"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[MamaZ]

nobdysfool,


And just where have you shown that Scripture always was understood that there was no Incarnation. Christ never became man and assumed our human natures to raise them to life?

So it is His Human fact that rises men from the dead? Christ did not take on human nature He took on human body.. For humans nature is a nature born in sin. Christ never was born in sin. For He is God.




Again totally misunderstanding scripture. You treat God as if He knows nothing about the future.Or worse that God does not really know that He might or might not send His Son into this world and history to redeem mankind.

What you are not seeing is that God also predestined what is to be and He has willed what has been and is to come.

God already knew the sequence before He created Adam. When Adam sinned God permitted Satan to impose the death sentence upon the human being He created to be eternal just so it would be possible for His Son to save that human being from Satan and the power of death by assuming that nature.

Assuming what nature? Man brought death on by disobeying God. Listening to the devils lie and acting on it..

In Gen 3:15 man is already essentially alive again, The fall has been corrected in God's eyes. The only thing that was needed was for Christ to come into history at some opportune time to effect that salvation from the fall, from death.

Men are not alive again until one is Born again. Not of the will of men but of the will and Spirit of God. New life. New creation in Christ. For those whom God has foreknew and predestined to have this new life In Christ.




That first advent did nothing to change the present world. We do not have immortality in this life. We will still suffer physical death once, but ONLY for the purpose of sheding the body, the flesh of sin. It is the mortal nature that is man's problem, it caused him to sin.
Sin dwells in the mortal body.. It is ingrained into every man other than Christ from the time of conception.

So even now God knows that the second Advent will be the consumation of all things. But He has worked with man all through the existance of this temporal world, AS IF MAN HAD ALWAYS BEEN ALIVE AND NEVER DEAD.

One must see that in the first adam we became a living Soul. In the Second Adam He is a life giving Spirit.



It is because man was NOT given immortality immediately upon Christ resurrection that the propitiation of sin was also necessary. If God was to have communion with man in this life, the sin factor would need to be resolved. It was through the sacrifice of Himself. So that NOW, He is the High Priest, able to forgive the sins of those who desire to be in communion with Him. Those who chose not to or those who choose to freely leave the fold, can keep their sins and have them convict them in the end.

I ask you to show me where we can leave the fold if we are truly one of his.

God gave life (physical) to all men, and offers communion, (spiritual life) to all men and each can freely choose whom he will serve.


Really? If this were true then why do men choose to live eternally in the Lake of fire where the torment never ends? For Jesus never tells us that we choose Him but that He choses us..

This is why you are so confused about salvation. ONLY those who believe are given spiritual life, that is the regeneration of man, man able to get back to prefall state of being in union with God freely.

We are not confused about salvation. For salvation is for Jesus Sheep.

That spiritual entrance is a synergistic work. Man must believe, accept God's call to repentance and when he does, He is permitted to LIVE IN Christ.

How can man believe? How can one accept a gift that is not offered to them? What is repentance to you?




A spiritual life in Christ. But man must first be physically alive, have immortality restored in order to have an eternal existance which is extended from his beginning union in this life, this temporal life.

Immortality will not come until Christ returns for His bride. Until then all men will die.

that is why the salvation of man is all Grace no faith needed,
Not true.. For we are saved by grace THROUGH faith.. It is a must in order to be saved..

But why the salvation of ones soul the union and communion is by Grace THROUGH FAITH.
You are correct on one point. Grace is truly the key. A key you have missed completely. Your view totally bypasses the Grace to all and ONLY deals with the grace through faith part which is null and void without the former.

Which is why your interpretation makes Grace null and void. It makes Christ a failure, which then puts Satan in the victors seat. Death still reigns and will reign for an eternity. Man will simply dissolve into the elments upon his temporal biological death.


Gods grace is evident in this world.. We see the sun shine on the righteous and the wicked. This is grace. But the grace that saves comes through Faith.

Explain in your view how man becomes alive, how faith can even be a factor as per scripture. How does man become immortal, can be raised from the dead incorruptible?
Do you believe as Ben does, that faith, a spiritual realm, can actually give physical life, immortality to man? If so, then faith can give immortality, but then how do you raise all the dead, those you call reprobates to stand in judgement? Can you explain that from scripture?

How does a man become alive in what way? Born of the flesh or Born of the Spirit?

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by NBF:
Isn't it odd that RightGlory inserts himself into every conversation, even those which aren't directed to him? He answers posts directed at other people, and it appears that he is attempting to take over this thread. All I see is confusion.​

"Rightglory" is wrong on some points; the concept of "all men redeemed" for one --- only believers are redeemed. But he's right on many of his points --- and he's shredding some of the "pillars of Calvinism"...

(No disrespect intended...)

Only in your mind. The more he talks, the more he reveals the shortcomings and errors of his view. He's not "shredding" anything. And neither are you.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Only in your mind. The more he talks, the more he reveals the shortcomings and errors of his view. He's not "shredding" anything. And neither are you.​

You know, if you would like to respond to what I wrote to "Jesusfreak", you're more than welcome --- and I will relish your replies.

That's the beauty of an "internet message board"; in a discussion all replies are welcome, no matter who is being answered. And often the question someone asks, is the same one that lots of others are thinking.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Please tell me how Christ who "came to destroy sin", who "knew no sin", participates in sin by indwelling the "sinning-believer".

Who said that He does? I didn't.

Always? Was it restored in 2Pet1:9?

If in fact, their calling and choosing was certain, then yes.

How about Heb10:29?

This is a special case referring to the Hebrew people, who were bought by Christ, yet rejected His sacrifice. Don't try to associate this passage with our situtation.

The view called "Antinomianism" asserts that men can dwell in fornication, or robbery, or murder, or any number of other sins, but remain saved and Heaven-bound. How is that possible? Jesus said, "He who commits sin is a slave to sin. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." Jn8.

Don't ascribe antinomianism to me, Ben. No true believer would assert such a view.

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Jhn 8:35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
Jhn 8:36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Tell me how this contradicts us being free from sin today? I am free from sin; I am no longer a slave to it, in that the HS empowers me to overcome temptation. Now you have yet to point out where it says that if I fail, I cease to be "set free".

Apparently we can. Heb10:26 addresses "WE".

"WE HEBREWS who are unsure whether Jesus is the perfect and final sacrifice, and wish to return to our original sacrificial system".

So does Rom8:12; and 13-14 are written to the "saved".

Exactly what I've been saying all along; we as Christians can do deeds within the flesh or the Spirit. However, "all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." This does not, in any way-shape-form say "if we sin, we have lost our salvation."

Keeps himself. This does align perfectly with Jude21, "KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God".

By reading verse 21 --- Little children, keep yourselves from idols. --- "KEEP YOURSELVES" --- thus "yourselves" is the only contextual possibility. No way would John write "God keeps you", and then "keep yourselves".

???

Calvinists assert sanctification is synergistic. So there is nothing wrong with a charge to "keep yourself from idols". God does not always "keep us from sin", sometimes he allows us to go ahead and do it.

My father always tells me that when I was just a couple years old, he was watching me play, and I kept on trying to stick things into a power outlet. He kept telling me no, but I kept on doing it, so he let me go ahead and do it. And I got zapped.

He says I never did it again.

Now that is a picture of a Father's "allowing" one to do something wrong so they learn from it. I don't think there is any doubt that our heavenly Father allows us to sin sometimes that we might taste the horror of it and keep ourselves from it.

Contextually speaking, John and Jude are writing about two separate situations. John is writing about the practice of sin - that is, an unrepentant, continual sinning which has no regard for Christ. Jude is not writing about that. To compare these is uncalled for.

Further, your translation of 1 John 5:18 is incorrect.

The greek phrase "τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν" specifically says "God keeps him". God (θεό&#962, being the subject, is performing the verb (keeps - τηρέ&#969 , with him (αὐτό&#957 being the direct object, or, the one who is being effected by the "keeping".

No, he speaks of "falling" in 15, and "turning away from God" in 25. The entire letter of Hebrews opposes "osas"; see especially 3:6-14 & 4:11

Not out of context at all; in 10:29, is a man who was sanctified, and by Jesus' blood. No way he wasn't saved. He is held out as the "dangerous consequence if WE continue sinning willfully after having received FULL KNOWLEDGE of the truth.

Let's discuss Hebrews over in the other thread, Ben.

Stacking up the "bricks of theology", a very solid structure stands on the side of "fallible salvation", but a very weak and broken one on the side of "osas"...

Haha.

You have no regard for context. All you care about is opposing the Calvinist doctrine. That is the only explanation for your "scrounging" of verses that are all taken out of context. It's like you briefly read a verse that sounds like a support for your view, you adopt it, and never do any critical study of it. This whole post is proof of that.

When my parent's favorite professor from Moody (Dr. Marvin Mayer) came to our house a few weeks ago, he said very clearly, "When it comes to interpreting Scripture, I am neither a Calvinist nor a Dispensationalist; I am a contextualist."

You seriously ought to think about that for a while, Ben.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by NBF:
Only in your mind. The more he talks, the more he reveals the shortcomings and errors of his view. He's not "shredding" anything. And neither are you.​

You know, if you would like to respond to what I wrote to "Jesusfreak", you're more than welcome --- and I will relish your replies.

That's the beauty of an "internet message board"; in a discussion all replies are welcome, no matter who is being answered. And often the question someone asks, is the same one that lots of others are thinking.

Looks to me as though JF5000 answered you quite handily, and correctly. Once again, you've been shown to be in error, due to your overarching "defeat Calvinism at all costs" attitude, which highlights your lack of correct knowledge of Calvinism, as well as your cavalier handling of scriptures. The truth is, you have too much invested in your current view, to admit to any errors.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The truth is, you have too much invested in your current view, to admit to any errors.

That's it. If he were to admit he was wrong, he would have to throw out his whole system... and he would have nothing left but Calvinism to turn to.

Of course, Ben would rather die than admit Calvinism is true. I mean, who wants to believe God actually graciously chooses some to be saved, right? What a terrible God... saving sinners from death for no other reason than to show His grace and mercy and bring glory and honor to His name. Who would EVER believe in that (other than Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc.)???

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Don't impose your beliefs onto what I said. I said nothing of the kind. You are bearing false witness.

Again, you don't have to say it. Scripture says it. In light of Scripture that is what your view would mean. Very simply comparison.
You can believe whatever you like, but if it is scripture and what scripture has meant from the beginning you have not shown that your view is actually what scripture means. Very simple
Even if you disagree with my presentation, you still have not shown that your view is the authentic Gospel of Christ. You must actually deal with the thousands of different views who use the very same method as you are employing. Explain to me which of those thousands is the Unifed, ONE faith that God gave to man? Can you do that? Can you disprove the Morman interpretation from scripture? Can you actually disprove that Joseph Smith did not get a vision or an "inner light" or special revelation from the Holy Spirit, as you seem to be claiming.

Are you not claiming that with study and prayer, the Holy Spirit led you to believe as you do. You even stated at one time that you believed as you do without conferring ourside sources which you now admit is much like Calvin's view, though not quite the same. So how are you going to prove with evidence that JS is not correct as well. He had that same leading from the Holy Spirit as you. What is the difference? Can you please explain?

How can you prove that the Holy Spirit which has given you the interpretation you have, the same for Ben's, Jesusfreak5000, and many others is the same when they arrive at much different interpretations?

Again, I said nothing of the kind, and you cannot draw that conclusion from my words, which you quoted. You are once again bearing false witness. I said nothing of the kind, nor did I intend to say anything even remotely like that.

But of course you can do that, which you have with me and more so with Ben. The problem is that you have not shown that your view as any kind of validity over against any other. I have shown a 2000 year of consistant, same understanding of Scripture as it was given. That same Church also determined the Bible you are using. Do you really believe this false Church was led by Satan in giving you the Bible?

It is not representing your view at all. It is representing what Scripture has meant and what your explanation would of necessity mean in light of Scripture. It is not misrepresenting your view in the least. You can believe whatever you wish but there is only ONE interpretation of Scripture. That Gospel was given 2000 years ago. It was fully given, not partially. It is Christ's Gospel, not yours or any other man's. So far, you have only made assertions that it is false. Can you give historcial evidence that it is false?

More of your own beliefs, stated as though they were fact beyond denial. Scripture does not support your contention.

Which you have not proven in the least. Its just that what I have stated does have historical existance as fact as Christianity has believed for 2000 years. If you think it does not then prove that what I am saying has never been believed continually, or even for a short time.

So far the best you can do is bring your view somewhat back as far as Calvin. There is no faith, no practice or acceptance of anything Calvin wrote prior to his life that shows up in history of Christianity.

Arianism was believed by most of the Church for several centuries and took about 400 years to eradicate completely.

A view that has been drastically changed already, so even Calvin was not correct. That reformed interpretation has been in reform ever since and others have joined it as authentic gospel all brought to being by the Holy Spirit, so it is claimed.

I realize that this is what you believe. You are free to do so. what you are not free to do, is to try and impose it on me, or anyone else, or to use it to try and twist what I or anyone else says, to bear false witness against us, as you have done here.

It is not just what I believe, but Christianity has had this very same belief for 2000 years.

So far you have not shown that what I stated is false nor that yours is the Truth.

You have not even shown that your interpretation of scripture is based on what you call "authority of scripture". You have shown so far that it is your opinion and there may be a few people in this world that believe as you do. But Christianity has been in existance for 2000 years. How do you account that what you say has never had, as yet, any historical relevance as the "Faith" the Gospel that was given to all for all?

Protestants are still debating what the Gospel might be. Protestantism has fractured into thousands instead of coming to a unity, how come? If the Scriptures is authoritative, where is the unity of that authority?

All I have done is presented the Gospel that was revealed to man by God, preserved in time, which has historical relevance.
You have given your interpretation of the Bible but can show no historical relevance to your interpretation. Either Christianity existed or what existed was not Christianity but a false religion and suddenly God dropped a Bible out of the sky and then left man, Luther to be the first, to study it and determine just what it might mean. And it was each man's right, in fact, the only way to determine what it said was by each individual verifing against his own interpretation.


What I surmise from that statement is that God gave us a Book called the Bible and then gave each individual the duty to determine what it would mean for themselves. There need not be unity of anything within that Book. All that was necessary is that it be based on that Book.

So, as long as the interpretation comes from Scripture it is always valid. Scripture must be the base. Does scripture say this, by the way? Does it say Scripture is the source of Truth? Does it say, it is authoritative?

So, I would need to surmise that Christianity still has not come to this world in any form of unity. At some point in the future, we will get some more evidence that one of those thousands was actually correct, maybe yours, maybe Calvins, maybe even Joseph Smith. They all use the same method, the same source as you. Could you explain how you see Christianity as being anything but a mesh mash of confusion. What is Christianity to you?

More false witness. once again, you are imposing your own view as though it were the standard, when it is not. What you need to learn is that I do not recognize any authority other than scripture in these matters.

But you have not even shown or given any EVIDENCE that Scripture has authority. Support the claim with evidence.

Could you tell me what is the standard? Is there a standard in your view"?

Is it the Scriptures you hold in your hand, or the scripture that 'Ben holds in his hand, or that Joseph Smith held in His hand, or any other person who interprets Scripture?
Where is the evidence that Scripture is authoritative?

You keep appealing to an authority which I find no warrant in scripture.

It surely must be a difference of Bibles. I am appealing to the Authority of Christ, the giver of His GOSPEL, not my interpretation of it. Since you don't find that in yours, I know we must have different Bibles.

And it seems to me that you can';t confine yourself to just scripture, because you cannot prove your view from scripture. In our minds, that makes it immediately suspect.

I gave you text upon text, the same as you. Isn't that scripture?

Those who have been given spiritual life are those who believe.

very unique concept. Spiritual life in scripture is union and life IN Christ. So you are saying that all men first have union with Christ, are In Christ, then they are able to believe. So, it must be by attrition then that those who don't believe fall out of that spiritual life with Christ. Kinda opposite of other things you have stated. Now you will say I am bearing false witness again, when in fact, as historical Christianity is concerned you are bearing false witness against the Gospel of Christ.
Here is your chance to show evidence that the idea you just presented is an understanding of Christianity. Is it a doctrine based on the teaching of the Apostles rather than Calvin or you.
Can you find evidence of this in the first century, in the second century. Can you find unified evidence even in the 19th century. Is it really the Gospel.

Or has everyone before this had it all wrong, and now you, and only you have the Truth? For 2000 years the Holy Spirit has never revealed that one understanding in Scripture to anyone else.

If Christianity and the Gospel are false up to this time, does not your Bible say that Christ promised to perserve His Gospel in time for all? So did he keep His promise as well as the one that He would never leave or forsake His Body. So show me that Gospel Truth, and show that Church He promised to preserve. Seems to me that you are proposing that Christ severed His Head from the Body for at least 1700 years.

More of your backward view. Initial Salvation is monergistic, and becomes synergistic only after the man is regenerated, believes, is forgiven, and justified. That sets him apart unto Christ, (sanctification). The walk from that point on is synergistic.

for what purpose. It seems to me to be quite irrelevant. A believer cannot lose that salvation, the walk has nothing to do with salvation, others even describe it as God moving man, God doing all the work through man. Man, it seems, is a tool, an object. Where is the synergism?

In your theology what is the purpose of the judgement?

Not because I cannot, but because I do have regard for that which I believe, and for what My Lord Jesus said about pearls.

That might mean something if you could show evidence that you even have the pearls.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Looks to me as though JF5000 answered you quite handily, and correctly. Once again, you've been shown to be in error, due to your overarching "defeat Calvinism at all costs" attitude, which highlights your lack of correct knowledge of Calvinism, as well as your cavalier handling of scriptures. The truth is, you have too much invested in your current view, to admit to any errors.

Where is the proof that Ben is in error. He is using the authoritative scriptures. I thought that you said that you only use scripture and that scripture is authoritative?
What makes Ben's incorrect when he is using Scripture? Is yours more authoritative?

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,

Again, you don't have to say it. Scripture says it. In light of Scripture that is what your view would mean. Very simply comparison.
You can believe whatever you like, but if it is scripture and what scripture has meant from the beginning you have not shown that your view is actually what scripture means. Very simple
Even if you disagree with my presentation, you still have not shown that your view is the authentic Gospel of Christ. You must actually deal with the thousands of different views who use the very same method as you are employing. Explain to me which of those thousands is the Unifed, ONE faith that God gave to man? Can you do that? Can you disprove the Morman interpretation from scripture? Can you actually disprove that Joseph Smith did not get a vision or an "inner light" or special revelation from the Holy Spirit, as you seem to be claiming.

Are you not claiming that with study and prayer, the Holy Spirit led you to believe as you do. You even stated at one time that you believed as you do without conferring ourside sources which you now admit is much like Calvin's view, though not quite the same. So how are you going to prove with evidence that JS is not correct as well. He had that same leading from the Holy Spirit as you. What is the difference? Can you please explain?

How can you prove that the Holy Spirit which has given you the interpretation you have, the same for Ben's, Jesusfreak5000, and many others is the same when they arrive at much different interpretations?

But of course you can do that, which you have with me and more so with Ben. The problem is that you have not shown that your view as any kind of validity over against any other. I have shown a 2000 year of consistant, same understanding of Scripture as it was given. That same Church also determined the Bible you are using. Do you really believe this false Church was led by Satan in giving you the Bible?

It is not representing your view at all. It is representing what Scripture has meant and what your explanation would of necessity mean in light of Scripture. It is not misrepresenting your view in the least. You can believe whatever you wish but there is only ONE interpretation of Scripture. That Gospel was given 2000 years ago. It was fully given, not partially. It is Christ's Gospel, not yours or any other man's. So far, you have only made assertions that it is false. Can you give historcial evidence that it is false?

Which you have not proven in the least. Its just that what I have stated does have historical existance as fact as Christianity has believed for 2000 years. If you think it does not then prove that what I am saying has never been believed continually, or even for a short time.

So far the best you can do is bring your view somewhat back as far as Calvin. There is no faith, no practice or acceptance of anything Calvin wrote prior to his life that shows up in history of Christianity.

Arianism was believed by most of the Church for several centuries and took about 400 years to eradicate completely.

A view that has been drastically changed already, so even Calvin was not correct. That reformed interpretation has been in reform ever since and others have joined it as authentic gospel all brought to being by the Holy Spirit, so it is claimed.


It is not just what I believe, but Christianity has had this very same belief for 2000 years.

So far you have not shown that what I stated is false nor that yours is the Truth.

You have not even shown that your interpretation of scripture is based on what you call "authority of scripture". You have shown so far that it is your opinion and there may be a few people in this world that believe as you do. But Christianity has been in existance for 2000 years. How do you account that what you say has never had, as yet, any historical relevance as the "Faith" the Gospel that was given to all for all?

Protestants are still debating what the Gospel might be. Protestantism has fractured into thousands instead of coming to a unity, how come? If the Scriptures is authoritative, where is the unity of that authority?

All I have done is presented the Gospel that was revealed to man by God, preserved in time, which has historical relevance.
You have given your interpretation of the Bible but can show no historical relevance to your interpretation. Either Christianity existed or what existed was not Christianity but a false religion and suddenly God dropped a Bible out of the sky and then left man, Luther to be the first, to study it and determine just what it might mean. And it was each man's right, in fact, the only way to determine what it said was by each individual verifing against his own interpretation.


What I surmise from that statement is that God gave us a Book called the Bible and then gave each individual the duty to determine what it would mean for themselves. There need not be unity of anything within that Book. All that was necessary is that it be based on that Book.

So, as long as the interpretation comes from Scripture it is always valid. Scripture must be the base. Does scripture say this, by the way? Does it say Scripture is the source of Truth? Does it say, it is authoritative?

So, I would need to surmise that Christianity still has not come to this world in any form of unity. At some point in the future, we will get some more evidence that one of those thousands was actually correct, maybe yours, maybe Calvins, maybe even Joseph Smith. They all use the same method, the same source as you. Could you explain how you see Christianity as being anything but a mesh mash of confusion. What is Christianity to you?

But you have not even shown or given any EVIDENCE that Scripture has authority. Support the claim with evidence.

Could you tell me what is the standard? Is there a standard in your view"?

Is it the Scriptures you hold in your hand, or the scripture that 'Ben holds in his hand, or that Joseph Smith held in His hand, or any other person who interprets Scripture?
Where is the evidence that Scripture is authoritative?
It surely must be a difference of Bibles. I am appealing to the Authority of Christ, the giver of His GOSPEL, not my interpretation of it. Since you don't find that in yours, I know we must have different Bibles.
I gave you text upon text, the same as you. Isn't that scripture?
very unique concept. Spiritual life in scripture is union and life IN Christ. So you are saying that all men first have union with Christ, are In Christ, then they are able to believe. So, it must be by attrition then that those who don't believe fall out of that spiritual life with Christ. Kinda opposite of other things you have stated. Now you will say I am bearing false witness again, when in fact, as historical Christianity is concerned you are bearing false witness against the Gospel of Christ.
Here is your chance to show evidence that the idea you just presented is an understanding of Christianity. Is it a doctrine based on the teaching of the Apostles rather than Calvin or you.
Can you find evidence of this in the first century, in the second century. Can you find unified evidence even in the 19th century. Is it really the Gospel.

Or has everyone before this had it all wrong, and now you, and only you have the Truth? For 2000 years the Holy Spirit has never revealed that one understanding in Scripture to anyone else.

If Christianity and the Gospel are false up to this time, does not your Bible say that Christ promised to perserve His Gospel in time for all? So did he keep His promise as well as the one that He would never leave or forsake His Body. So show me that Gospel Truth, and show that Church He promised to preserve. Seems to me that you are proposing that Christ severed His Head from the Body for at least 1700 years.

for what purpose. It seems to me to be quite irrelevant. A believer cannot lose that salvation, the walk has nothing to do with salvation, others even describe it as God moving man, God doing all the work through man. Man, it seems, is a tool, an object. Where is the synergism?

In your theology what is the purpose of the judgement?

That might mean something if you could show evidence that you even have the pearls.

You are impossible. All you do is run around in circles, and try to put words in peoples mouths that they did not say, as you did with my post. I called you out on it, and your answer was more of the same. I will not waste my time with such foolishness. I haven't got time to waste on the clear fact that you aren't interested in engaging on a level of discussion, you are trying to proselytize. You appeal to an authority that you have not and cannot prove. I appeal to scripture, alone. if you were really interested in discussing it, I could quote the relevant scriptures, but you don't want to deal on that level. You claim interpretations of scripture that I can see with my own eyes are not correct. So can others here. Your so-called authority is nothing but interpretation, and downright poor interpretation, at that. Either that, or you have badly misunderstood what you claim they say. Either way, it doesn't match what my Bible clearly says.

Please stop stalking me. I have no desire for further conversation with you. Do not reply to my posts, especially posts that are not directed at you.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,

Where is the proof that Ben is in error. He is using the authoritative scriptures. I thought that you said that you only use scripture and that scripture is authoritative?
What makes Ben's incorrect when he is using Scripture? Is yours more authoritative?

I can't help it if you can't read, and can't understand what has been posted. Now, please stop posting to me. I will not ask again.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

So it is His Human fact that rises men from the dead? Christ did not take on human nature He took on human body.. For humans nature is a nature born in sin. Christ never was born in sin. For He is God.

Why do you think that humans can raise themselves from the dead? Christ was not just human, He was also God.
So if Christ ONLY took on a human body, He could not have been just like us in all things. so who is Christ really? He could not have been man in your view, just looked like a man?

Can you show from Scripture that says our nature is sin. But again, if true, then Christ was not man. Could you explain more fully just who Christ might have been.

What you are not seeing is that God also predestined what is to be and He has willed what has been and is to come.

And how does that answer my statement. He willed that man be created in His Image. He willed that man be created free, with an independent will from His. A rational soul.

Assuming what nature? Man brought death on by disobeying God. Listening to the devils lie and acting on it..

Christ was born of a virgin, so that He could become man. He did not just take on a body. Man is much more than just a body. God said he would die if he ate of the tree. Satan thought that he had won the battle at that point. Not realizing just how God would defeat him and the power of death by having His ONLY Son, become man, not just look like a man with a human body. That having that same nature, would raise that nature from death to life.

Do you not believe that Christ is ONE Person with TWO natures, God's and man's?

Men are not alive again until one is Born again. Not of the will of men but of the will and Spirit of God. New life. New creation in Christ.

So not a soul was saved before the first person "was born again"? So Enoch, Abraham, David, et al were not saved, were never made alive?

For those whom God has foreknew and predestined to have this new life In Christ

Where does it say this in scripture?

Sin dwells in the mortal body.. It is ingrained into every man other than Christ from the time of conception.

Where does scripture say this. Could you describe sin? Is sin objective? From what you are saying, our bodies are actually sin. So, if this is so, just how can any sin be forgiven, we are sin, it is not something anyone does. -

One must see that in the first adam we became a living Soul. In the Second Adam He is a life giving Spirit.

What does that mean?

ask you to show me where we can leave the fold if we are truly one of his.

I gave you several texts which clearly showed that a believer can become an unbeliever. Did you not read them?

Really? If this were true then why do men choose to live eternally in the Lake of fire where the torment never ends? For Jesus never tells us that we choose Him but that He choses us..

They chose hell because they did not choose Christ. Quite simple, Choose ye this day who you will serve. Could you quote the text(s) that says God choose us, (I am presuming you mean to be believers).

We are not confused about salvation. For salvation is for Jesus Sheep.

Which salvation, from death or of our souls?

How can man believe? How can one accept a gift that is not offered to them? What is repentance to you?

Can you show which scriptures that might say man cannot believe?
Can you cite any texts that says God withholds his offer of salvation to some men?

Repentance in the scriptural sense is to turn from sin. But I clearly understand this cannot be possible if we are sin as you described above. I would be interested in knowing your definition as per scripture?

My statement:....A spiritual life in Christ. But man must first be physically alive, have immortality restored in order to have an eternal existance which is extended from his beginning union in this life, this temporal life.

Your response;....

Immortality will not come until Christ returns for His bride. Until then all men will die.

That is what scripture says, but that does not answer the statement. Why is it possible that immortality comes?

My statement:...that is why the salvation of man is all Grace no faith needed,
Your response:..
Not true.. For we are saved by grace THROUGH faith.. It is a must in order to be saved..

If we are saved through faith, what was the purpose of Christ, why did He need to save us? What did he save us from?

My statement:...But why the salvation of ones soul the union and communion is by Grace THROUGH FAITH.
You are correct on one point. Grace is truly the key. A key you have missed completely. Your view totally bypasses the Grace to all and ONLY deals with the grace through faith part which is null and void without the former.
Which is why your interpretation makes Grace null and void. It makes Christ a failure, which then puts Satan in the victors seat. Death still reigns and will reign for an eternity. Man will simply dissolve into the elments upon his temporal biological death.

Your response:....
Gods grace is evident in this world.. We see the sun shine on the righteous and the wicked. This is grace. But the grace that saves comes through Faith.

And just how does this even answer the statment? So faith saved us, not Christ? Christ's coming served no purpose?

How does a man become alive in what way? Born of the flesh or Born of the Spirit?

Man is MADE alive through Christ's Resurrection. Born of God. Neither the flesh nor the Spirit. The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise our mortal bodies to life, to immortality. Rom 8:11, I Cor 15:12, Actually the whole chapter. The whole chapter is about physical life and the resurrection.

 

[MamaZ]

Mamaz,


Why do you think that humans can raise themselves from the dead? Christ was not just human, He was also God.
So if Christ ONLY took on a human body, He could not have been just like us in all things. so who is Christ really? He could not have been man in your view, just looked like a man?

LOL well what I asked is not what you answered. Here is what I asked.

So it is His Human fact that rises men from the dead?

Christ took on a human body and was tempted in all ways that we are not from His sinful lust in His flesh but from the devil himself..
HE was indeed man. For He became flesh and dwelt among us but He was the only begotton Son of God.


Can you show from Scripture that says our nature is sin.
You don't even understand sin? How can you understand redemption and being the redeemed of the Lord?


But again, if true, then Christ was not man. Could you explain more fully just who Christ might have been.


Christ was the God man. Not the man God.


And how does that answer my statement. He willed that man be created in His Image. He willed that man be created free, with an independent will from His. A rational soul.
He created Adam and Eve and they were without sin until Eve was deceived and ate and Adam followed her persuasion. At that point they became sinners and men have been born slaves to sin every since. Man cannot will theirselves to not be sinners. Only a new birth from the Spirit of God through the Blood of Christ on the Cross gives men the new nature..

Christ was born of a virgin, so that He could become man.
Yup God is faithful when He said that the sign of Christs coming would be that a virgin would give birth.



He did not just take on a body.


Heb 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
Heb 10:6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
Heb 10:7 "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'"
Heb 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),
Heb 10:9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all.

Man is much more than just a body. God said he would die if he ate of the tree. Satan thought that he had won the battle at that point. Not realizing just how God would defeat him and the power of death by having His ONLY Son, become man, not just look like a man with a human body. That having that same nature, would raise that nature from death to life.

Have you not read that the second adam is a life Giving Spirit? It was not the fact of Jesus becoming a human that rose people from the Dead. It was the fact that Jesus is the resurrection and the life.



Do you not believe that Christ is ONE Person with TWO natures, God's and man's?

Mans nature is to sin. Jesus took on a human body but was born with His own Godly nature. For He is the only one without sin. For God cannot sin nor even tempt with sin for He is HOLY..

So not a soul was saved before the first person "was born again"? So Enoch, Abraham, David, et al were not saved, were never made alive?

Did they not believe that Christ was coming and proclaim this with Prophecy?

Have you not read what Jesus was doing those three days?

Yup I have.. It’s very important to look at the word preached. It’s not the word euaggelizo (to preach the gospel); it’s the word kerusso (to announce a proclamation; to proclaim a victory). Very important to note that difference. He’s not preaching the gospel. He’s proclaiming a triumph. And He proclaimed a triumph unto the spirits in prison.


Where does it say this in scripture?
Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Where does scripture say this. Could you describe sin? Is sin objective? From what you are saying, our bodies are actually sin. So, if this is so, just how can any sin be forgiven, we are sin, it is not something anyone does.

Sin dwells in our mortal bodies. Have you not read what Paul told us?

Rom 7:17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
Rom 7:20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.



What does that mean?

I gave you several texts which clearly showed that a believer can become an unbeliever. Did you not read them?

They chose hell because they did not choose Christ. Quite simple, Choose ye this day who you will serve. Could you quote the text(s) that says God choose us, (I am presuming you mean to be believers).

Which salvation, from death or of our souls?

Can you show which scriptures that might say man cannot believe?
Can you cite any texts that says God withholds his offer of salvation to some men?

Repentance in the scriptural sense is to turn from sin. But I clearly understand this cannot be possible if we are sin as you described above. I would be interested in knowing your definition as per scripture?

That is what scripture says, but that does not answer the statement. Why is it possible that immortality comes?


If we are saved through faith, what was the purpose of Christ, why did He need to save us? What did he save us from?



And just how does this even answer the statment? So faith saved us, not Christ? Christ's coming served no purpose?



Man is MADE alive through Christ's Resurrection. Born of God. Neither the flesh nor the Spirit. The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise our mortal bodies to life, to immortality. Rom 8:11, I Cor 15:12, Actually the whole chapter. The whole chapter is about physical life and the resurrection.

I will continue to answer your post at a later date..

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
If you want to ask Paul that, be my guest. It's what Paul said, Ben.

Don't be surprised if you get an amazingly Reformed answer to that question, though.​

We'll never get a "Reformed answer" from Paul. 1Cor9:25-27 is sufficient to completely ruin "Reformed Theology". Especially when connected (by the word "adokimos") with 2Cor13:5...

It's like Tigger, desperately bouncing from verse to verse as if each is able to do something on its own. Sorry, Ben, the bounce has gone from your bungie.

You're taking 1 Cor 9:25-27 to mean "salvation", eh? My refrain should've served as a warning to you. "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize?" 1 Cor 9:24. Well, if this is salvation, I know this Jesus guy will be the One beating out all other to receive that prize. Not everything is soteriology.

"disqualified" is not a great word to span letters with, Ben.

Quote:
Apparently you've never changed employment, because obviously Jesus is telling you you can't ...​

Huh??? Ya' lost me.

Then you didn't recognize Jesus' original context and assertion, and so you aren't dealing with what Jesus actually said. Jesus couldn't possibly have been addressing someone who was once the servant of one person, then the servant of another. Yet that's how you applied the verse.

Your mistake. Your problem. Scripture's fine with rejecting your view of it, here.

Quote:
As Paul said, "A Jew is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit" Rom 2:29​

Lost me again. Obedience is from our hearts; with the HEART man believes, resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation. Rom10:9-10.

Circumcision is by the Spirit. Circumcision is about the heart's being circumcised, not the flesh. The Spirit performs it. The heart is changed. With the heart man then believes.

Jesus is the source of salvation to all WHO obey Him. Heb5:9. What does Heb4:11 say about our ability for obedience? "Let us therefore be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating the same example (Israelites) of disobedience." Impossible to deny, isn't it?

No reason to deny. Fits Reformed thought perfectly. The group isn't going to stop pursuing the results of their submissive faith to God by following a counterexample of unbelief. Paul is re-emphasizing their focus, not to lose their encouragement over defectors.

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Nope.

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. Rom 8:12-13

Where's Paul say you have no deeds of the flesh to put to death?​

No no no --- if WE live by the lusts of the flesh, WE must die. Any way that cannot mean "eternally"?

1 - Paul's not using "lust". Quit adding words to Scripture.
2 - The relationship is a new Law, it operates according to completely new rules (Rom 8:2), it is not simply depriving every aspect of living in your flesh. You're entering words into a machine. You're in the flesh, Ben.

And so too is the idea of a written code of performance for reward. That is not how the law of the Spirit works. Paul's saying exactly that: if you're looking for quid pro quo, paybacks for performance, you're sunk already. You're living by "the works of the flesh."

...or would you have a "lust-living" man, stroll through the gates of Heaven?

I assume you deal with lust like everyone else, so the point is overthrown by example. And in fact that example is normative. Mt 5:28-30. Do you meet these conditions, and all the others of the Sermon on the Mount? No? Then I would hope for your sake that by your definitions, lustful men will somehow enter the gates (kingdom?) of heaven.

But of course my definitions take this in an entirely different direction. But then you knew that. Or you should know that if you're writing a book on Reformed thought. It's written all over Reformed thought.

The Rules have changed. Salvation can't be by the rules of Law. Salvation must be by the rules of the Spirit's re-creation. It has an effect in morality, and the Law can't even complain about those God moves in. That's because you're under the rule of the Spirit. And that's what Paul is pointing out.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:9-10
​

Quote:
The Christian's present condition is there.

Counterquestion: why would Paul be arguing this if everyone automatically did it? Just to make it clear? Why need clarity when you have reality?​

Why would Paul be saying "if YOU do , YOU must die" --- if that didn't mean "eternally"?

You didn't answer my question, and I answered yours above. This is becoming another tiring pattern in your vaults from verse to verse. Answer the question or don't sit around complaining others aren't answering yours.

Quote:
It has always sounded to me like you're snagged on demanding that a wilful choice is a free one. This one's no different.​

You didn't answer what I said.

What goes around comes around.

I did assuredly answer what you said. Your denial is prima facie false. It's right there in my answer to what you quoted! A choice is a choice of coise of coise. But a wilful choice need not be a lightning strike out of the blue.

Created wills are still wills. Dependent choices are still choices. A man may think rationally, and yet his thoughts are still his, and thus his responsibility.

By saying "stop submitting yourselves as instruments of sin", the only thing he could mean is "turn back to Jesus and eternal life".

Unless (again), you would have a "submitted-to-sin man strolling through the gates of Heaven"...

Nothing of the sort.

Quote:
Nice attempt to hijack, though. The issue is whether there's any change to make in a Christian. Without a sinful bone in our body, there's no argument. There would be no wilful choice, Ben. Suddenly you find yourself with the disadvantage of fatalism.​

That's the point --- "Predestination", aligns with "fatalism"; all has been decided by God.

Were you right, then your theology is sunk. Because Predestination is explicitly advocated in Scripture.

But you're wrong. And so fatalism is not advocated in Scripture.

That's a problem between you and the Writer of Scripture. But don't carry it over to people who believe Scripture and not you.

We have a choice --- see how Paul words it in Col2:6-8 --- walk in Christ, and guard against deception away from Him. There's no way that is not a serious warning...

Quote:
Try Predestination. It works much better than either.​

With respect, I'd rather try Scripture.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will Ep 1:11
​

Scripture embraces Predestination. You simply deny it.

Quote:
You think someone can choose their nature, to be completely clean. Why did Jesus die?​

Apparently some Calvinists here think the "dedicated-wicked", can choose to "escape defilements" --- and through a SUPERFICIAL knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How do you read 2Pet2:20-22? (Don't forget verse 18, were the false prophets, and the false teachers, try to entice the truly-escaped back into sensuality...

Of course people can escape defilements and not be regenerated! 'What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."' 2 Pt 2:22

You're saying anyone who has "barely escaped" is saved. Another mistake of believing that everything is about soteriology.

Quote:
Your presumption is one of incompetence. I'll let you figure out how you're going to explain that assertion to an omnipotent God.​

Don't have to. I understand that God does NOT regenerate anyone before faith. and that His regeneration can be rejected at any time. So many verses say that, and we've discussed several; Heb12:25 (see 7-9), Heb4:11, 1Tim4:16, 2Cor13:5 (see 1Cor9:25-27), 1Tim6:10 & 21, James1:14-16 & 5:19-20, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Jn1:7-9, Galatians 5:4 --- I could go on and on and on...

None of these verses say such, as we've discussed. Quite a few of them say the exact opposite. As you vault from verse to verse without demonstrating even one of them actually says what you assert it says, you simply return to your own refrain.

Quote:
God has reasons not to just glorify people instantly, or heal them instantly, or remove them instantly, or re-create the world instantly. Y'ever read this Bible thing to find out those reasons?​

So you perceive that there is a "walking-in-sin ELECT person", who is guaranteed to become righteous some time before he dies and will be escorted through the gates of Heaven --- it's a "given".

With what respect may be due you after so long a time resisting it -- learn the theology you oppose. Or quit trying to mischaracterize and smear it. Your assertions here are false. When you get to some point where you're actually talking about Reformed theology, you may want to bring my attention to it. What you're posting are 500-year-old smears which were denied (and explicitly denied and counterstated) at the Council of Dordt. It's boring. Their response to people who'd been doing so for a decade:

those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:​

• --that the teaching of the Reformed churches on predestination and on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance;
  --that this teaching makes God the author of sin, unjust, a tyrant, and a hypocrite; and is nothing but a refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism;
  --that this teaching makes people carnally self-assured, since it persuades them that nothing endangers the salvation of the chosen, no matter how they live, so that they may commit the most outrageous crimes with self-assurance; and that on the other hand nothing is of use to the reprobate for salvation even if they have truly performed all the works of the saints;
  --that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.

If you want to deal with the actual theology, Dordt (and not simply its condemnation of your allegations -- the Canons of Dordt) remains a succinct statement of the soteriology, and contradicts your statements above. When you actually address the theology -- address the theology. Not your aberrant distortion of your own mind's eye toward it.

If you don't, then your allegations are falsehoods. And that, according to your theology, will get you kicked out of the gates of heaven. So you really should take heed. You've already fallen, and because you say, "I haven't," your sin remains where it is.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

LOL well what I asked is not what you answered. Here is what I asked.
So it is His Human fact that rises men from the dead?
Christ took on a human body and was tempted in all ways that we are not from His sinful lust in His flesh but from the devil himself..
HE was indeed man. For He became flesh and dwelt among us but He was the only begotton Son of God.

That is a scriptural and theological contradiction. If what you say, Christ is worthless to man. Christ became man, first to live as man in all respects. Secondly, to heal man.

If Christ is not man in every respect, including the ability to sin Christ cannot heal and save man. We might as well try ourselves if that were possible.

The ONLY difference between Christ's human nature and our human nature is that He did not sin. It is precisely the same human nature as you and me and every other human being that ever lived. It is the essence of man. It is what makes man a human being and not an animal or any other created thing. Christ was tempted by the flesh just as we are. It is why He knows our weaknesses. It is that very nature that was raised from the dead that will raise our mortal bodies to life in the last day. This is why it is all men, since all men will rise from the dead. They rise from the dead because we are the same essence. Christ is the first born of the dead, not some dead, not elected dead, or believers who died, but the dead, ALL DEAD. That is why death came from Adam and life came from Christ. Adam gave us our mortal natures, our fallen natues and Christ gives us our immortal natures.

All the text that I have repeatedly given ad nausem have never been refuted by anyone as yet. I read a lot of opinions and self interpretations, but nothing overturns the Truth. The Truth of the Incarnation.

Can you show from Scripture that says our nature is sin.
You don't even understand sin? How can you understand redemption and being the redeemed of the Lord?

I know that scripture does not ever say our nature is sin. Sin is not an objective thing, All it ever says is our nature is fallen, fallen meaning corruptible, dead, mortal. Being in a mortal state IS NOT SIN. It is that fallen state that causes us to sin. Which is why we will yet die a biological death to rid ourselves of that fallen flesh. The flesh that tempts us to sin, but is not sin itself.

It would also be a scriptural contradiction when Christ commands us not to sin. That would be rediculous request, if our very natures were sin. We cannot change our natures so that we do not sin. If we could, then surely Christ would not have been necessary.

Christ was the God man. Not the man God.

You have already stated what you think Christ's man was which is not us. If not us, then Christ is worthless to man in saving man.

He created Adam and Eve and they were without sin until Eve was deceived and ate and Adam followed her persuasion. At that point they became sinners and men have been born slaves to sin every since. Man cannot will theirselves to not be sinners. Only a new birth from the Spirit of God through the Blood of Christ on the Cross gives men the new nature..

You are right that because they disobeyed they became sinners.
Since the promise of God to Adam of a redeemer, man, from God's perspective has always been freed from the bondage to sin. Bondage to sin is because of death. The sting of death is sin. But Christ overcame death as God promised to Adam thus God knew that death and sin would not ever hold man. Man has a propensity, a proclivity to sin and sins quite naturally, it is quite easy to give in the the temptations. We cannot will ourselves NOT to be a sinner, but we can will ourselves not to sin. Even an unbeliever is cabable of this. If not we would not be able to have civil order anywhere in the world. The difference is that a believer seeks forgiveness of the sins he does commit, an unbeliever does not.

But a believer, who has been regenerated can curb sin with the help of the Holy Spirit. We are commanded to not sin, to sin less and less. We are commanded to become righteous which is imparted to us by Christ as we grow, as we mature as believers. As we are make into His Image. The whole purpose of Christ coming was to save man from death. Death is the cause of our sin. Our mortal natures cause us to sin. We are not born sinners, but we are born mortal, dead. This is precisely why Christ could assume our natures which He recieved from the Virgin Mary. It is why He was human being in every respect as we are, but did not sin. This is why He is also our model and example. We are to walk in His steps, His Way, to follow His example. If we could not curb sin, it would be a rediculous request or commandment.

My statement:....Christ was born of a virgin, so that He could become man.
your response;....
Yup God is faithful when He said that the sign of Christs coming would be that a virgin would give birth.

but you have not fully agreed with this point so far. You seem to what a different man in Christ than we are. If Christ's human nature is different than we are, then He was also not born of a human person, Mary. He was born in the very same condition that we are born into this world. Not a scintilla difference relative to His Human nature.

Have you not read that the second adam is a life Giving Spirit? It was not the fact of Jesus becoming a human that rose people from the Dead. It was the fact that Jesus is the resurrection and the life.

It is the ONLY reason we shall rise from the dead. That is the ONLY reason Christ needed to become man. ONLY the Incarnate Christ who died with our mortal natues, then raised those mortal natues to life with His 'Resurrection. Read the whole chapter of I Cor 15, It is ONLY about the importance of the Resurrection and the physical life, immortality that it ensures to all men. If Christ is not risen then neither will the dead rise. If Christ is risen then the dead shall be raised. Then you have verse 22 which is speaking ONLY about physical death and life. Or mortal state of man and immortal state of man. It has nothing to do with the Spiritual life, IN Christ. It is not a spiritual relationship that raises us to a physical eternal existance as human beings, but ONLY Christ's resurrection.

Mans nature is to sin. Jesus took on a human body but was born with His own Godly nature. For He is the only one without sin. For God cannot sin nor even tempt with sin for He is HOLY..

Now you are correct in stating that man's nature is to sin. It is NOT sin as you stated earlier. Jesus took on a human body but was born of a Virgin. He was not born of God. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit, but born of a human being. There is no taking on a human body. He was man in every respect. Christ had TWO natues. Divine and Human. That is the Incarnation.
You are correct in that He did not sin, but Christ could sin. In His human nature Christ submitted His human will to the Divine will perfectly.

Did they not believe that Christ was coming and proclaim this with Prophecy?

But you stated that NO man could be saved without being "born again". Have you changed your wording here, or changed your theology?

Yup I have.. It’s very important to look at the word preached. It’s not the word euaggelizo (to preach the gospel); it’s the word kerusso (to announce a proclamation; to proclaim a victory). Very important to note that difference. He’s not preaching the gospel. He’s proclaiming a triumph. And He proclaimed a triumph unto the spirits in prison.

But this is what I had essentially stated and you disagreed. Man has never been considered by God as dead or permanently under the condemnation of Death through Adam. That is why Christ took captive those held in captivity in Hades prior to His actually coming to redeem mankind. He stole them from Satan. He entered the Strongman's house and took from Satan what was His. This is another point of evidence that Christ oversame death, that all men will rise from the dead and will stand in judgment before Christ.

My question:....Where does it say this in scripture?
Your response:...
Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

But no place in this whole context does it ever say that a person is being predestined to be a believer. What it does say is that believers will have certain actions imposed upon them as belevers. Believers are the elect, the chosen. But one must first become a believer. Must be IN Christ. Eph 1:4 says the very same thing and as the elect, IN Christ the action is to become blameless, and holy. We were also predestined to be sons, if we believe, heirs if we endure.

Sin dwells in our mortal bodies. Have you not read what Paul told us?

It dwells there but is NOT sin. those texts you quoted is Pauls summation of the two distinct influences in every believer. The sin influence of the flesh, of Satan working in man, and then the spirit of man, where the Holy Spirit dwells and influences man. Both are leading the beleiver to do their will. But is man's will, man's choice to take either road. That is the whole story of the relationship of God with man. Why God created man in the first place.

 

[MamaZ]

Mamaz,



That is a scriptural and theological contradiction. If what you say, Christ is worthless to man. Christ became man, first to live as man in all respects. Secondly, to heal man.

Show me where in the scriptures we see that Jesus was able to sin please. Christ came to live as man to lay His life down for His sheep.. He was the first to preach the Gospel. This was His reason for being here and becoming a man. He was tempted in every way that men are but He is and was the Only one without sin. Why is that? Is it because He was man? No it was because He is God. Show me where Jesus was tempted by the lust of His flesh as Paul shows us men are tempted by.



If Christ is not man in every respect, including the ability to sin Christ cannot heal and save man. We might as well try ourselves if that were possible.

So a Holy God can sin?

The ONLY difference between Christ's human nature and our human nature is that He did not sin.

You may want to read scripture to a different level. For Christ was not born of men. He was born of God. He is God. All other men are born of men. Jesus was conceived not of the flesh but of the Holy Spirit.





It is precisely the same human nature as you and me and every other human being that ever lived.


IF this were true then He would not have had to be conceived of the Holy Spirit. He would just have had to be born as John the baptist was. But that is not the case with Christ.



It is the essence of man. It is what makes man a human being and not an animal or any other created thing. Christ was tempted by the flesh just as we are.
Scripture to prove this please.



It is why He knows our weaknesses. It is that very nature that was raised from the dead that will raise our mortal bodies to life in the last day. This is why it is all men, since all men will rise from the dead. They rise from the dead because we are the same essence.

Because we are human we can rise from the dead? Men cannot rise from the dead of thier own human accord. Jesus rose from the dead for a reason and it is not because He was Human.



Christ is the first born of the dead, not some dead, not elected dead, or believers who died, but the dead, ALL DEAD. That is why death came from Adam and life came from Christ. Adam gave us our mortal natures, our fallen natues and Christ gives us our immortal natures.

Only those whom have the Spirit of Christ are Christs. Those who do ot have not part with him.

All the text that I have repeatedly given ad nausem have never been refuted by anyone as yet. I read a lot of opinions and self interpretations, but nothing overturns the Truth. The Truth of the Incarnation.

Once must know the truth of sin before one can understand the truth of Why Christ had to lay His life down for HIS sheep. Not all are His sheep.


I know that scripture does not ever say our nature is sin. Sin is not an objective thing, All it ever says is our nature is fallen, fallen meaning corruptible, dead, mortal.
Our nature is to sin. We never have to train our children to sin. It comes naturally to them. Scripture shows us that there is none (not some) but none that are righteous.. That there is none who do good. That the natural man cannot understand the things of God for they are Spiritually dead..Men sin because they are sinners. Men to not become sinners because they sin.




Being in a mortal state IS NOT SIN. It is that fallen state that causes us to sin. Which is why we will yet die a biological death to rid ourselves of that fallen flesh. The flesh that tempts us to sin, but is not sin itself.
Being mortal is being dead in our tresspasses.. Men will not be Gods upon death.

It would also be a scriptural contradiction when Christ commands us not to sin. That would be rediculous request, if our very natures were sin. We cannot change our natures so that we do not sin. If we could, then surely Christ would not have been necessary.
We cannot change our nature. This is why one must be born again. Not of the will of man but of the Spirit of God.

You have already stated what you think Christ's man was which is not us. If not us, then Christ is worthless to man in saving man.

It is His shed blood that is the New covenant.. It is through the cross of Christ that any man can be saved.


You are right that because they disobeyed they became sinners.
Since the promise of God to Adam of a redeemer, man, from God's perspective has always been freed from the bondage to sin. Bondage to sin is because of death. The sting of death is sin. But Christ overcame death as God promised to Adam thus God knew that death and sin would not ever hold man. Man has a propensity, a proclivity to sin and sins quite naturally, it is quite easy to give in the the temptations. We cannot will ourselves NOT to be a sinner, but we can will ourselves not to sin.

How can man will himself to not sin? When even out of our hearts come evil thoughts?

Even an unbeliever is cabable of this. If not we would not be able to have civil order anywhere in the world. The difference is that a believer seeks forgiveness of the sins he does commit, an unbeliever does not.

The only forgiveness one has is in the shed blood of Christ and that New nature that is given to His sheep. One can ask for forgiveness until a new day but if they do not accept Christ it is fruitless.. You cannot ask for forgiveness to just go out and do the same tomorrow believing that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness.. This is why it is the cross of Christ that brings obedience to Him..

But a believer, who has been regenerated can curb sin with the help of the Holy Spirit. We are commanded to not sin, to sin less and less. We are commanded to become righteous which is imparted to us by Christ as we grow, as we mature as believers. As we are make into His Image. The whole purpose of Christ coming was to save man from death. Death is the cause of our sin. Our mortal natures cause us to sin. We are not born sinners, but we are born mortal, dead. This is precisely why Christ could assume our natures which He recieved from the Virgin Mary. It is why He was human being in every respect as we are, but did not sin. This is why He is also our model and example. We are to walk in His steps, His Way, to follow His example. If we could not curb sin, it would be a rediculous request or commandment.



but you have not fully agreed with this point so far. You seem to what a different man in Christ than we are. If Christ's human nature is different than we are, then He was also not born of a human person, Mary. He was born in the very same condition that we are born into this world. Not a scintilla difference relative to His Human nature.

It is the ONLY reason we shall rise from the dead. That is the ONLY reason Christ needed to become man. ONLY the Incarnate Christ who died with our mortal natues, then raised those mortal natues to life with His 'Resurrection. Read the whole chapter of I Cor 15, It is ONLY about the importance of the Resurrection and the physical life, immortality that it ensures to all men. If Christ is not risen then neither will the dead rise. If Christ is risen then the dead shall be raised. Then you have verse 22 which is speaking ONLY about physical death and life. Or mortal state of man and immortal state of man. It has nothing to do with the Spiritual life, IN Christ. It is not a spiritual relationship that raises us to a physical eternal existance as human beings, but ONLY Christ's resurrection.



Now you are correct in stating that man's nature is to sin. It is NOT sin as you stated earlier. Jesus took on a human body but was born of a Virgin. He was not born of God. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit, but born of a human being. There is no taking on a human body. He was man in every respect. Christ had TWO natues. Divine and Human. That is the Incarnation.
You are correct in that He did not sin, but Christ could sin. In His human nature Christ submitted His human will to the Divine will perfectly.

But you stated that NO man could be saved without being "born again". Have you changed your wording here, or changed your theology?



But this is what I had essentially stated and you disagreed. Man has never been considered by God as dead or permanently under the condemnation of Death through Adam. That is why Christ took captive those held in captivity in Hades prior to His actually coming to redeem mankind. He stole them from Satan. He entered the Strongman's house and took from Satan what was His. This is another point of evidence that Christ oversame death, that all men will rise from the dead and will stand in judgment before Christ.



But no place in this whole context does it ever say that a person is being predestined to be a believer. What it does say is that believers will have certain actions imposed upon them as belevers. Believers are the elect, the chosen. But one must first become a believer. Must be IN Christ. Eph 1:4 says the very same thing and as the elect, IN Christ the action is to become blameless, and holy. We were also predestined to be sons, if we believe, heirs if we endure.

It dwells there but is NOT sin. those texts you quoted is Pauls summation of the two distinct influences in every believer. The sin influence of the flesh, of Satan working in man, and then the spirit of man, where the Holy Spirit dwells and influences man. Both are leading the beleiver to do their will. But is man's will, man's choice to take either road. That is the whole story of the relationship of God with man. Why God created man in the first place.

Will follow up.. Long long post.. I will have to answer as I have the time to do so .

 

[MamaZ]

Mamaz,


Why do you think that humans can raise themselves from the dead? Christ was not just human, He was also God.
So if Christ ONLY took on a human body, He could not have been just like us in all things. so who is Christ really? He could not have been man in your view, just looked like a man?

Can you show from Scripture that says our nature is sin. But again, if true, then Christ was not man. Could you explain more fully just who Christ might have been.

And how does that answer my statement. He willed that man be created in His Image. He willed that man be created free, with an independent will from His. A rational soul.

Christ was born of a virgin, so that He could become man. He did not just take on a body. Man is much more than just a body. God said he would die if he ate of the tree. Satan thought that he had won the battle at that point. Not realizing just how God would defeat him and the power of death by having His ONLY Son, become man, not just look like a man with a human body. That having that same nature, would raise that nature from death to life.

Do you not believe that Christ is ONE Person with TWO natures, God's and man's?

So not a soul was saved before the first person "was born again"? So Enoch, Abraham, David, et al were not saved, were never made alive?



Where does it say this in scripture?
Now we know that David was a man after Gods own heart. He understood sin.. Here is what he had to say.

Psa 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.


Where does scripture say this. Could you describe sin? Is sin objective? From what you are saying, our bodies are actually sin. So, if this is so, just how can any sin be forgiven, we are sin, it is not something anyone does. -
Where did I ever say that our bodies are sin? I said that sin dwells in our mortal bodies.. It is engrained into our very being even at the time of concpetion..

What does that mean?

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
1Co 15:43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.




I gave you several texts which clearly showed that a believer can become an unbeliever. Did you not read them?

Do you not understand that if they were truly believers they would not have went out from Him?

They chose hell because they did not choose Christ. Quite simple, Choose ye this day who you will serve. Could you quote the text(s) that says God choose us, (I am presuming you mean to be believers).

Joh 15:12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 "You are My friends if you do what I command you.
Joh 15:15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Joh 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
Joh 15:17 "This I command you, that you love one another.
Act 13:17 "The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it.

many more scripture to show that it is God who does the choosing.

Which salvation, from death or of our souls?

Can you show which scriptures that might say man cannot believe?
Can you cite any texts that says God withholds his offer of salvation to some men?
Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Repentance in the scriptural sense is to turn from sin. But I clearly understand this cannot be possible if we are sin as you described above. I would be interested in knowing your definition as per scripture?

I agree that repentance is to turn from. But what do you turn to?

That is what scripture says, but that does not answer the statement. Why is it possible that immortality comes?

Not sure what you are asking. Please expound here for me.

If we are saved through faith, what was the purpose of Christ, why did He need to save us? What did he save us from?
Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Rom 5:2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.


And just how does this even answer the statment? So faith saved us, not Christ? Christ's coming served no purpose?

Answered above



Man is MADE alive through Christ's Resurrection. Born of God. Neither the flesh nor the Spirit. The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise our mortal bodies to life, to immortality. Rom 8:11, I Cor 15:12, Actually the whole chapter. The whole chapter is about physical life and the resurrection.

Spiritual life and ressurecton for the flesh profits nothing.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ben:
Please tell me how Christ who "came to destroy sin", who "knew no sin", participates in sin by indwelling the "sinning-believer".
Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Who said that He does? I didn't.​

There is "salvation", apart from Jesus "indwelling" the saved? How does that work, JF?

Quote:
If in fact, their calling and choosing was certain, then yes.​

So you take Peter's words ("Therefore [against the man who FELL] we have to be all the more diligent about our calling and election ...so that we not 'become-wretched'... ...that the gates of Heaven BE ...provided to us") --- and change them into:

"Therefore, if GOD makes certain of your calling and election then you WILL be diligent and will NOT become wretched and of COURSE the gates of Heaven will BE provided".

How is that being guided by Scripture, rather than your doctrine altering Scripture?

Quote:
This is a special case referring to the Hebrew people, who were bought by Christ, yet rejected His sacrifice. Don't try to associate this passage with our situtation.​

So --- they rejected His SACRIFICE (which also means they rejected His resurrection) --- and they were still SAVED?

Gal3:26 says "there is now therefore neither Jew nor Greek..." But you're proposing "there WAS 'Jew' who had a DIFFERENT COVENANT than we do".

Do you see the conflict in that?

Remember the Five-Ways:
1. Subjects were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place
2. Subjects did not really FALL
3. Two groups; subject change from SAVED, to lurking-professing-NEVER-WERE-saved
4. Hypothetical, couldn't really happen; fatherly advice, "effective means by which He KEEPS us saved"
5. Dispensation --- applied to THEM back THEN but not to us here TODAY

You have tried to apply Five-Way #5.

BTW, by rejecting Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, then per 1Cor15:17 their faith is in vain and they are still in their sins. Have you an answer for that?
.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Don't ascribe antinomianism to me, Ben. No true believer would assert such a view.​

I'm pleased to hear you say that.
However --- if a man can be saved, but not-indwelt by Jesus and/or the Spirit, and can be WALKING in sin, then what is the difference between that position, and "antinomianism"?

Quote:
Tell me how this contradicts us being free from sin today? I am free from sin; I am no longer a slave to it, in that the HS empowers me to overcome temptation. Now you have yet to point out where it says that if I fail, I cease to be "set free".​

You reject Heb10:26, because you do not think "it applies today". But Rom6 says the same thing; so does Rom8:12-14, and Col2:6, and many other verses.

You are not "free from sin", JF; you are free from the CONSEQUENCE of sin, if you abide in Him and do not continue in sin. You --- and I --- do sin; occasionally. We are free to do that. This offends Christ and the Spirit; we are convicted, repent and ask forgiveness. Each time we sin, we then stand before the exact same choice --- sin again, or repent. If we choose "again", then we are refusing His discipline, and per Heb12 we will not be His children but illegitimate. (Or do you reject that chapter of Hebrews, also?)

Quote:
"WE HEBREWS who are unsure whether Jesus is the perfect and final sacrifice, and wish to return to our original sacrificial system".​

Yet they remain saved.

The letter of Galatians was written to those who were "returning again to a yoke of slavery", forsaking Jesus' gospel of grace. Shall we also reject Paul's letter to Galatia?

Do you have a list of what portions of Scripture we should ignore?

Quote:
Exactly what I've been saying all along; we as Christians can do deeds within the flesh or the Spirit. However, "all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." This does not, in any way-shape-form say "if we sin, we have lost our salvation."​

What if we sin multiple times? How does that align with "led by the Spirit of God"?

Quote:
Calvinists assert sanctification is synergistic.​

But this is a contradiction. By imposing "men ALWAYS follow their wills; if regenerated they WILL to believe and follow Jesus (but they can turn away and SIN!) --- if non-regenerated they will not follow Jesus (but sin too). So by saying "sanctification is synergistic", you're trying to cover-up the fact that the very "synergism" you claim, is irresistible and consequential from God's sovereign choice. So by trying to say "man chooses", you're not denying that you perceive "man can ONLY choose according his HEART which was sovereignly-decreed-by-GOD".

You will not admit the contradiction.

Quote:
So there is nothing wrong with a charge to "keep yourself from idols". God does not always "keep us from sin", sometimes he allows us to go ahead and do it.​

He always allows us to do it.

The phrase "keep yourselves from idols", is the context of "he who is born of God keeps himself". This is consistency, JF.

Quote:
My father always tells me that when I was just a couple years old, he was watching me play, and I kept on trying to stick things into a power outlet. He kept telling me no, but I kept on doing it, so he let me go ahead and do it. And I got zapped.​

You could have been electrocuted; your father would have lost you had DHS found out about it.

Quote:
He says I never did it again.

Now that is a picture of a Father's "allowing" one to do something wrong so they learn from it. I don't think there is any doubt that our heavenly Father allows us to sin sometimes that we might taste the horror of it and keep ourselves from it.​

Apples and oranges --- you're comparing the actions of an unresponsible child with the fully-responsible actions of an adult.

Suppose that as an ADULT you tried to stick things in an outlet, and your Dad said "No don't do that; you do it anyway, and possibly get electrocuted. This aligns with God allowing us to SIN, and possibly getting electrocuted (cast into Hell). See how your own analogy turned around and bit you?
.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Contextually speaking, John and Jude are writing about two separate situations. John is writing about the practice of sin - that is, an unrepentant, continual sinning which has no regard for Christ. Jude is not writing about that. To compare these is uncalled for.​

Ahhh --- so you have a list of "non-applicable-Scriptures" (Heb10:26 for one), and you have a list of verses that say the SAME but mean DIFFERENT.

With respect, how fortunate you are to have that list; else you might be inclined to just take the writers at their own words.

Quote:
Further, your translation of 1 John 5:18 is incorrect.​

From Blueletterbible.org:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he-that-is-begotten of God keeps himself, and that-wicked-one toucheth him not."
100% refutation. "Of God", is a prepositional phrase --- the noun in a prepositional phrase is not a subject. (Just as "through faith" in Eph2:8 is wrongly thought to assert "faith" is the subject-gift-from-God).

Quote:
The greek phrase "τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτόν" specifically says "God keeps him". God (θεό&#962, being the subject, is performing the verb (keeps - τηρέ&#969 , with him (αὐτό&#957 being the direct object, or, the one who is being effected by the "keeping".​

Click on the link to Blueletterbible, and tell me how all of us "gets it wrong".

Quote:
Let's discuss Hebrews over in the other thread, Ben.​

What would be the point? It's on your "disregardable Scriptures"; you'll just deny that it applies.

Quote:
You have no regard for context. All you care about is opposing the Calvinist doctrine. That is the only explanation for your "scrounging" of verses that are all taken out of context. It's like you briefly read a verse that sounds like a support for your view, you adopt it, and never do any critical study of it. This whole post is proof of that.​

Context always denies "Calvinism". You reject the context of "keep yourselves from idols" (when clearly idol-worshippers will NOT enter Heaven), relating to "keep yourselves from sin". You have painted certain verses that conflict Calvinism as "irrelevant, applied to THEM but not to US".

Context denies 1Cor2:14 from being Calvinistic; denies 2Cor4:3-4 (context is 3:16). Denies Jeremiah 17:9 (context is verse 10). Denies Ezk36:26-27 (context is 11:18-21).

Quote:
When my parent's favorite professor from Moody (Dr. Marvin Mayer) came to our house a few weeks ago, he said very clearly, "When it comes to interpreting Scripture, I am neither a Calvinist nor a Dispensationalist; I am a contextualist."​

Context is in full view here, and ruins your position, JF.

Quote:
You seriously ought to think about that for a while, Ben.​

Will I come to the conclusion that "adjacent verses are IRRELEVANT, or meaningless, disregardable", etcetera?

I don't think so...
.

 

[AndOne]

Please provide me one verse that states EXPLICITLY that if a CHRISTIAN sins and "falls away" that the will be cast into HELL.