"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[cygnusx1]

I am only repeating myself since you continue to make the same incorrect arguments. When Paul refers to being alive without the Law, he is, of course, referring to the state of the Jew before the Torah was given. This fits perfectly with the proposal I am putting forward. Note the things that Paul says about the Torah here:
but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died
This is clearly a statement about the giving of Torah. The chapter has been introduced as being about Torah (I have already made this case in an earlier post). When the Torah arrives in Israel, what is the first thing that happens? It condemns the Jew as Moses descends and they are breaking Torah by building the golden calf.
And what says about the advent of Torah bringing death is supported by other statements like this one from Romans 4;
because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
So there is no problem at all with Paul speaking about the Jew being alive before the giving of the Law.

Again I ask you , Define "died" , did Paul die , or did he really mean , "hey folks not me , the JEWS died at the giving of the Law , it was such a struggle FOR them to keep that they died trying ........ woe is Israel who shall deliver her from this body of death ..... " you see the problem you have created in attempting to make the passage speak of Paul and speak of Isreal at the same time without having any meaningful instruction for the believer ,

"Hey , it's me Paul , I want to tell you what happened to me before I was a Christian , I couldn't keep Torah even though my life according to Torah was blameless , and I thought you might like to know how I struggled , but hey , this has nothing to do with your own inner struggle because you don't have one , I just thought I would entertain you all " !!!

 

[expos4ever]

Let me ask you directly to answer this question: Is it true that a Christian cannot do good things?

Let me ask you if a Jew cannot do any 'good' things !!

"as to the Law blameless " said UNREGENERATE Paul. Did Paul not obey all the Torah , did he not Tythe , keep Shabbat , serve God with devotion and passion ...... yet you say he couldn't obey the TORAH , what nonesense!!!

Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. I never, repeat never, said that Paul did not keep Torah.

I understand that it must be frustrating for you to have your view challenged with such compelling arguments. How about if we leave it up to the reader to decide what is "nonsense" based on the actual content of the scriptural arguments?

Your position, of course, requires us to see Paul as engaging in over the top exaggeration when he says the Christian "cannot do good" or is "sold in slave to sin". This will already seem suspicious to the objective reader who knows that in Romans 8, Paul explains precisely how it is that the Christian can indeed do good:

8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,

You seem to think that my position fails because Paul kept Torah - and I agree he did keep Torah perfectly. But, and Paul's argument about the Law is very subtle, he kept it in a legalistic or nomistic fashion. But when it came to doing fundamental "good things" apart from the legalistic prescriptions of the Torah, he failed:

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.


Paul indeed obeyed Torah, but in a legalistic manner. That is not really what Torah intended people to do - to obey it as a dark and gloomy set of rules. If you think I am introducing this subtle distinction between legalistic observance of the Torah on the one hand, and "doing good" on the other, then I am in good company, as I am only echoing Paul's thinking on the matter:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

Here in Romans 9, Paul clearly suggests that there is a way of keeping Torah that leads to death. And this is precisely the way that Paul himself observed Torah. Let's be clear - I have not introduced this point about Torah in order to save my argument that we can see Paul as both obeying Torah and yet on the road to death.

I am merely following Paul. And Paul makes it clear that following Torah and "doing good" are not the same things. If they were, then Paul would not make the point he makes above in Romans 9.

 

[expos4ever]

Good point - he DOES NOT SAY: Wretched man that I was...

This fits perfectly well with my argument. I thought I had been clear about this, yet the point seemingly is not taken.

In parts of Romans 7, Paul talks about the past history of the Jew under Torah - such as when the Law was given and sin sprang to life.

Paul then switches to the present tense to assert that Jews still persist in this slavery to Torah in the present.

Therefore, to have Paul say "wretched man that I am" perfectly coheres with the proposal I am advancing.

 

[cygnusx1]

Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. I never, repeat never, said that Paul did not keep Torah.

This quote of yours contradicts your own words ;

You really interpret this in a manner that takes too many liberties. Paul says that he "cannot do good". You say "it isn't that Paul so struggled as a Christian that he never did any good ". Well, which is it? Your take on what Paul is saying is simply not reconcilable with the claim "I cannot go good". We all know that Paul, as a Chrstian, did plenty of good.

so for the sake of all readers I ask YOU , which is it , could Paul keep Torah or not , because when I address the fact that Paul could keep the Torah , you dismiss it by rejecting my understanding that Paul is not saying he could NEVER do any good (he payed Tythes , kept Shabbat , didn't steal etc ) didn't he !!!!!! , but you reject that view , and insist Paul as an unregenerate JEW COULDN'T do any good , even though he kept Shabbat etc ...... you really need to analyse this more carefully , because it doesn't mesh.

The rest of your post has been preemptively answered by me ; Post 315 where i have already done the necessary distinguishing between OUTWARD works and inward failure according to the Law keeping.

You are mistakenly taking "unable to do good " in an absolute sense in order to build a case that it cannot be a Christian , however this will never fly because even unregenerate JEWS are able to do good ;

Matthew 7:11


If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

you have yet to show how Romans 7 is answered by Romans 8 seeing as Romans 8 is an answer directly relating to the problem of Romans 7 , likewise you have yet to show how Romans 6 is joined in meaning with Romans 7 , seeing as there is a flow , Paul is talking about the Christian experience throughout Romans 6 , 7 and 8 .


BTW , show what if any conflict there is within the Christian , explain why Christians cannot be sinless in this life , and explain how the Law has nothing to do with Christians when this book quotes liberally the "Ten Commandments" except Shabbat at CHRISTIANS !

Romans 13

13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[cygnusx1]

what do others say ?

Why I Think Romans 7 Is Describing Indwelling Sin in Believers
http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/20...-7-is-describing-indwelling-sin-in-believers/


the discomfort of the justified life
by Jerry Bridges

http://frostminster.blogspot.com/2008/01/discomfort-of-justified-life.html



this page linked below just about says everything there is to say on Romans 7:14-16 make notes

http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_714-25.htm

 

[AndOne]

This fits perfectly well with my argument. I thought I had been clear about this, yet the point seemingly is not taken.

In parts of Romans 7, Paul talks about the past history of the Jew under Torah - such as when the Law was given and sin sprang to life.

Paul then switches to the present tense to assert that Jews still persist in this slavery to Torah in the present.

Therefore, to have Paul say "wretched man that I am" perfectly coheres with the proposal I am advancing.

No - it certainly doesn't make sense. Is English your first language? Do you not understand the difference between present and past tense? If he switches to present tense then your argument makes no sense. In order to meet with the proposal you are advancing he must be speaking in past tense.

Additionally if he is talking about the Jews in general and that they still persist in slavery then why doesn't he just say so? Why not say "the Jews still persist in slavery...." instead of "I." It makes no sense.

 

[beloved57]

it is Paul, the saint and the apostle, who here exclaims, "O wretched man that I am!"

Yes indeed, I am , not i was..

 

[expos4ever]

No - it certainly doesn't make sense. Is English your first language? Do you not understand the difference between present and past tense? If he switches to present tense then your argument makes no sense. In order to meet with the proposal you are advancing he must be speaking in past tense.

English is my first language, and my argument is clear and simple. What you find wrong with it is indeed a mystery. Please do not patronize me when the fact of the matter is that my arguments are clear and correct.

One more time. Paul begins his treatment in the past tense:

Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

I do not know why you have difficulty with my assertion here but here it is once more: Paul is speaking about the status of the Jew under Torah in the past. Long before Paul was born - that is to say in Paul's past - the Torah was given to Jews.

Later Paul switches to the present:

but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

The reason that Paul switches to the present is that he wants to make the point that even in the present, even after their Messiah has come - the Jew remains (in the present) in slavery to the Torah.

It is therefore clear that my proposal that Paul is talking about the status of the Jew under the Torah works perfectly well with the "past to present" transition that we get in Romans 7: the Jew was given the Torah in the past and it gave him problems in the past. The Jew who rejects Jesus in the present persists in the problematic state of being under Torah and a slave to sin.

I trust that this settles this particular issue. The argument that Paul is talking about the Jew under Torah in Romans 7 makes perfect sense of the "past to present" transition.

Additionally if he is talking about the Jews in general and that they still persist in slavery then why doesn't he just say so? Why not say "the Jews still persist in slavery...." instead of "I." It makes no sense

He does say this very thing plenty of times in Romans 9 and 11, if not elsewhere. And besides, I could pose the very same question to you - if Paul is talking about Christians in general, then why does he not simply say so. Here is stuff from Romans 9:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

Paul laments the Jew who has chosen to remain in slavery to Torah.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Again, Paul comments on how the Jew has missed to boat, having rejected the Messiah and choosing to continue to perform the works of the Torah. By "works" here, Paul is referring to the Torah - I can make that case if you do not believe me. From chapter 10:

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul argues the Jews seek a righteousness that is theirs and theirs alone- that is by staying under the confines of Torah that marks them out as a people. From chapter 11:

7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see

God has hardened Israel and they remain blind that Jesus is their true Messiah. They choose instead to remain under Torah, seeking righteousness that way.

So as we say, Paul is clear that he does indeed lament the on-going Jewish slavery to the belief that Torah is the path to God.

 

[expos4ever]

Sorry, but that comes off as "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." You just repeat the same things over and over again, and never really answer what others have brought up. You demonstrate all the earmarks of a closed mind.

Quite the contrary - the case that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah is compelling. It is consistent with the fact that Romans 7 is about the Torah - the Law of Moses, a fact that your position cannot make sense of, since, for Paul, the Christian is free of Torah. Now please tell me, where have any of you explained this? If this is about the Christian, why does Paul introduce the chapter as being about Torah and repeatedly keep it focused on Torah?

My position also does not have the embarrassing feature of having to say that "Paul was exagerating with that bit about the Christian being 'sold in slavery to sin'" or about the Christian being entirely unable to do good.

You tell me one point that I have not addressed and I will either address it or point to a post where it is addressed.

I find it somewhat thin on proof to insist that Paul is writing a long treatise on the finer points of the Torah and Law to an audience that is largely Gentile. It has no real application to them. I'm not denying that there may have been some Jews among the church at Rome, but they were not the prime focus of the letter. It's called Romans, for a reason. If not written primarily to Gentiles, it should have been called Jews.

Paul was not the Apostle to the Jews, he was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

He wrote an Epistle to Jews. It's called Hebrews.

As you seem to acknowledge, there were indeed Jews in the Romans church. And it makes perfect sense for Paul to make the case he makes in Romans 7. He needs the Gentiles to understand that the Jew has been hardened for their benefit - I have already explained this in detail so do not say that I have not addressed this issue. Why is this important? Because Paul wants the Roman church to be unified so that it can serve as a home base for Paul's intended future mission to Spain.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quite the contrary - the case that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah is compelling. It is consistent with the fact that Romans 7 is about the Torah - the Law of Moses, a fact that your position cannot make sense of, since, for Paul, the Christian is free of Torah. Now please tell me, where have any of you explained this? If this is about the Christian, why does Paul introduce the chapter as being about Torah and repeatedly keep it focused on Torah?

Not so fast expos , I did say ,

....... show what if any conflict there is within the Christian , explain why Christians cannot be sinless in this life , and explain how the Law has nothing to do with Christians when this book quotes liberally the "Ten Commandments" (except the Shabbat) at CHRISTIANS !

Romans 13

13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[JDS]

English is my first language, and my argument is clear and simple. What you find wrong with it is indeed a mystery. Please do not patronize me when the fact of the matter is that my arguments are clear and correct.

One more time. Paul begins his treatment in the past tense:

Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

I do not know why you have difficulty with my assertion here but here it is once more: Paul is speaking about the status of the Jew under Torah in the past. Long before Paul was born - that is to say in Paul's past - the Torah was given to Jews.

Later Paul switches to the present:

but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

The reason that Paul switches to the present is that he wants to make the point that even in the present, even after their Messiah has come - the Jew remains (in the present) in slavery to the Torah.

It is therefore clear that my proposal that Paul is talking about the status of the Jew under the Torah works perfectly well with the "past to present" transition that we get in Romans 7: the Jew was given the Torah in the past and it gave him problems in the past. The Jew who rejects Jesus in the present persists in the problematic state of being under Torah and a slave to sin.

I trust that this settles this particular issue. The argument that Paul is talking about the Jew under Torah in Romans 7 makes perfect sense of the "past to present" transition.


He does say this very thing plenty of times in Romans 9 and 11, if not elsewhere. And besides, I could pose the very same question to you - if Paul is talking about Christians in general, then why does he not simply say so. Here is stuff from Romans 9:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

Paul laments the Jew who has chosen to remain in slavery to Torah.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Again, Paul comments on how the Jew has missed to boat, having rejected the Messiah and choosing to continue to perform the works of the Torah. By "works" here, Paul is referring to the Torah - I can make that case if you do not believe me. From chapter 10:

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul argues the Jews seek a righteousness that is theirs and theirs alone- that is by staying under the confines of Torah that marks them out as a people. From chapter 11:

7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see

God has hardened Israel and they remain blind that Jesus is their true Messiah. They choose instead to remain under Torah, seeking righteousness that way.

So as we say, Paul is clear that he does indeed lament the on-going Jewish slavery to the belief that Torah is the path to God.

Thank you E4E, this is some good stuff!

 

[expos4ever]

Paul is talking about the arrival of the Torah - the commandment "came" when the Torah was given - and that was long before Paul was born. Paul also describes himself as being alive apart from the law - this is a description of the state of the Jew before the arrival of the Torah.

ahhh so he wasn't really alive , even though he said he was ... some stretch , no I don't buy what your pushing , If he meant the Jews he quite simply could have said The Jews , he has no trouble in many other Chapters.
BTW , even before Torah came men died , being under the CURSE of Adam , so in what valid sense are "The JEWS" alive before Moses , when they are all under the curse of Adam ... they all must die.

As to your point that if Paul wanted us to understand that he was talking about the Jews, he would have been explicit and mentioned "the Jews", you should know that this very challenge can be directed at you. If Paul intended us to see the Romans 7 discourse as a treatment of the state of Christians, why does he not explicitly identify struggling person as a Christian? You are, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, in the same quandary I am in. Paul never explicitly identifies who he is talking about.

In verse 24 of chapter 7, Paul asks:

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Let me spare you the effort of using this verse as evidence for your position. It works perfectly well with mine, since Paul can be seen as asking the question "who will rescue the Jew under Torah from his sorry state?". Answer: Jesus. So the reference to Christ here in no way works against the positions that Paul is describing the Jew under Torah.

BTW , even before Torah came men died , being under the CURSE of Adam , so in what valid sense are "The JEWS" alive before Moses , when they are all under the curse of Adam ... they all must die

Paul's argument about the Law is complex, but Paul is clear that there is indeed a sense in which the Torah brings death. From 2 Corinthians 3:7

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,

This answers your question - Paul sees the Torah as bringing death. I do not deny your point about Adam. But even though Paul's argument is complicated, this statement from 2 Corinthians proves that there is a sense in which the Jew underwent a transition from life to death when the Torah was given.

 

[cygnusx1]

As to your point that if Paul wanted us to understand that he was talking about the Jews, he would have been explicit and mentioned "the Jews", you should know that this very challenge can be directed at you. If Paul intended us to see the Romans 7 discourse as a treatment of the state of Christians, why does he not explicitly identify struggling person as a Christian? You are, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, in the same quandary I am in. Paul never explicitly identifies who he is talking about.

In verse 24 of chapter 7, Paul asks:

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

we are not in the same boat at all , it seems you wish to muddy the waters by insisting Paul is speaking not of himself but the Jews , then you wish to say he is speaking of himself but past tense (so that it still applies to the Jews) but the text is current , Paul spoke in the present tense where it matters ;

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?


It is clear for all to see how you have deliberately only quoted part of this text , hoping no-one would notice the tense .

Let me spare you the effort of using this verse as evidence for your position. It works perfectly well with mine, since Paul can be seen as asking the question "who will rescue the Jew under Torah from his sorry state?". Answer: Jesus. So the reference to Christ here in no way works against the positions that Paul is describing the Jew under Torah.

It only works with your position if you cut the first part off the quote Rom 7:24 , such is your position that it can only be sustained by hacking and hewing the sacred text!

Paul's argument about the Law is complex, but Paul is clear that there is indeed a sense in which the Torah brings death. From 2 Corinthians 3:7

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,

which is precisely the reason for this passage , as a warning to all Christians!

This answers your question - Paul sees the Torah as bringing death. I do not deny your point about Adam. But even though Paul's argument is complicated, this statement from 2 Corinthians proves that there is a sense in which the Jew underwent a transition from life to death when the Torah was given.

The problem with your position is that it ignores , it must ignore the same problem the Law produces over a Jew it produces over every man (that is why this chapter is penned to Christians) when Paul says he would not know covetousness unless the Law had said "thou shalt not covet" do you really suppose that the same Law doesn't apply to Gentiles ? Of course it does , otherwise the power of sin which is broken by Christ dying under The Law , with His Church dying with him would mean only Christian Jews are set free from the Law of sin and death , whereas Christ came to set us free from sin (Romans 6) He came to set us free from The Law (Romans 7) and he came to set us free from death (Romans 8) these three ; SIN-LAW-DEATH are so interrelated that you cannot have one without the other !

Romans 6-7-8 (the power of SIN-LAW-DEATH) have a noticeable indissoluble relationship one towards another ;

6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

For without the law sin was dead. 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


If Romans 7 is merely relating to "Unregenerate Jews" then the solution in Romans 8 can only apply to them and has NO BEARING upon Christians !!!

If Romans 7 is speaking merely about "unregenerate Jews" then Romans 6 cannot have any bearing upon the freedom of Christians from sin , seeing as sin gets it's power from the LAW !!!

Romans 7

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 7

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Behe'sBoy:
It doesn't matter how you put it - you are still having to do something to maintain your salvation. Bottom line - it's works. ​

"Faith", is not "works". Because you see "faith" as somenthing God gifts (rather than charged for men to do), you cannot accept that we decide to abide in Jesus, or not.

Quote:
Again more inconsistencies. If we do not keep ourselves sinless and only overcome sin by Him-in-us - then we aren't doing anything. But you are constantly saying we have to choose or do something else. Dude - why can't you see how these two things simply don't match up. You can't have one or the other. You either trust in Him for salvation or you don't. ​

Listen to what you said --- "either we trust in Him for salvation, or we don't".

If we do --- can that "trust", become "non-trust"? In your paradigm, you would answer "no"; but what if Scripture says "yes"?

I just cited Col2:6-8 --- if that's not warning against "deception away from Christ", what's the message?

Quote:
All I am saying is that you cannot loose your salvation once you are saved.​

Look at James1:14-16 --- first, he's talking to "beloved brethren" --- the saved. Second, he's warning not to be "lead away by lust to sin and death". By using "thanatos", is there any way he doesn't mean spiritual death?

In James5:19-20, is another warning --- if any of you wander away from the truth. By saying "be lead back", it cannot mean "never really HAD truth" ("back" means return to where we were). By "save a soul from death" (again using "thanatos"), by using the illustrative "uncovered sins", there is no way such an astray person, can be saved (while astray). Clearly there are three positions:
1. In the truth
2. Lead away from the truth
3. Returned

This is the same concept as conveyed in Rom11:21-23; and there is no way to deny the fallibility of salvation there...

Quote:
If we are saved by faith and not works then either scenario makes no difference and both are indeed sound.​

Clearly we are not saved by works; but John6:29 says "our believing is GOD'S work". God's work that He does in SPITE of us?

No --- the Jews asked: "What must we DO to work the works of God?"
Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe".

When we believe, we do God's work --- "believing" is not God's work that God does TO us, it's God's work that WE work. That it is a choice, is the only understanding of Matt7:24-27 --- No way that believing can be "wise" if GOD decides, nor could "disbelief" be foolish unless MEN decide.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
You're not answering my question.

And I've no reason to answer another derail of the topic.​

I cited the definition of "aorist":

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.​

So take it as "ARE PASSED AWAY" --- a present condition, which does not deny all the other passages where Paul asserts "we can fall".

Quote:
I've already described Heb 3-4 elsewhere​

Where? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Quote:
I'm not about to have you bound past the basic problem with your view here by derailing to yet a third passage, now that you've been unable to carry on 1 Cor 2:14 and are progressively losing ground on 2 Cor 5:17.​

Oh give me a break --- 1Cor2:14 is completely carried. There are no grounds to presume the"spiritual things" of verse 14, are not the same "spiritual things" of verse 13, 12, 11, 10, and 9.

With respect, what kind of debate is it to just assert "we've proven it", without any support?

Quote:
Since the plural grouping of "[spiritual] things" never changed, it never fit into your view. But spiritual things aren't limited to the assertions Paul makes concerning them. Just because Paul says spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit and taught by the Spirit, doesn't mean they aren't revealed by other means or taught by other means as well.​

The "spiritual things", are revealed by the "received Spirit". Since the Spirit is received by belief, verse 14 only says "natural men have not believed and received the Spirit".

That's all it says; in no way does it support "predestination".

Quote:
And that's the basic problem with your view. You think that by saying "they're revealed by the Spirit" it means "they're not revealed to those without the indwelt Spirit". And that's denied pointblank in the context. It says natural people didn't understand what was shown to them. It says natural people don't accept what's taught to them. And what's that? Those "things" you keep talking about [2:8, 2:13]!​

NOOO, it says that the things are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit.

Natural men have not believed in Jesus so have not received the Spirit.
It does not say they cannot believe in Jesujs.

Quote:
you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. Jn 10:26​

Mike, you're going back over stuff we've discussed. They do not believe He's the MESSIAH, because they have not believed in Him.

It's the Messiahship they're not getting in verse 26.

...and verse 38 destroys "predestionation", forever...

Quote:
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them." John 12:39-40​

And Matt13:15 says "they closed their OWN eyes and ears lest they turn..."

You're just pretending these points have never been refuted.

Let's see if you can answer Jn10:38 in terms of "predestination". (And I'd still love to hear your thoughts on Heb3:6-14 & 4:11)...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
When I do, I see that you're losing, Ben. You doctrines are collapsing.​

What do you think, if you say it often enough everyone will believe it?

Quote:
I assure you, not one word has been blacked out in my Bible.​

Really --- then what do you do with Ezk18:24-32?

Quote:
Sorry Ben, you have demonstrated not only a lack of correct knowledge of what Calvinism teaches, but a disturbing willingness to misrepresent, manufacture quotes, and flat out bear false witness against Calvinists, in order to defend your doctrines from the onslaught of examination that you cannot avoid. You have been caught red-handed doing these things, and your unrepentant attitude is plain for all to see.​

And with respect I see claims of "victory", with no Scripture to support...
.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Parables explain concepts, but should not be taken as the foundation of any doctrine. If Jesus says "the Kingdom is LIKE..." He is giving an analogy, and no analogy is meant to cover all aspects of what is being addressed, only that particular issue. If Jesus said "the kingdom of God IS...", THEN you have basis for doctrine. Analogies do not make doctrine.​

So when Jesus illustrates that ALL MEN are "called", and there is no difference in the "call" of those who came and those who declined, you reserve the right to say "Oh we can't take Jesus at His words"?

Many are called, few are chosen; you have changed that into "few are effectively called, and all who are THUS called WILL become chosen".

....and I'm accused of "twisting"....

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Belief is not repentance, Ben. This is a major problem with your doctrine, loose definitions of words, that you can use one way where it suits, and another way where it suits, as you're doing here. Now here's something interesting...you claim that when a person believes, they necessarily repent and receive the Son and Spirit? Wouldn't that be like Irresistible Grace? ​

Not if belief and repentance coexist, and are the man's decision.

Quote:
Faith cannot be both causal and simultaneous.​

Flat out, show me where "made-alive" (or "born again"), precedes faith. It's not there, NBF.

Quote:
Logically, that won't fly. I showed you why and you are not addressing what I said. You're trying to spin your way out of it.​

You try to separate things that cannot be separated; belief is "action" --- one WHO believes, RECEVIES the Spirit and His regeneration. And then becomes "adopted".

And to my recollection you've never addressed how WE can become "undisciplined, illegitimate-not-sons", if we turn away from God. Heb12 is devastating to your position...

...just as Heb3 is, 4, 10, etcetera...

Quote:
No, I am not, Ben, that is false. Mental assent is still unsaved. And what you call "sinning-saved" is actually a state of Grace, where one does not lose their salvation when they sin. Your doctrine necessarily teaches that every time a Christian sins, they lose their salvation, and must be born again, again. Thus, you do as in Hebrews where you crucify Christ anew. There is no room for Grace in your view. If you were consistent, Christians would have one shot, and if they sinned after they were saved, they're done, lost, and unable to come back. Of course, you don't believe that. But logically, that's where your false doctrine leads.​

There still remains the problem --- if regeneration is GOD'S decision, why isnt' regeneration complete enough to keep us from sinning?

Do we follow our "new nature", sovereignly decreed, or not?

Quote:
You have a real problem equating dissimilar terms, or calling the part to be the whole. Lack of repentance and rebellion are related to unbelief, but unbelief is much more than lack of repentance and rebellion.​

Look at Heb3:18-19 & 4:11 --- what was their problem, what could be OUR problem, and whose choice is it?

Quote:
Once again, your focus is all on us, and not on God His Grace, and Christ's work on our behalf. For some reason, you seem to think that once we have believed, that God leaves everything up to us, and has no further interaction or provides any help to the Christian.​

No, I recognize that AS we believed, so belief is charged to us CONTINUOUSLY.
"Keep yourselves in His love" --- no way to erase those words...

Quote:
Which does not address or answer what I set forth. You're the one always talking about "cause", but you seem to always miss that cause has effects. No cause can be its own effect, nor can the effect happen simultaneously with its cause. These are not just ideas, they are logical and provable FACT. You're not addressing this glaring fault in your false doctrines, Ben.​

Heh heh heh --- "false" would be a better accusation if you had some Scriptural support...

Quote:
Ben, we've already refuted many times your ridiculous mangling of Titus 3:5-6. It's refuted, and your refusal to acknowledge that fact does not negate it.​

Oh? Please tell us how "poured", is not an aspect of the regenerating Spirit. Tell us how "poured" somehow FOLLOWS "regeneration".

Quote:
I've explained exactly what regeneration is many times. it is an act of Grace on God's part, not man's. It is necessarily the first act, by God, in the salvation of a man, because it is the quickening of the spirit to receive from God. All else flows from this first act of God in a man's salvation. ​

But that doesn't exist in Scripture; God does not ZAP men with "monergistic regeneration" and then condemn those who were unlucky enough not to get sovereignly ZAPPED by God.

Quote:
Once again, you are not answering what I said. You are avoiding the clear logical deductions that your own doctrines require, and which you avoid. ​

You haven't shown the logic; but you do avoid the logical conclusions of "predestined-election" --- as RightGlory pointed out...

Quote:
Ben, you are intentionally confusing terms, equating distinctly different terms and trying to spin your way out of the logical hole you yourself made. You didn't answer what I posted, you tried to spin your way out of it. You seem to have this pathological aversion to admitting to any Calvinist that they are right about anything, and that you are wrong. You can't even deal with your own deliberate errors against other Christians, and make them right. You preach repentance, yet you don't do it.
​

Perhaps God has not GIFTED that repentance to me????

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
You totally avoided what I said. You clearly do not understand Justification, and the extent of Christ's sacrifice, and the Father's application of it to the Believer. These are fundamental issues and it is clear that you do not understand them. This is not about Calvinism at this point, this is about basic, bedrock doctrine.​

Horse manure. The notion that all future sins are forgiven in a moment at initial belief and justification was not taught by any Christian theologian before the 16th C. and John Calvin. It's in fact EXACTLY about Calvinism. Catholics and Orthodox have never accepted that belief as do not many modern day Protestants.

Quote:
Then logically, you're saying that Forgiveness of sins is provisional, and we can be held accountable for all of our sins, even after they have been forgiven. How can God hold us accountable for sins which have already been covered by the Blood of Christ?​

Is your Christianity based on what you and your fallen intellect consider "logical" rather than a proper consideration of scriptural texts? When we come to Christ our "past" sins are forgiven while ongoing provisions are available to deal with any committed in the future. Have you forgotten 1Jn1;9?

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:25

but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Quote:
You have just taken away one of the great comforts to a Christian, that his sins will no longer ever be held against him.​

b

A false comfort is no comfort worth having --- and in this case it is dangerous. In fact this "comfort" you speak of was denied to every Christian for the first 1600 years of Christianity. Odd indeed that God would allow all before Calvin to be denied this "comfort" if it were true.

Because you perceive "repentance" to be something God does TO (or for) men, you do not realize how critical passages like Luke 13:5 are. But as we read in Romans 2, God's kindness is MEANT to lead men to repentance; stubborn unrepentant hearts store up God's wrath.

Quote:
Then he contrasts with one who isn't paying attention, and has forgotten that God has given him these things. It does not say he was lost, it just says that such a man is not utilizing that which he already has.​

The problem for you is the man doesn't have it anymore lest the phrase "FORMER purification" would not have been used. Nice try though...

This is the reality of the entire letter of 2Peter:

Chapter 1:
Be careful about what fruits you have; in your faith supply moral excellence, self control, steadfastness, brotherly kindness and love. He who LACKS these qualities has FORGOTTEN former purification --- therefore (against such a man) be all the more diligent about your calling and election, that the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) supplied to you.

Chapter 2:
Beware of false prophets and false teachers, who never cease from sin --- they have eyes full of adultery, revel all day long; they entice the truly escaped back into sensuality. For if after having ESCAPED defilements through the true-saved-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and then become entangled in them and overcome, last state is worse than the first; better to have never known the way of righteousness, than having known it to have turned away from the holy commandment.

Chapter 3:
God does not decree (boulemai) any to perish, but patiently makes room for all to repent. Therefore, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by Him without spot or blemish. Beware lest you be carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[Ben johnson]

Are we required to BE righteous? Or is righteousness "imputed to us, over our sins"? The concept of "imputed righteousness" is not based on Scripture. If "righteousness" is no longer about behavior but a forensic legal standing that is "imputed", then we have no need for a Savior, nor repentance, nor have we any accountability.

Clearly, God's position is "ongoing forgiveness of sins" --- see 1Jn1:7-9, and Matt8:12. But if those sins are covered by "imputed righteousness", then how can God SEE them, let alone FORGIVE them? "Imputed" implies we are as righteous as Christ, in SPITE of what we do.

Once again Heb12 offers itself against this idea; for if righteousness is imputed, if regeneration is sovereignly-decreed (and therefore we irresistibly follow our "changed natures"), then what value has discipline?

What discipline, if we are sinless? In Heb12 we clearly have the right to REFUSE His discipline --- and the consequences are clearly stated, "then we are illegitimate and not sons".

Contrary to the concept that "there are two standings of a man before God" (a legal standing, and a fellowship one), Scripture only asserts ONE standing. One relationship --- no, one fellowship.

We are "in Christ", and He is "in us".

...or not.

1Jo 3:3 And everyone who has this hope {fixed} on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

1Jo 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

1Jo 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

1Jo 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

1Jo 3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jo 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. ​

Note that this quoted section does not allow "practicing sin", and not that it begins with "purifies HIMSELF".

This aligns with "whoever humbles himself as this child, is greatest in the kingdom". Matt18:4

Humbles himself. Purifies himself. Saves himself. None of these deny "Jesus is the only Savior'', nor that "washing of regeneration is of the Spirit" --- but the believer's participation in that "humbling/saving/purifying", by personal faith, is undeniable.

"Therefore you are to be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt5:48 A verse that makes no sense under an "imputed-righteousness" view...