Hebrews says that God's new covenant nullified the old

[Guojing]

I'm not making an argument from my estimations, you just seem to be contentious by nature.

No, I am just trying to understand what you really meant when you said "they just won't do it, So not a choice either."

 

[RDKirk]

But you can be sure that you are saved, because you know for sure you won't be taking the mark of the beast?

I feel so, having heard and taken the Holy Spirit's word before. We have history.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, I am just trying to understand what you really meant when you said "they just won't do it, So not a choice either."

This relates to the Revelation passage that gives the prophet of the beast power over people to make them take the mark. Those with the Holy Spirit will not experience such a compulsion.

 

[Guojing]

This relates to the Revelation passage that gives the prophet of the beast power over people to make them take the mark. Those with the Holy Spirit will not experience such a compulsion.

Do you think Adam had a legit choice to make in the Garden, whether or not to take the fruit?

 

[Guojing]

I feel so, having heard and taken the Holy Spirit's word before. We have history.

Alright then, I can see you are indeed a covenant theologian. =)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you think Adam had a legit choice to make in the Garden, whether or not to take the fruit?

It's hard to say, I wasn't there.

However, the text does say that Adam and Woman (not yet named) were still one being. Since humans do not experience what the first humans did in the garden, any yes or no answer would be speculation at best.

 

[Guojing]

It's hard to say, I wasn't there.

However, the text does say that Adam and Woman (not yet named) were still one being. Since humans do not experience what the first humans did in the garden, any yes or no answer would be speculation at best.

Alright then, for me I believe the devil cannot make anyone take the mark of the beast. Free will is a central theme of scripture.

Human beings always have a choice, there will be gentiles saved during the Tribulation, at the cost of their physical lives, because they will choose not to take the mark.

Otherwise what the angel stated in Revelation 14:9-12 won't make sense.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Free will is a central theme of scripture.

Okay, that's not always the case. But if that's your logical premise, we probably won't agree.

 

[A_Thinker]

As Jesus stated clearly in that passage

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesus brethren are the Jews.

From whom would such works as Christ describe flow ?

 

[A_Thinker]

Human beings always have a choice, there will be gentiles saved during the Tribulation, at the cost of their physical lives, because they will choose not to take the mark.

For what other reason would they do so ... other than faith in God ?

 

[Guojing]

From whom would such works as Christ describe flow ?

You are not familiar with Matthew 25:31-46 Did you need me to quote the entire passage?

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

You seem to believe that these works will come automatically to anyone with faith? That no one with faith will not do these works?

 

[Guojing]

Okay, that's not always the case. But if that's your logical premise, we probably won't agree.

If you think Adam had a legit choice to make in the garden, then you are agreeing with me.

But if you choose to say "I am not sure", I guess that is how you can still hold on to your position.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If you think Adam had a legit choice to make in the garden, then you are agreeing with me.

But if you choose to say "I am not sure", I guess that is how you can still hold on to your position.

I tend to disagree with choiceism and it's opponent theology, they focus too much on what we do individually, and leaves God out of the equation.

Interesting logic, but bad fruit.

 

[Guojing]

I tend to disagree with choiceism and it's opponent theology, they focus too much on what we do individually, and leaves God out of the equation.

Interesting logic, but bad fruit.

Well the context that started this was what James stated in James 2, faith without works is dead.

So if there is no free will, James cannot be stating that. Faith and works are separated, you can have faith but if you have no works to show during the tribulation, your faith is dead and cannot save you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well the context that started this was what James stated in James 2, faith without works is dead.

So if there is no free will, James cannot be stating that. Faith and works are separated, you can have faith but if you have no works to show during the tribulation, your faith is dead and cannot save you.

Free will and Determinism didn't come into the theological arena until after the reformation, thus disqualified. It's not really about choice, it's about Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

Well the context that started this was what James stated in James 2, faith without works is dead.

So if there is no free will, James cannot be stating that. Faith and works are separated, you can have faith but if you have no works to show during the tribulation, your faith is dead and cannot save you.

I think James would have put "faith" in quotes if quotes had existed at the time. I think he was speaking sardonically, and was actually saying that "faith" which did not exhibit works was actually not faith at all.

 

[Guojing]

Free will and Determinism didn't come into the theological arena until after the reformation, thus disqualified. It's not really about choice, it's about Jesus.

But you would disagree with universalism still?

But now, you still need to believe in 1 Cor 15:1-4 to be saved? So an unbeliever can choose whether or not to believe?

 

[Guojing]

I think James would have put "faith" in quotes if quotes had existed at the time. I think he was speaking sardonically, and was actually saying that "faith" which did not exhibit works was actually not faith at all.

So what do you think Paul meant in Romans 4:5, regarding faith and works?

Do you think Paul also think that "faith" which did not exhibit works was actually not faith at all."?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But you would disagree with universalism still?

But now, you still need to believe in 1 Cor 15:1-4 to be saved? So an unbeliever can choose whether or not to believe?

It's not about choice.

Salvation is described as being born again.

When a baby is in a womb it does not have choice, the circumstances that placed the baby in the womb were out of it's control, but the baby comes out and begins to breathe anyway.

Faith is like breathing.

it's not about choice, it's all about a new life.

 

[RDKirk]

So what do you think Paul meant in Romans 4:5, regarding faith and works?

Do you think Paul also think that "faith" which did not exhibit works was actually not faith at all."?

They weren't talking about the same thing. Paul was talking about the mechanism of salvation--soteriology. Paul explicitly defined "works" for his Romans argument as the effort for which a person expected to be paid--within his Romans argument, the expected (in vain) "payment" by people doing such work being eternal life.

James was talking about the appearance of engendered in a person after salvation, which Paul also addressed at various times, such as Ephesians 2.