The Tulip is broken

Van said:

Hi Mattlock73, I have a riddle for you. Why is it that every time I see "so you are saying..." what follows is obviously unbiblical. If the effort was actually to paraphrase my position, it would be right perhaps more than half the time. rather than wrong nearly 100% of the time. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Hi Van. I rephrase because it appears from your posts that it is what you are saying and I want to make sure that is your point. As for being wrong nearly 100% of the time, maybe you should express yourself more clearly.

Now riddle me this, why is it that ever time I see you start off with "The Calvinists..." you seem to intentionally distort and twist the Calvinist viewpoint with dishonesty and malice? It only goes to reason that if you were making an effort to rephrase the position, you would get it right at least half of the time instead of being wrong nearly 100% of the time.

Do you really think the bible says you can work your way to heaven?

Click to expand...

No I do not. As I stated below. Several times. Again and again in fact.

I think not. But does God say He credits our faith as righteousness? Romans 4:5. Well then, the Bible teaches that our faith provides our access to God's grace. Romans 5:2.

Click to expand...

That's good that you don't believe we can merit our way into Heaven, which is why I asked for clarification. But it seems a bit contradictory to me concerning some of your other statements about God reading our 'capability to have faith' and basing His election on ones own ability or merit. That's where my confusion comes in.

Van said:

So I should express my self more clearly. Give me a break. It is you who posted the obvious misrepresentation, not me. And I never distort Calvinist doctrine, I present the doctrine and the Calvinists deny there own doctrine.

Click to expand...

In post 83 of the conditional election thread you said, and I quote " God chooses who to give grace to based on the person's characteristic or attribute of humbleness. " That is the source of my confusion. How then did I misrepresent your views? You have stated that salvation is based at least partly on merit, did you not? If I am misunderstanding, than please show me how.

Lets take Total Spiritual Inability. That means a person is unable to seek after God. Now you can say, no, it means unable to seek after God effectively, but that is not Calvinist doctrine. You can show no published source for that statement.

Click to expand...

No, it means unable to seek after God spiritually, for the things of God are spiritually discerned. Man has been seeking god(s) (idols, enlightenment, nature, etc) in his sin since the beginning, but cannot understand the things of the God without being regenerated.

And then you end with this misrepresentation. "about God reading our 'capability to have faith' and basing His election on ones own ability or merit. That's where my confusion comes in." Is that even close to what I said? Nope. I said God gave us the capacity to have faith. Not God reading our capacity to have faith. Why not present what I said. The reason is obvious. Go figure. Did I say election is based ones ability or merit? Nope. Yet again you attribute this unbiblical position to me. You misrepresent my position 100% of the time and then say its my fault. Have you no respect for the truth? I said election is based on God crediting our faith as righteousness. I have said this perhaps 100 times. Yet do you present that as my position? Nope. LOL

Click to expand...

Read what you wrote and tell me how I am supposed to interpret that statement.

Van said:

So I should express my self more clearly. Give me a break. It is you who posted the obvious misrepresentation, not me. And I never distort Calvinist doctrine, I present the doctrine and the Calvinists deny there own doctrine.

Click to expand...

Wow . . . I can't decide if this demonstrates denial, deception, delusion, or some of all three.

Brother,

Express youself more clearly? Yes! Your posts are often (not always) cryptic, making only distant allusions to points that you are apparently trying to make.


Never distort Calvinist doctrine? Wow! I suspect that you actually believe that what you are writing is true. However, your "explanations" of Calvinist doctrine could rarely even be rightly called caricatures - bearing as they do so little resemblence to Calvinism.

Still, if your abilities to rightly understand the writings of Calvinists in the explanation of their own doctrine are on a par with your hermeneutical skills, I suspect that you believe that your ARE accurately representing what you have read. Repeatedly you direct our attention to Scriptures that you say "clearly prove" this or that. You have repeatedly pointed out causes-and-effects where none exist and laid claim to other logical conclusions/connections that have no basis in the rules of logic.

Further, you frequently berate others for failing to provide Scriptural evidence (despite the fact that you are responding to posts that are filled with specific Scripture quotes and their related addresses). This particularly ironic when it is rare that you actually provide biblical text that supports your position, providing instead loose paraphrases of snipets of partial verses.

It's not a bad strategy. After all, you are not "wasting time" building your arguements from biblical text. Generally, you simply write from memory, leaving the heavy lifting of the debate to those who actually attempt to show, with Bible quotes, the evidence of their positions. Eventually, you may likely outlast those who disagree with you. I certainly tire rapidly of your dogged unswerving repetion of the same unsubstantiated positions over, and over, and over, and over again.

Wow.

Van,


I said God gave us the capacity to have faith.
Like saying He gave a dog in a dessert the capacity to widdle against a tree.

msortwell said:

Wow . . . I can't decide if this demonstrates denial, deception, delusion, or some of all three.

Click to expand...

Definitely D, all of the above.

msortwell said:

Brother,

Express youself more clearly? Yes! Your posts are often (not always) cryptic, making only distant allusions to points that you are apparently trying to make.

Click to expand...

Those points are meant to be accepted without question. Of course, accepting those points, in toto, without question, concedes the argument.

msortwell said:

Never distort Calvinist doctrine? Wow! I suspect that you actually believe that what you are writing is true. However, your "explanations" of Calvinist doctrine could rarely even be rightly called caricatures - bearing as they do so little resemblence to Calvinism.

Click to expand...

That is the core truth. The anti-Calvinists constantly try to set themselves up as the "experts" on Calvinism, the "arbiters and dispensers of the truth" about Calvinism, while demonstrating with nearly every post their utter ignorance of Calvinism, and their extreme unwillingness to be corrected, or to learn correctly what Calvinism teaches. that is the dirty little secret they try so hard to hide, with bluff, bluster, indignation, etc. Smoke and mirrors.

msortwell said:

Still, if your abilities to rightly understand the writings of Calvinists in the explanation of their own doctrine are on a par with your hermeneutical skills, I suspect that you believe that your ARE accurately representing what you have read. Repeatedly you direct our attention to Scriptures that you say "clearly prove" this or that. You have repeatedly pointed out causes-and-effects where none exist and laid claim to other logical conclusions/connections that have no basis in the rules of logic.

Click to expand...

Logic? Consistency? Hermeneutics? The anti-Calvinists don't need to concern themselves with such things! They only make it harder to achieve their primary goal, which is to silence Calvinism and Calvinists by any and all means, no matter how illogical, unscrupulous, or damaging. they complain when they are taken to task for their methods, yet engage in disparagement, invective, accusations and implications of sin, innuendo, and believe they are totally justified in doing so, while decrying anyone who holds them to the same standard they insist that others apply toward them. Hypocrites and duplicitous, they accuse others of what they themselves do.

msortwell said:

Further, you frequently berate others for failing to provide Scriptural evidence (despite the fact that you are responding to posts that are filled with specific Scripture quotes and their related addresses). This particularly ironic when it is rare that you actually provide biblical text that supports your position, providing instead loose paraphrases of snipets of partial verses.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. absolutely spot-on. This is a common tactic of the anti-Calvinists.

msortwell said:

It's not a bad strategy. After all, you are not "wasting time" building your arguements from biblical text. Generally, you simply write from memory, leaving the heavy lifting of the debate to those who actually attempt to show, with Bible quotes, the evidence of their positions. Eventually, you may likely outlast those who disagree with you. I certainly tire rapidly of your dogged unswerving repetion of the same unsubstantiated positions over, and over, and over, and over again.

Wow.

Click to expand...

That's what they count on, wearing down Calvinists through vain repetition, inane, illogical ad hominems, and accusations designed to throw Calvinists on the defensive, rather than focus on the subject. Their theology won't stand up to intense scrutiny, so they try to deflect such scrutiny by whatever means, and then claim victory by means of non-theological methods. As Paul warned, they wrest the scriptures, to their own destruction.

nobdysfool said:

The anti-Calvinists constantly try to set themselves up as the "experts" on Calvinism, the "arbiters and dispensers of the truth" about Calvinism, .......

Click to expand...

Do you ever provide anything of substance to the discussion or is your sole mission in these forums to point out what the "anti-Calvinist" is attempting at any given moment?

-A

nobdysfool said:

. . . The anti-Calvinists constantly try to set themselves up as the "experts" on Calvinism, the "arbiters and dispensers of the truth" about Calvinism, while demonstrating with nearly every post their utter ignorance of Calvinism, and their extreme unwillingness to be corrected, or to learn correctly what Calvinism teaches . . . .

Logic? Consistency? Hermeneutics? The anti-Calvinists don't need to concern themselves with such things! They only make it harder to achieve their primary goal, which is to silence Calvinism and Calvinists by any and all means, no matter how illogical, unscrupulous, or damaging.

Couldn't have said it better myself. absolutely spot-on. This is a common tactic of the anti-Calvinists. . . .

Click to expand...

Brother,

I appreciate the endorsement. However, we should be careful not to bin all non-Calvinists together with the "anti-Calvinists."

I have discussed and debated theological differences with non-Calvinists who argue their positions from the Scriptures - and do so with grace. Each side has proponents that take the Scriptures very seriously and endeavor to rightly divide God's Word.

Relative to Van's objection that the subject post was unrelated to the topic, I will accept what ever chastening the Moderators consider to be appropriate. At the time of the post, I believed that directing the attention of onlookers to the weak/inappropriate debate practices of a participant in the subject debate was appropriate - particularly when it is readily affirmed or refuted by reviewing the postings.

Blessings

Van said:

Folks, read post 63 again carefully and see if you can find anything concerning the topic, or is it totally a disparagement of me? Go figure, that is all they have. Personal incredulity offered as evidence for a poor worded message, and disparagement rather than actually addressing the fact that the Tulip is broken. For example, read the opening post and see if biblical references are MIA? LOL

Click to expand...

More of the same from you. In post 63 I asked you to clarify a statement from another thread that has a direct bearing on this conversation, instead we get deflection and straw men. Since you seem to suffer from a deplorable lack intellectual integrity and honesty, I am done banging my head against the wall with you. I expect this is your goal, as has been stated so well by others in this and other threads, to use half scriptures, out of context quotes, straw man arguments, red herrings and ad hominem attacks to exasperate anyone who is willing to try and point out the errors (of which there are many) in your monologues.

Van said:

Here are the four points of the TULIP, in John MacArthur's words, that I believe are unbiblical.

“Total depravity” means you can’t do anything to save yourself. You can’t even make a right choice. You can’t awaken your spiritual deadness. You can’t give life where there is death. You can’t come to a right conclusion on your own. Total depravity means that everyone, is by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own choices, incapable of redemption. That’s total depravity.”

This statement is almost biblical, only the “bolded” sentences are unbiblical. God sets before us the choice between life and death, and therefore to say we are unable to choose life contradicts scripture. To avoid the obvious contradiction, Calvinists say when you choose the only choice available, death, you are actually making a “choice.” But that redefines “choice” to mean “non-choice.” Jesus teaches in Matthew 13:20-22 that some men who are dead in their trespasses and sins received the gospel with joy, certainly the right choice. Therefore the "T" in the Tulip is unbiblical if it is asserted to apply to all men.

“In the case of “Unconditional election”, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition.”

This statement is completely unbiblical, James 2:5 tells us God chooses people based on their condition, those rich in faith, those that love God, and those who do not treasure the things of this world. Paul teaches a similar truth in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. And again, Paul teaches that God chooses people in his day, just as God chose people who were faithful in Romans 11:3-6. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish.

“Limited atonement”, in the typical reformed view, means that the atonement, in its actual work, the actual efficacy of the atonement, was only for the elect.”

Again, this statement is completely unbiblical, 1 John 2:2 tells us that Christ became the propitiation (means of salvation) not only for us (members of the Church) but also for the whole world. Paul tells us He laid down His life as a ransom for all. Therefore the finished work of the cross provides (1) the means of salvation available to all men, and (2) provides salvation for anyone spiritually placed in Christ.

“Irresistible grace”, which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of a sinner, the sinner can’t resist.”

And finally, this too, is almost biblical. But it is carefully crafted to blend the idea that God's will, what ever it is, cannot be resisted, with the false idea that God's will is to compel people with Irresistible Grace to trust in Christ. However, in Matthew 23:13 men who are entering, or trying to enter the Kingdom of Yahweh, and therefore could not be turned aside because of irresistible grace if the premise were true, are turned aside and do not enter. Therefore it is God's will to allow men to accept or reject the gospel and not compel them as Calvinism wrongly asserts.

Click to expand...

You always leave one out, Van. Make it five for five, you're almost there:



John 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned".
1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall".

2 Chronicles 15:2 "If you search for him, he will let himself be found by you; but if you leave him, he will leave you".

Hebrews 3:12-14 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."


2 Timothy 2:12 "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us".

2 Peter 2:20-21 "They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them."

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father."

In Van's original post that launched this discussion, we read . . .

Van said:

Here are the four points of the TULIP, in John MacArthur's words, that I believe are unbiblical.

“In the case of “Unconditional election”, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition.”

This statement is completely unbiblical, James 2:5 tells us God chooses people based on their condition, those rich in faith, those that love God, and those who do not treasure the things of this world. Paul teaches a similar truth in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. And again, Paul teaches that God chooses people in his day, just as God chose people who were faithful in Romans 11:3-6. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish.

Click to expand...

James 2:5 allows no such interpretation unless we use only the KJV. Still, it would require you to infer your interpretation. You may do so, but you would be embracing an understanding of the text that is contrary to the translators of the NKJV, the Geneva, the NASB, the ASV, and the RSV.

James 2:5
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? KJV

James 2:5
5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? NKJV

James 2:5
5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? NASB

James 2:5
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world (to be) rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? ASV

James 2:5
5 Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? RSV

Well, perhaps your assessment of 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 is more solid.

1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. KJV

Well, I can't say that it is a more solid interpretation. In fact, the text teaches NOTHING regarding the faith, or the love of God held by those He chooses. Further, it should be noted that it does NOT say that there is a fundamental difference (relative to faith etc.) between the condition of the elect and the condition of the reprobate. The clear (and necessary) implication of the text is that there are some wise, mighty, noble, elect and there are some wise, mighty, noble, reprobate.


How about Romans 11:3-6 does it teach that God chose people who were faithful?

Rom 11:3-6
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. KJV

Sorry but no. The text is intended to convey the truth that God is in control and determines, by election, who will follow Him (i.e., remain faithful to Him). Reject that interpretation if you will, but the notion that it teaches that God chose some BECAUSE they were faithful is fully unfounded. There is no language within the text that includes a cause-and-effect relationship intimating the basis upon which God selected some rather than others.

On to the next misleading claims.

Van said:

. . . Did I say election is based ones ability or merit? Nope. Yet again you attribute this unbiblical position to me. You misrepresent my position 100% of the time and then say its my fault. Have you no respect for the truth? I said election is based on God crediting our faith as righteousness. I have said this perhaps 100 times. Yet do you present that as my position? Nope. LOL"

Please tell me what you, Mattlock73, do not understand?

Click to expand...

Were the words "election is based upon ones ability or merit" used by Van? No. But, in Van's original post that launched this discussion, we read . . .

Van said:

Here are the four points of the TULIP, in John MacArthur's words, that I believe are unbiblical.

“In the case of “Unconditional election”, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition.”

This statement is completely unbiblical, James 2:5 tells us God chooses people based on their condition, those rich in faith, those that love God, and those who do not treasure the things of this world. Paul teaches a similar truth in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. And again, Paul teaches that God chooses people in his day, just as God chose people who were faithful in Romans 11:3-6. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish. [Emphasis Added]

Click to expand...

If the word "condition" was used to try to support the position that God's choice was not based upon "ability or merit," then the attempt failed. To say that God chooses a man unto salvation, even in part, because the man DOES this (loves God) or DOESN'T do that (love the things of the world) is to base that selection upon "ability or merit,"

Van said:

I said God gave us the capacity to have faith. If that is too complex an idea for you to understand, there is nothing I can say to make that more clear.

Click to expand...

It would have been helpful if you were to provide the answer to the question when its asked rather than simply objecting that you have been adequately clear already. If the answer to the question is what you just said above, it doesn't seem like it would be too painful to provide that answer when asked.

Van said:

Then: I said election is based on God crediting our faith as righteousness. If this is too complex an idea for you to understand, there is nothing I can say to make it more clear.

Click to expand...

So . . . election is based upon crediting faith as righteousness. Logically and chronologically, this would seem to require the following sequence:

1st Step - a person has faith

2nd Step - God credits said faith as righteousness.

3rd Step - God then chooses the person.

And this choice exercised by God results in what exactly? The person was justified (made right before God) at step 2. It seems nonsensical. More explanation would be helpful.

Van said:

Msortwell: You base your doctrinal support not what what scripture says, but on the additions of translators. LOL And even if you buy the fiction, you still have a conditional election, God keeping His promise to those who love Him. James 2:5 clearly shows that Unconditional election is false doctrine.

Click to expand...

What I am trying to show to you is that every group involved in the development of the translations that I cited agree that the text means something different than what you say it means. And those translators run the gamut of orthodox Christian views.

You can choose to base your doctrine on an understanding of James 2:5 that is at odds with the vast majority of translations available (the rest being non-committal on the issue) or you can find text that actually teaches what you erroneously claim to have been taught in James 2:5.

Van said:

Next 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 does not teach God choosing us because of faith, but it does teach God choosing us based on our condition, hence yet another clear passage of scripture that teaches conditional election. God chose the foolish things of this world to confound or shame the wise. This passage demonstrates unconditional election is false doctrine. No doubt about it.

Click to expand...

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. It demonstrates that God does choose some who are neither mighty, nor wise, nor noble. It further teaches that the selection of this type of person brings God glory. The point is that God DOES NOT choose those who, from a worldly perspective, might be more useful converts - He does not target the mighty/wise/noble for salvation.

Van said:

And then yet another rewrite of the text to avoid the obvious. God chose believers and hardened the rest. Give me a break. God chose those who had not bended their knees, those who had remained faithful. In the same way, God chose believers.

Click to expand...

You get no breaks. Here is what I was referring to when I wrote that you see “cause-and-effect” relationships where none are described. The text that you cited was Romans 11:3-6. Nowhere within that text is a “cause-and-effect” alluded to.

It is true that the text teaches that God has reserved some for Himself. It also teaches that there are 7000 men in that group. And further teaches that those 7000 have not bowed to the image of Baal, etc. But there is no text that alludes to which condition described within the text was a cause for any of the others. As a Calvinist, I will apply what I see in the broader context of Scripture to understand it as I described it before - a demonstration of God’s sovereign power in preserving some for Himself. As one who holds to a decidedly non-Calvinistic view, it would be appropriate for you also to bring information gained from clear teachings elsewhere in Scripture to bear on this text to help discern and explain its meaning. However, you are using this text as “proof text,” offering that it, even when read in isolation, demonstrates that God chose the 7000 because of what they did/didn’t do. Sorry, neither one of us could use it as proof text.

Van said:

Next we get usual fiction that if we satisfy God's conditional covenant, we somehow merit salvation. LOL If our faith had merit, it would be righteous on its own. But instead, God must credit our filthy rags faith as righteousness. It is God who creates the righteousness, not us.

Click to expand...

And here is an example of one of your cryptic references. You offer no explanation (or reference to an explanation posted elsewhere) that explains your view of what it means for faith to be credited as righteousness. It is as though you expect us all to have a Van decoder ring that translates your self-generated jargon into language understood by the masses. I understand faith that is counted for righteousness is saving faith - that described in Rom 4:5.

Rom 4:5
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. KJV

Please explain how you use of this phrase relates to a biblical precept, and where, in Scripture, that precept is established. I am confident that you will do no such thing. But eventually those “folks” you keep pleading to will see the pattern.

Van said:

Next, I provided the answer both before I was misrepresented and after. Not much room to offer a third answer.

Click to expand...

So you found it more productive in the debate to simply refuse to “repeat” yourself?

Van said:

Your step 1, 2 and 3 are in the correct sequence. Wonder of wonders. Why are you the first Calvinist to have the courage to actually represent my view?

Click to expand...

No comment.

Van said:

Final answer, God's choice of us unto salvation results in us being saved. Just as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, we are chosen through (1) sanctification by the Spirit - which refers to the Holy Spirit spiritually baptizing us into Christ, thereby sets us apart, and (2) we are chosen through faith in the truth - which refers to our faith in Christ.

Click to expand...

Sorry, another display of wrong interpretation.

2 Thess 2:13
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth KJV

God chose those addressed to (or for) salvation, depending upon the translation.

The means by which that salvation would occur was also chosen . . . “though sanctification by the spirit.”

I suspect that, were the Bible to mean that the choice was made through the Spirit, it would say so. It does not.

Van said:

Oops I missed one you tagged on at the end. Step two does not result in us being justified. Note the text does not say we are made righteous, it says our faith is credited as righteousness. Why misrepresent scripture? When are we justified. When we receive the benefits of the reconciliation. When do we receive the reconciliation? When we are spiritually baptized into Christ and undergo the circumcision of Christ! It all fits.

Click to expand...

Logically speaking we do not receive the benefits of reconciliation until AFTER being justified.

The salvific sequence (absent any reference to regeneration by the Holy Spirit) is . . .

A person perceives the gospel of Christ as truth - That is, he comes to faith in Christ.

God credits this faith in Christ as righteousness - He declares the one holding this faith as righteous (a.k.a., the man is justified).

The individual would be baptized into Christ, transferring the federal headship from the first Adam to Christ. An imputing the righteousness of Christ to the now saved individual.

What does not fit in your model is that a person is somehow credited righteousness because of manifested faith, but that person is not Justified. That makes no sense to me and would require more explanation.

Van

#45

Eric_C said:

Do you think that some person seeking after God for carnal purpose, is a person demonstrating "spiritual ability"?

Click to expand...

Van said:

Seeking after God demonstrates some spiritual ability

Click to expand...

You did not answer the point of my question. You only restated your opinion.

The Pharisees were outwardly seeking after God, but it was for selfish, carnal purpose. Jesus tells them that they are of their father the Devil. How are the Pharisees demonstrating spiritual ability when their father is the Devil?


In peace
Eric_C

frumanchu

#49

QED it certainly was!

God bless

Van said:
Galatians 3:23 we were kept under the law. Now according to your argument, we could walk away and not be under the law. Not the idea of the inspired text.

Click to expand...

Under the Law, the Jews were protected, but if they walked away from the Law they were vulnerable. God did not prevent the Jews from putting the law aside and doing their own thing, which resulted in them being beaten in battle. The Law is not a jail cell, but something you must agree and continue to agree to follow.

Van said:
Philippians 4:7, the peace of God shall keep or guard our hearts and minds. If our hearts and minds are being kept and guarded, by the peace of God, we would have to escape from God Almighty. Not the idea of the inspired text.

Click to expand...

Again this does not suggest we can not walk away from God’s peace.
Barnes’ again: The way to find peace, and to have the heart kept from trouble, is thus to go and spread out all before the Lord; compare Isaiah 26:3-4, Isaiah 26:20; Isaiah 37:1-7. The word rendered here "shall keep," is a military term, and means that the mind would be guarded as a camp or castle is. It would be preserved from the intrusion of anxious fears and alarms.
The idea is that we can have peace but it requires us to expose ourselves and if we do not then we are not protected (kept).

Van said:
2 Corinthians 11:32, we see that Paul had to "escape" from the city because it was being kept by a ruler. But if the ruler is God Almighty, you cannot escape.

Click to expand...

Bottom line, in every usage, the idea is to be kept so you will get what the keeper desires. And in our verse, 1 Peter 1:5, we are being kept by God Almighty so that we will get "a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Click to expand...

The idea is that the keepers protect you from outside enemies, but it does not suggest that they can protect us from ourselves.