And this is even more work than before, but
Only the regenerate, who by faith are counted righteous with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, are counted/credited as righteous (sinless), just as Abraham was counted/credited as righteous (sinless) by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).
To the contrary, my post is exactly exegesis. Unlike your argument, I rely upon the Greek meanings, context, word usage, and you do not.
After too many posts of your bloviating, you’ve yet to construct an argument invoking the Greek meaning, word usage, and context, essentially your argument is devoid of any supporting evidence. Your argument is nothing more than you said so. That is a vacuous argument.
2) Nor is the word of God based in or on human rationale, philosophical analysis or historical precedent, on which you rely.
Oh the irony, coming from someone who has YET to perform an analysis of the Greek meaning of the words, word usage, and context to establish the Word of God supports what you’ve said it says.
Factually, the Word of God isn’t based upon your modus operandi of your type it, therefore it means it nonsense.
And human rationale IS necessary to understanding some parts of the Bible. The fact you think otherwise explains a lot. Human rationale IS needed for many of the end time metaphors and allegories. Human rationale is necessary to properly understand some of Paul’s new use of Greek words precisely because it was new. Human rationale is necessary to understand ambiguous parts of the Bible.
3) Nor did you do any research on Pelagius, or the philosophers in regard to "freewill," instead denying any such connection existed, when the evidence to the contrary is abundant.
And your evidence? Show my error, because all you do is make asinine comments, like the one above, and pathetically slink away from substantiating anything you’ve said with any exposition as to the text of the Bible supporting what you’ve said. You cannot be bothered to look up the meaning of the words, word usage, context, or grasp how and why metaphors are used.
Post the evidence for the above comment. I KNOW the evidence, I spent hours and semesters covering this subject matter in undergrad. And I know the evidence you say exist doesn’t exists
So, ante up with the evidence, I’ll be impressed if you do because it doesn’t exist. I’m right about Pelagius’ view. I’m right as to how Greek and Roman philosophy did not have a view of free will like Pelagius.
If you cannot cite the evidence the reason is obvious, it doesn’t exist, and is nothing more than you just having the liberty to type whatever you want with the conspicuous failure of any evidence for your view.
4) You labor the meaning of the Greek in the word "commit," as well as Jesus' meaning in "slave" and "free," and do not address the real issue: "freedom to be sinless," and the irrefutable evidence of its impossibility; i.e., no one is actually sinless and, therefore, no one has total "freewill" as Pelagius conceives it.
Better and preferred to your conspicuous lack of any laboring to support your messy logic.
When the Greek meaning of the words in the verse demonstrate your view is baloney, do you counter with an evidentiary argument of the meaning of the words in the verse? No. No. Context? No. Word usage? No.
Instead, you sidestep the evidence just repeat your claim.
freedom to be sinless," and the irrefutable evidence of its impossibility; i.e., no one is actually sinless and, therefore, no one has total "freewill" as Pelagius conceives it.
This is your “human rationale” and your human rationale means nothing. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
But there’s another problem with your “human rationale,” it is a nonsequitur. A double whammy of being your irrelevant “human rationale” and a human rationale with flawed reasoning. Quite a feat.
“
no one is actually sinless and, therefore,
no one has total "freewill" as Pelagius conceives it.”
The conclusion, in bold, doesn’t follow. So much for deductive reasoning. Why? The unstated assumption is everyone has sin and that sin was not the result of their freedom of choosing sin. Yet, it is equally plausible “no one is actually sinless” precisely and exactly because they used their “total freedom” to sin!
So your post is non-responsive to the real issue: man's free will is limited.
Oh you are very incorrect. My reply IS responsive to your feeble attempt at supporting your claim “man's free will is limited” with verses. I explained and argued why those verses lend no support for
your claim “man's free will is limited.” Hence, my reply is responsive.
While I’m at it, your entire argument isn’t responsive or lucid as it is your burden to support your claim “
man’s free will is limited.” Your claim, your burden. There’s been no verse cited or quoted supporting your view. None. I’ve argued and explained why those verses do not support your view, hence my reply is responsive.
Freewill" in the sense of which it is used philosophically; i.e., "the power to execute all moral choices," is not in the NT.
If there is a “philosophical” meaning that isn’t it!!!! Anyone who spends a day in a philosophy class would know that! What is your source, the evidence, for your bizarre “philosophically” meaning? It is time to actually use evidence for your claims.
In fact, it is denied in the NT, where no unregenerate person is counted as righteous (sinless). Humans have only a limited free will/power (philosophically called "free agency")
Is it denied in the NT? Where, not the verses you cited to, as the the Greek meaning of those NT verses lend no support for what you’ve claimed.
And in the OT, it simply meant voluntary action, used only in reference to offering sacrifices.
Power to accomplish was not part of its meaning.
Oh really? And this is so because you’ve typed it? Where’s the evidence for the above, you know the text of the OT and the meaning of those Hebrew words that support the above claim? Once again, more of you claiming what you want while providing NOTHING from the Bible and the meaning of the words from the Bible that supports your view.
Your argument is worse than those advocating geocentrism. At least geocentrists do cite to verses and evidende from the Bible for their point of view, despite being misguided as you about its meaning.
