fizzygiraffe
There's No Present Like The TIme
OSASers must believe that God created human robots!
Yes, we must believe that. That's why all Christians think and act the same once they're saved.
Next.
Upvote
0
OSASers must believe that God created human robots!
I think I may disagree...I believe they are cut off....to continue In his goodness....Im thinking means in his love. ..the gospel...and the Jews were kept..by ritual sacrifices..but recall those under the law that rejected it died without mercy...while they were kept under the law until Christ....being covered until they had a chance to accepy or reject doesn't mean they were saved eternally..but saved until Christ would be revealed to them.....now if you continued in Christ..his goodness..you would be saved..and if rejected as a Jew covered first by the law..kept until salvatiin was revealed...and rejected til your end then most likely you would not be saved.Paul's letter win his gis to the Roman (Greek) church, which had some Jews in it. Paul was reviewing some Jewish history, but 11:29 is a statement regarding God's gifts, which Paul had already defined clearly.
Paul's letter was to a church of saved members, some of whom were Greek and some of whom were Gentiles.
There is nothing in ch 11 to come to such a conclusion. Esp since Paul hadn't mentioned "gift" since 6:23. The gift of God which is eternal life (Rom 6:23) is irrevocable (11:29).
Paul's review of Israel showed that because of their unbelief, God cut them off. But that isn't about salvation. It's about being used by God. That is why Paul used the metaphor of a branch being broken off. Everyone in that agriculture economy understood that branches that aren't useful to the farmer are cut off.
How would one suppose that "nearly the whole city" would assemble? Wouldn't it be rather obvious that they would need to enter through the doors of the synagogue? And wouldn't that require some "lining up" or arranging themselves in order to assemble.The Acts 13:44 verse says exactly what you say it does. They were "assembled" to hear the Word of God.
Why would he need to use the same word? v.44 tells us that nearly the whole city got together to hear Paul's message. And that would require some organization in order for that very large crowd to "assemble" in the synagogue.That's a different Greek word entirely than the one used in vs. 48. Why wouldn't He use the same word if the two concepts discussed were exactly the same thing?
Uh, people DO line up in order to hear preaching about eternal life.One vs. clearly says they were assemble as we both agree.
The other vs. uses a different word that can be translated "ordained/ lined up". (By the way that's just how I mean the word ordain when I use it. God's ordering of things.)
Further - people were "lining up", if you will, in vs. 44 to hear the Word preached.
Vs. 48 says that they were line up (or ordained) for eternal life- not just to hear the Word of God. That’s a big difference and it’s rather arbitrary of you to try to make them say the same thing.
People don't line up for eternal life. God lines people up for eternal life.
No, it shouldn't. I'm totally fine with how Luke wrote it.Which is likely why the translators used the word ordained rather than saying lined up when referring to this instance where it was talking about eternal life (which is God's prerogative and a gift from Him).
Besides that, according to your theology, shouldn't it say that all those who "believed" lined up for eternal life rather than those who lined up for eternal life believed?
Makes no difference. That wasn't Luke's point, obviously. If one wants to find where faith precedes regeneration, one only need go to Eph 2:5 and 8.I thought belief always came before eternal life for you.
Well, your opinion would be wrong.Your view seems to be formulated strictly by your prior theology IMO.
By examining the 3 things that Paul clearly defined as a gift before he wrote Rom 11:29 we know that he was referring to:I think I may disagree...I believe they are cut off....to continue In his goodness....Im thinking means in his love. ..the gospel...and the Jews were kept..by ritual sacrifices..but recall those under the law that rejected it died without mercy...while they were kept under the law until Christ....being covered until they had a chance to accepy or reject doesn't mean they were saved eternally..but saved until Christ would be revealed to them.....now if you continued in Christ..his goodness..you would be saved..and if rejected as a Jew covered first by the law..kept until salvatiin was revealed...and rejected til your end then most likely you would not be saved.
I was replying to the last part of your post...as for gifts and call I just read that somewhere and from what I read...I would think its referring to God's Covenant promise..and the gift could just be salvation.By examining the 3 things that Paul clearly in defined as a gift before he wrote Rom 11:29 we know that he was referring to:
1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23
The very next use of "gift" occurs in 11:29. There is no reason to dismiss these 3 things as what he was referring to when he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in 11:20.
From the context of ch 11, it seems to me that by "call" Paul was referring to the invitation to salvation, since the word kletos means "to invite".I was replying to the last part of your post...as for gifts and call I just read that somewhere and from what I read...I would think its referring to God's Covenant promise..
Without a doubt, as Paul defined both justification and eternal life as gifts, and both are part of salvation.and the gift could just be salvation.
a tree can only grow in a way compatible with it's DNA, but DNA is much more complex than simple binary code. The robot analogy is crude, and a terrible straw man because robots are clunky and stupid, dead, and created by man, whereas God created man in his own image, and full of life.
But here's the issue: if man does not have a free will, and God is the cause of man's choices, then man can be compared to either a robot, which has been programmed a certain way, or to a puppet, whose strings are pulled by a puppetmaster.The robot analogy is meant as an insult, and is usually used in desperation when the argument can't be won by the non-Calvinist. They know full well that Calvinism teaches no such thing, but rather than admit that they have no answer, they resort to insults.
It is indeed meant as an insult.The robot analogy is meant as an insult, and is usually used in desperation when the argument can't be won by the non-Calvinist. They know full well that Calvinism teaches no such thing, but rather than admit that they have no answer, they resort to insults.
Which is exactly why I've started threads in the past that used logic as an avenue to reason with these spirits (Christian based logic of course).These adversarial spirits could be stymied in their pursuit if the good hearted Christians here stopped sharing scripture as a rebuttal point. That would stop those who know nothing of scripture from having the word of God they are attacking readily available for the next assault.
Just my observations of these many pages. Hope it helps.
Sometimes....if you cant reason with someone ...then its best not to respond say why and leave it at that....
But here's the issue: if man does not have a free will, and God is the cause of man's choices, then man can be compared to either a robot, which has been programmed a certain way, or to a puppet, whose strings are pulled by a puppetmaster.
So, either man is free, or he is not free. If not free, then come up with your own analogy of what might look like. This seems to be age old debate about Calvinism. Neither robots nor puppets choose any of their own movements or actions. They have simply been preprogrammed.
I have not seen nor heard of any non Calvinist of any kind claim they can save themselves. Do they have free will to not save themselves ? Or ... God predestines their sin then God is the author of sin and man is NOT responsible.
Posts seem to diverge with "Oh so you think you can save yourself then ..." Bypassing the real issue ( I suspect deliberately ). If man is responsible for his sin then he must have some frees will to hold the charge of being responsible for what he has done.
That's pretty close to the Calvinist's position as I understand it.I think Calvinists and Arminians are mistaken in some things. We have accountability, we cannot save ourselves at all, and don't have works that will be basis for salvation, and don't have sins that make salvation impossible, other than that of rejecting Jesus Christ as he is, coming from God as the Son. Salvation is only possible from Yahweh God's grace, with his work through Christ, and through his Spirit drawing any to repentance for them to come to faith for Christ to be their savior. The response is theirs, as they will be accountable, otherwise they wouldn't be, which isn't said in what is shown in the Bible. But the salvation is still God's work, and remains so, with everlasting life given to them with a new nature for them, which is from God's work, and such will grow spiritually, sooner or even much later for some with whom it takes more time, but it will show as evidence of the reality of their faith, and their security.