Absolutely Free or Not?

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

In the bible it is not so. It is "logizomai" in Greek. It is simply "thought to be", "suppose", "consider".

Here are all the instances in the NT.


elogizomhn
1 Cor 13:11

elogizonto
Mark 11:31

elogisqhmen
Rom 8:36

elogisqh
Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:9, Rom 4:10, Rom 4:22, Rom 4:23, Gal 3:6, Jam 2:23

logizesqai
Rom 4:24

logizesqe
Rom 6:11, Php 4:8

logizesqw
1 Cor 4:1, 2 Cor 10:7, 2 Cor 10:11

logizetai
Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5, Rom 4:6, Rom 9:8, 1 Cor 13:5

logizh
Rom 2:3

logizomai
Rom 8:18, 2 Cor 10:2, 2 Cor 11:5, Php 3:13, 1 Pe 5:12

logizomeqa
Rom 3:28

logizomenoV
2 Cor 5:19

logizomenouV
2 Cor 10:2

logizomenw
Rom 14:14

logisamenoV
Heb 11:19

logisasqai
2 Cor 3:5

logishtai
Rom 4:8, 2 Cor 12:6

logisqeih
2 Ti 4:16

logisqhnai
Acts 19:27, Rom 4:11 logisqhsetai
Rom 2:26

No, the context is what defines logizomai.

Such as in Romans 4:8, logizomai is translated as "will" and "impute".

Some instances it means "accounted to", which is the same as "impute".

 

[Outrider]

Rom 9 shows God makes choices based on man's obedience.

God knew Jacob would obey whereas Esau would not.

God gave Pharaoh, much like Nebuchadnezzar, the chance to obey Him and when Pharaoh chose to disobey, he was punished.

From Jeremiah 18, we see the clay is not passive, it depends on the clays behaviour as to how it is formed.

Not according to Jesus:
Matthew 11:21 (ESV)
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

So God looked down through the corridors of time and saw that if the mighty works of grace had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. Knowing this, he judged them guilty and destroyed them.

So much for Conditional Election.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

See my previous post. You are wrong.

Oh, I see, Romans 3 doesn't really say that God's righteousness is "to all and on all".

Words mean things.

"To all", means there is a direction from one location to another.

"On all" means the object(righteousness) is laid on the subject, "all".

Your previous post had nothing to do with that.

 

[holdon]

No, the context is what defines logizomai.

Such as in Romans 4:8, logizomai is translated as "will" and "impute".

Some instances it means "accounted to", which is the same as "impute".

But you said it meant: credited something to somebody. That's not what it is. If you say: "accounted", "counted for", "reckoned", I can agree with that.

Re. Romans 4:8 the same word is used also in 2 Cor 12:6 "lest any one should think". Just to illustrate my point....

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Job also speaks of the imputed righteousness of God applied to men,

Job 33:26







26 He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him,
He shall see His face with joy,
For He restores to man His righteousness.

Because God has mercifully and graciously restored God's Righteousness to a man, whom born in unrighteousness, is restored to the righteousness of God that Adam originally had when being made in the image of God, and created good, the man who has been restored rejoices and takes delight in a Merciful, Gracious God, who has restored him undeservedly.

 

[Outrider]

Words mean things.

Not to the disciples of Clintonism. I'm afraid holdon has a rather exaltied view of his paultry dabblings in Greek. Unfortunately he hasn't quite gotten to Dana and Manty's chapter on prepositions yet... which is at the beginning of the book. I'd join you in this discussion, Augustine, but I just took a shower and I'm not feeling like playing in the sandbox just now.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

But you said it meant: credited something to somebody. That's not what it is. If you say: "accounted", "counted for", "reckoned", I can agree with that.

Re. Romans 4:8 the same word is used also in 2 Cor 12:6 "lest any one should think". Just to illustrate my point....

In some cases it does mean "credited to".

Accounted for means the same thing as credited to.

The context determines the meaning.

Romans 3:21-22 describes beyond any shadow of a doubt the Righteousness of God, a source outside of the man, is directed to and bestowed on the one who is redeemed.

 

[holdon]

Not to the disciples of Clintonism. I'm afraid holdon has a rather exaltied view of his paultry dabblings in Greek. Unfortunately he hasn't quite gotten to Dana and Manty's chapter on prepositions yet... which is at the beginning of the book. I'd join you in this discussion, Augustine, but I just took a shower and I'm not feeling like playing in the sandbox just now.
[/size][/color][/font]

Says someone who could distinguish between prepositions and prefixes as I recall.... And what was that about words and their relative pronouns according in gender?

You must be smelling like a rose by the way!

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Not to the disciples of Clintonism. I'm afraid holdon has a rather exaltied view of his paultry dabblings in Greek. Unfortunately he hasn't quite gotten to Dana and Manty's chapter on prepositions yet... which is at the beginning of the book. I'd join you in this discussion, Augustine, but I just took a shower and I'm not feeling like playing in the sandbox just now.
[/size][/color][/font]

It's not only the Klintonistas, but all postmodernists have rejected that words mean things.

They have their feet planted firmly in mid-air.

I'm outta here too. Gotta get ready for a supper meeting.

Seeya

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[holdon]

In some cases it does mean "credited to".

Accounted for means the same thing as credited to.

The context determines the meaning.

Romans 3:21-22 describes beyond any shadow of a doubt the Righteousness of God, a source outside of the man, is directed to and bestowed on the one who is redeemed.

Let's look at the context then:
There are eleven passages in scripture which speak of imputing righteousness or for righteousness; in nine of them faith is imputed for righteousness; so that here it does not mean the value of the thing done which is imputed, or our faith would be the merit. They are Romans 4: 3, 5, 9, 10, 22-24; Galatians 3: 6; and James 2: 23. The others, where it is said righteousness is imputed, are Romans 4: 6, 11. In Romans 4: 6, it is, God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Here, clearly no positive external thing is imputed or put to another's account, but a man is reckoned to have dikaiosune. Verse 11 leads us to exactly the same result. The Gentile believers were to be reckoned righteous, because faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness when he was uncircumcised.

 

[Outrider]

Actually, the word "counted" or "reckoned" is connected to a banking transaction. This is reflected in Luke 22:37 (ESV) For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." Meaning that it can refer to a simple adding of one thing to a group. Here, Jesus is added to the number of the transgressors. The same word is used in Romans 4:4 (ESV) "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." Later, expanding on this Paul quotes fromt he Older Testament Romans 4:9-10 (ESV) "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised." It was placed in Abraham's account, like a deposit. It did not come from Abraham's account of righteousness, which was empty, it had to come from without and be laid up for him. The righteousness comes from God and is imputed to, accounted to deposited for the person who exercised saving faith wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts through regeneration and the effectual work of the Gospel (which is the power of God to salvation).

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Romans 3:21-22;

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe.

Anyone who says that "to all and on all" is not the righteousness of God directed to and laid on those who believe is playing fast and loose with the truth.

 

[Outrider]

Let's look at the context then:
There are eleven passages in scripture which speak of imputing righteousness or for righteousness; in nine of them faith is imputed for righteousness; so that here it does not mean the value of the thing done which is imputed, or our faith would be the merit. They are Romans 4: 3, 5, 9, 10, 22-24; Galatians 3: 6; and James 2: 23. The others, where it is said righteousness is imputed, are Romans 4: 6, 11. In Romans 4: 6, it is, God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Here, clearly no positive external thing is imputed or put to another's account, but a man is reckoned to have dikaiosune. Verse 11 leads us to exactly the same result. The Gentile believers were to be reckoned righteous, because faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness when he was uncircumcised.

Fine. And since no man has righteousness, no man is righteous... the righteousness accounted must come from the one and only place in Scripture where there is righteousness... God... particularly through Christ. That is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. It is unavoidable in Scripture. Unless you want to show me in Scripture where man is deemed righteous of his own merit and apart from God and Christ. There is no righteousness in man. For him to have righteousness, it must be someone elses given to him... Jesus's. Case closed. Class dismissed.

 

[Outrider]

Romans 3:21-22;

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe.

Anyone who says that "to all and on all" is not the righteousness of God directed to and laid on those who believe is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Is being seriously stiff-necked and contumacious.

 

[Outrider]

Says someone who could distinguish between prepositions and prefixes as I recall.... And what was that about words and their relative pronouns according in gender?

I just threw open my Greek New Test. 'cause I knew it'd be that easy to find. Aporphanistentes, a verb. Note the prefix. Its a preposition "ap" meaning "away from". You'll see these on every page of the New Testament, they're so common. As for the second accusation, you must have me confused with someone else. I don't know what your talking about there.

You must be smelling like a rose by the way!

Going to a Father/son campout, where I'll soon be sipping brew and smoking a fine cigar... talking to the other dads about the Imputation of righteousness and smelling like wood smoke.

 

[jmacvols]

If Eph. 4:5 were referring to the sacrament of baptism why doesn't it list "one Lord's Supper" as well? The "one baptism" is not "water baptism". John mentions three baptisms, one of water, one of the Holy Spirit and one of fire. In Mark 1:8, John makes a distinctions between baptisms saying, "I have baptized you with water, but he [Jesus]will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." I would say that this Baptism of the Holy Spirit or Baptism into
Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3) is a more real and saving baptism than any sprinkling or emersing in water by men. In fact, if you'll examine all of the passages on baptism and not just the one or two that suit your grid I'll think you'll be drawn to the conclusion that Christ instituted water baptism as a sign and seal of the One Baptism of salvation. As for the baptism of the Great Commission, that is water baptism. Pay attention to who is doing the Baptizing to destinguish between the sign and the signified. If men are baptizing, it is the sign. If Christ or the Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing, it is the signified, the thing water baptism is pointing to, which is cleansing from sin.

The baptism of the great commission was commanded, administered by man, and lasts till the end of time. Therefore it is water baptism, man cannot administer baptism in the HS, baptism in the HS was promised only to the apostles, and Joel's prophecy of baptism in the HS has been fufilled, hence the one baptism of Eph 4:5 is water baptism.

There is no blood in the baptismal font. Just water. And since, as you pointed out, Christ's blood washes away sins, then water baptism is not the thing that does the job, but it is a sign pointing toward the blood.

How can you be against water baptism when from your above quote you show you do not understand what water baptism is about? Where was people told after the church begain in Acts 2 that "belief only" casues Christ's blood to wash away sins? Did Peter in Acts 2:38 say 'belief alone' remits sins? No. Did Christ say he that believes is saved and can be baptized later? No.

 

[jmacvols]

No, there was an entire group who were speaking in tongues and praising God, which was the result of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10.

Only believers are given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And they were given the gift of the Holy Spirit before being water baptized.

You have been deceived.

You just chose to ignore the order of events in Acts 11.

 

[holdon]

Going to a Father/son campout, where I'll soon be sipping brew and smoking a fine cigar... talking to the other dads about the Imputation of righteousness and smelling like wood smoke.

I knew it would not last long: the good smell. It never does. But by all means bring the subject up with the other smokers...

 

[jmacvols]

Not according to Jesus:
Matthew 11:21 (ESV)
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

So God looked down through the corridors of time and saw that if the mighty works of grace had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. Knowing this, he judged them guilty and destroyed them.

So much for Conditional Election.

This has nothing to do with Romans 9.
But in Mt 11:20, why did Jesus choose to upbraid them? Because they repented not--disobeyed.

 

[holdon]

Actually, the word "counted" or "reckoned" is connected to a banking transaction. This is reflected in Luke 22:37 (ESV) For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." Meaning that it can refer to a simple adding of one thing to a group. Here, Jesus is added to the number of the transgressors. The same word is used in Romans 4:4 (ESV) "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." Later, expanding on this Paul quotes fromt he Older Testament Romans 4:9-10 (ESV) "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised." It was placed in Abraham's account, like a deposit. It did not come from Abraham's account of righteousness, which was empty, it had to come from without and be laid up for him. The righteousness comes from God and is imputed to, accounted to deposited for the person who exercised saving faith wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts through regeneration and the effectual work of the Gospel (which is the power of God to salvation).

This whole story sounds nice, but has not biblical foundation. God considered Abraham righteous when Abraham believed Him. It was not about a certain amount of righteousness being transferred at that time. Abraham himself was held to have righteousness. See Gen 15:6; Ps 106:31.