, you attack the messenger.  No one can discuss things with people like yourselves.  Until you behave in a civil manner, I simply refuse to acknowledge any more of this childish behavior.  Thanks

----------


## Mini-Me

> First of all, you keep adding the word "dismissive," which of course stacks the deck. No Jesus was not dismissive in his judgments, nor do I suspect anyone else considers themselves to be.
> 
> I think the passages that I gave you are prone not to count as examples of what you were saying are better examples than you let on. First of all, in some of the passages, he is clearly condemning actual people, not just giving hypothetical warnings. Second, once that is seen, it further becomes clear that some of the other passages where he gives warnings in the abstract are also intended to apply to those same actual specific people in Jesus's audience, and that they themselves took it that way.


I already addressed this argument though in a way which clarifies the difference between dismissive condemnations and the kind which Jesus used.  In those few instances where he did apply to specific people (which I acknowledged above, e.g. Matthew 12:22-45, Matthew 21:33-45, and Matthew 23:13) they still served "primarily as warnings and lessons rather than dismissive condemnations for their own sake," with the apparent intent to save rather than actually condemn...in accordance with John 12:47.




> Matthew 7:1 says that we should judge people by the right standard, which is the same standard by which we will be judged.


Does it really now?   Matthew indeed says people will be judged by the standard by which they just others, but it is a warning against judging, not a warning to use the "right standard."  You're missing the point of the passage and interpreting it in a self-serving and even self-exalting manner if you interpret Matthew 7:1 as an excuse to judge by your standard (which is SURELY the right one, right? I mean, it's Biblically supported, unlike all those OTHER Biblically supported stances).  Be honest with yourself about why you *insist* on interpreting the passage in this most narrow of ways which gives you the most latitude and requires the least humility; is it to serve God, or is it to serve yourself?

Also, consider people who judge others for theological differences for instance: You might believe being judged by your own standard/measure refers to being judged according to your own *specific* theological beliefs, but consider how contorted those can become.  At the extreme end, Bob's standard might be, "Everyone but Bob is condemned."  It's a non-Biblical standard of course, but it would introduce an absurdity if Matthew 7:2 actually meant you will be judged by the specifics of your belief, and so the passage logically cannot be construed to mean that.  Instead, the passage must mean that you will be judged according to the same *basis* by which you judge others, i.e. theological beliefs in general if that is the basis you use.  In Bob's case, Matthew 7:2 seems to imply Bob will not be judged by the standard of "Everyone but Bob is condemned" but by something like the standard, "Everyone but ____ is condemned," where "____" is not "Bob."  Other passages additionally reference absolute standards as well, but reconciling those with the relative standards used here would be best done with caution and humility rather than self-assured hubris.




> Where do you see Jesus being reserved in judging people, as you claim? I don't see that in the Gospels at all. The very same passage you mention to support your claim that he was very reserved shows that he wasn't.


If you're still not seeing the distinction between what Jesus is saying here and statements like "Pope Francis is damned [for XYZ]" or someone (who is not imbued with Jesus's authority) declaring others to be less in the eyes of God [than their holy selves of course], I'm not sure I can help you.  The two are entire worlds apart in tone, voice, and motive.  Moreover, John 5:22 provides a bit of context as to exactly who has authority to judge in the way referenced by the larger passage (and it's not Calvinists).




> Finally, how do you imagine that Matthew 25 supports Terry's point? Are you talking about her accusation of Jesus's flesh being pure evil?


No, I was talking about exactly what I said I was talking about**: Matthew 25 demonstrates works are relevant in the eyes of God.  Jesus did not set his example just so it could be ignored everywhere but the final theology exam (which of course Calvinists but no one else will pass with flying colors  ).

----------


## Brett85

> You said Christ is the firstborn which is correct (Col. 1:18).  How could someone else be the firstborn?


How can this verse be referring to Christ when it says that he "might be the firstborn" when he already is the firstborn?  The verse is saying that believers will be conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.  They will be made immortal and will receive certain privileges and responsibilities in heaven.

----------


## Nang

> If I'm "incorrect" and a "troll" as you call me for being so, then just what does that make you when you refuse to back up any claim you make with the word of God.  I have begged and pleaded with you to stop the personal attacks and use the word of God as your source to prove what you're claiming is true so we can discuss it.  Have you done that yet?  No, you haven't, instead you call people names while instead of attacking the message, you attack the messenger.  No one can discuss things with people like yourselves.  Until you behave in a civil manner, I simply refuse to acknowledge any more of this childish behavior.  Thanks



I have tried my best to ignore you and abide by the site rules.

If I can't respect you or say anything nice to you, then it is best to not respond to you.

And I most certainly have backed up my beliefs with scripture.  To taunt me with that false accusation, proves you are indeed trolling and only desirous of causing confusion and trouble on these forums.

You are acting uncivil while you accuse others of being uncivil.   You are unable to have intelligent discussion with others, so accuse others of not discussing.  You call the mature Christians on this site "childish?"  Is that within the rules that Bryan is trying hard to establish and maintain?

Isaiah 5:20-21 is the word of God presented to warn you of what you are doing on this forum.

----------


## Terry1

> You said Christ is the firstborn which is correct (Col. 1:18).  How could someone else be the firstborn?


Sola, have your read any commentary on Romans 8:29 at all?  Here's several commentaries all saying basically the same thing that I have told you.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...mans-8-29.html

Here also are other Bible resources saying the same thing as I have told you.

Greek:  hoti  ous  proegno, (3SAAI)  kai  proorisen (3SAAI)  summorphous  tes  eikonos  tou  huiou  autou,  eis  to  einai (PAN)  auton  prototokon  en  pollois  adelphois
 Amplified: ﻿﻿For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was ﻿﻿aware and ﻿﻿loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren.﻿ (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
NLT: For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: God, in his foreknowledge, chose them to bear the family likeness of his Son, that he might be the eldest of a family of many brothers. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren.  (Eerdmans) 
Young's Literal: For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;

----------


## Nang

> How can this verse be referring to Christ when it says that he "might be the firstborn" when he already is the firstborn?


The "might be" is not an "if" but designates an "enabling" of the Christians through sanctification to conform to Christ, the firstborn.





> The verse is saying that believers will be conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.  They will be made immortal and will receive certain privileges and responsibilities in heaven.


Now you are adding to the scriptures.  Romans 8:29 says nothing about immortality or future privileges . . .

Conforming as the image of Christ, is in the present lifetimes of all Christians.  It is Sanctification of the brethren in Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> I have tried my best to ignore you and abide by the site rules.
> 
> If I can't respect you or say anything nice to you, then it is best to not respond to you.
> 
> And I most certainly have backed up my beliefs with scripture.  To taunt me with that false accusation, proves you are indeed trolling and only desirous of causing confusion and trouble on these forums.
> 
> You are acting uncivil while you accuse others of being uncivil.   You are unable to have intelligent discussion with others, so accuse others of not discussing.  You call the mature Christians on this site "childish?"  Is that within the rules that Bryan is trying hard to establish and maintain?
> 
> Isaiah 5:20-21 is the word of God presented to warn you of what you are doing on this forum.


Did you back up your claim about Romans 8:29 before you and Sola both asserted that I was a "troll" and a "heretic"?  No--you didn't did you, so then I'm not making "false claims" then am I, but you are on the other hand.  

You're very new here, so I have given you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your behavior, but at this point, you have become too abusive for me to make any further attempts or pleas for honest intellectual discussion with you.  Consider yourself on ignore.

----------


## Brett85

> The "might be" is not an "if" but designates an "enabling" of the Christians through sanctification to conform to Christ, the firstborn.


This verse is saying that believers are chosen to be conformed into Jesus' likeness.  It doesn't say anything at all about being chosen for salvation.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/salva...estination.htm




> “For whom he did foreknow, he also did  PREDESTINATE to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). Does God choose some people for salvation and not others?  
> 
> Whosoever Will May Come
> 
> As we learned in the previous chapter, “WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME” for salvation. The invitation to be saved is to WHOSOEVER...  “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17). Whosoever will may come to be saved. This is the freewill of mankind.  
> 
> We read in Romans 10:13, “For WHOSOEVER   shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” God is a “whosoever God.” He says that anyone may come to the throne of grace for salvation. All that God asks is that we come by way of faith in Christ Jesus alone. There is NOTHING in the Bible about God choosing anyone for salvation. Mankind has been given a freewill by God to make our own decisions. 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Brett85

> You are acting uncivil while you accuse others of being uncivil.


Terry1 hasn't said anything remotely uncivil.  She's not the one engaging in all of the name calling.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Did you back up your claim about Romans 8:29 before you and Sola both asserted that I was a "troll" and a "heretic"?  No--you didn't did you, so then I'm not making "false claims" then am I, but you are on the other hand.  
> 
> You're very new here, so I have given you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your behavior, but at this point, you have become too abusive for me to make any further attempts or pleas for honest intellectual discussion with you.  Consider yourself on ignore.


Terry1, you are fairly new at posting here as well.  

I can't quite put my finger on what you are doing here.  

You seem to have quite an effect on some the people here, particularly, TC.

I've been here a very long time and you are the first poster in the Religion Sub-Forum who has me deeply concerned.  Even above and beyond the ones who do not believe.

----------


## Nang

> This verse is saying that believers are chosen to be conformed into Jesus' likeness.  It doesn't say anything at all about being chosen for salvation.


That's right it doesn't.  Christians were foreordained for salvation from before the foundation of the world.  Ephesians 1:3-4

This verse is teaching Sanctification of those saved Christians, which Sanctification consists of being conformed as the image of the firstborn Son of God.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, you are fairly new at posting here as well.  
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on what you are doing here.  
> 
> You seem to have quite an effect on some the people here, particularly, TC.
> 
> I've been here a very long time and you are the first poster in the Religion Sub-Forum who has me deeply concerned.  Even above and beyond the ones who do not believe.


Yes, you have been here quite a while and you've reminded me more than once as I remember.  You also seemed to be the person I remember as attempting to be a tolerant, civil voice of reason until you-yourself found yourself in disagreement with me and began the drive by fruiting yourself, along with the insults and neg rep you gave me in my rep center.   Which btw, the only neg reps and insults in my rep center have come from you, Sola and erowe1 to this very day since I subscribed almost two years ago now.

You don't seem to be qualified here to judge me Louise, but rather you should follow your own advice far more often than you do now.  I have always answered you in a civil manner, which I have not received in kind from you.  Thanks.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Sola_Fide and others are dealing with a troll who is unteachable, and is quick
> to insult when biblical correction is attempted.
> 
> It is hard not to be frustrated by trolls; especially when they post nonsense in the name of God.
> 
> This is not a case of the troll's beliefs being disrespected, but a case of the troll disrespecting and perverting
> absolute Christian truth.
> 
> Trolling is very serious violation of discussion rules, and Sola_Fide has exhibited great
> ...


I appreciate the time you have spent here, Nang.  Are you on other forums?  Please PM as I would like to study Reformed theology without the insults and flippery that you have endured here.

----------


## Brett85

> That's right it doesn't.  Christians were foreordained for salvation from before the foundation of the world.  Ephesians 1:3-4
> 
> This verse is teaching Sanctification of those saved Christians, which Sanctification consists of being conformed as the image of the firstborn Son of God.


No, it's talking about us being conformed to the image of Christ after we've been resurrected.  This takes place after we've been saved.  This verse doesn't say that God predestines salvation; it says that God predestines us to be conformed to the image of his son after we've been saved.  After we've been saved, died, and are resurrected, we'll have the same type of body that Christ had after he was resurrected.  We will be an image of him.

----------


## Brett85

> Please PM as I would like to study Reformed theology without the insults and flippery that you have endured here.


No one has insulted her and called her any names.  All of the name calling always comes from the Calvinists.  That's why there are countless articles on the internet about how Calvinists always behave in this manner.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Yes, you have been here quite a while and you've reminded me more than once as I remember.  You also seemed to be the person I remember as attempting to be a tolerant, civil voice of reason until you-yourself found yourself in disagreement with me and began the drive by fruiting yourself, along with the insults and neg rep you gave me in my rep center.   Which btw, the only neg reps and insults in my rep center have come from you, Sola and erowe1 to this very day since I subscribed almost two years ago now.
> 
> You don't seem to be qualified here to judge me Louise, but rather you should follow your own advice far more often than you do now.  I have always answered you in a civil manner, which I have not received in kind from you.  Thanks.


Yes, I am usually in disagreement with you.  Something is off, Terry1.  Like I said, can't put my finger on it.

----------


## Nang

> No, it's talking about us being conformed to the image of Christ after we've been resurrected.  This takes place after we've been saved.  This verse doesn't say that God predestines salvation; it says that God predestines us to be conformed to the image of his son after we've been saved.  After we've been saved, died, and are resurrected, we'll have the same type of body that Christ had after he was resurrected.  We will be an image of him.


Actually Romans 8:28-30, called the "Ordus Salutis", reveals all the concepts of salvation; past, present, and future.  

Even in this world the Christian's faith will reflect the image of Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, I am usually in disagreement with you.  Something is off, Terry1.  Like I said, can't put my finger on it.


I'll tell you what is "off" Louise, and that is your dislike for me plain and simple and I'm fairly confident that is because I'm pretty good at exposing something for what it is behind the façades.  I'm not a novice you're dealing with here.  I've lived for 58 years on this earth and probably seen more than most, that's not boasting--that's the truth.  You really need to get over this so we can move on to better things.  End of this discussion with you.  Thanks.

----------


## Nang

> I appreciate the time you have spent here, Nang.  Are you on other forums?  Please PM as I would like to study Reformed theology without the insults and flippery that you have endured here.


Thanks, Louise.  I would be more than happy to have a study with you.  We will work it out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The verse is saying that believers will be conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.


How does someone "firstborn themselves"?

----------


## Terry1

> How does someone "firstborn themselves"?


Read the commentaries I posted Sola, they all disagree with your interpretation of Romans 8:29.  How many people do you need to tell you and show you where you're wrong before you actually believe it yourself?  Which begs the question here, what is it that you value most, the truth or your pride in being correct.  You're incorrect with most of what you already believe, so this is no big surprise that you're struggling with this very clear meaning regarding Romans 8:29 that most Christians do understand.

----------


## erowe1

> That's why there are countless articles on the internet about how Calvinists always behave in this manner.


Source?

----------


## Brett85

> Source?


Just Google "why are Calvinists such jerks."

----------


## erowe1

> Does it really now?   Matthew indeed says people will be judged by the standard by which they just others, but it is a warning against judging, not a warning to use the "right standard."


A warning against judging in general? I don't see how you can get that. It's clearly about how you judge, not whether or not to do it at all. See verse 5.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I was talking about exactly what I said I was talking about**: Matthew 25 demonstrates works are relevant in the eyes of God.  Jesus did not set his example just so it could be ignored everywhere but the final theology exam (which of course Calvinists but no one else will pass with flying colors  ).


That's a straw man. Can you quote anything any Calvinist said that contradicts that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Read the commentaries I posted Sola, they all disagree with your interpretation of Romans 8:29.  How many people do you need to tell you and show you where you're wrong before you actually believe it yourself?  Which begs the question here, what is it that you value most, the truth or your pride in being correct.  You're incorrect with most of what you already believe, so this is no big surprise that you're struggling with this very clear meaning regarding Romans 8:29 that most Christians do understand.



How did those commentaries agree with you?

----------


## erowe1

> Just Google "why are Calvinists such jerks."


So you don't actually have a source?

What happens when I google, "why are arminians such jerks"?

----------


## Terry1

> How did those commentaries agree with you?


They're all saying the same thing Sola, that when Romans 8:29 refers to conforming to the image of Christ that he/the believer may be firstborn among many brethren are referring to believers and not Christ Himself.  Christ Himself does not need to conform to His own image.  They're all saying the same thing. Ah jeez---as a good teacher once said to the class---"you either get it or you don't."  I believe I've gone as far with this as humanly possible.  The seed's been dropped, we'll see where it lands.

----------


## Terry1

> So you don't actually have a source?
> 
> What happens when I google, "why are arminians such jerks"?


I just typed that into the Google search engine and here's what came up.  Your search - "why are arminians such jerks"? - 

*did not match any documents. 

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.*

Must not be any Arminian jerks if Google says so.

Here's what happened when I typed "why are Calvinists such jerks"

*About 3,080,000 results (0.37 seconds)*



Don't blame me, blame Google.

----------


## erowe1

> I just typed that into the Google search engine and here's what came up.  Your search - "why are arminians such jerks"? - 
> 
> *did not match any documents. 
> 
> Suggestions:
> •Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
> •Try different keywords.
> •Try more general keywords.*
> 
> ...


Interesting. I guess that just goes to show you that Calvinists get called names by their theological opponents a lot more than Arminians do. So much for that argument.

Don't blame me. Blame Google.

----------


## Terry1

> Interesting. I guess that just goes to show you that Calvinists get called names by their theological opponents a lot more than Arminians do. So much for that argument.
> 
> Don't blame me. Blame Google.


Arminian jerks "0"

Can't argue with the numbers can we----3,080,000

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They're all saying the same thing Sola, that when Romans 8:29 refers to conforming to the image of Christ that he/the believer may be firstborn among many brethren are referring to believers and not Christ Himself.  Christ Himself does not need to conform to His own image.  They're all saying the same thing. Ah jeez---as a good teacher once said to the class---"you either get it or you don't."  I believe I've gone as far with this as humanly possible.  The seed's been dropped, we'll see where it lands.



Where did ONE of the commentaries you posted say that Christ was not the firstborn?

----------


## erowe1

> No one has insulted her and called her any names.  All of the name calling always comes from the Calvinists.  That's why there are countless articles on the internet about how Calvinists always behave in this manner.





> Arminian jerks "0"
> 
> Can't argue with the numbers can we----3,080,000


qft

----------


## Sola_Fide

Erowe1,

I'm wondering if you could help us out here.  What is your understanding of this verse:




> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*


Doesn't this verse say that the Son is the firstborn?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can this verse be referring to Christ when it says that he "might be the firstborn" when he already is the firstborn?  The verse is saying that believers will be conformed into the image of Christ and firstborn themselves among many brethren.  They will be made immortal and will receive certain privileges and responsibilities in heaven.


That is absolutely ridiculous.




> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*


Those who God foreknow, He conformed to the image of His Son, so that His Son would be the pre-eminent one among the brothers and sisters.

----------


## Terry1

> That is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who God foreknow, He conformed to the image of His Son, so that His Son would be the pre-eminent one among the brothers and sisters.


"Might be" Sola---Jesus already is the "firstborn".  Paul is referring to "those whom God foreknew"---"that he/the believer--might be---also firstborn among many brethren.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Might be" Sola---Jesus already is the "firstborn".  Paul is referring to "those whom God foreknew"---"that he/the believer--might be---also firstborn among many brethren.



No.  Paul is referring to "the Son", who is "the firstborn among many brethren".



> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*


Those who God foreknew, He predestined to conform them to the image of His Son, so that the Son would be the pre-eminent first born among many brothers and sisters.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They're all saying the same thing Sola, that when Romans 8:29 refers to conforming to the image of Christ that he/the believer may be firstborn among many brethren are referring to believers and not Christ Himself.  Christ Himself does not need to conform to His own image.  They're all saying the same thing. Ah jeez---as a good teacher once said to the class---"you either get it or you don't."  I believe I've gone as far with this as humanly possible.  The seed's been dropped, we'll see where it lands.



Where did ONE of the commentaries you posted say that Christ was not the firstborn?

----------


## Brett85

> No.  Paul is referring to "the Son", who is "the firstborn among many brethren".
> 
> 
> Those who God foreknew, He predestined to conform them to the image of His Son, so that the Son would be the pre-eminent first born among many brothers and sisters.


You might be right, but I have to wonder why it says "might be" instead of "will be."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You might be right, but I have to wonder why it says "might be" instead of "will be."


Because it means the EXACT same thing.

----------


## Nang

The firstborn is Jesus Christ; the singular head of His spiritual body, the church.   Hebrews 12:23  (Greek:  _protostates )_

The resurrected Christ is referred to as the firstfruit, (Greek:  _aparche_ ) as is the Holy Spirit, which description can also apply to the redeemed church.   I Corinthians 15:20,23, James 1:18, and Revelation 14:4 

Two different words teaching two different concepts; the first strictly singular, the latter sometimes in the plural.
Perhaps Terry is confusing terms here, interpreting "firstborn" erroneously to refer to "firstfruits?

----------


## Brett85

> Because it means the EXACT same thing.


No, it doesn't.  The term "might be" means something might happen, and it might not.  The term "will be" means that something will certainly happen.

----------


## Terry1

> Because it means the EXACT same thing.


If you change the words "might be" to "shall be" it changes the entire context of scripture that doesn't reconcile with the rest of Paul's teaching that include hundreds of other scripture that all refer to "might be" and "that that they might obtain" or "may be" or that "we have the HOPE", in terms of *eternal security* in this life.  

This is all to prove and to show evidence that nothing is final or guaranteed in this life.  It is always that "it might be" or "may be" or that we have " the hope"---until the end of our lives and into the next life.


*MIGHT BE* 


63.Romans 3:26 
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Romans 3:25-27 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
64.Romans 4:11 
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Romans 4:10-12 (in Context) Romans 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
65.Romans 4:16 
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Romans 4:15-17 (in Context) Romans 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
66.Romans 4:18 
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:17-19 (in Context) Romans 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
67.Romans 6:6 
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Romans 6:5-7 (in Context) Romans 6 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
68.Romans 7:13 
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Romans 7:12-14 (in Context) Romans 7 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
69.Romans 8:4 
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-5 (in Context) Romans 8 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
70.Romans 8:29 
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Romans 8:28-30 (in Context) Romans 8 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
71.Romans 9:17 
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.
Romans 9:16-18 (in Context) Romans 9 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
72.Romans 10:1 
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Romans 10:1-3 (in Context) Romans 10 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
73.Romans 11:19 
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Romans 11:18-20 (in Context) Romans 11 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
74.Romans 14:9 
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Romans 14:8-10 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
75.Romans 15:16 
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
76.1 Corinthians 5:2 
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1 Corinthians 5:1-3 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
77.1 Corinthians 9:23 
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
1 Corinthians 9:22-24 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 9 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
78.2 Corinthians 4:10 
Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
2 Corinthians 4:9-11 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
79.2 Corinthians 4:11 
For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
2 Corinthians 4:10-12 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
80.2 Corinthians 5:4 
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2 Corinthians 5:3-5 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
81.2 Corinthians 5:21 
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians 5:20-21 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
82.2 Corinthians 8:9 
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
2 Corinthians 8:8-10 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 8 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
83.2 Corinthians 9:5 
Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.
2 Corinthians 9:4-6 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 9 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
84.2 Corinthians 11:7 
Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
2 Corinthians 11:6-8 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 11 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
85.Galatians 2:16 
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:15-17 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
86.Galatians 3:22 
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:21-23 (in Context) Galatians 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
87.Galatians 3:24 
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:23-25 (in Context) Galatians 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
88.Ephesians 3:10 
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Ephesians 3:9-11 (in Context) Ephesians 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
89.Ephesians 3:19 
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Ephesians 3:18-20 (in Context) Ephesians 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
90.Colossians 1:9 
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
Colossians 1:8-10 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
91.Colossians 2:2 
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Colossians 2:1-3 (in Context) Colossians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
92.1 Thessalonians 2:16 
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
1 Thessalonians 2:15-17 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
93.2 Thessalonians 2:6 
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2 Thessalonians 2:5-7 (in Context) 2 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
94.2 Thessalonians 2:10 
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 (in Context) 2 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
95.2 Thessalonians 2:12 
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-13 (in Context) 2 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
96.2 Timothy 4:17 
Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
2 Timothy 4:16-18 (in Context) 2 Timothy 4 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
97.Titus 3:8 
This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it doesn't.  The term "might be" means something might happen, and it might not.  The term "will be" means that something will certainly happen.


No it doesn't.   "Might be" there means the exact same thing as "would be".

It blows me away that I actually have to go over this with someone.

----------


## Terry1

*We have "THE HOPE"*

10.Acts 16:19 
And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,
Acts 16:18-20 (in Context) Acts 16 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
11.Acts 23:6 
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Acts 23:5-7 (in Context) Acts 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
12.Acts 26:6 
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers:
Acts 26:5-7 (in Context) Acts 26 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
13.Acts 28:20 
For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
Acts 28:19-21 (in Context) Acts 28 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
14.Galatians 5:5 
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Galatians 5:4-6 (in Context) Galatians 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
15.Ephesians 1:18 
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Ephesians 1:17-19 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
16.Colossians 1:5 
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Colossians 1:4-6 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
17.Colossians 1:23 
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Colossians 1:22-24 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
18.Colossians 1:27 
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Colossians 1:26-28 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
19.1 Thessalonians 5:8 
But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1 Thessalonians 5:7-9 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
20.Titus 3:7 
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:6-8 (in Context) Titus 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
21.Hebrews 3:6 
But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
Hebrews 3:5-7 (in Context) Hebrews 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
22.Hebrews 6:18 
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Hebrews 6:17-19 (in Context) Hebrews 6 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
23.1 Peter 3:15 
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1.Job 14:19 
The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.
Job 14:18-20 (in Context) Job 14 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
2.Job 27:8 
For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?
Job 27:7-9 (in Context) Job 27 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
3.Job 41:9 
Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
Job 41:8-10 (in Context) Job 41 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
4.Proverbs 10:28 
The hope of the righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked shall perish.
Proverbs 10:27-29 (in Context) Proverbs 10 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
5.Proverbs 11:7 
When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth.
Proverbs 11:6-8 (in Context) Proverbs 11 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
6.Jeremiah 14:8 
O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?
Jeremiah 14:7-9 (in Context) Jeremiah 14 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
7.Jeremiah 17:13 
O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters.
Jeremiah 17:12-14 (in Context) Jeremiah 17 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
8.Jeremiah 50:7 
All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of justice, even the Lord, the hope of their fathers.
Jeremiah 50:6-8 (in Context) Jeremiah 50 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations  
9.Joel 3:16 
The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.
Joel 3:15-17 (in Context) Joel 3 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

----------


## Terry1

> No it doesn't.   "Might be" there means the exact same thing as "would be".
> 
> It blows me away that I actually have to go over this with someone.


Not so Sola.  The mass amount of scripture I just posted should blow you away even more, but I'm certain all of them will mean absolutely nothing to you.

----------


## Nang

> No it doesn't.   "Might be" there means the exact same thing as "would be".
> 
> It blows me away that I actually have to go over this with someone.


Indeed . . .

This is nothing less than ungodly opposition to the concept of any form of  ~ MIGHTY certainty ~ enabled and worked by the sovereign grace of God, from those who insist all things are "iffy," "future," and therefore totally contingent upon free will choices of sinners.

That is the crux of this entire episode.

These insist on being like and equal to the firstborn of God!

The fall of man demonstrated over and over and over . . .

----------


## Terry1

*Hebrews 6: 
 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
*


Do any of you Calvinist who believe that believers have no need to repent of anything, understand what Hebrews 6:4 is telling you here?  

If a believer who was once a partaker of the Holy Spirit falls away---"it is impossible to renew them again to repentance".  Once a believer is unable to continue their repentance---they are cut off from God permanently.  Without repentance--there can be no forgiveness of sin again.  This is where these believers who do this are indeed the ones who "crucify Jesus afresh".

So, who's guilty of crucifying Jesus afresh?  It's certainly not those who believe in the act of repentance in their lives---it's those who don't believe in repentance and that it's not needed in their life as a believer---these are those who are guilty of crucifying Jesus afresh and not those they accuse.  

You're living a very dangerous belief by believing you have nothing to repent of after you become a believer.

----------


## Nang

> *Hebrews 6: 
>  4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
> 
> 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
> *
> 
> 
> ...


What are you talking about and what does all this have to do with understanding who is the firstborn of God?

----------


## Brett85

> Terry1, you are fairly new at posting here as well.  
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on what you are doing here.  
> 
> You seem to have quite an effect on some the people here, particularly, TC.


I don't agree with her on everything, but she's convinced me on some theological issues by actually presenting solid Biblical evidence for the view that she's presenting.  The Calvinists here think they can convince me to adopt their theology by insulting me.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

TC, I'd rather be insulted than lead astray.

----------


## Nang

> I don't agree with her on everything, but she's convinced me on some theological issues by actually presenting solid Biblical evidence for the view that she's presenting.  The Calvinists here think they can convince me to adopt their theology by insulting me.


[mod delete]

And why do you discount the biblical evidence produced by those who try to correct her errors?  

Can you articulate and post exactly what "theological issues" Terry has convinced you of?

----------


## Brett85

> [mod delete] . .


That's absurd.  She simply has a different opinion than you.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> That's absurd.  She simply has a different opinion than you.


Enough said.

----------


## Terry1

> TC, I'd rather be insulted than lead astray.


Who can lead you astray unless you allow them to?  The Calvinists here have shown their true colors more often than not.  Nothing more needs to be said with regard to their dialogue or childish behavior that you seem to support.  In fact Nang's last post gives full evidence of what I just said.  Maybe you should jerk the chain on your new little friend there before she says and does something she might later regret.  She's on a downhill spiral already in her short time aboard ship here.

----------


## Brett85

> Can you articulate and post exactly what "theological issues" Terry has convinced you of?


She's convinced me that you can lose your salvation.  I used to believe in eternal security, that after we come to Christ, we'll always be saved no matter what we do.  But, there just isn't much of a Biblical basis for eternal security.  She's presented a lot of verses that disprove that theology.  Just look at what Jesus taught about the vine and the branches.  When we become a believer, we become a branch on Christ's vine.  If we don't bear any fruit, we're cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.

John 15:1-8

 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

----------


## Terry1

> She's convinced me that you can lose your salvation.  I used to believe in eternal security, that after we come to Christ, we'll always be saved no matter what we do.  But, there just isn't much of a Biblical basis for eternal security.  She's presented a lot of views that disprove that theology.  Just look at what Jesus taught about the vine and the branches.  When we become a believer, we become a branch on Christ's vine.  If we don't bear any fruit, we're cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.
> 
> John 15:1-8
> 
>  “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
> 
> 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.


Amen brother TC, it's God's word--not mine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you change the words "might be" to "shall be" it changes the entire context of scripture that doesn't reconcile with the rest of Paul's teaching that include hundreds of other scripture that all refer to "might be" and "that that they might obtain" or "may be" or that "we have the HOPE", in terms of *eternal security* in this life.  
> 
> This is all to prove and to show evidence that nothing is final or guaranteed in this life.  It is always that "it might be" or "may be" or that we have " the hope"---until the end of our lives and into the next life.
> 
> 
> *MIGHT BE*


Okay.  Let's test your theory (by the way, not even Arminian scholars who I have read have ever presented this argument.  This argument is absolutely ridiculous, which I will show).  Let's see if "might be" means "it could possibly be".  All of this comes from the fact that you are using a KING JAMES VERSION for the translation, and in older english "might be" was the same as saying "may be" or "would be".





> 71.Romans 9:17 
> 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 raised Pharaoh up, that He _possibly might_ show His power in Him?  That God's name _might possibly_ be declared throughout the earth?   Does that make any sense at all?  




> Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


So we _possibly could maybe_ be justified by faith and not by works of the law?  Or is Paul saying that maybe we will be justified by works too?




> That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
> 2 Thessalonians 2:11-13


So the ones who didn't believe the truth and had please in unrighteousness _maybe possible could be_ damned?




> This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.


Paul said this so the ones who believe in God _might possibly maybe_ be careful to maintain good works?




This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this website.  All you did was plug in "might be" into an online concordance, used the old English version of the KVJ, and posted the verses.  "Might be" in old KJV English is the same as "would be" or "may be".  There is no conditionality at all in its meaning.

----------


## Brett85

At first I just rejected four points of Calvinism but believed in eternal security, but I think I just believed in eternal security because I just wanted it to be true, because it's a comforting thought.  Interestingly, the doctrine of eternal security is probably the weakest of the five points of Calvinism.  There's more Biblical support for the other four points than there is for eternal security.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> She's convinced me that you can lose your salvation.  I used to believe in eternal security, that after we come to Christ, we'll always be saved no matter what we do.  But, there just isn't much of a Biblical basis for eternal security.  She's presented a lot of verses that disprove that theology.  Just look at what Jesus taught about the vine and the branches.  When we become a believer, we become a branch on Christ's vine.  If we don't bear any fruit, we're cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.
> 
> John 15:1-8
> 
>  “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
> 
> 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.



Those verses are about the JEWS TC.  The JEWS did not abide in Christ.  But in the New Covenant, God writes His laws upon the hearts of believers.  God makes His own Son the High Priest that forever makes intercession on their behalf.

----------


## Terry1

> Okay.  Let's test your theory (by the way, not even Arminian scholars who I have read have ever presented this argument.  This argument is absolutely ridiculous, which I will show).  Let's see if "might be" means "it could possibly be".  All of this comes from the fact that you are using a KING JAMES VERSION for the translation, and in older english "might be" was the same as saying "may be" or "would be".
> 
> 
> God raised Pharaoh up, that He _possibly might_ show His power in Him?  That God's name _might possibly_ be declared throughout the earth?   Does that make any sense at all?  
> 
> 
> 
> So we _possibly could maybe_ be justified by faith and not by works of the law?  Or is Paul saying that maybe we will be justified by works too?
> 
> ...


Sola, understand this---I've never asked you or pleaded with you to believe me, that is why I back up everything I claim with the word of God.  If you don't trust my interpretation, then it's up to you to do your own homework.  You need to question everyone and everything that any one places in your path.  This is what all believers should do for themselves, because your relationship is between you and the Lord, not you and me or anyone else--just you and God.  You have to trust that He will show you.  If you do this and seek it out in the word of God through prayer and in the Spirit of the Lord, He will show you.

While you've exhausted so many others here and understandably so, I have not given up on you yet.  Despite the way you have treated me, I have always came back and tried to answer your questions.  I know you're a young man and you're eager, zealous and passionate about what you believe, but where you lack is comparing what you believe with what others are saying and then seeing if indeed God's word says that.

You can't keep attempting to redefine the word of God to suit your own beliefs as in "all" doesn't mean "all" and "world doesn't mean world"---those words have meaning and you have to find out why they're saying what they're saying instead of attempting to change it to suit what you choose to believe.  

The words  and phrases "shall be" and "might be" all existed and were used at the time the word was written down.  Words have meanings.  If Paul said "might be"---then he meant that it's conditional upon something and it's that *something* you have to find and figure out why Paul said this and not the other as in "shall be".  I have posted literally hundreds of scripture to prove this to you and you refuse to acknowledge any of it and that I can not help you with.

----------


## Nang

> She's convinced me that you can lose your salvation.


Oh my . . . that is impressive!!

Is that what the true gospel proclaimed is supposed to achieve?

Is that "good news?"

TC . . . Terry is not teaching the true, saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  You have been duped.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh my . . . that is impressive!!
> 
> Is that what the true gospel proclaimed is supposed to achieve?
> 
> Is that "good news?"
> 
> TC . . . Terry is not teaching the true, saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  You have been duped.


This is what the "eternal security" doctrine leads to.

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...curity-is.html




> I know one Lutheran mother who's daughter became an evangelical and had a "born again" experience.  A short time later the daughter started living with her boyfriend.  Her mother warned her that what she was doing is sin, and that ongoing willful sin against God places her salvation in jeopardy.  The daughter replied, "Don't worry, Mom.  I'm covered.  I was born again, and if you are born again there is no way you can lose your salvation no matter what you do.  Lutherans are wrong."

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Terry1, who is the firstborn among many brethren?


Sola, I can't parse it out grammatically naming all the nouns, pronouns, adverbs, etc - but I'm pretty sure "firstborn among many brethren" is referring to the believers, not Jesus.

*Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.*

"For whom" = the believers
"he also did predestinate" = who did he predestinate? the same folks 'for whom' he did foreknow
"that he might be the firstborn" = who might be the firstborn?  the same 'for whom' he did foreknow

It's bad form to change the target of the pronoun in the same sentence.

Plus, all of the people he is addressing knew that being the firstborn was a big deal back in the day - especially in the Old Testament.  The firstborn was entitled to the birthright of the covenant.  I think the point this scribe is making is that believers will be like the firstborn of the Old Testament, and inherit the *new* covenant.

----------


## Nang

> This is what the "eternal security" doctrine leads to.
> 
> http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...curity-is.html


Says only enemies of God and His grace, who deny the plain meaning of His Holy Word . . .

----------


## Terry1

> This is what the "eternal security" doctrine leads to.
> 
> http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...curity-is.html





> I know one Lutheran mother who's daughter became an evangelical and had a "born again" experience. A short time later the daughter started living with her boyfriend. Her mother warned her that what she was doing is sin, and that ongoing willful sin against God places her salvation in jeopardy. The daughter replied, "Don't worry, Mom. I'm covered. I was born again, and if you are born again there is no way you can lose your salvation no matter what you do. Lutherans are wrong."


This is exactly what this doctrinal belief leads people to believe, that they have no reason to repent or change the way they live, think or treat others.  This is what the antinomains believed--that all was permitted under grace.  The only sin restraining factor in the lives of people who believe this way is by instruction of the leader of their church and not the prompting of the Holy Spirit.  They are doing the very thing they accuse free will believers of and that is doing dead works in order to obtain righteousness and please God.  And these are only the believers of this doctrine who even still attend church.  Many of them confess Jesus, get dunked and then never return to the church again while thinking they're eternally secure.  Then they live lives opposite the will of God thinking there's nothing they can lose no matter what they do.

----------


## Nang

> Sola, I can't parse it out grammatically naming all the nouns, pronouns, adverbs, etc - but I'm pretty sure "firstborn among many brethren" is referring to the believers, not Jesus.


"pretty sure" is not good enough . . .

So explain scripturally how all these brethren became "firstborn" of God, apart from the firstborn, Jesus Christ . . .

----------


## Nang

> This is exactly what this doctrinal belief leads people to believe, that they have no reason to repent or change the way they live, think or treat others.  This is what the antinomains believed--that all was permitted under grace.  The only sin restraining factor in the lives of people who believe this way is by instruction of the leader of their church and not the prompting of the Holy Spirit.  They are doing the very thing they accuse free will believers of and that is doing dead works in order to obtain righteousness and please God.  And these are only the believers of this doctrine who even still attend church.  Many of them confess Jesus, get dunked and then never return to the church again while thinking they're eternally secure.  Then they live lives opposite the will of God thinking there's nothing they can lose no matter what they do.


Eternal security resides in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone, and to those who are legally imputed with it, in the courts of God.

The rest of your explanation and misrepresentation of Truth, is unbiblical, twisted, and only comes out of your sorry head . . .

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> This is exactly what this doctrinal belief leads people to believe, that they have no reason to repent or change the way they live, think or treat others.  This is what the antinomains believed--that all was permitted under grace.  The only sin restraining factor in the lives of people who believe this way is by instruction of the leader of their church and not the prompting of the Holy Spirit.  They are doing the very thing they accuse free will believers of and that is doing dead works in order to obtain righteousness and please God.  And these are only the believers of this doctrine who even still attend church.  Many of them confess Jesus, get dunked and then never return to the church again while thinking they're eternally secure.  Then they live lives opposite the will of God thinking there's nothing they can lose no matter what they do.


Terry1, what is your source, that all Calvinists think they do not need to repent?  You have surely never heard it on this forum.

----------


## Terry1

> Says only enemies of God and His grace, who deny the plain meaning of His Holy Word . . .


I'm tiring of your little drive by fruiting's here with nothing to back up what you're claiming.  You've called me a "troll", but as far as I can tell from what I've seen of you is that a "troll" is as a "troll" does.  Now either put up or shut your nasty foul mouth.  All you Calvinists ever do is what you're doing.  Why don't you grow up or get out of this forum all together.  

Post some scripture to back up your theology or shut up little girl.

----------


## Nang

> I'm tiring of your little drive by fruiting's here with nothing to back up what you're claiming.  You've called me a "troll", but as far as I can tell from what I've seen of you is that a "troll" is as a "troll" does.  Now either put up or shut your nasty foul mouth.  All you Calvinists ever do is what you're doing.  Why don't you grow up or get out of this forum all together.  
> 
> Post some scripture to back up your theology or shut up little girl.


So threatens an enemy of truth, who twists all her references to suit her ungodly beliefs . . .

You have insulted me grossly, by telling me my mouth is foul and nasty, and I should shut up.

Such language is overtly against the rules of this forum that Bryan is trying to maintain.

You should be banned for such an unprovoked attack upon my person and beliefs.

----------


## Brett85

> Says only enemies of God and His grace, who deny the plain meaning of His Holy Word . . .


So you think you can live in sin and be a Christian?

----------


## Brett85

> Such language is overtly against the rules of this forum that Bryan is trying to maintain.
> 
> You should be banned for such an unprovoked attack upon my person and beliefs.


You provoked it.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I'm tiring of your little drive by fruiting's here with nothing to back up what you're claiming.  You've called me a "troll", but as far as I can tell from what I've seen of you is that a "troll" is as a "troll" does.  Now either put up or shut your nasty foul mouth.  All you Calvinists ever do is what you're doing.  Why don't you grow up or get out of this forum all together.  
> 
> Post some scripture to back up your theology or shut up little girl.


Wow. I sure hope Bryan gets a look at this vileness.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, what is your source, that all Calvinists think they do not need to repent?  You have surely never heard it on this forum.


Of course we've seen it and multiple times from the Calvinist here because it's part of the Total Depravity doctrine that Sola and erowe1 had tried to pass off as Gospel in here.

----------


## Terry1

> Wow. I sure hope Bryan gets a look at this vileness.


Yeah, maybe he'll also notice how many times Nang has called me a troll before I'd finally had enough.  We know you support her---big surprise there eh--LOL  She's the only one doing the "trolling" in this forum.

----------


## Nang

> So you think you can live in sin and be a Christian?


Where have I ever stated so?

Why are you so eager to believe the lies of the devil against the saints of God, who proclaim the sound gospel of Jesus Christ?

----------


## Nang

> You provoked it.


You must be kidding . . .???

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Yeah, maybe he'll also notice how many times Nang has called me a troll before I'd finally had enough.  We know you support her---big surprise there eh--LOL


People get called trolls all the time.  I absolutely believe that Nang is a woman of virtue and filled with the Holy Spirit.  However, she does not need my defense or accolades.

To God be all the Glory.  Praise be Jesus Christ.

----------


## Kevin007

hi guys Believer's are His. No one or nothing can snatch us away. Being saved does not depend on us, but on Jesus.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Of course we've seen it and multiple times from the Calvinist here because it's part of the Total Depravity doctrine that Sola and erowe1 had tried to pass off as Gospel in here.


Source?  Stick to the question, please.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> hi guys Believer's are His. No one or nothing can snatch us away. Being saved does not depend on us, but on Jesus.


Alleluia!

----------


## Nang

> People get called trolls all the time.  I absolutely believe that Nang is a woman of virtue and filled with the Holy Spirit.  However, she does not need my defense or accolades.
> 
> To God be all the Glory.  Praise be Jesus Christ.


I appreciate and rejoice in your spiritual discernment, Louise, and indeed . . . despite all wickedness of unbelief, God will receive all glory through Jesus Christ who deserves all praise!

Be strong in Him,
Nang

----------


## Jamesiv1

> "pretty sure" is not good enough . . .
> 
> So explain scripturally how all these brethren became "firstborn" of God, apart from the firstborn, Jesus Christ . . .


If Jesus is firstborn, who is secondborn or thirdborn?

C'mon Nang.... have you read the Old Testament at all?  Being the firstborn was a huge deal (see Jacob and Esau).

The whole point of the New Testament is that Jesus as Messiah establishes a *NEW* covenant - the Jews can no longer lay claim to being God's chosen people.

In this verse, referring to Jesus as the firstborn doesn't make any sense - grammatically or contextually.  The scribe that edited this epistle is saying if you believe Jesus is the Messiah, you are like the firstborn of old.... and you inherit the *NEW* covenant.

----------


## Brett85

> No one or nothing can snatch us away.


Right, but you can still choose to leave on your own.

And I suppose you're another Calvinist who Freedom Fanatic or someone else recruited to post here?

----------


## Kevin007

> Alleluia!



Amen Louise! He died for us while we were STILL SINNERS. God knows how many sins we would commit AFTER we are saved. None of us can live up to His ways. Not law, but Grace.

----------


## Kevin007

> Right, but you can still choose to leave on your own.


a true Believer would not leave. You cannot lose your salvation- once you are saved you are the child of the Most High. ALL of us will sin till the day we die. Which sins did Jesus die for? Some? All?

----------


## Kevin007

salvation depends on God. Sanctification depends on us, as we yield to the HS. Sinning affects our relationship with Christ but not our POSITION with Christ.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Amen Louise! He died for us while we were STILL SINNERS. God knows how many sins we would commit AFTER we are saved. None of us can live up to His ways. Not law, but Grace.


After reading and understanding this through Scripture, one would actually find themselves on their knees even more, in thanksgiving.  To think that the Sovereign Lord, chooses us.

----------


## Terry1

> Right, but you can still choose to leave on your own.
> 
> And I suppose you're another Calvinist who Freedom Fanatic or someone else recruited to post here?


Yeah, they're recruiting reinforcements---lol  Ewee---not another one.

----------


## Terry1

> salvation depends on God. Sanctification depends on us, as we yield to the HS. Sinning affects our relationship with Christ but not our POSITION with Christ.



Back it up with some scripture please.  We've had enough drive by opinions.  Show us that God's word supports your theology please.

----------


## Nang

> If Jesus is firstborn, who is secondborn or thirdborn?


No such thing taught in the bible.  Jesus is the only firstborn of God.




> C'mon Nang.... have you read the Old Testament at all?  Being the firstborn among many brethren was a huge deal (see Jacob and Esau).


Firstborn in the OT meant the same as in the NT.  There is only one firstborn in any family.  Jesus Christ is the only firstborn the spiritual family (church) of God.




> The whole point of the New Testament is that Jesus as Messiah establishes a *NEW* covenant - the Jews can no longer lay claim to being the "chosen" ones.



Yes . . . so?




> In this verse, referring to Jesus as the firstborn doesn't make any sense at all.


What verse do you refer to?




> The scribe that edited this epistle is saying if you believe Jesus is the Messiah, you are like the firstborn of old.... and you inherit the *NEW* covenant.


Believers in Messiah do not become "like" the firstborn of God, but through faith in Him, are brought into the New Covenant by their faith in His Deity and Mediatorship on behalf of His own.

----------


## Brett85

> Which sins did Jesus die for? Some? All?


All, but the Bible says that we still have to repent of our sins.  We can't be forgiven if we don't ask for forgiveness.

1 John 1:9

*If we confess our sins*, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I appreciate and rejoice in your spiritual discernment, Louise, and indeed . . . despite all wickedness of unbelief, God will receive all glory through Jesus Christ who deserves all praise!
> 
> Be strong in Him,
> Nang


Thank you, dear Sister, and that is my prayer for you as well.

----------


## Kevin007

> Back it up with some scripture please.  We've had enough drive by opinions.  Show us that God's word supports your theology please.


the entire NT supports grace through faith, not of works.

----------


## Nang

> After reading and understanding this through Scripture, one would actually find themselves on their knees even more, in thanksgiving.  To think that the Sovereign Lord, chooses us.


Amen, dear sister.  This is so true . . .

----------


## Terry1

> the entire NT supports grace through faith, not of works.


Scripture please.

----------


## Nang

> the entire NT supports grace through faith, not of works.


Amen.  So glad to see your genuine witness in this place . . .

----------


## Brett85

> the entire NT supports grace through faith, not of works.


Who recruited you to post here?

----------


## Kevin007

> Scripture please.


scripture of what?

----------


## Nang

> Who recruited you to post here?


Was that a loving greeting?  What is your problem TC?

----------


## Terry1

> Who recruited you to post here?



Three guesses and they'd all be right. LOL

----------


## Terry1

> Was that a loving greeting?  What is your problem TC?


Stop derailing the thread Louise and Nang.

----------


## Kevin007

if you are talking about me, I typed in religion forums on google. I am here on my own. I participate in other forums as well. Is there a problem? I'm new here and do not know anyone on here.

My name is Kevin, I'm 41 and in my pajamas

----------


## Nang

> Three guesses and they'd all be right. LOL


You, as usual, insinuate rather than post according to reality.

I did not recruit Kevin007.  It was probably the Lord who led him here, to offset your [mod delete]. . .

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Firstborn in the OT meant the same as in the NT.  There is only one firstborn in any family.  Jesus Christ is the only firstborn the spiritual family (church) of God.


you're totally missing the point, Nang.

of course there is only one firstborn - but the verse is referring to the "firstborn of many brethren"  brethren = brothers




> What verse do you refer to?


ummmmmm...... the one we've been discussing for about 3 pages now. Romans 8:29 

The scribe who edited this passage of a letter that Paul most likely did not author is using references the audience would understand (most were probably commoners - not real well educated).

Context, context, context.

----------


## Nang

> if you are talking about me, I typed in religion forums on google. I am here on my own. I participate in other forums as well. Is there a problem? I'm new here and do not know anyone on here.


Welcome Kevin.  Glad to meet you!

----------


## Kevin007

> You, as usual, insinuate rather than post according to reality.
> 
> I did not recruit Kevin007.  It was probably the Lord who led him here, to offset your wickedness and lies . . .


thanks Nang... I thought all were allowed to post here? I have never had a problem as a new member in posting on message boards since 2000.

----------


## Kevin007

> Welcome Kevin.  Glad to meet you!


thanks Nang. I take it this place is kinda "cliquey" like HS? LOL.

----------


## Brett85

> if you are talking about me, I typed in religion forums on google. I am here on my own. I participate in other forums as well. Is there a problem? I'm new here and do not know anyone on here.
> 
> My name is Kevin, I'm 41 and in my pajamas


It's just that we've had Calvinists here who have been recruiting other Calvinists to join this forum for the sole purpose of posting in the religion sub forum.  Nang is one of the recruits.  This is a political forum for Ron Paul supporters, and I'm not sure if it's within the rules for people who aren't supporters of Ron Paul to come here and simply post in the Religion sub forum.  Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be mean here.  But I just think you should realize that this is a political forum.  But maybe you're a Ron Paul supporter as well.  I hope so.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Who recruited you to post here?


The same could be asked of you, TC.  Everyone is welcome, right?

----------


## Terry1

> It's just that we've had Calvinists here who have been recruiting other Calvinists to join this forum for the sole purpose of posting in the religion sub forum.  Nang is one of the recruits.  This is a political forum for Ron Paul supporters, and I'm not sure if it's within the rules for people who aren't supporters of Ron Paul to come here and simply post in the Religion sub forum.  Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be mean here.  But I just think you should realize that this is a political forum.  But maybe you're a Ron Paul supporter as well.  I hope so.


Good point TC.

----------


## Nang

> thanks Nang... I thought all were allowed to post here? I have never had a problem as a new member in posting on message boards since 2000.


Sorry . . . I am only 4 days new myself.  It seemed like a safe and interesting site, but I have been doing extreme battle ever since I arrived.

Something very wicked seems to be going on, and you have come right into the middle of it . . .  so it is not you!

Seems there a few here who resist scriptural truth through the tactic of twisting scripture every chance they get, to support their idol of free will.

May God keep you here to help and assist the few sane Christian members present . . .

Nang

----------


## Jamesiv1

oh great. now we've got conspiracy theories in the Religion forum!! lol

Donald Rumsfeld did it!!!!!

----------


## Terry1

> Sorry . . . I am only 4 days new myself.  It seemed like a safe and interesting site, but I have been doing extreme battle ever since I arrived.
> 
> Something very wicked seems to be going on, and you have come right into the middle of it . . .  so it is not you!
> 
> Seems there a few here who resist scriptural truth through the tactic of twisting scripture every chance they get, to support their idol of free will.
> 
> May God keep you here to help and assist the few sane Christian members present . . .
> 
> Nang


These are OPINIONS ONLY---please stop implying that people are "wicked", "trolls", "unchristian" or other alike.  If you can not behave in this thread and treat people with respect, then don't expect to be treated with the same and kindly go to another site, forum or thread where people are more agreeable to your opinions.

----------


## Nang

> It's just that we've had Calvinists here who have been recruiting other Calvinists to join this forum for the sole purpose of posting in the religion sub forum.  Nang is one of the recruits.  This is a political forum for Ron Paul supporters, and I'm not sure if it's within the rules for people who aren't supporters of Ron Paul to come here and simply post in the Religion sub forum.  Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be mean here.  But I just think you should realize that this is a political forum.  But maybe you're a Ron Paul supporter as well.  I hope so.


I came here, not only to check out the religious discussion, but because I wanted to determine whether or not to support Rand Paul.  I am reading the other political forums, but I must say, you are a poor supporter of Rand Paul, by discouraging new members who want to investigate and find out the facts.

----------


## Kevin007

> It's just that we've had Calvinists here who have been recruiting other Calvinists to join this forum for the sole purpose of posting in the religion sub forum.  Nang is one of the recruits.  This is a political forum for Ron Paul supporters, and I'm not sure if it's within the rules for people who aren't supporters of Ron Paul to come here and simply post in the Religion sub forum.  Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be mean here.  But I just think you should realize that this is a political forum.  But maybe you're a Ron Paul supporter as well.  I hope so.


I am not even American I'm from Canada, but I live in a border city. I follow US politics closer than my own. As far as RP goes- he is the Paul Revere of our time.

----------


## Nang

> These are OPINOIONS ONLY---please stop implying that people are "wicked", "trolls", "unchristian" or other alike.  If you can not behave in this thread and treat people with respect, then don't expect to be treated with the same and kindly go to another site, forum or thread where people are more agreeable to your opinions.


You have treated me with nothing but disrespect.  I hope you are not an example of Rand Paul.

[mod delete]

----------


## Sola_Fide

> salvation depends on God. Sanctification depends on us, as we yield to the HS. Sinning affects our relationship with Christ but not our POSITION with Christ.


No.  Sanctification depends on God alone.

----------


## Kevin007

> Sorry . . . I am only 4 days new myself.  It seemed like a safe and interesting site, but I have been doing extreme battle ever since I arrived.
> 
> Something very wicked seems to be going on, and you have come right into the middle of it . . .  so it is not you!
> 
> Seems there a few here who resist scriptural truth through the tactic of twisting scripture every chance they get, to support their idol of free will.
> 
> May God keep you here to help and assist the few sane Christian members present . . .
> 
> Nang


thanks Nang. I was saved April 6, 1997. I am a grace through faith Believer. I believe in the Pretrib Rapture as well. I believe in OSAS. Glad you are here as well.

----------


## Brett85

> I came here, not only to check out the religious discussion, but because I wanted to determine whether or not to support Rand Paul.  I am reading the other political forums, but I must say, you are a poor supporter of Rand Paul, by discouraging new members who want to investigate and find out the facts.


I'm not trying to discourage anyone from posting here.  I simply asked him a question out of curiosity.

----------


## Kevin007

> No.  Sanctification depends on God alone.


sanctification is a process, daily as we obey the HS. It does depend on us obeying.


Sanctification also refers to the practical  experience of this separation unto God, being the effect of obedience  to the Word of God in one’s life, and is to be pursued by the believer  earnestly (1 Peter 1:15; Hebrews 12:14).
Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctifi...#ixzz2vWiZdEZv

----------


## Brett85

> I am not even American I'm from Canada, but I live in a border city. I follow US politics closer than my own. As far as RP goes- *he is the Paul Revere of our time.*


Good!

----------


## Kevin007

> I'm not trying to discourage anyone from posting here.  I simply asked him a question out of curiosity.


TC, no offense taken. I have a thick skin.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> No.  Sanctification depends on God alone.


This is what I have come to believe as well.  Salvation, justification, sanctification are all of God.  God even causes us to yield to Him, and that alone makes me weep with joy.

----------


## Kevin007

> Good!


yes! I love politics. I love reason. I love history.

----------


## Kevin007

Yes, God is the source of everything, but I believe we have free will. The more we obey, the more we are sanctified. Salvation however is a free gift.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> sanctification is a process, daily as we obey the HS. It does depend on us obeying.


You're gonna fit right in here lol

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> thanks Nang. I was saved April 6, 1997. I am a grace through faith Believer. I believe in the Pretrib Rapture as well. I believe in OSAS. Glad you are here as well.


Wow, Kevin, welcome and praise God for you.   And, I love your avatar.  Praise to the Lion of Judah.

----------


## Nang

> yes! I love politics. I love reason. I love history.



Well, I love reason, and I love history, and I love Holy Scripture . . . not too sure I love politics.

That is why I am investigating and paying attention to Rand Paul.  Seems he might be a little above
the usual politician and self-interest cronies.

----------


## Terry1

> I came here, not only to check out the religious discussion, but because I wanted to determine whether or not to support Rand Paul.  I am reading the other political forums, but I must say, you are a poor supporter of Rand Paul, by discouraging new members who want to investigate and find out the facts.


You've planted yourself here since you've been subscribed doing nothing but causing trouble, calling people names, insulting others opinions while contributing nothing to the discussion.  How interested are you in Rand Paul then?  You've been here for the last since you subscribed 4 days ago.  Then you call me a troll in my own thread that you've desperately attempted to trash with your trash and insult TC who's been kind to you.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, God is the source of everything, but I believe we have free will. The more we obey, the more we are sanctified. Salvation however is a free gift.


I am a Reformer, so have arguments against the reality of autonomous free will, but I am with you otherwise . . .

----------


## Terry1

> sanctification is a process, daily as we obey the HS. It does depend on us obeying.
> 
> 
> Sanctification also refers to the practical  experience of this separation unto God, being the effect of obedience  to the Word of God in ones life, and is to be pursued by the believer  earnestly (1 Peter 1:15; Hebrews 12:14).
> Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctifi...#ixzz2vWiZdEZv


Well this is promising, at least this is an indication you don't subscribe to the Total Depravity doctrine of John Calvin.  Welcome.

----------


## Kevin007

back to the OP. We are not perfect in this life, because no one could be except Jesus. However, at the rapture or death, we will be perfect like Christ.

----------


## Kevin007

> Well this is promising, at least this is an indication you don't subscribe to the Total Depravity doctrine of John Calvin.  Welcome.


thanks Terry. As strange as it sounds, my beliefs include many doctrines. But of utmost importance is my beliefs are in Jesus Christ as Savior.

----------


## Terry1

> ACTUALLY, not everyone on this forum is for Rand Paul.  Read up about it.


If we can't have Ron---I'll take Rand over anyone else any day.

----------


## Kevin007

how about this for a first impression; I like all of you so far, seriously. I love passionate discussions.

----------


## Kevin007

> If we can't have Ron---I'll take Rand over anyone else any day.


the apple stays close to the tree

----------


## Terry1

> thanks Terry. As strange as it sounds, my beliefs include many doctrines. But of utmost importance is my beliefs are in Jesus Christ as Savior.


It's nice to have you Kevin.  You'll have to excuse some of us here for being a little paranoid since the Calvinists here have made quite a spectacle of themselves lately.  Welcome to the site and forum, glad to have you.

----------


## Terry1

> the apple stays close to the tree


Yes, as always.

----------


## Kevin007

> It's nice to have you Kevin.  You'll have to excuse some of us here for being a little paranoid since the Calvinists here have made quite a spectacle of themselves lately.  Welcome to the site and forum, glad to have you.


glad to be here. I have been reading the forums for a few days before posting. I like the variety of issues on here. The "owner" of this forum does a great job. I hope I can contribute in the coming days and weeks- Lord willing.

----------


## Kevin007

not to derail this thread Terry and others- but are there many end times threads on here? I love eschatology.

----------


## Jamesiv1

These videos seem appropriate

----------


## Terry1

> thanks Terry. As strange as it sounds, my beliefs include many doctrines. But of utmost importance is my beliefs are in Jesus Christ as Savior.


I don't expect we will all agree 100 percent on everything, but the most important part is that we agree that Jesus is Lord.  It does get heated in here once in a while, well--actually quite often, but we manage.  Some people are only here to cause trouble, hurl insults and accuse people of being "wicked", "trolls" and whatever else they can find to substitute for honest intellectual and respectful debate with scripture to back up what they believe.

All we have are our opinions and hopefully we can keep them respectful.  I think you will fit in nicely here.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> If we can't have Ron---I'll take Rand over anyone else any day.


Not the point.  You accused Nang of not being here for Rand.  The Liberty Movement is much more than Rand Paul - as would know if you had read any of the politcal threads.

----------


## Terry1

> These videos seem appropriate


ROFL

----------


## Terry1

> not to derail this thread Terry and others- but are there many end times threads on here? I love eschatology.


Yes, we have some really good ones too.  Feel free to resurrect them!

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, we have some really good ones too.  Feel free to resurrect them!


ok, great- thanks. I might... Not a lot of people believe in PreTrib for example but I have been studying the end times for almost 25 years and about 25% of the Bible is about Prophecy.

----------


## Bryan

Various posts have been deleted.

Let's please all follow the site usage guidelines and keep things civil and constructive.

Thank you!

----------


## Brett85

> not to derail this thread Terry and others- but are there many end times threads on here? I love eschatology.


Yeah, I'll bump the thread I started.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I came here, not only to check out the religious discussion, but because I wanted to determine whether or not to support Rand Paul.  I am reading the other political forums, but I must say, you are a poor supporter of Rand Paul, by discouraging new members who want to investigate and find out the facts.


I recommend judging Rand by his own statements rather than those of his supporters, which are going to vary anyway.




> It's just that we've had Calvinists here who have been recruiting other Calvinists to join this forum for the sole purpose of posting in the religion sub forum.  Nang is one of the recruits.  This is a political forum for Ron Paul supporters, and I'm not sure if it's within the rules for people who aren't supporters of Ron Paul to come here and simply post in the Religion sub forum.  Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be mean here.  But I just think you should realize that this is a political forum.  But maybe you're a Ron Paul supporter as well.  I hope so.


Nang joined here when I asked her about my conversation with agrammatos.  I didn't specifically ask her to join (Although I am very glad that she did) and I was asking for help debating a Carpenterite, not an Arminian.  Arminianism is really easy to refute anyways.  Bizarre semi-cults, not so much.




> Well, I love reason, and I love history, and I love Holy Scripture . . . not too sure I love politics.
> 
> That is why I am investigating and paying attention to Rand Paul.  Seems he might be a little above
> the usual politician and self-interest cronies.


I don't like "politics" but I think political issues are worth discussing.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yeah, I'll bump the thread I started.


thanks- I just saw that....going to read through asap.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At first I just rejected four points of Calvinism but believed in eternal security, but I think I just believed in eternal security because I just wanted it to be true, because it's a comforting thought.  Interestingly, the doctrine of eternal security is probably the weakest of the five points of Calvinism.  There's more Biblical support for the other four points than there is for eternal security.


You know what, I sort of agree with this, and I think rejecting the other four points logically leads to rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as well.  I've always been frustrated when trying to argue the perseverance of the saints point from Hebrews 6.  But when the other four points come together, and they are scripturally irrefutable, perseverance of the saints is an unavoidable conclusion.

But even with perseverance you've got John 10 and Romans 8.  That's not as much evidence as there is for unconditional election, but its a lot.




> Oh my . . . that is impressive!!


Indeed, considering Terry1 is barely coherent most of the time.  I guess TC is smarter than me, I can't even understand Terry more than half the time




> Is that what the true gospel proclaimed is supposed to achieve?
> 
> Is that "good news?"


If you do good works, you might be saved?  Nope.  That's not "good news."  


> TC . . . Terry is not teaching the true, saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  You have been duped.


Nang, I posted a thread on TOL for Reformed Christians that is related to this topic.  Check ECT when you get a chance.  



> So threatens an enemy of truth, who twists all her references to suit her ungodly beliefs . . .
> 
> You have insulted me grossly, by telling me my mouth is foul and nasty, and I should shut up.
> 
> Such language is overtly against the rules of this forum that Bryan is trying to maintain.
> 
> You should be banned for such an unprovoked attack upon my person and beliefs.


She attacks Reformed theology without having a clue what it is.

----------


## Terry1

> You know what, I sort of agree with this, and I think rejecting the other four points logically leads to rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as well.  I've always been frustrated when trying to argue the perseverance of the saints point from Hebrews 6.  But when the other four points come together, and they are scripturally irrefutable, perseverance of the saints is an unavoidable conclusion.
> 
> But even with perseverance you've got John 10 and Romans 8.  That's not as much evidence as there is for unconditional election, but its a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, considering Terry1 is barely coherent most of the time.  I guess TC is smarter than me, I can't even understand Terry more than half the time
> 
> 
> ...


FYI here FF--I spent many years teaching in a Baptist church before I became non-denominational, I also pastored for a while too.  I'm 58 years old with a lot of windy doctrine behind me.  I really don't need a 19 year old kid as yourself or your little friends or relatives telling me where to find a clue. 

Most of you Calvinists can't back up one word of your theology you claim without it getting shot down with the word of God saying otherwise almost as soon as it's posted.

Sola was wrong about Romans 8:29 and so is your little friend there who can't control her out-bursts calling everyone "evil", "wicked" and "trolls" who don't agree with her.  She's just like the rest of you who attempt to change the narrative of what I actually said in order to argue a point based upon a false premise.  She's intellectually dishonest.  This seems to be a pattern with the Calvinists who can't win an argument without misrepresenting what the other person has actually said.  Plus she never once posted any scripture to back up anything she claimed.  All she did was run around the threads using insulting drive-by posts that contributed nothing but trouble.  Take her back where you found her please.  Thanks

----------


## Brett85

> I am a Reformer, so have arguments against the reality of autonomous free will, but I am with you otherwise . . .


Were all of the Reformers Calvinists who rejected the idea of free will?

----------


## erowe1

> Were all of the Reformers Calvinists who rejected the idea of free will?


All the Reformers believed in total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, if that's what you mean. "Calvinism" by that label wasn't a thing at the time, because Arminianism hadn't come about yet, so there was nothing to contrast them against. And I wouldn't characterize those beliefs as rejecting the idea of free will either.

----------


## Terry1

> All the Reformers believed in total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, if that's what you mean. "Calvinism" by that label wasn't a thing at the time, because Arminianism hadn't come about yet, so there was nothing to contrast them against. And I wouldn't characterize those beliefs as rejecting the idea of free will either.


What do you mean Arminianism "hadn't come about yet"?   The Catholic Church always believed in the free will of mankind and they existed long before any of the reformers did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What do you mean Arminianism "hadn't come about yet"?   The Catholic Church always believed in the free will of mankind and they existed long before any of the reformers did.


That's true.  That is why Arminianism is so evil.  It's the road back to Rome.

----------


## erowe1

> What do you mean Arminianism "hadn't come about yet"?   The Catholic Church always believed in the free will of mankind and they existed long before any of the reformers did.


First of all, regardless what the Roman Catholic Church taught, Arminianism hadn't come about yet. Jacobus Arminius was after the Reformation, and reacted against its theology, not before.

Second of all, the things that determine the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism aren't whether or not one believes in the free will of mankind. There's nothing stopping anyone who affirms all five points of Calvinism, and who believes that God predestined absolutely everything that happens, from believing in the free will of mankind in a way very much like what Augustine described when he used that phrase. See, for example, Jonathan Edwards' work on the topic.

Third of all, if you compare the official Roman Catholic proclamations on the issues surrounding the Calvinism/Arminianism debates, in my opinion they came down more on the side of Calvinism. Prior to the Reformation, those issues were more identified with Augustine (representing the more Calvinist position) and Pelagius (representing the more Arminian position). The Synod of Orange in 529 came down strongly on the more Augustinian side (though less strongly than Augustine himself), and directly repudiated the more Arminian-ish ideas of Pelagianism. The canons of the Synod of Orange were affirmed by the Council of Trent in the Roman Catholic Church's own response to the Reformation, and thus became the official teaching of the whole church. In the mean time, the issues of this debate also bubbled up in the 9th century, when a Roman Catholic theologian named Gottschalk took very strident positions that were clearly as purely monergistic as any Calvinist's are, and he got himself into trouble with some church leaders, one bishop in particular. But when that bishop called a council (the Council of Valence in 855) to resolve those issues, the council came down on the side of Gottschalk against that bishop. They didn't positively affirm all of Gottschalk's views, but their statement was certainly more representative of what would later be called Calvinism than Arminianism.

----------


## Brett85

> All the Reformers believed in total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, if that's what you mean. "Calvinism" by that label wasn't a thing at the time, because Arminianism hadn't come about yet, so there was nothing to contrast them against. And I wouldn't characterize those beliefs as rejecting the idea of free will either.


Ok, but they believed in the 5 different points, the TULIP?

----------


## Terry1

> First of all, regardless what the Roman Catholic Church taught, Arminianism hadn't come about yet. Jacobus Arminius was after the Reformation, and reacted against its theology, not before..


We're talking about the doctrine of "FREE WILL" here and those that support that belief.  It doesn't matter when J. Arminius came along.  




> Second of all, the things that determine the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism aren't whether or not one believes in the free will of mankind. There's nothing stopping anyone who affirms all five points of Calvinism, and who believes that God predestined absolutely everything that happens, from believing in the free will of mankind in a way very much like what Augustine described when he used that phrase. See, for example, Jonathan Edwards' work on the topic.


Augustine wasn't biblically correct on all points of Biblical doctrine either, because God's word clearly tells us that grace is resistible.  J. Edwards missed the mark too by asserting that mankind has no free will or choice in the matter of our eternal destinies.  I go by the word of God and multiple scriptures that tell us explicitly that our eternal destinies rest solely upon obedience to the Holy Spirit as is our choice to either obey or not to and what happens if we stop repenting and hearing what God is speaking to us through that same Spirit of the Lord.  You know I've already posted scripture to back that up.  That it's always been that "it might be" and conditional upon something, which is our faith and the "works of faith" that are vital to maintaining a life IN CHRIST.





> Third of all, if you compare the official Roman Catholic proclamations on the issues surrounding the Calvinism/Arminianism debates, in my opinion they came down more on the side of Calvinism. Prior to the Reformation, those issues were more identified with Augustine (representing the more Calvinist position) and Pelagius (representing the more Arminian position). The Synod of Orange in 529 came down strongly on the more Augustinian side (though less strongly than Augustine himself), and directly repudiated the more Arminian-ish ideas of Pelagianism. The canons of the Synod of Orange were affirmed by the Council of Trent in the Roman Catholic Church's own response to the Reformation, and thus became the official teaching of the whole church. In the mean time, the issues of this debate also bubbled up in the 9th century, when a Roman Catholic theologian named Gottschalk took very strident positions that were clearly as purely monergistic as any Calvinist's are, and he got himself into trouble with some church leaders, one bishop in particular. But when that bishop called a council (the Council of Valence in 855) to resolve those issues, the council came down on the side of Gottschalk against that bishop. They didn't positively affirm all of Gottschalk's views, but their statement was certainly more representative of what would later be called Calvinism than Arminianism.


Monergism is a false doctrine and not based upon our obedience to the Holy Spirit and free will to choose to do good or evil.  Monergism, teaches a puppet master God who causes sin in order to cure it.  Plain and simple---there's nothing complex or anything hard to understand about how God allows us the freedom to choose which master we will follow in this life.  He gives us the promises of all things good if we choose Him and tells what the dangers are if we don't.  

The entire Bible is based upon instruction with regard as to how we are to live, love, give, honor and obey.  What good is the instruction of the word of God if mankind has no control over what they choose to say or do in this life?  Do you understand this concept?

----------


## erowe1

> Ok, but they believed in the 5 different points, the TULIP?


The 5 points of TULIP were not actually formulated until after Arminianism developed, as a response to Arminianism. The 5 points of Arminianism came before the 5 points of Calvinism. Calvin was long dead by then.

So the question of what all the Reformers would have said about those specific points as they came to be formulated involves poring over all of their works (which are voluminous), and considering what sometimes appear to be contradictory statements on the issues. The one that I've seen discussed the most is Limited Atonement, where the Reformers said things that implied different positions on it depending on the context of what they were talking about. None of them ever wrote anything specifically for the point of either defending or attacking that doctrine. I'm pretty sure that the other 4 points of TULIP are all things that the Reformers can more easily be proven to have supported (although I'm not as sure about P as I am the others).

----------


## erowe1

> We're talking about the doctrine of "FREE WILL" here and those that support that belief.


That's not what I was talking about in any of the posts of mine that you've replied to. And the way that I've used that term in those posts should make that clear.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what the phrase "free will" means. And the question of whether or not anyone, including I'm sure SF and Nang, believe in it, will depend on what it means. Some people just throw that term around as if it's some simple and obvious thing. To me it isn't simple and obvious at all.

----------


## erowe1

> Monergism, teaches a puppet master God


Source?

----------


## Terry1

> That's not what I was talking about in any of the posts of mine that you've replied to. And the way that I've used that term in those posts should make that clear.
> 
> Frankly, I'm not even sure what the phrase "free will" means. And the question of whether or not anyone, including I'm sure SF and Nang, believe in it, will depend on what it means. Some people just throw that term around as if it's some simple and obvious thing. To me it isn't simple and obvious at all.


There's nothing hard to understand about the free will of mankind.  It's nothing more or less than our ability to choose which master we will serve in this life and every minute of every day until the very end of it.

That obedience is based upon our willingness to hear what God is calling us to do via the Spirit of the Lord and then doing that which God is asking us to do.  This is what Paul calls "a work of faith", because when we obey the Spirit of the Lord, we are acting upon our faith in God and doing that which keeps us within His will, while at the same time we grow in faith as a result.  This is what Paul and James both teach us in those epistles.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's nothing hard to understand about the free will of mankind.  It's nothing more or less than our ability to choose which master we will serve in this life and every minute of every day until the very end of it.


That is the heresy of Pelgianism.

----------


## erowe1

> There's nothing hard to understand about the free will of mankind.  It's nothing more or less than our ability to choose which master we will serve in this life and every minute of every day until the very end of it.


Who has this ability?

Also, I doubt that any dictionary would give that, or anything like it, as a definition of the term "free will."

----------


## erowe1

> This is what Paul calls "a work of faith"


In what verse?

----------


## Terry1

> Source?


It's the polar opposite of synergism.  It's the doctrine that teaches that the free will of mankind can not work together with the Holy Spirit.  It teaches that the Holy Spirit does all of the choosing and predestinating alone and by itself and we have no control over what we do or say, that all is the causal effect of Gods will.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monergism

----------


## erowe1

> It's the polar opposite of synergism.  It's the doctrine that teaches that the free will of mankind can not work together with the Holy Spirit.  It teaches that the Holy Spirit does all of the choosing and predestinating alone and by itself and we have no control over what we do or say, that all is the causal effect of Gods will.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monergism


But that's not what you said. I was asking for your source for that claim that it teaches a puppet master God. That dictionary definition doesn't say that. Do any actual self-professed monergists say that about their own view?

I'm familiar with monergism. I'd gladly accept the label "monergist" for myself (much more readily than I would "Calvinist"). But I don't believe in a puppet master God. And I don't recall ever encountering anyone else who did.

----------


## Terry1

> In what verse?


You know how many times I've already posted these scriptures.


*
1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:[/SIZE]*

----------


## erowe1

> You know how many times I've already posted these scriptures.
> 
> 
> *
> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
> Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:[/SIZE]*


No, I'm afraid I don't know how many times. I don't really see how you draw the conclusions you're drawing from those verses. If anything, they support the view that this work of faith is ultimately dependent on God, since Paul thanks God for it in the first verse and prays for God to fulfill it in the second. That's monergism.

Was your point simply that the words "work" and "faith" got put together, and you just ran with that? Or was there something about what those verses actually say that you were talking about?

----------


## Terry1

> But that's not what you said. I was asking for your source for that claim that it teaches a puppet master God. That dictionary definition doesn't say that. Do any actual self-professed monergists say that about their own view?
> 
> I'm familiar with monergism. I'd gladly accept the label "monergist" for myself (much more readily than I would "Calvinist"). But I don't believe in a puppet master God. And I don't recall ever encountering anyone else who did.


Monergrism does teach a puppet master god.  If we have no choice with regard to obeying the Holy Spirit, then what was the purpose of using the word "obey" as it's written?  Obedience is something people choose to do, it's not something God forces mankind to do.  If that was the case there would have never been a fall of a third of heaven or mankind.  It's common logical sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know how many times I've already posted these scriptures.
> 
> 
> *
> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
> Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:[/SIZE]*



Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## Terry1

> No, I'm afraid I don't know how many times. I don't really see how you draw the conclusions you're drawing from those verses. If anything, they support the view that this work of faith is ultimately dependent on God, since Paul thanks God for it in the first verse and prays for God to fulfill it in the second. That's monergism.
> 
> Was your point simply that the words "work" and "faith" got put together, and you just ran with that? Or was there something about what those verses actually say that you were talking about?


If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us?  You explain that please.

----------


## erowe1

> Monergrism does teach a puppet master god.


Source?

----------


## erowe1

> If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us?  You explain that please.


Are you still talking about the two verses you quoted? Or have you moved on to other ones now?

----------


## Terry1

> Are you still talking about the two verses you quoted? Or have you moved on to other ones now?


Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please.

----------


## Nang

> That is the heresy of Pelgianism.


Yes, Pelagianism is still alive and well, also . . .

----------


## erowe1

> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please.


Could you please refer to the verses you're talking about before expecting to comment on what they mean?

I asked you if you were still talking about those two verse you quoted in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and you don't even give me an answer here.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, Pelagianism is still alive and well, also . . .


I've asked Sola and erowe1, now I'll ask you to back up your theology-- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please. 

Maybe I'll get an answer out of one of you yet.

----------


## Terry1

> Could you please refer to the verses you're talking about before expecting to comment on what they mean?
> 
> I asked you if you were still talking about those two verse you quoted in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and you don't even give me an answer here.


  You are the one's claiming that no "work of faith" is required on the part of the believer---so I'm asking you now---

If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hold on Terry1....I want ANSWERS for the two verses you just posted (and repeatedly refer to with your "quotes").  Where do those verses teach that man must do works to be saved?

----------


## Nang

> I've asked Sola and erowe1, now I'll ask you to back up your theology-- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please. 
> 
> Maybe I'll get an answer out of one of you yet.


Don't expect any further responses from me, Terry.  I am prayerfully committing you to the authority of the Christian men on this site, for you are out of order and out of control.

----------


## Terry1

> Hold on Terry1....I want ANSWERS for the two verses you just posted (and repeatedly refer to with your "quotes").  Where do those verses teach that man must do works to be saved?


Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Terry1

> Don't expect any further responses from me, Terry.  I am prayerfully committing you to the authority of the Christian men on this site, for you are out of order and out of control.


Then get out of the thread if you have nothing but more insults to contribute.  I asked you a question, if you can't answer it then be silent.

Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## erowe1

> You are the one's claiming that no "work of faith" is required on the part of the believer


Please quote where I said that.




> If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please.


As for this part, before I say what I think any verses mean, could you tell me what verses you're asking me about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


Unreal.  I'm asking you simply to explain the verses that _you yourself_ used to back up your position, and you won't do it.  Why do you continually refer to those passages as if they support your false theology when they don't?

----------


## Terry1

> Please quote where I said that.
> 
> 
> 
> As for this part, before I say what I think any verses mean, could you tell me what verses you're asking me about?


James 2:20 
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## erowe1

> Unreal.  I'm asking you simply to explain the verses that _you yourself_ used to back up your position, and you won't do it.  Why do you continually refer to those passages as if they support your false theology when they don't?


In that kind of circumstance, it's fair just to take that as a concession of the point when it comes to those verses. Terry is moving on to her next argument, having recognized that she was mistaken in what she said in her last one.

----------


## Terry1

> Unreal.  I'm asking you simply to explain the verses that _you yourself_ used to back up your position, and you won't do it.  Why do you continually refer to those passages as if they support your false theology when they don't?




 Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 3.James 2:20 
> But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 
> 
> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and * become dead* as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please



That isn't what the verse says.  It doesn't say faith _becomes dead._ That is your false insertion.  The verse deals with a false claim to faith.  The Biblical faith includes works (because God gives a Christian man faith and works).

----------


## Terry1

> That isn't what the verse says.  It doesn't say faith _becomes dead._ That is your false insertion.  The verse deals with a false claim to faith.  The Biblical faith includes works (because God gives a Christian man faith and works).


James 2:17 
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and  become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


Terry1, whenever you use your stupid "quotes", I am going to link you to this page where you could not back up the verses you used.

----------


## erowe1

> 3.James 2:20 
> But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 
> 
> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


That verse doesn't say anything about faith becoming dead. It refers to dead faith. But nothing in it implies that dead faith was ever living faith before that. A person's works reflect what's really inside them, and what they really believe. If they claim to have faith that differs from what their works reveal, then it's their works and not their lips that are telling the truth. A person with what James is calling dead faith is a person who does not, and never did, really have saving faith at all.

If we ask how James would answer the question, "Where does living faith that truly saves come from?", he gives us his answer to that in James 1:17-18:



> 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.


That's monergism.

So much for James.

You also mentioned Paul. What passages from Paul were you asking about?

----------


## Terry1

> James 2:17 
> Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
> 
> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and  become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please



Then if God and the Holy Spirit maintain both faith and our works, then how can faith become dead if this is so?


 Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Terry1

> That verse doesn't say anything about faith becoming dead. It refers to dead faith. But nothing in it implies that dead faith was ever living faith before that. A person's works reflect what's really inside them, and what they really believe. If they claim to have faith that differs from what their works reveal, then it's their works and not that lips that are telling the truth. A person with what James is calling dead faith is a person who does not, and never did, really have saving faith at all.
> 
> If we ask how James would answer the question, "Where does living faith that truly saves come from?", he gives us his answer to that in James 1:17-18:
> 
> 
> That's monergism.
> 
> So much for James.
> 
> You also mentioned Paul. What passages from Paul were you asking about?


Again---if God maintains your faith and works then why is James telling you that faith without works is dead and yes, James is most certainly telling you that "faith without works is dead".  


 Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That verse doesn't say anything about faith becoming dead. It refers to dead faith. But nothing in it implies that dead faith was ever living faith before that. A person's works reflect what's really inside them, and what they really believe. If they claim to have faith that differs from what their works reveal, then it's their works and not that lips that are telling the truth. A person with what James is calling dead faith is a person who does not, and never did, really have saving faith at all.
> 
> If we ask how James would answer the question, "Where does living faith that truly saves come from?", he gives us his answer to that in James 1:17-18:


Excellent response.  Also, I would add that James does NOT say "If someone has faith, but has no deeds, can that faith save him". He says, "If someone CLAIMS to have faith,  but has no deeds, can that faith save him. "

A faith that doesn't have deeds does not exist.   James is dealing with a fake CLAIM of faith.

----------


## erowe1

> Again---if God maintains your faith and works then why is James telling you that faith with works is dead and yes, James is most certainly telling you that "faith without works is dead".  
> 
> 
>  Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


I just answered that in the quote you just quoted.

James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead. So the premise of your question is false.

----------


## Terry1

> I just answered that in the quote you just quoted.
> 
> James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead. So the premise of your question is false.


No you didn't.  You answered based upon the false premise of what James is actually saying.  As usual, you do this everytime you're backed into a corner.  James is telling you that without works your faith is dead.  My question remains the same based upon the true context of scripture and not your warped interpretation.


 Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again---if God maintains your faith and works then why is James telling you that faith without works is dead and yes, James is most certainly telling you that "faith without works is dead".  
> 
> 
>  Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


Earth to Terry 1.   Didn't James just say in 1:18 that God brought us fourth BY HIS OWN WILL?

Do you read the Bible?  I'm asking honestly.  Why do disagree with what James says in 1:18?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> James 1:18 NASB
> 
> *In the exercise of His will He brought us forth* by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.


Terry1, why do you disagree with the apostle James?

----------


## erowe1

> No you didn't.  You answered based upon the false premise of what James is actually saying.  As usual, you do this everytime you're backed into a corner.  James is telling you that without works your faith is dead.  My question remains the same based upon the true context of scripture and not your warped interpretation.
> 
> 
>  Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


But James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead. You can just read it and see that he doesn't. That's not in the quote you provided or anywhere else.

----------


## Terry1

> Earth to Terry 1.   Didn't James just say in 1:18 that God brought us fourth BY HIS OWN WILL?
> 
> Do you read the Bible?  I'm asking honestly.  Why do disagree with what James says in 1:18?



*
James 1:
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.*

James is speaking of our "firstfruits" which are fruits of the Spirit that are obtained through our faith in Christ and this is why James also tells you that without "works" as in what Paul tells you "works of faith"--you have no "firstfruits" at all.  

Now then--answer the question---last chance here.  

Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please

----------


## Terry1

> But James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead. You can just read it and see that he doesn't. That's not in the quote you provided or anywhere else.


You really need to back up this wild assertion opposite what James is telling you, or is this another "Sola attempt" to redefine words and meaning so they'll fit into your little theological box?

----------


## erowe1

> You really need to back up this wild assertion opposite what James is telling you, or is this another "Sola attempt" to redefine words and meaning so they'll fit into your little theological box?


I don't get it. What are you disputing here?

----------


## Terry1

> I don't get it. What are you disputing here?


You've attempted to redefine what James is actually saying to support your belief.  You do this quite often along with Sola.

----------


## erowe1

> You've attempted to redefine what James is actually saying to support your belief.  You do this quite often along with Sola.


No I haven't.

You claimed that he referred to faith dying or becoming dead. I simply pointed out that he never did. He only referred to faith being dead, not becoming dead.

You don't dispute that, do you? It's just a matter of reading exactly what you yourself quoted.

----------


## Terry1

What this all came down to here once again is that none of the Calvinists here can answer this question I put forth without redefining clear scripture as in 

James 2:20 
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

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


So then Sola asserts that God give us "faith and works", which still does not answer the question---how then as James says can faith die?  

So the erowe1 claims that James isn't actually saying that faith dies or can become dead, then answers the question based upon his redefinition of what James is actually saying.

So none of you have answered the question as of yet based upon the true context of scripture.  The only possible way you could answer based upon your belief is by misinterpretation and misrepresentation of James--as usual.

----------


## Terry1

> No I haven't.
> 
> You claimed that he referred to faith dying or becoming dead. I simply pointed out that he never did. He only referred to faith being dead, not becoming dead.
> 
> You don't dispute that, do you? It's just a matter of reading exactly what you yourself quoted.


Ask yourself this question---why would James refer to something that can happen, that by your belief is an impossibility?

----------


## erowe1

> Ask yourself this question---why would James refer to something that can happen, that by your belief is an impossibility?


I don't know what you're talking abut.

When you say "something that can happen," are you still talking about faith dying or becoming dead? Because, as you can see just by reading your own quotes, James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead.

You don't dispute that do you? Surely, by now you've had a chance to reread the verses you quoted and see that, sure enough, neither one refers to faith dying or becoming dead.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Answer the question--- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please


Faith that was never accompanied with works was never alive to begin with.  
Only true living faith is accompanied by works, otherwise it never lived to begin with.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know what you're talking abut.
> 
> When you say "something that can happen," are you still talking about faith dying or becoming dead? Because, as you can see just by reading your own quotes, James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead.
> 
> You don't dispute that do you? Surely, by now you've had a chance to reread the verses you quoted and see that, sure enough, neither one refers to faith dying or becoming dead.


I replied to you and asked you another clear question based upon your reply.  I can't understand the problem you're having with understanding something plain and simple here.  

You don't believe James is saying that faith can become dead.  I'm asking you once again based upon your statement----why then would James make reference to something that can happen (as in faith becoming dead), if by your belief that is an impossibility, since you don't believe that mankind has any choice in the matter or that any effort's required on our part as believers.
It's a simple question---not hard to understand.

----------


## Terry1

> Faith that was never accompanied with works was never alive to begin with.  
> Only true living faith is accompanied by works, otherwise it never lived to begin with.


That's not the issue here though.  The Calvinists are claiming that God and the Holy Spirit are in total control of our faith and our works.  My question to them was---how then as James states, can faith become dead if God and the Holy Spirit are in total control?

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's not the issue here though.  The Calvinists are claiming that God and the Holy Spirit are in total control of our faith and our works.  My question to them was---how then as James states, can faith become dead if God and the Holy Spirit are in total control?


James states that faith without works never lived.

----------


## Terry1

> James states that faith without works never lived.


Faith has to be alive before it can become dead.  If it never was faith to begin with then it was never capable of dying, because it wasn't "faith" at all.  James is telling us that faith can become dead here.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Faith has to be alive before it can become dead.  If it never was faith to begin with then it was never capable of dying, because it wasn't "faith" at all.  James is telling us that faith can become dead here.


Those who believe they have faith but do not show works, have what is known as dead faith.  Yes they believe they have faith, but it wasn't really faith at all.  It may seem alive to them, but it never lived.

----------


## Terry1

> Those who believe they have faith but do not show works, have what is known as dead faith.  Yes they believe they have faith, but it wasn't really faith at all.  It may seem alive to them, but it never lived.


It doesn't matter whether people believe they faith or not.  James is saying that faith can become dead.  James isn't referring to people who don't have faith at all.  He's referring to believers that do have faith and that it can become dead.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Those who believe they have faith but do not show works, have what is known as dead faith.  Yes they believe they have faith, but it wasn't really faith at all.  It may seem alive to them, but it never lived.


+rep

----------


## Terry1

> +rep


I'm not disputing what 3D is saying, but it has nothing to do with what James is saying in those scriptures.

Some one has to have faith before they can lose it or it can die or become dead.  It's impossible to not have something to begin with and then claim it's dead. LOL  You either had faith or you never did, if you never did then it can't die can it.

James is telling us that faith can die and become dead, so one has to have it before it can become dead---*sigh*

----------


## Dr.3D

> It doesn't matter whether people believe they faith or not.  James is saying that faith can become dead.  James isn't referring to people who don't have faith at all.  He's referring to believers that do have faith and that it can become dead.


Let's look at this as if someone believes he has faith that he can walk on water.  Until that person actually steps out of the boat and attempts to walk on water, his faith has not been proven and thus is dead.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> A faith that doesn't have deeds does not exist.   James is dealing with a fake CLAIM of faith.


pooh. 

Someone becomes faithful, does a lot of deeds = living faith
Quits doing deeds = dead faith
Starts doing deeds again = living faith

You guys get soooo caught up in semantics...

The whole point is a good and faithful believer should live his faith and walk with God, living his life by spiritual principles: love God, love your neighbor, do unto others, etc.

You may be the only Bible someone will ever see.

----------


## Terry1

> Let's look at this as if someone believes he has faith that he can walk on water.  Until that person actually steps out of the boat and attempts to walk on water, his faith has not been proven and thus is dead.


Some one has to have faith before they can lose it or it can die or become dead. It's impossible to not have something to begin with and then claim it's dead.  You either had faith or you never did, if you never did then it can't die can it.

 James is telling us that faith can die and become dead, so one has to have it before it can become dead

Someone has to live before they can die, if they never lived---then dying isn't possible is it.

----------


## Dr.3D

This is why I seldom enter into these threads.   They often cause more harm than good.  (We have here a good example of why there are so many denominations of Christianity.)

I'll take my leave as of now and you all can continue on as you did before I interrupted your argument.

----------


## Terry1

> This is why I seldom enter into these threads.   They often cause more harm than good.  (We have here a good example of why there are so many denominations of Christianity.)
> 
> I'll take my leave as of now and you all can continue on as you did before I interrupted your argument.


Please don't be offended 3D.  All input is appreciated, sometimes it's difficult to speak truth without offending and is often a hard compromise even with those we like and agree with in most cases.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Please don't be offended 3D.  All input is appreciated, sometimes it's difficult to speak truth without offending and is often a hard compromise even with those we like and agree with in most cases.


I'm not offended but prefer to not use my time when there is not good reason.

Here is another translation of that verse that might help shed some light on what it is saying.



> NRS *James 2:20* Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?


I guess 'barren' can indicate without life or dead.  It can also indicate the total lack of life to begin with.

Here is another:



> NAS *James 2:20* But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?


And another:



> BBE *James 2:20* Do you not see, O foolish man, that faith without works is of no use?


One more:



> CJB *James 2:20* But, foolish fellow, do you want to be shown that such "faith" apart from actions is barren?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Faith that was never accompanied with works was never alive to begin with.  
> Only true living faith is accompanied by works, otherwise it never lived to begin with.


+rep

----------


## Brett85

When Jesus was talking about the vine and the branches, he said that he's the vine and we're the branches.  When we confess that Jesus died and rose again we're saved, and we become a branch on Christ's vine.  After we become a branch on Christ's vine, if we don't bear any fruit from that point forward, we'll be cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.  It says that explicitly in John.  It's not saying that people who don't produce fruit are never saved to begin with.  It says that they were on the vine and then cut off from the vine.

John 15: 1-8

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

----------


## Dr.3D

> When Jesus was talking about the vine and the branches, he said that he's the vine and we're the branches.  When we confess that Jesus died and rose again we're saved, and we become a branch on Christ's vine.  After we become a branch on Christ's vine, if we don't bear any fruit from that point forward, we'll be cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.  It says that explicitly in John.  It's not saying that people who don't produce fruit are never saved to begin with.  It says that they were on the vine and then cut off from the vine.
> 
> John 15: 1-8
> 
> “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
> 
> 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.


Yes, I like this one ever better.
This was being said about the Jews that believe being the root and the Gentiles being the grafted in branches.



> *Romans 11:17-21*  But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree,  _18_ do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.  _19_ You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."  _20_ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.  _21_ For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. _NRS_


Notice how many will to this day boast against the root?  It also indicates how one can be cut off by God and one should not be so secure in their beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When Jesus was talking about the vine and the branches, he said that he's the vine and we're the branches.  When we confess that Jesus died and rose again we're saved, and we become a branch on Christ's vine.  After we become a branch on Christ's vine, if we don't bear any fruit from that point forward, we'll be cut off from the branch and thrown into the fire.  It says that explicitly in John.  It's not saying that people who don't produce fruit are never saved to begin with.  It says that they were on the vine and then cut off from the vine.
> 
> John 15: 1-8
> 
> “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
> 
> 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.


The branch that is thrown away is THE JEWS. In the New Covenant,  God writes His laws upon the hearts of believers.   They cannot turn from Him or fall away.  Christ Himself is at the right hand of God interceding for them.

----------


## Brett85

> The branch that is thrown away is THE JEWS. In the New Covenant,  God writes His laws upon the hearts of believers.   They cannot turn from Him or fall away.  Christ Himself is at the right hand of God interceding for them.


The Bible says over and over again that they can fall away.

James 5:19-20

"My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

----------


## Brett85

There's no evidence at all that Jesus was referring to Jews in that verse.  He was referring to all believers, saying that we become a branch on Christ's vine when we become saved, and we can be cut off from that branch and thrown into the fire if we don't produce any fruit.

----------


## Nang

I have been taught that both the olive tree and the vine represent the *visible* churches who come under covenant with God in an external, temporal relationship.  Amongst all visible churches are both tares and wheat, and the branches that are pruned are those who do not bear the fruit of Jesus Christ, proving to be believers in name and association only.

However, Christ possesses His *invisible*, heavenly church which consists of regenerated souls only, who have been brought into full union with Him.  These are in covenant with God internally and everlastingly, and all of these will bear the fruit of the Lord, and will NEVER be cut off.

----------


## Brett85

> I have been taught that both the olive tree and the vine represent the *visible* churches who come under covenant with God in an external, temporal relationship.  Amongst all visible churches are both tares and wheat, and the branches that are pruned are those who do not bear the fruit of Jesus Christ, proving to be believers in name and association only.
> 
> However, Christ possesses His *invisible*, heavenly church which consists of regenerated souls only, who have been brought into full union with Him.  These are in covenant with God internally and everlastingly, and all of these will bear the fruit of the Lord, and will NEVER be cut off.


In the parable, every branch on the tree is a believer.  He uses the phrase "remain in me."  The word "remain" makes it clear that they were believers to begin with, and then fell away and chose not to remain on the vine.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm asking you once again based upon your statement----why then would James make reference to something that can happen (as in faith becoming dead)


James never does make any reference to faith becoming dead.

----------


## Nang

> In the parable, every branch on the tree is a believer.


Professing (fake) believers, yes.  True believers, no.





> He uses the phrase "remain in me."  The word "remain" makes it clear that they were believers to begin with, and then fell away and chose not to remain on the vine.


Those who "remain" prove to be the elect remnant of God.

Only those souls who were chosen and are sealed in Jesus Christ, WILL remain.   (Invisible, everlasting church of God.)  Ephesians 1:13

Those who do not remain, evidence they were never regenerated or anointed with the Holy Spirt of Christ, at all.  I John 2:19

 (Visible, temporal church of God filled with tares and goats, who will not stand the final Judgment.)

----------


## Brett85

> Professing (fake) believers, yes.  True believers, no.
> 
> Those who "remain" prove to be the elect remnant of God.
> 
> Only those souls who were chosen and are sealed in Jesus Christ, WILL remain.   (Invisible, everlasting church of God.)  Ephesians 1:13
> 
> Those who do not remain, evidence they were never regenerated or anointed with the Holy Spirt of Christ, at all.  I John 2:19
> 
>  (Visible, temporal church of God filled with tares and goats, who will not stand the final Judgment.)


What do you think it means to be a branch on Christ's vine?

----------


## Kevin007

> I've asked Sola and erowe1, now I'll ask you to back up your theology-- If God and the Holy Spirit are solely responsible for maintaining our faith, then how can one's faith die and become dead as the Apostle Paul and James tell us? You explain that please. 
> 
> Maybe I'll get an answer out of one of you yet.


True faith will always be seen in works. Dead faith will not be seen at all. Works is the evidence of the invisible faith

----------


## Nang

> What do you think it means to be a branch on Christ's vine?



Already answered here.

----------


## Kevin007

> Already answered here.


GOOD POST.

----------


## Brett85

> Already answered here.


The branches are those who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.  When we accept Christ, we become a branch on Christ's vine.

----------


## Nang

> The branches are those who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.  When we accept Christ, we become a branch on Christ's vine.



Lots of people claim they have "accepted" Christ, but has Christ accepted them?  

If Christ has accepted branches, they will remain.

If branches only claim they have accepted Christ, then it is a different dynamic, and such claims will only be proven true, if they remain.

----------


## Brett85

> Lots of people claim they have "accepted" Christ, but has Christ accepted them?  
> 
> If Christ has accepted branches, they will remain.
> 
> If branches only claim they have accepted Christ, then it is a different dynamic, and such claims will only be proven true, if they remain.


Then rather than worrying about losing your salvation, with your doctrine if someone messes up and gets caught up in a life of sin, they have to worry about whether or not they were ever saved to begin with.  So that doesn't exactly give people comfort either.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then rather than worrying about losing your salvation, with your doctrine if someone messes up and gets caught up in a life of sin, they have to worry about whether or not they were ever saved to begin with.  So that doesn't exactly give people comfort either.


That isn't "our theology", that is just standard Christian doctrine:



> *2 Corinthians 13:5 
> 
> Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?*

----------


## Terry1

> I have been taught that both the olive tree and the vine represent the *visible* churches who come under covenant with God in an external, temporal relationship.  Amongst all visible churches are both tares and wheat, and the branches that are pruned are those who do not bear the fruit of Jesus Christ, proving to be believers in name and association only..


Jesus is the Vine, and we are the branches, not the "churches".  Note the scripture, "he who abides in ME bears much fruit".  Who taught you that the Vine was a church?  The Vine and the branches together can be said to represent believers and the spiritual church as a whole, but the true Vine is Jesus and we are the branches.

John 15:5
5 *“I am the vine, you are the branches*. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.  6 *If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
*




> However, Christ possesses His *invisible*, heavenly church which consists of regenerated souls only, who have been brought into full union with Him.  These are in covenant with God internally and everlastingly, and all of these will bear the fruit of the Lord, and will NEVER be cut off.


That's not biblical.  *he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burn*


If we become partakers/branches of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and that branch bears no fruit, should they fall away, it's impossible to renew them again to repentance.

*Hebrews 6:4* *For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit*, [B] 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  6 if they fall away,* to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame**.*

It's possible to "fall from grace"---Pauls tells us those who return to their old ways and do not return to God do fall from grace here:

*Galatians 5:4 
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
*

*ESTRANGED =
of a person) no longer close or affectionate to someone; alienated.*

OSAS and Predestination doctrines are false.  These both place the believer in a state of complacency because they believe in a false sense of eternal security.

----------


## Terry1

> True faith will always be seen in works. Dead faith will not be seen at all. Works is the evidence of the invisible faith


Correct, but are our works of faith in complete control of the Holy Spirit and God or do we choose to abide in Christ through obedience to the Holy Spirit?

----------


## erowe1

I agree that in John 15:1 the branches in Jesus are all people who are visibly connected to him as disciples, whether or not they really have saving faith and eternal life.

Compare this with the people Jesus addresses in John 8:31-59



> 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
> 
> 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
> 
> 34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
> 
> Abraham’s Seed and Satan’s
> 
> 37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
> ...


Notice that these people are called "those Jews who believed Him." But as you read on, you learn that whatever kind of faith they had, it wasn't the kind of faith that Jesus calls for elsewhere in John. It seems more to be that their faith was something superficial and ephemeral, or a mistaken faith in what they thought Jesus was, but he really wasn't. He tells them they don't actually even understand him because they are of their father, the Devil.

Notice how, just like in the vine and branches passage, Jesus divides his followers into two groups based on their abiding, the slaves and the sons, where the sons abide in the house forever, but the slaves don't. It's not that those who don't abide lose their sonship, it's that what they were all along was something other than sons. I think this distinction is also why the word "indeed" is there in v. 36. Lots of people think they're free. But only the ones made free by the Son are free indeed.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree that in John 15:1 the branches in Jesus are all people who are visibly connected to him as disciples, whether or not they really have saving faith and eternal life.
> 
> Compare this with the people Jesus addresses in John 8:31-59
> 
> 
> Notice that these people are called "those Jews who believed Him." But as you read on, you learn that whatever kind of faith they had, it wasn't the kind of faith that Jesus calls for elsewhere in John. *It seems more to be that their faith was something superficial and ephemeral, or a mistaken faith* in what they thought Jesus was, but he really wasn't. He tells them they don't actually even understand him because they are of their father, the Devil.
> 
> Notice how, just like in the vine and branches passage, Jesus divides his followers into two groups based on their abiding, the slaves and the sons, where the sons abide in the house forever, but the slaves don't. It's not that those who don't abide lose their sonship, it's that what they were all along was something other than sons. I think this distinction is also why the word "indeed" is there in v. 36. Lots of people think they're free. But only the ones made free by the Son are free indeed.



What you're assuming though is not what John is telling you.  You want to believe this way because this is the only possible way you can reconcile this with your doctrine.

What John is clearly saying is that if a "branch"/"partaker" does not abide in Him, they are then cut off and burned.  The "BRANCH" is a part of the TRUE VINE.  These are already believers/partakers and have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gifts.  It's the same thing that Hebrews is telling you in Hebrews 6:4, that believers who stop abiding in Christ can not be renewed to repentance.  Once a believer can not be renewed to repentance, they have hardened their hearts and gone their own way. Only God knows when a believer won't return and then cuts them off--- Since your doctrine eliminates the need for a believer to repent after confession, you have already cut yourselves off from God before you've begun because repentance is a daily and life-long requirement in the life of any believer and essential for faith to grow---otherwise as Paul and James both tell you---"you have fallen"---"faith without works is dead".  All of these scriptures reconcile with each other and confirm each other in harmony together---all saying the very same thing.  

Repentance begins at the point of confession and continues---it doesn't begin and end at confession as your doctrine teaches.  Repentance is the only way that a believer can abide in Christ is by continually changing our minds through obedience to the Holy Spirit.  This is the only way a believer can grow and be called "overcomers".

 They were once believers/partakers and branches, but fell away---just as Paul also tells you in Galtians 5:4---that they became "estranged" from Christ.  Estranged meaning they were once partakers, branches and believers who fell away.

No one can "fall away" (Galatians 5:4) from something they never had to begin with and no one can lose something they never had to begin (Hebrews 6:4) (John 15:5) with and nothing can "die" that was never alive in the first place. (James 2:14)

----------


## erowe1

> What you're assuming though is not what John is telling you.


Here is what he does tell me:
These people were not sons in the household, but rather only slaves.
They showed that they were slaves and not sons by the fact that they did not abide.
They were not "free indeed" because had not been made free by Jesus.
They did not understand Jesus.
They were not able to listen to his word.
They were sons of the Devil.

So, not based on my assumptions, but based on exactly what Jesus says in John's Gospel, these people did not at any point belong to the same category as those who were sons in the household, who were free indeed, who had been made free by Jesus, and who were able to listen to Jesus's word, and who were children of God and not the Devil. It's not that they had these things and lost them, it's that they never had them, not even when they were identified as people who believed Jesus, and they showed it by not abiding in Jesus.

On the other hand, what I see in the following quote is a bunch of assumptions of things that John does not say:



> These are already believers/partakers and have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gifts.


I do agree with you that it is the same thing as Hebrews 6:4. But in Hebrews 6:4, once again, it is not talking about people who ever were truly saved, and the passage says so explicitly in v. 9:




> But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.


All of the things listed in Hebrews 6:4-5 are things that people who align themselves with the Church, while lacking genuine saving faith, have.

And, just like in John 8 and 15, their falling away is not a change in their nature, but a demonstration of what their true nature already was, and the passage says this as well in vv. 7-8:



> 7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

----------


## Terry1

> Here is what he does tell me:
> These people were not sons in the household, but rather only slaves.
> They showed that they were slaves and not sons by the fact that they did not abide.
> They were not "free indeed" because had not been made free by Jesus.
> They did not understand Jesus.
> They were not able to listen to his word.
> They were sons of the Devil.
> 
> So, not based on my assumptions, but based on exactly what Jesus says in John's Gospel, these people did not at any point belong to the same category as those who were sons in the household, who were free indeed, who had been made free by Jesus, and who were able to listen to Jesus's word, and who were children of God and not the Devil. It's not that they had these things and lost them, it's that they never had them, not even when they were identified as people who believed Jesus, and they showed it by not abiding in Jesus.
> ...


No one can "fall away" (Galatians 5:4) from something they never had to begin with and no one can lose something they never had to begin (Hebrews 6:4) (John 15:5) with and nothing can "die" that was never alive in the first place. (James 2:14)

So in order for anyone to "fall away", "lose and be cut off from" or "become dead"---had to have already had grace, been partakers and alive in Christ before they can fall away, be cut off from and become dead in faith.

----------


## erowe1

> No one can "fall away" (Galatians 5:4) from something they never had to begin with


Once again, that's just an assumption on your part. The passage you refer to doesn't say that. If you want to use the physical metaphor of "falling away" I can fall away from a building without being in the building. I'm also not convinced that the people Paul is talking to in Galatians 5:4 are hellhound. They may or may not be. But either way, the passage makes no mention of anyone who has been justified possibly ending up not being glorified.




> and no one can lose something they never had to begin (Hebrews 6:4)


But Hebrews 6 never says that these people ever had salvation, or that they lost it. It explicitly says in v. 9 that they did not have it. The things that they do lose (and "lose" is your word, it's not in the text) are things that unsaved people can have. It's interesting that the author of this passage scrupulously avoids listing off the things that he elsewhere in the book attributes to those who are saved, like having their sins forgiven and their consciences cleansed.




> with and nothing can "die" that was never alive in the first place. (James 2:14)


Once again, James 2:14 doesn't mention faith dying.

----------


## Terry1

> Once again, that's just an assumption on your part. The passage you refer to doesn't say that. If you want to use the physical metaphor of "falling away" I can fall away from a building without being in the building. I'm also not convinced that the people Paul is talking to in Galatians 5:4 are hellhound. They may or may not be. But either way, the passage makes no mention of anyone who has been justified possibly ending up not being glorified..


It's not me doing the "assuming" here, it's you erowe1.  Because what you can not do by your "assumption" is reconcile, Galatians 5:4, Hebrews 6:4, John 15:5 and James 2:14---that are *ALL* saying the very exact same thing and are in harmony with each other.  You'd have to totally twist and redefine all of these scriptures in order to support your belief.  "Falling away", "being cut off and burned", "impossible to be renewed to repentance" and "faith being dead" all because of the forementioned, is clearly saying God is done with them at this point.  There's no coming back from a "branch being cut-off and burned."  There's no coming back from being cut off from repentance either.






> But Hebrews 6 never says that these people ever had salvation, or that they lost it. It explicitly says in v. 9 that they did not have it. The things that they do lose (and "lose" is your word, it's not in the text) are things that unsaved people can have. It's interesting that the author of this passage scrupulously avoids listing off the things that he elsewhere in the book attributes to those who are saved, like having their sins forgiven and their consciences cleansed.


*What Hebrews 6:4 is exactly telling you* here is 4 *For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened*, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,  5 *and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come*,  [B]6 if they fall away,* to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
*

If it were not possible for a believer to be cut off from repentance, then it would say so, but it's telling you what happens to believers who do this.  This also reconciles with the rest of scripture as in Galatians 5:4, John 15:5, and James 2:14.  No one can lose something or be cut off from something they never had to begin with---do you understand that?  No one can die who never lived in the first place.





> Once again, James 2:14 doesn't mention faith dying.


That's simply not even rational to claim that James isn't saying *exactly* what he is saying.  That "faith without works is dead".  What part of that can any one not believe that reconciles with all of the rest of scripture.  It had to be alive first before it can die---repeating myself here again---no one can die that never lived, just the same as faith that never was or existed can not die or become dead.  James is telling you here specifically---that if a believer loses faith---FAITH BECOMES DEAD.  Then as Paul says---they become "ESTRANGED" from Christ and "FALL AWAY" and as John 15:1 tells you just the same that the "BRANCH IS CUT OFF AND BURNED".  

And again---only GOD KNOWS when a believer hardens their heart to the point of being "CUT OFF AND BURNED".  God is patient and give us space and time to grow as we stumble, but at some point (only God knows), when a believer will not return and He cuts them off for good.

----------


## erowe1

> What Hebrews 6:4 is exactly telling you here is 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit[/U],  5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
> 
> If it were not possible for a believer to be cut off from repentance, then it would say so, but it's telling you what happens to believers who do this.


You keep using the word "believer." But notice that it's not there in the text.




> That's simply not even rational to claim that James isn't saying *exactly* what he is saying.


All I said is that he makes no mention of faith dying. Anyone who reads the verse can see that.

----------


## Brett85

> It's not me doing the "assuming" here, it's you erowe1.  Because what you can not do by your "assumption" is reconcile, Galatians 5:4, Hebrews 6:4, John 15:5 and James 2:14---that are *ALL* saying the very exact same thing and are in harmony with each other.  You'd have to totally twist and redefine all of these scriptures in order to support your belief.


Well it's obvious that they aren't going to just concede on anything and admit that a given verse means what it says, regardless of how clear it is.  They're not going to change their minds and acknowledge that you may be right on this.  So they'll twist these verses as far as they have to, to make them mean something other than the clear meaning.

----------


## Terry1

> You keep using the word "believer." But notice that it's not there in the text..


When the scripture is *clearly* telling you that they were "partakers of the Holy Spirit"---just who do you think that's referring to then, certainly not unbelievers.






> All I said is that he makes no mention of faith dying. Anyone who reads the verse can see that.


Then what's the purpose of this Biblical instruction by James then erowe1?  Why---do you think that James is teaching this because it can't happen?  James is teaching you this because this is exactly what can happen as a result of a believer who has faith--can lose that faith and that same faith become dead.  Then as Paul says Gal. 5:4--they fall away, then as John tells you 15:5, they can be cut off and burned, and as Hebrews 6:4 tells you that God cuts them off never being able to be *renewed to repentance*.

You're clearly in denial of clear scripture because you can not accept the fact that you have believed a false doctrine.  If it were me, and I have done so---I would run from that lie towards the truth.  Why would anyone want to continue believing a lie when it's their eternal destinies that are at stake?   The truth is being presented--you can not disprove any of this for that reason, still you can not see.

----------


## erowe1

For those who are interested in Hebrews 6, here's an article I read on it years ago in a book that's hard to find, that I found very helpful. I just now discovered that the author has made it available online. It looks like some of the Greek fonts look wrong in this pdf file. But that doesn't detract much from the article.
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-conten...-hebrews-6.pdf

For me, a particularly helpful part that makes the point succinctly is the comparison Grudem makes between the things listed in Hebrews 6:4-5 and the things that the book of Hebrews says of people who are definitively saved throughout the book. This is on pages 44-54 of the above pdf.

This pdf is not copy-pasteable, and there's too much to it to summarize it well in this post. So I leave it to those who are interested to read.

----------


## erowe1

> When the scripture is *clearly* telling you that they were "partakers of the Holy Spirit"---just who do you think that's referring to then, certainly not unbelievers.


That's your assumption. But the passage doesn't say that unbelievers cannot have any kind of partaking of the Holy Spirit. There are lots of ways that they can and do, especially when they attach themselves to a community of believers. There's a section on that phrase in the article I just posted for those who are interested in learning more about what it means.

----------


## erowe1

> Then what's the purpose of this Biblical instruction by James then erowe1?  Why---do you think that James is teaching this because it can't happen?


You keep saying this. But nowhere does James teach that faith can die. So your whole premise is false.

It makes no sense to ask why James teaches that faith can die, if that's impossible, when the truth is that he never once says that it can.

What he does talk about, which is having dead faith, is possible.

----------


## Terry1

> That's your assumption. But the passage doesn't say that unbelievers cannot have any kind of partaking of the Holy Spirit. There are lots of ways that they can and do, especially when they attach themselves to a community of believers. There's a section on that phrase in the article I just posted for those who are interested in learning more about what it means.


Are you attempting to say that unbelievers/the dead in sin, are partakers of the Holy Spirit, the heavenly gifts and enlightened by the word of God?  Surely you're joking here.

----------


## Terry1

> You keep saying this. But nowhere does James teach that faith can die. So your whole premise is false.
> 
> It makes no sense to ask why James teaches that faith can die, if that's impossible, when the truth is that he never once says that it can.
> 
> What he does talk about, which is having dead faith, is possible.


What are these scriptures saying here erowe1?  Aren't they telling you that without works faith becomes dead?  Where---how can you not be seeing this?

.James 2:14 
[ Faith Without Works Is Dead ] What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

James 2:17 
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:20 
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

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

----------


## erowe1

> Are you attempting to say that unbelievers are partakers of the Holy Spirit, have tasted the heavenly gifts and been enlightened by the word of God?  Surely you're joking here.


No, I'm not saying that all unbelievers have those things. But some do. And Hebrews 6 says so explicitly in v. 9.

Not one of the things you listed is something that only true believers can experience. On the other hand, there are lots of things that the author of Hebrews 6 could have listed that would have only been applicable to true believers who are actually saved, but he conspicuously doesn't, and instead only lists things that nonbelievers who attach themselves outwardly to the church also have.

----------


## erowe1

> What are these scriptures saying here erowe1?  Aren't they telling you that without works faith becomes dead?  Where---how can you not be seeing this?
> 
> .James 2:14 
> [ Faith Without Works Is Dead ] What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
> 
> James 2:17 
> Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
> 
> James 2:20 
> ...


Thank you.

There you have it. Four verses in James 2, not one of which refers to faith dying. Anyone who reads them can see that.

Nowhere does James ever mention faith becoming dead, which is the phrase you keep using. You've had all these chances to find a single example, and you can't. And the verses you do present clearly don't say that.

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you.
> 
> There you have it. Four verses in James 2, not one of which refers to faith dying. Anyone who reads them can see that.
> 
> Nowhere does James ever mention faith becoming dead, which is the phrase you keep using. You've had all these chances to find a single example, and you can't. And the verses you do present clearly don't say that.


Well now, I'm really interested in you elaborating on that and explaining how James is not referring to "faith being dead without works".  Could you do that since you keep insisting that it's not saying what it's clearly saying?

----------


## erowe1

> Well now, I'm really interested in you elaborating on that and explaining how James is not referring to "faith being dead without works".


I never said that he's not referring to faith without works *being* dead.

I said that that he's not referring to faith without works *becoming* dead.

As you can see, I'm correct.

----------


## Terry1

> I never said that he's not referring to faith without works *being* dead.
> 
> I said that that he's not referring to faith without works *becoming* dead.
> 
> As you can see, I'm correct.


Well last time I checked---something had to "become dead" before it could actually be dead.

----------


## erowe1

> Well last time I checked---something had to "become dead" before it could actually be dead.


That's not true. That's just your assumption. Notice that it's nowhere to be found in James 2.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I never said that he's not referring to faith without works *being* dead.
> 
> I said that that he's not referring to faith without works *becoming* dead.
> 
> As you can see, I'm correct.


erowe1 i can't see how you can be so picky about this.

someone is an non-believer until later in life when he becomes faithful. He's all fired up and does a lot of good works. Some years later he gets complacent and quits doing good works. I've seen this a million times - experienced it myself over the years.

maybe the disagreement is about what it means to "become dead" in faith, but don't you think this guy is included in James' reference?

----------


## erowe1

> erowe1 i can't see how you can be so picky about this.


It's because of the point Terry is trying to make.

She keeps saying that James refers to faith becoming dead, and then using that to prove that it must be possible for someone with saving faith to lose that faith. But James never does refer to faith becoming dead.




> someone is an non-believer until later in life when he becomes faithful. He's all fired up and does a lot of good works. Some years later he gets complacent and quits doing good works. I've seen this a million times - experienced it myself over the years.
> 
> maybe the disagreement is about what it means to "become dead" in faith, but don't you think this guy is included in James' reference?


I honestly can't know, since it's for God to judge the genuineness of that person's faith. But there are two possibilities. Either the person really does have genuine, living faith, in which case he does not fit what James is talking about, or he does not have genuine living faith, but only claims to have faith while his faith is actually dead, in which case he does fit what James is talking about.

But the question is, can a person with genuine living faith lose that genuine living faith. Nowhere does James imply that he can.

In fact, as I read the passage, James implies that he cannot, since a genuine living faith will go on to produce works, not just an outburst of works from an emotional hype, but a lifetime's worth, such as James points to in the example of Abraham. For Abraham, the offering of his son on the altar, which is what James points to as evidence that James' faith was alive and not dead, happened a minimum of 35 years after he first believed God and his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness.

----------


## Terry1

> That's not true. That's just your assumption. Notice that it's nowhere to be found in James 2.


Your reasoning is totally irrational and illogical to make the claim that James isn't saying exactly what he's saying, that without works of faith, as in reference to what we do in obedience to the Holy Spirit---then faith dies and becomes dead.  Since you don't believe in "works of faith", can only mean one thing according Paul, James, John and Hebrews and that is your faith is already dead.  And this is what you're fighting in opposition of because it can't reconcile with your belief.

----------


## erowe1

> Your reasoning is totally irrational and illogical to make the claim that James isn't saying exactly what he's saying, that without works of faith, as in reference to what we do in obedience to the Holy Spirit---then faith dies and becomes dead.


But James never once refers to faith dying and becoming dead.

I do claim that James is saying exactly what he's saying. You, on the other hand, keep repeatedly claiming that he's saying something he never once says. And your own quotes from him show that.

----------


## Terry1

> It's because of the point Terry is trying to make.
> 
> She keeps saying that James refers to faith becoming dead, and then using that to prove that it must be possible for someone with saving faith to lose that faith. But James never does refer to faith becoming dead..


Faith alone has no ability by itself to save as James tells you that faith alone absent a work of faith is dead.  This is exactly what your fighting against, because it's in direct opposition to what you believe and subscribe to.   *James 2:17 
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead
*
You're rejecting the Gospel of Christ by rejecting the truth that James, Paul, John and Hebrews are all telling you.  Without a "work of faith" on the part of the believer, who does this willingly and by choice in obedience to the Holy Spirit---is then "dead faith" and not saving faith at all.  Because we are in control over whatever we choose in this life.  God and the Holy Spirit do not control our ability to choose to listen to the Holy Spirit or not.  Otherwise James would not be telling you that faith can die as a result.  

So, if God and the Holy Spirit are in total control of our faith and our works by your belief---then yes---you would then have to prove James is not saying what he's actually saying in those scriptures and this is why you're fighting tooth and claw to preserve your belief which is a lie.

----------


## Terry1

Those who believe that God and the Holy Spirit are in total control of our faith and our works then would have to pervert and redefine what James is saying---that faith can die and become dead.  Because by your belief erowe1---that God and the Holy are in control of our faith and our works---then that would make James wrong and faith dying an impossibility.  Instead of you claiming that James is wrong, you then make the claim that he's not saying what he's actually saying.  Because you know that you can't call James a liar, so the only other alternative you have is to redefine and pervert what he's actually saying to support your belief.

Only God can open blind eyes---all I can do is drop the seeds.

----------


## Dr.3D

> What are these scriptures saying here erowe1?  Aren't they telling you that without works faith becomes dead?  Where---how can you not be seeing this?
> 
> .James 2:14 
> [ Faith Without Works Is Dead ] What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
> 
> James 2:17 
> Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
> 
> James 2:20 
> ...


This is exactly why I often feel like I'm wasting my time posting in the Religion forum.  You ran away and didn't even read my *post* in regard to this. 

Of course you might be one of those who thinks the King James version of the Bible is the only correct translation.  If that's the case, I can't help you.

----------


## erowe1

> Well it's obvious that they aren't going to just concede on anything and admit that a given verse means what it says, regardless of how clear it is.


So you also think that it's clear that James says that someone's living faith can die?

Where does he clearly say that?

----------


## Terry1

> This is exactly why I often feel like I'm wasting my time posting in the Religion forum.  You ran away and didn't even read my *post* in regard to this. 
> 
> Of course you might be one of those who thinks the King James version of the Bible is the only correct translation.  If that's the case, I can't help you.


I apologize, I never meant to "run away"--LOL   So I'll take the time now and hope you forgive me for not responding sooner. 




> I'm not offended but prefer to not use my time when there is not good reason.
> 
> Here is another translation of that verse that might help shed some light on what it is saying.
> 
> I guess 'barren' can indicate without life or dead.  It can also indicate the total lack of life to begin with.
> 
> BBE James 2:20 Do you not see, O foolish man, that faith without works is of no use? 
> 
> Here is another:
> ...


Then we have to see how these interpretations fall into line with the KJV where James called faith "dead".

The others use "of no use", "barren" and "useless".  What do all of those indicate to you?

Something that's "of no use"---is no good and can't be used for the purpose it's intended to be used for.  

Again, something that's "useless" is of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile.

And again "barren" meaning unproductive; unfruitful, not producing or incapable of producing offspring; sterile

All of these things "barren", "useless", "of no use" and "dead" as the KJV says--- all say and indicate the same thing---that faith absent works is no faith at all and dead because anything that's useful, fruitful and alive will indeed serve that purpose it's intended for and will be fruitful and useful in the life of the believer.  Anything opposite these things is dead and of no use and barren.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I apologize, I never meant to "run away"--LOL   So I'll take the time now and hope you forgive me for not responding sooner. 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have to see how these interpretations fall into line with the KJV where James called faith "dead".
> 
> The others use "of no use", "barren" and "useless".  What do all of those indicate to you?
> 
> Something that's "of no use"---is no good and can't be used for the purpose it's intended to be used for.  
> ...


Thus it never was faith at all.   It never lived.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Romans 11:17-21    But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree,  _18_ do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.  _19_ You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."  _20_ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.  _21_ For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. _NRS_


The part that is underlined is what I'm pointing at.   Those who do have faith should stand in awe, because God could cut them off just as easily.   

I believe this proves your point about eternal security in this life.

----------


## Terry1

> Well it's obvious that they aren't going to just concede on anything and admit that a given verse means what it says, regardless of how clear it is.  They're not going to change their minds and acknowledge that you may be right on this.  So they'll twist these verses as far as they have to, to make them mean something other than the clear meaning.


erowe1 is desperately attempting to find a life-line here to preserve the belief that he's subscribed himself to, it's not surprising.  Most fight tooth and claw just this same way.  Now he's at a point where he's once again in that corner with no where to go, but to redefine clear scripture to support what he's chosen to believe.  Because we know if by his belief---that faith alone saves all by itself and that we're not in control---he then would have to make the claim that James is not saying, what James is clearly saying and repeatedly this very same thing.  *James 2:17 
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.*

----------


## Terry1

> Thus it never was faith at all.   It never lived.


Exactly--faith that never lived can not die.  So by the belief that some hold that God and the Holy Spirit are in total control over our faith and our works and we have no choice and no need to put forth an effort on our part---would have to make James a liar then who tells us that faith can die.

----------


## erowe1

> The part that is underlined is what I'm pointing at.   Those who do have faith should stand in awe, because God could cut them off just as easily.   
> 
> I believe this proves your point about eternal security in this life.


I don't see a loss of salvation in that passage either.

The natural branches are not Israelites who used to have saving faith and lost it, but Israelites who never had saving faith to begin with, but who presumed upon all the blessings they had as Israelites, and the outward connection to God that they had through that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't see a loss of salvation in that passage either.
> 
> The natural branches are not Israelites who used to have saving faith and lost it, but Israelites who never had saving faith to begin with, but who presumed upon all the blessings they had as Israelites, and the outward connection to God that they had through that.


Yes, but Paul is addressing those who have faith and telling them they can also be broken off.

----------


## Terry1

> The part that is underlined is what I'm pointing at.   Those who do have faith should stand in awe, because God could cut them off just as easily.   
> 
> I believe this proves your point about eternal security in this life.


Yes, but God will never cut off a believer unless they choose to estrange themselves from Christ first, as Paul tells us Galatians 5:4 and Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5.   Only God knows the hearts of those who won't return to Him.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes, but God will never cut off a believer unless they choose to estrange themselves from Christ first, as Paul tells us Galatians 5:4 and Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5.   Only God knows the hearts of those who won't return to Him.


So you are not trying to prove the point that believers can be cut off. 

What were you trying to prove with the James verse?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, but Paul is addressing those who have faith and telling them they can also be broken off.


Correct.

----------


## Terry1

> So you are not trying to prove the point that believers can be cut off. 
> 
> What were you trying to prove with the James verse?


No, what I'm saying is that as long as we abide in Christ, we won't be cut off.  This is what all of those scripture are telling us, that it's possible to fall away and that branch be cut off and burned if they don't return to repentance.  Hebrews 6:4.  This only happens to believers who walk away from Christ.  Some doctrines teach this isn't possible, but the word of God tells us different.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, but Paul is addressing those who have faith and telling them they can also be broken off.


I disagree. I think it's more similar to what we see in John 15 and Hebrews 6 discussed above.

"Broken off" need not mean anything more for the people he's addressing as it does for the natural branches who were broken off for their lack of faith. Paul has already established in perfect clarity the absolute promise of God that all who have been justified will be glorified in Romans 5 and 8. Those passages weren't just little side comments in the midst of a larger passage that was making some other point, like this little comment in Romans 11:18-21 is, but the absolute irrevocable eternal security of those who are justified was the entire point of those whole passages (which, by the way, Paul also mentions in Romans 11:29, within the context of the passage you mentioned).

Another thing that I see as important in Romans 11 is that Paul is speaking in generalities about groups. It is unbelieving Israel as a group that was cut off (without respect for those specific individuals, like Paul himself, who belong to a believing remnant). And it will be Israel as a group that will be grafted in. Similarly, it is the existence of the whole group of believing Gentiles that represent unnatural branches being grafted on. It may be that he's talking about the elimination of that group, speaking in general, when he talks about those branches being cut off--as in, just as this group of believing Gentiles makes up a major part of the Church at the time of Paul's writing, this situation could change, with a coming day when Gentile believers will again be insignificant in number within the church.

This may sound odd. And I'm not saying it has to be the way to read it. But it does fit with the argument Paul is making. Notice how he explains God's plan for salvation history in verses 11-15 and 22-32. It goes as follows:
Israel disbelieved => the gospel went to Gentiles => Gentiles believed => Israel will be provoked to jealousy => Israel will believe => all Israel will be saved.

Notice how Paul's whole point in this argument revolves around generalizing about the groups as groups in their belief, unbelief, salvation, and lack thereof.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No, what I'm saying is that as long as we abide in Christ, we won't be cut off.  This is what all of those scripture are telling us, that it's possible to fall away and that branch be cut off and burned if they don't return to repentance.  Hebrews 6:4.  This only happens to believers who walk away from Christ.  Some doctrines teach this isn't possible, but the word of God tells us different.


Well, I guess I'm just a bit dense.  LOL....   I don't really know what I was trying to prove I guess so perhaps it would have been better if I hadn't stuck my nose in here.   This thread was so darned long, I gave up reading after 15 pages out of 25.  I guess I should have known better than involve myself in something I didn't understand.

I don't understand why people are so worried about all of this anyway.   If it's predestined, there isn't anything anybody can do about it anyway.   And if it isn't, it's still just a matter of living faith.   Myself, I have living faith that Jesus is the Son of God and God in the flesh and that he died for me.      If that isn't enough, it really doesn't matter.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I disagree. I think it's more similar to what we see in John 15 and Hebrews 6 discussed above.
> 
> "Broken off" need not mean anything more for the people he's addressing as it does for the natural branches who were broken off for their lack of faith. Paul has already established in perfect clarity the absolute promise of God that all who have been justified will be glorified in Romans 5 and 8. Those passages weren't just little side comments in the midst of a larger passage that was making some other point, like this little comment in Romans 11:18-21 is, but the absolute irrevocable eternal security of those who are justified was the entire point of those whole passages (which, by the way, Paul also mentions in Romans 11:29, within the context of the passage you mentioned).
> 
> Another thing that I see as important in Romans 11 is that Paul is speaking in generalities about groups. It is unbelieving Israel as a group that was cut off (without respect for those specific individuals, like Paul himself, who belong to a believing remnant). And it will be Israel as a group that will be grafted in. Similarly, it is the existence of the whole group of believing Gentiles that represent unnatural branches being grafted on. It may be that he's talking about the elimination of that group, speaking in general, when he talks about those branches being cut off--as in, just as this group of believing Gentiles makes up a major part of the Church at the time of Paul's writing, this situation could change, with a coming day when Gentile believers will again be insignificant in number within the church.
> 
> This may sound odd. And I'm not saying it has to be the way to read it. But it does fit with the argument Paul is making. Notice how he explains God's plan for salvation history in verses 11-15 and 22-32. It goes as follows:
> Israel disbelieved => the gospel went to Gentiles => Gentiles believed => Israel will be provoked to jealousy => Israel will believe => all Israel will be saved.
> 
> Notice how Paul's whole point in this argument revolves around generalizing about the groups as groups in their belief, unbelief, salvation, and lack thereof.


So why not just live in faith and let God do what He is going to do?   I see no need to go on and on about all of this.

----------


## erowe1

> So why not just live in faith and let God do what He is going to do?   I see no need to go on and on about all of this.


Living in faith and letting God do what he is going to do is what we should do. But that doesn't exclude deepening our understanding of the Bible and striving to be accurate about it. In verse 25 of the passage we're talking about Paul writes: "I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that a blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." So he sees some value in his audience's knowing about this.

----------


## Nang

> I disagree. I think it's more similar to what we see in John 15 and Hebrews 6 discussed above.
> 
> "Broken off" need not mean anything more for the people he's addressing as it does for the natural branches who were broken off for their lack of faith. Paul has already established in perfect clarity the absolute promise of God that all who have been justified will be glorified in Romans 5 and 8. Those passages weren't just little side comments in the midst of a larger passage that was making some other point, like this little comment in Romans 11:18-21 is, but the absolute irrevocable eternal security of those who are justified was the entire point of those whole passages (which, by the way, Paul also mentions in Romans 11:29, within the context of the passage you mentioned).
> 
> Another thing that I see as important in Romans 11 is that Paul is speaking in generalities about groups. It is unbelieving Israel as a group that was cut off (without respect for those specific individuals, like Paul himself, who belong to a believing remnant). And it will be Israel as a group that will be grafted in. Similarly, it is the existence of the whole group of believing Gentiles that represent unnatural branches being grafted on. It may be that he's talking about the elimination of that group, speaking in general, when he talks about those branches being cut off--as in, just as this group of believing Gentiles makes up a major part of the Church at the time of Paul's writing, this situation could change, with a coming day when Gentile believers will again be insignificant in number within the church.
> 
> This may sound odd. And I'm not saying it has to be the way to read it. But it does fit with the argument Paul is making. Notice how he explains God's plan for salvation history in verses 11-15 and 22-32. It goes as follows:
> Israel disbelieved => the gospel went to Gentiles => Gentiles believed => Israel will be provoked to jealousy => Israel will believe => all Israel will be saved.
> 
> Notice how Paul's whole point in this argument revolves around generalizing about the groups as groups in their belief, unbelief, salvation, and lack thereof.


I am following and agreeing with your presentations.

Regarding your argument above, I believe  visible and invisible distinctions must be made regarding "Israel," as well as the "churches."

There are visible churches with hypocrites within.  Only the anointed (regenerated) saints make up the invisible church of Jesus Christ.  The hypocrites within the visible churches can be broken off, but the remnant remaining will prove to be sons of God in His invisible church.

As it was in the elect nation of Israel.

The entire and visible nation was sanctified by God and led by His Spirit, but only a remnant within were actually saved according to faith in His promises.  The rest of the nation of Israel has been cut off.  The Israel referred to from Romans 9:6 on, speaks of an invisible, spiritual "Israel" that consists of a saved remnant of Jews (Romans 11:5) as well as saved Gentiles who have been grafted into new covenant with God for the first time.  The "all Israel" that will ultimately be saved (Romans 11:26) will be the actual (but now still invisible/spiritual) body of believing sons in union with Jesus Christ . . . a remnant of all humanity regenerated to new spiritual life out of all the nations of the world . . . Jews as well as Gentiles.   Galatians 3:26-4:7

----------


## Dr.3D

> Living in faith and letting God do what he is going to do is what we should do. But that doesn't exclude deepening our understanding of the Bible and striving to be accurate about it. In verse 25 of the passage we're talking about Paul writes: "I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that a blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." So he sees some value in his audience's knowing about this.





> *Mark 10:15*   Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." _NRS_


Seems to me like it's not that necessary to make like we have a degree in theology to find our way into the Kingdom of God.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Seems to me like it's not that necessary to make like we have a degree in theology to find our way into the Kingdom of God.


Make it sound like a job interview.  

Sorry folks Heaven is only taking people with 3-5 years of afterlife experience. Please come back and try again when you've been dead longer and fill out an application.

----------


## erowe1

> The entire and visible nation was sanctified by God and led by His Spirit, but only a remnant within were actually saved according to faith in His promises.  The rest of the nation of Israel has been cut off.  The Israel referred to from Romans 9:6 on, speaks of an invisible, spiritual "Israel" that consists of a saved remnant of Jews (Romans 11:5) as well as saved Gentiles who have been grafted into new covenant with God for the first time.  The "all Israel" that will ultimately be saved (Romans 11:26) will be the actual (but now still invisible/spiritual) body of believing sons in union with Jesus Christ . . . a remnant of all humanity regenerated to new spiritual life out of all the nations of the world . . . Jews as well as Gentiles.   Galatians 3:26-4:7


I think you're mixing things together. At no point in Romans 9-11 does Paul ever include any Gentiles in the word "Israel." He does distinguish two Israels in 9:6, but the distinction is between those Israelites who are saved from those who are not. The ones who are saved are the true Israel. This doesn't include Gentiles. We can see this in the context in chapter 9 by the way Paul narrows the group down, first from Abraham's descendants, then to Isaac's line and not Ishmael's or Abraham's other sons, then to Jacob, and not Esau, and then to this believing remnant, the true Israel. This is the same remnant Paul mentions in 11:5, and it is implied when he adds the words "in part" to 11:25.

The entire concern that drives Paul in Romans 9-11 is the unbelief of Israel, physical Israel, those who have all the things Paul lists in 9:4-5. Each section of Romans 9-11 gives a partial answer to this problem. It is they for whom he prays for salvation in 10:1. And in the section of chapter 11 that we're talking about. It must be this same physical Israel, the one that disbelieves in Paul's own day, that will be grafted back onto the tree from which it had been broken off. When he writes "all Israel will be saved," he definitely means the same Israel that in his day was not saved, and he explicitly distinguishes it from saved Gentiles.

----------


## Nang

> Seems to me like it's not that necessary to make like we have a degree in theology to find our way into the Kingdom of God.



The only reason these deep and tense discussions arise, is because there is false teaching that must be countered.

 It is the duty of the Christian to be able to rightly divide the word of truth and do spiritual battle against those who abuse the Holy Scriptures and cause much confusion, distraction, and heresies.  

Warring in this spiritual battle takes much.  See Ephesians 6:10-20

----------


## erowe1

> Seems to me like it's not that necessary to make like we have a degree in theology to find our way into the Kingdom of God.


I agree.

----------


## Nang

> I think you're mixing things together. At no point in Romans 9-11 does Paul ever include any Gentiles in the word "Israel." He does distinguish two Israels in 9:6, but the distinction is between those Israelites who are saved from those who are not. The ones who are saved are the true Israel. This doesn't include Gentiles. We can see this in the context in chapter 9 by the way Paul narrows the group down, first from Abraham's descendants, then to Isaac's line and not Ishmael's or Abraham's other sons, then to Jacob, and not Esau, and then to this believing remnant, the true Israel. This is the same remnant Paul mentions in 11:5, and it is implied when he adds the words "in part" to 11:25.
> 
> The entire concern that drives Paul in Romans 9-11 is the unbelief of Israel, physical Israel, those who have all the things Paul lists in 9:4-5. Each section of Romans 9-11 gives a partial answer to this problem. It is they for whom he prays for salvation in 10:1. And in the section of chapter 11 that we're talking about. It must be this same physical Israel, the one that disbelieves in Paul's own day, that will be grafted back onto the tree from which it had been broken off. When he writes "all Israel will be saved," he definitely means the same Israel that in his day was not saved, and he explicitly distinguishes it from saved Gentiles.


Does this distinction carry over into the new heavens and new earth?  Will the nation of Israel (saved?) be separate from the Gentile sons of God in glory?

----------


## erowe1

> Does this distinction carry over into the new heavens and new earth?  Will the nation of Israel (saved?) be separate from the Gentile sons of God in glory?


Those Israelites who belong to the Church (i.e. the ones Paul calls the true Israel in Romans 9:6) will not be distinguished from Gentiles, since in the Church there is no distinction between the two, and these saved Israelites belong to the Church. But there's still the question of what about Israel apart from the Church. Since this Church in which there is no Jew or Greek only came about at Pentecost, there are saved Israelites and saved Gentiles from before that time who will be in the New Heaven and New Earth. I don't know of anywhere that the Bible answers the question of whether or not the distinctions between the Church and Israel will carry over into the New Heaven and New Earth (although it is clear that they will in the Millennial kingdom after Jesus returns).

Hebrews 12:22-24 could point to a distinction:



> 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.


Notice that the Church and the spirits of just men made perfect (which I take to be Old Testament saints) are distinguished. But even there, no mention is made of this distinction still obtaining in the New Heaven and New Earth.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The only reason these deep and tense discussion arise, is because there is false teaching that must be countered.
> 
>  It is the duty of the Christian to be able to rightly divide the word of truth and do spiritual battle against those who abuse the Holy Scriptures and cause much confusion, distraction, and heresies.  
> 
> Warring in this spiritual battle takes much.  See Ephesians 6:10-20


lol

----------


## Terry1

> I am following and agreeing with your presentations.
> 
> Regarding your argument above, I believe  visible and invisible distinctions must be made regarding "Israel," as well as the "churches."
> 
> There are visible churches with hypocrites within.


And who do you believe these "visible churches with hypocrites" are?  Can you name them? 




> Only the anointed (regenerated) saints make up the invisible church of Jesus Christ.  The hypocrites within the visible churches can be broken off, but the remnant remaining will prove to be sons of God in His invisible church.


Again, who are you calling the "hypocrites" and name these "visible churches" that you've already condemned as well as all those who subscribe to them.




> As it was in the elect nation of Israel.


God's elect is the nation of Israel--since when?  

The true Israel of God are His spiritual elect, not flesh and blood or a body of land.  *Romans 9:  6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
*




> The entire and visible nation was sanctified by God and led by His Spirit, but only a remnant within were actually saved according to faith in His promises.  The rest of the nation of Israel has been cut off.  The Israel referred to from Romans 9:6 on, speaks of an invisible, spiritual "Israel" that consists of a saved remnant of Jews (Romans 11:5) as well as saved Gentiles who have been grafted into new covenant with God for the first time.  The "all Israel" that will ultimately be saved (Romans 11:26) will be the actual (but now still invisible/spiritual) body of believing sons in union with Jesus Christ . . . a remnant of all humanity regenerated to new spiritual life out of all the nations of the world . . . Jews as well as Gentiles.   Galatians 3:26-4:7


The true spiritual Israel of God is not a land mass or the flesh and blood inhabitants of that.  May I ask, who's taught you this?  You're not interpreting these scriptures correctly if you believe that there are any other than the spiritual Jews of God through the spiritual seed of Isaac.

There are only believers and unbelievers, Paul calls the children of God spiritual Jews because that is who Jesus originally came to save.  It's a type and shadow of the Promise.  You can call people Gentiles if you like, but they're nothing more than unbelievers under the New Covenant of Grace through Faith.

The Israel of God are plain and simply those who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and abide in Him.  You talk as though you know who they are by picking and choosing entire denominations from certain churches you've already condemned in your own mind.

----------


## Nang

> I think you're mixing things together. At no point in Romans 9-11 does Paul ever include any Gentiles in the word "Israel." He does distinguish two Israels in 9:6, but the distinction is between those Israelites who are saved from those who are not. The ones who are saved are the true Israel. This doesn't include Gentiles. We can see this in the context in chapter 9 by the way Paul narrows the group down, first from Abraham's descendants, then to Isaac's line and not Ishmael's or Abraham's other sons, then to Jacob, and not Esau, and then to this believing remnant, the true Israel. This is the same remnant Paul mentions in 11:5, and it is implied when he adds the words "in part" to 11:25.
> 
> The entire concern that drives Paul in Romans 9-11 is the unbelief of Israel, physical Israel, those who have all the things Paul lists in 9:4-5. Each section of Romans 9-11 gives a partial answer to this problem. It is they for whom he prays for salvation in 10:1. And in the section of chapter 11 that we're talking about. It must be this same physical Israel, the one that disbelieves in Paul's own day, that will be grafted back onto the tree from which it had been broken off. When he writes "all Israel will be saved," he definitely means the same Israel that in his day was not saved, and he explicitly distinguishes it from saved Gentiles.



Thanks for your response, although I find it similar to Dispensational teaching.

???

To back up what I have been taught regarding distinction between the visible and invisible church, from the Reformed view, please see here.

This teaching is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, Articles 1-4

and in

Calvin's Institutes, Book IV, Chapter I.IV

----------


## Terry1

> Thanks for your response, although I find it similar to Dispensational teaching.
> 
> ???
> 
> To back up what I have been taught regarding distinction between the visible and invisible church, from the Reformed view, please see here.
> 
> This teaching is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, Articles 1-4
> 
> and in
> ...


Well that certainly explains a lot then.

----------


## moostraks

> The only reason these deep and tense discussion arise, is because there is false teaching that must be countered.
> 
>  It is the duty of the Christian to be able to rightly divide the word of truth and do spiritual battle against those who abuse the Holy Scriptures and cause much confusion, distraction, and heresies.  
> 
> Warring in this spiritual battle takes much.  See Ephesians 6:10-20


Ephesians 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Just some food for thought for those who might be interested...

----------


## erowe1

> Thanks for your response, although I find it similar to Dispensational teaching.


I'm a dispensationalist.

I pretty much agree with the article you posted. But when it gets to Romans 9:6, it's way off, for the reasons I gave above.

----------


## Terry1

> Ephesians 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 
> 
> Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
>     for they will be called children of God.
> 
> Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
> 
> Love for Enemies
> 
> ...


Nang's been muzzled, that's the only reason she stopped calling people in this forum "trolls", "wicked" and "evil" and telling them they're going to hell while at the same time shouting for banning those who don't agree with her.  She's toned it down now to calling them "hypocrites" and implying they've been "cut off from God" because of it. lol

----------


## Brett85

> The only reason these deep and tense discussions arise, is because there is false teaching that must be countered.
> 
>  It is the duty of the Christian to be able to rightly divide the word of truth and do spiritual battle against those who abuse the Holy Scriptures and cause much confusion, distraction, and heresies.  
> 
> Warring in this spiritual battle takes much.  See Ephesians 6:10-20


And of course your interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation that can possibly be right.

----------


## Terry1

> And of course your interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation that can possibly be right.


But it's okay for her to accuse others of false teaching and being "evil trolls".  Nang seems to think I'm unentitled to my opinion because there's "men" in here. 

[mod delete]

----------


## moostraks

> Nang's been muzzled, that's the only reason she stopped calling people in this forum "trolls", "wicked" and "evil" and telling them they're going to hell while at the same time shouting for banning those who don't agree with her.  She's toned it down now to calling them "hypocrites" and implying they've been "cut off from God" because of it. lol


I haven't been posting so much, but I've been watching. Wondered who put a call to arms out for the new folks we have had join with a certain fervor in their attempts to educate the heathen here. Just spreading my hell bound views of Love from my neck of the woods today.

----------


## Terry1

> I haven't been posting so much, but I've been watching. Wondered who put a call to arms out for the new folks we have had join with a certain fervor in their attempts to educate the heathen here. Just spreading my hell bound views of Love from my neck of the woods today.


Yes mooostracks--you and I are the unwashed heathens who are going to burn in hell because we're not one of the chosen and we really should be banned because we know not what we do.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I haven't been posting so much, but I've been watching. Wondered who put a call to arms out for the new folks we have had join with a certain fervor in their attempts to educate the heathen here. Just spreading my hell bound views of Love from my neck of the woods today.


I'll just stick to telling folks the good news.  If they have any questions, I'll direct them to somebody who can tell them if they will go to hell or not, I'm not qualified in that area.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes mooostracks--you and I are the unwashed heathens who are going to burn in hell because we're not one of the chosen and we really should be banned because we know not what we do.


And because you do good works.  You get sent to hell for doing good works.

----------


## Dr.3D

> And because you do good works.  You get sent to hell for doing good works.


And we wonder why folks get turned off toward religion.

----------


## Terry1

> And because you do good works.  You get sent to hell for doing good works.


Someone's gotta pay the bills.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> But it's okay for her to accuse others of false teaching and being "evil trolls".  Nang seems to think I'm unentitled to my opinion because there's "men" in here. LOL
> 
> Hey Nang---you do realize that there's men in here don't you?


Purposely antagonizing.  See Bryan's rules of conduct.

----------


## Terry1

> Purposely antagonizing.  See Bryan's rules of conduct.



And you're constantly baiting because Nang's your lil buddy.  You can cut the crap too Louise, you're fairly obvious.

----------


## moostraks

> I'll just stick to telling folks the good news.  If they have any questions, I'll direct them to somebody who can tell them if they will go to hell or not, I'm not qualified in that area.


 I'm not qualified in that area either. Around these parts seems as though if you don't speak reformed it is a guarantee not to need directing to those who feel the need to tell you you are going to hell as they march right front and center and proclaim it loud and proud until said individual says 3 man is utterly depraved's and is absolved of their sins.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> And you're constantly baiting because Nang's your lil buddy.  You can cut the crap too Louise, you're fairly obvious.


This could one of the last times I address you, Terry1.  And I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that.  Please see Bryan's rules of conduct.

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> And people should believe in the sadistic bi-polar, puppet master god that you claim to worship?





> This, coming from a woman who claims to be a female pastor, teaching men.  What an abomination to our good Lord's gospel.


And this is what Louise calls me---an "abomination".  LOL  Yeah Louise--you just go ahead and preach it sista. lol

----------


## Terry1

> This could one of the last times I address you, Terry1.  And I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that.  Please see Bryan's rules of conduct as I will be flagging your posts when you don't.


You just do that, because I haven't been reporting your posts either, but that's all about to change too.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I haven't been posting so much, but I've been watching. Wondered who put a call to arms out for the new folks we have had join with a certain fervor in their attempts to educate the heathen here. Just spreading my hell bound views of Love from my neck of the woods today.


I used to think like this, too, moostraks.  You've known me for a while.  The teachings on divine grace are beginning to give me the rest from works that my soul has desperately longed for.  Any good work I do now, is from God.  Yes, I cooperate, and only because of Christ.  

Sometimes all this theology makes it seem more complicated than it really is. God bless you.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> And this is what Louise calls me---an "abomination".  LOL  Yeah Louise--you just go ahead and preach it sista. lol


Thank you for posting these again.

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you for posting these again.



You're out on a vendetta here Louise and it's pretty obvious that you won't stop nagging me until you've got your pound of flesh.  You and Nang started all of this calling me and other's "abomination", "evil", "wicked", "troll" and telling people or implying that I'm going to hell because I'm an "abomination" as you say.  Now, Nang has behaved herself for only one day---one day since she's only been subscribed here for a week or less.

So you call me an "abomination" because I have an opinion and there are men present---well excuse me then, I guess I'm less entitled to an opinion than you are eh?

Some of the crap you and Nang have said is just too stupid to even mention.  Stop playing innocent and using the time you've been here to excuse your rotten behavior and defense of those who've done the same in here to others as well.

Which BTW, you've been here since 2007 or subscribed and only have 1,317 posts---so you couldn't have been participating that much in those last seven years.  You're probably on another board posting all of your crap instead of here.  I've been here two years and have almost as many posts as you---since all of this matters so much to *you---I'm seeing fit to mention the trivials myself.

----------


## moostraks

> I used to think like this, too, moostraks.  You've known me for a while.  The teachings on divine grace are beginning to give me the rest from works that my soul has desperately longed for.  Any good work I do now, is from God.  Yes, I cooperate, and only because of Christ.  
> 
> Sometimes all this theology makes it seem more complicated than it really is. God bless you.


Some folks make things more complicated than they need to imo. Some folks seem to relish hurting other people and elevating themselves so they feel important. Some folks do not have one lick of common sense when they postulate on matters they themself have never had to live through but choose to making a whipping boy out of other's experiences. 

Sorry you are weary. May He comfort you on your path. Many here believe that all good works come from the Creator but are being falsely accused of believing otherwise and are being condemned for no good reason especially when it is not the right of any believer to be heaping the coals.

----------


## Brett85

> This could one of the last times I address you, Terry1.  And I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that.  Please see Bryan's rules of conduct as I will be flagging your posts when you don't.


Then you should also flag just about every post from Sola Fide and Nang as well, since about every one of their posts is a personal attack.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Then you should also flag just about every post from Sola Fide and Nang as well, since about every one of their posts is a personal attack.


Sorta gives a pretty good indication as to who the real Christians are doesn't it?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Then you should also flag just about every post from Sola Fide and Nang as well, since about every one of their posts is a personal attack.


Editted my post, because it was childish.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Sorta gives a pretty good indication as to who the real Christians are doesn't it?


Real Christians do sin.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Real Christians do sin.


They do their best to emulate Christ.

----------


## purplechoe

> This mindset and belief that you have that God somehow makes our choices for us and then as somehow gets pleasure watching us go through the motions of suffering and testing our faith as if it's pleasurable for God to do so is a very sick and perverted belief.


And the funny thing is that they accuse you of Gnosticism when the whole Calvinistic approach pretty much reminds me of eastern philosophy, in the end nothing we do really matters...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And the funny thing is that they accuse you of Gnosticism when the whole Calvinistic approach pretty much reminds me of eastern philosophy, in the end nothing we do really matters...


Terry1 is a Gnostic because she not only stated, but restated and attempted to defend the idea that Jesus had a sinful flesh.  This flesh/spirit dichotomy where the material is evil and the spirit is good, is Gnosticism.  It has been rejected since the earliest Christians existed.  It is also blasphemous.  This is why I beg for Terry1 to repent of her idolatry, and turn to the Holy Lord of glory.

As far as predestination precluding the worth of what we do, so that it "doesn't matter", I would totally disagree.  What we do matters because it is part of the plan and determination of God.  Every molecule and every decision in this universe matters in the sovereign plan of God.  Everything serves it's purpose.

----------


## Dr.3D

> As far as predestination precluding the worth of what we do, so that it "doesn't matter", I would totally disagree.  *What we do matters because it is part of the plan and determination of God.*  Every molecule and every decision in this universe matters in the sovereign plan of God.  Everything serves it's purpose.


But since it's predestined to happen, we don't need to consciously be concerned about making it happen since it's going to happen anyway.   Why worry about something we have no control over?

----------


## Nang

> But since it's predestined to happen, we don't need to consciously be concerned about making it happen since it's going to happen anyway.   Why worry about something we have no control over?


You spout the philosophy of "fatalism."  

Which is the religion of the Muslim world.''

Are you a Muslim?

----------


## Dr.3D

> You spout the philosophy of "fatalism."  
> 
> Which is the religion of the Muslim world.''
> 
> Are you a Muslim?


No, I'm using the logic of those who believe in predestination.   Personally, I don't believe in predestination.

----------


## erowe1

> But since it's predestined to happen, we don't need to consciously be concerned about making it happen since it's going to happen anyway.   Why worry about something we have no control over?


Right.

Since the Bible says that it's already determined exactly how long we're all going to live, we should just stop eating.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I'm using the logic of those who believe in predestination.


No you aren't. Or, can you quote any who say what you said?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Right.
> 
> Since the Bible says that it's already determined exactly how long we're all going to live, we should just stop eating.


Well it's obvious, if we were predetermined to die from starvation because we stopped eating that's just what we should do.

A puppet doesn't care what it is doing because it doesn't have any control of how it's strings are being pulled.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But since it's predestined to happen, we don't need to consciously be concerned about making it happen since it's going to happen anyway.   Why worry about something we have no control over?


But if you don't care, don't you understand that your not caring is part of the predestination too?  (Just as your caring and striving is)

----------


## Dr.3D

> No you aren't. Or, can you quote any who say what you said?


I'm not going to argue with you.   If you believe we have no control over what we are going to do, I can see no reason to worry about what we are going to do.  It's all been planned out according to those who believe that silliness.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Some folks make things more complicated than they need to imo. Some folks seem to relish hurting other people and elevating themselves so they feel important. Some folks do not have one lick of common sense when they postulate on matters they themself have never had to live through but choose to making a whipping boy out of other's experiences. 
> 
> Sorry you are weary. May He comfort you on your path. Many here believe that all good works come from the Creator but are being falsely accused of believing otherwise and are being condemned for no good reason especially when it is not the right of any believer to be heaping the coals.


God is teaching me to rest from the need to perform for Him.  It is very new to me.  The weariness is being lifted by Him, not by me. Praise God.

----------


## Dr.3D

> But if you don't care, don't you understand that your not caring is part of the predestination too?  (Just as your caring and striving is)


Again, since I have no control over any of it, it shouldn't matter to me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well it's obvious, if we were predetermined to die from starvation because we stopped eating that's just what we should do.


This just doesn't make any sense to me.





> A puppet doesn't care what it is doing because it doesn't have any control of how it's strings are being pulled.


Men aren't puppets.  Men have wills, but they aren't free from God's decree.  The puppet analogy does not work because men have wills and volition, puppets dont.

----------


## erowe1

> Well it's obvious, if we were predetermined to die from starvation because we stopped eating that's just what we should do.
> 
> A puppet doesn't care what it is doing because it doesn't have any control of how it's strings are being pulled.


Therefore, it must be the case that predestination doesn't make us puppets.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not going to argue with you.   If you believe we have no control over what we are going to do, I can see no reason to worry about what we are going to do.  It's all been planned out according to those who believe that silliness.


Can you quote where I said we have no control over what we are going to do?

Can you quote where anyone at all said that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, since I have no control over any of it, it shouldn't matter to me.


Why should you breathe if everything is predestined? 
Why should you eat if everything is predestined? 
Why should you pray if everything is predestined? 

The answer is, the breathing,  the eating, and the praying are the predestination itself.

----------


## Dr.3D

Predestination doesn't make any sense to me.

I have free will to make up my mind to do what I wish to do.   I have free will to believe or not believe in God.   

If I had the ability to travel through time and could go forward through time to see what you were going to do next week, and then I came back and told you what you were going to do next week, would you say I had predestined what you were going to do?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Predestination doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> I have free will to make up my mind to do what I wish to do.   I have free will to believe or not believe in God.   
> 
> If I had the ability to travel through time and could go forward through time to see what you were going to do next week, and then I came back and told you what you were going to do next week, would you say I had predestined what you were going to do?


Might I offer that predestination doesn't make any sense to you because you want to be autonomous.   It is a _moral_ objection you are having,  not an intellectual one.  You do not want the Sovereign Lord to stand over you as the Potter molds the clay, but He does...and there is no escape from His decree.

----------


## erowe1

> Predestination doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> I have free will to make up my mind to do what I wish to do.   I have free will to believe or not believe in God.   
> 
> If I had the ability to travel through time and could go forward through time to see what you were going to do next week, and then I came back and told you what you were going to do next week, would you say I had predestined what you were going to do?


I would just say that it is predestined, not that you are the one who predestined it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Might I offer that predestination doesn't make any sense to you because you want to be autonomous.   It is a _moral_ objection you are having,  not an intellectual one.  You do not want the Sovereign Lord to stand over you as the Potter molds the clay, but He does...and there is no escape from His decree.


Yeah, I've heard all of that prattle before.

I'm saying, God wouldn't have any victory over evil if we were all programmed to do what He wanted us to do.  There has to be free will or choice if you will, in order for us to decide between good or evil.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I would just say that it is predestined, not that you are the one who predestined it.


But if I already knew what you were going to do next week, I could say I had already predetermined what you were going to do.  It wouldn't mean I was going to make you do anything.

----------


## erowe1

> But if I already knew what you were going to do next week, I could say I had already predetermined what you were going to do.  It wouldn't mean I was going to make you do anything.


No you wouldn't have any warrant to say that. You would only have warrant to say that it was predetermined, and that you knew it, but not that you were the one who predetermined it.

I agree with your last sentence. Just because our choices are predetermined, that doesn't entail us being puppets.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No you wouldn't have any warrant to say that. You would only have warrant to say that it was predetermined, and that you knew it, but not that you were the one who predetermined it.
> 
> I agree with your last sentence. Just because our choices are predetermined, that doesn't entail us being puppets.


If I were able to tell what people were going to do weeks before they did those things, it would mean I was able to determine what they were going to do.  Again it wouldn't mean I made them do any of what they did.

As it is, I can make plans for (predetermine) what I am going to do next week and God willing, I will do those things.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, I've heard all of that prattle before.
> 
> I'm saying, God wouldn't have any victory over evil if we were all programmed to do what He wanted us to do.  There has to be free will or choice if you will, in order for us to decide between good or evil.


Hasn't God already predestined that He is going to be victorious in the end?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As it is, I can make plans for (predetermine) what I am going to do next week and God willing, I will do those things.


That's right.  God willing.  If God wills it, then it will be so in your life next week.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Hasn't God already predestined that He is going to be victorious in the end?


Because God is outside of time, He has already seen what is going to happen.   Yes, He knows He is going to be victorious because He is outside of time.  That would be predetermination.

He has not rigged the board so to speak though.  That would be cheating those He is in competition with.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's right.  God willing.  If God wills it, then it will be so in your life next week.


Yes, that's something I don't have control over.  I might get run over by a bus and spoil my plans.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because God is outside of time, He has already seen what is going to happen.   Yes, He knows He is going to be victorious because He is outside of time.  That would be predetermination.
> 
> He has not rigged the board so to speak though.  That would be cheating those He is in competition with.


Didn't God know the outcome of every possible world He could have created?   Yet didn't He choose to create this one, knowing the outcome?  

Doesn't creation itself show intention and purpose for history?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, shouldn't you have what the gospel IS ironed out in your own mind before you preach it to other people?

Logically, from the comments you've made in the James White v Marc Carpenter thread, you don't even know for sure that you're saved.  So, what message are you going to preach to these people?  What exactly do they have to believe at the moment of their conversions?

----------


## Nang

> Yeah, I've heard all of that prattle before.
> 
> I'm saying, God wouldn't have any victory over evil if we were all programmed to do what He wanted us to do.  There has to be free will or choice if you will, in order for us to decide between good or evil.


Oops, the true Pelagian colors revealed!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Didn't God know the outcome of every possible world He could have created?   Yet didn't He choose to create this one, knowing the outcome?  
> 
> Doesn't creation itself show intention and purpose for history?


Didn't God know 1/3rd of the angels would rebel?   If He knew that would happen, why would He have made them with the ability to do so?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Oops, the true Pelagian colors revealed!


So you don't believe there is a war between good and evil?

----------


## Nang

> So you don't believe there is a war between good and evil?


Spiritual warfare does not result in Pelagian teaching . . . Pelagianism is the theory that fallen man retains enough virtue, despite the total corruption of the human nature caused by Adam, that he can freely choose his own fate.

----------


## Kevin007

> God is teaching me to rest from the need to perform for Him.  It is very new to me.  The weariness is being lifted by Him, not by me. Praise God.


His yoke is light Louise!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Spiritual warfare does not result in Pelagian teaching . . . Pelagianism is the theory that fallen man retains enough virtue, despite the total corruption of the human nature caused by Adam, that he can freely choose his own fate.


No, what I'm saying is that if I don't have the ability to choose between good and evil, that would mean the game is rigged and God is cheating.

----------


## Nang

> His yoke is light Louise!



That I agree with . . . this is absolute truth.   Matthew 11:28-30

----------


## Nang

> No, what I'm saying is that if I don't have the ability to chose between good and evil, that would mean the game is rigged and God is cheating.


Nonsense.

This is teaching that a supposed free will of sinners, is the determinant of salvation.

Only God has "free" will and only God can choose to save.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Nonsense.
> 
> This is teaching that a supposed free will of sinners, is the determinant of salvation.
> 
> Only God has "free" will and only God can choose to save.


So you say.   That means you are saying God is cheating in His war with the Devil.

----------


## Nang

> So you say.   That means you are saying God is cheating in His war with the Devil.


There is no war between God and His created Satan.

There is spiritual warfare between the sons of God and the offspring of the devil, but your comments do not apply, and I doubt you can present any scripture to support your emotional statements.

----------


## Dr.3D

> There is no war between God and His created Satan.
> 
> There is spiritual warfare between the sons of God and the offspring of the devil, but your comments do not apply, and I doubt you can present any scripture to support your emotional statements.


So what's you goal here?  
Are you helping anybody come to Christ?

----------


## Nang

> So what's you goal here?  
> Are you helping anybody come to Christ?



I am here to witness to the saving grace of God, according to His Word.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nonsense.
> 
> This is teaching that a supposed free will of sinners, is the determinant of salvation.
> 
> Only God has "free" will and only God can choose to save.


Ah, we have another adherent of TULIP here, it seems.  If I'm not mistaken about that, you should know that TULIP is lacking in evidence and biblical logic.  It assumes a "low" view of man, which is not biblical.  It also assumes a nature of God the Father that is not in the gospels-a God who is capricious, erratic, vengeful, and arbitrary in salvation.  

The interesting thing TULIP and Calvinist/Reformationist thought is that it's very intricate and "legalistic" (Calvin was a lawyer as well as a theologian).  It's a really interesting intellectual exercise, but it's false teaching.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I am here to witness to the saving grace of God, according to His Word.


Not if you really mean what you've said in this thread.  You're bearing witness to almost the _exact opposite_ of His Word.

----------


## Nang

> Not if you really mean what you've said in this thread.  You're bearing witness to almost the _exact opposite_ of His Word.



Gee, thank you for sharing your (undocumented) judgments against my beliefs.

They are unfounded, but maybe now you feel better for having vented hostility against my soul . . .  

When you get over it, ask me, and I will be pleased to explain my beliefs in more detail with you, according to the Holy Words of God.

Nang

----------


## Terry1

> And the funny thing is that they accuse you of Gnosticism when the whole Calvinistic approach pretty much reminds me of eastern philosophy, in the end nothing we do really matters...


Sola never has a clue as to what he's talking about anyway.  I usually just take pity on him and reply to his drivel out of pure mercy anyway.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Gee, thank you for sharing your (undocumented) judgments against my beliefs.
> 
> They are unfounded, but maybe now you feel better for having vented hostility against my soul . . .  
> 
> When you get over it, ask me, and I will be pleased to explain my beliefs in more detail with you, according to the Holy Words of God.
> 
> Nang


I based what I said SPECIFICALLY on what you posted.  It's entirely conditional, which is why I went to great lengths to avoid making an "is" statement about you or your views/beliefs, explicit or implied.  Please_ read_ and _comprehend_ my posts before responding to them in the future.  If you don't understand, ask.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sola never has a clue as to what he's talking about anyway.  I usually just take pity on him and reply to his drivel out of pure mercy anyway.


ditto...except I keep him on ignore.  I suggest you do the same-RPFs is much more pleasant that way.

----------


## Terry1

> Oops, the true Pelagian colors revealed!


Oops---now watch and see your Monergism hoist you up on your own petard.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oops---now watch and see your Monergism hoist you up on your own petard.


lolz  +rep

----------


## Terry1

> Spiritual warfare does not result in Pelagian teaching . . . Pelagianism is the theory that fallen man retains enough virtue, despite the total corruption of the human nature caused by Adam, that he can freely choose his own fate.


"Oops"--seems we do have a choice now doesn't it. 

*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
*

----------


## Terry1

> Nonsense.
> 
> This is teaching that a supposed free will of sinners, is the determinant of salvation.
> 
> Only God has "free" will and only God can choose to save.


So God simply decided that He was tired and bored with not only Lucifer (whom God once loved above all angels,), but a third of heaven's entire population of angels who also rebelled against God along with Lucifer.  So you're saying God did this and it wasn't because those angels had a free will to rebel against God?   While Adam and Eve in the garden, God caused Eve to sin along with Adam that caused the fall of mankind?  

Just what kind of sick god do you worship?  You worship John Calvin and not God if believe his crap. 

*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*

----------


## Terry1

> There is no war between God and His created Satan.
> 
> There is spiritual warfare between the sons of God and the offspring of the devil, but your comments do not apply, and I doubt you can present any scripture to support your emotional statements.


You have no clue as to what you're talking about**:

*Satan Thrown Out of Heaven
Revelation 12:
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,  8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer.  9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

*

----------


## Terry1

> Nang wrote: I am here to witness to the saving grace of God, according to His Word.


LOL

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola never has a clue as to what he's talking about anyway.  I usually just take pity on him and reply to his drivel out of pure mercy anyway.


I have no idea what I am talking about.... but in this thread alone you have said that Romans 8:29 doesn't reference the Son as the firstborn, Jesus has sinful flesh, and James says faith becomes dead.

Terry, you have no earthly idea what the Scriptures teach.  You are a blowhard.  You charge the thrice holy God with sin and you have a man centered religion.  You make the people listening to you twice the sons of Hell that you are.

Please consider the God of the Bible of which I speak.  Turn to Him, He delights in mercy.

----------


## Terry1

> I have no idea what I am talking about.... but in this thread alone you have said that Romans 8:29 doesn't reference the Son as the firstborn, Jesus has sinful flesh, and James says faith becomes dead.
> 
> Terry, you have no earthly idea what the Scriptures teach.  You are a blowhard.  You charge the thrice holy God with sin and you have a man centered religion.  You make the people listening to you twice the sons of Hell that you are.
> 
> Please consider the God of the Bible of which I speak.  Turn to Him, He delights in mercy.


Sola, there's only three blowhard's here in this thread that I've counted so far and they're all clones of you...LOL  Here's a commentary on Romans 8:29---read it---it's telling you the same thing I did---8:29 is talking about certain persons being conformed to the image of Christ and not Christ conforming to His own image...LOL  READ IT!  http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/8-29.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, there's only three blowhard's here in this thread that I've counted so far and they're all clones of you...LOL  Here's a commentary on Romans 8:29---read it---it's telling you the same thing I did---8:29 is talking about certain persons being conformed to the image of Christ and not Christ conforming to His own image...LOL  READ IT!  http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/8-29.htm


From your link:

The first commentary confirms my view. 



> That he might be the first-born - The first-born among the Hebrews had many special privileges. The idea here is,
> 
> (1) That Christ might be pre-eminent as the model and exemplar; that he might be clothed with special honors, and be so regarded in his church; and yet,


The second one listed confirms my view:



> The first-born among many brethren - That he might be the chief or head of all the redeemed; for His human nature is the first fruits of the resurrection from the dead; and He is the first human being that, after having passed through death, was raised to eternal glory.*


The third one listed confirms my view:



> that he might be the firstborn among many brethren; the persons among whom Christ is the firstborn are described by their relation, "brethren"; to one another, being related to the same Father, regenerated by the same grace, taken into the same family, and heirs of the same glory; and to Christ, which relation, as brethren to him, is not merely founded on his incarnation, but in their adoption; and which is evidenced by their regeneration, and doing the will of his Father; an which relation he owns, and is not ashamed of: they are also described by their number, "many"; for though they are but few, when compared with the world; yet they are many, a large number, considered by themselves; and among these, Christ is the "firstborn"; he is the firstborn of God, the begotten of the Father, he is the first begotten, and as such he is the only begotten; he is the firstborn of Mary, she had none before him, and he is the only one that ever was born in the manner he was; he is the first begotten from the dead, his resurrection is called a begetting, and he was the first in time that rose from the dead by his own power, and to an immortal life, and the first in causality and dignity. Christ is the firstborn with respect to all creatures in general; he was begotten of the Father before all creatures were; he is the first cause of them all, the governor, basis, and support of them: and he is the firstborn with respect to the saints; who are of the same nature with him, are made partakers of the divine nature, are sons in the same family, though not in the same class of sonship: moreover, this character may regard not so much birth as privilege which belongs to Christ as Mediator; who, as the firstborn had, has the blessing, the government, the priesthood, and the inheritance; all which is owing to, and is one end of divine predestination. The Cabalistic (m) writers among the Jews give the name of "firstborn" to the second Sephira, number, or person, "Wisdom", which answers to the Son of God.




EVERY SINGLE one of the commentaries in your link confirm my point that the Son is the one who is referred to as the firstborn, and the brethren are conformed to the image of the firstborn.

EVERY SINGLE one of those refute your insane point.

Can you read?   Can you string together sentences in a coherent manner so as to extract a coherent meaning?  You obviously can't... which is scary.

----------


## Terry1

> From your link:
> 
> The first commentary confirms my view. 
> 
> 
> The second one listed confirms my view:
> 
> 
> The third one listed confirms my view:
> ...


Read it again...here's one of the sentences that you just quoted from it--I never argued that Christ is the firstborn, but that scripture is referring to believers being conformed to the image of Christ and not Christ being conformed to His own image.  This is the last time I'm going to reply to your crap.  If you can't see it then that's too bad for you then now isn't it.

*that he might be the firstborn among many brethren; the persons among whom Christ is the firstborn are described by their relation, "brethren*"; *to one another, being related to the same Father, regenerated by the same grace, taken into the same family, and heirs of the same glory; and to Christ, which relation, as brethren to him,
*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Read it again...here's one of the sentences that you just quoted from it--I never argued that Christ is the firstborn, but that scripture is referring to believers being conformed to the image of Christ and not Christ being conformed to His own image.  This is the last time I'm going to reply to your crap.  If you can't see it then that's too bad for you then now isn't it.


Hold on just a second.   You said that the "he" in Romans 8:29 is not referring to the Son.   EVERY SINGLE ONE of the commentaries you yourself posted refute your view that it is the believer that is referred to as "he", and not the Son.

_Every single one_ of the commentaries you yourself referenced contradict your insane assertion,  yet you keep posting as if you shouldn't be ashamed of yourself right now.  You are prideful.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1

> You spout the philosophy of "fatalism."  
> 
> Which is the religion of the Muslim world.''
> 
> Are you a Muslim?


Your belief in Calvinism is more on par with the "Muslim world" because they too like yourself believe that God ordained both evil and good.

----------


## erowe1

> I based what I said SPECIFICALLY on what you posted.  It's entirely conditional, which is why I went to great lengths to avoid making an "is" statement about you or your views/beliefs, explicit or implied.  Please_ read_ and _comprehend_ my posts before responding to them in the future.  If you don't understand, ask.


The only condition you made was the condition of if she meant what she said in this thread.

So, you were making an "is" claim about her views/beliefs.

Please read and comprehend your own words before chiding someone else for understanding what you said better than you.

----------


## moostraks

> Spiritual warfare does not result in Pelagian teaching . . . Pelagianism is the theory that fallen man retains enough virtue, despite the total corruption of the human nature caused by Adam, that he can freely choose his own fate.


It isn't man's virtue that is why we have free will but the virtue is in the Creator in that while He could force people to do something He loves us enough to give us the choice to open the door while He knocks. It is the same as with any earthly parent who gives their children freedoms to exercise their wills in a specific environment for their own benefit not because the earthly parent isn't wiser and capable of making the choice for their child.

----------


## moostraks

> God is teaching me to rest from the need to perform for Him.  It is very new to me.  The weariness is being lifted by Him, not by me. Praise God.


When one knows Love they will seek to please the object of their affection. It never should be that one feels they are performing for another. Some people choose to confuse the belief in free will means that those who believe in free will only do that which they consider good works as a matter of performance for reward. This is not so and why narrow is the way because the dedication and love of one who does true good works is only possible when we sacrifice our wills completely to the Spirit to do so as He wills.

----------


## Nang

> It isn't man's virtue that is why we have free will but the virtue is in the Creator in that while He could force people to do something He loves us enough to give us the choice to open the door while He knocks.


 .[/QUOTE]


You really should read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It isn't man's virtue that is why we have free will but the virtue is in the Creator in that while He could force people to do something He loves us enough to give us the choice to open the door while He knocks. It is the same as with any earthly parent who gives their children freedoms to exercise their wills in a specific environment for their own benefit not because the earthly parent isn't wiser and capable of making the choice for their child.


This is fallacy number 3:



> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Of-Synergism

----------


## moostraks

> This is fallacy number 3:


Only if someone thinks your position is valid and your logic is sound but yours was neither imo. Since what your faith is based upon is man's enlightenment from Scripture and your god, your position is no more valid than mine on that basis. 

Ever been raped or subjected to incest? Let's talk about the validity of free will on this earth between the depraved savage man. If it is valid for the Creator to molest our wills and we can call it love then it is valid for one to be as He is and subject those they feel drawn to control to abuse their wills.

----------


## moostraks

> .



You really should read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will."[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the offer. My reading list is filled right now but I never know what the future may hold. Luther was not the kind of man whom I would entrust with faith considering the fruit of his beliefs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then you should also flag just about every post from Sola Fide and Nang as well, since about every one of their posts is a personal attack.


At least SF and Nang are coherent.

----------


## moostraks

> At least SF and Nang are coherent.


This type of response it what is so antagonistic from your little clique. It is not very becoming of someone who claims to be Christian to run around promoting personal attacks which is what you have done within this backhanded comment to compliment your cohorts.

----------


## Nang

> You really should read Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will."


Thanks for the offer. My reading list is filled right now but I never know what the future may hold. Luther was not the kind of man whom I would entrust with faith considering the fruit of his beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Don't judge the book until you read it . . .

----------


## Nang

> Only if someone thinks your position is valid and your logic is sound but yours was neither imo. Since what your faith is based upon is man's enlightenment from Scripture and your god, your position is no more valid than mine on that basis. 
> 
> Ever been raped or subjected to incest? Let's talk about the validity of free will on this earth between the depraved savage man. If it is valid for the Creator to molest our wills and we can call it love then it is valid for one to be as He is and subject those they feel drawn to control to abuse their wills.


I *hate* this argument used against the saving grace of God.

It is hysterical at best and blasphemous at worst.

If you are going to go to such lengths to defend free will, but cannot explain it scripturally, your faith is dead.

----------


## moostraks

> Don't judge the book until you read it . . .


I judged the man by his fruits based upon historical evidence. I don't make way in my schedule for writings by those who have as much blood on their hands as Luther does. If I come to read it, then it will be based upon some need I feel in the future but not for personal enlightenment to change my own beliefs regarding free will.

For those who might be curious:



> Pure devilry is urging on the peasantsTherefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel. You must kill him as you would a mad dog
> 
> The authorities must resolve to chastise and slay as long as they can raise a fingerIt may be that those who are killed on the side of the authorities is really a martyr in Gods cause. A happier death no man could die. The present time is so strange that a prince can gain Heaven easier by spilling blood than by praying (Luther M. Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants, May 4, 1525-Erl, 24, 287, ff. As cited in OHare PF. The Facts About Luther, p. 232).
> 
> Notice what Martin Luther admitted:
> 
> I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I cast it on the Lord God, who commanded me to speak this way (Werke, Erl. Edition, lix, p. 284 Table Talk as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.96).
> 
> It is reported that 100,000 perished at that time...
> ...


http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church...utions-luther/

----------


## Terry1

> I *hate* this argument used against the saving grace of God.
> 
> It is hysterical at best and blasphemous at worst.
> 
> If you are going to go to such lengths to defend free will, but cannot explain it scripturally, your faith is dead.


And I'll tell you right now that you've already been proven more wrong than right biblically in this forum and that it's certainly not moostrak's faith that's dead here.

----------


## moostraks

> I *hate* this argument used against the saving grace of God.
> 
> It is hysterical at best and blasphemous at worst.
> 
> If you are going to go to such lengths to defend free will, but cannot explain it scripturally, your faith is dead.


Ahh...but did I say I was not defending my faith through Scripture? No, I did not but you are presuming such. What I was pointing out was that the logic he employs is unsound and that my experiences have given me reason to question the same logic I have had told unto me and for what reason it is unreasonable as is evidenced by experience that it is so. Sometimes one must look beyond the end of one's nose to see the faith employed in real life to understand its usage.

So have you something to offer as to how it is not so based upon more than your own opinion of Scripture and why your own rationalizations from a modern perspective should make your presumptions more valid than mine? Have you something to offer from experience that validates your position as evidenced as the world constructed by the Creator for us to learn from as our laboratory? Or shall we just take it upon your word that we should listen to those of you who speak highly of your own state of elect membership while looking down in such a snotty, highbrow tone upon those of us who have lived life and bare scars that have us relate in a different manner than you?

----------


## Nang

> Ahh...but did I say I was not defending my faith through Scripture?


I have not seen any scriptural defense of "free" will from you or any other defenders of such myth.

That is because there is no teaching of *autonomous free will* in the bible.

There is teaching that humans are willful creatures, but because of sin, their wills are held in bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil.

Only by being converted heart, mind, and soul by the grace of God, is the human will freed to submit and serve righteousness.  Romans 3:19-26; John 8:34-36

----------


## Deborah K

Nang, why don't you explain what YOU mean by "free will"?   You're bogging the debate down with semantics again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So God simply decided that He was tired and bored with not only Lucifer (whom God once loved above all angels,), but a third of heaven's entire population of angels who also rebelled against God along with Lucifer.  So you're saying God did this and it wasn't because those angels had a free will to rebel against God?   While Adam and Eve in the garden, God caused Eve to sin along with Adam that caused the fall of mankind?  
> 
> Just what kind of sick god do you worship?  You worship John Calvin and not God if believe his crap. 
> 
> *Joshua 24:15 
> And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*





> You have no clue as to what you're talking about**:
> 
> *Satan Thrown Out of Heaven
> Revelation 12:
> 7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,  8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer.  9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
> 
> *


So not only does Terry hold the Gnostic belief that Jesus had sinful flesh, she also holds the Gnostic belief of dualism (that there are equally competing forces in the universe, good and evil).

This of course is not Christianity,  Christianity is not dualistic.  There is ONE sovereign will in the universe and that is God's will.

----------


## Deborah K

Seems to me Sola, that Today's Epistle Reading, aka TER, has described YOU as being gnostic:




> Interestingly, Sola, your innovative doctrines are more consistent with the Gnostic heretical beliefs then with anything found in the Christian Church!
> 
> Indeed reading Henry Chadwick's THE EARLY CHURCH (page 38) the index points the first idea of unconditional predestination as appearing from the gnostic sect, not an orthodox body of believers:
> 
> "...the Gnostics [placed]...the natural order at so vast a distance in moral value from the supreme God. The influence of fatalistic ideas drawn from popular astrology and magic became fused with notions derived from Pauline language about predestination to produce a rigidly deterministic scheme. Redemption was from destiny, not from the consequences of responsible action, and was granted to a pre-determined elect in whom alone was the divine spark.(2)"
> 
> That makes you Gnostic!  Congratulations!




Can we stop with the labels and insults?  No wonder we have trouble bringing anyone into the fold.  <smacking my ever-lovin' head!!>

----------


## Dr.3D

> So not only does Terry hold the Gnostic belief that Jesus had sinful flesh, she also holds the Gnostic belief of dualism (that there are equally competing forces in the universe, good and evil).
> 
> This of course is not Christianity,  Christianity is not dualistic.  There is ONE sovereign will in the universe and that is God's will.


Not equally competing forces but forces none the less.  If not, then how would you explain these verses?



> _NRS_ *Ephesians 6:11-12*   Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  _12_ For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

----------


## moostraks

> I have not seen any scriptural defense of "free" will from you or any other defenders of such myth.
> 
> That is because there is no teaching of autonomous free will in the bible.
> 
> There is teaching that humans are willful creatures, but because of sin, their wills are held in bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil.
> 
> Only by being converted heart, mind, and soul by the grace of God, is the human will freed to submit and serve righteousness.  Romans 3:19-26; John 8:34-36


This is a decent explanation of what I mean by free will so you may understand where I am coming from in my beliefs. http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm Then if you or whomever is curious they can meander over here for what I believe is a reasonable explanation of Scripture. http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-fai...-of-scripture/ So while I appreciate your sincerely held beliefs based upon your personal opinion, my beliefs are not confined to your limited scope of argument and were formulated when I opened myself up to the teachings from Church fathers and their expounding on the teachings of times past rather than from the propositions put forth by Luther and Calvin and their limitations of what is Scripture and free will. It is pretty nifty when you can take the Bible and starting removing portions of accepted texts to start forming new beliefs. I chose my personal starting point as being the early Church fathers and none of the Scriptures I have read in context of the larger text have ever enlightened me to your position being accurate nor have I seen historical evidence from the early Church fathers to support the belief of total depravity. Peace on your path...

----------


## Nang

> Nang, why don't you explain what YOU mean by "free will"?   You're bogging the debate down with semantics again.


Why don't you just grab a dictionary and look up the word "autonomous."

----------


## Nang

> This is a decent explanation of what I mean by free will so you may understand where I am coming from in my beliefs. http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm Then if you or whomever is curious they can meander over here for what I believe is a reasonable explanation of Scripture. http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-fai...-of-scripture/ So while I appreciate your sincerely held beliefs based upon your personal opinion, my beliefs are not confined to your limited scope of argument and were formulated when I opened myself up to the teachings from Church fathers and their expounding on the teachings of times past rather than from the propositions put forth by Luther and Calvin and their limitations of what is Scripture and free will. It is pretty nifty when you can take the Bible and starting removing portions of accepted texts to start forming new beliefs. I chose my personal starting point as being the early Church fathers and none of the Scriptures I have read in context of the larger text have ever enlightened me to your position being accurate nor have I seen historical evidence from the early Church fathers to support the belief of total depravity. Peace on your path...


So you cannot quote any scriptures, can you?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why don't you just grab a dictionary and look up the word "autonomous."


Sigh, never mind.  I'll do it for you:




> What others call "free" will, I call moral agency.
> 
> God created Adam in His image, and gifted Adam with moral agency which is the (restricted) ability to willfully cause and effect his actions and surroundings.  However, Adam was also given the knowledge of holiness by being held accountable to God's moral Law and commands.
> 
> Adam could cause and effect, but he was given holy parameters that he was not free to willfully violate.
> 
> Only God has absolute freedom of the will.  Adam was made a responsible, moral, willful man, but he was created with limitations.
> 
> Those who insist on retaining and maintaining a belief in a supposed "free" will, are actually "kicking against the pricks," and resisting their human limitations.
> ...


Be careful debating this one.  She has her own definition for certain phrases.

----------


## moostraks

> So you cannot quote any scriptures, can you?


So in under a minute you read the resources provided for my position? There is explanation contained within. As well there was an explanation that before we can even discuss what Scriptures are we would have to be on the same page and I am thinking you are one of those who thinks you may set the playing field by defining the parameters and you are not going to be speaking the same language as I do. So if all you have to do is hurl insults you need to bark up another tree...

----------


## Terry1

> So you cannot quote any scriptures, can you?


Obviously, you can't either because how many times have I already proved you wrong with the word of God on multiple issues.  You haven't refuted them either, have you.   moostrak's has more faith in her little finger than you have in your entire body IMO, so I wouldn't be so quick to judge her in your sad case.

----------


## Nang

> So in under a minute you read the resources provided for my position? There is explanation contained within. As well there was an explanation that before we can even discuss what Scriptures are we would have to be on the same page and I am thinking you are one of those who thinks you may set the playing field by defining the parameters and you are not going to be speaking the same language as I do. So if all you have to do is hurl insults you need to bark up another tree...


Well, the second article spoke of the canon of Scripture and seemed off topic, and quickly scanned, the first article was bereft of scripture references altogether, let alone supporting your position on this.

----------


## TER

> This is a decent explanation of what I mean by free will so you may understand where I am coming from in my beliefs. http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm Then if you or whomever is curious they can meander over here for what I believe is a reasonable explanation of Scripture. http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-fai...-of-scripture/ So while I appreciate your sincerely held beliefs based upon your personal opinion, my beliefs are not confined to your limited scope of argument and were formulated when I opened myself up to the teachings from Church fathers and their expounding on the teachings of times past rather than from the propositions put forth by Luther and Calvin and their limitations of what is Scripture and free will. It is pretty nifty when you can take the Bible and starting removing portions of accepted texts to start forming new beliefs. I chose my personal starting point as being the early Church fathers and none of the Scriptures I have read in context of the larger text have ever enlightened me to your position being accurate nor have I seen historical evidence from the early Church fathers to support the belief of total depravity. Peace on your path...


Excellent post moostraks.  The truth is, we all follow traditions and have chosen for ourselves who will be our Church Fathers and instructors in the faith.  The fact that you turn to the early Church Fathers puts you in very good company, for these godly men and saints of the Church have already done the work for us by the grace of the Holy Spirit to defend and faithfully pass down the apostolic faith.

----------


## Nang

> Excellent post moostraks.  The truth is, we all follow traditions and have chosen for ourselves who will be our Church Fathers and instructors in the faith.  The fact that you turn to the early Church Fathers puts you in very good company, for these godly men and saints of the Church have already done the work for us by the grace of the Holy Spirit to defend and faithfully pass down the apostolic faith.


Scripture is the only authority for the believer to find sound doctrine.  If the traditionalists do not include scripture when referring to their church fathers, of what benefit is it to others?

----------


## moostraks

> Well, the second article spoke of the canon of Scripture and seemed off topic, and quickly scanned, the first article was bereft of scripture references altogether, let alone supporting your position on this.


Then you did not look closely enough and the discussion on Scriptures was to lay the groundwork for you to understand where I come from in what you say is acceptable for discussion. Having led the groundwork here is some explanation from one of the early Church fathers giving some explanation of this in practice with regards to Scripture:




> Few questions in theology bear as directly on the lives of ordinary believers as does that of the relationship between grace and free will.  As Christians, we know that we are to seek to please God and obey His commandments;  yet we also believe that He helps us in such a way that to think that we have pleased Him, through our own unaided efforts, would be an act of pride. Already there is, if not outright contradiction, at least considerable tension between these two beliefs.  The tension grows worse when we also take into account the conviction, firmly rooted in Scripture, that salvation is in some sense the result of divine election.  Our Lord states in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, “all that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (6:37), and a few verses later, “no man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (6:44).1 Taking these two statements together, it would seem that to be called by the Father is both a necessary and sufficient condition for coming to Christ (which here is tantamount to salvation). Yet in the same chapter Christ also exhorts his audience as if the choice were theirs.  He urges them, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (6:27), and, when they ask him what they must do to work the works of God, he replies, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (6:29).  Apparently, although to be chosen by God is both necessary and sufficient for salvation, that does not exclude the necessity of our own choice, and indeed of our “labouring.”  This is very confusing. It seems both that the will of the Father is the sole cause of our salvation, and that we too are, in some sense, a cause. 
> 
> There are here two different but related questions. First is that of how our efforts to please God can be consistent with the fact that we are totally dependent upon His aid. Second is that of how salvation can be both determined by God’s choice and dependent on our free response. As regards the second question, Scripture adds the further complication that God’s election has in some sense been fixed from all eternity.  St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Ephesians that God “hath chosen us in him [that is, Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (1:4-6). This doctrine makes the second question harder, for it rules out the possibility that God might perform His election in response to unfolding events.  Yet even without it, there would remain the basic question of how human free will can have any efficacy, given that divine choice seems to determine all. 
> 
> My purpose in this paper is to see what light can be shed on these questions by the writings of St. John Chrysostom.  Before beginning, it may be well to say a word about what I see as the proper spirit in which to approach this sort of inquiry.  One way to think about St. Chrysostom is that he is one voice among many offering guidance in the interpretation of Scripture.  On this view he has no more intrinsic authority than any other commentator;  our job is to weigh his arguments and decide for urselves whether they provide an adequate interpretation of the text.  Such an approach would be foreign to Orthodoxy, for it gives no weight to the place of St. Chrysostom within Holy Tradition.  For us as Orthodox, Chrysostom is not merely one commentator among others;  he is the commentator, the one whose exegeses have, more than any others, been taken up and absorbed into the very fabric of Orthodoxy.  This does not mean that he is infallible.  No doubt he had his blind spots, as we all do.  But it does mean that for us he is not simply an isolated voice stating his own private opinions.  He is one who spoke on behalf of the Tradition, and who has been accepted by the Church as having spoken well.  If we find his statements incomplete or obscure, we are free—indeed, obligated—to supplement them as necessary from elsewhere in the Tradition in order to determine their fuller meaning.  This is, I believe, the way in which Chrysostom himself would have us read him. 
> 
> So much for preliminaries.  Now for the first question: how can our own efforts can be efficacious given our complete dependence on grace?  Here I think it is helpful to distinguish three levels at which divine grace operates.  The first is that of external circumstances, including the actions taken by others with whom we are engaged.  This level may be illustrated through Chrysostom’s exegesis of the episode in which Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, so as to receive the blessing intended for Esau.  As Chrysostom sees it, there are two points in this story where divine aid is apparent:  in the ease with which Isaac was deceived (failing to recognize his own son!), and in the fact that Esau conveniently did not return until it was too late.  By arranging matters in this way, God “cooperated” (συνήργησε) with Jacob.2  Yet He did not do so without regard to Jacob’s own effort.  Not only had Jacob and his mother, Rebecca, “done what was expected of them, the one heeding his mother’s advice, the other playing her part completely”;  various details of the story also indicate that “Jacob was still in a state of anxiety and his apprehension increased, all this happening for us to learn from it that the loving Lord does not idly give evidence of His characteristic providence unless He sees on our part as well fervor in action.”3  So God gave heed not only to Jacob’s obedience but also to the ardor of his desire.  All of this illustrates, according to Chrysostom, that “it is neither the case that everything is due to help from on high (rather, we too must contribute something), nor on the other hand does He require everything of us, knowing as He does the extraordinary degree of our limitations;  on the contrary, out of fidelity to His characteristic love and wishing to find some occasion for demonstrating His own generosity, He awaits the contribution of what we have to offer.”4 
> 
> There is an interesting detail in this statement—namely, that it is a sign of God’s generosity that He allows things to depend partly on us.  Already we see here one of Chrysostom’s most characteristic themes.  That God allows us an independent role is not a kind of weakness or negligence on His part, but a sign of His goodness.  An analogy would be that of a parent who is capable of doing everything for his child, but instead waits for the child to act, gauging his own action in response to the child’s commitment and zeal.  Does not ordinary human experience suggest that this is often how love works?  Only by being allowed to make his own contribution can the child grow into a mature adult, one capable of freely returning his parent’s love. 
> ...


http://www.russianorthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html

----------


## TER

> Scripture is the only authority for the believer to find sound doctrine.  If the traditionalists do not include scripture when referring to their church fathers, of what benefit is it to others?


But my friend, it was the Church Fathers moostraks is relying on and being instructed by who defended, copied, and canonized the Scriptures.  And it is not the Scriptures which is the 'pillar and foundation of the truth' but the Church which provides the correct interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures.  The Scriptures are bar none the ultimate source of authority in written form, revealed by God to its writers by the Holy Spirit.  No Christian would deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures.  But the Holy Scriptures are but one part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, namely the written tradition.  And it is through the Church which Christ established that is the authority on sound doctrine, and the Holy Scriptures as an indispensable tool in this mission of baptizing all nations.  But without the lens and wisdom of the Church, then like the Ethiopian eunich, we do not understand, or worse, we start our own innovative and false doctrines such did the Arians and all the others who strayed from the Church, all while using the same written Scriptures!

So sometimes it is difficult for an Orthodox Christian to discuss matters of doctrine with someone from the Reformed tradition because while we use the same Gospels and Scriptures (actually, almost the same, because the Reformers rejected several of the books of the canon), the Orthodox do not approach the Scriptures outside of time and apart from the Church which wrote, compiled, and defended them.

----------


## moostraks

> Excellent post moostraks.  The truth is, we all follow traditions and have chosen for ourselves who will be our Church Fathers and instructors in the faith.  The fact that you turn to the early Church Fathers puts you in very good company, for these godly men and saints of the Church have already done the work for us by the grace of the Holy Spirit to defend and faithfully pass down the apostolic faith.


 Thank you for the kind words. You have explained my reasoning excellently in regards to choosing one's tradition.

----------


## moostraks

> Scripture is the only authority for the believer to find sound doctrine.  If the traditionalists do not include scripture when referring to their church fathers, of what benefit is it to others?


Where do you believe you got the Scripture selections from that you choose to esteem? The article you discounted as irrelevant is pertinent to any understanding of what Scriptures are as they did not just fall from the sky in their current form but have been chosen and then were pared down by certain individuals.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The article you discounted as irrelevant is pertinent to any understanding of what Scriptures are as they did not just fall from the sky in their current form but have been chosen and then were pared down by certain individuals.


There is another belief you share with atheists.   You both believe that the books of the Bible were "chosen" and then "pared down by certain individuals".

Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.

----------


## Deborah K

> There is another belief you share with atheists.   You both believe that the books of the Bible were "chosen" and then "pared down by certain individuals".
> 
> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.


You don't have the authority to proclaim who is and who isn't a Christian.  Based on everything I've read from you and other "Calvies" lately, I believe you are the ones teaching a false doctrine.  I've never believed before that any Christian religion was false, but you people have changed my mind.

----------


## Terry1

> There is another belief you share with atheists.   You both believe that the books of the Bible were "chosen" and then "pared down by certain individuals".
> 
> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.


*James 2:
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone*  James is telling you that you have no faith and that it's dead Sola.  If your god is in control of that---he's sure doing a really crappy job with the Calvinists who don't believe in works of faith or repentance.

----------


## TER

> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.


Sola, which Christians believe that the Canon was discovered and not chosen?  I have never heard of such a thing and it is not something I have ever heard or read anywhere else.  Is this your teaching?  When you say that this is what 'we' Christians believe, who is the 'we' you are referring to?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *James 2:
> 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone*  James is telling you that you have no faith and that it's dead Sola.  If your god is in control of that---he's sure doing a really crappy job with the Calvinists who don't believe in works of faith or repentance.


I'm going to create a thread very soon that is going to deal with James 2.  It is going to blow your mind.

----------


## Terry1

> You don't have the authority to proclaim who is and who isn't a Christian.  Based on everything I've read from you and other "Calvies" lately, I believe you are the ones teaching a false doctrine.  I've never believed before that any Christian religion was false, but you people have changed my mind.


+ reps!

----------


## TER

> I'm going to create a thread very soon that is going to deal with James 2.  It is going to blow your mind.


If you mean it will blow our minds with the level of mental gymnastics and invented misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures, then I don't doubt it.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm going to create a thread very soon that is going to deal with James 2.  It is going to blow your mind.


I doubt it will blow anyone's mind Sola, but I'm sure it'll be some great comic relief.

----------


## purplechoe

> It's because of the point Terry is trying to make.
> 
> She keeps saying that James refers to faith becoming dead, and then using that to prove that it must be possible for someone with saving faith to lose that faith. But James never does refer to faith becoming dead.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly can't know, since it's for God to judge the genuineness of that person's faith. But there are two possibilities. Either the person really does have genuine, living faith, in which case he does not fit what James is talking about, or he does not have genuine living faith, but only claims to have faith while his faith is actually dead, in which case he does fit what James is talking about.
> 
> But the question is, can a person with genuine living faith lose that genuine living faith. Nowhere does James imply that he can.
> ...


This person cannot be serious, right? Please tell me that this is some kind of joke on your part and you're just performing a scholastic exorcise in this thread? Even coming to the point of arguing that might and will mean the same thing?

If it's for real, these are some scary individuals...

----------


## erowe1

> This person cannot be serious, right? Please tell me that this is some kind of joke on your part and you're just performing a scholastic exorcise in this thread? Even coming to the point of arguing that might and will mean the same thing?
> 
> If it's for real, these are some scary individuals...


I'm for real.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with what I said?

----------


## erowe1

> If you mean it will blow our minds with the level of mental gymnastics and invented misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures, then I don't doubt it.


Why did you say this?

----------


## erowe1

> Sola, which Christians believe that the Canon was discovered and not chosen?


That's the historic view of the Church. You can see this view expressed in pretty much every important statement on the canon. See, for example, Melito of Sardis, the Muratorian canon, Origen, the Easter Letter of Athanasius, or the Council of Carthage of 397.

I'm surprised you disagree. To my knowledge Eastern Orthodox Christianity doesn't point to any historic decision making where the canon was chosen by anyone other than God himself, who inspired each of the books when it was written. Each of these inspired books has been continuously recognized as holy scripture from that initial moment of its inspired authorship. From then on, it was all a matter of propagating them and recognizing the authority that they already had.

----------


## Nang

[QUOTE=TER;5451570]  




> But my friend, it was the Church Fathers moostraks is relying on and being instructed by who defended, copied, and canonized the Scriptures.





I know . . . but by doing so, she is trusting in sinful men, instead of being instructed by God and God’s word.







> And it is not the Scriptures which is the 'pillar and foundation of the truth' but the Church which provides the correct interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are bar none the ultimate source of authority in written form, revealed by God to its writers by the Holy Spirit. No Christian would deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures. But the Holy Scriptures are but one part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, namely the written tradition.





The scriptures are the Word of God and God the Son is the Word.  He alone (Solus Christus) is the foundation of His church, and it is God the Holy Spirit alone who gives members of His church understanding of the Scriptures.  They must have primary authority in the lives of believers (Sola Scriptura).






 


> And it is through the Church which Christ established that is the authority on sound doctrine, and the Holy Scriptures as an indispensable tool in this mission of baptizing all nations. But without the lens and wisdom of the Church, then like the Ethiopian eunich, we do not understand, or worse, we start our own innovative and false doctrines such did the Arians and all the others who strayed from the Church, all while using the same written Scriptures!





I believe the earliest churches worshipped according to sound doctrine by the Holy Spirit providing to them the testimonies of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul, Timothy, etc. years prior to the formal canonization (and bad additions of books) in Rome.  It was according to which writings the earliest churches most used that really determined the canon, not the traditions of Rome.





> So sometimes it is difficult for an Orthodox Christian to discuss matters of doctrine with someone from the Reformed tradition because while we use the same Gospels and Scriptures (actually, almost the same, because the Reformers rejected several of the books of the canon), the Orthodox do not approach the Scriptures outside of time and apart from the Church which wrote, compiled, and defended them.





Indeed . . .


The first Reformers freed believers from the oppression of these traditions  of men that grew over the centuries, and brought them back to worship according to the words of God, rather than the dictates of sinful magistrates.


For the teachings and traditions of all men prove to be fallible; but the Word of God is infallible.

So I cannot accept the teachings that men possess a free will according to your church traditions, but insist it cannot be believed unless it  be validated and supported by scripture, alone.

----------


## purplechoe

> I'm for real.
> 
> What am I missing? Do you disagree with what I said?


Listening to you talk about Christianity is like listening to Hannity on the radio arguing that he's a libertarian...

----------


## purplechoe

How about to end this whole silly discussion, lets throw out Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and the whole fruit thing. Free will had to be involved there. You people cannot be that arrogant in your stupidity to come here and tell us that God pulled everyones strings and is just sitting back and just watching us like some kind of sick slave owner while all of us just go about our daily lives.

What's next, are you going to tell us that we don't really exist? That we're just figments of your imagination? Listening to you people talk about Christianity is like listening to a lawyer talk about love...

----------


## Nang

> How about to end this whole silly discussion, lets throw out Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and the whole fruit thing. Free will had to be involved there. You people cannot be that arrogant in your stupidity to come here and tell us that God pulled everyones strings and is just sitting back and just watching us like some kind of sick slave owner while all of us just go about our daily lives.
> 
> What's next, are you going to tell us that we don't really exist? That we're just figments of your imagination? Listening to you people talk about Christianity is like listening to a lawyer talk about love...



Don Quixote never could face reality  . . .

----------


## Terry1

> How about to end this whole silly discussion, lets throw out Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and the whole fruit thing. Free will had to be involved there. You people cannot be that arrogant in your stupidity to come here and tell us that God pulled everyones strings and is just sitting back and just watching us like some kind of sick slave owner while all of us just go about our daily lives.
> 
> What's next, are you going to tell us that we don't really exist? That we're just figments of your imagination? Listening to you people talk about Christianity is like listening to a lawyer talk about love...


They like the puppet sheep have gone astray--

----------


## purplechoe

> Don Quixote never could face reality  . . .


Some said the same about Ron Paul...

Don Quixote did face reality in the end...

----------


## TER

> I know . . . but by doing so, she is trusting in sinful men, instead of being instructed by God and God’s word.


These sinful men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that God Himself was working through these men just as He did with the Prophets and Apostles before them.  The Holy Spirit did not stop working in the island of Patmos when St. John wrote the Book of Revelation, but has always guided and protected the Church which is Theanthropic (a divine-human organism).  Just as you trust in St. Paul or St. Luke because of the Holy Spirit working in these sinful men, likewise moostraks and all those countless others who have confirmed these men to be saints can trust the Church Fathers.




> [COLOR=#232323]The scriptures are the Word of God and God the Son is the Word.  He alone (Solus Christus) is the foundation of His church, and it is God the Holy Spirit alone who gives members of His church understanding of the Scriptures.  They must have primary authority in the lives of believers (Sola Scriptura)


The Scriptures are not the Word of God.  Christ alone is the Word of God.  The Bible does not save from eternal death.  Christ alone saves us. Bibliolatry is something we should be cautious of.  Not to say that this is something that you are guilty of but it is something I have seen in others from the Reformed tradition.

And you are correct that Christ is the foundation of the Church and the Holy Spirit who gives its members understanding of the Scriptures.  That is why the faithful look towards those who have been filled with the Holy Spirit to give the correct understanding.  I urge you to read about the lives of the saints and the Church Fathers whom some are quick to denounce as worthless heretical sinners. 




> I believe the earliest churches worshipped according to sound doctrine by the Holy Spirit providing to them the testimonies of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul, Timothy, etc. years prior to the formal canonization (and bad additions of books) in Rome.  It was according to which writings the earliest churches most used that really determined the canon, not the traditions of Rome.


The claim of 'bad additions of books in Rome' is unsubstantiated.  Can you provide any source or information other then from those fathers in your own Reformed tradition which would consider the books canonized by the early Church to be 'bad additions'?  They are considered 'bad additions' by the Reformers because they squarely contradict some of the doctrines espoused by the Reformers.   This is a self-serving alteration of the historical witness and truth of the Christian Church. 




> The first Reformers freed believers from the oppression of these traditions  of men that grew over the centuries, and brought them back to worship according to the words of God, rather than the dictates of sinful magistrates.


Except, the worship of the early worship (and incidentally also the worship of the future Kingdom as hinted at in the Book of Revelation) most closely and most clearly can be found not in the Reformed tradition but in the Orthodox Church, which has held on to the worship of the early saints.  The Reformers did right to reject the papal abuses of the Catholic Church, but they went overboard and ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.   They should have went into schism on account of the abuses, instead of redesigning an entire new religion.




> For the teachings and traditions of all men prove to be fallible; but the Word of God is infallible.


Men's interpretations are fallible.  Mine and yours included.  The difference of our interpretations and their reliability therefore does not hinge on us simply saying the Holy Spirit gave us this knowledge (for both you and I can say the same thing), or simply to fall back to verses in Scripture for proofs (for the Arians and the Nestorians did the same), but rather whether our interpretation is in accordance to the Church which the Apostles established and which has been united in one faith and sacramental eucharist communion since the beginning, sharing from the same cup the same Body of Christ.  



> So I cannot accept the teachings that men possess a free will according to your church traditions, but insist it cannot be believed unless it  be validated and supported by scripture, alone.


So then you will believe men to not have free will according to your own church traditions.  You are of course free to do so.  I prefer the Fathers of the Church over the Reformers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's the historic view of the Church. You can see this view expressed in pretty much every important statement on the canon. See, for example, Melito of Sardis, the Muratorian canon, Origen, the Easter Letter of Athanasius, or the Council of Carthage of 397.
> 
> I'm surprised you disagree. To my knowledge Eastern Orthodox Christianity doesn't point to any historic decision making where the canon was chosen by anyone other than God himself, who inspired each of the books when it was written. Each of these inspired books has been continuously recognized as holy scripture from that initial moment of its inspired authorship. From then on, it was all a matter of propagating them and recognizing the authority that they already had.


Absolutely.

----------


## moostraks

> How about to end this whole silly discussion, lets throw out Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and the whole fruit thing. Free will had to be involved there. You people cannot be that arrogant in your stupidity to come here and tell us that God pulled everyones strings and is just sitting back and just watching us like some kind of sick slave owner while all of us just go about our daily lives.
> 
> What's next, are you going to tell us that we don't really exist? That we're just figments of your imagination? Listening to you people talk about Christianity is like listening to a lawyer talk about love...


You are right on target because one of the fathers of this position is John Calvin who trained as a lawyer.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You don't have the authority to proclaim who is and who isn't a Christian.  Based on everything I've read from you and other "Calvies" lately, I believe you are the ones teaching a false doctrine.  I've *never believed before that any Christian religion was false*, but you people have changed my mind.


How can you claim that all professing Christians, who are making mutually contradictory claims, are all "not false."



> There is another belief you share with atheists.   You both believe that the books of the Bible were "chosen" and then "pared down by certain individuals".
> 
> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  *You aren't a Christian.*   You don't believe what we believe.


Considering your statements in  the James White v Marc Carpenter thread, combined with your statements about assurance, you aren't a Christian yourself.

----------


## Terry1

> So I cannot accept the teachings that men possess a free will according to your church traditions, but insist it cannot be believed unless it  be validated and supported by scripture, alone.


Calvinists don't accept the scripture as it's written and can not support their belief with it unless they redefine scripture to support their belief as in "all doesn't mean all" and "world doesn't mean world" or that James 2 isn't saying that faith alone without works is dead.  

These aren't just small words the Calvinists are attempting to redefine by totally corrupting the true context of those scriptures.  What the Calvinists have done by perverting these scriptures is completely changing Gods plan and purpose for mankind.

I'm completely convinced that satan had a hand in creating this doctrine to deceive and steal the souls of those who get caught in this web of lies and deceit..   



..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are right on target because one of the fathers of this position is John Calvin who trained as a lawyer.



Paul was a tentmaker.  So what excuse do you have when I quote him?

----------


## purplechoe

Since Calvin was a lawyer I find the whole discussion to be a legalistic battle which misses the "spirit" of the law, it's like a philosopher getting so lost in his philosophizing that he ends up loosing his humanity...

----------


## moostraks

> I know . . . but by doing so, she is trusting in sinful men, instead of being instructed by God and Gods word...
> The first Reformers freed believers from the oppression of these traditions  of men that grew over the centuries, and brought them back to worship according to the words of God, rather than the dictates of sinful magistrates...
> For the teachings and traditions of all men prove to be fallible; but the Word of God is infallible.
> So I cannot accept the teachings that men possess a free will according to your church traditions, but insist it cannot be believed unless it  be validated and supported by scripture, alone.


SMH...TER responded to most of this sufficiently but I am going to point out it was _you_ that earlier today suggested I educate myself with Luther's book so you are getting your traditions from men just as you have proposed here in citing the reformer's more recent inclination to cut out portions of the text that disagreed with the new teachings then claim they have "brought them back to worship according to the words of God". It is convenient to chop out parts and then accuse heresy when another wants to reclaim the texts that had been in usage until Calvin and Luther got out their scissors and eviscerated the text.  As I stated you and I would not be able to discuss things because of the fact that your starting point is much too recent and you discount the positions of the very men who carried out the workings of the church in its infancy. I am not going to start with the positions of Luther or Calvin who both have the blood of men on their hands and did not preach a gospel of peace. I do not think they grasped the first two commandments that were told as the greatest commandments and their fruit is evident in the bloodshed left in their wake. So yes, I chose men, just as you have, but with my goal being to get as close to the early church and its understanding as I have found humanly possible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Considering your statements in  the James White v Marc Carpenter thread, combined with your statements about assurance, you aren't a Christian yourself.


Is this the tolerant Calvinist thing?  I don't know if Calvinists who tell Arminians that they are saved are saved themselves.  There is cause to doubt it.  I see good arguments to the contrary.

----------


## moostraks

> Since Calvin was a lawyer I find the whole discussion to be a legalistic battle which misses the "spirit" of the law, it's like a philosopher getting so lost in his philosophizing that he ends up loosing his humanity...


This has been my experience as well...

----------


## Nang

> The Scriptures are not the Word of God.



May God have mercy upon your soul.

Our attempt at communication has now ended.

----------


## Nang

> Is this the tolerant Calvinist thing?  I don't know if Calvinists who tell Arminians that they are saved are saved themselves.  There is cause to doubt it.  I see good arguments to the contrary.


 I think he meant it (I hope) as a hypothetical and exemplary argument to make a point, SF.

----------


## Brett85

> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.


-Rep.

----------


## TER

> May God have mercy upon your soul.
> 
> Our attempt at communication has now ended.


Thank you for the prayer. May God have mercy on my soul, for I am a great sinner.  I am sorry that you have ended our communication.  May the Logos and Word of God (Who is not a book but rather the Incarnate Son of God, the Theanthropos Jesus Christ) bless us all!

----------


## Nang

> SMH...TER responded to most of this sufficiently but I am going to point out it was _you_ that earlier today suggested I educate myself with Luther's book so you are getting your traditions from men


No, Luther's work is an exposition of scripture, not commentary like your sources . . . but you will never know that, if you do not read it, will you?

----------


## Deborah K

> How can you claim that all professing Christians, who are making mutually contradictory claims, are all "not false."


Because I believe John 3:15, and I never felt the need to discern the various protestant belief systems.  




> Considering your statements in  the James White v Marc Carpenter thread, combined with your statements about assurance, you aren't a Christian yourself


  Are they eating their own now??

----------


## Nang

> I am sorry that you have ended our communication.


Deep down, you are probably relieved, for now you do not have to provide scripture to prove free will is taught in the bible, as I asked.

----------


## moostraks

> There is another belief you share with atheists.   You both believe that the books of the Bible were "chosen" and then "pared down by certain individuals".
> 
> Christians believe that the Canon was discovered, not chosen.  You aren't a Christian.   You don't believe what we believe.


 Did it make you feel better to play your role as god today? You are completely right when you say I don't believe much of what you believe. The few things we may have in common you tell me I do not believe so pretty useless convincing someone who knows my mind better than I do. Shout it from the rooftops if it makes you feel better!  The only thing you prove with these posts is your petty, mean spirited attitude towards those who don't lick your boots.

----------


## TER

> Deep down, you are probably relieved, for now you do not have to provide scripture to prove free will is taught in the bible, as I asked.


I am only relieved because I was supposed to start my prayer rule 20 minutes ago!  I do hope we can talk again.  A blessed and peaceful night to you Nang.  I have absolutely no hard feelings towards you at all and I  hope and pray you can forgive me for anything I have said that has offended you.  Good night friend and may God bless you always.

----------


## Brett85

> Thank you for the prayer. May God have mercy on my soul, for I am a great sinner.  I am sorry that you have ended our communication.  May the Logos and Word of God (Who is not a book but rather the Incarnate Son of God, the Theanthropos Jesus Christ) bless us all!


The Calvinists seem to have a big problem with civility.  It's a trait that most of them at least seem to lack.

----------


## Deborah K

> Paul was a tentmaker.  So what excuse do you have when I quote him?


You're going to compare Calvin to St. Paul?  Really??

----------


## moostraks

> No, Luther's work is an exposition of scripture, not commentary like your sources . . . but you will never know that, if you do not read it, will you?


Just so's we is on the same page:
ex·po·si·tion noun \ˌek-spə-ˈzi-shən\
: the act of explaining something : clear explanation

: a public show or exhibition

Full Definition of EXPOSITION

1
:  a setting forth of the meaning or purpose (as of a writing)
2
a :  discourse or an example of it designed to convey information or explain what is difficult to understand
b (1) :  the first part of a musical composition in sonata form in which the thematic material of the movement is presented (2) :  the opening section of a fugue
3
:  a public exhibition or show
— ex·po·si·tion·al  adjective
 See exposition defined for English-language learners »
See exposition defined for kids »
Examples of EXPOSITION

The subject requires some exposition.
a clear exposition of his ideas
the great Paris Exposition of 1899
This is not an easy book, and the reader may find the layers of detail challenging. There are long expositions of the knotty tangles of monarchical lineage, and the necessary chronicle of historical events occasionally consumes the novel's narrative drive. —Lucy Lethbridge, Commonweal, 23 Oct. 2009

Ya mean kinda like the writings of the early church fathers are? Alrighty there...So we would be right back to the fact that I do not find Luther a man worthy of teaching me about faith due to his abysmal record when it comes to love and the fruits he bore and I chose men closer to the time of the early church which you discredit based upon why?

----------


## moostraks

> Because I believe John 3:15, and I never felt the need to discern the various protestant belief systems.  
> 
> 
> 
>   Are they eating their own now??


In some respects, yes...

----------


## Terry1

> May God have mercy upon your soul.
> 
> Our attempt at communication has now ended.


Don't be worried about TER's soul, I'm sure God's got him well covered, it's your own soul you should be worried about because TER is absolutely correct when he said that " Christ alone is the Word of God. The Bible does not save from eternal death. Christ alone saves us." 

The written word can't save you, nor is the written word inerrant.  Spiritual clarity and truth come from the Lord Jesus Christ and through His Holy Spirit.

----------


## RJB

> The Scriptures are not the Word of God.


They are indeed the inspired Word of God.  The scriptures are the truth, but the truth needs it's pillars and foundation to be fully realized.  Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

----------


## Dr.3D

> They are indeed the Word of God.  The scriptures are the truth, but the truth needs it's pillars and foundation to be fully realized.  Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."





> _NRS_ *John 1:1* In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Seems the scriptures are a bit late for that title.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're going to compare Calvin to St. Paul?  Really??


No. I'm not comparing them.  I'm not a Calvinist.  But when Paul argues for the doctrines of grace in his epistles, you have no excuse not to believe it.

----------


## Deborah K

> No. I'm not comparing them.  I'm not a Calvinist.  But when Paul argues for the doctrines of grace in his epistles, you have no excuse not to believe it.


You're not a Calvie?  What are you then?  Give me a label, since you're so into labels.

----------


## purplechoe

> This has been my experience as well...


It's almost like listening to someone with a superiority complex, like a Ku Klux Klan member or a Jewish person getting up on his chosen pedestal. The way Calvin lived his life speaks for itself...

----------


## RJB

> Seems the scriptures are a bit late for that title.


This topic deserves a thread of it's own.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're not a Calvie?  What are you then?  Give me a label, since you're so into labels.


Christian.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They are indeed the Word of God.  The scriptures are the truth, but the truth needs it's pillars and foundation to be fully realized.  
> 
> Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in Gods household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."



In that verse, the church is NOT the truth.  Don't you see how "the truth" and "the church" are differentiated?  The church is a pillar.  A pillar is something that holds something up.  That is what the church does...it holds up the truth of the Scriptures for the world.

----------


## Deborah K

> Christian.


You're a Christian....but I am not?

----------


## Brett85

> You're a Christian....but I am not?


I wouldn't get into a debate with him about that if I were you.  He's completely unreasonable and is just here to divide people.  I think if someone visited this sub forum for the first time, they could tell that you're a Christian because of the way that you act, and there's no evidence at all from the way he acts and treats other people that he's a Christian.

----------


## RJB

> In that verse, the church is NOT the truth.  Don't you see how "the truth" and "the church" are differentiated?  The church is a pillar.  A pillar is something that holds something up.  That is what the church does...it holds up the truth of the Scriptures for the world.


I said I wasn't going to engage with you, but I just want to point out that you restated what I said.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I wouldn't get into a debate with him about that if I were you.  He's completely unreasonable and is just here to divide people.  I think if someone visited this sub forum for the first time, they could tell that you're a Christian because of the way that you act, and there's no evidence at all from the way he acts and treats other people that he's a Christian.


As is mentioned in the scriptures.



> _NRS_ *Matthew 7:16*   You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?

----------


## Deborah K

> I wouldn't get into a debate with him about that if I were you.  He's completely unreasonable and is just here to divide people.  I think if someone visited this sub forum for the first time, they could tell that you're a Christian because of the way that you act, and there's no evidence at all from the way he acts and treats other people that he's a Christian.


Actually I think he's done a fairly good job making everyone aware of the difference between the wheat and the chaff.  Just reading what these people write has made me realize a few things.  But I understand what you're saying.  I was trying to be rhetorical.

----------


## Nang

> *
> The written word can't save you, nor is the written word inerrant.  Spiritual clarity and truth come from the Lord Jesus Christ and through His Holy Spirit.*



I am not going to respond to the poster who put this up, but *to the spirit* behind it, and
simply point out to others that *the evil of unbelief in the written Word of God,* appears to be rampant among many who profess to be saved.

If the objective truths contained in the bible are not true, and supposedly only the subjective declarations of sinful creatures defines salvation, then there is no actual foundation for believing in God at all.

Just believe in the perversions put forth on the internet . . .and disregard the bible . . .

Judgment Day will reveal where such nonsense will get you!

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I am not going to respond to the poster who put this up, but *to the spirit* behind it, and
> simply point out to others that *the evil of unbelief in the written Word of God,* appears to be rampant among many who profess to be saved.
> 
> If the objective truths contained in the bible are not true, and supposedly only the subjective declarations of sinful creatures defines salvation, then there is no actual foundation for believing in God at all.
> 
> Just believe in the perversions put forth on the internet . . .and disregard the bible . . .
> 
> Judgment Day will reveal where such nonsense will get you!


Nang, you are hereby banished to the centaurs and lapiths by the decree of persons of quality, and accomplishment.

lol

----------


## Nang

> Nang, you are hereby banished to the centaurs and lapiths by the decree of persons of quality, and accomplishment.
> 
> lol


They think that of themselves, and attempt to judge me, but in vain.

lol

----------


## Deborah K

> They think that of themselves, and attempt to judge me, but in vain.
> 
> lol


Pot meet Kettle.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hm. No way I'm reading almost 800 postings. It looks like it may be a whopper doozy of a thread though. Any chance on a brief once over? I've been away. It looks interesting by the thread title.

----------


## RJB

> Hm. No way I'm reading almost 800 postings. It looks like it may be a whopper doozy of a thread though. Any chance on a brief once over? I've been away. It looks interesting by the thread title.


Lots of changes of subjects.  Read any of the hundred other threads and you'll get the gist.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Lots of changes of subjects.  Read any of the hundred other threads and you'll get the gist.


Yeah? Figgers. Oh well. Thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're going to compare Calvin to St. Paul?  Really??


Sola doesn't even think Calvin was regenerate...  (BTW: Nang, the reason I asked you for that Calvin quote a couple weeks ago was for Sola)




> Christian.


Yet you have yet to explain how you actually KNOW you're a Christian.  I've pointed out that based on your comments on assurance combined with your positions with regards to the peace-speaking doctrine that you don't actually know that you're a Christian, and thus, by your own logic, you aren't one.  You have yet to respond to me despite the fact that I've pointed this out multiple times.




> I wouldn't get into a debate with him about that if I were you.  He's completely unreasonable and is just here to divide people.  I think if someone visited this sub forum for the first time, they could tell that you're a Christian because of the way that you act, and there's no evidence at all from the way he acts and treats other people that he's a Christian.


There are lots of non-Christians on here that act in a nice way.  How you act on an internet board doesn't tell much either way, honestly.  Its really hard to catch the love or lack thereof behind a harsh statement on the internet.

----------


## Terry1

> They think that of themselves, and attempt to judge me, but in vain.
> 
> lol


Sort of poetic justice isn't it seeing you came in here judging everyone else who didn't agree with you.

Haven't you been attempting to teach men in here?  You and Louise called me a "wicked troll and an abomination" for the same.  Shouldn't you be heeding you're own delusional advice then?

Because I have good news for you---as joint heirs in Christ---all children of God are called to be ministers of the Gospel of Christ.  What you witness is not the Gospel, but the devils warped, corrupted and perverted version of it.

*
2 Corinthians 6:
4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses*

----------


## Nang

> Sola doesn't even think Calvin was regenerate...


Wow . . .that is shocking.

I would need to hear his reasoning from his own mouth, to accept that.

----------


## erowe1

> there's no evidence at all from the way he acts and treats other people that he's a Christian.


You mean because he says things like what you're saying in this quote?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola doesn't even think Calvin was regenerate...  (BTW: Nang, the reason I asked you for that Calvin quote a couple weeks ago.


I don't know if he was.  I do know that there are quotes from him where it was clear he was teaching universal atonement.   That makes me wonder (although it seems like toward the end of his life he became more consistent on limited atonement).

Martin Luther taught baptismal regeneration and universal atonement.   This greatly saddened me when I started studying this.

----------


## Terry1

> You mean because he says things like what you're saying in this quote?


He didn't say he wasn't a Christian, just that he saw no evidence himself of it, which I've said the very same thing as the word of God says..."you will know them by their fruits".  The only way to obtain "fruits" is via a "work of faith" in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  Sola doesn't believe that, same as you and Nag, so where's the evidence other than the lip service that annihilates every scripture indicating that we are accountable for what we do in this life?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He didn't say he wasn't a Christian, just that he saw no evidence himself of it, which I've said the very same thing as the word of God says..."you will know them by their fruits".  The only way to obtain "fruits" is via a "work of faith" in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  Sola doesn't believe that, same as you and Nag, so where's the evidence other than the lip service that annihilates every scripture indicating that we are accountable for what we do in this life?


Hahaha...."work of faith".  You're such an idiot. I'm sorry to be so rude, but after pages and pages where you could not prove your phrase from the Bible, you still use it.  Unreal.

ps.  If I kept "paraphrasing" something in quotes when I couldn't back it up with Scripture,  I would deserve to be called an idiot too. Even worse.

----------


## Terry1

> I am not going to respond to the poster who put this up, but *to the spirit* behind it, and
> simply point out to others that *the evil of unbelief in the written Word of God,* appears to be rampant among many who profess to be saved.
> 
> If the objective truths contained in the bible are not true, and supposedly only the subjective declarations of sinful creatures defines salvation, then there is no actual foundation for believing in God at all.
> 
> Just believe in the perversions put forth on the internet . . .and disregard the bible . . .
> 
> Judgment Day will reveal where such nonsense will get you!


Then by your own common logic,(that you seem to lack), you should understand that the written word on pages is not magical to anyone who attempts to read it.  It's always relative to whatever their interpretation and frame of reference may be, which is always *errant* absent the Spirit of the Lords divine intercession.  Therefore---the written word is not inerrant and it's impossible for so many diffeing written interpretations to be so without the divine infusion of the Holy Spirit to give clarity to the believer.  Therefore----TER is absolutely correct that the Word is God and not a book.

After all---you are a glaring example that obviously the written word is totally errant and flawed absent the Spirit of the Lord.

----------


## Brett85

> You mean because he says things like what you're saying in this quote?


No, I didn't say that he or anyone else who posts here is unsaved and is going to hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then by your own common logic,(that you seem to lack), you should understand that the written word on pages is not magical to anyone who attempts to read it.  It's always relative to whatever their interpretation and frame of reference may be, which is always *errant* absent the Spirit of the Lords divine intercession.  Therefore---the written word is not inerrant and it's impossible for so many diffeing written interpretations to be so without the divine infusion of the Holy Spirit to give clarity to the believer.  
> 
> After all---you are a glaring example thaf'st obviously the written word is totally errant and flawed absent the Spirit of the Lord.



Wow. So you deny the inerrancy of the Bible too?  Haha..it's just one after the other with you, isn't it?

----------


## Brett85

> Wow. So you deny the inerrancy of the Bible too?  Haha..it's just one after the other with you, isn't it?


Well, Freedom Fanatic said this morning that the verse at the end of Mark regarding Baptism shouldn't be in the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, Freedom Fanatic said this morning that the verse at the end of Mark regarding Baptism shouldn't be in the Bible.


What does that have to do with inerrancy?

----------


## Brett85

> What does that have to do with inerrancy?


If someone believes that a part of the Bible is incorrect and shouldn't be there, wouldn't they believe that it's errant?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know if he was.  I do know that there are quotes from him where it was clear he was teaching universal atonement.   That makes me wonder (although it seems like toward the end of his life he became more consistent on limited atonement).


I guess the question for you is (And I asked you here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arpenter/page7) in your mind, doe it actually matter?  Based on the position I think you used to take, if he ever came around to the monergist position, he'd have been saved, even if he didn't know he was unsaved when he took the other position.  But now you don't even seem sure about that.  



> Martin Luther taught baptismal regeneration and universal atonement.   This greatly saddened me when I started studying this.


Just out of curiosity, WHEN did he teach those things?  Did he teach them for all of his life, or just when he first started breaking away from Rome?

That would be REALLY sad, in my mind.  Baptismal regeneration is a deal breaker in my mind.  If I ever do study it though, I'll probably keep it to myself.  I see very little point, generally, in trying to judge anyone who's already dead.  I've stated before that Arminians aren't qualified for pastoral positions, and I get John Wesley thrown at me.  I usually point out that, while I'm not really interested in basing my position on one man who died over a hundred years ago, I have to question whether a man who called Calvinism the "doctrines of demons" could really be saved.  




> Wow . . .that is shocking.
> 
> I would need to hear his reasoning from his own mouth, to accept that.


Sola clarified (above) to say that he doesn't know.  But, he believes that those who espouse universal atonement are unregenerate, and he believes (or at least, he did believe) that Calvin espoused unlimited atonement.  Maybe if you share the quote you shared with me a couple weeks ago directly, that might help convince him.  He found his proof on OTC.




> Christian.


Once again I'll ask you how you know you're a Christian: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arpenter/page7

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If someone believes that a part of the Bible is incorrect and shouldn't be there, wouldn't they believe that it's errant?


Have you ever looked at the little footnotes at the bottom of the page in your Bible, TC?  What do they say?

----------


## Terry1

> Hahaha...."work of faith".  You're such an idiot. I'm sorry to be so rude, but after pages and pages where you could not prove your phrase from the Bible, you still use it.  Unreal.
> 
> ps.  If I kept "paraphrasing" something in quotes when I couldn't back it up with Scripture,  I would deserve to be called an idiot too. Even worse.


Is this good enough or do you need more?

Revelation 20:
 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead *were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

*13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and *they were judged every man according to their works.
*
1 Thessalonians 1:3 
 Remembering *without ceasing your work of faith*, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the *work of faith with power
*

James 2:
* 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*

James 2:18 
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will *shew thee my faith by my works*.

.James 2:20 
But wilt thou know, *O vain man, that faith without works is dead*?

.Philippians 2:12 
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, *work out your own salvation with fear and trembling*

----------


## Brett85

> Is this good enough or do you need more?
> 
> Revelation 20:
>  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead *were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
> 
> *13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and *they were judged every man according to their works.
> *
> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering *without ceasing your work of faith*, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> ...


It's almost comedic the way that he has no response at all and just ignores these verses and just resorts to insults.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What does that have to do with inerrancy?


I should clarify that I don't actually know this.  I tend to think its true based on a combination of what I read about it in Macarthur's commentary, and the fact that, quite frankly, that verse seems like it teaches heresy.  From what I understand, it was likely written in the 2nd century and added later.  But, I'm not saying that that's actually definitively true.  If you look this up at all (Assuming you haven't) I know that the last 11 verses of Mark, the first 11 of John chapter 8, one of the verses in Acts chapter 8, and 1 John 5:7 are all disputed by scholars.  

Oddly enough, Marc Carpenter and David Bishop have used this verse to prove that all who do not believe the gospel are lost.  I do not believe Mark 16:16 teaches this at all.  Of course, I agree that those who don't believe the gospel are lost, but I get that from Romans 1:16, not Mark 16:16.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have you ever looked at the little footnotes at the bottom of the page in your Bible, TC?  What do they say?


OK, you are aware of the controversy here.  Good.




> Is this good enough or do you need more?
> 
> Revelation 20:
>  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead *were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
> 
> *13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and *they were judged every man according to their works.*


*
*
Yes, we are judged by our works.  The standard is perfect obedience.  Since none can obey perfectly, the only way anyone can be saved is by trusting in Christ alone to save them.  Then, Christ's works become our works by imputation.  Then, and only then, will we be judged righteous.



> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering *without ceasing your work of faith*, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;


I don't see how this is even arguably saying that works of faith are prerequesites in order to be saved.



> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
>  Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the *work of faith with power
> *


Ditto.


> James 2:
> * 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*
> 
> James 2:18 
> Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will *shew thee my faith by my works*.
> 
> .James 2:20 
> But wilt thou know, *O vain man, that faith without works is dead*?


James chapter 2 is probably the best argument you have.  I think its been addressed the best it can be on these forums.  I can understand how someone could read James without the context of the rest of scripture and think James is teaching works.  But, in the context of the rest of scripture, its clear that this cannot be teaching conditionalism.  In fact, James already implicitly accepts faith alone before he seems to refute it.  He talks of a faith THAT HAS NO DEEDS and asks if "such faith" can save.  He is implying that a true faith, one that does have deeds (ie. a TRUE claim) does save, before he even starts explaining why the fake, workless faith does not save.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know how many times I've already posted these scriptures.
> 
> 
> *
> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
> Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:[/SIZE]*



Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## Terry1

> It's almost comedic the way that he has no response at all and just ignores these verses and just resorts to insults.


He's always rushing into battle with his "holy five point doctrine", but the only reason it's so holy is because it's been shot down so many times he's has nothing left but insults.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, we are judged by our works.  The standard is perfect obedience.  Since none can obey perfectly, the only way anyone can be saved is by trusting in Christ alone to save them.  Then, Christ's works become our works by imputation.  Then, and only then, will we be judged righteous.


I don't think she's saying that you have to be perfect to get to heaven, but just that our deeds prove whether we have faith or not.  The Bible says that you will know them by their fruit.  Abraham proved that he had faith when he offered up Isaac on the Alter.  He didn't just claim to have faith and give lip service to God.  He proved that he had faith through obedience to God.  He demonstrated his faith by his actions.

----------


## Terry1

> Here is the first one:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.
> 
> Here is the second verse:
> 
> 
> ...



"it's not there"---"it doesn't say that"--"all doesn't mean all"--"world doesn't mean world"--  Then prove it's not saying what it clearly is then.  I'll go get some more popcorn in the meantime.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know if he was.  I do know that there are quotes from him where it was clear he was teaching universal atonement.



I would be interested in reading such quotes, for I have been reviewing this subject re:  Calvin's views on the atonement, and have not seen anything that would imply he harbored universal views regarding any aspect of the salvation of sinners.

Unfortunately, limited atonement was not his emphasis.  Apparently it was not an overt subject back then, that he had to address specifically.  Particular election was.  And the majority of his writings focus on election (which he often uses the word predestination to define), but the foundation of his beliefs reflected particularism, not universalism at all.  I really do not see how he ever could have considered universal atonement and harmonize it with his great teachings of divine and particular election.




> That makes me wonder (although it seems like toward the end of his life he became more consistent on limited atonement).


There are several things Calvin held long to, due to his RCC background that I find disagreement with, and I do not claim to be a die-hard Calvinist devotee, either, but I am a Reformer and a direct fruit of what God brought about through Calvin, by rescuing believers from the RCC false religion and oppression of his times.




> Martin Luther taught baptismal regeneration and universal atonement.   This greatly saddened me when I started studying this.


Luther's flame burned for only a very short time.   But there is no doubt his teaching justification by faith, alone, was inspired by God, but as a Pastor, he failed and his followers quickly returned to Rome.  

No theologian, even the greatest, are infallible.  Even regeneration does not produce infallible believers.  So it becomes real tricky if we are going to judge others by demanding or expecting perfection from their minds that still suffered the noetic effect of original sin.

 All we can truly judge, is false teachers and false gospels, and Calvin was not a false teacher.

Please share with me what troubles you . . .

----------


## Terry1

> I don't think she's saying that you have to be perfect to get to heaven, but just that our deeds prove whether we have faith or not.  The Bible says that you will know them by their fruit.  Abraham proved that he had faith when he offered up Isaac on the Alter.  He didn't just claim to have faith and give lip service to God.  He proved that he had faith through obedience to God.  He demonstrated his faith by his actions.


Exactly and that's what Paul is calling a "work of faith" via listening to what the Holy Spirit is speaking to us through our conscience and following through with that "work of faith".  I've already backed this up and explained it to Sola many times.  He always comes back with the same thing that most of his kind do and that's "it's not saying that", when it most certainly is clearly saying that.

----------


## Terry1

Check this out.  Sola claims to not believe in repentance, but take a look at what he just wrote in my rep center. LOL

_"Please repent of your evil. Turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy. Look to Him alone for salvation."_

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think she's saying that you have to be perfect to get to heaven,


I did.  God accepts nothing less than perfection.  That's why we need Christ in the first place.  And its why nobody will get through the Great White Throne Judgment unless they have Christ's righteousness.



> ]
> but just that our deeds prove whether we have faith or not.  The Bible says that you will know them by their fruit.  Abraham proved that he had faith when he offered up Isaac on the Alter.  He didn't just claim to have faith and give lip service to God.  He proved that he had faith through obedience to God.  He demonstrated his faith by his actions.


I understand.  But I don't think anyone here objects to that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Check this out.  Sola claims to not believe in repentance, but take a look at what he just wrote in my rep center. LOL
> 
> _"Please repent of your evil. Turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy. Look to Him alone for salvation."_


Terry...repent of your evil. Do it now. I knew that you were wicked right away. And yer little dog too.

I'm just kidding.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Check this out.  Sola claims to not believe in repentance, but take a look at what he just wrote in my rep center. LOL
> 
> _"Please repent of your evil. Turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy. Look to Him alone for salvation."_


Every Reformed Christian on these forums should neg rep this with Sola's comment attached, ad verbatim.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry...repent of your evil. Do it now. I knew that you were wicked right away. And yer little dog too.
> 
> I'm just kidding.


Yeah, I guess FF wrote that in my rep center and not Sola. LOL  It's usually Sola or erowe1, this is a first from FF.  LOL

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You are wasting everyone's time and you deserve to be banned for wasting everyone's time with lies.


Hm. They said this about Giordano Bruno as I recall. Burned him at the stake and everything. Intolerance is a bitch alright. And, yes. Cowardice to an extent.

----------


## Nang

> Every Reformed Christian on these forums should neg rep this with Sola's comment attached, ad verbatim.


I hate to neg rep [mod delete] people . . .

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, I guess FF wrote that in my rep center and not Sola. LOL  It's usually Sola or erowe1, this is a first from FF.  LOL


Is what it is. I'm surprised I'm not reported yet. Some of the stuff I scribble up is a real hoot alright. Blasphemy.

----------


## Terry1

> I hate to neg rep[mod delete] people . . .


You've certainly blazed your horizons in this forum these last few days haven't you.   Got any converts yet?

----------


## Terry1

> Is what it is. I'm surprised I'm not reported yet. Some of the stuff I scribble up is a real hoot alright. Blasphemy.


Yeah, Sola's called me an "idiot" so many times now, it just sort of rolls off the old back considering the source.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, Sola's called me an "idiot" so many times now, it just sort of rolls off the old back considering the source.


Weird. I've never really known S_F to call people names and whatnot. Usually he just tells us we're all going to burn in hell or something.

----------


## Terry1

> Weird. I've never really known S_F to call people names and whatnot. Usually he just tells us we're all going to burn in hell or something.


Like I said, the kids are getting cranky, must be beddie-by time. The Calvinists have called me "troll", "abomination", "wicked" and now "satanic idiot".  Does this mean I'm going to hell with the rest of you guys? lol

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Weird. I've never really known S_F to call people names and whatnot. Usually he just tells us we're all going to burn in hell or something.


I was wrong.   She was intentionally repeating something that I and Erowe1 had refuted her on multiple times, and I lost my temper and called her an idiot to get her attention.  

I converse with the most hardened atheists there are, and I am as cool as can be when I talk with them.  But when a person so twists God's word in such an evil way, it drives me to be very angry.  But I do think there is righteous anger...and it can be a good thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Check this out.  Sola claims to not believe in repentance, but take a look at what he just wrote in my rep center. LOL
> 
> _"Please repent of your evil. Turn to the Sovereign Lord who delights to show mercy. Look to Him alone for salvation."_


He's written similar things aimed at me in my threads.  IMO, he's got serious issues.

----------


## Terry1

> He's written similar things aimed at me in my threads.  IMO, he's got serious issues.


Actually, Sola neg repped me right before FF did, I copied FF's comment instead of Sola's. They both pretty much said the same thing. LOL

----------


## Terry1

> I was wrong.   She was intentionally repeating something that I and Erowe1 had refuted her on multiple times, and I lost my temper and called her an idiot to get her attention.  
> 
> I converse with the most hardened atheists there are, and I am as cool as can be when I talk with them.  But when a person so twists God's word in such an evil way, it drives me to be very angry.  But I do think there is righteous anger...and it can be a good thing.


Golly Sola, why would anyone have to "intentionally repeat" something over and over to you?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I was wrong.   She was intentionally repeating something that I and Erowe1 had refuted her on multiple times, and I lost my temper and called her an idiot to get her attention.  
> 
> I converse with the most hardened atheists there are, and I am as cool as can be when I talk with them.  But when a person so twists God's word in such an evil way, it drives me to be very angry.  But I do think there is righteous anger...and it can be a good thing.


Perhaps. I haven't really even tried to go through the thread to read everything. I've just kind of skimmed through. The whole use of the label atheist, I don't like though. I don't really consider myself an atheist. I don't particularly even try to question if there is a God. I'm more interested in finding out who or what it or "He" is beyond man's socially accepted and, really, self centered interpretation. One that more often reflects his moral perception of things as far as he undertands them. I don't claim to understand everything which is why I choose to question more.

FF's comment reminded me of that but as I said, I haven't read this thread. It's a monster.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I don't get angry when people debate with me.  I love to debate...and it makes me happy to debate.  I get angry when the person I'm debating is either intentionally prideful after their point has been refuted, or too dumb to know they shouldn't be debating, yet do it anyway.

And you notice that Terry1 has not ever (and will not ever) respond to my response to her verses from Thessalonians.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't get angry when people debate with me.  I love to debate...and it makes me happy to debate.  I get angry when the person I'm debating is either intentionally prideful after their point has been refuted, or too dumb to know they shouldn't be debating, yet do it anyway.
> 
> And you notice that Terry1 has not ever (and will not ever) respond to my response to her verses from Thessalonians.


The entire basis for what you believe as a whole is wrong Sola, why bother arguing over one particular scripture when you've already rewritten most of the Christian Bible to support your belief and deny what's left of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The entire basis for what you believe as a whole is wrong Sola, why bother arguing over one particular scripture when you've already rewritten most of the Christian Bible to support your belief and deny what's left of it.


Notice that Terry1 will not respond to my response to her verses from Thessalonians.   Watch how she won't do it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know how many times I've already posted these scriptures.
> 
> 
> *
> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
> Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:[/SIZE]*



Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## erowe1

> I don't particularly even try to question if there is a God. I'm more interested in finding out who or what it or "He" is beyond man's socially accepted and, really, self centered interpretation. One that more often reflects his moral perception of things as far as he undertands them.


Who do you think Jesus is?

A conviction at the center of the Christian faith since the very beginning has been that God revealed those things you're looking for through Jesus.

----------


## Brett85

> Quit lying , you satanic idiot.  Yes, I said that.  I'm very sick of you continuing to pollute the forum with these lies that have been refuted over and over.





> Every Reformed Christian on these forums should neg rep this with Sola's comment attached, ad verbatim.





> I hate to neg rep mentally deranged people . . .


WOW.  That's all I have to say.

----------


## moostraks

> Weird. I've never really known S_F to call people names and whatnot. Usually he just tells us we're all going to burn in hell or something.


Nope you must be missing it. If you are female he will call you idiot and say you are rambling even if all you do is quote Scripture. He has done it to me numerous times. I thought it was just a personality conflict with me for awhile but I have come to believe he feels entitled to treat women he disagrees with  as second class citizens as I have yet to see him treat men he disagrees with in the same fashion.

Eta if there has been a man here who has been called the numerous names and been told they are blathering and rambling repetitively by him let me know, PLEASE! I don't mean to falsely accuse him.

----------


## RJB

You may be right.  He does appear ruder to you considering you are relatively nice when debates get heated.  I think he treats Terry the worse.  I know he's told her to be more concise in her posts.  He may just get irritated at the amount of reading he has to do.

When I used to argue with him, we'd get heated but wouldn't carry the grudges, but most of our exchanges carried only a few sentences.

It may be less that you are a woman but rather that you write like a woman.  My wife has come to the conclusion that Microsoft's bullet points (for presentations) is the best way to verbally communicate with men.  Especially ones like me with short attention spans.  Just my S.W.A.G. 

ETA: I found out the acronym has a few meanings.  Mine was for "Scientific Wild Ass Guess."



> Nope you must be missing it. If you are female he will call you idiot and say you are rambling even if all you do is quote Scripture. He has done it to me numerous times. I thought it was just a personality conflict with me for awhile but I have come to believe he feels entitled to treat women he disagrees with  as second class citizens as I have yet to see him treat men he disagrees with in the same fashion.
> 
> Eta if there has been a man here who has been called the numerous names and been told they are blathering and rambling repetitively by him let me know, PLEASE! I don't mean to falsely accuse him.

----------


## moostraks

> You may be right.  He does appear ruder to you considering you are relatively nice when debates get heated.  I think he treats Terry the worse.  I know he's told her to be more concise in her posts.  He may just get irritated at the amount of reading he has to do.
> 
> When I used to argue with him, we'd get heated but wouldn't carry the grudges, but most of our exchanges carried only a few sentences.
> 
> It may be less that you are a woman but rather that you write like a woman.  My wife has come to the conclusion that Microsoft's bullet points (for presentations) is the best way to verbally communicate with men.  Especially ones like me with short attention spans.  Just my S.W.A.G. 
> 
> ETA: I found out the acronym has a few meanings.  Mine was for "Scientific Wild Ass Guess."


Haha...well that was why it took me until Terry got here to realize it might be a woman issue. As soon as she said she was a woman he started the blathering/rambling incoherent idiot comments to her. I tried bullet point like with Scripture and it was still called blathering by him  Thought it was pretty sad when it was Scripture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nope you must be missing it. If you are female he will call you idiot and say you are rambling even if all you do is quote Scripture. He has done it to me numerous times. I thought it was just a personality conflict with me for awhile but I have come to believe he feels entitled to treat women he disagrees with  as second class citizens as I have yet to see him treat men he disagrees with in the same fashion.
> 
> Eta if there has been a man here who has been called the numerous names and been told they are blathering and rambling repetitively by him let me know, PLEASE! I don't mean to falsely accuse him.


Don't pull the woman card.  I have no way of knowing what gender you are over the internet.  If you are engaging yourself in the discussion,  then you should be open to be critiqued, no matter what your gender is.  And you can post all the Scripture that you want, but your analysis of that Scripture is seldom even close to what it is saying.  From instance,  you trying to give an overview of the book of Romans was completely incoherent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I guess FF wrote that in my rep center and not Sola. LOL  It's usually Sola or erowe1, this is a first from FF.  LOL


I copied Sola's comment, word for word.  Sola did it first (I assume.)

----------


## moostraks

> Don't pull the woman card.  I have no way of knowing what gender you are over the internet.  If you are engaging yourself in the discussion,  then you should be open to be critiqued, no matter what your gender is.  And you can post all the Scripture that you want, but your analysis of that Scripture is seldom even close to what it is saying.  From instance,  you trying to give an overview of the book of Romans was completely incoherent.


You have known I was a woman for awhile and that was when the viciousness seemed to escalate and I really thought it was just a personality conflict until I saw you do the same thing with Terry and it came directly after her saying she was a woman and you reiterate it unnecessarily to discredit posts no matter how brief we may be in our commentary. I have asked others to disprove me because I truly want to be wrong on this issue.

I was not incoherent on Romans as others understood me and responded. You asked for my personal response repetitively and after numerous attacks I went through the book because as usual you were taking verses selectively out of context.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Heh. The Woman Card. That's a new one. It's kind of funny when you first read it too. It makes me think of two married people sitting in their living room arguing about something and the husband says "Yeah, pull the woman card". S_F, you're a hoot. Made my day.

----------


## Terry1

> Don't pull the woman card.  I have no way of knowing what gender you are over the internet.  If you are engaging yourself in the discussion,  then you should be open to be critiqued, no matter what your gender is.  And you can post all the Scripture that you want, but your analysis of that Scripture is seldom even close to what it is saying.  From instance,  you trying to give an overview of the book of Romans was completely incoherent.


Well Sola, I've lost count now of how many times you've called me an "idiot"--have you ever wondered why I never bothered to say the same about you?  Because stating the obvious is superfluous.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well Sola, I've lost count now of how many times you've called me an "idiot"--have you ever wondered why I never bothered to say the same about you?  Because stating the obvious is superfluous.


There are two verses in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians that I am still waiting you to respond to. Post 823.

----------


## Kevin007

> There are two verses in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians that I am still waiting you to respond to. Post 823.


I agree 100%. Works do not nor cannot save us. Only Christ can.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree 100%. Works do not nor cannot save us. Only Christ can.


But the characteristics of someone with real faith is that they'll do good works and make a legitimate attempt to not sin, so if someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't have good works and lives a life completely full of sin, it's a sign that they may not be saved.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree 100%. Works do not nor cannot save us. Only Christ can.


Which works are you referring to then Kevin, 

A. Dead works under the old Mosaic ceremonial law or 

B. "Works of faith".

Which one do you believe Paul is referring us "to do" then and how?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Which works are you referring to then Kevin, 
> 
> A. Dead works under the old Mosaic ceremonial law or 
> 
> B. "Works of faith".
> 
> Which one do you believe Paul is referring us "to do" then and how?


Neither A nor B saves anyone.

B is the result of saving faith.  It's the faith that saves.  The works are the fruit of that faith.

----------


## Terry1

> Neither A nor B saves anyone.
> 
> B is the result of saving faith.  It's the faith that saves.  The works are the fruit of that faith.


Yes, you're party correct, but what is required on the part of the believer that brings about our "fruits of the Spirit"?  Paul tells us to do this here, what is Paul saying to us?



1 Thes 1:  3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, 

2 Thes 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling
 and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power

John again is telling us this in John 15:1-5

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.  6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

What must we do to "abide in Christ" then because this is essential in order to bear fruit of our faith?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Quit lying , you satanic idiot.  Yes, I said that.  I'm very sick of you continuing to pollute the forum with these lies that have been refuted over and over.
> 
> I know Sola is going to call me a "coward" for this, but I'm reporting this post.  You are wasting everyone's time and you deserve to be banned for wasting everyone's time with lies.


Don't you think it's a violation of Bryan's guidelines to call someone "satanic" FF?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, you're party correct, but what is required on the part of the believer that brings about our "fruits of the Spirit"?  Paul tells us to do this here, what is Paul saying to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Thes 1:  3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, 
> 
> 2 Thes 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling
>  and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power
> 
> ...




Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## Dr.3D

> What must we do to "abide in Christ" then because this is essential in order to bear fruit of our faith?


When we abide in Christ, we are following the commandments to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  If we are doing those things, we will bear the fruit of good works.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, it was you FF---I just saw the nasty little comment and assumed it was Sola, because it usually is him or erowe1.  I didn't expect it from you, but I guess I should have known it would be forthcoming very soon. LOL


+rep to offset one of the negs you received. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

----------


## erowe1

> +rep to offset one of the negs you received. This is getting a bit ridiculous.


She was lying. I never did anything like that.

----------


## Terry1

> When we abide in Christ, we are following the commandments to love god with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  If you are doing those things, you will bear the fruit of good works.


Exactly---and that is exactly what Paul describes as a "work of FAITH"--and tells us to do these "never ceasing" because we willing-choose to do these things in order to continually abide in Christ.  Because as long as we "abide in Christ", we are able to spiritually *hear* and spiritually *see* what God is calling us to do.

----------


## Terry1

> She was lying. I never did anything like that.


I never said you did at that particular time.  Although you have done the same thing in my rep center before.  Are you going to deny that?  I've never neg repped you, FF or Sola.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> She was lying. I never did anything like that.


In the post I responded to  she didn't say it was you

----------


## erowe1

> I never said you did at that particular time.  Although you have done the same thing in my rep center before.  Are you going to deny that?  I've never neg repped you, FF or Sola.


Yes. I absolutely deny it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly---and that is exactly what Paul describes as a "work of FAITH"--and tells us to do these "never ceasing" because we willing-choose to do these things in order to continually abide in Christ.  Because as long as we "abide in Christ", we are able to spiritually *hear* and spiritually *see* what God is calling us to do.




Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## erowe1

> In the post I responded to  she didn't say it was you


She said it was usually me. I've never neg repped her just for disagreeing with her opinion.

----------


## Terry1

> She said it was usually me. I've never neg repped her just for disagreeing with her opinion.


Here's just one of your neg reps erowe1 amongst the others you've planted in there, so who's the one lying here?.  Plus you just neg repped me for lying just now and indeed I was not.

*Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant  
01-29-2014 11:24 AM

"erowe1 

Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant 

I think I've seen enough of your hypocrisy. I've learned my lesson. Bye."

*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's just one of your neg reps erowe1 amongst the others you've planted in there, so who's the one lying here?.  Plus you just neg repped me for lying just now and indeed I was not.
> 
> *Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant  
> 01-29-2014 11:24 AM
> 
> "erowe1 
> 
> Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant 
> 
> ...




Here is the first one:




> 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 NIV
> 
> We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.


There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.

Here is the second verse:




> 2 Thessalonians 1:11
> 
> With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.


Here Paul is praying that God may, by HIS power, bring to fruition every good deed prompted by their faith.


*Where in those verses is the idea that works are required for salvation?  Where?*

----------


## Terry1

> Here is the first one:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in that verse that even REMOTELY says that someone must do works to be saved.  Paul is simply remembering the good works the church in Thessalonica did that was produced by their faith.
> 
> Here is the second verse:
> 
> 
> ...


Then if erowe1 doesn't have a clue as to how to answer this one---then you take a shot at it here Sola.  

What can you do now Sola---then say here again that "all doesn't mean all". God's grace is extended to ALL MEN....ALL--meaning the world. So then the only reason ALL MEN do not come to the Lord is because ALL MEN DO NOT CHOOSE GOD.

*Tistus 2
God's Grace Brings Salvation

11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then if erowe1 doesn't have a clue as to how to answer this one---then you take a shot at it here Sola.  
> 
> What can you do now Sola---then say here again that "all doesn't mean all". God's grace is extended to ALL MEN....ALL--meaning the world. So then the only reason ALL MEN do not come to the Lord is because ALL MEN DO NOT CHOOSE GOD.
> 
> *Tistus 2
> God's Grace Brings Salvation
> 
> 11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,*


If you answer the two verses from Thessalonians, I will answer the verse from Titus.  I'm still waiting for you to answer my post.

----------


## Terry1

> Don't you think it's a violation of Bryan's guidelines to call someone "satanic" FF?


It's okay CC, Sola, Nang, FF and erowe1 are very angry people because the actual and true word of God is annihilating their TULIP doctrine.  These are sore losers we're dealing with here.

----------


## Brett85

> It's okay CC, Sola, Nang, FF and erowe1 are very angry people because the actual and true word of God is annihilating their TULIP doctrine.  These are sore losers we're dealing with here.


I maintain that Erowe1 is better than the other Calvinists and is generally civil, at least with me.  Although it seems like you've had your share of arguments or feuds with him.

----------


## erowe1

> Here's just one of your neg reps erowe1 amongst the others you've planted in there, so who's the one lying here?.  Plus you just neg repped me for lying just now and indeed I was not.
> 
> *Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant  
> 01-29-2014 11:24 AM
> 
> "erowe1 
> 
> Thread: The Bible Is Inerrant 
> 
> ...


What post was that related to?

Anyone who sees that will see that I wasn't lying.

----------


## Terry1

> If you answer the two verses from Thessalonians, I will answer the verse from Titus.  I'm still waiting for you to answer my post.


You know I've already answered you multiple times on Paul's teaching in Thes regarding a "work of faith"---as well as I've explained it in massive detail that you just don't understand.

A = B


A. being that abiding in Christ while spiritually hearing what the Holy Spirit is calling us to do---then equals B

B. being, our choosing to obey the voice of the Spirit of the Lord and do those "works of faith" that the Lord is calling us to do.

This is the only way one can produce the "fruits of *labour* and of the Spirit" is by choosing to do them willingly, which I've already gave ample proof of with multiple scripture to support that as well to your friend Nang.

"fruits of our *labour"* should indicate to you that some action is required on our part as the word* "labour"* is an action in faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's okay CC, Sola, Nang, FF and erowe1 are very angry people because the actual and true word of God is annihilating their TULIP doctrine.  These are sore losers we're dealing with here.


Who is Paul talking about Titus 2?  Old men, old women, young men, servants, etc.  He is talking about kinds of men.  The "all" that Paul says in that verse does not mean "all without exception", it means "all kinds".  

The entire book of Titus was written to and for the elect:



> Titus 1:1 NIV
> 
> Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—


And at the end of chapter 2, after Paul talks about all the different kinds of men, he affirms limited atonement:



> Titus 2:14 NIV
> 
> who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

----------


## Terry1

> I maintain that Erowe1 is better than the other Calvinists and is generally civil, at least with me.  Although it seems like you've had your share of arguments or feuds with him.


The only feud erowe1 has with me is when I post scripture he can not back up legitimately, becomes frustrated and neg reps me because of it.  LOL

----------


## Terry1

> Who is Paul talking about Titus 2?  Old men, old women, young men, servants, etc.  He is talking about kinds of men.  The "all" that Paul says in that verse does not mean "all without exception", it means "all kinds".  
> 
> The entire book of Titus was written to and for the elect:
> 
> 
> And at the end of chapter 2, after Paul talks about all the different kinds of men, he affirms limited atonement:


Ah---and once again, you must redefine clear scripture to support your belief and say that it's not saying what it's saying.  So over and over again, no matter what scripture that says "ALL" indicating that grace covered ALL of mankind and that "world" doesn't mean "world" when indicating ALL of mankind or that when God said that "none should perish" doesn't mean ALL or everyone.

How many more scriptures are you going to redefine until something in your mind tells you that there's a very good reason you can't reconcile your belief with the word of God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ah---and once again, you must redefine clear scripture to support your belief and say that it's not saying what it's saying.  So over and over again, no matter what scripture that says "ALL" indicating that grace covered ALL of mankind and that "world" doesn't mean "world" when indicating ALL of mankind or that when God said that "none should perish" doesn't mean ALL or everyone.
> 
> How many more scriptures are you going to redefine until something in your mind tells you that there's a very good reason you can't reconcile your belief with the word of God?


I give you two verses, FROM THE VERY BOOK YOU CITE, that PLAINLY teach election and limited atonement,  and you completely skip over them and go back to your misunderstanding of "all".  All does not mean "all without exception" in the Bible. All is always modified by the context.

----------


## Terry1

> I give you two verses, FROM THE VERY BOOK YOU CITE, that PLAINLY teach election and limited atonement,  and you completely skip over them and go back to your misunderstanding of "all".  All does not mean "all without exception" in the Bible. All is always modified by the context.


*James 2:17 
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*

This doesn't mean what is says either does it Sola. lol

----------


## Christian Liberty

> +rep to offset one of the negs you received. This is getting a bit ridiculous.


Yes, I think the liars (Terry1) should be banned from the religion forum so this doesn't happen again. 

Erowe1 generally isn't judgmental here and even he noticed it this time:



> She was lying. I never did anything like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I maintain that Erowe1 is better than the other Calvinists and is generally civil, at least with me.*  Although it seems like you've had your share of arguments or feuds with him.*


Having a brain will lead to arguments with Terry1 at some point.

You agree with him, so you ignore the fact that he's literally lying about us.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, I think the liars (Terry1) should be banned from the religion forum so this doesn't happen again. 
> 
> Erowe1 generally isn't judgmental here and even he noticed it this time:


Why don't you be honest and say the real reason you Calvinists want me banned is because you, Sola, Nang or erowe1 can not legitimately answer anything I've put forth that ultimately refutes and shoots down your doctrinal belief in the TULIP heresy without claiming that those scriptures aren't saying what they clearly are and by completely changing the context of those same scriptures to support your belief.  You have all rewritten part of the word of God to support your belief and deny the rest of it.

----------


## Terry1

> Having a brain will lead to arguments with Terry1 at some point.
> 
> You agree with him, so you ignore the fact that he's literally lying about us.


What have I lied about---make a list.

----------


## Nang

> Having a brain will lead to arguments with Terry1 at some point.
> 
> You agree with him, so you ignore the fact that he's literally lying about us.


The definition of "iniquity" is doing injustice to truth.  

When it becomes a continual and deliberate practice, it becomes pathological and destructive.

A psychopath often speaks or writes contradictions within just one sentence, and they are not aware of doing so.  And often they project their faults upon others, without remorse.

What is the motive?    Psalm 14:4

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know I've already answered you multiple times on Paul's teaching in Thes regarding a "work of faith"---as well as I've explained it in massive detail that you just don't understand.
> 
> A = B
> 
> 
> A. being that abiding in Christ while spiritually hearing what the Holy Spirit is calling us to do---then equals B
> 
> B. being, our choosing to obey the voice of the Spirit of the Lord and do those "works of faith" that the Lord is calling us to do.
> 
> ...


I didn't ask you to restate your unbiblical,  man centered theology, I asked you to EXEGETE the two passages from 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.   Do you know what exegesis is?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why don't you be honest and say the real reason you Calvinists want me banned is because you, Sola, Nang or erowe1 can not legitimately answer anything I've put forth that ultimately refutes and shoots down your doctrinal belief in the TULIP heresy without claiming that those scriptures aren't saying what they clearly are and by completely changing the context of those same scriptures to support your belief.  You have all rewritten part of the word of God to support your belief and deny the rest of it.


How can we refute a strawman?

You act like we don't think good works or repentance matter.  That's a complete and total strawman.  So, what is there to say beyond "We agree with you that those things are important"?  And then, when you keep bringing it up, what choice do we have but to insult you?

I don't know if you're deliberately lying or just too dumb to be on this message board, but either way, I think you should leave.




> What have I lied about---make a list.


You claim that we don't think we have to repent, for one.  Quote a Calvinist saying that.

----------


## Terry1

> I didn't ask you to restate your unbiblical,  man centered theology, I asked you to EXEGETE the two passages from 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.   Do you know what exegesis is?


Paul in Romans confirms what he says again Thes here regarding "obedience to the faith"---If faith acts magically alone without an effort on our part, then James would not be telling you that "faith alone is dead".

*Romans 1:5 
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Romans 16:26 
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:*

*Definition of OBEDIENCE
a :  an act or instance of obeying*

----------


## Brett85

> Having a brain will lead to arguments with Terry1 at some point.
> 
> You agree with him, so you ignore the fact that he's literally lying about us.


I haven't read through the entire thread and looked carefully at what Terry said, but you called her a Satanic idiot, which is way over the line, regardless of what Terry said.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I haven't read through the entire thread and looked carefully at what Terry said, but you called her a Satanic idiot, which is way over the line, regardless of what Terry said.


I don't know.  Maybe I should take a break from these forums for a few days, because her lies are really starting to aggravate me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know.  Maybe I should take a break from these forums for a few days, because her lies are really starting to aggravate me.


For me it's just the refusal to deal coherently with a text.  Even TC tries to coherently deal with a text.  Terry1 is like a delusional mental patient and when you offer ideas to her that challenge her delusions, she starts to twitch and tick...then go back to never answering anything and repeating her delusions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For me it's just the refusal to deal coherently with a text.  Even TC tries to coherently deal with a text.  Terry1 is like a delusional mental patient and when you offer ideas to her that challenge her delusions, she starts to twitch and tick...then go back to never answering anything and repeating her delusions.


I don't know... what do you think?  Is this forum tempting me to sin or is Terry really just that frustrating?

I don't know if TC is saved or not (And its not my job to know) but he can actually discuss the text and he has good points to bring to the table.  His contributions are actually helpful and worth discussing.

Terry1 is just posting gibberish and lies about Calvinists.  I really don't know why TC is defending him.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know.  Maybe I should take a break from these forums for a few days, because her lies are really starting to aggravate me.


What's the difference between you telling Catholics and anyone outside of the TULIP doctrine that they're not Christians and unsaved as me telling you the same about you and those who believe the doctrine you believe?  This is your adolescence showing FF---if you're going to post with the big boys and girls, you need to grow up and as for Nang being 73 years old and running wild around the forum calling those who disagree with her "trolls", "wicked" and worse---she really needs to get a clue at her age too.

----------


## Brett85

Just so everyone knows, I'm not responsible for Freedom Fanatic's temporary ban.  I never reported his post, even though I thought it was way over the line.  So that's something the moderators will have to answer if anyone questions why that happened.

----------


## Terry1

> Just so everyone knows, I'm not responsible for Freedom Fanatic's temporary ban.  I never reported his post, even though I thought it was way over the line.  So that's something the moderators will have to answer if anyone questions why that happened.


I never reported him either, nor have I ever called him a name or neg repped him, but he surly can't say the same for himself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's the difference between you telling Catholics and anyone outside of the TULIP doctrine that they're not Christians and unsaved as me telling you the same about you and those who believe the doctrine you believe?  This is your adolescence showing FF---if you're going to post with the big boys and girls, you need to grow up and as for Nang being 73 years old and running wild around the forum calling those who disagree with her "trolls", "wicked" and worse---she really needs to get a clue at her age too.


Who cares about these stupid personal squabbles you have with certain people?  Why don't you just focus on the text?

----------


## Terry1

> Who cares about these stupid personal squabbles you have with certain people?  Why don't you just focus on the text?


I thought I've done that and actually have given you far more consideration than most that you've worn out being your denial of what scripture is actually saying.

----------


## Terry1

> How can we refute a strawman?
> 
> You act like we don't think good works or repentance matter.  That's a complete and total strawman.  So, what is there to say beyond "We agree with you that those things are important"?  And then, when you keep bringing it up, what choice do we have but to insult you?
> 
> I don't know if you're deliberately lying or just too dumb to be on this message board, but either way, I think you should leave.
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that we don't think we have to repent, for one.  Quote a Calvinist saying that.


Here's what Calvin's Total Depravity doctrine teaches on repentance.

 If they don’t repent, they are actually doing the only thing they can do, because God didn’t grant to them His irresistible grace. If they do repent, they are actually doing what would be impossible for them not to do, because God is sovereignly influencing and changing them by a grace that is irresistible. Thus, they are making no choice at all in the matter of salvation. Rather, God is choosing them and making them into believers. He is changing their wills, because totally depraved people, according to the Calvinist, would never, and could never, humble themselves or choose to repent.

So if by your belief then, why be neg repping me for something God caused me to do and Sola telling me to repent is then contradicting what he claims to believe because he should know by his and your belief that God hasn't chosen that for me yet.  So why blame me then for something I'm not responsible for according to your own doctrine, otherwise what you're actually indicating is that I have a choice in the matter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If I had to guess, I'd guess that out of the 2Bn or so nominal "Christians" over the last 2000 years, about 200k, or 1 one-hundredth of one percent will not be completely and utterly shocked to their core upon learning Truth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Just so everyone knows, I'm not responsible for Freedom Fanatic's temporary ban.  I never reported his post, even though I thought it was way over the line.  So that's something the moderators will have to answer if anyone questions why that happened.


OK thanks

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If I had to guess, I'd guess that out of the 2Bn or so nominal "Christians" over the last 2000 years, about 200k, or 1 one-hundredth of one percent will not be completely and utterly shocked to their core upon learning Truth.


Where do you get that number from?  Why do you think you won't be shocked?  How do you know?

----------


## purplechoe

> Here's what Calvin's Total Depravity doctrine teaches on repentance.
> 
>  If they don’t repent, they are actually doing the only thing they can do, because God didn’t grant to them His irresistible grace. If they do repent, they are actually doing what would be impossible for them not to do, because God is sovereignly influencing and changing them by a grace that is irresistible. Thus, they are making no choice at all in the matter of salvation. Rather, God is choosing them and making them into believers. He is changing their wills, because totally depraved people, according to the Calvinist, would never, and could never, humble themselves or choose to repent.
> 
> So if by your belief then, why be neg repping me for something God caused me to do and Sola telling me to repent is then contradicting what he claims to believe because he should know by his and your belief that God hasn't chosen that for me yet.  So why blame me then for something I'm not responsible for according to your own doctrine, otherwise what you're actually indicating is that I have a choice in the matter.

----------


## Nang

> Here's what Calvin's Total Depravity doctrine teaches on repentance.


Please list the works of Calvin that you have actually read, or stop faking it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Please list the works of Calvin that you have actually read, or stop faking it.


I'll be honest, I haven't started reading Institutes yet, which will be my first one (A Reformed friend of mine bought it for me for Christmas.)  I definitely intend to read it soon, though there's a certain thing I like about being able to laugh when people use the "you get your doctrine from Calvin" strawman.

----------


## Nang

> I'll be honest, I haven't started reading Institutes yet, which will be my first one (A Reformed friend of mine bought it for me for Christmas.)  I definitely intend to read it soon, though there's a certain thing I like about being able to laugh when people use the "you get your doctrine from Calvin" strawman.



Those who misrepresent ~any~ theologian and his views, without being informed first-hand what they really are, break the 9th commandment of God.

It is very serious to accuse Christian believers of holding to tenets that they never espoused.  That is one of the worst forms of lying and deceit, for it touches on mishandling the holy Word of God.

How can decent discussion of theology be had, if others' theology is perverted and twisted in order for one to simply win a debate or score (undeserved) points with others?

Especially when it is done in a spirit of malice.

Believe me, God is recording all that is written on these forums.  Malachi 3:16-18

Liars will be judged according to their idle (untruthful) words.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Those who misrepresent ~any~ theologian and his views, without being informed first-hand what they really are, break the 9th commandment of God.
> 
> It is very serious to accuse Christian believers of holding to tenets that they never espoused.  That is one of the worst forms of lying and deceit, for it touches on mishandling the holy Word of God.
> 
> How can decent discussion of theology be had, if others' theology is perverted and twisted in order for one to simply win a debate or score (undeserved) points with others?
> 
> Especially when it is done in a spirit of malice.
> 
> Believe me, God is recording all that is written on these forums.  Malachi 3:16-18
> ...


Amen.  I wish I had more rep for you.

----------


## Terry1

> Those who misrepresent ~any~ theologian and his views, without being informed first-hand what they really are, break the 9th commandment of God.
> 
> It is very serious to accuse Christian believers of holding to tenets that they never espoused.  That is one of the worst forms of lying and deceit, for it touches on mishandling the holy Word of God.
> 
> How can decent discussion of theology be had, if others' theology is perverted and twisted in order for one to simply win a debate or score (undeserved) points with others?
> 
> Especially when it is done in a spirit of malice.
> 
> Believe me, God is recording all that is written on these forums.  Malachi 3:16-18
> ...


We know who the liars are here--LOL

Then find one scripture clearly stating that God is the author/creator of evil.  Isaiah 45:7 has already been refuted and doesn't match your interpretation.

----------


## Nang

> We know who the liars are here--LOL
> 
> Then find one scripture clearly stating that God is the author/creator of evil.  Isaiah 45:7 has already been refuted and doesn't match your interpretation.


You cannot provoke me to say what you deserve to hear, for I know I would be banned.

So save your breath, please!  Or maybe it would be better if you just held your breath?

----------


## TER

> You cannot provoke me to say what you deserve to hear, for I know I would be banned.
> 
> So save your breath, please!  Or maybe it would be better if you just held your breath?


Wow, just wow.  You have what, a few years _maybe_ left to live, and you are wishing death on a person?  EVERYTHING we have ever said and written we will be held accountable for, in this life and the next.

----------


## Brett85

> Those who misrepresent ~any~ theologian and his views, without being informed first-hand what they really are, break the 9th commandment of God.
> 
> It is very serious to accuse Christian believers of holding to tenets that they never espoused.  That is one of the worst forms of lying and deceit, for it touches on mishandling the holy Word of God.
> 
> How can decent discussion of theology be had, if others' theology is perverted and twisted in order for one to simply win a debate or score (undeserved) points with others?
> 
> Especially when it is done in a spirit of malice.
> 
> Believe me, God is recording all that is written on these forums.  Malachi 3:16-18
> ...


Well, we do know that Calvin was a brutal murderer.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

----------


## Terry1

> You cannot provoke me to say what you deserve to hear, for I know I would be banned.
> 
> So save your breath, please!  Or maybe it would be better if you just held your breath?


Wouldn't it be easier just to answer the question instead of wishing me dead?

----------


## Nang

> Wow, just wow.  You have what, a few years _maybe_ left to live, and you are wishing death on a person?  EVERYTHING we have ever said and written we will be held accountable for, in this life and the next.


You obviously are lacking a sense of humor . . .

I did not wish death upon Terry, but speaking of her, why don't you share some of your pious corrections about love minus malice with her.  Also tell her she should stop SHOUTING HER POSTS!

It is rude and shows a coarse lack of manners . . .

----------


## Brett85

> Wouldn't it be easier just to answer the question instead of wishing me dead?


Kind of reminds you of this verse, doesn't it?

1 John 3:15

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

----------


## Terry1

> Kind of reminds you of this verse, doesn't it?
> 
> 1 John 3:15
> 
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.


Very true.  Nang's angry because she can't answer the question I asked her, which was to find one scripture clearly stating that God is the author/creator of evil.

----------


## TER

> You obviously are lacking a sense of humor . . .
> 
> I did not wish death upon Terry,


Yes, you just did.  If you truly were just joking (and in my opinion this isn't the case, though I may be wrong), then ask forgiveness from her and show us how Christians ought to behave.

----------


## Terry1

> You obviously are lacking a sense of humor . . .
> 
> I did not wish death upon Terry, but speaking of her, why don't you share some of your pious corrections about love minus malice with her.  Also tell her she should stop SHOUTING HER POSTS!
> 
> It is rude and shows a coarse lack of manners . . .


Really Nang, you like to deny the very words your write as if no one can copy and paste your quote right back to you.  Wanting me to hold my breath is implying you want me to die or are you going to deny that too?




> Quote Originally Posted by Nang  View Post
> You cannot provoke me to say what you deserve to hear, for I know I would be banned.
> 
> So save your breath, please! Or maybe it would be better if you just held your breath?

----------


## Nang

> Wouldn't it be easier just to answer the question instead of wishing me dead?



I was joking and do not wish you dead, so please forgive me for _my_ idle words.

----------


## Terry1

> I was joking and do not wish you dead, so please forgive me for _my_ idle words.


Thank you, I forgive you.  Now can you answer the question I asked that started this tantrum?

----------


## Nang

> Thank you, I forgive you.  Now can you answer the question I asked that started this tantrum?



Thank you for your forgiveness.

What is your question?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, we do know that Calvin was a brutal murderer.
> 
> http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm


You know, even after I thought Calvinism was true I had an issue with Calvin for awhile for this reason.  

This video puts things in perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCmu9B-K748

Admittedly, I'm still not completely comfortable with what Calvin did.  Calvin fell into the legal positivism of his day.  But he didn't actually kill Servetus, and he actually asked that he be killed in a less painful manner, which was a huge step *​for his time.*

----------


## Terry1

> Thank you for your forgiveness.
> 
> What is your question?


Do you have a scripture in mind that indicates that God is the author/creator of sin and death, other than Isaiah 45:7, which already been refuted?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Nang has NOT claimed that God is the author of sin.  Please learn some basic reading ability, Terry.  Nang was saying that God creates CALAMITY which was the same thing Calvin was saying.  This has been explained to you multiple times.  Stop spamming the forum.

----------


## Nang

> Do you have a scripture in mind that indicates that God is the author/creator of sin and death, other than Isaiah 45:7, which already been refuted?



TER is the one who thinks Calvin taught God is the author of sin, and I have refuted TER regarding that matter by pointing out Calvin was speaking of evil versus sin.

God indeed created evil.  Isaiah 45:7

But Adam is the author and cause of sin.  Romans 5:12

----------


## Terry1

> Nang has NOT claimed that God is the author of sin.  Please learn some basic reading ability, Terry.  Nang was saying that God creates CALAMITY which was the same thing Calvin was saying.  This has been explained to you multiple times.  Stop spamming the forum.


This is what Nang said here:




> Originally Posted by Nang  View Post
> Thank you for giving the source, and hopefully you have the book so you can read it for yourself.
> 
> *Please note that Calvin rightfully says God authors all evils, for this is taught in Scripture. Isaiah 45:7*
> 
> "Evils" being His very judgments against human sin . . is certainly God's sovereign prerogative.
> 
> However; note Calvin did not say God is the author of sin. In the same volume Calvin says otherwise. 
> 
> ...


I was asking Nang to give me another scripture that confirms her belief that "God authors all evils".  No one is spamming by asking someone to back up their statement.

----------


## Terry1

> TER is the one who thinks Calvin taught God is the author of sin, and I have refuted TER regarding that matter by pointing out Calvin was speaking of evil versus sin.
> 
> God indeed created evil.  Isaiah 45:7
> 
> But Adam is the author and cause of sin.  Romans 5:12


I'm asking if you understand the difference between what God "authors/creates" as opposed to what God allows.

How can Adam be the author/creator of sin when sin existed before Adam's creation.  Adam may have chose to sin in ignorance and disobediance to God, but Adam did not create/author sin himself.  An author is the creator of something.

satan is the ceator of sin and death because he was the first to commit them.

----------


## TER

From my research, Calvin first taught God is the author of sin (for He preordained all human actions) and He is the author of evil (which is sin in action).

Then when he was confronted about that, he tried to back peddle and started the mental gymnastics which are so common with his theology.

Then he started talking about proximate causes and secondary causes, and other various illogical things.

Then he simply said to the effect of not questioning God's intentions or secret purposes for acting like a schizophrenic blood-thirsty tyrant.

If only he accepted the patristic and biblical teachings that God created Adam with free will, he could avoided all this confusion.

----------


## TER

Question:  Why did sin enter the world?

According to Calvinism:  It’s part of God’s master plan to display His attributes, specifically, His attribute of wrath, which He is just as delighted to express as any other attribute. In this way, it is taught that God brought sin into the world, in order to have someone upon which to be wrathful.

According to orthodox Christianity:  God made everything good (Genesis 1:31; 1st Timothy 4:4), and when God created man, He created man in His own image, which refects His own freedom. Therefore, man’s free will is the origin of evil.

----------


## Nang

> This is what Nang said here:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking Nang to give me another scripture that confirms her belief that "God authors all evils".  No one is spamming by asking someone to back up their statement.



Let me ask you a question:  

Do you consider death to be evil and a calamnity?

Who sentences men to death as a result of their sins?  

Does not God, as Judge, have the right to issue judgment of evil against sinners?

----------


## Nang

> I'm asking if you understand the difference between what God "authors/creates" as opposed to what God allows.
> 
> How can Adam be the author/creator of sin when sin existed before Adam's creation.


It did? Do you have scripture that says so?

----------


## Nang

> Question:  Why did sin enter the world?
> 
> According to Calvinism:  It’s part of God’s master plan to display His attributes, specifically, His attribute of wrath, which He is just as delighted to express as any other attribute. In this way, it is taught that God brought sin into the world, in order to have someone upon which to be wrathful.
> 
> According to orthodox Christianity:  God made everything good (Genesis 1:31; 1st Timothy 4:4), and when God created man, He created man in His own image, which refects His own freedom. Therefore, man’s free will is the origin of evil.


God caused Adam.

Adam caused sin.

God is the first cause of all things, but having made man in His image, God endowed Adam with a secondary moral agency that gave him willful cause and effect over his surroundings.  However, God also set parameters to what Adam could willfully cause and effect, by putting him under the Law and specific commands.  Adam was free to exercise his secondary moral agency, but only according to God's Holy Law.  Adam was never free to violate God's Law.

But Adam did, and Adam was sentenced to the evil calamnity and curse of death by God his Judge.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Nang- With your last post in consideration, what's your issue with compatiblism?  Or do I just not understand what compatibilism is?

----------


## Nang

> @Nang- With your last post in consideration, what's your issue with compatiblism?  Or do I just not understand what compatibilism is?



Compatibilism plays with the notion of synergistic sanctification . . a supposed cooperation of man & Holy Spirit working together after conversion.

 It is just an easy way to not hold to strict monergism.  It comes in different varieties.

----------


## Terry1

> Let me ask you a question:


You're avoiding the question, but I'll answer your questions anyway.





> Do you consider death to be evil and a calamnity?


No, because they're different words with different meanings.  Calamity is the inevitable circumstance and result of what already exists which is evil.  Evil is the root of all calamity.  God didn't create the evil itself, but God can create the circumstance where He allows the calamity to happen and not that He created the root cause of it, which is evil.  No other scripture supports that God is the author and creator of evil, so then you have to rightly divide the word of God to correctly discern what Isaiah was actually saying in 45:7




> Who sentences men to death as a result of their sins?


Mankind sentences themselves to death by choosing to not believe in God.  It's their choice as the word clearly says.  If they don't abide in Christ--then eternal death is their only other option.  God gives mankind a choice.




> Does not God, as Judge, have the right to issue judgment of evil against sinners?


God wills that none should perish--you know those scriptures I'm sure.  He gives them space and time to repent and only God knows when someone will not return to Him or those who will never believe at all.  At some point in the life of that person, only God knows--He will cut them off from the true Vine/Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that "partaker" who once was a "branch" of the true Vine has then fallen from grace and can not be "renewed" (key word-RENEWED)-unto repentace.  Once one can not repent any longer they are lost eternally because repentance is the only way back to God. Hebrews 6:4 John 15:5

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Compatibilism plays with the notion of synergistic sanctification . . a supposed cooperation of man & Holy Spirit working together after conversion.
> 
>  It is just an easy way to not hold to strict monergism.  It comes in different varieties.


I was once asked by a knowledgeable Reformed member of my church whether sanctification was synergistic or monergistic.  I was being asked as a "trivia" question of sorts.  I said monergistic, and he said I was wrong.

I still don't agree.

That said, I do see a difference between synergistic sanctification and synergistic justification.  I do not think the former error is as serious as the latter era, because at least the synergistic sanctificationist (I know that's not a word, but you know what I mean) recognizes  that God had to make them alive before they could do anything in the first place.

----------


## TER

> God caused Adam.
> 
> Adam caused sin.
> 
> God is the first cause of all things, but having made man in His image, God endowed Adam with a secondary moral agency that gave him willful cause and effect over his surroundings.  However, God also set parameters to what Adam could willfully cause and effect, by putting him under the Law and specific commands.  Adam was free to exercise his secondary moral agency, but only according to God's Holy Law.  Adam was never free to violate God's Law.
> 
> But Adam did, and Adam was sentenced to the evil calamnity and curse of death by God his Judge.


First I would like to say thank you for responding in the way you have.  Presenting your case in such a way is conducive to a fruitful debate.  I would like to say that I agree with most of what you have written above.  With that, I am off to sleep as I have a very long day tomorrow.  Good night and God bless you!

----------


## Terry1

> It did? Do you have scripture that says so?


Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: *the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.*

----------


## Nang

Terry and TER,

Please consider Isaiah 31:2; Isaiah 47:10-11 and Amos 3:6.

Please reconsider denying Sovereign God His right to judge sin with evil judgment.  For such is His Holy Justice revealed.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry and TER,
> 
> Please consider Isaiah 31:2; Isaiah 47:10-11 and Amos 3:6.
> 
> Please reconsider denying Sovereign God His right to judge sin with evil judgment.  For such is His Holy Justice revealed.


Yes--God allows evil--God will use evil against evil, but God did not create evil and He's not the author of it as this scripture you quoted here in Isaiah 31:2.

God is using satan's own creation against him.

*Isaiah 31:2

2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity*

Also, take Job for example, satan had to get permission from God to test Gods servant Job.  God allowed satan to test Job---satan is pure evil and the creator of it--satan is the author of sin and death because he used the free will God gave him against God Himself.  God wants His creation to love Him freely for who He is.  He doesn't want puppets---He wants heirs to the kingdom of heaven who will someday judge even the angels.

Job 1:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12 *And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.*

----------


## Dr.3D

There is no other creation other than that of God.



> _NRS_ *John 1:3* All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being.

----------


## erowe1

> From my research


Please share with us what this research entailed.

----------


## erowe1

> Question:  Why did sin enter the world?
> 
> According to Calvinism:  It’s part of God’s master plan to display His attributes, specifically, His attribute of wrath, which He is just as delighted to express as any other attribute. In this way, it is taught that God brought sin into the world, in order to have someone upon which to be wrathful.
> 
> According to orthodox Christianity:  God made everything good (Genesis 1:31; 1st Timothy 4:4), and when God created man, He created man in His own image, which refects His own freedom. Therefore, man’s free will is the origin of evil.


Do you have a source for Calvinism disagreeing with anything you said in the part you call the orthodox view?

----------


## erowe1

> Well, we do know that Calvin was a brutal murderer.


That's one of the biggest problems with calling the beliefs we're talking about "Calvinism." Calvin has nothing to do with them apart from the fact that he was one of the many theologians throughout all of Church history who believed them. Any time anyone tries to make it about Calvin, it's a straw man.

----------

