Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/17/2008 4:30:46 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
FREEGRACE:Our difference is that you place ALL EMPHASIS
on your "outworking evidence", which is what you are doing. That is man-centered, imho. Ah, you don't see, do you?
The "outworking evidence" you think I over-emphasize
is the RESULT of by new life.
And Del has already shown how the evidence or fruit can be deceiving, ie: unbelievers appearing to be believers, and believers appearing to look like unbelievers.
btw, I don't think you "over-emphasize" out-working evidence. I think you have put all your eggs into 1 basket. In addition, you have rejected any validity of what you think. So, where does that leave you? "Fruit" without clear evidence of where it came from, and no confidence in your own mind as to what you think.
quote:
Its on the other side of being a new creature. It is most certainly GOD-centered because I know it is him working in me, not of my flesh.
You say it is God centered because you knoiw it is Him working in you. How do you "know" that? You have already said that you cannot trust what you believe with your mind, and all that we know is known in the mind. So, you have a problem. You claim the evidence/fruit you have comes from God because you just "know" it is. But you also claim that you cannot trust what your mind tells you.
quote:
Me relying on what my mind tells me I believe cannot be where my confidence lies. I know I believed because he began a work in me.
OK, HOW do you know anything, because you don't trust what your mind thinks?
I can't make it any plainer than that and Scripture backs up the fact that as new creatures we are not only called to live a christlike life, we are predestined
to it.
I've never disagreed with that. I don't know why you seem to think I do.
quote:
Sanctification is an inevitability, not an option.
I wish you would comment on the 3 tenses of sanctification that I provided for you. Until you do, there is no way I can respond to your comments, since I don't know what tense you are referring to.
quote:
I really don't see any point in discussing it further.
I've come to that conclusion too.
quote:
I have too many "problems" 
You surely have made that clear to us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:02:52 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 393
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
ODELIYA:
From Theopedia:
Easy believism is the "popular slogan for the view that one simply
has to believe in order to be saved and that there is no corresponding
need for a committed life of Christian discipleship."
The result is that sanctification is divorced from justification, and discipleship
is seen as a path that some Christians follow, but not others. The term carnal
Christian is used to describe such a supposed Christian, who once made a
"decision" but has not continued in discipleship. Names applied to this doctrine
by opponents include no-lordship and cheap grace as it suggests that "accepting Jesus"
does not involve any further commitments.
John 6:37 -- "whoever comes to me" -- implies "continues to come". Not just a one time thing. The difference between once-saved-always-saved and perseverance-of-the-saints is that the latter recognizes that this verse (and others like it) refer only to the ones who continue to believe, who keep coming to Christ. These are the born again ones. But it's because the Father gives them to him, so it's secure.
quote:
Proponents of this view, on the other hand, prefer the term the "free grace"
to describe their position. Easy-believism is also said to overemphasize the
doctrine of assurance of salvation at the expense of personal authenticity.
Disagree? Comments?
Both Free Grace and Perseverance of the Saints give assurance of salvation. What do you mean by personal authenticity? I don't see why the Free Grace idea would go against personal authenticity.
quote:
See any parallel to the sorry state of Christianity today?
There are many reasons for the sorry state of Christianity, not the least of which is ignorance of the Scriptures. Also, pharisaism, which kills spiritually, and drives people away. I would put easy-believism after (just right after) these as causes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:28:57 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 393
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I've not said anything about "passive" vs "active". I really don't know what you are charging. Of course God has an intimate personal knowledge of those He foreknew. Who do you know who disagrees with that?
What I was arguing against was the idea that "Those whom He foreknew" means God saw into the future those who would believe in Him, and then choose them on that basis.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And from John 6, we find that God's choosing us comes before our faith and is a direct cause of our faith.
Please provide the verse you are thinking of.
John 6:37-40,44: "37.All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
I don't see choosing come before faith here.
"All that the Father gives me" comes before "will come to me."
quote:
quote:
38.For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39.And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
40.For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
44."No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
Nor here, either.
Logically, "the Father who sent me draws him" comes before "can come to me".
quote:
Gal 3:2 and 5 are clear that we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. If God regenerates before faith, and regeneration is what the Holy Spirit does, then Gal 3:2 and 5 contradict that. But they don't because regeneration doesn't precede faith.
I don't have a good answer for this. Like I said, I'm still working all this stuff out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 2:10:03 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 393
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
Does Romans 3:24 say that every single person will be justified by His grace?
Of course not. But it is clear to me that the reformed just do not pay any attention to other's views. I've never said that, nor do I think Paul was saying that. Please pay attention. Here is a paraphrase of what Paul was saying.
Before we go on, I must ask you to stop that language. These broadbrush statements do no one any good. I am paying attention. I wasn't arguing with you with that question. Have a little respect.
quote:
"The whole human race is justified through faith in His blood." This means that no one is excluded from being justified, but the criteria for justification is through faith. If anyone does not believe, they are NOT justified. If anyone does believe, they ARE justified.
If you paid attention, you should be able to grasp what Paul is saying here.
Why the manhandling? Please stop.
quote:
quote:
No, it limits it to those who by faith receive it.
Yes, of course. That is my point. It IS limited to those who believe. But Paul most clearly did NOT limit justification from anyone. That is the point, which also debunks limited atonement.
I understand this is your point. I was just building up to the next question.
quote:
quote:
Okay, then, how do we get the faith?
From our hearts. God created mankind with the intellect to understand the gospel and the freedom to beleive or reject it.
quote:
How does one come to believe?
By trusting what God says. How do you come to believe anything? Same way.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ."
The grammar demands that it's the faith of Christ. This implanted faith is the starter for our faith which we continue to exercise throughout our lives.
Please explain where you get "implanted faith" from this text, or any other, for that matter. Thanks.
From Dr. Gene Scott's exposition of Romans 3.
Not THE Gene Scott  of TV fame who taught the Bible all the while smoking a cigar, with smoke billowing all around his head?! He was quite a character, huh!
Yes indeed. Quite brilliant. I believe he was not a Calvinist.
quote:
quote:
It may or may not be implanted (that's just my interpretation, fwiw), but it is clearly not our faith (at least to start with), but Christ's
Why do most of the translations, whom you seem to defend on other points, translate it "faith IN Christ" then? Any ideas?
Because "the faith of Christ" doesn't make sense to them. So they invent a grammatical construction called "objective genitive" to change the meaning into "faith in Christ", when there in fact is no such thing as "objective genitive." Maybe they think something like, "Why does Christ need to have faith?" Most of the early translations of the NT into languages like Syriac, Hebrew, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, translated those passages "faith of Christ."
My point in calling the translators to witness on Acts 13:48 was that you had a bunch of people from disparate theological backgrounds all translate esan tetagmenoi as "had been appointed". But that's just a piece of evidence, not in itself conclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 4:42:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3430
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
No one rejects this call.
Which time?
Sorry for butting in, but if this were true,
how come most of the elect do not become
saved the first time they hear the gospel?
What would be God's purpose in postponing
it for the soil is ready!!
Could it possibly be that man must respond?
[GASP]
Why anything? Why did Paul not believe the first time he heard the Gospel?
God saves in His own good time "in the fulness of time". Scripture is clear - we must wait upon the Lord for salvation.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 4:43:28 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3430
Status: offline
|
quote:
Gal 3:2 and 5 are clear that we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. Actually, it is saying we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of hearing the Gospel - not because of "believing".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 4:45:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3430
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
"Foreknow" is the word used in Romans 8:29 ; according to Strong's (#4267) the word means > to know beforehand i.e. foresee . I do not claim to know the part of speech to which it belongs ; it is pretty clear from the definition however that it is to foreknow or foresee certain facts beforehand . I don't know what Spanish has to with interpreting Greek .
Scripture interprets itself. It is its own dictionary. When the word "foreknow" is used it is used in the sense of having a personal relationship, i.e., the following:
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, -Romans 11:2
God had a personal relationship with Israel. He knew them, He loved them.
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: -Acts 2:23
Can it be denied God knew and loved Christ? That's how Scripture uses "foreknow".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 6:14:04 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1406
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
quote:
God does not call those outside of the group of people whom He foreknew; he only calls those whom He foreknew.
What do you do with Matt 22:14? Many are called, but few are chosen. iow, many are invited to believe, but only a few are chosen for salvation cf. 2 Thess 2:13.
I do with it just what it says. Many are invited to be saved, but only those who have been chosen (or "called" as Paul uses the term in Rom 8) are saved.
So then, it appears you think "many" are called to believe the gospel but the gospel isn't presented to them?
No, Paul uses the term “called” differently than the Lord Jesus.
quote:
quote:
Romans 8:29-30 is as true as Matt 22:14. Paul uses the word "called" in the same way the Lord Jesus Christ uses the word "chosen".
What you fail to realize is that in Rom 8 Paul is speaking only of those who believed the invitation, whereas in Matt 22:14 all who hear the gospel are invited to believe, but not all do believe.
No, I don't fail to realize that at all.
Some questions for you:
Knowing that "those whom [God] foreknew" is a limited group . . .
Did God predestine any outside of this group that He foreknew?
Did God call any outside this group whom He predestined?
Did God justify any outside this group that He called?
Did God glorify any outside this group that He justified?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
All those whom God called He justified and glorified. So, according to Paul in Romans 8, if a person has been called he is also justified.
Since "all those" refers only to believers, who were invited and responded, Paul calls them the "called".
No, Paul did not call them "the called" (noun).
Paul said that God "called" them (verb).
OK, Paul said that God "called" (invited) them. I agree. And in the context of Tom 8, they all believed.
I don’t' agree with you that the term "called" as used in Romans 8:30 merely means "invited". Just as the reason God predestined them is based upon God foreknowing them, so God's reason for justifying them is based upon God calling them. Believing is not the determining cause in this passage; God is.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 12:44:11 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
I really don't see any point in discussing it further.
There is just one think I've been meaning to discuss, but keep forgetting!
Rom 12:2 is a command to believers. It says, "And do NOT be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."
First, we are commanded not to act like the world (conformed to). That surely indicates that we can do so, or otherwise why the command against it? If saved people cannot act like the world, why would Paul even bother with this command?
Second, we are commanded to be transformed. What does that mean? The Greek word is "metamorphoo", and means "change, transfigure, transform". Note that this is commanded. Are we ever commanded to be regenerated? No, for God does that to us. This is a command we are to accomplish. How do we transform ourselves, since we are commanded to do it? "by the renewing of our minds". The Greek word is "a renewal, renovation, complete change for the better". This cannot mean our regeneration or new birth, because Paul addressed this to those who were already regenerated and born again, plus, we cannot regenerate ourselves, nor "birth" ourselves.
So, this command for transformation is accomplished by the renovation or renewal of our minds, which in the Greek is "nous", which actually means your mind.
So, even though you don't trust what your mind believes or thinks, you are commanded to renovate your mind. How does that happen? I believe, from other Scriptures, that it involves daily confession of sin, for our forgiveness and cleansing, and reading (feeding) from God's word. This is how we change. This is the sanctification of which I speak. It is not automatic. It occurs only when we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, which is a command, and is not automatic just because you are a believer.
I have repeatedly mentioned the 3 tenses of salvation, and you haven't responded to any of them. So here goes.
1. Past tense sanctification = saved from the penalty of sin. We cannot be judged.
2. Present tense sanctification = saved from the power of sin. We are freed from sin's power, although we are still free to sin.
3. Future tense sanctification = saved from the presense of sin. There is no sin in heaven.
The past and future tenses of sanctification are done by God and are automatic, and these aren't visible to us.
The present tense sanctification is the progressive growth of the believer, only when the believer stops conforming to the world and is transformed by the renewing of the mind. This sanctification IS visible when it occurs.
Being saved from the power of sin doesn't mean that we become "sin-less", but that we should sin less.
I hope this clarifies my position for you.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 12:48:06 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
ODELIYA:
From Theopedia:
Easy believism is the "popular slogan for the view that one simply
has to believe in order to be saved and that there is no corresponding
need for a committed life of Christian discipleship."
The result is that sanctification is divorced from justification, and discipleship
is seen as a path that some Christians follow, but not others. The term carnal
Christian is used to describe such a supposed Christian, who once made a
"decision" but has not continued in discipleship. Names applied to this doctrine
by opponents include no-lordship and cheap grace as it suggests that "accepting Jesus"
does not involve any further commitments.
John 6:37 -- "whoever comes to me" -- implies "continues to come". Not just a one time thing. The difference between once-saved-always-saved and perseverance-of-the-saints is that the latter recognizes that this verse (and others like it) refer only to the ones who continue to believe, who keep coming to Christ. These are the born again ones. But it's because the Father gives them to him, so it's secure.
Jesus equates believing with being saved in Luke 8:12. The language is very clear. Then, in v.13 Jesus notes the second soil believed. 1 + 1 = 2. They believed; they were saved. Your analysis contradicts what Jesus said. He didn't say they didn't believe. Only bias and eisegesis twists what Jesus said into "they didn't believe savingly". He didn't say that either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 12:56:25 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I've not said anything about "passive" vs "active". I really don't know what you are charging. Of course God has an intimate personal knowledge of those He foreknew. Who do you know who disagrees with that?
What I was arguing against was the idea that "Those whom He foreknew" means God saw into the future those who would believe in Him, and then choose them on that basis.
Your description sounds kind of like looking into a crystal ball. Since God is omnipresent, and transcends time, He doesn't have to "look into the future", since every iota of occurrence has always been known by Him.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And from John 6, we find that God's choosing us comes before our faith and is a direct cause of our faith.
Please provide the verse you are thinking of.
John 6:37-40,44: "37.All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
I don't see choosing come before faith here.
"All that the Father gives me" comes before "will come to me."
Why do you think that the Father's "giving" is a "choosing" here?
quote:
quote:
quote:
38.For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39.And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
40.For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
44."No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
Nor here, either.
Logically, "the Father who sent me draws him" comes before "can come to me".
Does this verse say anything about any NOT being drawn by the Father? I agree that all who come have been drawn. But the reformed seem to want to make that mean that He doesn't draw everyone, which this verse doesn't say.
quote:
quote:
Gal 3:2 and 5 are clear that we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. If God regenerates before faith, and regeneration is what the Holy Spirit does, then Gal 3:2 and 5 contradict that. But they don't because regeneration doesn't precede faith.
I don't have a good answer for this. Like I said, I'm still working all this stuff out.
Fair enough. I doubt that anyone has every verse figured out. I sure don't. If you have an answer, I'd be interested in it. But in the meantime, these verses are strong reasons to believe that regeneration cannot occur before our believing. It may occur simultaneously with our believing, or nanoseconds after our believing, but I just don't see prior to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 12:59:11 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1738
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I said we're not told "when" he became saved. But, if he(Sol) was saved before he became an idol worshipper, he later repented of his sin. Now, if an atheist repented of his sin, sure, the possibility exists he might have been saved "while" being an atheist.
May I assure you my of sincere respect, K. It takes a real man to admit something like that after denying it. I am confident you havent changed your opinion about the FG theology but you admit that the possibility of a person being a saved atheist exist. I am glad we do understand each other on this.
quote:
But, FGM theology teaches that this atheist need not repent to go to heaven, or, for that matter neither does the idolator.
I've never seen it teaching that. It says that a true, saved believer can become an atheist at certain point and still remain saved – which is not the same to me as telling a person he does not need to repent.
Repentance is a fruit of being truly saved, one of it’s signs. I don’t se how your position as different from FG on this issue. But in essence we both say the same – saved believer is secure, regardless what sin he commits.
We seeing people at one point in time.That teacher I told the thread about, and there are also tons of people like him blogging around.. Former assist.pastor, great at apologetics, and based on his character then, acc to people that knew him ,was exhibiting love, longsuffering, what can be seen as fruit of HS. Currently an atheist.
At this point, he might be saved if ,lets presume,he will repent later, if that is what you say determines his salvation status. That means now, at this point in time he could be saved and unrepented.
Which makes him right now a saved atheist( rwe, read this, darling brother, if you don’t mind)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:05:26 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1738
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I thought you were saying that FGM teaches that no one can tell if he is saved. But, I see now you meant no one can know about the salvation status of someone else. And, to that, I have no objection :) Yes, I would agree that no one can know for certain if another is saved. We have only their works to go by. Just as Paul judged by the "works" of the adulterous man when he excommunicated him.
here i would separate discipline and salvation: Based on someone’s behaivor and for the sake of the church discipline we can excommunicate a sinner (is it still being done anywhere, btw, do you know ?) However that doesnt mean we know if excom-d people are saved or not.
It is possible that sinner Paul excomm-d was just that- a true, saved believer, like David, but committing bad sexual sin. But a bunch of unsaved Pharisees that appear like brothers that he didn’t excommunicate, still remained in the church…
quite possibly that excom will be with Paul in heaven and those he kept in church will permanently reside in hell. We can’t see the heart.
quote:
But, if otoh, we don't much care about stopping our lies and continue exactly as before we professed being "born again"; then, we are probably not saved at all.
Unrepentant lies is a sign of unsaved chrisian? I think I agree with you, K, here.. even that means that you don’t have a one Christian in US government, at least not at the federal level 
quote:
Therefore, what we "do" is an evidence of our salvation. This is where I disagree with FGM's theology. It teaches that if I do continue to lie, I need not question my salvation because “my faith” is the only criteria.
I never seen it teaching that. All Stanley’s ,for one, sermons are about examining ourselves. He and others do indeed say that a truly saved, born again believer might be sinning and sin might be quite bad. I see it as absolutely biblical, there is no sin mentioned in the Bible that can separate us from God.
quote:
The problem with that is Scripture gives examples of those who “thought” they were saved – but were not. This is why we are told to examine ourselves to make sure of our calling and election and to be certain we are in the faith.
Sure, I agree. However just as a mind can deceive so can fruit and works. Multitude of Pharisees examine themselves, like what they see and are confident that their salvation and election is sure : )
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:17:44 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
Does Romans 3:24 say that every single person will be justified by His grace?
Of course not. But it is clear to me that the reformed just do not pay any attention to other's views. I've never said that, nor do I think Paul was saying that. Please pay attention. Here is a paraphrase of what Paul was saying.
Before we go on, I must ask you to stop that language. These broadbrush statements do no one any good. I am paying attention. I wasn't arguing with you with that question. Have a little respect.
So sorry. No offense meant. Others have accused me of thinking and "preaching" that Rom 3:24 is about universalism, even after I have repeatedly clarified myself. You are new here, and I apologize. Others have not been paying attention. btw, there are many verses in the OT about the Jews not paying attention and refusing to as the reason they don't hear or see. And many of the reformed like to quote the passage about God preventing them from seeing or hearing. That is a Hebraism, and the passages about the Jews actively not listening or paying attention and refusing to is the reason they didnt' hear or see. Not because God kept them from seeing/hearing.
quote:
quote:
"The whole human race is justified through faith in His blood." This means that no one is excluded from being justified, but the criteria for justification is through faith. If anyone does not believe, they are NOT justified. If anyone does believe, they ARE justified.
If you paid attention, you should be able to grasp what Paul is saying here.
Why the manhandling? Please stop.
Absolutely. Again, my apologies.
quote:
quote:
quote:
No, it limits it to those who by faith receive it.
Yes, of course. That is my point. It IS limited to those who believe. But Paul most clearly did NOT limit justification from anyone. That is the point, which also debunks limited atonement.
I understand this is your point. I was just building up to the next question.
Before we "go on", do you agree with my point about this passage or not? iow, do you agree or disagree that Paul was NOT limiting justification from anyone in the human race?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ."
The grammar demands that it's the faith of Christ. This implanted faith is the starter for our faith which we continue to exercise throughout our lives.
Please explain where you get "implanted faith" from this text, or any other, for that matter. Thanks.
From Dr. Gene Scott's exposition of Romans 3.
Not THE Gene Scott of TV fame who taught the Bible all the while smoking a cigar, with smoke billowing all around his head?! He was quite a character, huh!
Yes indeed. Quite brilliant. I believe he was not a Calvinist.
I don't disagree about his being brilliant. The cigar smoke was a bit distracting, though. btw, is he still on TV?
quote:
My point in calling the translators to witness on Acts 13:48 was that you had a bunch of people from disparate theological backgrounds all translate esan tetagmenoi as "had been appointed". But that's just a piece of evidence, not in itself conclusive.
I'm not sure about "disparate theological backgrounds" when the KJV was translated. Most were Calvinists, I've been told. The time of the translation would support that as well. I agree that the "common" translation is only a piece of evidence, and not conclusive.
More "evidence", if you will: God is not mentioned in the text or context.
The Gentiles were being contrasted with the unbelieving Jews.
Eternal life was noted in both groups, the first negatively, the second positively.
someone, maybe you (?) noted the perfect tense of tasso indicates "in time past". OK, roll back one week, where the Gentiles begged Paul to return again to speak more. That would be consistent, without the necessity of thinking that God was appointing "from eternity past".
Keep in mind that the primary meaning of tasso isn't really to appoint or ordain, but rather, "to put in place, to place in a certain order to arrange, to assign a place".
In keeping with the context, it should be clear that the Gentiles were "placing themselves or arranging themselves" in order to hear Paul again. It is obvious that no one can appoint themselves to eternal life. But people can, from their own choice, arrange themselves or place themselves in a position in order to hear the gospel since they are interested in it, as clearly the Gentiles who believed were.
Finally, scholars have noted, and I have provided an example, of where passive voice is used when middle voice is meant (Mark 1:6).
I see no reason to not understand Acts 13:38 as the Gentiles placing themselves in a position to hear the words of eternal life that Paul was preaching. The context supports that idea without any strain at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:18:56 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
No one rejects this call.
Which time?
Sorry for butting in, but if this were true,
how come most of the elect do not become
saved the first time they hear the gospel?
What would be God's purpose in postponing
it for the soil is ready!!
Could it possibly be that man must respond?
[GASP]
Why anything? Why did Paul not believe the first time he heard the Gospel?
He didn't want to.
quote:
God saves in His own good time "in the fulness of time". Scripture is clear - we must wait upon the Lord for salvation.
Yes, He saves when people believe. Or do you disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:21:14 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Gal 3:2 and 5 are clear that we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. Actually, it is saying we receive the Holy Spirit as a result of hearing the Gospel - not because of "believing".
Sounds as if your position is that all who hear the gospel receive the Holy Spirit. Is that your position? If so, I disagree with it totally.
Only believers "receive the Holy Spirit", not everyone who hears the gospel. It should be clear that when Paul wrote "hear" he was reeferring to their response to the gospel, not just the fact that they heard it. Oh, I just remembered; you think God has to regenerate people in order for them to be saved. This passage doesn't say that or support that. So, from where do you get your idea?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:24:23 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5916
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Some questions for you:
Knowing that "those whom [God] foreknew" is a limited group . . .
Did God predestine any outside of this group that He foreknew?
Did God call any outside this group whom He predestined?
Did God justify any outside this group that He called?
Did God glorify any outside this group that He justified?
The answer is obviously no to all. The subject in 8:28-31 is those who believe. Not sure why you ask these questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/18/2008 1:36:30 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
