With all your heart?

[Hammster]

I got the impression you were for arguing for disobedience in post #364; For you said,

“I posted as if we don't sin? What?

I hope you mean something I'm not seeing, because I don't post as if we don't sin. I've been insisting on the opposite of that all along.” ~ Mark Quayle.
​

You are arguing for the opposite of not sinning. Sin is disobedience.

Maybe this explains your strange understanding of scripture. By saying that we do disobey doesn’t mean he was arguing for disobedience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That’s not what it means. Foreknowledge is foreknowing people, not what they do.

Same word:


For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
— 1 Peter 1:20

Thank you! Exactly.

In fact, logically, he foreknows because he forecauses! Of Course he knows! The Biblical term "knowing" often, maybe usually, implies intimate knowledge, even to the point perhaps of sexual relations. God is intimately involved with his creation, controlling EVERYTHING, every detail. (I say this not for Hammster, because I know he already knows these things, but for the ones who might be reading it --who still think they can operate independently of God, through whom we live and move and have our very existence.)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Lol, there you go again. --"Arguing FOR disobedience"? What are you trying to say? Can you show me where I argue for disobedience? Disobedience in what context? What do you mean?

You also have been arguing for the positon of not keeping God's commands like the keeping of the 1st greatest commandment. This is also an argument for disobedience, as well. God never gave us a pass on not keeping His commands in the New Covenant. Paul was arguing against the keeping of the Old Law and he was arguing against Law Alone Salvationism without God's grace. But many in Christinanity today either ignore or change what Jesus and His followers have taught in His Holy Word.

 

[Hammster]

You also have been arguing for the positon of not keeping God's commands like the keeping of the 1st greatest commandment. This is also an argument for disobedience, as well. God never gave us a pass on not keeping His commands in the New Covenant. Paul was arguing against the keeping of the Old Law and he was arguing against Law Alone Salvationism without God's grace. But many in Christinanity today either ignore or change what Jesus and His followers have taught in His Holy Word.

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? That’s not even close to what he said.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you! Exactly.

In fact, logically, he foreknows because he forecauses! Of Course he knows! The Biblical term "knowing" often, maybe usually, implies intimate knowledge, even to the point perhaps of sexual relations. God is intimately involved with his creation, controlling EVERYTHING, every detail. (I say this not for Hammster, because I know he already knows these things, but for the ones who might be reading it --who still think they can operate independently of God, through whom we live and move and have our very existence.)

Then it would not be UNconditional Election if God elects according to His foreknowledge of what He knows we are going to do (Unless of course you don't believe in Unconditional Election).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Mark Quayle

Do you believe we can keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life? Yes, or no?
Do you believe we are saved even if we do not keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life?

Do you believe we have to keep the commandments of Jesus and His followers as a part of eternal life?
Yes, or no?

Before, by your words, you gave me the impression that we are already redeemed without the keeping of His commands. Is this true? If I am correct, would this not be a position of disobedience? If not, then please explain.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I got the impression you were for arguing for disobedience in post #364; For you said,

“I posted as if we don't sin? What?

I hope you mean something I'm not seeing, because I don't post as if we don't sin. I've been insisting on the opposite of that all along.” ~ Mark Quayle.
You are arguing for the opposite of not sinning. Sin is disobedience.

I'm having a bit of trouble following you. You keep using the word, "for". "For", in what context? For sin, for sinning, what do you mean --that I am in favor of sin and sinning? Never!! I don't know what you are saying by saying I am arguing for sin or arguing for the opposite of not sinning. "Not sinning" in what context? (I won't do more than mention your double-negative, lol)

All I said in that post is that I don't say we don't sin, and that I say we do sin. How is that either one --arguing for or against sinning? It was neither, unless you mean, arguing for 'sin being something we do', or, arguing for the opposite of 'sin being something we should do'; or perhaps you meant something else, but not simply "arguing for sin". I am not in favor of sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm having a bit of trouble following you. You keep using the word, "for". "For", in what context? For sin, for sinning, what do you mean --that I am in favor of sin and sinning? Never!! I don't know what you are saying by saying I am arguing for sin or arguing for the opposite of not sinning. "Not sinning" in what context? (I won't do more than mention your double-negative, lol)

All I said in that post is that I don't say we don't sin, and that I say we do sin. How is that either one --arguing for or against sinning? It was neither, unless you mean, arguing for 'sin being something we do', or, arguing for the opposite of 'sin being something we should do'; or perhaps you meant something else, but not simply "arguing for sin". I am not in favor of sin.

See post #406.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe this explains your strange understanding of scripture. By saying that we do disobey doesn’t mean he was arguing for disobedience.

we need a symbol for >"Thank you. You have expressed what I didn't know how to because of my frustration, haha". "Useful" just doesn't quite do it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then it would not be UNconditional Election if God elects according to His foreknowledge of what He knows we are going to do (Unless of course you don't believe in Unconditional Election).

Were you in on the debate on UE? God doesn't elect according to his foreknowledge of what we are going to do. He elects according to his own counsel. What is more, he predestined each specific one to be that particular part, that member, of the Bride of Christ for which he created them. He specifically did NOT elect them because they were worthy or deserved anything nor had anything to commend them to God; so it was not because he could see into the future what they would choose. It was ALL his work, his choice.

A person's eternal destiny --in fact, the very details of Heaven-- do not hinge on human decision.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Were you in on the debate on UE? God doesn't elect according to his foreknowledge of what we are going to do. He elects according to his own counsel. What is more, he predestined each specific one to be that particular part, that member, of the Bride of Christ for which he created them. He specifically did NOT elect them because they were worthy or deserved anything nor had anything to commend them to God; so it was not because he could see into the future what they would choose. It was ALL his work, his choice.

A person's eternal destiny --in fact, the very details of Heaven-- do not hinge on human decision.

I am sure that is what Calvinism teaches, but it is not what the Bible teaches. 1 Peter 1:1-2 says God elects according to His foreknowledge. It's what the Bible says. We can go over the verse and discuss it if you like.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I'm having a bit of trouble following you. You keep using the word, "for". "For", in what context? For sin, for sinning, what do you mean --that I am in favor of sin and sinning? Never!! I don't know what you are saying by saying I am arguing for sin or arguing for the opposite of not sinning. "Not sinning" in what context? (I won't do more than mention your double-negative, lol)

All I said in that post is that I don't say we don't sin, and that I say we do sin. How is that either one --arguing for or against sinning? It was neither, unless you mean, arguing for 'sin being something we do', or, arguing for the opposite of 'sin being something we should do'; or perhaps you meant something else, but not simply "arguing for sin". I am not in favor of sin.

See post #406.

Ok, so, post #406:

@Mark Quayle

Do you believe we can keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life? Yes, or no?
Do you believe we are saved even if we do not keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life?

Do you believe we have to keep the commandments of Jesus and His followers as a part of eternal life?
Yes, or no?

Before, by your words, you gave me the impression that we are already redeemed without the keeping of His commands. Is this true? If I am correct, would this not be a position of disobedience? If not, then please explain.

There. Ok I don't see how #406 answers my questions. I feel like when my wife wanted, no, expected me to know what she meant simply by her hints, half statements and body language. But I will happily deal with #406 on its own merits, apart from the "for" or "against" discussion. But just so you know, I have not been inconsistent.


1. BH: "Do you believe we can keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life? Yes, or no?"

MQ: I don't know what you mean by "keep" (i.e. obey perfectly, attempt to obey, pursue, keep in mind for a regulatory principle --what?, but ok, NO


2. BH: "Do you believe we are saved even if we do not keep the 1st greatest commandment in this life?"

MQ: Again, what do you mean by "keep"? But if anyone is "saved", it is not because he keeps any commandment, but because God has moved in, and Christ has taken his place of condemnation. If we continue to walk in disobedience we never were "saved". Nobody is saved, if failure to perfectly keep the 1st greatest commandment in any way, in this life, prevents them. Do not try to say I believe commandments need not be kept.


3. BH: "Do you believe we have to keep the commandments of Jesus and His followers as a part of eternal life?
Yes, or no?"

MQ: "Have to"? What do you mean by that? Already I wonder at what you mean by "keep". Then you say "as part of" eternal life. Wow. Loaded.

But, ok, "have to"? --we MUST, if we are in Christ, regenerated, redeemed. Not merely out of obligation or returned favor or thankfulness, but because we now have the mind of Christ, the Holy Spirit driven heart within us. So also, we MUST be putting the 'old man' to death. But do we? Yes, but not perfectly. But this love of God --the Spirit of God within us-- compels us

"Keep" the commandments --obey perfectly? We MUST! but we don't perfectly

"as part of" eternal life? I sincerely hope you don't think disobedience can undo what God has chosen for eternity. No, such disobedience will not continue in the regenerated elect. But do we sin? "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." No, I hope what you mean by "as part of eternal life" is that as part and parcel of the Holy Spirit within the regenerated heart we will continuously pursue, or at least desire and return to pursue, obedience, purity and holiness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am sure that is what Calvinism teaches, but it is not what the Bible teaches. 1 Peter 1:1-2 says God elects according to His foreknowledge. It's what the Bible says. We can go over the verse and discuss it if you like.

I shouldn't have said it with the words I did, and I stand corrected. I don't mean to quibble, but what I was referring to is your notion that God elects because he sees into the future what we are going to do. 1 Peter isn't talking about that, but about his intimate work --fore causing. To his timeless view, the past is not behind him and the future yet to come. To know is to cause. Calvinism says what the Bible says: that God elects according to his foreknowledge, but not that he looks into the future to find out what we are going to do. God's foreknowledge concerns the act of choosing, and whom he chooses. Look at Romans 8 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined". Do you think there was any need for him to predestine if he only looked into the future to see who would accept him?

The very meaning of Omnipotence does away with any pretense that he depends on anything outside of himself in order to act. Sovereign means he is not governed by anything outside of himself. It is ridiculous to say he must find out what happens in order to cause it to happen. (Oh, and it is not just Calvinists that believe the Biblical use of what is translated rather literally into "foreknowledge" means something besides simply what we think of as "seeing the future".)

 

[PaulCyp1]

Yes, we can, but not perfectly. We cannot do anything perfectly, because human beings are not perfect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then it would not be UNconditional Election if God elects according to His foreknowledge of what He knows we are going to do (Unless of course you don't believe in Unconditional Election).

In case I didn't hit it hard enough: Unconditional election is only a reference concerning the unworthiness of the elect to merit God's favor --and not directly a reference to how God makes the choice. Nevertheless, God's election is not by looking into to future to see what we are going to do, and using that for his guide. That isn't what "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" means.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? That’s not even close to what he said.

Thank you, bro. I'm trying to figure out if this is the way his mind works, or if is the way he talks, like half-statements and we don't get what he is saying....

 

[zoidar]

In fact, logically, he foreknows because he forecauses!

Do you have Bible verses for that, that God forecauses acts of evil?

 

[zoidar]

No. To me, if a person sins, they obviously don't love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.

What about Peter? Don't you think he loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength? And yet he failed the test, denied knowing Christ thrice.

 

[zoidar]

Do you think the command implies the ability to obey the command? Or does God say the Law is given to reveal what is in us?

Actually I think Jesus means for us to obey it, that we have the ability to do so through God's grace.

The purpose for the Law to reveal sin, I believe is mainly for the unsaved/unregenerated. They need to know they are sinners, so they repent and get born again (I think that is the correct understanding of Romans 7). Once being born of God, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit when we sin.

 

[zoidar]

Job 1:1 says,
“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.”

Luke 1:5-6 says,
“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Luke 1:5-6).

Revelation 14:3-5 says,
“And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.” (Revelation 14:3-5).


Many do not like what His Word says in many places, so they seek to either ignore it or change it to fit a belief they find more comforting to them. If I read these verses like a child, and simply read and believe them and not try to change these above verses, then I must conclude that it is possible based solely on what God's Word says. But men try to go off their own experiences as the guide or marker of their faith. But this is not what we build our faith upon. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). So if a believer struggles with sin, and they think it is impossible, they need to believe Scripture that says that with God, all things are possible. They need to believe Job 1:1, and Luke 1:5-6, and Revelation 14:3-5. For without faith, it is impossible to please God according to Hebrews 11. So what are we going to do when we stand before Him and we did not believe or have a simple faith in His Word like a child? What are we going to do? I pray that we may all change today and simply read God's Word plainly and believe it. But I know many will not do that. For narrow is the way that leads unto life, and FEW be there that find it.

These passages you mention Job and Luke are very interesting indeed. When Luke says Elisabeth and Zacharias were blameless, keeping the commandments, they also say that they kept the whole Mosaic Law, right? Since this was at the time of the Old Covenant. Would that be possible for any man, you think?

What would the Bible call David? He sinned gravely, but would the Bible refer to him as blameless?

For I have kept the ways of the Lord,
And have not wickedly departed from my God.
For all His ordinances were before me,
And I did not put away His statutes from me.
I was also blameless with Him,
And I kept myself from my iniquity.
Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.
— Psalm 18:21-24

My understanding is that they were blameless, not only because they kept the Law, but because they went to God for forgiveness when they failed to keep it. If I'm wrong, I will be happy for you to show me that.