# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Logical Fallacies Of Synergism

## Sola_Fide

> The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.
> 
> *Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.*
> 
> God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
> 
> *A.* Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
> [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> ...


http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...of_syner_1.php

----------


## erowe1

Great post.

These are the same kind of gut-level objections to monergism that I always see. It's almost always clear that these reasons are the real reasons people reject it. But I've never seen anyone actually prove logically that these claims are actually correct. They just assume them. And then when they try to disprove monergism from the Bible, the only way any of their proofs work is by first assuming one of these points.

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...of_syner_1.php


Wow, this guy is really confused, there's a refutation forthcoming sometime today on this.

----------


## Terry1

> The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.
> 
> Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.
> 
>  God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do...


* Wrong*-- This guy is creating a strawman against what the "free will" people actually believe, then basing his argument on false claims against them.  

The Law of Moses didn't end until the time of the crucifixion of Christ.  That is the Law given by God to Moses to prove mankind's inability to keep those laws and is why the Law of Moses was placed in the side of the Ark.  Although God gave Moses the Ten Commandments later, which are not the same as Moses Law, Moses Law was in full effect until the cross.  The Ten Commandments given to Moses were to be placed inside the center of the Ark as a sign of what was to come through Jesus fulfilling Gods Law/Ten commandments on the cross. That Gods Law/Ten Commandments is at the very center of the will of God.  This was the Promise to Israel then, which had not occurred until the time of the cross.

It was the Law of Moses that was used to prove to mankind that they failed at keeping that Law of Moses as reference here:

*Deuteronomy 31
25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying:  26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;*





> A. Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
>  [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> 
>  B . This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the subject can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. Passages which state things such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes" are spoken in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In such passages, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do.
> 
> C. The consequences of Adam's disobedience on his descendants includes spiritual impotence in several areas: man's inability to understand God (Psalm 50:21; Job 11:7-8; Rom 3:11); to see spiritual things (John 3:3); to know his own heart (Jer 17:9); to direct his own steps in the path of life (Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12); to free himself from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10); to receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:17); to hear, understand or receive the words of God (John 8:47; 1 Corinthians 2:14); to give himself birth into God's family (John 1:13, Romans 9:15-16); to produce repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 6:64,65; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25); to come to Christ (John 10:26; John 6:44); and to please God (Romans 8:5, 8, 9).


This here too, he buries his strawman in scriptures to support his lie against free will believers.  His very first line of debate against the free will believers automatically disqualifies any other claim he attempts to make by and with his strawman argument.  He annihilated any chance of being believable when he confused the two laws being 1. The Law of Moses and 2. The perfect Law of God, His Ten Commandments.  He doesn't even mention the Law of Moses as if it served no purpose at all, which again is saying that he has no clue as to what he's talking about with regard to the purpose of each one of those Laws. He's simply a clueless dispensationalist.







> Fallacy #2. Unless our will is free, then we are not responsible.
> 
>  Or, "If not free, then not responsible." This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. This is irrational because the assumption behind this is the idea of neutrality.
> 
> A. The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues. Plus, God is not free in the libertarian sense to do something contrary His own nature. For example God cannot lie or be unholy or He would violate his own essence and thus no longer be God (an impossible supposition). but He is free in the Biblical sense...free from sin and the bondage of corruption ... as will be the saints in heaven when glorified on the last day. That they cannot choose otherwise [to sin] when glorified does not hinder their freedom, according to the Bible, who speaks of these persons as being the MOST free.
> 
> B. Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?
> 
> C. The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral one if it is morally neutral? How can morality be morality at all and be neutral?


Again, this guy does not understand how the free will of mankind works, so he's basing his argument against the free will upon his own strawman that he's literally and amazingly buried with even more of the same.  Attempting to even debate this guy, who is obviously confused on both what the free will people actually believe then basing his argument on another lie that he believes himself.  So what he's attempting to do here is argue that one lie (the one he believes) is true based upon another lie that he's attempting to pass off as what "free will" people actually believe.  He's just totally lost here.








> Fallacy #3. For love to be real, it must have the possibility of being rejected.
> 
>  God wants us to love him freely, not by compulsion. Therefore, fallen man must have the ability to love God. It is simply that he chooses to love other things.
> 
> A. Scripture teaches that love for God is a product of His grace. 1Ti.1:14. If grace is necessary to make us love God, then it follows that we had no ability to love him before the arrival of grace. It also means that grace is not given because we chose to love God. We chose to love God because grace is given. Grace, not a virtue in man, takes the initiative.
> 
> B. This premise is similar to the one that says, "Contrary choice is necessary for freedom to exist." Does God periodically give the saints in heaven an opportunity to hate him so as to be "fair"? Did Jesus have some ability to hate the Father? Or was His love for the Father a reflection of what He himself really is?
> 
> C. If faith is a gift of grace, as we saw above, then why is it strange to think that love may not be also a gift of grace?
> ...


More lies!  What a completely retarded set of "fallacies" that have nothing to do with how the free will of mankind works.  Again--he's arguing a "fallacy" that only exists in his own mind here.  His set of fallacies are actually his own set of strawmen all lined up and calling them "1, 2, 3 and 4" to support his own lie that he's chosen to believe.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I really seriously doubt that God is bound in any way by human's logic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I really seriously doubt that God is bound in any way by human's logic.


That is incorrect.  The laws of logic which govern man apply (because of His nature) to God as well. God IS logic, and if man is to think logically, he must think like God thinks.

Man knows truth if he knows what God knows.  This is not to say that man knows everything or can know everything, his knowledge is not exhaustive like God's is.  But whatever truth man knows, that truth must intersect with God's knowledge.

It is the lie of all false religion that God has "higher" laws of logic than man.  This destroys knowledge itself.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That is incorrect. The laws of logic with govern man apply (because of His nature) to God as well. God IS logic, and if man is to think logically, he must think like God thinks.
> 
> Man knows truth if he knows what God knows. This is not to say that man knows everything or can know everything, his knowledge is not exhaustive like God's is. But whatever truth man knows, that truth must intersect with God's knowledge.
> 
> It is the lie of all false religion that God has "higher" laws of logic than man. This destroys knowledge itself.


Does an amoeba comprehend a galaxy?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is incorrect.  The laws of logic with govern man apply (because of His nature) to God as well. God IS logic, and if man is to think logically, he must think like God thinks.
> 
> Man knows truth if he knows what God knows.  This is not to say that man knows everything or can know everything, his knowledge is not exhaustive like God's is.  But whatever truth man knows, that truth must intersect with God's knowledge.
> 
> It is the lie of all false religion that God has "higher" laws of logic than man.  This destroys knowledge itself.


I get told I'm "thinking too much into stuff" and "Being too logical" all the time, thus making me very sympathetic to this point

----------


## erowe1

> I really seriously doubt that God is bound in any way by human's logic.


The laws of logic aren't "human's logic" as though we own them and control them. It's the other way around.

----------


## TER

> That is incorrect.  The laws of logic with govern man apply (because of His nature) to God as well. God IS logic, and if man is to think logically, he must think like God thinks.


Sola, these are very NeoPlatonistic statements you are making.  Where do you get the idea that ontology with regards to God depends upon logic?  This certainly is not Biblical.  In fact, this is exactly what Plato would say!  This is exactly what St. Paul called foolishness regarding the Greeks!  God is not limited nor described nor is defined by human logic, (or even divine logic!).  The ontology of God is based on personhood, and not ousia.  And our knowledge of Him is not based on reason but on experiential communion and revelation (though reason can assist in this).  These neoplatonic conjectures which you have written above were disproven by the Church a long long time ago.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow, these are very NeoPlatonistic statements you are making.  You think that ontology with regards to God depends upon logic?  This is exactly what Plato would say!  This is exactly what St. Paul called foolishness regarding the Greeks!  God is not limited nor described nor is defined by human logic, (or even divine logic!).  The ontology of God is based on personhood, and not ousia.  And our knowledge of Him is not based on reason but on experiential communion and revelation (though reason can assist in this).  These neoplatonic conjectures which you have written above were disproven by the Church a long long time ago.


No, they weren't "disproven" by "the church", they were rejected by your church because your church promotes a non-biblical, irrational mysticism instead of apostolic Christianity. 

"Neoplatonic" and "rationalistic" is just name calling. Christianity is a logical faith, in fact Christianity is the only foundation for logic.

----------


## erowe1

> No, they weren't "disproven" by "the church", they were rejected by your church


I doubt that that's even true. I don't think there's any major branch of Christian theology, including Eastern Orthodoxy that explicitly allows for its own doctrines to violate the laws of logic. All of the so-called ecumenical councils make claims to the effect that A is true and not-A must be false.

----------


## TER

> No, they weren't "disproven" by "the church", they were rejected by your church because your church promotes a non-biblical, irrational mysticism instead of apostolic Christianity. 
> 
> "Neoplatonic" and "rationalistic" is just name calling. Christianity is a logical faith, in fact Christianity is the only foundation for logic.


Have you heard of the apophatic approach to understanding God?  Ask erowe, he has at least some knowledge about it.

I am not stating that human logic is not beneficial in our walk with God, but rather I am addressing your statement by explaining to you that the ontology of God is not grounded on logic but on personhood, and the means to communion with Him is not primarily through the mind but through the heart.

As for saying that 'neoplatonic' and 'rationalistic' is just name calling, I really don't know how to respond.  I am simply explaining to you what your statement sounded like using the most precise terms I could think of.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I doubt that that's even true. I don't think there's any major branch of Christian theology, including Eastern Orthodoxy that explicitly allows for its own doctrines to violate the laws of logic. All of the so-called ecumenical councils make claims to the effect that A is true and not-A must be false.


Even if they may have affirmed some kind of consistent reasoning in some creeds, the seeds for irrationalism are there in Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.   This even bleeds into to Arminian Protestants and Neo-Orthodox "reformed" protestants.

----------


## erowe1

> Even if they may have affirmed some kind of consistent reasoning in some creeds, the seeds for irrationalism are there in Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.   This even bleeds into to Arminian Protestants and Neo-Orthodox "reformed" protestants.


I do sometimes encounter people who say things like that the doctrine of the Trinity violates the laws of logic, but that there's nothing wrong with that and it's true anyway. But I see that as kind of a folk theology. That's definitely not the way Augustine argued. I can't say if there might be other Church Fathers who did put it that way, but I wouldn't expect to find as bold of an anti-logic claim as that among very many.

----------


## TER

> Even if they may have affirmed some kind of consistent reasoning in some creeds, the seeds for irrationalism are there in Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.   This even bleeds into to Arminian Protestants and Neo-Orthodox "reformed" protestants.


Of course, everyone is wrong except for you!  Since you know so much, can you explain to me how you can state that Jesus and the Apostles believed and practiced Sola Scriptura when the writers of the NT refer to oral tradition as proofs?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Christianity is the only foundation for logic.


What utter nonsense.  Euclid and Aristotle did pretty well without Christianity, and your earlier cutting and pasting a hopelessly illogical analysis of John 8:47 doesn't exactly demonstrate that you know very much about the subject.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do sometimes encounter people who say things like that the doctrine of the Trinity violates the laws of logic, but that there's nothing wrong with that and it's true anyway. But I see that as kind of a folk theology. That's definitely not the way Augustine argued. I can't say if there might be other Church Fathers who did put it that way, but I wouldn't expect to find as bold of an anti-logic claim as that among very many.


Its self-defeating to use logic to try to refute the validity of logic.

----------


## Terry1

> That is incorrect.  The laws of logic which govern man apply (because of His nature) to God as well. God IS logic, and if man is to think logically, he must think like God thinks.
> 
> Man knows truth if he knows what God knows.  This is not to say that man knows everything or can know everything, his knowledge is not exhaustive like God's is.  But whatever truth man knows, that truth must intersect with God's knowledge.
> 
> It is the lie of all false religion that God has "higher" laws of logic than man.  This destroys knowledge itself.


Keep posting these fairy tales Sola, as in your OP here-- they make great target practice.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The laws of logic aren't "human's logic" as though we own them and control them. It's the other way around.


The laws of logic own and control humans?

----------


## erowe1

> The laws of logic own and control humans?


Yes. We are completely subject to them. They are not in any sense subject to us. We didn't invent them, can't change them, and can't violate them. They existed eternally before we did, and would exist if we never did. We can ignore them or lie about them. But that would only make us wrong and them right.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes. We are completely subject to them. They are not in any sense subject to us. We didn't invent them, can't change them, and can't violate them. They existed eternally before we did, and would exist if we never did. We can ignore them or lie about them. But that would only make us wrong and them right.


 Logic doesn't determine wrong or right, true or false but merely valid or invalid, logical or illogical.

----------


## erowe1

> Logic doesn't determine wrong or right, true or false but merely valid or invalid, logical or illogical.


What are the categories of logical and illogical and valid and invalid if they don't reveal something to be true or false?

----------


## PierzStyx

> What are the categories of logical and illogical and valid and invalid if they don't reveal something to be true or false?


Moral truth is not revealed by an appeal to human logic. You can tell me logically it might be bad to do heroin because it will kill me. But no amount of logical will convince me it is morally wrong to do so. Indeed "the learned who think they are wise" base their rejection of God on this basis. You can argue that such a being as God can exist but there is no logical reason he should exist. In fact Stephen Hawking showed A Brief History that the universe is self-existent, that matter always has been in one form or another and given enough time it is inevitable such a thing as the Universe should come in to being. Thus logic tells us all could come into existence without there ever being such a thing as God. Aquinas recognized this problem a millenia ago. This is why man's reason is good, but not the highest form of truth. Revelation is the highest form of truth. You can reasonably argue such a being as a God should exist or could exist but you cannot know His reality and His character unless it is revealed to you from Heaven. And this is why God calls Prophets and Apostles in every age who speak for Him to us.

----------


## erowe1

> Moral truth is not revealed by an appeal to human logic.


I notice that you quoted my post before saying this. Do you mean for this to be a reply to me? I didn't mention moral truth.

Since you bring it up though, I would say the same thing about morality as I did about logic. It is transcendent. We are subject to it, not the other way around.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> * Wrong*-- This guy is creating a strawman against what the "free will" people actually believe, then basing his argument on false claims against them.  
> 
> The Law of Moses didn't end until the time of the crucifixion of Christ.  That is the Law given by God to Moses to prove mankind's inability to keep those laws and is why the Law of Moses was placed in the side of the Ark.  Although God gave Moses the Ten Commandments later, which are not the same as Moses Law, Moses Law was in full effect until the cross.  The Ten Commandments given to Moses were to be placed inside the center of the Ark as a sign of what was to come through Jesus fulfilling Gods Law/Ten commandments on the cross. That Gods Law/Ten Commandments is at the very center of the will of God.  This was the Promise to Israel then, which had not occurred until the time of the cross.
> 
> It was the Law of Moses that was used to prove to mankind that they failed at keeping that Law of Moses as reference here:
> 
> *Deuteronomy 31
> 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying:  26 Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;*
> 
> ...


Was anything in there an attempted refutation of any of those 4 points?  I see you call it "lies" and "retarded", but where is the refutation?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What are the categories of logical and illogical and valid and invalid if they don't reveal something to be true or false?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Was anything in there an attempted refutation of any of those 4 points?  I see you call it "lies" and "retarded", but where is the refutation?


This is normal for him.  If I didn't know better I'd think he was a Romanist or an "orthodox" (LOl @ that "church's" name)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Logic doesn't determine wrong or right, true or false but merely valid or invalid, logical or illogical.


Gordon Clark says:




> God is the source and determiner of all truth. Christians generally, even uneducated Christians, understand that water, milk, alcohol, and gasoline freeze at different temperatures because God created them that way. God could have made an intoxicating fluid freeze at zero Fahrenheit and he could have made the cows product freeze at forty. But he decided otherwise. Therefore behind the act of creation there is an eternal decree. It was Gods eternal purpose to have such liquids, and therefore we can say that the particularities of nature were determined before there was any nature.
> 
> _Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral, or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so._
> 
> - See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal....UQzG9Mcd.dpuf

----------


## Terry1

> Was anything in there an attempted refutation of any of those 4 points?  I see you call it "lies" and "retarded", but where is the refutation?


It seems that just about everyone who subscribes to this belief system of yours has no clue as to the difference between the two laws being--the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments.

None of you seem to be able to grasp which one the Apostle Paul is referring to in his epistles, as well as the guy who wrote this thesis you posted.  It's nothing but lies and pure tripe and hasn't got one ounce of truth in it regarding what free will people actually believe or the difference between the two laws and their relevance as to which law mankind failed to keep.

Moses law was an added law and a temporal law.  A ceremonial law of rituals and traditions.  Gods law is perfect and eternal.  The Law of Moses is what was placed on the side of the Ark to prove mankind's failure to keep every single ceremony, ritual and tradition perfectly and to the letter of that law.  

This piece of trash that you posted is just that.  This guy who wrote it has no business dabbling in what he believes others believe and then writing about it when he's so far off the mark that someone should sue this guy for liable.

His "four points" aren't points at all, they're flat out lies fabricated to support his own doctrine of death.  It almost seems that because all who subscribe to this belief are spiritually deaf, dumb and blind are not meant to understand the difference between the two laws.  I believe that is the key reason that believers of this doctrine are so confused about scripture in general.  If you can't understand which law Paul is talking about in his epistles, along with John, James and Hebrews into Revelation-- then of course you'd have to corrupt and pervert almost the entire NT to support that belief.

The Mosaic Law was the one that proved mankind's inability to keep the ceremonial laws to the letter to obtain righteousness.  That is the Law Paul tells us not to do.  Gods eternal Law, the Ten Commandments that is now written upon our hearts is the Law that Paul tells us to do now as a "work of faith", done by the Law of faith.  None of you can grasp this---not one of you.  Because I know that if you did understand the difference and what Paul is actually saying along with the other books in the NT, you would have to logically abandon this belief of yours.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is normal for him.  If I didn't know better I'd think he was a Romanist or an "orthodox" (LOl @ that "church's" name)


What is "lol" about the Orthodox Catholic Church's name?

----------


## Terry1

> This is normal for him.  If I didn't know better I'd think he was a Romanist or an "orthodox" (LOl @ that "church's" name)


You need to understand something here FF, Catholicism--while it may have it's own baggage that's been adapted during it's long existence, is still a Christian denomination that resides within the continuum of the will of God.  Calvinisim isn't even a blip on the radar screen.  It's so far off the mark that it's outside of grace and will of God.

I'm not a Catholic and I do understand what the Catholics believe, but they are still within the will of God in their belief system IMO and moreso than many others with regard to what their doctrine contain and entail.  While I don't agree with many of their rituals and practices within their belief system, at least they understand that mankind has a free will and that mankind is still accountable to death instead of the reformed theologies that have adapted the belief that we're already "justified, glorified and perfected" in this life, which we are not.  How presumptuous can a believer be to assume that they've already been perfected in this life when our Lord wasn't even perfected until after His crucifixion and resurrection?

----------


## erowe1

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


I'm not sure what point you mean to make by posting that. But a simple search for the words "true" and "false" in that article show that it supports what I said.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not sure what point you mean to make by posting that. But a simple search for the words "true" and "false" in that article show that it supports what I said.


Yeah. that's often the problem with a simple search for words.  What are your true (logically derived) premises?

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah. that's often the problem with a simple search for words.  What are your true (logically derived) premises?


Logic doesn't provide the premises. But it dictates what conclusions follow from them such that if the premises are true then so are the conclusions.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Logic doesn't provide the premises. But it dictates what conclusions follow from them such that if the premises are true then so are the conclusions.


Correcto-mundo! That's a mighty big "if" for the premises. While commiting no falacies. Is logic logical? The connected chain of reasoning goes back to axiomatic premises.

----------


## erowe1

> Correcto-mundo! That's a mighty big "if" for the premises. While commiting no falacies. Is logic logical? The connected chain of reasoning goes back to axiomatic premises.


I don't see how the point you're making is an answer to anything I said earlier in the thread that led you into this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't see how the point you're making is an answer to anything I said earlier in the thread that led you into this.


For me. it goes back to your thread post #23.  Perhaps I made a wrong turn somewhere.  But whatever, here we are.  

*Is logic logical?*  < show your work >

----------


## erowe1

> *Is logic logical?*  < show your work >


Yes.

The following is my work:

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes.
> 
> The following is my work:


  Sorry, the correct answer is, No.  Care to try again?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is "lol" about the Orthodox Catholic Church's name?


Because the Orthodox church is orthodox in the same way that Mitt Romney is a conservative, in other words, not at all.



> You need to understand something here FF, Catholicism--while it may have it's own baggage that's been adapted during it's long existence, is still a Christian denomination that resides within the continuum of the will of God.  Calvinisim isn't even a blip on the radar screen.  It's so far off the mark that it's outside of grace and will of God.
> 
> I'm not a Catholic and I do understand what the Catholics believe, but they are still within the will of God in their belief system IMO and moreso than many others with regard to what their doctrine contain and entail.  While I don't agree with many of their rituals and practices within their belief system, at least they understand that mankind has a free will and that mankind is still accountable to death instead of the reformed theologies that have adapted the belief that we're already "justified, glorified and perfected" in this life, which we are not.  How presumptuous can a believer be to assume that they've already been perfected in this life when our Lord wasn't even perfected until after His crucifixion and resurrection?


Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a Protestant say that Catholics are Christians but that Calvinists aren't... OK then.

----------


## eduardo89

> Because the Orthodox church is orthodox in the same way that Mitt Romney is a conservative, in other words, not at all


So a Church that has preserved it's faith since the beginning of Christianity is not orthodox, but you who follow doctrines and theology concocted 1500 years after Christ are orthodox?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So a Church that has preserved it's faith since the beginning of Christianity is not orthodox, but you who follow doctrines and theology concocted 1500 years after Christ are orthodox?


If those theologies were really concocted 1500 years after Christ, they would not be written in the Bible.

----------


## TER

> If those theologies were really concocted 1500 years after Christ, they would not be written in the Bible.


Sola Scriptura is but one example of a theology concocted 1500 years after Christ and is not written in the Bible, yet you still ascribe to it.  How does that make you orthodox?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola Scriptura is but one example of a theology concocted 1500 years after Christ and is not written in the Bible, yet you still ascribe to it.  How does that make you orthodox?


Acts 17:11

2 Timothy 3:16

----------


## Christian Liberty

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

----------


## Terry1

> Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a Protestant say that Catholics are Christians but that Calvinists aren't... OK then.


I never said that it's impossible for a Calvinist to be a Christian, but by what has been displayed as a belief here is definitely not consistent with the word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Repentance is the only path to salvation and ongoing throughout our entire lives.  It's the only way we can learn and grow in faith.  Without believing in repentance---by God's own word--there can be no salvation--no state of elect in someone who believes such.

Catholics do believe in repentance, they do believe in the free will, they do believe in acts of faith, they do believe in listening to the Holy Spirit, they do believe that Jesus Christ is Lord---hence Catholicism is within the will of God.  

Also many maintain that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon---that's not so either, by what I've come to see it's Jerusalem.  Prophetically, the Pope might fall into the category of the "false prophet", but that does not include everyone who believes in Catholicism.  I know very many good charismatic Catholics and some whom I have learned a great deal from.  I do not discount them, nor consider them "unchristian" at all, not by any means.

----------


## eduardo89

> Acts 17:11
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16





> http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm


I'm currently at work, but I will respond to this in a bit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I never said that it's impossible for a Calvinist to be a Christian, but by what has been displayed as a belief here is definitely not consistent with the word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Repentance is the only path to salvation and ongoing throughout our entire lives.  It's the only way we can learn and grow in faith.  Without believing in repentance---by God's own word--there can be no salvation--no state of elect in someone who believes such.
> 
> Catholics do believe in repentance, they do believe in the free will, they do believe in acts of faith, they do believe in listening to the Holy Spirit, they do believe that Jesus Christ is Lord---hence Catholicism is within the will of God.  
> 
> Also many maintain that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon---that's not so either, by what I've come to see it's Jerusalem.  Prophetically, the Pope might fall into the category of the "false prophet", but that does not include everyone who believes in Catholicism.  I know very many good charismatic Catholics and some whom I have learned a great deal.  I do not discount them, nor consider them "unchristian" at all, not by any means.


Who said Calvinists don't believe in repentence? 

I don't think you even understand what we believe.

For what its worth, I do not necessarily claim that there is no such thing as a Catholic who is a Christian.  But such a person would have to be substantially more ignorant than the people who post here.  Eduardo knows what the Council of Trent says, and he accepts it.  Thus, he is not a Christian.

----------


## Terry1

> Who said Calvinists don't believe in repentence? 
> 
> I don't think you even understand what we believe.
> 
> For what its worth, I do not necessarily claim that there is no such thing as a Catholic who is a Christian.  But such a person would have to be substantially more ignorant than the people who post here.  Eduardo knows what the Council of Trent says, and he accepts it.  Thus, he is not a Christian.


Are you a *one pointer-two pointer-three pointer-four pointer or a five pointer Calvinist?  Because the total depravity doctrine omits the need for repentance.  Have you got a different spin on that one then?  Sola is the one who claimed that "repentance is a dead work" and that "God is the author of sin because He ordained it".

So then you believe that anyone who rejects reformed theology can't be a Christian then?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you a *one pointer-two pointer-three pointer-four pointer or a five pointer Calvinist?


I believe all five.




> Because the total depravity doctrine omits the need for repentance.


No, it does not.  The total depravity doctrine teaches that every part of man is touched by sin, and that man cannot repent by his own power. It does not in any way teach that man does not need to repent, but that he cannot do so of his own accord.




> Have you got a different spin on that one then?  Sola is the one who claimed that "repentance is a dead work"


I didn't see that post, but I think his point is that justification was achieved on the cross.  As limited atonement advocates, we would hold that everyone who Christ died for (Which is not every single person) will ultimately be justified.  However, "in time" justification is applied at the moment of repentance.  So, it is fair to say that anyone who repents and believes will be saved, despite the fact that we know that only those who Christ died for will ever repent, and that all who Christ died for will repent.




> and that "God is the author of sin because He ordained it".


Sola is in the minority on that viewpoint.  I disagree with him on that.  But, ultimately, I'm  not going to claim to know the mind of God and know exactly how God ordained what he ordained.  I do know that God is in complete control of the universe, and everything that happens happens because he allows it to happen.




> So then you believe that anyone who rejects reformed theology can't be a Christian then?


Define "reformed theology."  If by "reformed theology" you mean what is commonly referred to as "Calvinism"  than I would say no, but Sola_Fide would disagree with me.  If, on the other hand, you mean "Justification being by faith alone" than yes, I would absolutely say that every Christian believes that.  You can't get to heaven if you in any way trust on your own works to get you there.  Either Christ is your righteousness, or he's not.

----------


## RJB

> I never said that it's impossible for a Calvinist to be a Christian, but *by what has been displayed* as a belief here is definitely not consistent with the word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


I bolded display, because it's probably the display rather than the belief itself that is a turn off.

Obviously I don't agree with Calvinism, however, don't judge all Calvinists by the actions of the two people in this thread.  There are a few other Calvinists who read and respond to what is actually in someone else's post rather than make strawmen, don't gleefully tell you you're going to hell, don't run away and change the subject when presented with opposing bible verse,  and are actually rather pleasant and have great posts.

----------


## eduardo89

> I bolded display, because it's probably the display rather than the belief itself that is a turn off.
> 
> Obviously I don't agree with Calvinism, however, don't judge all Calvinists by the actions of the two people in this thread.  There are a few other Calvinists who read and respond to what is actually in someone else's post rather than make strawmen, don't gleefully tell you you're going to hell, don't run away and change the subject when presented with opposing bible verse,  and are actually rather pleasant and have great posts.


I agree. And I have to add that if I had to say there is one person who got me reading the Bible again it was a Calvinist, who despite her flawed theology is one of the people I have had most respect and affection for in my entire life.

lol, she even got me hooked on Mark Driscoll for a few months!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I bolded display, because it's probably the display rather than the belief itself that is a turn off.
> 
> Obviously I don't agree with Calvinism, however, don't judge all Calvinists by the actions of the two people in this thread.  There are a few other Calvinists who read and respond to what is actually in someone else's post rather than make strawmen, *don't gleefully tell you you're going to hell*, don't run away and change the subject when presented with opposing bible verse,  and are actually rather pleasant and have great posts.


Whatever other flaws I may have as a poster, and for what its worth, I have been considering your points: first of all, I do not "gleefully" tell anyone they are unregenerate, but out of concern for their spiritual well being, and second of all, I do not state that a person who does not yet believe the gospel will definitively go to Hell, only that they are currently unregnerate and will go to Hell if God does not save them.




> I agree. And I have to add that if I had to say there is one person who got me reading the Bible again it was a Calvinist, who despite her flawed theology is one of the people I have had most respect and affection for in my entire life.
> 
> lol, she even got me hooked on Mark Driscoll for a few months!


You got hoked on Driscoll?  Lol!  Shane77m made a post about Driscoll awhile back that pretty much turned me off to him but its been awhile.  My parents have advised me NOT to listen to his exegesis on Song of Solomon...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Because the Orthodox church is orthodox in the same way that Mitt Romney is a conservative, in other words, not at all.


The RCC is schismatic and makes some significant errors, but it is Christian.  And more distinctly Christian than the doctrines and denominations that came out of the Reformation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree. And I have to add that if I had to say there is one person who got me reading the Bible again it was a Calvinist, who despite her flawed theology is one of the people I have had most respect and affection for in my entire life.
> 
> lol, she even got me hooked on Mark Driscoll for a few months!


Marc Driscoll sucks.  He's an Amyraldian.  He denies the atonement.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Whatever other flaws I may have as a poster, and for what its worth, I have been considering your points: first of all, I do not "gleefully" tell anyone they are unregenerate, but out of concern for their spiritual well being, and second of all,* I do not state that a person who does not yet believe the gospel will definitively go to Hell, only that they are currently unregnerate and will go to Hell if God does not save them.
> *


So you essentially agree with the Orthodox view of salvation!  Good to see you're on the right path.

----------


## eduardo89

> You got hoked on Driscoll?  Lol!  Shane77m made a post about Driscoll awhile back that pretty much turned me off to him but its been awhile.  My parents have advised me NOT to listen to his exegesis on Song of Solomon...


Driscoll is obsessed with blow jobs.

----------


## RJB

> Whatever other flaws I may have as a poster, and for what its worth, I have been considering your points: first of all, I do not "gleefully" tell anyone they are unregenerate, but *out of concern for their spiritual well being*, and second of all, I do not state that a person who does not yet believe the gospel will definitively go to Hell, only that they are currently unregnerate and will go to Hell if God does not save them.


  Or is it your desire to be right?  Serious question.






> You got hoked on Driscoll?  Lol!  Shane77m made a post about Driscoll awhile back that pretty much turned me off to him but its been awhile.  My parents have advised me NOT to listen to his exegesis on Song of Solomon...


  I'm curious why?

----------


## RJB

> The RCC is schismatic and makes some significant errors, but it is Christian.


You're wrong buster.  Wanna arm wrestle!

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm curious why?


Mark Driscoll's 'sermons' are occasionally PG13 and sometimes even Rated R. FreedomFanatic is too young to listen to them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Marc Driscoll sucks.  He's an Amyraldian.  He denies the atonement.


Is he an actual 4 pointer or is "Amyraldian" just another synonym for "hypo-calvinist" for you.  For the record this is a completely serious question.  I've never heard anyone say of him that he was an Amyraldian.



> Or is it your desire to be right?  Serious question.


It is what I said it was.




> I'm curious why?


Apparently he's quite explicit about sex.  Which... has nothing to do with "being old enough", it has to do with basic morality.  I haven't really listened to him, but I did read shane's link from awhile back and he was way more explicit than a pastor ever need be.

----------


## RJB

> It is what I said it was.


Sure....   

You can admit to human frailties.

----------


## RJB

Bump for Terry so this doesn't get buried.  Don't get bummed dude.




> I never said that it's impossible for a Calvinist to be a Christian, but *by what has been displayed* as a belief here is definitely not consistent with the word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


I bolded display, because it's probably the display rather than the belief itself that is a turn off.

Obviously I don't agree with Calvinism, however, don't judge all Calvinists by the actions of the two people in this thread.  There are a few other Calvinists who read and respond to what is actually in someone else's post rather than make strawmen, don't gleefully tell you you're going to hell, don't run away and change the subject when presented with opposing bible verse,  and are actually rather pleasant and have great posts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're wrong buster.  Wanna arm wrestle!


lolz

----------


## Natural Citizen

Wow. Now that's surely one heck of an interesting editorialization here, S_F. Going to have to read this thread, for sure. Scrolling through the topics, I saw this one and was like "what the heck is on S_F's mind here. Way good title, S_F.  Can't wait to see if the discussion lives up to it. 

I'll be back (in my Schwarzenegger voice)...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow. Now that's surely one heck of an interesting editorialization here, S_F. Going to have to read this thread, for sure. Scrolling through the topics, I saw this one and was like "what the heck is on S_F's mind here. Way good title, S_F.  Can't wait to see if the discussion lives up to it. 
> 
> I'll be back (in my Schwarzenegger voice)...


Thanks.  It would be nice if anyone here would actually engage any one of the 4 fallacies listed.   No one has yet.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thanks.  It would be nice if anyone here would actually engage any one of the 4 fallacies listed.   No one has yet.


I can't debate it in the context from which you place it up for debate, S_F. I'm simply not a product of the scriptures. I don't understand them. I don't live my life in a manner conforming to them. so I'll have to pass here.

What I do understand though is where you left off with it, and, yes, it's true that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is. In fact, that's the impression that I got when I first got a peek at the thread in the topics. The first thing I honestly thought about was the 432hz and man's conscious connection with the Universe and whatnot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thanks.  It would be nice if anyone here would actually engage any one of the 4 fallacies listed.   No one has yet.


I'm not sure I can do that considering I agree with you on this issue.

----------


## RJB

> Thanks.  It would be nice if anyone here would actually engage any one of the 4 fallacies listed.   No one has yet.


Terry already posted that your "fallacies" are your usual *strawmen*.   There are plenty of scripture verses that we follow that have been posted on other threads.  Why don't you post those scripture verses that we've cited on other threads as fallacies?

It comes down to, if you won't post serious material, I'd rather engage in the silliness of the thread.

----------


## Terry1

> I believe all five..


Then you are what's called an "absolute" Calvinist.  You are totally embedded in that belief.




> No, it does not.  The total depravity doctrine teaches that every part of man is touched by sin, and that man cannot repent by his own power. It does not in any way teach that man does not need to repent, but that he cannot do so of his own accord.


This is what total depravity and reformed theology Calvinists and some Baptist teach.  This is exactly almost word for word what Sola has been saying his belief is all along here:
*
"People talk about repentance, but the average man knows nothing about repentance; for repentance, like faith, is a gift from God, and it is given to men through the hearing of the Gospel by the Spirit of God. But the direction of repentance- if there be such a thing as direction-is from dead works. In Hebrews 6:1, the Apostle Paul points out that in order for a man to be saved, he must repent from dead works"*

Now, allow me to explain just what this means because by your explanation---you're not even consistent with what you claim to subscribe to either.  
Note the underlined, while he's claiming that "repentance is a gift" and then says "if there is such a thing", then calls repentance "a dead work".  This is exactly what the total depravity doctrine teaches and means and this is how reformed teachers  of this doctrine all teach it.  

Repentance is a "fruit of the gift" of salvation.  Salvation is a gift by grace through faith.  We are instructed as to how to use the gifts God gave us in accordance with His word.  The instructions we are given are given because God gave us the ability to choose opposite those instructions.  So then we're told not to do one thing because it will lead to another.  Then were are told what things to do because they also lead to something else with regard to whatever we choose in this life.  Repentance is a direct result of the gift of salvation.  Repentance doesn't automatically happen just because one believes in God.  The devil believes in God, do you consider the devil's belief in God a gift to satan then that would cause him to repent automatically because of belief alone?  The demons believe also, but they can not be regenerated either just the same as satan.

Repentance can only happen on the part of the believer choosing to obey the Holy Spirit's voice--through our faith.  It is the end result of the gift of grace through faith.  The word "through" indicates that we are choosing to do something because we believe-- to reveal evidence of that belief, which is repentance/changing our minds and doing what we know God is asking us to do.  This is also called "the fruit of the Spirit".  Our "works of faith" is what produces "the fruit".  A branch that bears no fruit is cut off from the true Vine/Jesus.  Do you believe that our Lord would cut off a partaker/branch of Himself if He'd forced him to bear no fruit? John 15:1-5    Of course not, because we have a choice in the course of our lives to choose opposite God.





> I didn't see that post, but I think his point is that justification was achieved on the cross.  As limited atonement advocates, we would hold that everyone who Christ died for (Which is not every single person) will ultimately be justified.  However, "in time" justification is applied at the moment of repentance.  So, it is fair to say that anyone who repents and believes will be saved, despite the fact that we know that only those who Christ died for will ever repent, and that all who Christ died for will repent.


Jesus died for all, that the world *might be saved* because it's not the will of the Father that even one should perish.  Meaning--even though God wants every single one of His children that He created, they won't all choose to follow Him.  Why do you think that God gave not just mankind, but even His heavenly angels a choice to choose opposite Himself?  Do you really believe that God just dumped a third of heaven and His most beloved of all who was then Lucifer just to prove a point to mankind or Himself?  That belief is pure insanity and is not consistent with the word of God.  

God gave His creation and sons a free will because He wants them to love Him freely.  What part of your God given nature indicates that you would want to be forced to love something that you hate?   





> Sola is in the minority on that viewpoint.  I disagree with him on that.  But, ultimately, I'm  not going to claim to know the mind of God and know exactly how God ordained what he ordained.  I do know that God is in complete control of the universe, and everything that happens happens because he allows it to happen.


Actually, Sola is being more true to the devilish doctrine he subscribes to than you are.  You are the one who seems to be undecided as to what you really want to subscribe to and that is not a bad thing either, because you need to abandon this belief you've been sucked into for your own soul's sake.




> Define "reformed theology."  If by "reformed theology" you mean what is commonly referred to as "Calvinism"  than I would say no, but Sola_Fide would disagree with me.  If, on the other hand, you mean "Justification being by faith alone" than yes, I would absolutely say that every Christian believes that.  You can't get to heaven if you in any way trust on your own works to get you there.  Either Christ is your righteousness, or he's not.


Reformed theology can be summed up as the "grace alone believers" and the "predestination camp of believers".  Although there were many reformers, some who split off from the others with regard to distinctions in their doctrinal beliefs, most held to the "grace alone" or "predestination" doctrine, that all encompass the belief that once one becomes a confessing believer and baptized that they are forever from that point on saved and elect for the rest of their lives.  Just as the "predestination camp" believe that they've already been justified, glorified and perfected in this life, which is not biblical, nor does it follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ as I have well pointed out with scripture to back up everything I have asserted.  No one has yet refuted those either, which I found quite odd in light of those who believe the opposite.

----------


## Terry1

I wanted to place this thought in a separate post because I believe this is one of the most important issues regarding our salvation and beliefs.

God's Grace---*is God Himself and His power and glory*

"Through Faith" Is the same as "through Jesus".  

We are saved by the "power of God's grace Himself " and "through Faith/Jesus Christ work on that cross".  No one comes to the "power/Grace/God unless they go "through Faith/Jesus Christ".

Attempting to separate Grace from Faith is the very same as attempting to separate God from Jesus.  It is doing the exact same thing.  God can not be separated from Jesus.  So then attempting to say that one is saved by God's Grace alone, is then the very same as saying we are not saved through Jesus Christ.

Neither Grace alone nor Faith alone and by itself can effect the state of salvation or elect in a believer--it is impossible.  One without the other is of no effect because they can not be separated and perform what they were both designed to do together and not apart.  It's is only "BY GRACE AND THROUGH FAITH" that anyone can be in a state of elect or truly saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.
> 
> *Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.*
> 
> God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
> 
> *A.* Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
> [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> ...


http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...of_syner_1.php

Bump....The fallacies of synergism keep popping up on this forum.  Please read this post again.

----------


## moostraks

Epistle of Barnabas 100 A.D. 1:139 (losing salvation) "Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord." 1:139 (chap. 4) "This means that the man perishes justly, who, having a knowledge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness. (chap. 5) (Presumably the way of righteousness is open to him).


Mathetes 130 A.D. 1:25 "Come, then after you have freed [or purified] yourself from all prejudices possessing your mind" 1:29 "having been a disciple of the Apostles..." To Diognetus 2, 10.

"as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God." chapter 7


Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.

Athenagoras 177 A.D. 2:142 "Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless and vice and virtue were in their own power" A Plea for Christians 24



Theophilus bishop of Antioch after Ignatius 168-181 A.D. 2:91 "And this is your condition, because of the blindness of your soul, and the hardness of your heart. But, if you will, you may be healed. Entrust yourself to the Physician [God], and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of your heart." To Autolycus 7.



Tatian (later turned heretic) 110-172 A.D. "brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of this free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God."  "And the power of the Logos, having in itself a faculty to foresee future events, not as fated, but as taking place by the choice of free agents..." Address of Tatian to the Greeks ch.7 p.67-68.



Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp & bishop of Lyons (177-202 A.D.) 1:347 "they [unbelievers] despise the workmanship of God, speaking against their own salvation.", 1:455 "[God] did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all" 1:456 "indicating that eternal fire was not originally prepared for man, but for him [Satan] who beguiled man, and caused him to offend" Against Heresies Book 1 ch.22.



Minucius Felix 210 A.D. 4:195 "determines also the fates for us according to the deserts and qualities of individuals." The Octavius of Minucius Felix 36.



"For God made man free, and with power over himself. ...That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. ... so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting." 2:105 To Autolycus 27



Clement of Alexandria 193-217 A.D. 2:319 "Now the devil, being possessed of freewill, was able both to repent and to steal;" 2:239 "So in no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins" Stromata Book 1 ch.17. vol.2:239 "For to take fever is involuntary; but when one takes fever through his own fault, from excess, we blame him. Inasmuch, then as evil is involuntary, -for no one prefers evil as evil;...such being the case, to free ourselves from ignorance, and from evil and voluptuous choice, and above all, to withhold our assent from those delusive phantasies, depends on ourselves." The Instructor 2:1. 3:319 speaks well of the work Shepherd of Hermas. also last chapter.

"Everything then, which did not hinder a mans choice from being free, He made and rendered auxiliary to virtue," Stromata 7:2

"And how is He Saviour and Lord, if not the Saviour and Lord of all? But He is the Saviour of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by Him." (Stromata 7:2)



Bardaisan of Syria 154-222 A.D. "But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures. fragments quoted from Forster & Marston



Hippolytus, disciple of Irenaeus and Bishop of Portus 220-236 A.D. 5:152 "[Jesus] might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with the power to do both." Refutat. of All Heresies 10:29



Tertullian 200-240 A.D. 3:220 (against total depravity) "Still there is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished." 3:301 "Therefore it was proper that (he who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself; so that this very thing - namely, freedom of will and self-command - might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him." 3:303 No doubt it was an angel [Lucifer] who was the seducer; but then the victim of that seduction [Adam] was free, and master of himself;" 3:308 "Who is the author of good, but He who also requires it?" 3:308 "Behold, they [Marcionites] say, how He acknowledges Himself to be the creator of evil in the passage, It is I who created evil. They take a word whose one form reduces to confusion and ambiguity two kinds of evils (because both sins and punishments are called evils), and will have Him in every passage to be understood as the creator of all evil things, in order that He may be designated the author of evil." Against Marcion chap. 14.



Commodianus North African bishop 240 A.D. 4:210 "If you wish to live, surrender yourselves to the second law. Avoid the worship of temples, the oracles of demons; turn yourselves to Christ, and ye shall be associates with God." Instruction of Commodianus 35.



Origen (strange teacher) 230-254 A.D. 4:240 "This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition;" De Principiis 


Alexander of Lycopolis 301 A.D. 6:247 "But man, being able to perceive and to judge, and being potentially wise, -for he has the power to become so -when he has received what is peculiar to himself, treads it under foot." Of the Manichaeans chap. 15.



Arnobius 297-303 A.D. 6:458-459 "To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking. If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindly offered gift, ... why should He keep on inviting you, while His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His bounty depend upon your own free choice?" 6:458-459 "Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This, then is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unwilling, to reverse their inclinations, to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive," Against the Heathen 2:64,65.

http://www.biblequery.org/Doctrine/P...Calvinists.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Epistle of Barnabas 100 A.D. 1:139 (losing salvation) "Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord." 1:139 (chap. 4) "This means that the man perishes justly, who, having a knowledge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness. (chap. 5) (Presumably the way of righteousness is open to him).
> 
> 
> Mathetes 130 A.D. 1:25 "Come, then after you have freed [or purified] yourself from all prejudices possessing your mind" 1:29 "having been a disciple of the Apostles..." To Diognetus 2, 10.
> 
> "as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God." chapter 7
> 
> 
> Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.
> ...



Wrong.



> The emerging patristic understanding of such matters as predestination, grace and free will is somewhat confused, and would remain so until controversy forced full discussion of the issue upon the church. * Indeed by the end of the 4th century, the fathers had formulated a doctrine of human free will based on philosophical foundations rather than Biblical foundations.*  Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil. . . .


Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Vol. I, pp.18-19)

----------


## moostraks

> Wrong.
> 
> 
> Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Vol. I, pp.18-19)


Lol...So these are all just false quotes attributed to the Church fathers? 





> A study of the early Church shows a broad theological consensus existed that affirmed belief in free will.  J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine notes that the second century apologists unanimously believed in human free will (1960:166)...
> 
> What is striking is that the Calvinists’ doctrines of total deprativity and double predestination were not taught by the early church fathers.  The distinctive teachings of the Reformed tradition have their roots in Augustine of Hippo and the influence of medieval Scholasticism on Christian theology in the Middle Ages.  This points to Calvinism (Reformed theology) not being part of the historic Christian faith, but a novel theological system invented by John Calvin in the 1500s.


http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...hern-baptists/ 

 Read some of what the fathers said rather than just replying wrong, then argue with them because they disagree with you and your novelist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lol...So these are all just false quotes attributed to the Church fathers? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...hern-baptists/ 
> 
>  Read some of what the fathers said rather than just replying wrong, then argue with them because they disagree with you and your novelist.


You don't know anything about church history or the theological and philosophical issues surrounding it.

You are a respecter of men and their titles,  which is one of the greatest offenses to God.

----------


## TER

> Lol...So these are all just false quotes attributed to the Church fathers? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...hern-baptists/ 
> 
>  Read some of what the fathers said rather than just replying wrong, then argue with them because they disagree with you and your novelist.


Thank you for the link moostraks!  Very informative site!

Here is some more history in case some people forgot who we mean when we say Fathers of the Church:

Many, if not the vast majority, of the early church fathers, were bishops.  Some of the well known church fathers include:

*Ignatius of Antioch* – A disciple of John the Apostle, he died around the year AD 100.  Tradition has it that he was one of the children Jesus took into his arms and blessed.  Ignatius served as the third bishop of the city of Antioch, the same city that sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (see Acts 13).  He wrote six letters that give valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the Christians shortly after the original Apostles had passed on. His letters can be found in the Apostolic Fathers.

*Polycarp* – Another disciple of John the Apostle, he died a martyr’s death at the stake in AD 155.  Polycarp stressed the importance of memorizing and passing on the teachings of the Apostles.  The account of his martyrdom became a very early classic and can be found in the Apostolic Fathers collection.

*Irenaeus of Lyons* – A disciple of Polycarp, he served as bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France).  He was a missionary bishop overseeing a church on the frontiers of the Roman world.  He is well known for his Against the Heretics which he wrote to combat the heresy of Gnosticism.  He also wrote On the Apostolic Preaching.  He died around AD 202.

*Athanasius the Great* – He served as bishop of the city of Alexandria, one of the great cities of the Roman Empire.  He played an important role in combating the heresy of Arianism which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ.  He wrote the well known theological classic On the Incarnation and participated in the first Ecumenical Council in AD 325.  He died in AD 373.

*Basil the Great* – He served as bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (modern day Turkey).  He wrote On the Holy Spirit against those who denied the divine nature of the Holy Spirit.  He died AD 379.

Interestingly, some would rather make people from the 1500's to be their church fathers and teachers even though these teachers are totally disassociated from these early saints ecclesiastically, sacramentally, as well as theologically.  Well, I choose the early witnesses to know a wee bit more about the faith of the apostles then the later 'reformers'.

----------


## moostraks

> You don't know anything about church history or the theological and philosophical issues surrounding it.
> 
> You are a respecter of men and their titles,  which is one of the greatest offenses to God.


You mean respect as in:

Proverbs 19:20 

Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.

Proverbs 1:5 

Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,

Proverbs 1:7 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 10:17 

Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.

2 Timothy 3:15 

And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And by titles you would mean their respected position in the early church as opposed to a modern scholar? Uh...okay guilty of trusting the writings of the early church as opposed to novel ideas of the modern era when seeking to understand the original beliefs of the Church. So upon what do you base your erroneous opinion of my knowledge of church history? The fact that I disagree with your opinions? I post writings by the early Church fathers and you just skipped right over them. I don't think it is me who is ignoring history here.

I respect the Light inside of man and am instructed to love others. Do you think He will find me offensive for this or is it you who finds me offensive and you wish to feel holy as you insult me?

----------


## erowe1

> You mean respect as in:
> 
> Proverbs 19:20 
> 
> Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.
> 
> Proverbs 1:5 
> 
> Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,
> ...


The first quote on your list from the church fathers is from the Epistle of Barnabas. Have you read the Epistle of Barnabas?

----------


## TER

> The first quote on your list from the church fathers is from the Epistle of Barnabas. Have you read the Epistle of Barnabas?


A very common method of the poster above is to pick one potentially controversial topic to try and shed doubt on the remaining post.

The Epistle of Barnabas is not considered part of the canon but worthy to be read (indeed, many of the local churches considered it canonical).  Just because it was not added to the canon and is considered apocryphal does not mean it is heretical and not worthy for instruction.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 *"And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..."* 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.


Here Justin Martyr repeats a common fallacy among synergists.  It does not follow that accountability only comes from the freedom to choose:




> *It is presumed that for a man to be held responsible requires the freedom, at least to some extent, to have done otherwise. Yet, implied in Paul’s response (in Romans 9) is that the only thing required for man to be responsible is a superior authority, and that authority is God who alone can justly demand a response from his subordinate and sinful creatures.
> *


http://godshammer.wordpress.com/

In the Bible, responsibility does not come from the freedom to do right or wrong, responsibility comes from the fact that God is above man as His judge.

----------


## Sola_Fide

And think about this:  Justin Martyr never even quoted Paul in his works.  Can you imagine that?  A "Christian" that was not familiar with Paul's letters?  That was what it was like back in the first and second centuries.  But Justin Martyr probably never read an epistle of Paul's, so his theology was SEVERLY handicapped.

----------


## Terry1

Sola, I'm going to ask you a question and I don't mean to pass any judgments, but I'm just curious at this point.  Are you a gay man?  Just answer yes or no please.

----------


## moostraks

> The first quote on your list from the church fathers is from the Epistle of Barnabas. Have you read the Epistle of Barnabas?


Keep trying erowe. I am sure you will find a reason to dismiss each quote in favor of Calvinism. People can judge the totality of the list here and research on their own and draw their own conclusions. I personally find it fallacious to act as if there was some huge consensus that points to Calvinism in the early church fathers.

----------


## moostraks

> A very common method of the poster above is to pick one potentially controversial topic to try and shed doubt on the remaining post.
> 
> The Epistle of Barnabas is not considered part of the canon but worthy to be read (indeed, many of the local churches considered it canonical).  Just because it was not added to the canon and is considered apocryphal does not mean it is heretical and not worthy for instruction.


 I expected as much. I am sure there are others who are interested for whom this may prove to be a valuable selection for their use.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I'm going to ask you a question and I don't mean to pass any judgments, but I'm just curious at this point.  Are you a gay man?  Just answer yes or no please.


Terry1, I'm going to ask you a question and I don't mean to pass judgement, but I'm just curious at this point.  Are you a child molester?  Just answer yes or no please.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, I'm going to ask you a question and I don't mean to pass judgement, but I'm just curious at this point.  Are you a child molester?  Just answer yes or no please.


No--certainly not.  Are you gay?  Why is that so hard for you to answer?

----------


## Natural Citizen

You know, when you have the forum display set up the way that I do so that the most recent posts are the first ones that I see, It's always as if I'm walking in on the butt end of the conversation. 

This one was a whopper alright. Heh.

_Anyhoo_....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know, when you have the forum display set up the way that I do so that the most recent posts are the first ones that I see, It's always as if I'm walking in on the butt end of the conversation. 
> 
> This one was a whopper alright. Heh.
> 
> _Anyhoo_....


Sorry about that NC. 

Leave it to the idiot of the board to bring the debate down to that level.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No--certainly not.  Are you gay?  Why is that so hard for you to answer?


"Certainly not"?  Why did you answer it so quickly, and like that?

What are you hiding?

----------


## erowe1

> Keep trying erowe. I am sure you will find a reason to dismiss each quote in favor of Calvinism. People can judge the totality of the list here and research on their own and draw their own conclusions. I personally find it fallacious to act as if there was some huge consensus that points to Calvinism in the early church fathers.


That looks like the answer is no.

So really, when you said that you respect these authors for their wisdom, that's not even true. You don't even know if you would think they were wise if you actually read them or not.

It was just a quote bomb that was supposed to make a point by looking like a long list (which it really isn't at all in light of how voluminous the ante-Nicene Christian writings are), without anyone actually thinking critically about any of the quotes themselves in their original contexts.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sorry about that NC. 
> 
> Leave it to the idiot of the board to bring the debate down to that level.


Now, now, S_F. It's not nice to call people idiots. Repent dammit.

----------


## erowe1

> Quote Originally Posted by TER  View Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				A very common method of the poster above is to pick one potentially controversial topic to try and shed doubt on the remaining post.


I see that TER said this about me. I'll give him the same challenge I have a score of times where he's made accusations like this. Back up this with a quote from me where I do that. And since you say it's a common tactic, make that three quotes.

If you can't do that, then come back and apologize for lying about me again.

----------


## Terry1

> Sorry about that NC. 
> 
> Leave it to the idiot of the board to bring the debate down to that level.


By popular opinion, I'm not the idiot here.  Answer the question Sola, are you gay?  If you refuse to give a simple answer of yes or no, then you know what that will do in the minds of those wondering why you won't answer.

----------


## TER

> That looks like the answer is no.
> 
> So really, when you said that you respect these authors for their wisdom, that's not even true. You don't even know if you would think they were wise if you actually read them or not.


The Church Fathers are considered as such because they have, to the best of their ability, transmitted the deposit of the faith which was handed down to them by those before them, going all the way back to the Apostles.  It has been the Church, the faithful, which has proclaimed them to be sure guides and speakers of the faith because they (in their times and in their circumstances) persevered and contended for the faith 'once handed down to the saints'.  Are they fallible?  Yes.  But they (as evidenced by their writings, their witness, and their very holy lives) have also been illumined by the Holy Spirit, and it this grace in them which has granted them the authority as teachers of the faith.

Some would think themselves to be wiser then the Church Fathers, but they are not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By popular opinion, I'm not the idiot here.  Answer the question Sola, are you gay?  If you refuse to give a simple answer of yes or no, then you know what that will do in the minds of those wondering why you won't answer.


I'm wondering the same thing about you though.  When I asked you if you were a child molester, you answered "Certainly not!" like you were hiding something. 

What are you trying to hide?

----------


## TER

> I see that TER said this about me. I'll give him the same challenge I have a score of times where he's made accusations like this. Back up this with a quote from me where I do that. And since you say it's a common tactic, make that three quotes.
> 
> If you can't do that, then come back and apologize for lying about me again.


I actually felt bad after posting it because I shouldn't have singled you out as I did, but then realized that it is in fact a common tactic of yours so it would be good for others to be aware.

I am sorry it bothers you that I am making others notice it.  

As for pointing out examples, I have no desire to waste my time going back in the history of your posts in order to prove it to you.  I leave the other members here to judge if I am lying or not.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I'm wondering the same thing about you though.  When I asked you if you were a child molester, you answered "Certainly not!" like you were hiding something. 
> 
> What are you trying to hide?


Terry answered the question though.  You still haven't.  So one answer is out there and one is still hidden.  

Unless your definition of hide is different as well?

----------


## moostraks

> That looks like the answer is no.
> 
> So really, when you said that you respect these authors for their wisdom, that's not even true. You don't even know if you would think they were wise if you actually read them or not.
> 
> It was just a quote bomb that was supposed to make a point by looking like a long list (which it really isn't at all in light of how voluminous the ante-Nicene Christian writings are), without anyone actually thinking critically about any of the quotes themselves in their original contexts.


Actually I had, but you, like your cohort will jump to sling whatever accusations my way that you see fit if it furthers your position in your opinion by doing so. I quoted where I got the list from so you can see where there is a more exhaustive list there. That is if you bothered to look instead of sling accusations about me. So your next argument would be? As I said this really is in no means a list for you, S_F, or ff to be persuaded with as I have no unrealistic expectations in regards to you three. Make your case and those who have ears to hear will decide the value of the arguments proposed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Terry answered the question though.  You still haven't.  So one answer is out there and one is still hidden.  
> 
> Unless your definition of hide is different as well?


Why should anyone here accept his answer though?   Why did he bring up the issue of sexual perversion and project it out on to me?  *****, isn't it?

----------


## erowe1

> Actually I had, but you, like your cohort will jump to sling whatever accusations my way that you see fit if it furthers your position in your opinion by doing so. I quoted where I got the list from so you can see where there is a more exhaustive list there. That is if you bothered to look instead of sling accusations about me. So your next argument would be? As I said this really is in no means a list for you, S_F, or ff to be persuaded with as I have no unrealistic expectations in regards to you three. Make your case and those who have ears to hear will decide the value of the arguments proposed.


If you've read it, then you could have just said so when I asked. You were the one who answered in that defensive way that, you must admit, made it look like the answer was no.

Do you think highly of the theological outlook of the Epistle of Barnabas?

If so, then why? A discussion about why you do, and why anyone else should, ought to be a natural progression of the discussion after you quoted it like that.

If not, then why did you quote it?

I don't think that where you got the list is an issue. You made the argument your own when you used it. If you want to repudiate it, or parts of it, then of course you can do that.

----------


## moostraks

> I see that TER said this about me. I'll give him the same challenge I have a score of times where he's made accusations like this. Back up this with a quote from me where I do that. And since you say it's a common tactic, make that three quotes.
> 
> If you can't do that, then come back and apologize for lying about me again.


So you can accuse others of something but don't appreciate it when the shoe is on the other foot? If I cared about your complaining I would search it out from the last time oh about a year ago when you pulled this nonsense with me. Since I don't have all the time in the world to play with the crummy forum search I will have to let it go for now because unlike you I will assume people can see for themselves what you are doing or not in their own opinion. You have wasted my time previously on rabbit chases such as this. I try to avoid discussing with you because of your tactics.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually I had, but you, like your cohort will jump to sling whatever accusations my way that you see fit if it furthers your position in your opinion by doing so. I quoted where I got the list from so you can see where there is a more exhaustive list there. That is if you bothered to look instead of sling accusations about me. So your next argument would be? As I said this really is in no means a list for you, S_F, or ff to be persuaded with as I have no unrealistic expectations in regards to you three. Make your case and those who have ears to hear will decide the value of the arguments proposed.


He's right though.   It was a quote bomb.  And anyway, church historians who know more about church history than you have documented the changing doctrines about the will from the apostles to the 4th century.

----------


## erowe1

> So you can accuse others of something


Got a quote of me doing that?

In TER's case, it's not just accusing. It's blatant lying. I've called him out on it numerous times. Every time he was unable to back it up.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Why should anyone here accept his answer though?   Why did he bring up the issue of sexual perversion and project it out on to me?  *****, isn't it?


I understand why Terry asked it.

I don't think I would have been so bold as to ask it, but given the context of the debates here it is an example of a sinful life that some would not want to give up (repent).  So if one believes that you don't have to repent because God _wills_ your sin, then I can see why that theology would be appealing.  Someone who is not willing for the potter to reshape him would cling to a theology that tells him there is nothing he can do to leave the sinful life.

(same would go for alcoholics, addicts, ie see the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

----------


## TER

> If you've read it, then you could have just said so when I asked. You were the one who answered in that defensive way that, you must admit, made it look like the answer was no.
> 
> Do you think highly of the theological outlook of the Epistle of Barnabas?


Many of the Church Fathers did.  Do you?  Or do you know the apostolic teachings better then them?




> If so, then why?


Humility, you know, the thing you seem to lack as evident by how you put your own interpretations above the teaching of the saints.

----------


## moostraks

> Got a quote of me doing that?
> 
> In TER's case, it's not just accusing. It's blatant lying. I've called him out on it numerous times. Every time he was unable to back it up.


Yeah, back up and read. See you complain about me regarding Barnabas because You have a problem with it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I understand why Terry asked it.
> 
> I don't think I would have been so bold as to ask it, but given the context of the debates here it is an example of a sinful life that some would not want to give up (repent).  So if one believes that you don't have to repent because God _wills_ your sin, then I can see why that theology would be appealing.  Someone who is not willing for the potter to reshape him would cling to a theology that tells him there is nothing he can do to leave the sinful life.
> 
> (same would go for alcoholics, addicts, ie see the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11)


1.  Where have I ever said "you don't have to repent"?  Link and post please.


2. Homesexual offenders won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, as the verse you referred to says.  So why would I have hope of eternal life if I was a homesexual offender?

3.  Where have I EVER expressed any antinomianism on this board?  I believe a Christian must strive to live a holy life.  The ones who are not holy are the ones who have not been saved.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, back up and read. See you complain about me regarding Barnabas because You have a problem with it?


I don't see me complaining about you regarding Barnabas. Could you quote where I do that?

Did I accuse you of anything? If so, was it a lie?

And what's wrong with discussing the Epistle of Barnabas. You quoted it, as though its theological outlook should be respected. Is it not a natural direction of the discussion to look into that?

----------


## TER

> He's right though.   It was a quote bomb.  And anyway, church historians who know more about church history than you have documented the changing doctrines about the will from the apostles to the 4th century.


There was no changing of the doctrines Sola but clearer explanation spurred on because of the various heresies which arose to distort the faith.  Out of pastoral care and necessity were the hermeneutics elaborated lest the faithful be swept away by the heresies of the day.

----------


## Terry1

> Why should anyone here accept his answer though?   Why did he bring up the issue of sexual perversion and project it out on to me?  *****, isn't it?


Because I have a reason to believe that anyone who defends the belief that "repentance is a dead work" has a reason and especially since it's been refuted beyond ridiculous successfully that most see and understand what it means.  You on the other hand are defending the idea that no one should repent of anything.  Then TER posted that old quote of yours indicating that God loves the vile, wicked man and not the humble.  

Something's up with that.  No one comes out with this kind of crap and I do mean crap and defending it tooth and claw without having a reason to defend something that supports vile, wickedness that requires no repentance from it.  Something's fishy here.

So, rather than to dance around and debate your warped interpretation of the word of God, I'd rather come at this from a different perspective being the reason that you're defending such an evil doctrine that supports the "vile, wicked man" over the humble man and that repentance is a dead work.  This is all the same as saying that God loves and honors the wicked who do evil vile things while He doesn't the humble, God fearing man.

----------


## TER

> Yeah, back up and read. See you complain about me regarding Barnabas because You have a problem with it?


I'm sure he has a problem with it because the epistle does not conform to his own personal beliefs.  So he will strain the gnat and swallow the camel which are his unpatristic beliefs so that his custom-designed religion (based on his three pound brain's interpretation) will be right even if the weight of the evidence from the history of the Church contradicts him.

----------


## moostraks

> He's right though.   It was a quote bomb.  And anyway, church historians who know more about church history than you have documented the changing doctrines about the will from the apostles to the 4th century.


Ya think that might be why they started to have councils because of that? And yet y'all want to complain about the fact that an idea didn't really formally exist until the council said so and oh yeah we cannot even agree on what councils were important. I am not as invested in proving my Church right so I have a more open-minded approach then you or erowe.

I find it humorous y'all are whining about the number of quotes. I scrolled through the others and found the ones that struck me as valuable to the discussion in regards to their historical nature on the subject matter you are proposing stands without argument. It wasn't even really for you per say but to those who think your argument is without counter point.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm wondering the same thing about you though.  When I asked you if you were a child molester, you answered "Certainly not!" like you were hiding something. 
> 
> What are you trying to hide?


At least he answered the question...

----------


## moostraks

> I'm sure he has a problem with it because the epistle does not conform to his own personal beliefs.  So he will strain the gnat and swallow the camel so that his custom design religion (based on his three pound brain's interpretation) will be right even if the weight of the evidence from the history of the Church contradicts him.


I am sure you are right on this. I am tired of trying to conform to the ridiculous standards of the Calvinists who think they can handicap an argument so it seems as if their point is valid when historically it is not, but if you toss out everything that offends their senses the  it seems as if they have a point. IIRC the last time erowe and I went round and round it had something to do with Church fathers and councils and oh what a ridiculous waste of my time THAT was. Not gonna do it again as it is pointless.

----------


## TER

> Ya think that might be why they started to have councils because of that? And yet y'all want to complain about the fact that an idea didn't really formally exist until the council said so and oh yeah we cannot even agree on what councils were important. I am not as invested in proving my Church right so I have a more open-minded approach then you or erowe.
> 
> I find it humorous y'all are whining about the number of quotes. I scrolled through the others and found the ones that struck me as valuable to the discussion in regards to their historical nature on the subject matter you are proposing stands without argument. It wasn't even really for you per say but to those who think your argument is without counter point.


And this is my point.  You posted a list of Patristic quotes which quite clearly defend the orthodox belief as handed down from as far as history records, and then one gets picked on as a whipping boy while the rest is ignored.  This is the same MO which is used time and again by the same people here, even with regards to Scripture which they obsess on one verse and then ignore/distort the vast remaining which contradicts them.  It is getting old and tiresome.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> At least he answered the question...



Why do believe him?

----------


## eduardo89

> Why do believe him?


I honestly do not care one bit whether he is telling the truth or not.

----------


## Terry1

> 1.  Where have I ever said "you don't have to repent"?  Link and post please.
> 
> 
> 2. Homesexual offenders won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, as the verse you referred to says.  So why would I have hope of eternal life if I was a homesexual offender?
> 
> 3.  Where have I EVER expressed any antinomianism on this board?  I believe a Christian must strive to live a holy life.  The ones who are not holy are the ones who have not been saved.


Are you denying that you said "repentance is a dead work"?  That's the same as saying no one needs to repent of anything.  I'm not going to play this game of semantics with you either.  I know you said it and so does most everyone else here.  Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because I have a reason to believe that anyone who defends the belief that "repentance is a dead work" has a reason and especially since it's been refuted beyond ridiculous successfully that most see and understand what it means.  You on the other hand are defending the idea that no one should repent of anything.  Then TER posted that old quote of yours indicating that God loves the vile, wicked man and not the humble.  
> 
> Something's up with that.  No one comes out with this kind of crap and I do mean crap and defending it tooth and claw without having a reason to defend something that supports vile, wickedness that requires no repentance from it.  Something's fishy here.
> 
> So, rather than to dance around and debate your warped interpretation of the word of God, I'd rather come at this from a different perspective being the reason that you're defending such an evil doctrine that supports the "vile, wicked man" over the humble man and that repentance is a dead work.  This is all the same as saying that God loves and honors the wicked who do evil vile things while He doesn't the humble, God fearing man.


But you've defended the fact that God will accept your sin and that His demands aren't that difficult to follow.  So, do you think God will accept you as a child molester?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I honestly do not care one bit whether he is telling the truth or not.


Seriously?   In all seriousness,  I would like to know if the person that I am talking to on a message board is a child molester.

----------


## eduardo89

> Seriously?   In all seriousness,  I would like to know if the person that I am talking to on a message board is a child molester.


Well then, start an inquisition into it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you denying that you said "repentance is a dead work"?  That's the same as saying no one needs to repent of anything.  I'm not going to play this game of semantics with you either.  I know you said it and so does most everyone else here.  Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.


Dead work?  Dude, I don't even know what you're talking about.  I don't think I've ever even typed those words.  I asked you to post the link where I said this, and you haven't done it yet.

----------


## Terry1

> Dead work?  Dude, I don't even know what you're talking about.  I don't think I've ever even typed those words.  I asked you to post the link where I said this, and you haven't done it yet.


I'll do the search thing, but then let's get this done here and now.  Do you believe the total depravity doctrine?  Do you believe that repentance is a work?  

BTW, I've told you before, I'm not a dude.  I'm a female, not that it matters, but I'd rather not be called "dude"---thanks.

----------


## moostraks

> Well then, start an inquisition into it.


 rofl...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll do the search thing, but then let's get this done here and now.  Do you believe the total depravity doctrine?  Do you believe that repentance is a work?  
> 
> BTW, I've told you before, I'm not a dude.  I'm a female, not that it matters, but I'd rather not be called "dude"---thanks.


So you are a 58 year old female grilling a loving Christian father of two beautiful kids if he is gay over the internet?

I feel sorry for you, and I do forgive you.  Forgive me for stooping to your gutter level and responding in kind.

Now, can we go back to the real issues and not ad hominem things?

----------


## moostraks

> And this is my point.  You posted a list of Patristic quotes which quite clearly defend the orthodox belief as handed down from as far as history records, and then one gets picked on as a whipping boy while the rest is ignored.  This is the same MO which is used time and again by the same people here, even with regards to Scripture which they obsess on one verse and then ignore/distort the vast remaining which contradicts them.  It is getting old and tiresome.


So true!

----------


## mosquitobite

> 1.  Where have I ever said "you don't have to repent"?  Link and post please.


Do you personally have to repent Sola?  Do you have to _choose_ to do so?




> 2. Homesexual offenders won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, as the verse you referred to says.  So why would I have hope of eternal life if I was a homesexual offender?


  Because your faith believes your eternal life is outside of ANYTHING you could do.  Perhaps God will allow you to live the sinful life all the way up to the day before your death because He has already justified you.  (Wasn't this Constantine's theory? Hmmm...)




> 3.  Where have I EVER expressed any antinomianism on this board?  I believe a Christian must strive to live a holy life.  The ones who are not holy are the ones who have not been saved.


How can someone strive?  That implies a will.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Do you believe that repentance is a work?



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ghlight=repent
Post #36



> No, it is not.  Repentance is a work...an act of law-keeping. And if you are going to work for your salvation, if you are going to go down the path of law to be saved, then you must be perfect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you personally have to repent Sola?  Do you have to _choose_ to do so?


Yes.  Everyone must repent and believe the gospel.   And yes, I choose to (because God has given me the ability to turn to Him).




> Because your faith believes your eternal life is outside of ANYTHING you could do.  Perhaps God will allow you to live the sinful life all the way up to the day before your death because He has already justified you.


Yes, justification is "by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 4).  So yes, salvation is outside of absolutely anything we do.  But in regards to the Christian life after one is justified, God gives a Christian man faith, AND works (Ephesians 2)





> How can someone strive?  That implies a will.


No Reformed person has ever said men don't have a will.  Men have wills.  But watch how the the Bible describes the life of a Christian man:




> Phillipians 2:13
> 
> continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,* for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.*


It is God who sanctifies and makes a Christian man holy.

----------


## RJB

> 1.  Where have I ever said "you don't have to repent"?  Link and post please.
> 
> 
> 2. *Homesexual offenders won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, as the verse you referred to says.*  So why would I have hope of eternal life if I was a homesexual offender?


I'm just curious.  FF says:



> Just so you know exactly what my position is:
> 
> There are verses that talk about people who are (categorically) liars, homosexuals, adulterers, etc.  Its not talking about a single commission of those sins (Although one such commission certainly warrants Hell without Christ's blood covering one's sins.)  *The point is that a beliver will not be characterized by those sins.*  Its not saying if you commit that sin you lose your salvation, than when you confess to a priest you regain it.


  Do you believe this?




> 3.  Where have I EVER expressed any antinomianism on this board?  *I believe a Christian must strive to live a holy life*.  The ones who are not holy are the ones who have not been saved.


  You said I wasn't saved for striving to live as Jesus told us.  How is striving to "live a holy life" different from good works as commanded by Christ?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You said I wasn't saved for striving to live as Jesus told us.  How is striving to "live a holy life" different from good works as commanded by Christ?


Because ....a Christian does good works because he is saved, not to get saved.

Works are not a condition of salvation, they are the things that God gives a Christian man along with faith, hope, love etc. after God has justified them.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Yes.  Everyone must repent and believe the gospel.   And yes, I choose to (because God has given me the ability to turn to Him).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, justification is "by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 4).  So yes, salvation is outside of absolutely anything we do.  But in regards to the Christian life after one is justified, God gives a Christian man faith, AND works (Ephesians 2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great.  We all agree.   Whoopee!  After 3 years of discourse we have finally settled this once and for all!  

Now, how about we all offer our brothers and sisters in Christ some grace and forgiveness and start fishing for the OTHERS out there who have yet to hear the love and mercy of Jesus' atoning death?

How about if we all say today that we will stop judging each other's hearts (because there is only ONE Judge) and we wipe the slate clean!  He did it for us, now let's FOLLOW HIM.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10

----------


## RJB

> Because ....a Christian does good works because he is saved, not to get saved.
> 
> Works are not a condition of salvation, they are the things that God gives a Christian man along with faith, hope, love etc. after God has justified them.


That's striving to live a holy life.  I've always said we are saved by the cross but do good works because Christ commands us.  When we fail we are forgiven.  Basically the same thing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm just curious.  FF says:
> 
> *Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic*
> 
> Just so you know exactly what my position is:
> 
> There are verses that talk about people who are (categorically) liars, homosexuals, adulterers, etc. Its not talking about a single commission of those sins (Although one such commission certainly warrants Hell without Christ's blood covering one's sins.)*Its not saying if you commit that sin you lose your salvation, than when you confess to a priest you regain it.
> 
> 
>   Do you believe this?


I generally believe something like that, yes.

----------


## RJB

Nevermind

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's striving to live a holy life.  I've always said we are saved by the cross but do good works because Christ commands us.  When we fail we are forgiven.  Basically the same thing.


Haha...If you believe that you are not a Roman Catholic.   Good for you.

----------


## RJB

> I generally believe something like that, yes.


So a man who sleeps around on his wife is not an adulterer if he is in the elect?  A man who sleeps with men is not a homosexual if he is in the elect?  I asked FF this as well, but are you Bill Clinton?   LOL

----------


## RJB

> Haha...If you believe that you are not a Roman Catholic.   Good for you.


You are like the man from the movie Momento who lacks short term memory.  We've said that over and over.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Haha...If you believe that you are not a Roman Catholic.   Good for you.


Don't do this.  Unless you want to answer FF's question to you here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5229230

Do not damn someone for the church they attend.  A church, a denomination is a building.  Being a Christian is a heart thing, a listening to His voice thing.  Who are you to tell God He cannot go into a Catholic church and save someone?

Do I believe that someone who never attends church, never opens their bible, yet calls themselves a Catholic is saved?  No.  But neither is the Baptist or the Calvinist simply because they sit in the "right" pew.

God is judge.  Preach what you believe, but I implore you to stop condemning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So a man who sleeps around on his wife is not an adulterer if he is in the elect?  A man who sleeps with men is not a homosexual if he is in the elect?


There are saved repentant adulterers and homosexuals,  yes.

----------


## eduardo89

> Haha...If you believe that you are not a Roman Catholic.   Good for you.


What did he say that isn't Catholic?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Don't do this.  Unless you want to answer FF's question to you here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5229230
> 
> Do not damn someone for the church they attend.  A church, a denomination is a building.  Being a Christian is a heart thing, a listening to His voice thing.  Who are you to tell God He cannot go into a Catholic church and save someone?


Can God go to a Catholic church and save someone?  Yes, and that person would see the error and run for his life out of there. 




> Do I believe that someone who never attends church, never opens their bible, yet calls themselves a Catholic is saved?  No.  But neither is the Baptist or the Calvinist simply because they sit in the "right" pew.


You make it seem like opening up your Bible in the Catholic Church is a way to salvation, and I don't think you know what Rome teaches when you say that.




> God is judge.  Preach what you believe, but I implore you to stop condemning.


I try not to condemn anyone except when they are arrogantly teaching something that is harmful to someone's soul.

----------


## RJB

> What did he say that isn't Catholic?


He strives to live a holy life.  I believe Sola is a closeted Catholic.

----------


## eduardo89

> He strives to live a holy life.  I believe Sola is a closeted Catholic.


I think he is, too. That's why he denies it so vehemently. I think he's just scared his family won't accept him if he openly converts to Catholicism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He strives to live a holy life.  I believe Sola is a closeted Catholic.





> Philippians 2:12-13 NIV
> 
> Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absence*continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.*





> Ephesians 2:10 NIV
> 
> For we are Gods handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, *which God prepared in advance for us to do.*


A Christian man is to strive to be holy,  but his holiness comes from the Lord who WORKS and ACTS in him to fulfill God's good purpose.

----------


## RJB

> I think he is, too. That's why he denies it so vehemently. I think he's just scared his family won't accept him if he openly converts to Catholicism.


That's alright as long as he strives to do the good works as Christ said and stated in the epistles, he can claim to be a Calvinist.  It take a lot to come out in the open.

----------


## eduardo89

> A Christian man is to strive to he holy,  but his holiness comes from the Lord who WORKS and ACTS in him to fulfill God's good purpose.


No objection there.

----------


## RJB

> A Christian man is to strive to he holy,  but his holiness comes from the Lord who WORKS and ACTS in him to fulfill God's good purpose.


Amen brother.  Let's check out The Stations of the Cross together this Lent at the Cathedral.  I won't tell anyone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No objection there.


The objection comes when you say that salvation _depends upon_ man's works.  That is not Biblical.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Can God go to a Catholic church and save someone?  Yes, and that person would see the error and run for his life out of there.


Have you ever been to a Catholic church?  More than once?  Because I have.  They do not give sermons on what Rome teaches.  They just don't.  Someone could sit in a Catholic church for 20+ years and never hear a pope's words discussed in a sermon.  I left the Catholic church because that is not where I learned about or how to have a personal relationship with Jesus.  But I would never condemn a Catholic because #1- I'm not the Creator and I'm not the Judge. #2- I would be a stumbling block if I told someone that _BECAUSE OF_ the building they attend they are not and could never be saved without first building a relationship and learning more about their heart.




> You make it seem like opening up your Bible in the Catholic Church is a way to salvation, and I don't think you know what Rome teaches when you say that.


  I spent 12 years in Parochial schools.  You?




> I try not to condemn anyone except when they are arrogantly teaching something that is harmful to someone's soul.


The one CONSISTENT THING I have read throughout these threads is the disagreement about faith vs works.  Thing is, we all seem to agree that once God has chastened you and you have repented you WANT to do works.  Not to be saved, but as a reflection of honor for the Great Sacrifice.

But consistently you have insisted on telling people that's not what they believe because of the building they attend.  Salvation is a HEART thing.  God can speak to a heart in or from any building He desires, through any vessel He chooses.

There is no need to attack a whole subset of people, no matter what label they give themselves!  Is that not what LIBERTY is all about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Amen brother.  Let's check out The Stations of the Cross together this Lent at the Cathedral.  I won't tell anyone.


RJB, let's see if we are brothers. 

Is a man justified at the cross?  Or is a man justified through a process that happens in his heart?

----------


## Terry1

> Well then, start an inquisition into it.


LOL, he's angry because I asked him if he was gay, so now he's accusing me of being a child molester. ROFL  I'm a 58  year old woman here, I'm too tired to molest anyone. LOL  I'm sure my husband would like me to molest him more too.

----------


## eduardo89

> The objection comes when you say that salvation _depends upon_ man's works.  That is not Biblical.


Our salvation depends on nothing but God's grace. 

Faith and works are a part of that salvation, but they are not what saves us. We are saved by the grace of the cross alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL, he's angry because I asked him if he was gay, so now he's accusing me of being a child molester. ROFL  I'm 58  year old woman here, I'm too tired to molest anyone. LOL  I'm sure my husband would like me to molest him more too.


Didn't you see in the other thread where I already forgave you?  Stop being a moron, okay?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Our salvation depends on nothing but God's grace. 
> 
> Faith and works are a part of that salvation, but they are not what saves us. We are saved by the grace of the cross alone.


Is a man justified at the cross?  

Or is a man justified in his heart through a process where sacramental works are included?

----------


## mosquitobite

> Great.  We all agree.   Whoopee!  After 3 years of discourse we have finally settled this once and for all!  
> 
> Now, how about we all offer our brothers and sisters in Christ some grace and forgiveness and start fishing for the OTHERS out there who have yet to hear the love and mercy of Jesus' atoning death?
> 
> How about if we all say today that we will stop judging each other's hearts (because there is only ONE Judge) and we wipe the slate clean!  He did it for us, now let's FOLLOW HIM.
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10


Let's also remember Matthew 6:14-15

14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

----------


## Terry1

> Didn't you see in the other thread where I already forgave you?  Stop being a moron, okay?


"Forgave me"?  Well that's nice, but asking someone if they're gay doesn't seem to me to be something that needs forgiving anyway.  Calling someone a "moron" would require repentance and forgiveness though.  In less than three hours here, you've called me an idiot and a moron because I asked you a question.  I could call you a piss-ant dumb sheep for Jesus who hasn't a clue too.

----------


## RJB

> RJB, let's see if we are brothers. 
> 
> Is a man justified at the cross?  Or is a man justified through a process that happens in his heart?


OK, I've been having fun.  I'll be serious.

Jesus died for those who accept it.  It is the cross.  I approached him very skeptically as an atheist.  He answered my pleas and I could feel the change he made in my heart.  Something does occur in the heart.

Before that, I didn't believe I had ever sinned.  I justified it in my mind with every excuse.  However after he came to me, I felt the crushing weight of my sins and I felt the peace from them being washed away.  A change did occur in my heart, but it was not my doing.  It was the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you are a 58 year old female grilling a loving Christian father of two beautiful kids if he is gay over the internet?


But does God love your kids?  Or does he actually hate them?

If God hated your kids, would you be OK with that?



> So a man who sleeps around on his wife is not an adulterer if he is in the elect?  A man who sleeps with men is not a homosexual if he is in the elect?  I asked FF this as well, but are you Bill Clinton?   LOL


A regenerate man is not a homosexual, adulterer, etc. even if he does fall into those sins, because Christ's righteousness has been imputed on to him.



> I think he is, too. That's why he denies it so vehemently. I think he's just scared his family won't accept him if he openly converts to Catholicism.


I really, really doubt this.




> By popular opinion, I'm not the idiot here.


So right and wrong are determined by popular opinion?  Lol!

That just proves that Sola was correct in what he said.

Most of the sheep in this country think Ron Paul and his supporters are "kooks" and what have you.  Does this mean you should actually have supported Obama or Romney instead?  Of course not.




> Answer the question Sola, are you gay?  If you refuse to give a simple answer of yes or no, then you know what that will do in the minds of those wondering why you won't answer.


Why should he waste his time?




> I'm wondering the same thing about you though.  When I asked you if you were a child molester, you answered "Certainly not!" like you were hiding something. 
> 
> What are you trying to hide?


OK, are you actually being serious here?  Or are you just mocking the inconsistency?




> And think about this:  Justin Martyr never even quoted Paul in his works.  Can you imagine that?  A "Christian" that was not familiar with Paul's letters?  That was what it was like back in the first and second centuries.  But Justin Martyr probably never read an epistle of Paul's, so his theology was SEVERLY handicapped.


To be fair, are you sure he had access to them?  Its not like there was a printing press back then...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Forgave me"?  Well that's nice, but asking someone if they're gay doesn't seem to me to be something that needs forgiving anyway.  Calling someone a "moron" would require repentance and forgiveness though.  In less than three hours here, you've called me an idiot and a moron because I asked you a question.  I could call you a piss-ant dumb sheep for Jesus who hasn't a clue too.


I'm pretty sure the writers of scripture insulted the self-righteous all the time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Forgave me"?  Well that's nice, but asking someone if they're gay doesn't seem to me to be something that needs forgiving anyway.  Calling someone a "moron" would require repentance and forgiveness though.  In less than three hours here, you've called me an idiot and a moron because I asked you a question.  I could call you a piss-ant dumb sheep for Jesus who hasn't a clue too.


Well, I think it is idiotic to take the debate down to an ad hominem level like you did.  So yes, I thought you acted like a moron.  And the thing I asked forgiveness for was going down to your gutter level of argument.

----------


## eduardo89

> Is a man justified at the cross?


I'll let the Catechism answer that:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. 




> Or is a man justified in his heart through a process where sacramental works are included?


Sanctification is a part of our justification.

----------


## Terry1

> A regenerate man is not a homosexual, adulterer, etc. even if he does fall into those sins, because Christ's righteousness has been imputed on to him.
> 
> 
> ...


Do those sins in a believer require repentance from doing?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do those sins in a believer require repentance from doing?


Yes Terry.  Christianity is not antinomianism.  A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sanctification is a part of our justification.


No it is not.  This is one of the fundamental errors of Roman Catholicism and synergism in general.

----------


## Terry1

> So right and wrong are determined by popular opinion?  Lol!
> 
> That just proves that Sola was correct in what he said.
> 
> Most of the sheep in this country think Ron Paul and his supporters are "kooks" and what have you.  Does this mean you should actually have supported Obama or Romney instead?  Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A good Christian man Charles Swindoll once said with regard to the Gospel of Christ..."if you find yourself more alone than not in your belief, you're probably wrong".

----------


## mosquitobite

> Yes Terry.  Christianity is not antinomianism.  A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.


How does this mesh with FF's comment here:




> A regenerate man is not a homosexual, adulterer, etc. even if he does fall into those sins, because Christ's righteousness has been imputed on to him.


Would that not be antinomianism?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A good Christian man Charles Swindoll once said with regard to the Gospel of Christ..."if you find yourself more alone than not in your belief, you're probably wrong".


That's a horrible piece of advice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How does this mesh with FF's comment here:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not be antinomianism?


Listen to how John deals with this:




> 1 John 1:6-10 NIV
> 
> If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet *walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth*. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.   *If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.* If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.


So I think there is a difference between walking in darkness,  and acknowledging that sin is still very real in a Christian's life.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A good Christian man Charles Swindoll once said with regard to the Gospel of Christ..."if you find yourself more alone than not in your belief, you're probably wrong".





> That's a horrible piece of advice.


Yes, I read Chuck Swindoll's book about David and I really liked it.  I haven't read much else from him, but from what I've read, a lot of it is good.  But I agree with you that this is AWFUL advice.  Genuine Christianity will be a minority more often than not.

Most people are statists.  Does that make them right?

Most people believed in slavery 200 years ago.  Were they right?  Were the few outliers who said "no, this isn't OK" wrong?  




> How does this mesh with FF's comment here:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not be antinomianism?





> Listen to how John deals with this:
> 
> 
> 
> So I think there is a difference between walking in darkness,  and acknowledging that sin is still very real in a Christian's life.


I think Sola answered this adequately.

----------


## Terry1

> How does this mesh with FF's comment here:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not be antinomianism?


Yes it would.  Believing that all is permitted under grace with no need for repentance.  That's exactly what it is.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Listen to how John deals with this:
> 
> 
> 
> So I think there is a difference between walking in darkness,  and acknowledging that sin is still very real in a Christian's life.


Right, that says we must walk in the light & truth.  So you and I are agreeing.

But it doesn't mesh with what FF said.  

If someone is in the elect and yet commits a homosexual act, they are somehow not a homosexual because they are part of the elect.  If he is not holy, he is proving he is not chosen.

Your comments and FF's are not matching.  And that's fine, you're two different people.   But I need someone to explain why you guys believe you believe the same thing but this topic here says you do not?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes Terry.  Christianity is not antinomianism.  A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.


Then can he become "chosen" again if he changes his mind and stops sinning or is he doomed forever because he committed sin as a Christian?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then can he become "chosen" again if he changes his mind and stops sinning or his doomed forever because he committed sin as a Christian?


I guess I do have to ask you if you are drinking tonight....  Where in that post did I say a chosen person must get chosen again?

----------


## mosquitobite

> I think Sola answered this adequately.


For Sola, maybe.  But it does not explain your response.  Sorry, you will have to dig deeper to explain how it is NOT antinomianism.





> So a man who sleeps around on his wife is not an adulterer if he is in the elect? A man who sleeps with men is not a homosexual if he is in the elect? I asked FF this as well, but are you Bill Clinton? LOL





> A regenerate man is not a homosexual, adulterer, etc. *even if he does fall into those sins*, because Christ's righteousness has been imputed on to him.


Sorry, but this comment says that even if my husband cheats on me, he is not an adulterer because Christ's righteousness has been imputed on him.  Or just to make it clearer since you feel Sola is part of the elect, if Sola cheats on his wife tomorrow, he would still not be an adulterer?

----------


## Terry1

> I guess I do have to ask you if you are drinking tonight....  Where in that post did I say a chosen person must get chosen again?


I'm asking you a logical question based upon your previous reply.  If a Christian sins, you claim they were never chosen.  So then if that Christian changes his mind and stops sinning, can he then become chosen again?  You're trying to say because he sinned as a Christian that he was never chosen.  So you're saying that a Christian is incapable of sin then.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm asking you a logical question based upon your previous reply.  If a Christian sins, you claim they were never chosen.


I never said that or even remotely implied that.




> So then if that Christian changes his mind and stops sinning, can he then become chosen again?


I never said that or even remotely implied that.




> You're trying to say because he sinned as a Christian that he was never chosen.  So you're saying that a Christian is incapable of sin then.


I never said that or even remotely implied that either.

----------


## mosquitobite

And if being chosen means that we're holy and _incapable_ of sin, then by that very logic, the moment we do sin (which is every day) we would then no longer be considered chosen/elect.

How is this not the same as saying that your WORKS determine your salvation (do not sin, lest you lose your chosen status!)

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> Do those sins in a believer require repentance from doing?





> Yes Terry.  Christianity is not antinomianism.  A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.


So let me get this right now---You're agreeing that repentance is required then when a believer sins.  So then you don't believe in the doctrine of "total depravity" then?  Seems to me you were just promoting "total depravity" not too long ago.  So how do you reconcile what you're saying here with the belief in total depravity?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And if being chosen means that we're holy and _incapable_ of sin, then by that very logic, the moment we do sin (which is every day) we would then no longer be considered chosen/elect.


Who are these people you know who say being holy means you are incapable of sinning?  Where are they?

----------


## Terry1

> I never said that or even remotely implied that.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that or even remotely implied that.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that or even remotely implied that either.


Of course you didn't--LOL  I'm sure everyone sees the contradiction _but_ you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So let me get this right now---You're agreeing that repentance is required then when a believer sins.  So then you don't believe in the doctrine of "total depravity" then?  Seems to me you were just promoting "total depravity" not too long ago.  So how do you reconcile what you're saying here with the belief in total depravity?


Total depravity in no way, shape, or form contradicts the idea that man must repent and believe. 

The repentance and the belief are gifts that God gives to all those He has predestined from the foundation of the world.

----------


## Terry1

> Who are these people you know who say being holy means you are incapable of sinning?  Where are they?


You never implied or said that either did you? LOL

----------


## mosquitobite

> Where in that post did I say a chosen person must get chosen again?





> A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.


*Can* a chosen person sin?

If an elect can choose not to walk in the truth and light, then you say they were never really chosen to begin with.  Since sin is a part of all of us each and every day, that would mean that no one is the elect.  NO ONE is holy by his actions (or lack thereof). 


> A Christian is holy, and if a person says he is a Christian, yet not holy, he is proving that he is not chosen.


Is there a list of sins that are "ok" (white lies, casting judgment) and some that are heavier (like adultery/homosexuality)?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course you didn't--LOL  I'm sure everyone sees the contradiction _but_ you.


The contradiction is in your own mind because you do not understand Christianity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course you didn't--LOL  I'm sure everyone sees the contradiction _but_ you.


I don't.  And frankly, I think you're either a child or an idiot for thinking there is one.  Sorry, but that's just what it is.  This is really, really simple stuff.  And its been explained to you before.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Can* a chosen person sin?


Can the elect sin?  Didn't you just read the verse I posted which said that if a person says he believes, but claimed to have no sin, the truth was not in him???




> If an elect can choose not to walk in the truth and light, then you say they were never really chosen to begin with.  Since sin is a part of all of us each and every day, that would mean that no one is the elect.  NO ONE is holy by his actions (or lack thereof).


Didn't you just read the verse I posted where John talks about the difference between "walking in darkness" and on the other hand claiming to have no sin???




> Is there a list of sins that are "ok" (white lies, casting judgment) and some that are heavier (like adultery/homosexuality)?


No there are no sins that are okay.  Liars and adulterers both will not inherit the kingdom of God.

----------


## mosquitobite

> The contradiction is in your own mind because you do not understand Christianity.


Or it could be that you don't understand it well enough to explain it.  Could be.

I'm seriously TRYING to understand it, but it is very much a contradiction to me as well.  I even looked up that stupid word: antinomianism.
The definition is pretty simple: _one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation_

You said Christianity is NOT that, yet FF says it is.  That's where the contradiction is coming into play.

He specifically said that if someone is regenerate, yet they fall into sin, it doesn't change their elect status.

----------


## Terry1

> Total depravity in no way, shape, or form contradicts the idea that man must repent and believe. 
> 
> The repentance and the belief are gifts that God gives to all those He has predestined from the foundation of the world.


Let me help you out here then, this is what the total depravity doctrine teaches here: http://www.smallings.com/english/Essays/depravity.html


*"The Arminian view claims God stopped the fall short of the point where man would lose the ability to generate faith, love and repentance out of his own free will. The Reformed view sees man as fallen beneath that point. We will examine the evidence."*

Total depravity teaches that mankind has fallen beneath the ability to *willingly repent of sin*.  Which is what and how they all teach it that "repentance is a dead work".  Now are you going to argue with this too?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or it could be that you don't understand it well enough to explain it.  Could be.
> 
> I'm seriously TRYING to understand it, but it is very much a contradiction to me as well.  I even looked up that stupid word: antinomianism.
> The definition is pretty simple: _one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation_
> 
> You said Christianity is NOT that, yet FF says it is.  That's where the contradiction is coming into play.
> 
> He specifically said that if someone is regenerate, yet they fall into sin, it doesn't change their elect status.



Here is how the Westminster Confession states it:




> 5. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under Gods fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and*repentance.


A justified believer cannot ever lose his justification,  but he can for a time fall under the Fatherly displeasure of God.

----------


## Terry1

> Or it could be that you don't understand it well enough to explain it.  Could be.
> 
> I'm seriously TRYING to understand it, but it is very much a contradiction to me as well.  I even looked up that stupid word: antinomianism.
> The definition is pretty simple: _one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation_
> 
> You said Christianity is NOT that, yet FF says it is.  That's where the contradiction is coming into play.
> 
> He specifically said that if someone is regenerate, yet they fall into sin, it doesn't change their elect status.


That's what he believes, that all is permitted under grace and that they're once saved always saved no matter what they do or how evil they become---they believe if one has confessed belief and been baptized there's nothing that can undo their salvation.

----------


## mosquitobite

> 1 John 1:6-10 NIV
> If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.


So God chooses FF
God wills FF to visit a prostitute... He is willing him into darkness.
God wills FF to repent.  He is still chosen.

Tomorrow, God wills FF to cheat on a test.
God will will FF to repent.  He will still be chosen.

Next year, God will will FF to engage in sex before marriage.
God will will FF to repent.  He will still be chosen.


Mother Teresa though?  Pfft.  She was a Catholic.  Therefore that woman is roasting.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Total depravity teaches that mankind has fallen beneath the ability to *willingly repent of sin*.  Which is what and how they all teach it that "repentance is a dead work".  Now are you going to argue with this too?


Yes Terry.  Total depravity means that man cannot turn in repentance to God.  God must give a man faith and repentance for that man to turn to him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So God chooses FF
> God wills FF to visits a prostitute... He is willing him into darkness.
> FF repents.  He is still chosen.
> 
> Tomorrow, God wills FF to cheat on a test.
> FF repents.  He is still chosen.
> 
> 
> Mother Teresa though?  Pfft.  That woman is roasting.


I don't know about you, but I fall down on my face in contemplation of God's mercy toward me, and His forgiveness of my sin.  I need that forgiveness.   Thank God He is a God who delights to show mercy to His people.

----------


## Terry1

> Here is how the Westminster Confession states it:
> 
> 
> 
> A justified believer cannot ever lose his justification,  but he can for a time fall under the Fatherly displeasure of God.


Totally unbiblical and a lie.  You can fall from grace and grieve the Holy Spirit to the point of being cut off.  If you don't believe this then you're calling John a liar, God a liar, Paul a liar and James a liar along with Jesus Himself who all say what John 15:1-5 tells you.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I don't know about you, but I fall down on my face in contemplation of God's mercy toward me, and His forgiveness of my sin.  I need that forgiveness.   Thank God He is a God who delights to show mercy to His people.


And yet here on these boards you often do not show that same mercy to others.  This is why I asked you to explain how it is YOU interpret: "Come, follow me".

----------


## mosquitobite

> A justified believer cannot ever lose his justification,  but he can for a time fall under the Fatherly displeasure of God.


Why would God be displeased with His will that He is imposing on that justified believer?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes Terry.  Total depravity means that man cannot turn in repentance to God.  God must give a man faith and repentance for that man to turn to him.


And you insist that man can not do this willingly, that God forces one to comply whether they choose to or not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Totally unbiblical and a lie.  You can fall from grace and grieve the Holy Spirit to the point of being cut off.  If you don't believe this then you're calling John a liar, God a liar, Paul a liar and James a liar along with Jesus Himself who all say what John 15:1-5 tells you.


Wrong.



> * Romans 8:38-39 NIV
> 
> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord*.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Totally unbiblical and a lie.  You can fall from grace and grieve the Holy Spirit to the point of being cut off.  If you don't believe this then you're calling John a liar, God a liar, Paul a liar and James a liar along with Jesus Himself who all say what John 15:1-5 tells you.


Also Luke 13:6-8

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you insist that man can not do this willingly, that God forces one to comply whether they choose to or not.


Yes Terry.  A dead man cannot "willingly" make himself alive, just as a person dead in sins cannot make himself spiritually alive.  He must be made alive by Christ (Ephesians 2).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Or it could be that you don't understand it well enough to explain it.  Could be.
> 
> I'm seriously TRYING to understand it, but it is very much a contradiction to me as well.  I even looked up that stupid word: antinomianism.
> The definition is pretty simple: _one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation_


Which we both reject.  The fact that faith alone saves in no way refutes the idea that the moral law is obligatory.



> You said Christianity is NOT that, yet FF says it is.  That's where the contradiction is coming into play.
> 
> He specifically said that if someone is regenerate, yet they fall into sin, it doesn't change their elect status.


First off, I'm not Sola_Fide.  So even if we contradict each other, so what?  Christians don't always  agree on everything.

More importantly, I'm not even disagreeing with him.  We're talking about different types of people.

Consider a hypothetical case where Mr. A and Mr. X are in a homosexual relationship.  Both are unregenerate men.  Neither one cares that homosexuality is a sin.  Mr. E, a Christian, meets these two men on a sidewalk and begins talking to them about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Both men claim that they now believe this gospel.  

Mr. A and Mr. X begin attending a Bible study lead by Mr. E.  Mr. E. explains that homosexuality is a sin and shows them Biblical proof.  Mr. A is deeply convicted that his lifestyle is a sin, moves away from Mr. X, and breaks their illegitimate partnership.  Mr. X, by contrast , says, "well, I'm saved by faith alone, so I don't really have to do what God says."  He breaks off his relationship with A only because A demands that they do so.

In the next year, Mr. A continues to wrestle with his homosexual tendencies.  He lusts after other men, occasionally looks at gay porn, and once or twice even has homosexual sex.  Yet, he is heartbroken by these sins of his and continually confesses them to God, repents, and asks that God would give him strength to overcome his sins.    He still commits homosexual sins, but he's not OK with it, he is convicted over it, and he doesn't live in it.

Mr. X, by contrast, continues to claim that he has been saved by faith alone, but he then meets Mr. C and begins a homosexual relationship with him.  He is utterly unrepentant, does not care that his behavior offends God.  He moves in with Mr. C, has a gay "marriage", and and lives in a state of "marriage" with Mr. C.

Both Mr. A and Mr. X are struggling with the sin of homosexuality.  But only Mr. X is living in it.  Mr. A is saved, not because of his life change, but his life change was a natural result of the power of the gospel.  Mr. A still sins daily but he does not LIVE in a state of sin.  Mr. X does.

See the difference?

When I was talking about a Christian "falling" into sin, I was referring to something like Mr. A.  When Sola is referring to a "Christian: homosexual, he means something closer to Mr. X.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Also Luke 13:6-8



The parable of the fig tree was about the JEWS.  The Jews did not have fruit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So God chooses FF
> God wills FF to visit a prostitute... He is willing him into darkness.
> God wills FF to repent.  He is still chosen.
> 
> Tomorrow, God wills FF to cheat on a test.
> God will will FF to repent.  He will still be chosen.
> 
> Next year, God will will FF to engage in sex before marriage.
> God will will FF to repent.  He will still be chosen.
> ...


In other words, the standard of your judgment is only someone's lifestyle, and NOT their gospel profession.

I had this discussion with a Reformed member of our church (y'all would probably like him more than you do me... much more "tolerant") and he said that he thought Mother Theresa might have had genuinely saving faith.  I was like why, because of her works?  I was using her as an example of how good works alone are NOT sufficient proof of salvation, that a valid gospel profession has to come with those works.  But... he was a little too tolerant to get the point...

----------


## mosquitobite

> First off, I'm not Sola_Fide.  So even if we contradict each other, so what?  Christians don't always  agree on everything.


Great.  Glad we can agree on that!   Neither do Catholics, Mormons, agnostics, Muslims [agree on everything]...  yet some here pass judgment on the label alone.

As to the rest, you believe that A is repentant because God has _willed_ him to be and X is not because God willed him not to be, correct?

----------


## mosquitobite

> The parable of the fig tree was about the JEWS.  The Jews did not have fruit.


What fruit?

----------


## mosquitobite

> In other words, the standard of your judgment is only someone's lifestyle, and NOT their gospel profession.


No, in your belief someone's WORDS (they claim to be saved/elect) mean more than their ACTIONS.  Remember, you can't see their hearts, Samuel.

Both Mr A and Mr X say they believe, they even have somewhat of the same actions.  But only GOD knows who has the repentant heart, and which one's ACTIONS match up more with what they say they BELIEVE!

----------


## mosquitobite

> I had this discussion with a Reformed member of our church (y'all would probably like him more than you do me... much more "tolerant") and he said that he thought Mother Theresa might have had genuinely saving faith.  I was like why, because of her works?  I was using her as an example of how good works alone are NOT sufficient proof of salvation, that a valid gospel profession has to come with those works.  But... he was a little too tolerant to get the point...


How do you know she did not have a valid gospel profession at the foot of the cross?

Must she do it openly in front of all?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What fruit?



The fruits of true religion, be it doctrine or works.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Great.  Glad we can agree on that!   Neither do Catholics, Mormons, agnostics, Muslims [agree on everything]...  yet some here pass judgment on the label alone.


Judgment on what?

For what its worth, I think its possible that there are saved people trapped in the Roman Catholic Church.  But I do not believe that there are any saved people who reject  salvation by faith alone.



> As to the rest, you believe that A is repentant because God has _willed_ him to be and X is not because God willed him not to be, correct?


Yes, but that's not really my point.  My point is that Mr. A is an example of a Christian who sins, and Mr. X is an example of a false Christian LIVING in sin.  





> No, in your belief someone's WORDS (they claim to be saved/elect) mean more than their ACTIONS.  Remember, you can't see their hearts, Samuel.
> 
> Both Mr A and Mr X say they believe, they even have somewhat of the same actions.  But only GOD knows who has the repentant heart, and which one's ACTIONS match up more with what they say they BELIEVE?


Both words and actions matter.  But, since I hardly watch most people all the time, its very hard to judge someone by their actions.  By contrast, a gospel profession is usually pretty simple to judge based on.

----------


## mosquitobite

> The fruits of true religion, be it doctrine or works.


What would be some examples?  How can man rightfully judge who produces fruit?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How do you know she did not have a valid gospel profession at the foot of the cross?
> 
> Must she do it openly in front of all?


I don't know what she believed the moment she died.  I am not certain where she is spending eternity.

But, as far as I know, she accepted the Catholic doctrine of salvation, and thus, her works were dead works and NOT proof of salvation.  Its not that she didn't openly confess the true gospel, but that she confessed a false one.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Both words and actions matter.  But, since I hardly watch most people all the time, its very hard to judge someone by their actions.  By contrast, a gospel profession is usually pretty simple to judge based on.


Not really, each and every thread I've read through says we all agree that salvation is through faith/grace alone. Plenty of people [within the religion forum] have typed it yet that doesn't seem to be good enough to the predestination crowd.  From an onlooker, it seems Calvinists believe that salvation hinges upon one believing in predestination or not.  That's the bottom line in every dag gone one of these threads!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What would be some examples?  How can man rightfully judge who produces fruit?


Well, it can't just be "niceness".  If it was niceness, then atheists would be saved, right? 

So it must be a belief in the Lord alone for salvation and the other fruits of the Spirit.  But what many focus on is just one aspect of the fruits (the works) and forget about the immediate fruit of the Spirit that all believers have (a love for the truth and a belief in correct doctrine).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not really, each and every thread I've read through says we all agree that salvation is through faith/grace alone. Plenty of people [within the religion forum] have typed it yet that doesn't seem to be good enough to the predestination crowd.  From an onlooker, it seems Calvinists believe that salvation hinges upon one believing in predestination or not.  That's the bottom line in every dag gone one of these threads!


No way.  When Eduardo says he believes in "grace alone" or whatever he says I ALWAYS try to get down to the disagreement that Rome has with the Bible (where justification happens).   I try my best to get into a proper debate so everyone here can see the difference.

In his latest post,  Eduardo said sanctification is involved in justification.   This is a grave error.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not really, each and every thread I've read through says we all agree that salvation is through faith/grace alone. Plenty of people [within the religion forum] have typed it yet that doesn't seem to be good enough to the predestination crowd.  From an onlooker, it seems Calvinists believe that salvation hinges upon one believing in predestination or not.  That's the bottom line in every dag gone one of these threads!


I think SF thinks every Christian must believe in predestination, but I don't agree with that.  

That said, Sola is correct about what he says about Catholicism's view of justification, its COMPLETELY different than ours.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Well, it can't just be "niceness".  If it was niceness, then atheists would be saved, right? 
> 
> So it must be a belief in the Lord alone for salvation and the other fruits of the Spirit.  But what many _focus_ on is just one aspect of the fruits (the works) and forget about the immediate fruit of the Spirit that all believers have (a love for the truth and a belief in correct doctrine).


I focus on Galatians 5:22-23 because that's where Paul defines fruit for us.  There is no law against those things.

Matthew 7 talks about knowing them by their fruit as well, but Jesus doesn't define it for us.   Therefore you may interpret it one way (based on what God reveals to you) and I may interpret it another (again based on what God reveals to me.)  I think the fruit is either the same fruit Paul describes *OR* it could also be how well I spread the good news.  (these aren't mutually exclusive)

Do I believe salvation hinges on bearing fruit?  Absolutely not.  But then again, I just plant a seed. That's what God requires of me.  It's not for me to know how deep the roots [heart] go, because _I can't see them_.  Only ONE can.   We can only see what is above ground - the fruit the seed bears.  I have to produce enough fruit that I can seed others.

----------


## eduardo89

> I think SF thinks every Christian must believe in predestination, but I don't agree with that.


I don't see how any Christian can reject predestination in some form. 




> That said, Sola is correct about what he says about Catholicism's view of justification, its COMPLETELY different than ours.


That's because you two are wrong. You ignore the Bible and the first 1500 years of Christianity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't see how any Christian can reject predestination in some form.


Well yeah, if you define that term broadly enough.  I had in mind Calvinistic predestination in particular, which is what I think mosquiotbite had in mind.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well yeah, if you define that term broadly enough.  I had in mind Calvinistic predestination in particular, which is what I think mosquiotbite had in mind.


By Calvinistic predestination do you mean double predestination or simply that the Elect have been predestined from the beginning of time, that latter of which I don't think any Christian can really refute, the former being completely unbiblical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> By Calvinistic predestination do you mean double predestination or simply that the Elect have been predestined from the beginning of time, that latter of which I don't think any Christian can really refute, the former being completely unbiblical.


Whether passive reprobation, double predestination, or both being irrelevant, the belief that God actively chooses who the elect are, rather than predestination being based on foreknowledge of free will choices.

----------


## erowe1

> By Calvinistic predestination do you mean double predestination or simply that the Elect have been predestined from the beginning of time, that latter of which I don't think any Christian can really refute, the former being completely unbiblical.


1) Why do you think double predestination is unbiblical?
2) Has the RCC ever repudiated double predestination? If so, how does it deal with Augustine, who clearly taught it, and the Council of Valence which clearly affirmed it in 855?

----------


## erowe1

> I don't see how any Christian can reject predestination in some form.


Many do.

----------


## Terry1

I don't reject predestination either, but I do reject Calvin's interpretation of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1) Why do you think double predestination is unbiblical?
> 2) Has the RCC ever repudiated double predestination? If so, how does it deal with Augustine, who clearly taught it, and the Council of Valence which clearly affirmed it in 855?


Good questions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.
> 
> *Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.*
> 
> God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
> 
> *A.* Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
> [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> ...


http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...of_syner_1.php

----------


## Nang

> I think SF thinks every Christian must believe in predestination, but I don't agree with that.


I think every regenerated Christian *WILL* believe in predestination.  (John 16:13)   




> That said, Sola is correct about what he says about Catholicism's view of justification, its COMPLETELY different than ours.


Amen.

That is exactly why the Protestant Reformation happened . . .

----------


## Brett85

I don't know of any Christians who reject predestination.  It seems like the disagreement is over whether or not predestination is based on unconditional election, or based on God's foreknowledge of our future choices.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know of any Christians who reject predestination.  It seems like the disagreement is over whether or not predestination is based on unconditional election, or based on God's foreknowledge of our future choices.


It's been told to you several times now that _proginosko_ is used in the New Testament to foreknow PEOPLE not ACTIONS.  Your belief is not Biblical.   God knows people themselves, not simply actions.  There is no way around this.   You either accept Christianity or you reject it.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know of any Christians who reject predestination.  It seems like the disagreement is over whether or not predestination is based on unconditional election, or based on God's foreknowledge of our future choices.


This is not a mere disagreement . . .

Any theory that speculates the destiny of all men is determined by men, is a* rejection* of the sovereignty of God.

Denial of unconditional election, defines Creator God merely as a *reactionary*, whose word, actions, and covenants are somehow contingent and influenced by imaginary and scripturally unsubstantiated, supposed decisions and actions, of His (sinful, corrupted, wicked, self-serving, God-hating)  morally-subordinate creatures.

This cannot be . . . else God is not truly God.

God is either a reactionary puppet, pulled by (mere knowledge of) the whims of faulty and fallen men, or God is sovereign God, in total control of all the works of His hands.  Romans 9:22-23

----------


## Brett85

> It's been told to you several times now that _proginosko_ is used in the New Testament to foreknow PEOPLE not ACTIONS.  Your belief is not Biblical.   God knows people themselves, not simply actions.  There is no way around this.   You either accept Christianity or you reject it.


And I've pointed out to you that that word can mean either.  1 Peter 1:1-2 is also clear that God's predestination is based on his foreknowledge of what we will choose.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen *according to the foreknowledge of God the Father*, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.

----------


## Brett85

> This is not a mere disagreement . . .
> 
> Any theory that speculates the destiny of all men is determined by men, is a* rejection* of the sovereignty of God.
> 
> Denial of unconditional election, defines Creator God merely as a *reactionary*, whose word, actions, and covenants are somehow contingent and influenced by imaginary and scripturally unsubstantiated, supposed decisions and actions, of His (sinful, corrupted, wicked, self-serving, God-hating)  morally-subordinate creatures.
> 
> This cannot be . . . else God is not truly God.
> 
> God is either a reactionary puppet, pulled by (mere knowledge of) the whims of faulty and fallen men, or God is sovereign God, in total control of all the works of His hands.  Romans 9:22-23


God gives us free will to make our own choices.  Your view is that we're all a bunch of puppets being stringed along in some sort of grand play.  Some puppets are forced to accept salvation by God; other puppets are created simply for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity.  The Calvinist view is beyond disgusting, unbiblical, and makes God look like some kind of monster.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think every regenerated Christian *WILL* believe in predestination.  (John 16:13)


I'm not sure how this works.  Is unconditional election (which is more properly the issue here) an essential gospel doctrine or not?  Sola would say yes.  Most Reformed people say no.  

If its not an essential gospel doctrine, than it is possible for a true Christian to reject it.  We might speculate that they will accept it at some point.  But if they died right after being saved, they might not ever believe it.

By contrast, if it IS an essential gospel doctrine, than every person who is saved would ALREADY believe it.

Please explain to me anything I may be missing here, logically speaking.  





> This is not a mere disagreement . . .
> 
> Any theory that speculates the destiny of all men is determined by men, is a* rejection* of the sovereignty of God.
> 
> Denial of unconditional election, defines Creator God merely as a *reactionary*, whose word, actions, and covenants are somehow contingent and influenced by imaginary and scripturally unsubstantiated, supposed decisions and actions, of His (sinful, corrupted, wicked, self-serving, God-hating)  morally-subordinate creatures.
> 
> This cannot be . . . else God is not truly God.
> 
> God is either a reactionary puppet, pulled by (mere knowledge of) the whims of faulty and fallen men, or God is sovereign God, in total control of all the works of His hands.  Romans 9:22-23


Amen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And I've pointed out to you that that word can mean either.  1 Peter 1:1-2 is also clear that God's predestination is based on his foreknowledge of what we will choose.
> 
> Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
> 
> To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen *according to the foreknowledge of God the Father*, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.


That is perfect example of what I'm talking about.  God foreknows people, not actions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God gives us free will to make our own choices.  Your view is that we're all a bunch of puppets being stringed along in some sort of grand play.  Some puppets are forced to accept salvation by God; other puppets are created simply for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity.  The Calvinist view is beyond disgusting, unbiblical, and makes God look like some kind of monster.


By contrast, your view makes God look like a pathetic weakling (While we're engaging in ad hominem attacks, at any rate)

By what basis do you call God evil?  By what standard?

----------


## Nang

> God gives us free will to make our own choices.


You have no scriptural evidence that says sinners can choose to be forgiven by God.  NONE.

Just the opposite.  Romans 3:10-19, Ecclesiastes 7:20

Sinful men can only choose to sin.  They are held in bondage to sin, death, and the devil due to inheritance
of Adam's corrupted nature.

Man _should_ choose to believe and repent of sins, but they do not because they cannot . . . thus any and all salvation
depends upon the sovereign grace of God; worked on their behalf by the Mediator, Jesus Christ.

This silly teaching that sinners can and will "choose" righteousness and salvation is a LIE.

And it is the commission of the Holy Spirit to lead all those given to Christ to redeem, into all TRUTH.  (John 16:13)

Nothing less than that.

----------


## erowe1

> 1 Peter 1:1-2 is also clear that God's predestination is based on his foreknowledge of what we will choose.


No it isn't. It says nothing about his foreknowledge of what we will choose.

----------


## erowe1

> Your view is that we're all a bunch of puppets being stringed along in some sort of grand play.  Some puppets are forced to accept salvation by God; other puppets are created simply for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity.  The Calvinist view is beyond disgusting, unbiblical, and makes God look like some kind of monster.


Can you quote where he says that's his view?

Can you quote where anyone says that's their view?

----------


## Brett85

> You have no scriptural evidence that says sinners can choose to be forgiven by God.  NONE.


Acts 17:30

"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent."

----------


## Brett85

> Can you quote where he says that's his view?
> 
> Can you quote where anyone says that's their view?


It's in every single thread where the Calvinists on this forum have denied that man doesn't have free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Acts 17:30
> 
> "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent."


That is a command of God.  Commands do not imply ability.  *Refer to fallacy number 1 in the OP.*

----------


## erowe1

> It's in every single thread where the Calvinists on this forum have denied that man doesn't have free will.


Then you should have an easy time finding a quote.

----------


## Brett85

> That is a command of God.  Commands do not imply ability.  *Refer to fallacy number 1 in the OP.*


That's just absurd.  So God is going to command that people do something that they can't do?  Like I said, you have a warped view of God and God's character.

----------


## erowe1

> That's just absurd.  So God is going to command that people do something that they can't do?  Like I said, you have a warped view of God and God's character.


It's not absurd at all for God to command people to do what he predestines them not to do. It's all through the Bible. I'm surprised that you don't at least acknowledge that it must sometimes happen.

Do you have any basis for calling it absurd? Or is that just an assumption that you bring to the text?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's just absurd.  So God is going to command that people do something that they can't do?  Like I said, you have a warped view of God and God's character.





> *Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.*
> 
> God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
> 
> *A.* Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
> [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> 
> *B .* This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the subject can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. Passages which state things such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes" are spoken in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In such passages, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do.
> ...


Let go of your feelings and your traditions and engage your mind.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's in every single thread where the Calvinists on this forum have denied that man doesn't have free will.


Seems like the term Calvanism is used broadly in these parts though. Like different people define it premised upon different sets of influence. I could be wrong but it's just the impression that I get.

----------


## Brett85

> It's not absurd at all for God to command people to do what he predestines them not to do. It's all through the Bible. I'm surprised that you don't at least acknowledge that it must sometimes happen.


Predestination is based on God's foreknowledge throughout the Bible, especially in 1 Peter 1:1-2 that I posted earlier.  That verse clearly says that predestination is based on foreknowledge.  It disproves the idea that God's predestination, particularly when it comes to salvation, is based on some type of unconditional election.  It's conditioned based upon God's foreknowledge of what we'll choose.

----------


## Brett85

> Let go of your feelings and your traditions and engage your mind.


There's no evidence in the Bible that human beings can't ever obey the commandments.  The Bible says that Job was blameless and upright, and he didn't sin during the time when Satan was tempting him.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he never committed a sin, since Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned.  But, it does mean that it's possible to obey the commandments, at least for a certain period of time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's no evidence in the Bible that human beings can't ever obey the commandments.  The Bible says that Job was blameless and upright, and he didn't sin during the time when Satan was tempting him.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he never committed a sin, since Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned.  But, it does mean that it's possible to obey the commandments, at least for a certain period of time.


Why didn't you engage with any of the fallacies that I posted?  



> *Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.*
> 
> God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.
> 
> *A.* Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man's sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.
> 
> [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: Rom 3:19, 20]
> 
> *B .* This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the subject can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. Passages which state things such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes" are spoken in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In such passages, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do.
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> Predestination is based on God's foreknowledge throughout the Bible, especially in 1 Peter 1:1-2 that I posted earlier.  That verse clearly says that predestination is based on foreknowledge.  It disproves the idea that God's predestination, particularly when it comes to salvation, is based on some type of unconditional election.  It's conditioned based upon God's foreknowledge of what we'll choose.


It doesn't disprove that it's unconditional.

What is the condition of God's foreknowledge? You seem to be making assumptions that it's something God doesn't control. But it's not, it's something he alone controls. Nowhere in that verse or any other does it say that the foreknowledge it mentions is foreknowledge of us making a choice. In Romans 8:29 that's clearly not what it is. And even if it were, it still gets us back to God's sovereignty over our making of that choice in the first place. None of these verses undermine that.

Furthermore, notice that nothing you just said even comes close to responding to what you quoted from me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Acts 17:30
> 
> "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent."


Duty =/= ability.  This has been explained like a million times on this forum.




> That's just absurd.  So God is going to command that people do something that they can't do?  Like I said, you have a warped view of God and God's character.


Look at Isaiah 10:5-19.

Also, did the Roman soldiers sin when they hung Christ on the cross?  Of course.  Could they have done otherwise?  Of course not.




> Can you quote where he says that's his view?
> 
> Can you quote where anyone says that's their view?


Nopee/

----------


## Brett85

> Why didn't you engage with any of the fallacies that I posted?


Why don't you respond to my point about Job and why the Bible says that he was blameless and upright in God's eyes?

----------


## erowe1

> Why don't you respond to my point about Job and why the Bible says that he was blameless and upright in God's eyes?


The Bible says that about a handful of sinners. They were still sinners. I think we have to read those statements as limited by their contexts, not absolute claims. Kind of like we need to do when we encounter the word "all." In Job's case, he himself admitted that he was vile before God and repented.

It's ironic that you would appeal to Job, since Job is a book that so pointedly teaches that God is behind all that happens, both good and bad, including evil acts committed by people, like when the Sabeans and Chaldeans killed Job's servants.

----------


## Christian Liberty

1 John 1:8 shows us that the passage clearly didn't mean that he was sinless during that time.  But, even if it did, what's your point?  How does this contradict Sola's point about predestination?

----------


## Brett85

> 1 John 1:8 shows us that the passage clearly didn't mean that he was sinless during that time.  But, even if it did, what's your point?  How does this contradict Sola's point about predestination?


Sola's point was that God gives us the 10 commandments even though we're not capable of following them, and I was pointing out that although Job didn't live a sin free life, he obeyed God's commandments well enough to be called "blameless" and "upright."  It's on subject and a response to Sola's point since he said that God commands us to do things that we can't do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK.  Do  you think Job was unregenerate when that happened?  Because if not,  I don't see the relevance.

----------


## Nang

> Why don't you respond to my point about Job and why the Bible says that he was blameless and upright in God's eyes?


Job was imputed with the righteousness of God; not his own righteousness (even though Job argued for such).

Such truth God disclosed to Job in the final chapters of the Book . . that being, *I AM is SOVEREIGN and His dealings with Job or any of His creatures, accords strictly to His PURPOSES* versus any actions or supposed powers (good or bad) of His creatures.

----------


## Nang

I am fairly a-political by nature, but who would any of the members of this particular forum want to choose the next mid-term election?

Sinful men, or God Almighty.

Which resultant outcome would be easier to live with?

I pray the sovereign choice of God would bless the faithful believers in the USA.

----------


## Brett85

> OK.  Do  you think Job was unregenerate when that happened?  Because if not,  I don't see the relevance.


No, he was regenerate.  But I'm just making the case that God gives us his commandments to follow, and it's possible to follow them.  We can't follow them perfectly, but it's possible to follow them well enough to be called "blameless" and "upright" by God.  It's not like we sin every single day and break every single one of God's commandments every day.  I think most of us can say that we've at least kept some of the commandments.  For example, I've never committed murder, can't remember a time when I've ever stolen anything, and have never committed adultery.  (Unless you go by Jesus' definition of looking at a woman lustfully being adultery.)

----------


## Nang

> No, he was regenerate.  But I'm just making the case that God gives us his commandments to follow, and it's possible to follow them.  We can't follow them perfectly, but it's possible to follow them well enough to be called "blameless" and "upright" by God.


No, this is the semi-Pelagian lie . . .

Jesus taught that if a man wants to be declared righteous before God, he must keep each "jot and tittle" of the Law (Matthew 5:18-19) . . . but it is not possible and no man (except the Son of Man) has ever achieved such perfection under the Law.  Romans 3:19






> It's not like we sin every single day and break every single one of God's commandments every day.  I think most of us can say that we've at least kept some of the commandments.  For example, I've never committed murder, can't remember a time when I've ever stolen anything, and have never committed adultery.  (Unless you go by Jesus' definition of looking at a woman lustfully being adultery.)


Not good enough.  You can only please God by faith in the perfect righteousness of His Son.  Hebrews 11:6

----------


## Brett85

> No, this is the semi-Pelagian lie . . .
> 
> Jesus taught that if a man wants to be declared righteous before God, he must keep each "jot and tittle" of the Law (Matthew 5:18-19) . . . but it is not possible and no man (except the Son of Man) has ever achieved such perfection under the Law.  Romans 3:19
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good enough.  You can only please God by faith in the perfect righteousness of His Son.  Hebrews 11:6


I agree that we can't make it to heaven by following the law and trying to be perfect, and that we can only be saved by accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior.  But that wasn't my point.  My point isn't that we can follow the commandments well enough to make it into heaven, but that we're not completely incapable of following them to the extent that we just constantly break every commandment every single day.  We can follow the commandments, but just not perfectly every single day, and not well enough to be saved.

----------


## Brett85

> I am fairly a-political by nature, but who would any of the members of this particular forum want to choose the next mid-term election?
> 
> Sinful men, or God Almighty.
> 
> Which resultant outcome would be easier to live with?
> 
> I pray the sovereign choice of God would bless the faithful believers in the USA.


How did you hear about this place and decide to post here if you're not a Ron Paul supporter?

----------


## eduardo89

> How did you hear about this place and decide to post here if you're not a Ron Paul supporter?


I think it's pretty obvious...

----------


## erowe1

> I am fairly a-political by nature, but who would any of the members of this particular forum want to choose the next mid-term election?
> 
> Sinful men, or God Almighty.
> 
> Which resultant outcome would be easier to live with?
> 
> I pray the sovereign choice of God would bless the faithful believers in the USA.


I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the choice of the sovereign God will be that sinful men will win the midterm election.

----------


## erowe1

> We can follow the commandments, but just not perfectly every single day, and not well enough to be saved.


But obeying all the commandments perfectly is what God commands in the Law. And this demand of perfection doesn't just require conformity in outward actions, but even in secret thoughts. So if we can't do that, then he has commanded us to do something we can't do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, he was regenerate.  But I'm just making the case that God gives us his commandments to follow, and it's possible to follow them.  We can't follow them perfectly, but it's possible to follow them well enough to be called "blameless" and "upright" by God.  It's not like we sin every single day and break every single one of God's commandments every day.  I think most of us can say that we've at least kept some of the commandments.  For example, I've never committed murder, can't remember a time when I've ever stolen anything, and have never committed adultery.  (Unless you go by Jesus' definition of looking at a woman lustfully being adultery.)


That is the problem.  You are not going by Jesus' definition.   Jesus said if you are just angry with your brother you murdered him in your heart.  So you are a murderer.   

Everyone who does not do EVERYTHING written in the law is cursed.

----------


## Nang

> How did you hear about this place and decide to post here if you're not a Ron Paul supporter?


I am only recently inclined to be a Paul supporter due to current governmental travesties and constitutional violations  (I _have_ voted in every election since Eisenhower), but not being a political activist, I decided to more intimately educate myself a bit about the morals and mindsets of Paul's followers.

That should not bother you . . .

I will say, so far, after just a couple of days, I see bitterness, unnecessary insults, and spiritual enmity on this site I did not expect. 

 Too bad . . .

----------


## Brett85

> I am only recently inclined to be a Paul supporter due to current governmental travesties and constitutional violations  (I _have_ voted in every election since Eisenhower), but not being a political activist, I decided to more intimately educate myself a bit about the morals and mindsets of Paul's followers.
> 
> That should not bother you . . .


It doesn't bother me.  I was just wondering since you called yourself "a-political" but are commenting on a political website.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I am only recently inclined to be a Paul supporter due to current governmental travesties and constitutional violations  (I _have_ voted in every election since Eisenhower), but not being a political activist, I decided to more intimately educate myself a bit about the morals and mindsets of Paul's followers.
> 
> That should not bother you . . .
> 
> I will say, so far, after just a couple of days, I see bitterness, unnecessary insults, and spiritual enmity on this site I did not expect. 
> 
>  Too bad . . .


What are some of your favorite sites, blogs, books?  I am awaiting a book by A.W. Pink about the Holy Spirit. 

 Have just discovered this website:

http://exsatanist.wordpress.com/

----------


## Brett85

> I will say, so far, after just a couple of days, I see bitterness, unnecessary insults, and spiritual enmity on this site I did not expect.


That's because you have certain people going out of their way to tell people who are self described Christians that they aren't Christians and are going to hell, even when saying that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  You're going to have a lot of division and insults with people like that posting here.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> That's because you have certain people going out of their way to tell people who are self described Christians that they aren't Christians and are going to hell, even when saying that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  You're going to have a lot of division and insults with people like that posting here.


Yes, I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I need to repent - and NOT from the Calvinist-oriented believers.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I need to repent - and NOT from the Calvinist-oriented believers.


Have any of the non-Calvinists told you you're not a Christian? Have you been called a 'minster of satan'?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am fairly a-political by nature, but who would any of the members of this particular forum want to choose the next mid-term election?
> 
> Sinful men, or God Almighty.
> 
> Which resultant outcome would be easier to live with?
> 
> I pray the sovereign choice of God would bless the faithful believers in the USA.


The unfortunate reality is that we don't really have much of a choice but to vote for sinful men



> How did you hear about this place and decide to post here if you're not a Ron Paul supporter?


I know her from a theology forum.  I asked her to help me debate Chris Duncan (agrammatos) because she has apparently debated some of the OTC people before.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am only recently inclined to be a Paul supporter due to current governmental travesties and constitutional violations  (I _have_ voted in every election since Eisenhower), but not being a political activist, I decided to more intimately educate myself a bit about the morals and mindsets of Paul's followers.
> 
> That should not bother you . . .
> 
> I will say, so far, after just a couple of days, I see bitterness, unnecessary insults, and spiritual enmity on this site I did not expect. 
> 
>  Too bad . . .


Like any political coalition, there are a variety of people who support Ron and or Rand Paul.  Most have a high regard for personal liberty, but beyond that, there is a lot of variety.  Some of us, including most who post in the religion forum, are moral conservatives, others are libertine.  Some are Calvinists, some are Arminians, some are cultists, some are not Christians, etc.  You have a wide variety of types of people in any group like this.

Personally, while my PRIMARY goal is to preach the gospel, I also hold that governmental immorality, particularly where Christians are ignorant of or supportive of it, must be exposed.  But that's just my stance, it doesn't represent the site.  None of the spiritual emnity you see is really representative of the site either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have any of the non-Calvinists told you you're not a Christian? Have you been called a 'minster of satan'?


Well, TC called our theology "beyond disgusting"

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, TC called our theology "beyond disgusting"


And I agree with him. But he is calling your theology that, not you.

You and Sola, on the other hand, resort to personal attacks such as calling us non-Christian, calling our Churches whores, calling us ministers of Satan. Big difference.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, TC called our theology "beyond disgusting"


Yeah, I guess I should've said that differently.  I still don't believe or have ever said that Calvinists aren't Christians.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I agree with him. But he is calling your theology that, not you.


Yeah, he's only insulting the God of the Universe, heaven forbid he insult *me*

I am not important.  I'd honestly rather be insulted personally than see God insulted.


> You and Sola, on the other hand, resort to personal attacks such as calling us non-Christian, calling our Churches whores, calling us ministers of Satan. Big difference.


Calling you "non-Christian" is a personal attack?  Come on.  I can see why you'd think the other things could be insults, even though I don't agree but calling someone "non-Christian" isn't an insult.

Heck, for that matter, even the RCC has enough common sense to know that non-trinitarians aren't Christians.  Are you "personally attacking" a Jehovah's Witness when you say so?

You once said John Hagee was not a Christian (for the record, I agree with you.)  Was this a personal attack?




> Yeah, I guess I should've said that differently.  I still don't believe or have ever said that Calvinists aren't Christians.


You haven't, but you don't really say that about anybody.  I'm not really all that offended by your comment, but I think there's a bit of a double standard here, pretty much nobody got ticked off at your comment, yet lots of people get ticked off at me when I say bad things about Arminianism and or Catholicism.  Its not really a surprise to me though, true theology isn't popular.

----------


## Nang

> What are some of your favorite sites, blogs, books?  I am awaiting a book by A.W. Pink about the Holy Spirit. 
> 
>  Have just discovered this website:
> 
> http://exsatanist.wordpress.com/



Hi Louise,

Sites:  Trinityfoundation.org
          Monergism.com
          PRCA.org

Blogs:  God's Hammer
           Green Baggins


Essential Books:


           All of A.W. Pink's writings
           All of Gordon H. Clark's works
           "Calvin's Institutes" and all Calvin Commentaries
           "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith" by Dr. Robert Reymond
           "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
           All of John Owen's works
           "History of the Christian Church" by Philip Schaff
           "Historical Theology" by William Cunninghan
           "Reformed Dogmatics" by Herman Hoeksema

            . . . and many, many more Reformed/Puritan writings!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hi Louise,
> 
> Sites:  Trinityfoundation.org
>           Monergism.com
>           PRCA.org
> 
> Blogs:  God's Hammer
>            Green Baggins
> 
> ...


You're going to become SF's favorite poster very soon

----------


## eduardo89

> Yeah, he's only insulting the God of the Universe, heaven forbid he insult *me*
> 
> I am not important.  I'd honestly rather be insulted personally than see God insulted.


Attributing evil to God is insulting Him.




> Calling you "non-Christian" is a personal attack?  Come on.  I can see why you'd think the other things could be insults, even though I don't agree but calling someone "non-Christian" isn't an insult.


Yes, it is a personal attack and that is exactly what you mean to do when you call other Christians on here non-Christian.

And you don't see how calling a fellow Christian a minister of satan is a personal attack?




> Heck, for that matter, even the RCC has enough common sense to know that non-trinitarians aren't Christians.  Are you "personally attacking" a Jehovah's Witness when you say so?


The Church attacks JW theology, it does not attack its followers.




> You once said John Hagee was not a Christian (for the record, I agree with you.)  Was this a personal attack?


Absolutely it was a personal attack.

----------


## eduardo89

double post

----------


## Brett85

> Calling you "non-Christian" is a personal attack?  Come on.  I can see why you'd think the other things could be insults, even though I don't agree but calling someone "non-Christian" isn't an insult.


So you don't view it as a personal attack when you tell someone that you're a Christian, and then that person turns around and tells you that you're not a Christian?  I can't think of a worse personal attack than calling a self described Christian a non Christian, because you're calling them a liar for one thing, and depending on your theology, you're telling them that they're going to receive the fate of being burned alive for trillions and trillions and trillions of years.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Nang, I can't give you any more rep.

Many thanks for the extensive list.  Where to start?  There is a sense of being fed as an adult believer - and life will never be the same again.

I feel humbled and completely inept, except for the Glory of God.

----------


## Brett85

> Heck, for that matter, even the RCC has enough common sense to know that non-trinitarians aren't Christians.  Are you "personally attacking" a Jehovah's Witness when you say so?


If I was debating a Jehovah Witness about that issue, I would just stick to the issue at hand and debate that, rather than telling that person that they're not a Christian.  If the issue came up, then I would give an honest answer, but I wouldn't bring it up myself.  A certain person who posts here just brings up the salvation of others even when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Have any of the non-Calvinists told you you're not a Christian? Have you been called a 'minster of satan'?


No, and I will stop whining about persecution.  It ought to make one stronger in Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hi Louise,
> 
> Sites:  Trinityfoundation.org
>           Monergism.com
>           PRCA.org
> 
> Blogs:  God's Hammer
>            Green Baggins
> 
> ...


Wow.  Great list.  Are you Clarkian as well?

----------


## Nang

> Nang, I can't give you any more rep.
> 
> Many thanks for the extensive list.  Where to start?  There is a sense of being fed as an adult believer - and life will never be the same again.
> 
> I feel humbled and completely inept, except for the Glory of God.


Louise,

For lighter and inspirational reading, check out Terri Blackstock on Amazon. 

She has put out some really fine fictional series, that I and other Christian ladies have enjoyed.

God bless you,

Nang

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're going to become SF's favorite poster very soon


I can't give her any more rep.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Louise,
> 
> For lighter and inspirational reading, check out Terri Blackstock on Amazon. 
> 
> She has put out some really fine fictional series, that I and other Christian ladies have enjoyed.
> 
> God bless you,
> 
> Nang


Nang,

I absolutely love her writing.  So glad to get your viewpoint as well.  Some of the Christian fiction is aweful, but hers I have enjoyed.  Will order a couple from the library soon.

I am thrilled to have you here.

Louise

----------


## Nang

> Wow.  Great list.  Are you Clarkian as well?


Indeed!

Thanks be in large part to the dear and late John Robbins, who mentored my husband and myself years ago, when we lost
two Reformed Pastors in death and were left bereft of church fellowship and leadership!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Attributing evil to God is insulting Him.


But I do not do this.






> Yes, it is a personal attack and that is exactly what you mean to do when you call other Christians on here non-Christian.


OK.  If you think that's a personal attack, I don't believe personal attacks are always wrong.



> And you don't see how calling a fellow Christian a minister of satan is a personal attack?


I don't think I've ever done this.  I've certainly never said this of a Christian, but I don't THINK I've said this of anyone.  I know SF has, but I don't think I have.  

I do think calling a specific person a minister of satan is a personal attack.  Sometimes it would be accurate, but I don't think it really has a place in a logical discussion.  There's a nicer way to say the same thing.  I was more referring to attacks on CHURCHES, which I don't view as personal.  Then again, I rarely take things personally, I've been picked on my entire life so I'm kind of desensitized to it.





> The Church attacks JW theology, it does not attack its followers.


Are they Christians?

Is it inaccurate to call their Kingdom Halls satanic?




> Absolutely it was a personal attack.


Was this wrong?




> So you don't view it as a personal attack when you tell someone that you're a Christian, and then that person turns around and tells you that you're not a Christian?


Assuming, A: there is some logical basis for this and B: Their intent is to help me, no I would not consider this a personal attack.




> I can't think of a worse personal attack than calling a self described Christian a non Christian, because you're calling them a liar for one thing


Not really.  I have no doubt Catholics believe they are Christians.  I think they make that claim in ignorance of what "Christian" means.




> and depending on your theology, you're telling them that they're going to receive the fate of being burned alive for trillions and trillions and trillions of years.


I don't know if its a literal fire or not, but ultimately, I think your issue here is leading back to your views on eternal torment (Which I'll remind you you once believed in).  I'm not really knowledgeable enough to debate this point, but ultimately, your issue here is with the doctrine of ECT, not with judgment of false teachers, isn't it?

That said, I have no idea who is and is not going to Hell.  Its possible that every single person on this forum will go to heaven.  I doubt it, but its certainly possible.  When I tell someone they are not a Christian, the goal is that they will examine themselves, see thatmy jjudgment is accurate, repent and trust in Christ, that they may AVOID eternal torment.




> If I was debating a Jehovah Witness about that issue, I would just stick to the issue at hand and debate that, rather than telling that person that they're not a Christian.  If the issue came up, then I would give an honest answer, but I wouldn't bring it up myself.  A certain person who posts here just brings up the salvation of others even when it has nothing to do with the conversation.


I get your point if its unrelated to the discussion, and I try not to do that.  I don't constantly remind Roman Catholics of my opinion of their Christianity when we're in political debates, or unrelated theological issues.  But when soteriology comes up, I don't have a problem with saying it, because its an important issue that needs to be discussed.  If I DIDN'T discuss it I'd be complicit in allowing them to walk into that very same Hell that you accuse me of telling them they are going to by discussing it.

----------


## Nang

> Nang,
> 
> I absolutely love her writing.


Oh good!  

Seems God has put us on the same page . . . pardon any pun!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Indeed!
> 
> Thanks be in large part to the dear and late John Robbins, who mentored my husband and myself years ago, when we lost
> two Reformed Pastors in death and were left bereft of church fellowship and leadership!


Wow.  You knew John?

----------


## Brett85

> I get your point if its unrelated to the discussion, and I try not to do that.  I don't constantly remind Roman Catholics of my opinion of their Christianity when we're in political debates, or unrelated theological issues.  But when soteriology comes up, I don't have a problem with saying it, because its an important issue that needs to be discussed.  If I DIDN'T discuss it I'd be complicit in allowing them to walk into that very same Hell that you accuse me of telling them they are going to by discussing it.


You just aren't going to convert someone to your point of view or what you consider to be a "true Christian" by telling them that they're unsaved and on the road to hell.  Surely you know that.  People are just going to turn away and not listen to anything you say.  You don't win people over by insulting them and their beliefs; you win people over with love and respect.

----------


## Nang

> Wow.  You knew John?


Only online and through correspondence.  He did not live long enough
for us to meet him face to face, but he was a very caring and personable
brother and help to us.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You just aren't going to convert someone to your point of view or what you consider to be a "true Christian" by telling them that they're unsaved and on the road to hell.  Surely you know that.  People are just going to turn away and not listen to anything you say.  You don't win people over by insulting them and their beliefs; you win people over with love and respect.


The apostles preached repentance.  Its common to see fluffy preachers saying "Just invite Jesus into your heart" or "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" but this is not the gospel of the Apostles.

And my goal is not to "win people over", it is to preach the truth.  It is God that does the saving, not me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Only online and through correspondence.  He did not live long enough
> for us to meet him face to face, but he was a very caring and personable
> brother and help to us.


What a wonderful story and tribute.  John's writings and preaching have been such a blessing to me.

----------


## Brett85

> The apostles preached repentance.  Its common to see fluffy preachers saying "Just invite Jesus into your heart" or "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" but this is not the gospel of the Apostles.
> 
> And my goal is not to "win people over", it is to preach the truth.  It is God that does the saving, not me.


You preach what you think is the truth.  It's still arrogant to think that you have the only correct interpretation of the Bible, and everyone else is wrong.  Of course there are certain things that are absolute that all Christians should believe in, but a lot of other things aren't clear and are up for debate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You preach what you think is the truth.  It's still arrogant to think that you have the only correct interpretation of the Bible, and everyone else is wrong.  Of course there are certain things that are absolute that all Christians should believe in, but a lot of other things aren't clear and are up for debate.


In this case I'm fairly confident that I'm correct.  There are a lot of issues on which I am uncertain, but I'm absolutely certain that sinful man does not choose God.  There are several scriptures that irrefutably prove this point.

----------


## Brett85

> In this case I'm fairly confident that I'm correct.  There are a lot of issues on which I am uncertain, but I'm absolutely certain that sinful man does not choose God.  There are several scriptures that irrefutably prove this point.


Joshua 24:15

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, *then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve,* whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Joshua 24:15
> 
> But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, *then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve,* whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”


Sola_Fide has already addressed this verse.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## erowe1

> Joshua 24:15
> 
> But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, *then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve,* whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”


There you go again.

It seems like every single time you try to post any biblical support for your view, the only possible way to get any support for it from the passages you appeal to is by making the assumptions that SF listed in that list of fallacies. Here, once again, it looks like you're just assuming that God could never gives people commands that they, according to their natures, are certain to disobey.

----------


## Brett85

> There you go again.
> 
> It seems like every single time you try to post any biblical support for your view, the only possible way to get any support for it from the passages you appeal to is by making the assumptions that SF listed in that list of fallacies. Here, once again, it looks like you're just assuming that God could never gives people commands that they, according to their natures, are certain to disobey.


When you combine that verse in others with the clear teaching that God isn't willing for any to perish, it's clear that God wants everyone to repent and choose him.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When you combine that verse in others with the clear teaching that God isn't willing for any to perish, it's clear that God wants everyone to repent and choose him.
> 
> 2 Peter 3:9
> 
> The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


Already addressed that verse too.  The "you" that Peter is talking about that God does not want to perish is the elect.

----------


## erowe1

> When you combine that verse in others with the clear teaching that God isn't willing for any to perish, it's clear that God wants everyone to repent and choose him.
> 
> 2 Peter 3:9
> 
> The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


Again, the only possible way you can make that argument is by bringing unsupportable assumptions to the text like the ones listed in that post by SF. Take those assumptions away and I don't think you have a scriptural case at all any more. It's not just that the Bible isn't as clear as you say it is, it literally gives you no support.

----------


## Sola_Fide

You bolded the wrong part.  I'll bold the important part for you:




> Joshua 24:15
> 
> *But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you,* then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”


IF SERVING THE LORD SEEMS UNDESIRABLE TO YOU,  then choose for yourself any idol you want.

----------


## erowe1

> Already addresses that verse too.  The "you" that Peter is talking about that God does not want to perish is the elect.


That's one possible argument. But even if he wants to keep falling back on reading the Bible in a special Holy Ghost language where "all means all and that's all it means," you would still be left with having to interpret what it means for God to "wish" something in this context. It would be ridiculous to say that God's wishing for things implies that they are outside his control, and it would be ridiculous to say that the verse teaches that he effectually brings about the salvation of all people as a result of his wishing for it. You'd still end up with this being his prescribed will, and not his decreed will, which would go right back to fallacy of assuming that God cannot command something different than what he predestines.

----------


## Brett85

> Already addresses that verse too.  The "you" that Peter is talking about that God does not want to perish is the elect.


I agree with this guy.




> If Christ really did die for all men, then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does.


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._atonement.htm

----------


## Brett85

And to Freedom Fanatic, I know I said the other day that I accepted limited atonement and disagreed with unconditional election, but the article above convinced me that limited atonement isn't correct either.  There are just too many verses in the Bible which explicitly state that Christ died for everyone, that he died so that everyone would have the chance to be saved, even though only those who accept his free gift are actually saved.

I agree with this logic as well.

"For unbelievers, God's purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God's only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, "The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._atonement.htm


That guy is like the Arminian version of Marc Carpenter.  He's a nutcase.

----------


## erowe1

> I agree with this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._atonement.htm


That article says this:



> We could even say it in a simpler way: "Christ's death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL, but EFFICIENT only for those who believe."


But that is precisely the usual Reformed/Calvinistic description of Limited Atonement. He's literally quoting the very words that Calvinists themselves use for Limited Atonement and saying that that's the right position in the midst of thinking that he's arguing against it.
http://expositorythoughts.wordpress....for-the-elect/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._atonement.htm


That guy is a moron.   Anyway, the verse doesn't even talk about the atonement at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But that is precisely the usual Reformed/Calvinistic description of Limited Atonement. He's literally quoting the very words that Calvinists themselves use for Limited Atonement and saying that that's the right position in the midst of thinking that he's arguing against it.
> http://expositorythoughts.wordpress....for-the-elect/


I personally don't care for that phrase, but I think I'm in the minority on this one.  Most Calvinists do use that phrase.

----------


## Nang

> I personally don't care for that phrase, but I think I'm in the minority on this one.  Most Calvinists do use that phrase.



I do not use that phrase.  I am irritated when I hear it.  It is a slogan and a play on words, that is used in attempt to soften the doctrine of Limited Atonement to unbelieving ears.

Amyraldians are famous for using it . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do not use that phrase.  I am irritated when I hear it.  It is a slogan and a play on words, that is used in attempt to soften the doctrine of Limited Atonement to unbelieving ears.
> 
> Amyraldians are famous for using it . . .


I agree.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You preach what you think is the truth.  It's still arrogant to think that you have the only correct interpretation of the Bible, and everyone else is wrong.  Of course there are certain things that are absolute that all Christians should believe in, but a lot of other things aren't clear and are up for debate.


You've stated definitively that SF's interpretation of the Bible (Which includes the belief that you and other Arminians are not saved) is wrong.  Is this "arrogant"?  If not, you're being intolerant of intolerance, which is an inherent fallacy.

----------


## Brett85

> You've stated definitively that SF's interpretation of the Bible (Which includes the belief that you and other Arminians are not saved) is wrong.  Is this "arrogant"?  If not, you're being intolerant of intolerance, which is an inherent fallacy.


I believe that his interpretation of the Bible is wrong.  It's possible that I could end up being wrong, and that God will reveal that Calvinism is the correct doctrine when we all get to heaven.  I don't, however, think there's any Biblical basis at all for saying that only Calvinists will make it to heaven.

----------


## erowe1

> I do not use that phrase.  I am irritated when I hear it.  It is a slogan and a play on words, that is used in attempt to soften the doctrine of Limited Atonement to unbelieving ears.
> 
> Amyraldians are famous for using it . . .


But if you want your understanding of the atonement to be biblical, then are there any biblical supports for saying that it's limited to the elect in any way beyond being limited to them in its efficiency? It is not as though human sins and Christ's blood are quantifiable prices where the amount of blood spilt was only enough for so many sins.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe that his interpretation of the Bible is wrong.  It's possible that I could end up being wrong, and that God will reveal that Calvinism is the correct doctrine when we all get to heaven.*  I don't, however, think there's any Biblical basis at all for saying that only Calvinists will make it to heaven*.


Are you making an absolute statement that this doctrine (That only Calvinists make it to heaven) is wrong?  If so, are you being "arrogant"?

----------


## Brett85

> That guy is like the Arminian version of Marc Carpenter.  He's a nutcase.


Yeah, he is kind of a nut, and I disagree with him on a lot of theological issues, but I think he made a good point with what he said here.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you making an absolute statement that this doctrine (That only Calvinists make it to heaven) is wrong?  If so, are you being "arrogant"?


I don't think so.  I just think it's arrogant to constantly claim that self identified Christians aren't Christians, especially when it almost always has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

----------


## Nang

> But if you want your understanding of the atonement to be biblical, then are there any biblical supports for saying that it's limited to the elect in any way beyond being limited to them in its efficiency? It is not as though human sins and Christ's blood are quantifiable prices where the amount of blood spilt was only enough for so many sins.


The superior basis for teaching Limited Atonement, is emphasizing the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, he is kind of a nut, and I disagree with him on a lot of theological issues, but I think he made a good point with what he said here.


  Fair enough.  I still link Carpenter's "American Atrocities" article every now and again even though I strongly dislike him.




> I don't think so.  I just think it's arrogant to constantly claim that self identified Christians aren't Christians, especially when it almost always has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


That's not what you said in post #301.  You said its arrogant to claim that your interpretation of scripture is the only correct interpretation and that everyone else is wrong.  BTW: Do you think I "constantly" claim that self-identified Christians are not Christians?  I don't think that's the case.

----------


## Brett85

> That's not what you said in post #301.  You said its arrogant to claim that your interpretation of scripture is the only correct interpretation and that everyone else is wrong.  BTW: Do you think I "constantly" claim that self-identified Christians are not Christians?  I don't think that's the case.


I was talking more about Sola Fide.

It just seems to me that even though there are some theological issues that are clear cut that no Christian really disagrees with, such as that God exists and that Jesus died and rose again, I just don't see how an issue like Calvinism and Arminianism is clear cut at all.  When I read the Bible, I see verses for both sides, and it's definitely not 100% clear to me.  I lean more towards Arminianism at the moment, but when it comes to an issue like this that I don't believe is clear cut and don't believe has anything to do with one's salvation, I'm always open to changing my mind.  I wouldn't rule out becoming a Calvinist in the future.  I just don't view it as a core doctrine at all.  We all believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that's the basis for salvation.

----------


## Deborah K

> So you don't view it as a personal attack when you tell someone that you're a Christian, and then that person turns around and tells you that you're not a Christian?  I can't think of a worse personal attack than calling a self described Christian a non Christian, because you're calling them a liar for one thing, and depending on your theology, you're telling them that they're going to receive the fate of being burned alive for trillions and trillions and trillions of years.


*You must spread some Reputation around
before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.
*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was talking more about Sola Fide.
> 
> It just seems to me that even though there are some theological issues that are clear cut that no Christian really disagrees with, such as that God exists and that Jesus died and rose again, I just don't see how an issue like Calvinism and Arminianism is clear cut at all.  When I read the Bible, I see verses for both sides, and it's definitely not 100% clear to me.  I lean more towards Arminianism at the moment, but when it comes to an issue like this that I don't believe is clear cut and don't believe has anything to do with one's salvation, I'm always open to changing my mind.  I wouldn't rule out becoming a Calvinist in the future.  I just don't view it as a core doctrine at all.  We all believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that's the basis for salvation.


I agree that it isn't required for salvation, but Romans 8:28-35 completely rule out any form of Arminianism.  God gives "all things" to those for whom Christ laid down his life.  John 10:27 is blatantly explicit for unconditional election as well.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree that it isn't required for salvation, but Romans 8:28-35 completely rule out any form of Arminianism.  God gives "all things" to those for whom Christ laid down his life.  John 10:27 is blatantly explicit for unconditional election as well.


Well, we're just going to have to disagree.  I acknowledge that when I read the Bible I see some verses that seem to be strong for Calvinism, but I still believe the majority of verses are stronger for the Arminianism case.  The fact that this issue is debated so much and so passionately among Christians show that it's not a clear cut issue.  You don't see Christians debating the existence of God, or debating whether Jesus died and rose again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, we're just going to have to disagree.  I acknowledge that when I read the Bible I see some verses that seem to be strong for Calvinism, but I still believe the majority of verses are stronger for the Arminianism case.  The fact that this issue is debated so much and so passionately among Christians show that it's not a clear cut issue.  You don't see Christians debating the existence of God, or debating whether Jesus died and rose again.


There are professing Christians that debate the deity of Christ.  Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Arians, etc. claim to be Christians.

----------


## Brett85

> There are professing Christians that debate the deity of Christ.  Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Arians, etc. claim to be Christians.


Yeah, that's true.  They have a couple verses they can point to for their point of view, and those verses have to be addressed by those of us who believe in Christ's deity and the trinity.  But the vast majority of the evidence in the Bible points to the truth behind Christ's deity and the doctrine of the trinity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, that's true.  They have a couple verses they can point to for their point of view, and those verses have to be addressed by those of us who believe in Christ's deity and the trinity.  But the vast majority of the evidence in the Bible points to the truth behind Christ's deity and the doctrine of the trinity.


The vast majority of the Bible also points to a belief in predestination and unconditional election.

----------


## Brett85

> The vast majority of the Bible also points to a belief in predestination and unconditional election.


Predestination, yes.  What predestination actually means is debated by Christians, and there's evidence on both sides.  If you just went by a popularity contest, I'm pretty sure that limited atonement/unconditional election would be the minority view among self described Christians.

----------


## Nang

> Well, we're just going to have to disagree.  I acknowledge that when I read the Bible I see some verses that seem to be strong for Calvinism, but I still believe the majority of verses are stronger for the Arminianism case.  The fact that this issue is debated so much and so passionately among Christians show that it's not a clear cut issue.  You don't see Christians debating the existence of God, or debating whether Jesus died and rose again.


It has been my observation that the great divide between Arminians vs Calvinists, is not about arguing the existence of God, nor the death/resurrection of Jesus Christ, but *the issue of human free will vs God's sovereign will.*

According to whose power and will, does the professing believer commit to live by and serve?

Their own, or their Creator's?

----------


## Nang

> What a wonderful story and tribute.  John's writings and preaching have been such a blessing to me.


His wisdom is reflected in your wise posts . . .

----------


## Brett85

> It has been my observation that the great divide between Arminians vs Calvinists, is not about arguing the existence of God, nor the death/resurrection of Jesus Christ, but *the issue of human free will vs God's sovereign will.*
> 
> According to whose power and will, does the professing believer commit to live by and serve?
> 
> Their own, or their Creator's?


It doesn't have to be one or the other.  It can be both.  God draws us to him and freely offers us grace.  He offers us the gift of grace, and our faith and our good works come from God.  But, a gift can still be rejected.  If a Governor decides to pardon someone in prison, that's a free gift that the Governor is giving the prisoner, but the prisoner can still choose to reject the pardon and remain in prison.  The prisoner isn't forced to accept the pardon and leave the prison.

----------


## Brett85

> His wisdom is reflected in your wise posts . . .


Ugh, that's nauseating.  I guess you don't have a problem with him constantly demonizing and persecuting Arminians and Catholics.

----------


## Deborah K

> *It doesn't have to be one or the other.  It can be both.*  God draws us to him and freely offers us grace.  He offers us the gift of grace, and our faith and our good works come from God.  But, a gift can still be rejected.  If a Governor decides to pardon someone in prison, that's a free gift that the Governor is giving the prisoner, but the prisoner can still choose to reject the pardon and remain in prison.  The prisoner isn't forced to accept the pardon and leave the prison.


^^this

----------


## Nang

> It doesn't have to be one or the other.  It can be both.


No, this is not so.

Either God is Sovereign, or He is not.

Sinners possess no equal sovereignty with God at all.

You cannot serve God AND man; your works will prove to serve either one or the other.




> God draws us to him and freely offers us grace.  He offers us the gift of grace, and our faith and our good works come from God.  But, a gift can still be rejected.


Different gospel.  Reformers proclaim Irresistible Grace.





> If a Governor decides to pardon someone in prison, that's a free gift that the Governor is giving the prisoner, but the prisoner can still choose to reject the pardon and remain in prison.  The prisoner isn't forced to accept the pardon and leave the prison.


Heh . . . how many times have your read such reports in the news?  Or how many times have you heard about dead men refusing to be resurrected to new life?

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide  
> 
> What a wonderful story and tribute. John's writings and preaching have been such a blessing to me.







> His wisdom is reflected in your wise posts . . .


LOL

----------


## Deborah K

> No, this is not so.
> 
> Either God is Sovereign, or He is not.


God is Sovereign, and he created us with free will.

----------


## Nang

> God is Sovereign, and he created us with free will.


Actually, Adam was never *free* to willfully disobey God's commands. 

So even in a state of innocence, the concept of Adam possessing a "free will" is dashed.

Whose will did Jesus pray "be done?"  Matthew 6:10

----------


## Terry1

I think Sola has a sock-puppet.  Someone should check that ISP.

----------


## Brett85

> God is Sovereign, and he created us with free will.


^^^This.  God is sovereign because everything that happens he allows to happen, but he doesn't cause everything to happen that happens.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think Sola has a sock-puppet.  Someone should check that ISP.


You are wrong.  I would never do that.

----------


## Terry1

> Actually, Adam was never *free* to willfully disobey God's commands. 
> 
> So even in a state of innocence, the concept of Adam possessing a "free will" is dashed.
> 
> Whose will did Jesus pray "be done?"  Matthew 6:10


Then you should ask God why He was so surprised to see Adam and Eve's new outfits made of fig leaves.   When God asked them what were the new out-fits all about Adam and Eve said they were trying to hide their nakedness.  God said "who told you were naked"?  Now does that sound like God knew what was happening on the other side of the Garden while they were munching on that fruit of the tree of knowledge?  

And note here before you read this, that Adam was really quick to tell God that Eve made him do it---ROFL.  Now you know why women are superior to men and why men suffer at the mouths of bitchy wimin folk.  It's a curse because Adam was so dumb, he listened to Eve.  Now men are cursed forever more with bitchy women. 
*
Genesis 3*
*6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ^^^This.  God is sovereign because everything that happens he allows to happen, but he doesn't cause everything to happen that happens.


That is ridiculous on a Biblical level (because the Bible teaches in several places that God INTENDS the good and the evil that occurs in this world) and it is ridiculous on the level of logic as well.  

God could have created any world, with any outcome, and He knew every outcome and storyline of every world He could have created, yet He chose to create this one, knowing the storyline and outcome.  Logic itself drives you to God's sovereignty in all things.  There is no escape.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ^^^This.  God is sovereign because everything that happens he allows to happen, but he doesn't cause everything to happen that happens.


That is ridiculous on a Biblical level (because the Bible teaches in several places that God INTENDS the good and the evil that occurs in this world) and it is ridiculous on the level of logic as well.  

God could have created any world, with any outcome, and He knew every outcome and storyline of every world He could have created, yet He chose to create this one, knowing the storyline and outcome.  Logic itself drives you to God's sovereignty in all things.  There is no escape.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> His wisdom is reflected in your wise posts . . .





> Ugh, that's nauseating.  I guess you don't have a problem with him constantly demonizing and persecuting Arminians and Catholics.


No, and John Robbins didn't either.

----------


## Terry1

> You are wrong.  I would never do that.



Come on Sola, I know you're hard up for friends at this point.  It's either your sock puppet or you paid the guy.

----------


## Nang

> Come on Sola, I know you're hard up for friends at this point.  It's either your sock puppet or you paid the guy.



Come on Terry, I know you are hard up to defend yourself, but it is no reason to falsely accuse others of deception . . .

----------


## Terry1

> Come on Terry, I know you are hard up to defend yourself, but it is no reason to falsely accuse others of deception . . .


Be honest--how much did Sola pay you?    



Nah, jes kiddin here, but you are the only one who's ever called Sola "wise"---that's a first that I've seen anyway.  Stick around---that'll change.  As soon as you jump off the Sola train with a different opinion, you too will be one of us "cultists".

----------


## Brett85

> God could have created any world, with any outcome, and He knew every outcome and storyline of every world He could have created, yet He chose to create this one, knowing the storyline and outcome.  Logic itself drives you to God's sovereignty in all things.  There is no escape.


I don't deny God's sovereignty in all things.  I pretty clearly said that everything that happens God allows to happen.  God is sovereign since he has the ability to step in and control the outcome of something whenever he wants to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ugh, that's nauseating.  I guess you don't have a problem with him constantly demonizing and persecuting Arminians and Catholics.


  I can understand your point about Arminians... but Roman Catholics?  Come on.  I really can't fathom how you're so tolerant of Catholicism.  I know Arminians who aren't either.




> I think Sola has a sock-puppet.  Someone should check that ISP.


  Nang is not Sola_Fide.  She doesn't even live in the same state.




> Come on Sola, I know you're hard up for friends at this point.  It's either your sock puppet or you paid the guy.


I actually asked her to come here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Be honest--how much did Sola pay you?    
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, jes kiddin here, but you are the only one who's ever called Sola "wise"---that's a first that I've seen anyway.  Stick around---that'll change.  As soon as you jump off the Sola train with a different opinion, you too will be one of us "cultists".


I don't think this is true.  Sola hasn't called me a cultist yet, and I think I disagree with him more than Nang does.

----------


## Brett85

> I can understand your point about Arminians... but Roman Catholics?  Come on.  I really can't fathom how you're so tolerant of Catholicism.  I know Arminians who aren't either.


I certainly disagree with Catholics on a lot of theological issues and have debated them in the past, asking them why they do these odd things like praying to Mary.  But I never discussed or questioned their salvation when I was talking to them.  That wouldn't have done any good.

----------


## eduardo89

> I certainly disagree with Catholics on a lot of theological issues and have debated them in the past, asking them why they do these odd things like praying to Mary.  But I never discussed or questioned their salvation when I was talking to them.  That wouldn't have done any good.


The odd thing throughout the history of Christianity has been *not* praying the Mary and the Saints and asking for their intercession!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't deny God's sovereignty in all things.  I pretty clearly said that everything that happens God allows to happen.  God is sovereign since he has the ability to step in and control the outcome of something whenever he wants to.


What you are proposing is a god that is able to have his will frustrated by his creatures.   This god wants something,  and cannot bring it to pass.  This is not the God of the Bible, it is an idol you have erected in your sinful mind.  You have to repent.

----------


## Brett85

> The odd thing throughout the history of Christianity has been *not* praying the Mary and the Saints and asking for their intercession!


Where is that taught in the Bible?

----------


## eduardo89

> Where is that taught in the Bible?


Jesus' parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 indicates the ability of the dead to pray for the living. 

On the basis of Christ's intercession for believers, who is present at the Right hand of God (Romans 8:34;Hebrews 7:25), it is argued by extension that other people who have died but are alive in Christ may be able to intercede on behalf of the petitioner(John 11:25;Romans 8:38–39).

On the basis of other texts (Hebrews 2:11;Hebrews 10:10; 1 Timothy 2:1–5) it is argued that if those living here on earth can intercede on behalf of each other, then those already glorified in Heaven, and even closer "in Christ", are made holy as "one" unified through him (the mediator between God and men – on earth and heaven) by his sacrifice, can certainly intercede for those on earth as well.

There also  Tobit 12:12–15, Revelation 5:8, and Revelation 8:3–4.

Where do you get the idea that the Saints in Heaven can't pray for us? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't deny God's sovereignty in all things.  I pretty clearly said that everything that happens God allows to happen.  God is sovereign since he has the ability to step in and control the outcome of something whenever he wants to.


What you are proposing is a god that is able to have his will frustrated by his creatures.   This god wants something,  and cannot bring it to pass.  This is not the God of the Bible, it is an idol you have erected in your sinful mind.  You have to repent.

----------


## Brett85

> What you are proposing is a god that is able to have his will frustrated by his creatures.   This god wants something,  and cannot bring it to pass.  This is not the God of the Bible, it is an idol you have erected in your sinful mind.  You have to repent.


I had a friend of mine explain this to me a couple months ago.  If there are a bunch of prisoners in a prison who break out of prison and escape with their own free will, does that mean that God is no longer in control, that he's no longer sovereign?  No, because he knows the future and knows every move that these prisoners will make.  He knows if these prisoners will head south, north, east, or west.  He knows what street they'll turn on, where they'll head to.  Since God knows the future and knows whatever move the prisoners will make, he's sovereign and has the ability to step in at any time and stop the prisoners and stop things from getting too out of control.  God is sovereign and can step in at any time to save us from the mess that we've made of our lives with our own choices.  But he doesn't control every single thing that we do.  He just has the ability to take something bad that happens and turn it into something good.

----------


## Brett85

> Jesus' parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 indicates the ability of the dead to pray for the living.


That was just a parable, and not every single point that Jesus made in a parable is meant to be taken 100% literally.  The main point of the parable had nothing to do with the ability of the dead to pray for the living.

----------


## Brett85

> Where do you get the idea that the Saints in Heaven can't pray for us? Book, chapter, and verse, please.


Because the Bible teaches that no one is in heaven yet.  Mary is dead and in her grave.

John 3:13

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

Acts 2:29, 34

Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 

For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand.

Ecclesiastes 9:5

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing."

Psalm 146:4

"His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I had a friend of mine explain this to me a couple months ago.  If there are a bunch of prisoners in a prison who break out of prison and escape with their own free will, does that mean that God is no longer in control, that he's no longer sovereign?  No, because he knows the future and knows every move that these prisoners will make.  He knows if these prisoners will head south, north, east, or west.  He knows what street they'll turn on, where they'll head to.  Since God knows the future and knows whatever move the prisoners will make, he's sovereign and has the ability to step in at any time and stop the prisoners and stop things from getting too out of control.  God is sovereign and can step in at any time to save us from the mess that we've made of our lives with our own choices.  But he doesn't control every single thing that we do.  He just has the ability to take something bad that happens and turn it into something good.


Does this god want the prisoners not to break out?  If so, then his will can be frustrated by his creatures, and that is not the God is the Bible.  That is an idol.

----------


## Brett85

> Does this god want the prisoners not to break out?  If so, then his will can be frustrated by his creatures, and that is not the God is the Bible.  That is an idol.


The God of the Bible had his will frustrated by his creatures all the time.

Luke 13:34

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

----------


## eduardo89

> Because the Bible teaches that no one is in heaven yet.  Mary is dead and in her grave.
> 
> John 3:13
> 
> No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.


I'll respond to the others later, got a meeting in 5 minutes.

But this one you need to take in context. Before Jesus' death, Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven no one had died and gone to Heaven. The righteous who had died before the Pentecost were in Hades/Bosom of the Fathers/Bosom of Abraham (whatever name you wish to give it). Jesus opened the Gates of Heaven for us, before that it is true, no one had died and gone to Heaven.

Even if you don't believe we will enter Heaven until the Last Judgment has come, as the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics tend to believe, the dead are very much awake as seen in Jesus' parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 shows.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Does this god want the prisoners not to break out?  If so, then his will can be frustrated by his creatures, and that is not the God is the Bible.  That is an idol.


Sola - I think I'm finally getting this.  Man's pride causes the belief that he can frustrate the will of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola - I think I'm finally getting this.  Man's pride causes the belief that he can frustrate the will of God.


Of course.  That is the central aspect of all the religions of man: the autonomy of the will.

----------


## Nang

> The God of the Bible had his will frustrated by his creatures all the time.
> 
> Luke 13:34
> 
> "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."


This verse is an indictment against the rulers of Jerusalem, who killed the prophets, in order to prevent the children of God from receiving the covenant promises.

It is not Jesus whining or weeping because He did not get His way.  

The Lord has gathered all His "chicks" that belong to Him, without fail.  John 10:27-29; 6:39

But woe upon His enemies who deliberately oppose His purposes and the sovereign will of God.

----------


## Deborah K

> Actually, Adam was never *free* to willfully disobey God's commands. 
> 
> So even in a state of innocence, the concept of Adam possessing a "free will" is dashed.
> 
> Whose will did Jesus pray "be done?"  Matthew 6:10


I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the dynamics of our Holy Father creating the will of man.  Scripture is clear that God is sovereign and knows the future.  It is also clear that we're held responsible for our actions, and that we are to live our lives making wise decisions.  How these facts work together is an issue that is well beyond our limited minds to comprehend, which is why there is no consensus on it.   I see our free will and God's sovereignty as a comfort, and not an issue to be debated.  It isn't difficult for me to believe that God is sovereign, that he created us with free will, that he allows things to happen, that he sometimes intervenes, and that he has a plan.

I will never believe that God is a puppet master controlling everything and everyone at all times.

----------


## Nang

> I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the dynamics of our Holy Father creating the will of man.  Scripture is clear that God is sovereign and knows the future.  It is also clear that we're held responsible for our actions, and that we are to live our lives making wise decisions.  How these facts works together is an issue that is well beyond our limited minds to comprehend, which is why there is no consensus on it.   I see our free will and God's sovereignty as a comfort, and not an issue to be debated.  It isn't difficult for me to believe that God is sovereign, that he created us with free will, that he allows things to happen, that he sometimes intervenes, and that he has a plan.
> 
> I will never believe that God is a puppet master controlling everything and everyone at all times.


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.

IOW's, they want to be like God.

But they are not free to be like God, no matter how stubbornly they demand to be so. . .

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> 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.
> ...


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

This is clear and concise.  Thank you.

----------


## Deborah K

> 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.
> ...


Are you implying that based on what I wrote, I must want to be like God?

----------


## Brett85

> But they are not free to be like God, no matter how stubbornly they demand to be so. . .


The Bible says that we're created in the image of God.  That doesn't mean that we're God or equal to God, but that God created us with many of the same qualities that he has.

----------


## Nang

> Are you implying that based on what I wrote, I must want to be like God?


See what SF posted here.

True faith is submitting our human wills to the sovereign will of God.  

Insistence upon retaining and autonomously exercising our own will, is the crux of all debate.

I answered you generally, according to my understanding, but only you can answer how important retaining a supposed free-will is to you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The God of the Bible had his will frustrated by his creatures all the time.
> 
> Luke 13:34
> 
> "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."


There is a difference between God's prescriptive will (don't do this) and God's decree (this shall come to pass).  Jesus is referring to the prescriptive will of God there in that judgement passage.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This verse is an indictment against the rulers of Jerusalem, who killed the prophets, in order to prevent the children of God from receiving the covenant promises.
> 
> It is not Jesus whining or weeping because He did not get His way.  
> 
> The Lord has gathered all His "chicks" that belong to Him, without fail.  John 10:27-29; 6:39
> 
> But woe upon His enemies who deliberately oppose His purposes and the sovereign will of God.


Absolutely.   It was a statement of judgement against the religious leaders of Israel.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> See what SF posted here.
> 
> True faith is submitting our human wills to the sovereign will of God.  
> 
> Insistence upon retaining and autonomously exercising our own will, is the crux of all debate.
> 
> I answered you generally, according to my understanding, but only you can answer how important retaining a supposed free-will is to you.


How did this understanding of human will change the way you live out your life?

----------


## Brett85

> There is a difference between God's prescriptive will (don't do this) and God's decree (this shall come to pass).  Jesus is referring to the prescriptive will of God there in that judgement passage.


Where do the terms "prescriptive will" and "decretive will" appear in the Bible?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I certainly disagree with Catholics on a lot of theological issues and have debated them in the past, asking them why they do these odd things like praying to Mary.  But I never discussed or questioned their salvation when I was talking to them.  That wouldn't have done any good.


By contrast, refusing to do so makes you responsible for refusing to tell them the truth.

----------


## Deborah K

> See what SF posted here.
> 
> True faith is submitting our human wills to the sovereign will of God.  
> 
> Insistence upon retaining and autonomously exercising our own will, is the crux of all debate.
> 
> I answered you generally, according to my understanding, but only you can answer how important retaining a supposed free-will is to you.


Seems like this is a semantics issue.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the dynamics of our Holy Father creating the will of man.  Scripture is clear that God is sovereign and knows the future.  It is also clear that we're held responsible for our actions, and that we are to live our lives making wise decisions.  How these facts work together is an issue that is well beyond our limited minds to comprehend, which is why there is no consensus on it.   I see our free will and God's sovereignty as a comfort, and not an issue to be debated.  It isn't difficult for me to believe that God is sovereign, that he created us with free will, that he allows things to happen, that he sometimes intervenes, and that he has a plan.
> 
> I will never believe that God is a puppet master controlling everything and everyone at all times.


What you omit from your post is the places where the Bible describes God's _intention_ in predestination.  There are dozens of dozens of verses that describe God decreeing history for the good purpose of His glory.  Without this aspect of God, all you have left is an idol.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where do the terms "prescriptive will" and "decretive will" appear in the Bible?


What a ridiculous standard.  Is the term "Trinity" in the Bible?  Or is "Trinity" merely a description of the truth of the Scriptures when it is systematized?

----------


## Deborah K

> What you omit from your post is the places where the Bible describes God's _intention_ in predestination.  There are dozens of dozens of verses that describe God decreeing history for the good purpose of His glory.  Without this aspect of God, all you have left is an idol.


See emphasis:




> I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the dynamics of our Holy Father creating the will of man.  Scripture is clear that God is sovereign and knows the future.  It is also clear that we're held responsible for our actions, and that we are to live our lives making wise decisions.  How these facts work together is an issue that is well beyond our limited minds to comprehend, which is why there is no consensus on it.   I see our free will and God's sovereignty as a comfort, and not an issue to be debated.  It isn't difficult for me to believe that God is sovereign, that he created us with free will, that he allows things to happen, that he sometimes intervenes,* and that he has a plan.
> *
> I will never believe that God is a puppet master controlling everything and everyone at all times.

----------


## Nang

> How did this understanding of human will change the way you live out your life?


My husband and I were brought to this understanding through personal and private bible studies while attending an Arminian/Hyper-Dispensational church.  

So the first change, was leaving that assembly and becoming members in a Presbyterian church.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> My husband and I were brought to this understanding through personal and private bible studies while attending an Arminian/Hyper-Dispensational church.  
> 
> So the first change, was leaving that assembly and becoming members in a Presbyterian church.


What a grand gift from God, especially to be in agreement with your husband.

----------


## Brett85

> What a ridiculous standard.  Is the term "Trinity" in the Bible?  Or is "Trinity" merely a description of the truth of the Scriptures when it is systematized?


I was just asking a question, because I wasn't sure whether those terms were ever used in the Bible or not.

----------


## Brett85

> By contrast, refusing to do so makes you responsible for refusing to tell them the truth.


I don't necessarily think that Catholics are unsaved.  Some are, some aren't.  I've known Catholics who I felt were Christians.  I don't necessarily think that having weird church traditions disqualifies someone from being a Christian.  Sometimes people place too much emphasis on doctrine when they talk about whether or not someone is saved, rather than realizing that a lot of it has to do with someone's relationship with Christ.  You can have all the doctrines right and still be a terrible person and live an immoral lifestyle, and not produce any fruit that shows the evidence for your faith.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't necessarily think that Catholics are unsaved.  Some are, some aren't.


I won't necessarily disagree with this.  but I would hold that one cannot hold Catholic doctrine and be saved.



> I've known Catholics who I felt were Christians.  I don't necessarily think that having weird church traditions disqualifies someone from being a Christian.


It depends on whether the tradition destroys the gospel or not.



> Sometimes people place too much emphasis on doctrine when they talk about whether or not someone is saved, rather than realizing that a lot of it has to do with someone's relationship with Christ.  You can have all the doctrines right and still be a terrible person and live an immoral lifestyle, and not produce any fruit that shows the evidence for your faith.


It might be possible to mentally assent to all the right doctrines, and yet not actually trust in Christ to save you.  But I'm not sure how this is relevant to the idea that true Christians trust in Christ to save them and true Christians believe the gospel.

----------


## Brett85

> It might be possible to mentally assent to all the right doctrines, and yet not actually trust in Christ to save you.  But I'm not sure how this is relevant to the idea that true Christians trust in Christ to save them and true Christians believe the gospel.


Is your main problem with Catholics that they seem to believe in a combination of faith and works for salvation?

----------


## erowe1

> Where do the terms "prescriptive will" and "decretive will" appear in the Bible?


Here are some clear teachings that are all over the Bible, regardless what labels you apply to them:

1) God wills some things in the sense of imposing on people a moral duty to do them, such that these things ought to happen.
2) God wills some things in the sense of predestining them, such that these things are certain to happen.
3) Sometimes those things that God wills in the first sense and those things that he wills in the second sense contradict each other, such that God predestined that people would be certain to violate those moral burdens that he imposed on them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is your main problem with Catholics that they seem to believe in a combination of faith and works for salvation?


That would be the main issue yes.  Not the only one, but certainly the main one.  Mariolatry and transubstantiation are serious issues as well.

----------


## Brett85

> That would be the main issue yes.  Not the only one, but certainly the main one.  Mariolatry and transubstantiation are serious issues as well.


I don't believe in "works" as far as needing to attend church, take sacraments, or attend certain church activities to be saved.  But at the same time, the Bible also talks about faith without works being dead and not being a saving faith.  Our faith isn't supposed to give us a license to sin.  Someone could believe in their heart that Jesus died and rose again, and then just feel like he could use his salvation as a license to sin and go out and sin as much as he wants to.  But would a person like that be saved?  No, I don't think so.  In order to be saved you have to have a relationship with Christ, repent of your sins, and not use your salvation as a license to sin.  It doesn't mean that you have to live a perfect life to be saved, but it means that your faith has to be proven by your actions.  Paul talks about people who say they believe but then deny Christ with their actions.  So to me it doesn't necessarily seem heretical or unbiblical to say that faith and works are supposed to work together.  Where I think the Catholics go wrong is when they think they have to do certain things their church tells them to do to be saved, like take sacraments and participate in all the church activities.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe in "works" as far as needing to attend church, take sacraments, or attend certain church activities to be saved.  But at the same time, the Bible also talks about faith without works being dead and not being a saving faith.  Our faith isn't supposed to give us a license to sin.  Someone could believe in their heart that Jesus died and rose again, and then just feel like he could use his salvation as a license to sin and go out and sin as much as he wants to.  But would a person like that be saved?  No, I don't think so.  In order to be saved you have to have a relationship with Christ, repent of your sins, and not use your salvation as a license to sin.  It doesn't mean that you have to live a perfect life to be saved, but it means that your faith has to be proven by your actions.  Paul talks about people who say they believe but then deny Christ with their actions.  So to me it doesn't necessarily seem heretical or unbiblical to say that faith and works are supposed to work together.  Where I think the Catholics go wrong is when they think they have to do certain things their church tells them to do to be saved, like take sacraments and participate in all the church activities.


If I understand correctly, you are saying God will change a believer's life, and good works will naturally follow being saved.  If so, I agree.  But this is not the Catholic view of works as far as they relate to salvation.

----------


## Brett85

> If I understand correctly, you are saying God will change a believer's life, and good works will naturally follow being saved.  If so, I agree.  But this is not the Catholic view of works as far as they relate to salvation.


I guess that's what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that you can't be a Christian if you use your salvation as a license to sin, so in that sense when you really think about it, it doesn't seem like we're technically saved by simply believing in Christ's death and resurrection alone, because even Satan and the demons believe that, and they would be saved if all you had to do was believe.  You're supposed to prove your faith by the way that you live and by loving others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess that's what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that you can't be a Christian if you use your salvation as a license to sin, so in that sense when you really think about it, it doesn't seem like we're technically saved by simply believing in Christ's death and resurrection alone, because even Satan and the demons believe that, and they would be saved if all you had to do was believe.  You're supposed to prove your faith by the way that you live and by loving others.


The devil may assent to the facts of the gospel.  But he certainly isn't trusting in Christ to save him.  That's the difference.  Catholics don't even assent to the facts of the gospel, because they reject justification by faith alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If I understand correctly, you are saying God will change a believer's life, and good works will naturally follow being saved.  If so, I agree.  But this is not the Catholic view of works as far as they relate to salvation.


Actually it's not the Catholic view.  Eduardo will have plenty of ammo from his Catholic confessions that say salvation is by grace alone.

The difference between Rome and the Bible is _where justification happens._  Rome says it is a subjective process that happens in a man's heart.  The Bible says it is an objective event that happens on the cross.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess that's what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that you can't be a Christian if you use your salvation as a license to sin, so in that sense when you really think about it, it doesn't seem like we're technically saved by simply believing in Christ's death and resurrection alone, because even Satan and the demons believe that, and they would be saved if all you had to do was believe.  You're supposed to prove your faith by the way that you live and by loving others.


All it says in the book of James is that the demons believe God is one.  But monotheism alone is not saving faith.  

The Bible clearly teaches in several places that salvation is through (not because of) faith alone.

----------


## Brett85

> Catholics don't even assent to the facts of the gospel, because they reject justification by faith alone.


I'm not really trying to debate you here, but I'm just wondering how you interpret this verse.

James 2:24

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not really trying to debate you here, but I'm just wondering how you interpret this verse.
> 
> James 2:24
> 
> You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.





> 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can *that faith* save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[b] is that? 17 So also *faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.*
> 
> 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.


James is already assuming that faith alone saves.  He's rejecting the idea that this faith lacks deeds.

----------


## Brett85

> If a Governor decides to pardon someone in prison, that's a free gift that the Governor is giving the prisoner, but the prisoner can still choose to reject the pardon and remain in prison. The prisoner isn't forced to accept the pardon and leave the prison.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Heh . . . how many times have your read such reports in the news?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1739775.html

----------


## Nang

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1739775.html




LOL!  

I didn't know conservatives read the Huffington Post.

----------


## Brett85

> LOL!  
> 
> I didn't know conservatives read the Huffington Post.


It's called Google.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here are some clear teachings that are all over the Bible, regardless what labels you apply to them:
> 
> 1) God wills some things in the sense of imposing on people a moral duty to do them, such that these things ought to happen.
> 2) God wills some things in the sense of predestining them, such that these things are certain to happen.
> 3) Sometimes those things that God wills in the first sense and those things that he wills in the second sense contradict each other, such that God predestined that people would be certain to violate those moral burdens that he imposed on them.


Absolutely.

----------


## Terry1

> There is a difference between God's prescriptive will (don't do this) and God's decree (this shall come to pass).  Jesus is referring to the prescriptive will of God there in that judgement passage.


What are or is Gods "decrees or decree" Sola?  How do you think God's foreknowledge functions with regard to His decree?

Make sure you do your homework on this one, because I already know what your answer is going to be and I'm ready here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What are or is Gods "decrees or decree" Sola?  How do you think God's foreknowledge functions with regard to His decree?
> 
> Make sure you do your homework on this one, because I already know what your answer is going to be and I'm ready here.



What are you ready for?  The decree of God is determined purpose in history:




> *Isaiah 46:10
> 
> Declaring the end from the beginning,
> And from ancient times things which have not been done,
> Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
> And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';*

----------


## erowe1

> What are you ready for?  The decree of God is determined purpose in history:


And nothing ever has occurred or ever will occur other than precisely what he decreed.
Ephesians 1:11



> 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is AW Pink on God's predestating decree:




> The decree of God is His purpose or determination with respect to future things. We have used the singular number as Scripture does (Rom 8:28, Eph 3:11), because there was only one act of His infinite mind about future things. But we speak as if there had been many, because our minds are only capable of thinking of successive revolutions, as thoughts and occasions arise, or in reference to the various objects of His decree, which being many seem to us to require a distinct purpose for each one. But an infinite understanding does not proceed by steps, from one stage to another: "Known unto God are all His works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18).
> 
> The Scriptures make mention of the decrees of God in many passages, and under a variety of terms. The word "decree" is found in Psalm 2:7, etc. In Ephesians 3:11 we read of His "eternal purpose." In Acts 2:23 of His "determinate counsel and foreknowledge." In Ephesians 1:9 of the mystery of His "will." In Romans 8:29 that He also did predestinate. In Ephesians 1:9 of His "good pleasure." God’s decrees are called His "counsel" to signify they are consummately wise. They are called God’s "will" to show He was under no control, but acted according to His own pleasure. When a man’s will is the rule of his conduct, it is usually capricious and unreasonable; but wisdom is always associated with "will" in the Divine proceedings, and accordingly, God’s decrees are said to be "the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).
> 
> The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception: whatever is done in time, was foreordained before time began. God’s purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil, although with reference to the latter we must be careful to state that while God is the Orderer and Controller of sin, He is not the Author of it in the same way that He is the Author of good. Sin could not proceed from a holy God by positive and direct creation, but only by decretive permission and negative action. God’s decree is as comprehensive as His government, extending to all creatures and all events. It was concerned about our life and death; about our state in time, and our state in eternity. As God works all things after the counsel of His own will, we learn from His works what His counsel is (was), as we judge of an architect’s plan by inspecting the building which was erected under his directions.
> 
> God did not merely decree to make man, place him upon the earth, and then leave him to his own uncontrolled guidance; instead, He fixed all the circumstances in the lot of individuals, and all the particulars which will comprise the history of the human race from its commencement to its close. He did not merely decree that general laws should be established for the government of the world, but He settled the application of those laws to all particular cases. Our days are numbered, and so are the hairs of our heads. We may learn what is the extent of the Divine decrees from the dispensations of providence, in which they are executed. The care of Providence reaches to the most insignificant creatures, and the most minute events—the death of a sparrow, and the fall of a hair.
> 
> Let us now consider some of the properties of the Divine decrees. First, they are eternal. To suppose any of them to be made in time, is to suppose that some new occasion has occurred, some unforeseen event or combination of circumstances has arisen, which has induced the Most High to form a new resolution. This would argue that the knowledge of the deity is limited, an that He is growing wiser in the progress of time—which would be horrible blasphemy. No man who believes that the Divine understanding is infinite, comprehending the past, the present, and the future, will ever assent to the erroneous doctrine of temporal decrees. God is not ignorant of future events which will be executed by human volitions; He has foretold them in innumerable instances, and prophecy is but the manifestation of His eternal prescience. Scripture affirms that believers were chosen in Christ before the world began (Eph. 1:4), yea, that grace was "given" to them then (2 Tim. 1:9).
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Unfortunately, I don't have any rep for you at the moment.  That was excellent.  Just out of curiosity, Sola, do you actually agree with this part?:




> The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception: whatever is done in time, was foreordained before time began. God’s purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil, although with reference to the latter we must be careful to state that while God is the Orderer and Controller of sin, *He is not the Author of it* in the same way that He is the Author of good. Sin could not proceed from a holy God by positive and direct creation, but only by decretive *permission and negative action*. God’s decree is as comprehensive as His government, extending to all creatures and all events. It was concerned about our life and death; about our state in time, and our state in eternity. As God works all things after the counsel of His own will, we learn from His works what His counsel is (was), as we judge of an architect’s plan by inspecting the building which was erected under his directions.


IIRC in the past you said God was the author of sin, although I could be wrong about this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Unfortunately, I don't have any rep for you at the moment.  That was excellent.  Just out of curiosity, Sola, do you actually agree with this part?:
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC in the past you said God was the author of sin, although I could be wrong about this.


No, I don't agree with that part.  I think some of the formulations that Reformed men have devised in the past attempted to distance God from decreeing sin, but they ended up opening the door to all kinds of heresies that deny God's sovereignty.   God's absolute sovereignty, and His absolute holiness, are perfectly maintained when it is understood that God has a _good_ reason for actively causing evil in this world.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I don't agree with that part.  I think some of the formulations that Reformed men have devised in the past attempted to distance God from decreeing sin, but they ended up opening the door to all kinds of heresies that deny God's sovereignty.   God's absolute sovereignty, and His absolute holiness, are perfectly maintained when it is understood that God has a _good_ reason for actively causing evil in this world.


OK, I know you could misread this and say I'm "esteeming man" which isn't my intention, but if *A.W. Pink* isn't extreme enough for you, I'm not sure what to say.

If God were the author of sin, he wouldn't be good.  Evil is by definition opposite of good.  God is good, not evil.  I see no logical way God can author evil in the way you describe without himself being evil.  Also, there's a verse in James that says its wrong to blame God for your sin BECAUSE God doesn't tempt men to sin.  I understand that in Romans 9 the reason you aren't supposed to blame God is because God has a right to hold you responsible, but that's not the way its explained in the book of James.  I believe your position is incompatible with both the character of God and the passage that says God doesn't tempt.

I really liked the way A.W. Pink explained that, actually.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK, I know you could misread this and say I'm "esteeming man" which isn't my intention, but if A.W. Pink isn't extreme enough for you, I'm not sure what to say.
> 
> *If God were the author of sin, he wouldn't be good.*  Evil is by definition opposite of good.  God is good, not evil.  I see no logical way God can author evil in the way you describe without himself being evil.  Also, there's a verse in James that says its wrong to blame God for your sin BECAUSE God doesn't tempt men to sin.  I understand that in Romans 9 the reason you aren't supposed to blame God is because God has a right to hold you responsible, but that's not the way its explained in the book of James.  I believe your position is incompatible with both the character of God and the passage that says God doesn't tempt.
> 
> I really liked the way A.W. Pink explained that, actually.


Why?  I see this as denying the simple predestination of God.  God HAS to be the author of sin.  If God had a _good_ reason to decree sin and evil, then there is no contradiction.  God had a _good_ reason to decree the murder of His Son.  

Think about the consequences of God not being the author of sin. _ That would mean there is purpose-less evil in the world._ Children would be raped and there would be no purpose for that evil.  Villages would be massacred and there would be no purpose for that evil.  How could you stomach so bleak an existence?  

But glory be to God that there IS a purpose for evil, a GOOD purpose, a purpose which brings glory to God, a purpose which is always for the _good_ of those who love Him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why?  I see this as denying the simple predestination of God.  God HAS to be the author of sin.  If God had a _good_ reason to decree sin and evil, then there is no contradiction.  God had a _good_ reason to decree the murder of His Son.  
> 
> Think about the consequences of God not being the author of sin. _ That would mean there is purpose-less evil in the world._ Children would be raped and there would be no purpose for that evil.  Villages would be massacred and there would be no purpose for that evil.  How could you stomach so bleak an existence?  
> 
> But glory be to God that there IS a purpose for evil, a GOOD purpose, a purpose which brings glory to God, a purpose which is always for the _good_ of those who love Him.


I wrote my post over two months ago.  I admit that the bolded argument is a weak one.  God does what he wants, period.

I dislike the phrase "author of sin".  It can mean anything you want it to mean, and its almost always used as a strawman to discredit sovereign grace.  Very rarely do you have someone like you (or Vincent Cheung) who is seriously defending the position that God is the author of sin.  More often you just have Arminians who think they're actually arguing intelligently because they can be like "you make God the author of sin.... drr... I've obviously proved you wrong now."

I believe God is in control of the sins of men WITHOUT being the author of sin.  I don't claim to know how this works.  But I think the most plausible explanation is that fallen man will only sin, and will sin to the maximum degree that he is able, in the absence of divine intervention in his heart.  So, when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, he pulled back his grace.  This doesn't mean that God just let go and let Pharaoh do whatever his wicked mind could come up with.  God was still in control the entire time, pulling back just enough that Pharaoh would do the level of evil God required in order to bring about his plan.

I think the most extreme views of God's sovereignty almost make God into a schitzophrenic.  If you're going to claim that God actively implants wicked thoughts into the reprobate (rather than withdrawing grace) than you have a God that's saying "I'm actively forcing you to be evil so that you can't repent, and yet I'm commanding you to repent anyway."  I know that wouldn't be unjust, since God is God and can do what he likes.  But it seems counter-intuitive to me.  It seems more reasonable to me to say that God wants to reprobate to turn away from their sins and live, but that he does not wish to give them the special grace that would be required for them to do so, because he is a just God and the condemnation of the reprobate is JUST.

Ultimately, though, a lot of this is speculation about metaphysics.  I'm probably reading more into it than I have to.  All I have to KNOW is that God is sovereign over all that occurs (there are no actions that take place in a vaccuum or that God must "adapt" to), man is responsible to repent and believe the gospel, he can't actually do it without God's grace, and that all who believe will be saved.  Beyond that we're going into metaphysical speculation that we can't know with certainty.

----------


## Nang

> I believe God is in control of the sins of men WITHOUT being the author of sin.



This my position.  I do not believe God being the first cause of all things, by default, makes God the cause of sin.

Why?
*
Because secondary causality is left out of the equation.*

God created Adam in His image, and gifted Adam with intelligence, will, and moral knowledge in order to execute secondary causal effects in himself and his surroundings.

Thus, God first caused and created Adam good.

Adam caused the entry of sin and death into this world by the (WRONG and REBELLIOUS) exercise of the secondary moral agency given to him by God.  So says scripture in Romans 5:12-21.

Despite Adam's sinful exercise of his secondary ability to cause and effect, God's sovereign agency, and omniscient foreknowledge, had already decreed salvation through His Son!!!

My supralapsarian understanding of the eternal decrees, is to be found in Robert Reymond's "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith," on page 489:

1.  God elected of some sinful men to salvation to Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the Elect.)*

2.   God decreed to apply Christ's redemptive benefit to the elective sinners.

3.  God decreed to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ.

4.  God decreed that men should fall.

5.  God decreed to create the world and men.

To my thinking, this proves true, because when inverted these purposes of God are indeed revealed through time.

God created the world and men
Man fell into sin
God redeemed an elect in Christ
The elect receive the benefit of saving grace
Fulfilling God's first purpose to save a people in and for His Son 

*Please take note of this wise assessment of the purpose of reprobation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I used to swear by infralapsarianism but at this point I'm more just convinced that we can't know.  I'm content to say I can't really get into God's head.

That said, while I know James White takes Robert Reymond's position as well, I don't really understand his modification, and I feel that its really a variant on infra rather than supra (which is fine.)

Essentially, this is how I see the simplified version of the debate.

Supralapsarians see the fall as a means by which to bring about election.  By contrast, infralapsarians see sovereign election as a logical result of the Fall (which is not the same thing as saying that election is based on the actions of specific people, which would contradict Romans 9:11-13.)  Infras are left with the question of why the Fall.  Supras are left with the question of why was it just and necessary for election to happen?  Reymond's modification seeks to get around this by saying sin was ordained first but that election was ordained before the Fall.  But, from a logical perspective, where does sin come from if not from the Fall?  How is God picking between sinful people if the means by which sin shall exist (the Fall) has yet to be ordained.

Yikes... this is confusing.  I think its inevitably going to be when we try to guess how God thinks.  I guess I opened that can of worms  I trust God.  I trust that God has a good reason for permitting evil to exist, and I trust that God has a good reason for choosing the people he chooses, even though that reason certainly has nothing to do with anything in the elect person.  I trust that God is just to condemn the reprobate... I do not believe it makes God happy to condemn them but I do not think he mourns them either, rather he sees them as sinners who righteously deserve punishment.  While he does not desire to save them, he is sincere when he commands them to repent and promises that if they do (hypothetically) they shall not perish.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I used to swear by infralapsarianism but at this point I'm more just convinced that we can't know.  I'm content to say I can't really get into God's head.
> 
> That said, while I know James White takes Robert Reymond's position as well, I don't really understand his modification, and I feel that its really a variant on infra rather than supra (which is fine.)
> 
> Essentially, this is how I see the simplified version of the debate.
> 
> Supralapsarians see the fall as a means by which to bring about election.  By contrast, infralapsarians see sovereign election as a logical result of the Fall (which is not the same thing as saying that election is based on the actions of specific people, which would contradict Romans 9:11-13.)  Infras are left with the question of why the Fall.  Supras are left with the question of why was it just and necessary for election to happen?  Reymond's modification seeks to get around this by saying sin was ordained first but that election was ordained before the Fall.  But, from a logical perspective, where does sin come from if not from the Fall?  How is God picking between sinful people if the means by which sin shall exist (the Fall) has yet to be ordained.
> 
> Yikes... this is confusing.  I think its inevitably going to be when we try to guess how God thinks.  I guess I opened that can of worms  I trust God.*  I trust that God has a good reason for permitting evil to exist*, and I trust that God has a good reason for choosing the people he chooses, even though that reason certainly has nothing to do with anything in the elect person.  I trust that God is just to condemn the reprobate... I do not believe it makes God happy to condemn them but I do not think he mourns them either, rather he sees them as sinners who righteously deserve punishment.  While he does not desire to save them, he is sincere when he commands them to repent and promises that if they do (hypothetically) they shall not perish.



Purge that conditionality out of your worldview!   Did God "permit" the murder of His Son?  NO!  Did God "permit" Pharoah?  No way!  He "raised him up".  Did God "permit" Judas?  No, he was the son of perdition who was doomed to destruction.   

God caused the prophets to lie.  God creates pots for destruction.  God sends delusions so men believe lies.

WHERE IS THE "PERMISSIVE WILL" IN ANY OF THIS?

Tighten up your screws.  Get consistent.  If God has a GOOD reason for ordaining evil, He can never be charged with evil.  You are not "protecting God" by denying His absolute soveriegnty!

----------


## Terry1

> This my position.  I do not believe God being the first cause of all things, by default, makes God the cause of sin.
> 
> Why?
> *
> Because secondary causality is left out of the equation.*
> 
> God created Adam in His image, and gifted Adam with intelligence, will, and moral knowledge in order to execute secondary causal effects in himself and his surroundings.
> 
> Thus, God first caused and created Adam good.
> ...


So just where does Lucifer/satan fit into your interpretation of the first cause of sin?  God created Lucifer, so does that mean that God created sin as well?  Or did God create beings with perfect freedom to choose at any point in their eternal existence as to whom and what they would serve?  Lucifer chose darkness over light.  God is light--if Lucifer chose to abandon Gods light--then he is the first cause of darkness, evil, sin and death--not God nor Adam.

Adam fell to sin because sin already existed before his creation.  So then Adam can not be the first cause of sin--because Adam's sin was disobedience--again proving that Adam was created with and had a free will to choose between good and evil when he disobeyed God.

God did not cause evil, sin and death simply for the purpose of curing them by allowing His son to be tortured and crucified on a cross.  This would indicate that God is some sick evil sadist wanting to toy with his creation by making them all suffer including His own Son--and we know this can not be true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So just where does Lucifer/satan fit into your interpretation of the first cause of sin?  God created Lucifer, so does that mean that God created sin as well?  Or did God create beings with perfect freedom to choose at any point in their eternal existence as to whom and what they would serve?  Lucifer chose darkness over light.  God is light--if Lucifer chose to abandon Gods light--then he is the first cause of darkness, evil, sin and death--not God nor Adam.
> 
> Adam fell to sin because sin already existed before his creation.  So then Adam can not be the first cause of sin--because Adam's sin was disobedience--again proving that Adam was created with and had a free will to choose between good and evil when he disobeyed God.
> 
> God did not cause evil, sin and death simply for the purpose of curing them by allowing His son to be tortured and crucified on a cross.  This would indicate that God is some sick evil sadist wanting to toy with his creation by making them all suffer including His own Son--and we know this can not be true.



Instead of trying to twist something out of her, why not debate me.  I am giving you everything you want.  I am saying God DID create evil (for His own good purpose).  God WANTED evil to exist.  God WILLS the evil that exists right now.

There you go Terry.  Now here is my question to you:  SO WHAT?

Romans 9 explains why God actively creates pots for destruction.   Have you ever read Romans 9?  Do you know why God creates pots for destruction?

----------


## Terry1

> Instead of trying to twist something out of her, why not debate me.  I am giving you everything you want.  I am saying God DID create evil (for His own good purpose).  God WANTED evil to exist.  God WILLS the evil that exists right now.
> 
> There you go Terry.  Now here is my question to you:  SO WHAT?
> 
> Romans 9 explains why God actively creates pots for destruction.   Have you ever read Romans 9?  Do you know why God creates pots for destruction?


Okay, we're talking doctrinal differences here based upon Romans 9 then.

Where I believe you err is believing pots are made for destruction by the foreknowledge of God instead of because of the foreknowledge of God.  Gods decree is set--permanent and who He is--He changes not, just the same as His decree.  Gods foreknowledge is part of Gods personality--that He can and does change depending upon His own will to choose whatever He wills, as in "remembering our sin no more" or "blotting names from the Book of Life as if they never were.  This is God changing what He choose to remember by limiting His own foreknowledge of people and events--past, present and future.

So if pots are made for destruction--the cause is not Gods foreknowledge, but through His own foreknowledge of these people or "pots" foreknowing that they will never come to God--they have in essence already been made for destruction by God knowing what they will choose in this life.  

God foreknew Pharaoh's heart--God foreknew that Pharaoh would not change and thus further hardened him to perform as a pot made for destruction to fulfill Gods plan.

----------


## Nang

> Okay, we're talking doctrinal differences here based upon Romans 9 then.
> 
> Where I believe you err is believing pots are made for destruction by the foreknowledge of God instead of because of the foreknowledge of God.  Gods decree is set--permanent and who He is--He changes not, just the same as His decree.  Gods foreknowledge is part of Gods personality--that He can and does change depending upon His own will to choose whatever He wills, as in "remembering our sin no more" or "blotting names from the Book of Life as if they never were.  This is God changing what He choose to remember by limiting His own foreknowledge of people and events--past, present and future.
> 
> So if pots are made for destruction--the cause is not Gods foreknowledge, but through His own foreknowledge of these people or "pots" foreknowing that they will never come to God--they have in essence already been made for destruction by God knowing what they will choose in this life.  
> 
> God foreknew Pharaoh's heart--God foreknew that Pharaoh would not change and thus further hardened him to perform as a pot made for destruction to fulfill Gods plan.


I don't know why you are asking these questions again.  I clearly stated why God created reprobates:





> 1. God elected of some sinful men to salvation to Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the Elect.)


God's creation includes all the angels that do His bidding; with the Elect and with the Non-elect reprobates alike.  Thus, Satan was instrumental to accomplish the sovereign will of God to make His power known.  Romans 9:22

I do not have time to post further, but FF and S_F are welcome to speak for me and/or elaborate more on their own lapsarian views.  If you read them without quarreling with them, there are some interesting things to learn and ponder in this regard.

----------


## moostraks

Seems as though nowadays opposition to another's antagonistic postings ridiculing different views is now seen as quarreling rather than providing an alternative point of discussion or rebuttal to the accusations. And the death of the English language by degrees marches on...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Purge that conditionality out of your worldview!   Did God "permit" the murder of His Son?  NO!  Did God "permit" Pharoah?  No way!  He "raised him up".  Did God "permit" Judas?  No, he was the son of perdition who was doomed to destruction.   
> 
> God caused the prophets to lie.  God creates pots for destruction.  God sends delusions so men believe lies.
> 
> WHERE IS THE "PERMISSIVE WILL" IN ANY OF THIS?
> 
> Tighten up your screws.  Get consistent.  If God has a GOOD reason for ordaining evil, He can never be charged with evil.  You are not "protecting God" by denying His absolute soveriegnty!


I don't really see any inconsistency with saying God raised Pharaoh up and also that God permitted Pharaoh's wickedness.  

The only thing Pharaoh (or anyone else) wants to do is sin.  That is what any autonomous creature does, he always rejects God.  That's the nature of man, per Romans 3:10.  Nobody seeks after God, nobody.  

God "raised Pharaoh up" by giving him the civil power so that he could do great evil, and then pulled his hand back, so that Pharaoh's own wicked heart could reign.

Does this mean that God wasn't in control of Pharaoh's actions?  Of course not.  God chose to create the tree to bring evil into the world in the first place, that his glory might be magnified.  He didn't have to do that.  But, I don't believe God made Adam sin either.

I'm not sure how all this stuff works together.  I don't need to know.

I don't remember you answering the question I asked you about equal ultimacy awhile back.  Do you believe in it?  Is this a poor term or a good term to describe your positions?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know why you are asking these questions again.  I clearly stated why God created reprobates:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's creation includes all the angels that do His bidding; with the Elect and with the Non-elect reprobates alike.  Thus, Satan was instrumental to accomplish the sovereign will of God to make His power known.  Romans 9:22
> 
> I do not have time to post further, but FF and S_F are welcome to speak for me and/or elaborate more on their own lapsarian views.  If you read them without quarreling with them, there are some interesting things to learn and ponder in this regard.


I can't speak for Sola.  

For myself, I've always leaned more infralapsarian but I can't claim to know with anything near a high degree of certainty.  To my knowledge at this time God does not reveal to us how his logical thought process works, so I choose to simply take on faith that God has a good reason to do what he does even if I don't understand completely why.  I do  see some limited value in this discussion for Calvinists who are trying to be as logically consistent as possible, which is highly important in apologetics.  But, I don't really see any point in an Arminian getting into that debate, its just silliness to them.  There's no point in asking whether God ordained the Fall or election first to someone who doesn't really believe God ordained those things, or to someone who has a seriously different view of what ordaining these things means when compared to what the lapsarian views are trying to address.

The biggest area on which I disagree with Sola at the present time is not Supralapsarianism (I'm not 100% certain he holds to this, and I don't have any real objection to it if he does) but more with the hintings at equal ultimacy.  I don't think the scripture teaches that viewpoint, I think it sort of borders on denying total depravity (If God actually has to make man sin, is man really totally depraved?)  and I think it makes God out to be unjust *based upon the view of God that the Bible portrays*.

Why would God command the reprobate to repent if there is absolutely no sense in which he wants them to do so?  I don't believe God wants to save them, but if he doesn't want them to repent, why bother commanding it?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why would God command the reprobate to repent if there is absolutely no sense in which he wants them to do so?  I don't believe God wants to save them, but if he doesn't want them to repent, why bother commanding it?


Well, let's see.  If predestination is correct, it helps force the elect to repent.  If free will is correct, it helps persuade the elect to repent.

I still don't understand how wars get started over this.

And no, I don't want to hear about how 'force' isn't the right word.  Neither is 'persuade'.  They just happen to be the best pair of words I had handy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, let's see.  If predestination is correct, it helps force the elect to repent.  If free will is correct, it helps persuade the elect to repent.
> 
> I still don't understand how wars get started over this.
> 
> And no, I don't want to hear about how 'force' isn't the right word.  Neither is 'persuade'.  They just happen to be the best pair of words I had handy.


Nobody here wants to start a war  But, the issue is important because it comes down to who gets the glory.  Arminianism gives some of the credit and glory to man.  If you believe Arminainism, you MUST believe that there is something in you that is different than the guy who rejects Christ and goes to Hell.  Otherwise, why did you choose to believe and not someone else?  Calvinism*, by contrast, glorifies God exclusively in that it does not allow the sinner to claim that anything within them distinguishes them from the reprobate, rather he glories in God's grace alone and is thankful that it is given to him.

*I understand that some people don't like the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism."  In this post, I am broadly referring to those who believe in unconditional election as "Calvinists" and those who hold to election conditioned upon foreknowledge as "Arminians", regardless of whether the person personally identifies by one of those terms or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Also keep in mind that even among Calvinists/Reformed we don't all believe exactly the same thing.  If you look at some of my debates with Sola you'll see this in action.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nobody here wants to start a war  But, the issue is important because it comes down to who gets the glory.


So let he who is without sin on Judgement Day jump up and holler, 'I did it!'

I don't expect to see that, myself.  I figure I'm (very slightly) more likely to see myself dance on the head of a pin.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know why you are asking these questions again.  I clearly stated why God created reprobates:.


First of all, I'm not asking any questions here, I'm replying to Sola's request for me to answer *his question.





> God's creation includes all the angels that do His bidding; with the Elect and with the Non-elect reprobates alike.  Thus, Satan was instrumental to accomplish the sovereign will of God to make His power known.  Romans 9:22


That's not what Roman's 9 is teaching at all based upon the rest of scripture that does not reconcile with your interpretation.




> I do not have time to post further, but FF and S_F are welcome to speak for me and/or elaborate more on their own lapsarian views.  If you read them without quarreling with them, there are some interesting things to learn and ponder in this regard.


As I said--you answered my reply to Sola, why don't you allow him to answer for himself then instead of speaking for him then.  BTW, I don't agree with your interpretation above here again because it does not reconcile with the rest of scripture that supports the free will and the fall of Lucifer/satan which is the first cause of evil, sin and death.  

You also attempted to make the claim that Isaiah 14:12 was speaking about Adam instead of Lucifer "son of the morning" who fell from heaven.  That again was based upon a copy and paste from one of your Presbyterian sites--which is absolutely biblically incorrect also, which more than one of us has pointed out to you several times as well in another thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So let he who is without sin on Judgement Day jump up and holler, 'I did it!'
> 
> I don't expect to see that, myself.  I figure I'm (very slightly) more likely to see myself dance on the head of a pin.


Its a lot more subtle  than that.  Think about why you object to Calvinism.  Think about why you believe while the guys at your local mosque or strip club don't.  Both of these answers should prove instructive.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Terry1- Can you exegete Romans 9 for me?  Thanks.

----------


## acptulsa

> Its a lot more subtle  than that.  Think about why you object to Calvinism.  Think about why you believe while the guys at your local mosque or strip club don't.  Both of these answers should prove instructive.


They both like to see Christians give other Christians a bad name through stubbornness and bad manners, and they developed an unfounded notion that Calvinists are dogmatic and divisive?

That's just a _hypothetical,_ now...

----------


## Terry1

> @Terry1- Can you exegete Romans 9 for me?  Thanks.


Read this FF--this IS Biblically correct and from the ancient church of the Apostles.

*Romans 9 Teaches Free-Will*

by Dn Joseph Gleason 	


Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils

For many centuries, the worldwide Church consistently recognized man’s free will throughout Scripture. In the year 680, the doctrine of free-will was authoritatively defended by the Church in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Then, over 800 years later, the Protestant Reformation erupted. Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin convinced many followers that man’s free will was an illusion. They cited a number of Scriptures out of context, attempting to support their views. One of the passages frequently used was the 9th chapter of Romans.

Ironically, when Romans 9 is interpreted in its full biblical context, it actually proves to be a positive argument in favor of man’s free-will.

There are many impressive connections between
 the Biblical books of Jeremiah and Romans:
1.Jeremiah and Paul were both prophets born to the tribe of Benjamin.
2.Both were prophets who wept over the unfaithfulness of the Jews, and over the judgment which came to them as a result.
3.Both used very similar concepts and similar terminology in their books. For example, consider Paul’s “Olive Tree” terminology in Romans 11, which closely parallels Jeremiah’s “Olive Tree” terminology in Jeremiah 11.

Similarly, Romans 9 closely parallels Jeremiah 18.

Paul was an Old Testament scholar. He knew the OT backwards and forwards, including the book of Jeremiah. Plus, Paul was a Benjamite prophet, just like Jeremiah. So it is not surprising that Paul’s writings echo the writings of Jeremiah so often.

In Jeremiah 18, the prophet Jeremiah likens God’s grace & judgment to the way a Potter works with clay. The Potter makes some vessels for honorable uses, and other vessels for destruction.

In Romans 9, the prophet Paul likens God’s grace & judgment to the way a Potter works with clay. The Potter makes some vessels for honorable uses, and other vessels for destruction.

In Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah is explicitly clear . . . The clay determines whether or not the Potter will make it into this sort of pot or that.  If the Potter makes the clay into a vessel of mercy, but then the clay rebels, then the Potter changes course and remakes the clay into a vessel of wrath. If the Potter makes the clay into a vessel of wrath, but then the clay repents, then the Potter changes course and remakes the clay into a vessel of mercy.



In Jeremiah 18, the Potter molds the clay of the nations.  Faithful nations are molded into vessels of mercy, and rebellious nations are molded into vessels of wrath.  And through repentance, any nation can influence the hand of the Potter.

In Romans 9, the Potter molds the clay of the Jews and Gentiles.  Those who are faithful are molded into vessels of mercy, and those who are rebellious are molded into vessels of wrath.  And today, as always, the Potter’s hand is influenced by man’s genuine repentance.

Jeremiah 18 is in agreement with the theology of man’s free-will.
 And Romans 9 was written in light of Jeremiah 18, even using similar terminology.

When these passages are viewed side-by-side, the close parallels are easy to see.
*

The Sixth Ecumenical Council on Free Will*
Constantinople III, Sixth Ecumenical Council 680-681

For should we say that the human nature of our Lord is without will and operation, how could we affirm in safety the perfect humanity? For nothing else constitutes the integrity of human nature except the essential will, through which the strength of free-will is marked in us; and this is also the case with the substantial operation. For how shall we call Him perfect in humanity if He in no wise suffered and acted as a man? For like as the union of two natures preserves for us one subsistence without confusion and without division; so this one subsistence, showing itself in two natures, demonstrates as its own what things belong to each. (Prosphneticus to the Emperor)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They both like to see Christians give other Christians a bad name through stubbornness and bad manners, and they developed an unfounded notion that Calvinists are dogmatic and divisive?
> 
> That's just a _hypothetical,_ now...


I don't understand how this addresses my questions.

You believe the gospel (based on whatever your own definition of that is) and Muslims do not.  Why?  Are you better than them?  What is it within yourself that made the difference, if anything?  If you say "nothing" you MUST accept unconditional election or be logically inconsistent.  If you say it was something within yourself, than you are being prideful and thus are demonstrating why this is an important debate.

What issue do you have with unconditional election? If you think its unbiblical, provide proof.  If you think its "unfair" then stop talking back to God (Romans 9:19-22.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *Romans 9 Teaches Free-Will*
> 
> by Dn Joseph Gleason     
> 
> 
> Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils
> 
> For many centuries, the worldwide Church consistently recognized man’s free will throughout Scripture. In the year 680, the doctrine of free-will was authoritatively defended by the Church in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
> 
> ...


While I have no doubt that this passage parallels Jeremiah 18, this does not mean that Romans 9 is talking about the same things as Jeremiah 18.  Much like 2 John parallels old testament passages that talk about speaking peace even though in the OT it was talking about literal peace while in 2 John it refers to spiritual peace.

But, saying that the clay being a vessel or mercy depends upon the actions of the clay does not fit what the text says.  By contrast, Romans 9:11-13 has Jacob being chosen apart from anything he might do.  Why would anyone object to the clay being able to choose whether it wanted to be a vessel of mercy rather than a vessel of wrath?  The reason the objector objects in Romans 9:19 is because he understands that Paul is saying it is God's choice alone which makes the difference between salvation and damnation.  Period.

----------


## acptulsa

> You believe the gospel (based on whatever your own definition of that is) and Muslims do not.  Why?  Are you better than them?


Which ones?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Which ones?


Does it matter which ones?  Who cares?  Its irrelevant unless you believe that there are some Muslims who believe the gospel, in which case we'd have a bigger problem on our hands.

----------


## acptulsa

> Does it matter which ones?  Who cares?  Its irrelevant unless you believe that there are some Muslims who believe the gospel, in which case we'd have a bigger problem on our hands.


You _asked_ me if I was _better_ than them.  If you had asked me what God is going to do with them I would respond, 'That's God's business.'  But you didn't.

I hate to try to judge if I'm 'better' than some other individual or not.  But the least you can do is tell me who.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You _asked_ me if I was _better_ than them.  If you had asked me what God is going to do with them I would respond, 'That's God's business.'  But you didn't.
> 
> I hate to try to judge if I'm 'better' than some other individual or not.  But the least you can do is tell me who.


You're missing my point.

You believe the gospel (according to your definition.)

Muslims do not.

Why do you believe and they don't?  Why do some people believe and others don't?

----------


## acptulsa

> You're missing my point.
> 
> You believe the gospel (according to your definition.)
> 
> Muslims do not.
> 
> Why do you believe and they don't?  Why do some people believe and others don't?


You expect _me_ to handle that many variables?

You've got me confused with someone else.  _I'm_ only human.

There are billions of people who believe this, or believe that, or used to believe this and now believe that, or used to believe that and now believe this, and you want me to account for all of them?

I prefer one-liners.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You expect _me_ to handle that many variables?
> 
> You've got me confused with someone else.  _I'm_ only human.


Quit being stubborn.  The point I'm getting at is  extremely simple.  The point you are perceiving is extremely complicated.  

Here's my point:

I have friends at college who I preach the gospel to.  They do not believe it, and express pride at things that are sinful.  I believe the gospel, but they don't.  I cannot credit ANYTHING in myself for the fact that I believe the gospel yet they do not.  All I can do is give God the glory for his grace.  Now, I am not saying that these people are reprobate, I do not know.  But if they believe, they too will encounter people who do not.  And they should not claim that it is anything within themselves that makes the difference between them and their unbelieving friends.  To do so would be sinful.  I believe because of God's grace, and not because I am better than my agnostic friends.

By contrast, "free will" believers have too say there is something better about their will than the people who don't believe.  It is inherently self-focused.  There's no logical way around it.  Which is why its hard for me to believe that someone who has seriously considered this stuff and still clings to their free will beliefs could be a Christian.  Why would a Christian want to give himself the glory?  Why would you?

----------


## moostraks

> You _asked_ me if I was _better_ than them.  If you had asked me what God is going to do with them I would respond, 'That's God's business.'  But you didn't.
> 
> I hate to try to judge if I'm 'better' than some other individual or not.  But the least you can do is tell me who.


And this is why I wanted to be in your club. It seems as though some think discerning faulty doctrine for their own practice and edification translates into forcing the rest of humanity by hook or crook into complying with their "enlightened" beliefs. So we end up with educating savages and freedom wars under the guise of a Biblical calling.

----------


## moostraks

> You're missing my point.
> 
> You believe the gospel (according to your definition.)
> 
> Muslims do not.
> 
> Why do you believe and they don't?  Why do some people believe and others don't?


Judge, Jury, and executioner in your own mind FF?

----------


## Terry1

> While I have no doubt that this passage parallels Jeremiah 18, this does not mean that Romans 9 is talking about the same things as Jeremiah 18.  Much like 2 John parallels old testament passages that talk about speaking peace even though in the OT it was talking about literal peace while in 2 John it refers to spiritual peace.
> 
> But, saying that the clay being a vessel or mercy depends upon the actions of the clay does not fit what the text says.  By contrast, Romans 9:11-13 has Jacob being chosen apart from anything he might do.  Why would anyone object to the clay being able to choose whether it wanted to be a vessel of mercy rather than a vessel of wrath?  The reason the objector objects in Romans 9:19 is because he understands that Paul is saying it is God's choice alone which makes the difference between salvation and damnation.  Period.


*Romans 9:23 
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,*

FF--God prepared them--because He foreknew them.  Foreknowing is not creating someone to be fitted for wrath or evil.  God foreknew them and what they would choose in their lifetime--this is how they are prepared--by their own choice and free will to choose opposite God.  God did not create them to be evil--He foreknew them to be evil--therefore--He prepared them to be fitted, to be made vessels of wrath.  Just the same as God foreknows those who are prepared and made for vessels of mercy--they chose God--then God prepared them for His glory as vessels of mercy and goodness.  

Without the element of free will--you then turn God into some sadistic puppet master.

----------


## moostraks

> Quit being stubborn.  The point I'm getting at is  extremely simple.  The point you are perceiving is extremely complicated...
> 
> By contrast, "free will" believers have too say there is something better about their will than the people who don't believe.  It is inherently self-focused.  There's no logical way around it.  Which is why its hard for me to believe that someone who has seriously considered this stuff and still clings to their free will beliefs could be a Christian.  Why would a Christian want to give himself the glory?  Why would you?


This is your opinion of the free will belief. For me free will means responsibility, not merit.

----------


## acptulsa

> By contrast, "free will" believers have too say there is something better about their will than the people who don't believe.


Only if they want to walk around cocksure they're among the elect.  Otherwise all they have to say is, 'Lord, when did I see You hungry..?' like everyone else.




> Why would a Christian want to give himself the glory?  Why would you?


I don't.  I freely admit that I don't know if I'm going through those Gates or not.  If Heaven wouldn't be Heaven with me in it, I won't be getting any invitations.  I'm _surely_ not going without Grace given me.  Now, where's the glory?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And this is why I wanted to be in your club. It seems as though some think discerning faulty doctrine for their own practice and edification translates into forcing the rest of humanity by hook or crook into complying with their "enlightened" beliefs. So we end up with educating savages and freedom wars under the guise of a Biblical calling.





> Judge, Jury, and executioner in your own mind FF?


Where are you getting this from?  The logical point I'm getting at is obvious.  He asked me why these doctrines were important.  I pointed out to him that if "free will" is true than that some people must be somehow better than others and thus deciding to believe.  He's taking my question too literally and trying to account for every conceivable variable, when the very simple point is just that sovereign grace is necessary to avoid pride.




> *Romans 9:23 
> And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,*
> 
> FF--God prepared them--because He foreknew them.  Foreknowing is not creating someone to be fitted for wrath or evil.  God foreknew them and what they would choose in their lifetime--this is how they are prepared--by their own choice and free will to choose opposite God.  God did not create them to be evil--He foreknew them to be evil--therefore--He prepared them to be fitted, to be made vessels of wrath.  Just the same as God foreknows those who are prepared and made for vessels of mercy--they chose God--then God prepared them for His glory as vessels of mercy and goodness.  
> 
> Without the element of free will--you then turn God into some sadistic puppet master.


God PREPARED vessels of wrath for destruction.  This verse speaks for itself.  its just not saying what you want it to say.  And if that makes God a "sadistic puppet master" in your mind, than I'm sorry, but you've got some issues to work out with God.  I've been there so I'm not faulting you, but it is what it is.  God is who he is.  He's the sovereign Lord and maker of the universe.  All that occurs occurs according to his perfect plan and purpose.  That's the God I serve.  At least I know that the evil in this world has a purpose.  For Arminians evil has no purpose at all, it just exists because God "has" to allow it (to avoid being a sadistic puppet master, I guess.)  What a depressing reality!  And an unbiblical one.  Please prayerfully read Romans 9 again.  The point is really obvious if you pay attention.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is your opinion of the free will belief. For me free will means responsibility, not merit.


But responsibility does not require free will.  Notice how Paul answers the objector in Romans 9.  Paul doesn't say "no, you don't understand, you CAN resist God's will, and are responsible for doing so."  Rather, Paul agrees with the objector that he cannot resist God's will, and says he has no right to talk back to God when God holds him responsible anyway.  You make real choices and are responsible for them, but ultimately God is in control of it all.  Yes, that's God.  



> Only if they want to walk around cocksure they're among the elect.  Otherwise all they have to say is, 'Lord, when did I see You hungry..?' like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I freely admit that I don't know if I'm going through those Gates or not.  If Heaven wouldn't be Heaven with me in it, I won't be getting any invitations.  I'm _surely_ not going without Grace given me.  Now, where's the glory?


OK: if you don't know, what is the difference between people who go to heaven and who don't?

Do you believe?  John 3:18 says that those who believe are NOT CONDEMNED but that those who do not believe are condemned.  I don't see how someone could not at least think they know what category they are in.

BTW: I really like this discussion.  I think its being handled very well on all ends, its calmer and lacks false accusations.  + rep to all of you.

----------


## pcosmar

> Instead of trying to twist something out of her, why not debate me.  I am giving you everything you want.  I am saying God DID create evil (for His own good purpose).  God WANTED evil to exist.  God WILLS the evil that exists right now.


Ok,, well that is bizarre.

It is certainly not the God that I understand him to be. Not even close.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok,, well that is bizarre.
> 
> It is certainly not the God that I understand him to be. Not even close.


I agree with Sola on two out of the three.  God wanted evil to exist (otherwise it would not exist) and God willed it to exist (which is simply a synonym of wanting it to exist.)

I don't believe God created it though, which gets back to the secondary causes thing that Nang was talking about.  God put Adam into a situation where he knew Adam would sin, and he did it on purpose to accomplish his plan, but Adam made the choice to sin.  We could say the same about Lucifer.  So Adam created human evil and Lucifer created angelic evil.

That said, "evil' isn't really a thing.  God did create evil in the same sense that a lantern creates darkness.  Which is to say... not really.  Darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of good.  Good is defined by what God is, so evil is everything that God is not.

----------


## moostraks

> Where are you getting this from?  The logical point I'm getting at is obvious.  He asked me why these doctrines were important.  I pointed out to him that if "free will" is true than that some people must be somehow better than others and thus deciding to believe.  He's taking my question too literally and trying to account for every conceivable variable, when the very simple point is just that sovereign grace is necessary to avoid pride.


No it is how _you_ perceive the truth. And I likewise pointed out what your argument was creating as a hazardous condition for you by the very fact you think that way. Acp isn't being too literal, he is trying to present his viewpoint.

----------


## moostraks

> I agree with Sola on two out of the three.  God wanted evil to exist (otherwise it would not exist) and God willed it to exist (which is simply a synonym of wanting it to exist.)
> 
> I don't believe God created it though, which gets back to the secondary causes thing that Nang was talking about.  God put Adam into a situation where he knew Adam would sin, and he did it on purpose to accomplish his plan, but Adam made the choice to sin.  We could say the same about Lucifer.  So Adam created human evil and Lucifer created angelic evil.
> 
> That said, "evil' isn't really a thing.  God did create evil in the same sense that a lantern creates darkness.  Which is to say... not really.  Darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of good.  Good is defined by what God is, so evil is everything that God is not.


Wanting something and understanding its purpose and necessity are two different things.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Acp isn't presenting a viewpoint.  I obviously wasn't literally asking for a list of variables and factors that explain why acp believes and other people don't.  I was saying that Arminianism REQUIRES at least one such reason that has to do with the sinner, which is why I believe this issue is important and that the wrong position leads to pride.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wanting something and understanding its purpose and necessity are two different things.


When I say "wants" I don't mean that God finds evil enjoyable.  by contrast, God's prescriptive will (command) is that people should NOT sin.  God is angered when he sees sin and he righteously judges those who commit sinful actions.

But, evil doesn't just spontaneously occur.  God has a good purpose for every evil action which occurs, and thus God predestines these actions in order to bring about his ultimate plan, even though he doesn't enjoy it.

----------


## Terry1

> When I say "wants" I don't mean that God finds evil enjoyable.  by contrast, God's prescriptive will (command) is that people should NOT sin.  God is angered when he sees sin and he righteously judges those who commit sinful actions.
> 
> But, evil doesn't just spontaneously occur.  God has a good purpose for every evil action which occurs, and thus God predestines these actions in order to bring about his ultimate plan, even though he doesn't enjoy it.


Remember though that "predestination" is a *furture* event that is conditional upon the commandments of God.  We are held in a state of elect or a fallen state in this life depending upon our own free will to either abide in Christ to the end or not.  Those predestined to glory are those who've already finished their race in this life--been tested--prove to have overcome and thus are predestined to be vessels of glory and honor in the next life--not this one.  

Also remember that Jesus wasn't even perfected until He rose on the third day.  No flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of heaven--not even Jesus could be perfected until the third day on His resurrection.  


*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.*

----------


## Deborah K

> Ok,, well that is bizarre.
> 
> It is certainly not the God that I understand him to be. Not even close.


It's not the way most faithful believe.  Just a certain sect of people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Remember though that "predestination" is a *furture* event that is conditional upon the commandments of God.  We are held in a state of elect or a fallen state in this life depending upon our own free will to either abide in Christ to the end or not.  Those predestined to glory are those who've already finished their race in this life--been tested--prove to have overcome and thus are predestined to be vessels of glory and honor in the next life--not this one.  
> 
> Also remember that Jesus wasn't even perfected until He rose on the third day.  No flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of heaven--not even Jesus could be perfected until the third day on His resurrection.  
> 
> 
> *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 say "remember" as if I already agreed with you, but I do not.  "free will" does not exist.  And, your interpretation of Luke 13:32 is very gnostic in nature.  The physical is not inherently evil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not the way most faithful believe.  Just a certain sect of people.


Who cares what most people believe?  Most people, including most of "the faithful" are extreme statists to.  So what?  I don't even completely agree with Sola on this, but I can't endorse this argument.

----------


## moostraks

> When I say "wants" I don't mean that God finds evil enjoyable.  by contrast, God's prescriptive will (command) is that people should NOT sin.  God is angered when he sees sin and he righteously judges those who commit sinful actions.
> 
> But, evil doesn't just spontaneously occur.  God has a good purpose for every evil action which occurs, and thus God predestines these actions in order to bring about his ultimate plan, even though he doesn't enjoy it.


What is funny (ironic not amusing) is that it is a matter of nuances and our perceptions that this is being discussed on here. Which is why I would not presume to limit or decree that the individual is condemned based upon the label they apply to their belief. You see evil as a good purpose with what I would guess is a proactive nature due to the structure of your beliefs? 

My opinion, the events unfold, (He is outside time so it is unfolded/created in a manner outside our understanding) free will makes us responsible with consequences which are absence of His presence (evil). He foreknew then predestined but all works out to His Will as it was His playground in the first place and just the very act of its existence is evidence of the ultimate result because He is Love and a good tree brings forth good fruit so the evil is a necessity for us not Him. If the stove didn't burn away my skin and it was painful I might be inclined to act irresponsibly but consequences will alter my behavior to act appropriately.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Remember though that "predestination" is a *furture* event that is conditional upon the commandments of God.  We are held in a state of elect or a fallen state in this life depending upon our own free will to either abide in Christ to the end or not.  Those predestined to glory are those who've already finished their race in this life--been tested--prove to have overcome and thus are predestined to be vessels of glory and honor in the next life--not this one.  
> 
> Also remember that Jesus wasn't even perfected until He rose on the third day.  No flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of heaven--not even Jesus could be perfected until the third day on His resurrection.  
> 
> 
> *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.*



Here we go again with the vicious blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Please I beg all of the readers here to understand that Terry1 DOES NOT represent Christianity at all.  Jesus WAS ALWAYS perfect in EVERY way.  When He said "on the third day I shall be perfected", He meant that His mission would be complete.  "Perfected" in the sense that He was using it meant "completed".  On the third day, everything would be finished.

Secondly, only in the mind of someone who can't understand the law of non-contradiction would PRE-destination mean a _future_ event.

It literally blows the mind....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is funny (ironic not amusing) is that it is a matter of nuances and our perceptions that this is being discussed on here. Which is why I would not presume to limit or decree that the individual is condemned based upon the label they apply to their belief. You see evil as a good purpose with what I would guess is a proactive nature due to the structure of your beliefs?


I don't condemn people based on label either.  Nor do I condemn everyone who disagrees with me.  It depends on what they disagree with me on.



> My opinion, the events unfold, (He is outside time so it is unfolded/created in a manner outside our understanding) free will makes us responsible with consequences which are absence of His presence (evil). He foreknew then predestined but all works out to His Will as it was His playground in the first place and just the very act of its existence is evidence of the ultimate result because He is Love and a good tree brings forth good fruit so the evil is a necessity for us not Him. If the stove didn't burn away my skin and it was painful I might be inclined to act irresponsibly but consequences will alter my behavior to act appropriately.


I'm confused.  I will say though that "foreknew" in the Bible means "foreloved".  God foreknew his people before the foundation of the world and chose to save them.  I don't know who is and is not among his people.  God does, and he promises not to lose a single one (John 10:15, John 10:26-29.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here we go again with the vicious blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Please I beg all of the readers here to understand that Terry1 DOES NOT represent Christianity at all.  Jesus WAS ALWAYS perfect in EVERY way.  When He said "on the third day I shall be perfected", He meant that His mission would be complete.  "Perfected" in the sense that He was using it meant "completed".  On the third day, everything would be finished.
> 
> Secondly, only in the mind of someone who can't understand the law of non-contradiction would PRE-destination mean a _future_ event.
> 
> It literally blows the mind....


I was trying to be nice.  But, I agree with what you say here.  Terry, I say this out of love and compassion, you need to repent and believe the true gospel rather than the false, gnostic version you are currently subscribing to.  Please.

----------


## Terry1

> You say "remember" as if I already agreed with you, but I do not.  "free will" does not exist.  And, your interpretation of Luke 13:32 is very gnostic in nature.  The physical is not inherently evil.


Of course the physical is inherently evil.  Flesh and blood are pure evil and wars with the spirit of the Lord.  The bible tells us all through it how evil the flesh is and what it's capable of absent the spirit of the Lord.  All flesh is sinful and evil.  We can only be tempted while we're flesh and blood.  Why do you think Jesus had to endure His days of temptation in the wilderness?  It's because Jesus was flesh and blood that will always be susceptible to evil, sin and temptation.  Why do you think that Jesus tells us that only the "overcomers will He confess before the Father in heaven?" Rev. 3:5

We are only predestined to glory (after this life) as long as we endure to the end of this life and are proven through the trials and tests of this life--only then our "predestination" becomes of any effect in the next life.  Same as Jesus could not be perfected in the state of flesh and blood--neither can we.  Predestination is speaking in terms of those who've already died the first death and able to claim their inheritance that was based upon them being proved worthy of that same inheritance.  The only way we are worthy is by and through the blood of Christ--abiding in Him continually throughout our lives and finishing the race as St. Paul told us here at the very end of his life.  Only at the end of Paul's life did he proclaim that he knew he had his crown of glory, but never did Paul claim any such thing before his time had come:

2 Timothy 4:6 *For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
*
7 *I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
*
8 *Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness*, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course the physical is inherently evil.  Flesh and blood are pure evil and wars with the spirit of the Lord.  The bible tells us all through it how evil the flesh is and what it's capable of absent the spirit of the Lord.  All flesh is sinful and evil.  We can only be tempted while we're flesh and blood.  Why do you think Jesus had to endure His days of temptation in the wilderness?  It's because Jesus was flesh and blood that will always be susceptible to evil, sin and temptation.  Why do you think that Jesus tells us that only the "overcomers will He confess before the Father in heaven?" Rev. 3:5
> 
> We are only predestined to glory (after this life) as long as we endure to the end of this life and are proven through the trials and tests of this life--only then our "predestination" becomes of any effect in the next life.  Same as Jesus could not be perfected in the state of flesh and blood--neither can we.  Predestination is speaking in terms of those who've already died the first death and able to claim their inheritance that was based upon them being proved worthy of that same inheritance.  The only way we are worthy is by and through the blood of Christ--abiding in Him continually throughout our lives and finishing the race as St. Paul told us here at the very end of his life.  Only at the end of Paul's life did he proclaim that he knew he had his crown of glory, but never did Paul claim any such thing before his time had come:
> 
> 2 Timothy 4:6 *For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
> *
> 7 *I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
> *
> 8 *Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness*, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.


Was the physical flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ evil?  Please re-read John 4.  The gnostics at that time were claiming  that Jesus did not come phyiscally in the flesh, because they believed all that is physical is evil.  This isn't Biblical.

----------


## Deborah K

> Who cares what most people believe?  Most people, including most of "the faithful" are extreme statists to.  So what?  I don't even completely agree with Sola on this, but I can't endorse this argument.


And I don't endorse your argument.  So what?  The point is, Bible verses are interpreted differently by people which is why we have so many spin-offs in the protestant faith.  Romans 9:23 doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.  Obviously.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I don't endorse your argument.  So what?  The point is, Bible verses are interpreted differently by people which is why we have so many spin-offs in the protestant faith.  Romans 9:23 doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.  Obviously.


That's because most people make it say what they want it to say rather than actually reading it.  There can only be one correct interpretation of any scripture.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't condemn people based on label either.  Nor do I condemn everyone who disagrees with me.  It depends on what they disagree with me on.
> 
> 
> I'm confused.  I will say though that "foreknew" in the Bible means "foreloved".  God foreknew his people before the foundation of the world and chose to save them.  I don't know who is and is not among his people.  God does, and he promises not to lose a single one (John 10:15, John 10:26-29.)


I think folks could get along better if the condemnation could be left unwritten, but that's just my opinion.

Foreloved is fine too. Doesn't change my understanding. Yes, He chose to save them. I would say the hair splitting would be how those damned came to be that way.

----------


## Terry1

> Was the physical flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ evil?  Please re-read John 4.  The gnostics at that time were claiming  that Jesus did not come phyiscally in the flesh, because they believed all that is physical is evil.  This isn't Biblical.


All flesh is capable of sinning.  If this were not true, then there would have been no need for God to test Jesus while in the flesh by sending him into the wilderness to be tempted by satan for forty days and nights.  In fact, Jesus was so weak and weary from the experience that the angels of God had to come and minister to Him.  Jesus was living proof that the flesh can be overcome.  He is our example that we too can overcome the flesh and blood of our existence.  He made it possible.

The flesh that Jesus was born into was just as capable of sin as any other flesh--Jesus chose God--Jesus was tempted, but overcame it.  This is also why no flesh and blood can be perfected until we die the first death to claim our inheritance in the next. 


Matthew 4:1-11

King James Version (KJV)


4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

----------


## Deborah K

> Here we go again with the vicious blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Please I beg all of the readers here to understand that Terry1 DOES NOT represent Christianity at all.  Jesus WAS ALWAYS perfect in EVERY way.  When He said "on the third day I shall be perfected", He meant that His mission would be complete.  "Perfected" in the sense that He was using it meant "completed".  On the third day, everything would be finished.
> 
> Secondly, only in the mind of someone who can't understand the law of non-contradiction would PRE-destination mean a _future_ event.
> 
> It literally blows the mind....


Can you at least try to refrain from the hyperbole?  You're implying Terry is purposely blaspheming the Lord.  It is intellectually dishonest.  

You obviously have a problem with her religion.  Why don't you partake in Bryan's exercise, Sola?  You don't think it's some kind of trap or manipulation like Nang does, do you?  You've been here a while.  You're a freedom fighter.  You know how Bryan operates.  Do you really think his objective is anything other than trying to find peace for all of us?  Please read his OP again, carefully, and take him up on the exercise, in an effort to help him bring the religion forums out of the cesspool it has become.

You just can't expect to teach anyone about your faith by throwing barbs.  No matter what you may think, you are not accomplishing anything that benefits the Lord by alienating people that you might otherwise have an influence on if you would just be a little less harsh and unyielding, and a little kinder.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think folks could get along better if the condemnation could be left unwritten, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Foreloved is fine too. Doesn't change my understanding. Yes, He chose to save them. I would say the hair splitting would be how *those damned came to be that way.*


Hmm... that seems more like a debate I'd have with Sola than a debate I'd have with an Arminian  This is the kind of debate that inevitably hinges on a lapsarian viewpoint and becomes speculative, but here's how I understand it:

1. God placed Adam in a position where he knew Adam would fall, and he had good reasons for doing so, but Adam still chose to sin (God didn't make him.)

2. Adam's curse passed down to all humanity, so all humans are totally depraved and deserving of Hell.  All such human beings reject God.  They would never choose to believe, because they are sinners.

3. God chose to save certain people conditioned solely on Jesus Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.  This election takes place chronologically before the fall happens, but from a logical perspective this election is in the light of the Fall of Man and is a choice made among a pool of sinners who are all rejecting God (in other words, God is not taking people who would choose him and causing them to reject him, they rejected him already.  However, God does take certain people who would reject him and causes them to believe.)

4. God leaves the rest in their sinfulness.  Their damnation is not an accidental result, but God doesn't force them to disbelieve either.  They are unable to believe because of their sinful natures.  Thus, I can say that I believe in double predestination (which means that God predestined the fates of both the saved and the damned, but yet that the damned chose to reject God at the same time.

After deciding to do all of the above, God actually did create the world.

I know Nang sees this marginally differently than I do, and I suspect Sola sees it very differently.  Calvinists disagree on this sort of thing.  WHat we do agree on is that God chose infallibly to save certain people, that Christ died to save only those people, and that nobody else will ever want to believe.  Beyond that there are differences in interpretation among Calvinists.

----------


## moostraks

> Here we go again with the vicious blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Please I beg all of the readers here to understand that Terry1 DOES NOT represent Christianity at all.  Jesus WAS ALWAYS perfect in EVERY way.  When He said "on the third day I shall be perfected", He meant that His mission would be complete.  "Perfected" in the sense that He was using it meant "completed".  On the third day, everything would be finished.
> 
> Secondly, only in the mind of someone who can't understand the law of non-contradiction would PRE-destination mean a _future_ event.
> 
> It literally blows the mind....


Don't you hold to Scripture alone and self interpretation?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> All flesh is capable of sinning.  If this were not true, then there would have been no need for God to test Jesus while in the flesh by sending him into the wilderness to be tempted by satan for forty days and nights.  In fact, Jesus was so weak and weary from the experience that the angels of God had to come and minister to Him.  Jesus was living proof that the flesh can be overcome.  He is our example that we too can overcome the flesh and blood of our existence.  He made it possible.
> 
> The flesh that Jesus was born into was just as capable of sin as any other flesh--Jesus chose God--Jesus was tempted, but overcame it.  This is also why no flesh and blood can be perfected until we die the first death to claim our inheritance in the next. 
> 
> 
> Matthew 4:1-11
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> ...


As bad as it is, this isn't what I'm asking.  I'm not asking if you believe in the impeccability of Christ (its clear that you don't. which is a heterodox position at best.)  I'm asking if you believe that Jesus' flesh WAS sinful.  I could even ask about Adam pre-fall and the same issue would arise.

Heck, Jesus is still flesh now.  Is he still evil?

You need to repent of this semi-gnosticism you've got going on.  Its seriously erroneous.  1 John and 2 John were written to combat this type of thing.  You would do well to read through them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can you at least try to refrain from the hyperbole?  You're implying Terry is purposely blaspheming the Lord.  It is intellectually dishonest.  
> 
> You obviously have a problem with her religion.  Why don't you partake in Bryan's exercise, Sola?  You don't think it's some kind of trap or manipulation like Nang does, do you?  You've been here a while.  You're a freedom fighter.  You know how Bryan operates.  Do you really think his objective is anything other than trying to find peace for all of us?  Please read his OP again, carefully, and take him up on the exercise, in an effort to help him bring the religion forums out of the cesspool it has become.
> 
> You just can't expect to teach anyone about your faith by throwing barbs.  No matter what you may think, you are not accomplishing anything that benefits the Lord by alienating people that you might otherwise have an influence on if you would just be a little less harsh and unyielding, and a little kinder.



I'm trying to be calm but Terry's doctrine is seriously, seriously off here.  its not one of those things where its just a little off, we're talking about blatant heresy and yes, blasphemy here.  I'm not sure if there's a nice way to say it, and maybe I'm trying too hard.  Sola is correct here.  I wish I could say that he's wrong, because it would definitely make more people like me, but my responsibility is to God and not to man.  Sola is 100% correct on this point. Saying that Jesus was ever imperfect at any point is heresy and its really obvious how that passage is supposed to be interpreted.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's because most people make it say what they want it to say rather than actually reading it.  There can only be one correct interpretation of any scripture.


Getting into verse squabbles is anathema to my sensibilities, but I what I interpret, when I take 21-24 in context, is that the Lord, like the man who makes jars out of clay, makes some for holding flowers, others for holding garbage, and he has the right to show his power and fury (destroying the ones he wishes) *when he has been so patient with them all this time.*   He chooses whom he will, so that everyone can see how very great his glory is.

'When he has been so patient with them all this time' - implies that he has allowed them to make choices, and he's had enough!

----------


## acptulsa

> Acp isn't presenting a viewpoint.  I obviously wasn't literally asking for a list of variables and factors that explain why acp believes and other people don't.  I was saying that Arminianism REQUIRES at least one such reason that has to do with the sinner, which is why I believe this issue is important and that the wrong position leads to pride.


A farmer plows his field and his furrows come out perfectly straight.  He looks back over his straight furrows with pride.

Does that become a sin before or after he goes seven miles down the road to tell his neighbor _his_ furrows are _crooked_?

----------


## Terry1

> Here we go again with the vicious blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Please I beg all of the readers here to understand that Terry1 DOES NOT represent Christianity at all.  Jesus WAS ALWAYS perfect in EVERY way.  When He said "on the third day I shall be perfected", He meant that His mission would be complete.  "Perfected" in the sense that He was using it meant "completed".  On the third day, everything would be finished.
> 
> Secondly, only in the mind of someone who can't understand the law of non-contradiction would PRE-destination mean a _future_ event.
> 
> It literally blows the mind....


The spirit of God in Jesus was perfect, but the flesh that Jesus was born into was not.  Jesus couldn't have been tempted if this were not so.  The only reason Jesus overcame that temptation was because He had the spirit of God in Him.  The flesh and blood of Jesus was simply a human vessel for the spirit of God.  Why do you think that Jesus came in that same vessel of human flesh and blood to be tempted, to feel pain, to endure torture and persecution?  Because He wanted to become as one of us to reveal to us who we are and what we are capable of overcoming despite our human sinful nature in the state of flesh and blood--through Him and His own example of suffering on our behalf. 

 The spirit of God within Jesus was perfect as it is in us--only as long as we abide in Christ.  If we don't--then the sinful nature of flesh and blood will cause us to fall back into sin again.  Then only through repentance can we find our way back to God.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm trying to be calm but Terry's doctrine is seriously, seriously off here.  its not one of those things where its just a little off, we're talking about blatant heresy and yes, blasphemy here.  I'm not sure if there's a nice way to say it, and maybe I'm trying too hard.  Sola is correct here.  I wish I could say that he's wrong, because it would definitely make more people like me, but my responsibility is to God and not to man.  Sola is 100% correct on this point. Saying that Jesus was ever imperfect at any point is heresy and its really obvious how that passage is supposed to be interpreted.


Why would Satan try to tempt Jesus if Jesus were not vulnerable to temptation, and thus sin?

----------


## moostraks

> Hmm... that seems more like a debate I'd have with Sola than a debate I'd have with an Arminian  This is the kind of debate that inevitably hinges on a lapsarian viewpoint and becomes speculative, but here's how I understand it:
> 
> 1. God placed Adam in a position where he knew Adam would fall, and he had good reasons for doing so, but Adam still chose to sin (God didn't make him.)
> 
> 2. Adam's curse passed down to all humanity, so all humans are totally depraved and deserving of Hell.  All such human beings reject God.  They would never choose to believe, because they are sinners.
> 
> 3. God chose to save certain people conditioned solely on Jesus Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.  This election takes place chronologically before the fall happens, but from a logical perspective this election is in the light of the Fall of Man and is a choice made among a pool of sinners who are all rejecting God (in other words, God is not taking people who would choose him and causing them to reject him, they rejected him already.  However, God does take certain people who would reject him and causes them to believe.)
> 
> 4. God leaves the rest in their sinfulness.  Their damnation is not an accidental result, but God doesn't force them to disbelieve either.  They are unable to believe because of their sinful natures.  Thus, I can say that I believe in double predestination (which means that God predestined the fates of both the saved and the damned, but yet that the damned chose to reject God at the same time.
> ...


Well I could probably let number 1 go as it is a matter of comprehension to which we are not privy to that we are projecting our own opinions upon the outcome that occurred but we fall off at number 2. I believe in ancestral sin from which I then would branch off on the responsibility not merit argument. For number three I would say the foreknew/foreloved is not an arbitrary relationship so again these circles back to a responsibility issue for those who are damned.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why would Satan try to tempt Jesus if Jesus were not vulnerable to temptation, and thus sin?


I have no doubt Satan thought he could trap Jesus and get him to fall.  That doesn't mean he actually could.

----------


## moostraks

> A farmer plows his field and his furrows come out perfectly straight.  He looks back over his straight furrows with pride.
> 
> Does that become a sin before or after he goes seven miles down the road to tell his neighbor _his_ furrows are _crooked_?


This had me lol...

----------


## Terry1

> Why would Satan try to tempt Jesus if Jesus were not vulnerable to temptation, and thus sin?


Right my point is that Jesus never sinned and was blameless and perfect, but not because his flesh wasn't capable of sin, but because Jesus was perfect and chose not to sin.  Maybe I didn't word that quite right the first time.  This is something that's been argued between theologians for centuries, but it makes sense to understand that Gods word tells us all flesh is sinful and wars with the spirit of the Lord.  

Jesus never sinned--yes he was perfect, but his flesh was still capable of sinning even though Jesus chose not to and remained sinless.  Even Jesus Himself told us that He couldn't be perfected until that third day of His resurrection.  So it can only lead one to believe that a state of glorification and perfection can only be obtained after this life when we are perfected.  While in this life--we can only be perfect as long as we abide in Christ.

----------


## acptulsa

> This had me lol...


Not as much as worrying about whether people who already made it into heaven are proud to be there.

To whom can they say, 'At least _I_ made it to heaven!  Where did _you_ wind up?'

----------


## RJB

> Instead of trying to twist something out of her, why not debate me.  I am giving you everything you want.  I am saying God DID create evil (for His own good purpose).  God WANTED evil to exist.  God WILLS the evil that exists right now.


That has a lot of flavors of some eastern religions.  Are you sure you haven't been influenced by Taoism?

----------


## Deborah K

> I have no doubt Satan thought he could trap Jesus and get him to fall.  That doesn't mean he actually could.


He actually didn't.  But he _tried_.

----------


## Terry1

> I have no doubt Satan thought he could trap Jesus and get him to fall.  That doesn't mean he actually could.


Was Jesus tempted when He prayed that "this cup might pass" when He was sweating blood in the garden knowing what He was going to have to endure to save mankind?  Do you think Jesus had a choice in the matter?

Matthew 26:39And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He actually didn't.  But he _tried_.


Of course.  Are you saying Satan had an orthodox Christology?




> Was Jesus tempted when He prayed that "this cup might pass" when He was sweating blood in the garden knowing what He was going to have to endure to save mankind?  Do you think Jesus had a choice in the matter?
> 
> Matthew 26:39And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.


Define "tempted."

Was the prospect of suffering on the cross unpleasant?  Of course.  Did Jesus look forward to it?  Clearly not.  Was there any chance, even theoretically, that he wouldn't go through with it?  Nope.

----------


## Terry1

> Of course.  Are you saying Satan had an orthodox Christology?
> 
> 
> 
> Define "tempted."
> 
> Was the prospect of suffering on the cross unpleasant?  Of course.  Did Jesus look forward to it?  Clearly not.  Was there any chance, even theoretically, that he wouldn't go through with it?  Nope.


Feel free to believe as you wish on this one, because I'm not saying that this is the absolute case by any means.  I'm just stating what seems to be the case based upon scripture that seems to support it.  

I have no problem assuming that Jesus was perfect in every way while in a state of flesh and blood--in fact it's what I'd rather believe, but scripture does seem to indicate otherwise.

----------


## Deborah K

> Of course.  Are you saying Satan had an orthodox Christology?


Why would you ask me that?  

And, what is your opinion of my interpretation of Romans 9: 21-24? Seeing as how it doesn't agree with yours?




> Getting into verse squabbles is anathema to my sensibilities, but I what I interpret, when I take 21-24 in context, is that the Lord, like the man who makes jars out of clay, makes some for holding flowers, others for holding garbage, and he has the right to show his power and fury (destroying the ones he wishes) *when he has been so patient with them all this time.*   He chooses whom he will, so that everyone can see how very great his glory is.
> 
> 'When he has been so patient with them all this time' - implies that he has allowed them to make choices, and he's had enough!

----------


## acptulsa

> I was saying that Arminianism REQUIRES at least one such reason that has to do with the sinner, which is why I believe this issue is important and that the wrong position leads to pride.


No, seriously.  Is _this_ really the crux of the matter?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why would you ask me that?  
> 
> And, what is your opinion of my interpretation of Romans 9: 21-24? Seeing as how it doesn't agree with yours?


It doesn't fit the text at all.  It doesn't fit the objectors objection, nor does it fit what Paul says about Jacob and Esau.

----------


## Deborah K

> It doesn't fit the text at all.  It doesn't fit the objectors objection, nor does it fit what Paul says about Jacob and Esau.


What does any of this mean?  Can you elaborate?

And I'd still like to know what you meant by asking me if I think Satan has an orthodox Christology.

----------


## Terry1

> What does any of this mean?  Can you elaborate?
> 
> And I'd still like to know what you meant by asking me if I think Satan has an orthodox Christology.


Yeah, I'm curious about that one myself.  What did you mean by that FF?

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, I'm curious about that one myself.  What did you mean by that FF?


Terry did you have any problem with my interpretation of the verses?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry did you have any problem with my interpretation of the verses?


No, none at all.  I think you've done a wonderful job of interpreting that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That has a lot of flavors of some eastern religions.  Are you sure you haven't been influenced by Taoism?


No, because the eastern religions says that some part of God IS evil.  The God of the Bible is completely holy.  God is also completely sovereign and has declared the end from the beginning.  He has predestined everything.   This includes the evil of men. The evil of men serves the eternally good plan of God.

----------


## Theocrat

> I agree with Sola on two out of the three.  God wanted evil to exist (otherwise it would not exist) and God willed it to exist (which is simply a synonym of wanting it to exist.)
> 
> I don't believe God created it though, which gets back to the secondary causes thing that Nang was talking about.  God put Adam into a situation where he knew Adam would sin, and he did it on purpose to accomplish his plan, but Adam made the choice to sin.  We could say the same about Lucifer.  So Adam created human evil and Lucifer created angelic evil.
> 
> That said, "evil' isn't really a thing.  God did create evil in the same sense that a lantern creates darkness.  Which is to say... not really.  Darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of good.  Good is defined by what God is, so evil is everything that God is not.


Yes, and I will say that I agree with your statements above, FF, especially on the nature of evil.

I haven't read all of the replies in this thread, but I'm sure the subject of God's sovereignty has come up. At the risk of going off-topic here, I will say that, in terms of God's sovereignty, we should ask ourselves, "Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases?" I think most of us here honor the principle of private property, and I believe God's sovereignty is a model that reflects that principle. If God has created all things and, therefore, He owns everything in the universe, then He has all rights to what He does with His creation, whether a person likes it or not. God is the Ultimate Property Owner, after all. We, being His creatures, are just stewards of the things which He gives to us (which is why I don't believe in the principle of self-ownership, by the way).

The Bible uses the picture of a potter and clay to illustrate that notion. If the potter chooses to make a clay pot to grow beautiful flowers in, then the potter has every right to do so. And if that same potter wants to make a clay pot that just sits and grows mold in it until he destroys it, then he has every right to do that, as well. It's *his* stuff, after all. We may not like what he does in the latter case, but that's not for us to judge, if it's his property, right?

In that same reasoning, God does that to those whom He created from the dust of the earth, choosing to make some vessels to honor, and other vessels to dishonor. In the former case, God is using the vessels to demonstrate certain aspects of His being (such as love, mercy, and grace); in the latter case, God is using the vessels to demonstrate other aspects of His being (such as wrath, anger, and justice). But, once again, we are *His* creation, and as such, we cannot tell God what He can and cannot do with His own property.

I think that is one aspect for us to look at God's sovereignty, in matters of salvation. It can be very difficult to accept, I'll admit, but if it's true, then we must submit ourselves to it, and ask God to help our misunderstandings and offenses with it.

----------


## acptulsa

> Where are you getting this from?  The logical point I'm getting at is obvious.  He asked me why these doctrines were important.  I pointed out to him that if "free will" is true than that some people must be somehow better than others and thus deciding to believe.  He's taking my question too literally and trying to account for every conceivable variable, when the very simple point is just that sovereign grace is necessary to avoid pride.


Well, the logical point I'm getting at is obvious, too.  You can never count on stuffing God in a box of logic.  God _knows_ all the variables, and if there's any logic to the situation at all, I firmly believe God's a whole lot more likely to spot it than we are.

Which could explain why He seems to move in mysterious ways.

So, it's nice you're working at being nice while you try to catch God in a box of your logic.  Appreciate it.

----------


## pcosmar

> I have no doubt Satan thought he could trap Jesus and get him to fall.  That doesn't mean he actually could.


If he could not actually tempt Jesus then the temptation of Jesus would be a lie. And that would be a contradiction.

Or your theory is wrong. Which are you willing to accept?,,either the Bible is wrong,,or you are wrong.

You might want to pray about that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, and I will say that I agree with your statements above, FF, especially on the nature of evil.
> 
> I haven't read all of the replies in this thread, but I'm sure the subject of God's sovereignty has come up. At the risk of going off-topic here, I will say that, in terms of God's sovereignty, we should ask ourselves, "Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases?" I think most of us here honor the principle of private property, and I believe God's sovereignty is a model that reflects that principle. If God has created all things and, therefore, He owns everything in the universe, then He has all rights to what He does with His creation, whether a person likes it or not. God is the Ultimate Property Owner, after all. We, being His creatures, are just stewards of the things which He gives to us (which is why I don't believe in the principle of self-ownership, by the way).
> 
> The Bible uses the picture of a potter and clay to illustrate that notion. If the potter chooses to make a clay pot to grow beautiful flowers in, then the potter has every right to do so. And if that same potter wants to make a clay pot that just sits and grows mold in it until he destroys it, then he has every right to do that, as well. It's *his* stuff, after all. We may not like what he does in the latter case, but that's not for us to judge, if it's his property, right?
> 
> In that same reasoning, God does that to those whom He created from the dust of the earth, choosing to make some vessels to honor, and other vessels to dishonor. In the former case, God is using the vessels to demonstrate certain aspects of His being (such as love, mercy, and grace); in the latter case, God is using the vessels to demonstrate other aspects of His being (such as wrath, anger, and justice). But, once again, we are *His* creation, and as such, we cannot tell God what He can and cannot do with His own property.
> 
> I think that is one aspect for us to look at God's sovereignty, in matters of salvation. It can be very difficult to accept, I'll admit, but if it's true, then we must submit ourselves to it, and ask God to help our misunderstandings and offenses with it.


Amen, I completely agree.  Its a tough thing to come to terms with, but come to terms with it we must, lest we make ourselves into God and give ourselves some glory.




> If he could not actually tempt Jesus then the temptation of Jesus would be a lie. And that would be a contradiction.
> 
> Or your theory is wrong. Which are you willing to accept,,either the Bible is wrong,,or you are wrong.
> 
> You might want to pray about that.


I did not say Satan did not tempt Christ.  I said that Jesus could not sin.  Big difference.

----------


## pcosmar

> I did not say Satan did not tempt Christ.  I said that Jesus could not sin.  Big difference.


I believe that he did not.. if he could not,, Then there would have been no temptation.

But then I reject Sola's concept of God in entirety.. I do not believe him to be such a malevolent entity as to create evil and subject creation to such misery for his own pleasure.
I reject that in entirety. It is not the God I know and speak with.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe that he did not.. if he could not,, Then there would have been no temptation.
> 
> But then I reject Sola's concept of God in entirety.. I do not believe him to be such a malevolent entity as to create evil and subject creation to such misery for his own pleasure.
> I reject that in entirety. It is not the God I know and speak with.


Nobody here believes God is malevolent.

I can't speak for Sola on this point, but I think saying its for God's "pleasure" is too simplistic.  It makes God out as if he gets giddy at the prospect of seeing people suffer.  I prefer to say that God does it for his own GLORY, to satisfy his divine attributes of both mercy and justice.  




> What does any of this mean?  Can you elaborate?
> 
> And I'd still like to know what you meant by asking me if I think Satan has an orthodox Christology.





> Yeah, I'm curious about that one myself.  What did you mean by that FF?


Basically, Deborah K was asking why Satan would tempt Jesus if Jesus was unable to sin.  My response was that Satan may well have believed that he could convince Christ to sin.  If Satan believed it, he would try it, even if there was truly no chance that he would succeed (As there was not.)

----------


## Nang

> As bad as it is, this isn't what I'm asking.  I'm not asking if you believe in the impeccability of Christ (its clear that you don't. which is a heterodox position at best.)  I'm asking if you believe that Jesus' flesh WAS sinful.  I could even ask about Adam pre-fall and the same issue would arise.
> 
> Heck, Jesus is still flesh now.  Is he still evil?
> 
> You need to repent of this semi-gnosticism you've got going on.  Its seriously erroneous.  1 John and 2 John were written to combat this type of thing.  You would do well to read through them.


Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . .  they are full-blown gnosticism.

But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.

Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.

 As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"

Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!

* Isaiah 5:20-21*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . .  they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
> But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
> Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
> Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!
> ...


If I understand a full-blown gnostic goes beyond what Terry is saying.  The real gnostics, the ones that John was talking about in 2 John 9-11, literally said that Jesus was never actually a man.  I don't think Terry is saying that.  But, in implying that Jesus' humanity may have been in some sense evil, she's certainly flirting with that dangerous teaching.

That said, you'd know better than me.  Maybe I'm using the term gnostic wrong.  Please let me know.

With that being said, I agree with the rest of your post.  This belief definitely leads us logically to full-blown gnosticism.  It also logically leads to a denial of the atonement... Jesus' death on the cross would be "evil" under a consistent application of this view.  It also  has frightening political implications.  Did Ron Paul sin by running for President?  After all, that wasn't an action he undertook in an exclusively spiritual fashion.

----------


## acptulsa

> As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"


I don't think so.  I don't think she needs any more excuse to hold her ground than she doesn't believe you.  What's more, I don't think anyone who offers 'spiritual correction' is bad--little arrogant, maybe, but not bad--unless and until he or she gets to butting heads with someone over it like an antelope in his rut.

Just an alternative string of logic...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that he did not.. if he could not,, Then there would have been no temptation.



No, no, no.  Here is the difference.  If you are completely full after eating 10 plates of pasta and I* tempt* you with another plate pasta, I* AM tempting* you.  *YOU* are not tempted to eat another plate, it is impossible, you would explode.  But you are *being tempted.
*

In the same way, Jesus was tempted by Satan, but He was not tempted to sin. Jesus is God.  God cannot sin.  Jesus' flesh was perfect sinless humanity.  Jesus' flesh WAS NOT SINFUL.  Jesus is the SECOND ADAM.  He is without sin in His humanity AND His divinity.








> But then I reject Sola's concept of God in entirety.. I do not believe him to be such a malevolent entity as to create evil and subject creation to such misery for his own pleasure.
> I reject that in entirety. It is not the God I know and speak with.



I know you reject this God.  If He wants you to turn to Him, He will cause you to do it.

----------


## Terry1

> As bad as it is, this isn't what I'm asking.  I'm not asking if you believe in the impeccability of Christ (its clear that you don't. which is a heterodox position at best.)  I'm asking if you believe that Jesus' flesh WAS sinful.  I could even ask about Adam pre-fall and the same issue would arise..


Obviously, you're either misquoting me on purpose or you simply didn't read carefully enough what I wrote.  No--Jesus wasn't sinful--He never sinned, but does that mean that His flesh wasn't capable?  This is actually a very age old debate between many astute theologians and is still a question in the minds of many that are divided on this issue.  So don't try to misrepresent what I've said here FF.




> Heck, Jesus is still flesh now.  Is he still evil?


Well, back to your old tricks again I see.  Who said Jesus was still flesh and blood?  And who said Jesus was evil?




> You need to repent of this semi-gnosticism you've got going on.  Its seriously erroneous.  1 John and 2 John were written to combat this type of thing.  You would do well to read through them.


You make me regret giving you the benefit of the doubt FF with regard to you changing your MO. LOL  Try-try again eh?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Obviously, you're either misquoting me on purpose or you simply didn't read carefully enough what I wrote.  No--Jesus wasn't sinful--He never sinned, but does that mean that His flesh wasn't capable?  This is actually a very age old debate between many astute theologians and is still a question in the minds of many that are divided on this issue.  So don't try to misrepresent what I've said here FF.



It's not an age old debate.  It is a heresy that no Christian has EVER believed.  *You are not a Christian if you believe that Jesus had sinful flesh...you are a Gnostic, and therefore NOT a Christian.*

Jesus is the Second Adam.  He is perfect in His HUMANITY and His DIVINITY.

What you believe is not Christianity.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . .  they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
> But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
> Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
> Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!
> ...


Oh please--   You of all people are accusing me of "ungodliness"?   Makes no difference to me what you think of me personally--have you forgotten already?

You've simply wasted your time replying to FF's misrepresentation of what I actually said.  As usual, you three will never change. *sigh*

----------


## Terry1

> It's not an age old debate.  It is a heresy that no Christian has EVER believed.  *You are not a Christian if you believe that Jesus had sinful flesh...you are a Gnostic, and therefore NOT a Christian.*
> 
> Jesus is the Second Adam.  He is perfect in His HUMANITY and His DIVINITY.
> 
> What you believe is not Christianity.


I simply brought up the issue as a topic for discussion and not something that I actually believed absolutely.  Was the flesh and blood body of Jesus capable of sinning before His crucifixion?  We know Jesus was sinless because He chose not to sin, but that begs the question then--what was the need for Jesus to be tested for forty days and nights in the wilderness by satan then if His flesh and blood body didn't have the ability to sin and be tempted if chose to?    

You three simply can not discuss something without tossing accusations against those presenting a point of discussion can you?  Nang calls me ungodly, you call me a heretic and FF tells me I need to repent.  This was simply a topic of discussion, why are you all always on the offensive?  I have reached out to you and FF attempting to make peace.  All I keep getting are these horse apples tossed back in my face.

----------


## acptulsa

> *You are not a Christian if you believe that Jesus had sinful flesh.*


Back where I was raised, a good Christian didn't even _think_ about Jesus' flesh.




> Jesus is the Second Adam.


The improved version--the devil couldn't even get Him with apples.

----------


## acptulsa

You know, I'm not the one belittling God by simplifying Him and making Him black-and-white and trying to work Him like a logic puzzle.  All I'm doing is demonstrating how pitiful God looks after that is done to Him...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If I understand a full-blown gnostic goes beyond what Terry is saying.  The real gnostics, the ones that John was talking about in 2 John 9-11, literally said that Jesus was never actually a man.  I don't think Terry is saying that.  But, in implying that Jesus' humanity may have been in some sense evil, she's certainly flirting with that dangerous teaching.
> 
> That said, you'd know better than me.  Maybe I'm using the term gnostic wrong.  Please let me know.
> 
> With that being said, I agree with the rest of your post.  This belief definitely leads us logically to full-blown gnosticism.  It also logically leads to a denial of the atonement... Jesus' death on the cross would be "evil" under a consistent application of this view.  It also  has frightening political implications.  Did Ron Paul sin by running for President?  After all, that wasn't an action he undertook in an exclusively spiritual fashion.


The Gnostics held the erroneous belief that "material was evil" and "spirit was good".   This is why they eventually went as far as saying that Jesus didn't really have a body (how could God have a body if material things are evil).  The apostles rejected this by affirming very strongly that Jesus had a REAL body and His flesh was perfectly good. 

Terry1 is teaching (without any shame) a variant of this heresy that the* apostles themselves* condemned.

----------


## pcosmar

> I know you reject this God.  If He wants you to turn to Him, He will cause you to do it.


Sorry,, I would want nothing to do with such an entity.

I had not fully grasped the extent of your twisted view till i saw your post earlier in this thread.. I had heard some of Calvinism which I rejected long ago,, but the description of the evil entity that you describe,,I would wish no part of.

Complete annihilation would be preferable to serving such,, were it to be true.

I would have no desire to be anywhere near such an entity..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I simply brought up the issue as a topic for discussion and not something that I actually believed absolutely.  Was the flesh and blood body of Jesus capable of sinning before His crucifixion?  We know Jesus was sinless because He chose not to sin, but that begs the question then--what was the need for Jesus to be tested for forty days and nights in the wilderness by satan then if His flesh and blood body didn't have the ability to sin and be tempted if chose to?    
> 
> You three simply can not discuss something without tossing accusations against those presenting a point of discussion can you?  Nang calls me ungodly, you call me a heretic and FF tells me I need to repent.  This was simply a topic of discussion, why are you all always on the offensive?  I have reached out to you and FF attempting to make peace.  All I keep getting are these horse apples tossed back in my face.



This sounds like you are backing away from what you were saying and I commend you for that.  It's definitely a glimmer of hope.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sorry,, I would want nothing to do with such an entity.
> 
> I had not fully grasped the extent of your twisted view till i saw your post earlier in this thread.. I had heard some of Calvinism which I rejected long ago,, but the description of the evil entity that you describe,,I would wish no part of.
> 
> Complete annihilation would be preferable to serving such,, were it to be true.
> 
> I would have no desire to be anywhere near such an entity..



This is another autobiographical post.  You've already said you won't worship this God.  I get it.

But this is the God of the Universe,  and you must worship Him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is another autobiographical post.  You've already said you won't worship this God.  I get it.
> 
> But this is the God of the Universe,  and you must worship Him.


Its comments like this that make me question the salvation of several Arminians I know.  I've had people say things like that "I couldn't worship a God like that."  My response is usually "well, your God is an idol and it doesn't exist."  

I can't fathom how anyone could say that about the Creator of the Universe.  Scriptural disagreement I get.  Even emotional struggles, I get.  I'll be honest, I'd have some emotional, illogical struggles if some of the things you teach are true.  But I'd never say "I wouldn't worship a God like that."  God is who he is, there is no standard higher than God by which to hold God accountable.  God is always righteous simply by nature.  Period.  I don't see how a person who cannot accept this is saved.  I even have a hard time with Calvinists who say they wouldn't worship God if Arminianism is true.  Obviously it isn't true, but as a hypothetical, I'd worship God no matter what, because he's God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I simply brought up the issue as a topic for discussion and not something that I actually believed absolutely.  Was the flesh and blood body of Jesus capable of sinning before His crucifixion?  We know Jesus was sinless because He chose not to sin, but that begs the question then--what was the need for Jesus to be tested for forty days and nights in the wilderness by satan then if His flesh and blood body didn't have the ability to sin and be tempted if chose to?    
> 
> You three simply can not discuss something without tossing accusations against those presenting a point of discussion can you?  Nang calls me ungodly, you call me a heretic and FF tells me I need to repent.  This was simply a topic of discussion, why are you all always on the offensive?  I have reached out to you and FF attempting to make peace.  All I keep getting are these horse apples tossed back in my face.


You went further than that.  The denial of the impeccability of Christ is a heresy, but you seemed to also be saying that Jesus actually had wicked flesh.  I hope you don't believe that.

But, I can't help but condemn heretical beliefs.  The issues here are too important, far more so than any political issue.  The stakes are too high for me to be afraid to offend.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, no, no.  Here is the difference.  If you are completely full after eating 10 plates of pasta and I* tempt* you with another plate pasta, I* AM tempting* you.  *YOU* are not tempted to eat another plate, it is impossible, you would explode.  But you are *being tempted.
> *
> 
> In the same way, Jesus was tempted by Satan, but He was not tempted to sin. Jesus is God.  God cannot sin.  Jesus' flesh was perfect sinless humanity.  Jesus' flesh WAS NOT SINFUL.  Jesus is the SECOND ADAM.  He is without sin in His humanity AND His divinity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if this is analogous either though.  I think this is very much like the whole Garden of Gethsemane episode.  Jesus would have enjoyed the prospect of not dying on the cross, so he was "tempted" in that sense, even though he never would have given into it.  Similarly, I have no doubt that the idea of turning a stone into bread was enticing to Jesus, but he never would have done it simply by his nature as God.

----------


## pcosmar

> But this is the God of the Universe,  and you must worship Him.


I doubt it. 

Or more accurately,, I believe that it is you who are confused at the Nature of God.. and because of that you ascribe the nature of Satan to him.

If I am wrong, I will be shown when I meet him,, and know even as I am known.
If he is such as you describe  I will dive into the lake of fire on my own accord.

But I doubt he is such.

----------


## Nang

> I'm not sure if this is analogous either though.  I think this is very much like the whole Garden of Gethsemane episode.  Jesus would have enjoyed the prospect of not dying on the cross, so he was "tempted" in that sense, even though he never would have given into it.  Similarly, I have no doubt that the idea of turning a stone into bread was enticing to Jesus, but he never would have done it simply by his nature as God.


The temptation of Jesus Christ, does not in any way declare Him susceptible to sin in His flesh.

*The entire purpose of His Incarnation, was to display the perfect Man in sinless and perfect flesh.*

Only by His truly possessing sinless flesh, was He qualified to bring the perfect flesh and blood offering to God, to atone for the sins of His own.

Gnosticism is a denial of the Son of God, come in flesh, and we all know the ramifications of such unbelief.  I John 4:1-6

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The temptation of Jesus Christ, does not in any way declare Him susceptible to sin in His flesh.
> 
> *The entire purpose of His Incarnation, was to display the perfect Man in sinless and perfect flesh.*
> 
> Only by His truly possessing sinless flesh, was He qualified to bring the perfect flesh and blood offering to God, to atone for the sins of His own.
> 
> Gnosticism is a denial of the Son of God, come in flesh, and we all know the ramifications of such unbelief.  I John 4:1-6


I agree.  You do realize I agree with this, correct?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I doubt it. 
> 
> Or more accurately,, I believe that it is you who are confused at the Nature of God.. and because of that you ascribe the nature of Satan to him.
> 
> If I am wrong, I will be shown when I meet him,, and know even as I am known.
> If he is such as you describe  I will dive into the lake of fire on my own accord.
> 
> But I doubt he is such.


I "ascribe the nature of Satan to God"?  No.  The Bible teaches that God has a GOOD purpose for decreeing sin.  God is perfectly good.

The alternative is the idol that cannot bring his purposes to pass.  This idol is not the God of the Bible.  The God of the Bible has already declared the end from the beginning,  and all of His purposes come to pass infallibly.

----------


## James Madison

Pride goeth before the Fall, as they say.

----------


## Nang

> I agree.  You do realize I agree with this, correct?


Of course  . . . but labeling such error that denies this, as "Semi-gnosticism," is way too generous.

----------


## acptulsa

> I "ascribe the nature of Satan to God"?  No.  The Bible teaches that God has a GOOD purpose for decreeing sin.  God is perfectly good.
> 
> The alternative is the idol that cannot bring his purposes to pass.  This idol is not the God of the Bible.  The God of the Bible has already declared the end from the beginning,  and all of His purposes come to pass infallibly.


pcosmar doesn't disagree with you over any of that, as far as I can tell.

He disagrees with your stock blather that God created evil to glorify himself with.  Which isn't Biblical and which I don't agree with either.

So, we say back up your statement that God causes us suffering _to glorify Himself_ or we're voting 2-1 to name _you_ the idolater.  Because each man makes God in his own image, and _you_ sure think causing people stress glorifies you...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course  . . . but labeling such error that denies this, as "Semi-gnosticism," is way too generous.


Fair enough.  



> pcosmar doesn't disagree with you over any of that, as far as I can tell.
> 
> He disagrees with your stock blather that God created evil to glorify himself with.  Which isn't Biblical and which I don't agree with either.
> 
> So, we say back up your statement that God causes us suffering _to glorify Himself_ or we're voting 2-1 to name _you_ the idolater.  Because each man makes God in his own image, and _you_ sure think causing people stress glorifies you...


Who cares about your 2-1 vote?  Statists are the ones who think this way.  You aren't a statist are you?

----------


## acptulsa

> Who cares about your 2-1 vote?  Statists are the ones who think this way.  You aren't a statist are you?


And dictators are the ones whose thinking runs to, 'This _straw man argument_ I just built out of my head (with or without a little help from John Calvin) _is God_ and if you don't worship my straw man argument _as God_ I get to burn you at the stake.  Or at least ignore all your reasons why my straw man can't be God and call you names in public for not worshipping it.'

Only dictators have so little respect for each other and so much misplaced faith in themselves.

If you want me to worship Sola_Fide's straw man argument, bring an army and see if that works.  Seriously.  If you and Sola want me to worship something that says Matthew 25 then expects everyone to ignore it and ignore everyone who quotes it, and if you and Sola want me to worship something which tortures people _for the specific purpose of advancing its own glory_, bring your army and come try to make me do it.  If this is what it takes to spend eternity where you are, I'll look for other accommodations.  I've already taken three and a half years of this 'good news and joyful noise'.  That's enough.

It isn't Biblical, It isn't logical.  It isn't humble.  And you can write 'It's true' a trillion times on this blackboard and that won't make it so.

'Statists are the ones who think this way.'  And statists also bring their henchme--er, I mean _buddies_ in--even they have no interest in the things the club is interested in and don't like anyone in the club--so they can have a better echo chamber, too.

'My religion is the One True Faith because I overlook the logical fallacies of it and your faith is idolatry because I roll my eyes at it.'  Think your 'logical arguments' contain more substance--Biblical or otherwise--if you wish.  But if having the air let out of them bothers you so much, why are you floating it _here_ at Debunkers' Central of all places?  No wonder your blood pressure is up.

S_F won't even defend this stuff one-on-one with Bryan because he knows how foolish he'll soon look if he can't duck a question by answering someone else's question, and he knows how foolish he'll look when he realizes he's in over his logical head and sneaks off.  Should tell you something.  Someone is using you for cannon fodder to cover his retreats.

----------


## moostraks

> And dictators are the ones whose thinking runs to, 'This _straw man argument_ I just built out of my head (with or without a little help from John Calvin) _is God_ and if you don't worship my straw man argument _as God_ I get to burn you at the stake.  Or at least ignore all your reasons why my straw man can't be God and call you names in public for not worshipping it.'
> 
> Only dictators have so little respect for each other and so much misplaced faith in themselves.
> 
> If you want me to worship Sola_Fide's straw man argument, bring an army and see if that works.  Seriously.  If you and Sola want me to worship something that says Matthew 25 then expects everyone to ignore it and ignore everyone who quotes it, and if you and Sola want me to worship something which tortures people _for the specific purpose of advancing its own glory_, bring your army and come try to make me do it.  If this is what it takes to spend eternity where you are, I'll look for other accommodations.  I've already taken three and a half years of this 'good news and joyful noise'.  That's enough.
> 
> It isn't Biblical, It isn't logical.  It isn't humble.  And you can write 'It's true' a trillion times on this blackboard and that won't make it so.


Thank you! And if we are voting on this I am making it 3 to your side acptulsa. It seems as though some of these folks need a good lesson in the history of the church regarding the heinous nature and lengths some with such tyrannical views went to and yet the peace churches and the message of Love still stands.

----------


## Terry1

> The Gnostics held the erroneous belief that "material was evil" and "spirit was good".   This is why they eventually went as far as saying that Jesus didn't really have a body (how could God have a body if material things are evil).  The apostles rejected this by affirming very strongly that Jesus had a REAL body and His flesh was perfectly good. 
> 
> Terry1 is teaching (without any shame) a variant of this heresy that the* apostles themselves* condemned.


Since you've accused me of being a "Gnostic" here Sola, I'm asking you to define Christian Gnosticism.  This is a very broad term covering a large number and wide scope of subjects and areas.  Since you pride yourself on being such a scholar, then please explain why you believe I'm a Gnostic and how this applies to anything I've written so far?

I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one because you've been hurling this accusation around about me for quite some time now.  Do you understand what all Gnosticism encompasses and means?   Please explain yourself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Since you've accused me of being a "Gnostic" here Sola, I'm asking you to define Christian Gnosticism.  This is a very broad term covering a large number and wide scope of subjects and areas.  Since you pride yourself on being such a scholar, then please explain why you believe I'm a Gnostic and how this applies to anything I've written so far?
> 
> I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one because you've been hurling this accusation around about me for quite some time now.  Do you understand what all Gnosticism encompasses and means?   Please explain yourself.


First, there is no such thing as "Christian Gnosticism".  Gnostic are not Christians.   John called Gnostics antichrists.  Paul condemned them as well.

Secondly, I explain one of the main errors of Gnosticism in the post you quoted.

----------


## acptulsa

> First, there is no such thing as "Christian Gnosticism".  Gnostic are not Christians.   John called Gnostics antichrists.  Paul condemned them as well.
> 
> Secondly, I explain one of the main errors of Gnosticism in the post you quoted.


Did you or did you not call the woman a Gnostic?

If you did, we here believe strongly she has a right to face her accuser.  Prove to us she's a gnostic or endure the humiliation of seeing her found Not Guilty and your charges found Spurious.

Stand and deliver.  And FreedomFanatic, we are asking you _not_ to step into the line of fire and cover his retreat.  Go put your ass on the line for someone who's willing to prove himself worthy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Back where I was raised, a good Christian didn't even _think_ about Jesus' flesh.
> .


Huh?  Where were you raised?  Every Christian must understand that Jesus was the Second Adam who was perfect in His humanity and His divinity.

----------


## Terry1

> First, there is no such thing as "Christian Gnosticism".  Gnostic are not Christians.   John called Gnostics antichrists.  Paul condemned them as well.
> 
> Secondly, I explain one of the main errors of Gnosticism in the post you quoted.


No you didn't.  I want you to give me a detailed explanation of what I said, (give me quotes please) that seem to give you the idea that I'm a gnostic.  And yes--there is such a thing as "Christian Gnosticism", so you're wrong on that count too, but you need to explain why you're accusing me of this and give some exact quotes with examples to prove it.  

From now on--if you accuse me of something--I would greatly appreciate it if you explained how and why you believe that applies to me and what I wrote that caused you to believe this.  Thanks in advance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did you or did you not call the woman a Gnostic?
> 
> If you did, we here believe strongly she has a right to face her accuser.  Prove to us she's a gnostic or endure the humiliation of seeing her found Not Guilty and your charges found Spurious.
> 
> Stand and deliver.  And FreedomFanatic, we are asking you _not_ to step into the line of fire and cover his retreat.  Go put your ass on the line for someone who's willing to prove himself worthy.


Already answered.   Gnosticism said the flesh is evil and the spirit is good.  She has said it several times already.  It is wrong.

----------


## acptulsa

> Huh?  Where were you raised?  Every Christian must understand that Jesus was the Second Adam who was perfect in His humanity and His divinity.


No.  You're not going to weasel out of standing behind or denouncing the serious charges you leveled against Terry1 by distraction.  Yes, I admit that trying to drag Jesus down to Adam's level when Jesus could go forty days without water but you could put Adam in Paradise and he still won't leave a damned apple alone is a pretty good distraction.  But this heresy won't work.

You accused Terry1.  Make your charges stick or have the simple human decency to renounce yourself.




> Already answered.   Gnosticism said the flesh is evil and the spirit is good.  She has said it several times already.  It is wrong.


Well, since you twist everything everyone says _including Jesus,_ I want a link provided.

Sorry, but a proper court can't take your word for what is 'metaphorical'.

If you just cast aspersions the way a child throws rocks and run away _this_ time, you might as well keep running.  I'll put you back in my sig.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . .  they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
> But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
> Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
> Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!
> ...


Nang, I am asking you to provide examples of my exact quotes to prove this accusation against me.  Explain "Gnosticism" and what I said that led you to believe this accusation applies to me.  From now on--if you accuse me of anything--I will be expecting a full and detailed explanation as to why I have been accused with my quotes to back up your accusation.  Thanks in advance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, since you twist everything everyone says _including Jesus,_ I want a link provided.
> 
> Sorry, but a proper court can't take your word for what is 'metaphorical'.
> 
> If you just cast aspersions the way a child throws rocks and run away _this_ time, you might as well keep running.  I'll put you back in my sig.


Here is one of the many times Terry repeated the Gnostic heresy that the physical is evil and the spirit is good.  In the first sentence.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5540303

Need anything else, genius?

----------


## acptulsa

> Need anything else, genius?


Yes.  Of course.

God doesn't condemn without knowing both sides.  God knows both sides.

A fair trial is something other than S_F saying, 'I think that's _____ and you're going to hell.'

Terry1, is he misinterpreting you?  Do you think that's Gnosticism?  Do you think it's unChristian?

----------


## RJB

> Already answered.   Gnosticism said the flesh is evil and the spirit is good.


I'm not starting a fight, I agree with you here but how does this tie in with Total Depravity.  I understood Total Depravity to view our flesh as evil maybe even our souls.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not starting a fight, I agree with you here but how does this tie in with Total Depravity.  I understood Total Depravity to view our flesh as evil maybe even our souls.


Man's depravity does not come from the fact the he has flesh, it comes from the fact that he has sinned.  Or to be even more precise, Adam acted as our federal head and his sin is imputed to all those in him (Just as the Second Adam's perfect sinlessness is imputed to all those in Him).

This is Romans chapter 5.

----------


## moostraks

> I'm not starting a fight, I agree with you here but how does this tie in with Total Depravity.  I understood Total Depravity to view our flesh as evil maybe even our souls.


Probably more in depth than S_F would ever give you and you might want a trash can handy to puke in:



> The first is the sinfulness of man, or the doctrine of total depravity. When Adam sinned, he acted as the federal head or representative of humanity, so that all of mankind fell with him. Now a verdict of guilt is imposed on all his descendants, and a nature of wickedness is passed on, not by natural generation but by divine power, to every human person born after him, Christ excepted. The result is that man is unable to save himself, to redeem himself before God, or to attain righteousness with God. Indeed, because he is evil, he is also unwilling to do so. He would rather burn in hell than to bow before the Most High.
> 
> The second is the sovereignty of God, especially as it is applied to the salvation of sinful man. The Bible teaches that God creates and chooses some men for salvation, that is, to show them grace and kindness, to change their nature from evil to good, and to produce faith and love in them toward the Lord Jesus Christ. These are called the elect, or the chosen ones. They are Christians, and will persist in their faith by divine power. And the Bible teaches that God creates and chooses all other men for damnation, to be vessels of wrath, and to be tortured in hell forever. These are called the non-elect, or the reprobates. They are non-Christians, or non-Christians who pretend to be Christians, and will remain in unbelief all their lives...
> 
> So, all men are born thoroughly evil, and only divine power can change them, but God selects only some of them to receive this privilege. Two questions arise from this. First, if non-Christians are thoroughly evil, why do they sometimes appear to perform good works? Second, if God directs his grace only to his chosen ones, why do the reprobates seem to receive some of his blessings, such as food and water, friendship, education, order in society, and various talents and skills? As usual, the answers are clearly inherent in the original doctrine, and these questions should not have come up in the first place. And as usual, theologians have provided answers that are derived from or that are aimed to satisfy unbiblical assumptions, that complicate what is in fact a straightforward matter, and that end up making the situation worse and worse. Christians are quick to come up with fantastic theological inventions to solve problems so simple that they should not exist to begin with. It is fun for them. In this case, a blunt application of the two foundational ideas would be sufficient, and we will apply them to several items...
> 
> The total depravity of man is a foundational doctrine. This means that subsidiary questions are explained by it, and not the other way around. That is, we do not regard certain non-Christian works as good, hold this idea as constant and nonnegotiable, and then challenge total depravity by it. Rather, we hold the total depravity of man as constant and nonnegotiable, and then interpret non-Christian actions by this. Therefore, since non-Christians are thoroughly evil, all their works are evil, whether they appear so to the judgment of man.
> 
> This is it. This is a sufficient answer, and no Christian who believes the Bible on the total depravity of man should demand more. In fact, to demand more would itself be a manifestation of evil and rebellion. Nevertheless, we can indeed offer a fuller explanation...
> ...


http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10...e-for-his-own/

----------


## moostraks

> Man's depravity does not come from the fact the he has flesh, it comes from the fact that he has sinned.  Or to be even more precise, Adam acted as our federal head and his sin is imputed to all those in him (Just as the Second Adam's perfect sinlessness is imputed to all those in Him).
> 
> This is Romans chapter 5.


This is your interpretation.

----------


## Terry1

> Here is one of the many times Terry repeated the Gnostic heresy that the physical is evil and the spirit is good.  In the first sentence.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5540303
> 
> Need anything else, genius?


First of all, Gnosticism isn't just the belief that the flesh is evil, it's also the belief that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body no matter how good or evil, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.
So your accusation based upon your understanding of Gnosticism is false because you lack the full understanding of what all Gnosticism is and encompasses.  

Gnosticism is also the religion of the ancient philosophers who fallaciously believed that through their own vain knowledge absent the spirit of the Lord they could obtain God and the kingdom of heaven.  I do not believe in this either.  So lets go to that quote that caused you to accuse me of this and compare that with the word of God then.


Thanks for providing the quote.  I'll repost that here and explain to you why you're wrong in your accusation.



> Terry1 wrote:
> Of course the physical is inherently evil. Flesh and blood are pure evil and wars with the spirit of the Lord. The bible tells us all through it how evil the flesh is and what it's capable of absent the spirit of the Lord. All flesh is sinful and evil. We can only be tempted while we're flesh and blood. Why do you think Jesus had to endure His days of temptation in the wilderness? It's because Jesus was flesh and blood that will always be susceptible to evil, sin and temptation. Why do you think that Jesus tells us that only the "overcomers will He confess before the Father in heaven?" Rev. 3:5


God's word tells us that no flesh and blood can enter the kingdom of heaven here, so then would you accuse the Apostle Paul of being a "Gnostic" because he preached that the flesh was sinful in nature, corrupt and can not inherit the kingdom of heaven?

*1 Corinthians 15* 
*50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,*

*Galatians 5:
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is your interpretation.


Didn't you just say in another thread that the Bible can be shown by argumentation to show one view as opposed to another?  Now you're reverting back to utter subjectivism?  Haha....it never ends....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Probably more in depth than S_F would ever give you and you might want a trash can handy to puke in:
> 
> 
> http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10...e-for-his-own/


That article was fine.  It goes a little further than I would on certain points.  The same is true for most Calvinists.  Most Calvinists aren't as extreme as Cheung is (note that this doesn't mean Cheung is wrong, it just means that not every Calvinist agrees with Cheung.)  Most Calvinists believe in some form of common grace, and most Calvinists don't believe God actively causes sin.  That said, regardless of how you explain it, the result ends up being the same anyways.  This is almost even true for Arminianism when you really think about it.  How can God create people KNOWING what they're going to choose and people still have "free will" in a meaningful sense? Couldn't God have created an Adam that wouldn't have eaten, or refused to put the tree in the garden, if he did not have a plan for Adam's sin?  So, while I think some of these distinctions are Biblical, I'm not sure how much they matter in practicality.  The bottom line is that God controls everything and that's that.  If he didn't he wouldn't be God.






As for the whole "gnosticism" thing, I would have commented had Sola not done so, more to defend Christianity than to defend him in particular.  But,  he answered it adequetely anyway.  This is extremely obvious.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not starting a fight, I agree with you here but how does this tie in with Total Depravity.  I understood Total Depravity to view our flesh as evil maybe even our souls.


Don't agree with him RJB, because Sola's very wrong and doesn't fully understand the meaning of "Gnosticism" and what all it encompasses.  He's falsely accusing me based upon his own ignorance and has no firm foundation or basis for this accusation against me.  I've posted the word of God that supports my quote that Sola used against me.  

Since Nang accused me of the same thing as well by echoing Sola and FF--I will address her accusation against me as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm curious on what points James White would agree and on what points he would not agree with Cheung's analysis.  I'm curious how much Raymond's modified Supralapsarianism differs from full supralapsarianism when it comes to explanations of how God's sovereignty works.  I know that the two subjects aren't directly related, but more often than not supras are more extreme in their other positions as well.

----------


## acptulsa

> Man's depravity does not come from the fact the he has flesh, it comes from the fact that he has sinned.  Or to be even more precise, Adam acted as our federal head and his sin is imputed to all those in him...


So, to be descended from the flesh of Adam (which is the only way to be born a human being) is to have his sin imputed to you.  So, you're condemning Gnostics for saying flesh _is_ evil and you say flesh is _not_ evil, but the only way to get human flesh is to get the evil sins of Adam.  God in His wisdom has, you say, made that a package deal.

So, you're trying to condemn people on semantics even though they aren't actually contradicting you.

What's more, you're legitimizing their heresy by biting the bait of their semantics and getting yourself hooked.  To deny that flesh is evil simply because some Gnostics use that as an excuse to say Jesus was not Divine is to say God cannot overcome mere human evil.  _There_ is your Gnostic heresy if it's anywhere--and you _seem_ to share it.




> First of all, Gnosticism isn't just the belief that the flesh is evil, it's also the belief that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body no matter how good or evil, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.
> So your accusation based upon your understanding of Gnosticism is false because you lack the full understanding of what all Gnosticism is and encompasses.  
> 
> Gnosticism is also the religion of the ancient philosophers who fallaciously believed that through their own vain knowledge absent the spirit of the Lord they could obtain God and the kingdom of heaven.  I do not believe in this either.


I find you Not Guilty of being a Gnostic.  Looks like someone needs to invent a new pigeonhole for you.




> The bottom line is that God controls everything and that's that.  If he didn't he wouldn't be God.


Idolatry.

If FreedomFanatic were God, FreedomFanatic (ironically) would micromanage the hell out of everything if it killed him.

This does not reflect upon God one tiny whit.

FreedomFanatic could (ironically) claim I have no free will, and that he himself has no free will.  But FreedomFanatic knows it would be heresy to say God has no free will.  Ergo, it is heresy to say that if God were to choose to stop micromanaging everything and everyone God would cease to be God.

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post 
> 
> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . . they are full-blown gnosticism.


In your zeal to echo Sola in his own ignorance, you've fallen on your own sword, because just the same as Sola, you lack the full understanding of what Gnosticism is and what all it encompasses. 




> But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
>  Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.


I suggest you take your own advice and look up the very broad meaning of "Gnosticism" before you go hurling this accusation about against others.  




> As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
>  Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!
> 
>  Isaiah 5:20-21


Sola has graciously provided my quote that has caused you both to accuse me of this and I'm referring you to this same post I just made to him as well.  Since you and Sola have deemed yourselves the theological geniuses and scholars you have then you should be willing and able to accept correction with the same zeal and enthusiasm in which you give it.  We shall see.

First of all, Gnosticism isn't just the belief that the flesh is evil, it's also the belief that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body no matter how good or evil, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.
 So your accusation based upon your understanding of Gnosticism is false because you lack the full understanding of what all Gnosticism is and encompasses. 

 Gnosticism is also the religion of the ancient philosophers who fallaciously believed that through their own vain knowledge absent the spirit of the Lord they could obtain God and the kingdom of heaven. I do not believe in this either. So lets go to that quote that caused you to accuse me of this and compare that with the word of God then.







> Terry1 wrote:
>  Of course the physical is inherently evil. Flesh and blood are pure evil and wars with the spirit of the Lord. The bible tells us all through it how evil the flesh is and what it's capable of absent the spirit of the Lord. All flesh is sinful and evil. We can only be tempted while we're flesh and blood. Why do you think Jesus had to endure His days of temptation in the wilderness? It's because Jesus was flesh and blood that will always be susceptible to evil, sin and temptation. Why do you think that Jesus tells us that only the "overcomers will He confess before the Father in heaven?" Rev. 3:5 
> God's word tells us that no flesh and blood can enter the kingdom of heaven here, so then would you accuse the Apostle Paul of being a "Gnostic" because he preached that the flesh was sinful in nature, corrupt and can not inherit the kingdom of heaven?


1 Corinthians 15 
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Galatians 5:
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

----------


## RJB

> Don't agree with him RJB, because Sola's very wrong and doesn't fully understand the meaning of "Gnosticism"


I wasn't agreeing that you are a gnostic, but agreeing that flesh = evil and spirit = good was one of the reasons some gnostic sects denied the humanity of Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> I find you Not Guilty of being a Gnostic.  Looks like someone needs to invent a new pigeonhole for you.


Thank you.

----------


## Terry1

> I wasn't agreeing that you are a gnostic, but agreeing that flesh = evil and spirit = good was one of the reasons some gnostic sects denied the humanity of Christ.


This is true, but that definition lacks what Gnosticism as a whole embraces, therefore what Sola and Nang accused me of was based upon their own ignorance of what Gnosticism truly is as defined with a very broad spectrum of areas.  

The ancient philosophers like Plato embraced this concept.  They believed that through their own vain efforts to gain knowledge of God--they could obtain the kingdom of heaven simply by nothing more than their pride of that same self gained knowledge and absent the spirit of God.  This a very serious charge against another Christian without proof to back it up.  

Basically what Sola and Nang both did was accuse me of not being saved, not being a Christian and as they've hurled the other accusation around  that we are "agents of satan" as well. LOL

----------


## moostraks

> Didn't you just say in another thread that the Bible can be shown by argumentation to show one view as opposed to another?  Now you're reverting back to utter subjectivism?  Haha....it never ends....


Herherher...You think your interpretation of Scripture is _the_ interpretation of Scripture. There is a difference. Some of us get that and you make inane comments trying to find something to be sarcastic about when there isn't anything of substance for you to say.

----------


## moostraks

> That article was fine.  It goes a little further than I would on certain points.  The same is true for most Calvinists.  Most Calvinists aren't as extreme as Cheung is (note that this doesn't mean Cheung is wrong, it just means that not every Calvinist agrees with Cheung.)  Most Calvinists believe in some form of common grace, and most Calvinists don't believe God actively causes sin.  That said, regardless of how you explain it, the result ends up being the same anyways.  This is almost even true for Arminianism when you really think about it.  How can God create people KNOWING what they're going to choose and people still have "free will" in a meaningful sense? Couldn't God have created an Adam that wouldn't have eaten, or refused to put the tree in the garden, if he did not have a plan for Adam's sin?  So, while I think some of these distinctions are Biblical, I'm not sure how much they matter in practicality.  The bottom line is that God controls everything and that's that.  If he didn't he wouldn't be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the whole "gnosticism" thing, I would have commented had Sola not done so, more to defend Christianity than to defend him in particular.  But,  he answered it adequetely anyway.  This is extremely obvious.


Such is your belief and I find it to be destructive and contrary to the witness of the early church.

----------


## Terry1

> Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post 
> 
> 
>  As for the whole "gnosticism" thing, I would have commented had Sola not done so, more to defend Christianity than to defend him in particular. But, he answered it adequetely anyway. This is extremely obvious.


Then you would have been found just as ignorant of the full meaning of Gnosticism and what it encompasses as Sola and Nang have been found to be.  The word of God has supported me in the quote that Sola and Nang used to accuse and condemn me with.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Such is your belief and I find it to be destructive and contrary to the witness of the early church.


And I find you to be destructive and absurd.

----------


## acptulsa

> And I find you to be destructive and absurd.


Truth is destructive to sand castles and absurd to the builders of sand castles.

If you don't believe me, ask Galileo.

And speaking of truth, have you noticed that you're covering the retreat again, Canon Fodder?  Like, right here and now?

----------


## moostraks

> And I find you to be destructive and absurd.


The indignant trio's effect on this subforum is my documentation. Even if I were not here the seeds of your belief system have shown their fruit and the effect they have on all the others you throw your hate and contempt upon in an effort to elevate your own beliefs. You. like usual are merely casting aspersions, back up your argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Truth is destructive to sand castles and absurd to the builders of sand castles.
> 
> If you don't believe me, ask Galileo.
> 
> And speaking of truth, have you noticed that you're covering the retreat again, Canon Fodder?  Like, right here and now?


Who cares?  Again, I don't speak for Sola or anyone else.  I speak for myself, period.  I believe and preach the true gospel.  My goal is that anyone who has ears to hear may hear.  Sola's retreating or not retreating is irrelevant to me.  Stop making posts so personal and focus on the issues.



> The indignant trio's effect on this subforum is my documentation. Even if I were not here the seeds of your belief system have shown their fruit and the effect they have on all the others you throw your hate and contempt upon in an effort to elevate your own beliefs. You. like usual are merely casting aspersions, back up your argument.


I refuse to back it up on the grounds that you didn't back yours up either.  You simply made a thoughtless assertion without evidence.

----------


## Deborah K

> What does any of this mean?  Can you elaborate?
> 
> And I'd still like to know what you meant by asking me if I think Satan has an orthodox Christology.


I would still appreciate an answer to my questions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would still appreciate an answer to my questions.


I already answered.  Someone (I don't remember who now) was using the fact that Satan seemed to think that Jesus could sin as evidence that Jesus could in fact sin.  I was saying that Satan did try to tempt Jesus because he had a heterodox Christology, namely, one in which he believed Jesus could sin.

----------


## Deborah K

> I already answered.  Someone (I don't remember who now) was using the fact that Satan seemed to think that Jesus could sin as evidence that Jesus could in fact sin.  I was saying that Satan did try to tempt Jesus because he had a heterodox Christology, namely, one in which he believed Jesus could sin.


But this isn't backed up biblically.  This is basically opinion/interpretation.  

Do you have an opinion about my interpretation of the verses?  You mentioned issues that seemed unrelated and I'd like to know what you meant.

----------


## moostraks

> I refuse to back it up on the grounds that you didn't back yours up either.  You simply made a thoughtless assertion without evidence.


Here's another one:



> To adherents of Calvinism, ". . .God did not exist for man, but men for the sake of God."(7) God was personally involved in all aspects of life. He caused everything to happen in the universe, no matter how large or small the event. "For Calvinism it was impossible for a leaf to fall or a decision to be formed without the express command of the deity...."(8) Calvinism thus set forward a belief system in which the omnipotence of God was the preeminent view. This is most important in understanding the Calvinist mind, in which a sense of fatalism permeated, because to them God had foreordained all matters and was personally involved in all aspects of life.
> 
> The second factor prevalent in Calvinist theology dealt with Biblical authority. To Calvinists, Holy Scripture revealed the true and only nature of God. Calvin, like Martin Luther, was instrumental in placing final authority with the scriptures instead of with the church and many of its traditions.(9) This attitude toward scripture became manifest in an ultra-literal interpretation of the Bible by many early Calvinists. The early Dutch and French settlers of South Africa were Calvinists who believed that the Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament, revealed the one true and living God. This belief is a most important factor in understanding the Boer society and its legacy, apartheid.
> 
> The last major tenet of Calvinist theology to be discussed involves its view of predestination. According to Calvin,
> 
> ... for they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or death.(10)
> In addition to this belief, Calvin asserted that no matter how far an elect person strayed from God, he always would come back to Him at the appointed time.(11) This is the concept of irresistible grace, and it, along with predestination, played a key role in the formation of the Calvinist mind set.
> 
> ...


http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academic...Williams91.htm

I got plenty more but we can go one at a time...

----------


## Terry1

> I wasn't agreeing that you are a gnostic, but agreeing that flesh = evil and spirit = good was one of the reasons some gnostic sects denied the humanity of Christ.


Actually RJB, "Sola scripture" embraces Gnosticism all by itself in a sense, because those who believe in Sola scripture believe that through their own vain interpretations of the word God, which they claim is "inerrant"--then denotes that they believe that their interpretation is also "inerrant".  Thinking themselves to be wise in their own vain attempts at knowledge to obtain the kingdom of heaven--they become "fools" as scripture also says.

----------


## acptulsa

> Actually RJB, "Sola scripture" embraces Gnosticism all by itself in a sense, because those who believe in Sola scripture believe that through their own vain interpretations of the word God, which they claim is "inerrant"--then denotes that they believe that their interpretation is also "inerrant".  Thinking themselves to be wise in their own vain attempts at knowledge to obtain the kingdom of heaven--they become "fools" as scripture also says.


Sounds like the Sola Scriptura crowd and the Sola Fide crowd commit the same heresy even as they fight over details--the heresy of their own interpretations being inerrant.  Or maybe the Sola Fide crowd would say their faith is 'inerrant', but it's still their faith in their interpretation they're talking about.

Well, no one gets by except through Grace, but if you don't have inerrant dogma you won't be forgiven.  Sweet.

They don't speak for God and I don't care if they forgive me for disagreeing with them or not.

----------


## Terry1

> Sounds like the Sola Scriptura crowd and the Sola Fide crowd commit the same heresy even as they fight over details--the heresy of their own interpretations being inerrant.  Or maybe the Sola Fide crowd would say their faith is 'inerrant', but it's still their faith in their interpretation they're talking about.
> 
> Well, no one gets by except through Grace, but if you don't have inerrant dogma you won't be forgiven.  Sweet.
> 
> They don't speak for God and I don't care if they forgive me for disagreeing with them or not.


Well I find it ironic how those who accuse the brethren often find themselves in position of being the ones who are guilty as charged.  By the same sword they attempt to condemn and ridicule is the very same sword that condemns them as well.  Gods word is pretty awesome isn't it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Bump.  If people would just use their mind, just a little bit, things would start getting clearer.

----------


## pcosmar

> If people would just use their mind, just a little bit, things would start getting clearer.


Fallacy



> From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.





> Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?


Not the mind,, but the spirit.

----------

