How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

Uzzah was commanded not to touch the Ark and he broke that commandment, but I highly doubt that his fate is the lake of fire for all eternity for that offense.

I suppose you might have misspoken here, or not considered well your words.

Every sin is worthy of the lake of fire for all eternity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Scripture, judgment--both spiritual (loss of eternal life) and physical--is punishment.
Human death was a judgment of God on Adam for sin.

Actually death was included in the warning when God told Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge before Adam sinned. It was a consequence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I suppose you might have misspoken here, or not considered well your words.

Every sin is worthy of the lake of fire for all eternity.

I didn’t say that it wasn’t worthy of eternal punishment I said I doubt he was sent to the lake of fire for that offense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I suppose you might have misspoken here, or not considered well your words.

Every sin is worthy of the lake of fire for all eternity.

Do you realize that sin is not what separates the condemned from the saved? What separates them is repentance.

 

[Clare73]

Actually death was included in the warning when God told Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge before Adam sinned. It was a consequence.

In Scripture the "consequence" is judgment, just as the "consequence" of unbelief is the judgment of eternal death.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do conditional statements count?

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭21‬-‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

No. They don't. At least none that I have seen come right out and say

There is a discussion that I'm being doubted in ... when I asked if you were male or female ... Claire or Clarence .. I was sure you said male ... please correct me with the truth so as not to offend my brother further .. thanks

Brother, don't worry. I'm not in the least offended, unless for @Clare73 's sake. I'm rather enjoying this, and if I was her, I'd let it continue without resolution.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you realize that sin is not what separates the condemned from the saved? What separates them is repentance.

What separates them is God.

 

[Clare73]

Because the scriptures say that He is just and His judgement is just.

And who defines just?. . .the same one who defines sin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Scripture the "consequence" is judgment, just as the "consequence" of unbelief is the judgment of eternal death.

Ok I agree the consequence was a judgement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never claimed that "biblicist" is a word in the Bible. I do not believe the principle an essential doctrine. That said, I hadn't considered it.

Is defending on "what is written" rather than one's own understanding in Scripture? I think so.

How can @Clare73 's insistence that the Trinity is a challenge for those of us who take Scripture literally have any merit since Scripture states in its text that God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and the Father and Son are One?

I am not claiming that @Clare73 is aware of those passages. I am merely claiming they exist.

No, brother I meant that Biblicist is a word of various meanings and connotations. Even @Clare73 as I recall, has used it two different ways. Some take it to mean literalist to an absurd point and others simply literalist, and for the denier of plenary verbal inspiration, it is a term of contempt, while other believers are proud to accept the term. And there are other uses besides those.

I don't think she really believes the Trinity to be a challenge for literalists. After all, even she is a literalist. She only meant it is if literalism is taken to an absurd degree. At least, that is my take. She could answer better than I can.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No.
Brother, don't worry. I'm not in the least offended, unless for @Clare73 's sake. I'm rather enjoying this, and if I was her, I'd let it continue without resolution.

Well, I won't. You wouldn't be wrong in saying I was a sister, not a brother. But nevertheless it doesn't matter either way. ^-^ that I can agree on. Those days are obsolete no?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Her inderstanding of the Cross is not actually in the Bible. I question this method because the Bible ("what is written") makes sence and states (in the actual text) something entirely different from what @Clare73 believes.

You must be referring to something I completely missed. I find [what I have heard of] her understanding of the Cross to be very much in the Bible.

What is "this method" you refer to, apparently the method you think she uses. What is it?

So when there is a difference what do we believe...what is written or what some believe the text teaches? I say the former, @Clare73 the latter. We simply will never agree because of our approach to Scripture.

I think @Clare73 will surprise you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And who defines just?. . .the same one who defines sin.

When the scriptures were written the definition of the word “just” was already established before the author chose to use it. Are you suggesting that the author used the wrong word to describe God’s character and judgement?

 

[BNR32FAN]

What separates them is God.

That’s not what the scriptures say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Clare73 has more than just the trinty accountability. It seems that she/he has said different things to different people. I'm not mistaken on what was said.

Yes, @Clare73 has said different things even to the same person (ME haha), to try to get them to understand a single point, putting it different ways, as we all do, instead of merely repeating ourselves to no avail. She, unlike many of us, is capable of holding a concept at arms length to deal with it and discuss it, without committing to any of the usual ways of defining it. She will describe it from this side and that, from above and below, and her words are taken as contradiction. The point may be a doctrinal tenet, or a point of order in debate, or any number of things.

 

[Clare73]

I don't say "God is three in one". I say God is One - Father, Son and Spirit for the Father and Son are One and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God
The reason I say this is Scripture states God is One.
Scripture states that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. And Scripture states that the Father and Son are One.
Just saying "Three in One" is more of a slogan than a doctrine.

Au contraire. . .as presented in post #463,

three separate persons in the one Being, God, is doctrine,
the threeness in the oneness,
the three separate persons (as distinct from just three separate functions) in the one God,
the Trinity in the Unity.

For Scripture presents the following relationships among the three separate divine agents:

the Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (John 5:23,
36, 43),

the Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26), and

and the Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

A person doesn't send oneself, a person sends someone else who is a separate person.

Three separate persons in the one Being, God, is doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

[B]@Clare73[/B] is the one who brought up the Trinity, insisting a biblicist would not hold the doctrine that "God is three in one" because it is not in the Bible. I don't know where she gets those ideas, or why she introduced them on this thread.

I can help you with that.

It goes to your assertion of only "literal" interpretation of Scripture, where the Trinity is not "literally" stated in the NT.
If you believe in the "Trinity," you are not employing a "literal" interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes just as I suspected your getting it from inference not the actual definition of the word.

Do you not get it from inference? Where do you get THE Actual Definition Of The Word? Can you demonstrate? (And no, don't quote me the love chapter. Even there, it will be (to you) subject to your take on it.)

But: "God is love"; The "Lord our Righteousness"; "All things were made by him." "...I am perfect", (for starters).

Where do you get the notion that God must apply himself to complying with any of his own attributes? Are they not his, after all? Is it not obvious they are his very nature? Why would one assume that God decides to be good because it is good to be good?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you not get it from inference? Where do you get THE Actual Definition Of The Word? Can you demonstrate? (And no, don't quote me the love chapter. Even there, it will be (to you) subject to your take on it.)

But: "God is love"; The "Lord our Righteousness"; "All things were made by him." "...I am perfect", (for starters).

Where do you get the notion that God must apply himself to complying with any of his own attributes? Are they not his, after all? Is it not obvious they are his very nature? Why would one assume that God decides to be good because it is good to be good?

Because the word “just” already existed before it was put into the scriptures. It was already defined before the scriptures were written and that’s the word the authors choose to use to define God’s character and judgement.

 

[Clare73]

I asked a long time ago and that was the answer I recieved. You'll have to ask @Clare73 again.

Claire is female spelling, clare is short for clarence so I believed him.

Should I follow Mark's recommendation on this?