"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[nobdysfool]

Happy Boxing Day to you, Cygnus! I trust you had a Happy Christmas, as well!

 

[nobdysfool]

Duplicate, sorry....

 

[heymikey80]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, CygnusX1. My hope is that it brightens the season! Happy Christmas.

 

[cygnusx1]

Happy Boxing Day to you, Cygnus! I trust you had a Happy Christmas, as well!

I appreciate the vote of confidence, CygnusX1. My hope is that it brightens the season! Happy Christmas.

Thanks guys !!!

Hope you had a great time . The Lord is good.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
I pointed out that "all the runners run, but only one receives the prize."

Unless you're talking about only Jesus being saved, this is not about salvation.​

Refresh my memory --- what is the "prize", for which we race?

The salvation of OTHERS souls???

 

[Ben johnson]

No one has answered the "fatal flaw dilemma". That we sin, exposes that we have a choice.

The discussion lately flowed into 1Cor9:25-27 --- the contention is that our race is for the salvation of OTHERS' SOULS. Yet the context does not support that; it's a personal race. ONE receives the prize. Each person is in his OWN race.

We proved that "imperishable wreath", connects to "immortal prize". It's eternity itself.

We proved the connection betwen 1:5:29, and 2:13:5 --- "adokimos" (unapproved/disqualified), equates to "not-being-IN-CHRIST". That's unsalvation.

Heb12 also speaks of a "race" --- and plainly warns against "sin that so easily entangles us". Entangling sin, compromises the race; only by trying to assert "the race is not for eternity", can any position be forwarded of "it doesn't align with forfeitable salvation". But the race is for the "imperishable CROWN", which is not "others' salvation"; by saying "WIN", he presents it as PERSONAL.

"Crown" in 9:25, is "stephanos"; "crown" in James1:12, is "stephanos". It is without credibility to recognize "Oh JAMES speaks of eternal crown", but stubbornly cling to the idea that "Paul does NOT". It is the IMPERISHABLE crown that Paul wrote, it is eternal life that he meant.

It is equally non-credible to assert that Paul is not speaking of INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

"To those without law, ...I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a FELLOW PARTAKER OF IT. 9:21-23​

Thus is established that verse 27 does indeed connect Paul's "being a fellow partaker of the Gospel --- SALVATION". And the connection with 2:13:5 stands --- Christ is in us, unless WE fail the test just as PAUL COULD!

"Failing the test", is "not having Christ in us". It is NOT salvation.

We race, individual races, that each of us "win our own crown" --- the crown of LIFE. And sin so easily entangles us, seeking to distract us from that crown. (James solidifies that idea, with verses 1:14-16!)
.

 

[drstevej]

There is a world of difference between choice and arbitrary free choice.

The "Liver & Onions Parable"

The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will

Suppose you detest L&O (Liver & Onions). The sight and smell makes you sick.
Just once, to appease the insistence of a friend that L&O really is good tasting, touched your tongue's tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying "Just try it." You say, "No way!"

You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

► SUCH is the unregenerate person's free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

===

Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, "What smells so good?" He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn't look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste -- then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

====

BTW, in Heaven... Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!

 

[JDS]

There is a world of difference between choice and arbitrary free choice.

So, who do you know who has changed their minds about liver and onions?

Parables must be rooted in truth, no?

 

[Ben johnson]

So if "repulsion of liver and onions" represents our will to rebel and sin, and that position is "supernaturally changed so that we WILL to eat liver and onions" (which in your parable equates to "will to believe and follow God, turning away from sin and rebellion) --- why do we still SIN?

What is it about God's sovereign heart-change, that isn't sufficient to keep us from sinning?

Oh --- and where in Scripture is the idea of "God changes someone's nature, BEFORE they believe"?

It's not in Eph2:5-8.
It's not in 2Cor4:3-4.
It's not in Jeremiah 17:9.
It's not in 1Cor2:14.

Where is it?

 

[frumanchu]

The overarching desire does not preclude the possibility of immediate, temporary desires overcoming it.


The result of our sinful nature is that we have a single overarching desire...self-pleasure (avoidance of pain is an important subset of this). As such, we do not seek God, for to acknowledge and seek after Him means self-denial. This is at the very core of everything we do. We will hear the gospel and will reject it, or in some cases will 'accept' it as a means of self-fulfillement (for example, we may accept a watered down or friendly form of it that allows us to quiet our already seared conscience).

What happens in regeneration is that He places within our hearts a desire to seek and trust Him. That change then becomes efficacious at the hearing of the gospel, the choice is made, and the result is faith. The Holy Spirit sustains that desire within us.

So why do we still sin? Well, there is a difference between an overarching desire and a spontaneous or momentary desire. Think in terms of being on a diet. You desire to lose weight, get in shape, etc. so you go on a diet. You're truckin' along fine until one particular moment of weakness when you're presented with a bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream. You cave in and indulge your desire to eat it. Now the fact that you've eaten that ice cream does not mean you've completely lost your overall desire to lose weight, it just means that at that particular moment your desire for the ice cream was stronger than your desire for keeping your diet. You lost a battle in a larger war. Now compare that to what Paul spoke of in Romans regarding "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice."

 

[heymikey80]

No one has answered the "fatal flaw dilemma". That we sin, exposes that we have a choice.

Depends on your definition (and bootstrapping) of "choice". First you'll start with "choice", then awhile later will start talking about "free choice", then promote that into "independent choice".

When in reality, "No one is good, but God alone." Your choices aren't good. Why God would find them so is incredible.

The discussion lately flowed into 1Cor9:25-27 --- the contention is that our race is for the salvation of OTHERS' SOULS. Yet the context does not support that; it's a personal race. ONE receives the prize. Each person is in his OWN race.

Were this the case then Paul would accuse us all of Multiple Personality Disorder:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? 1 Cor 9:24
​

Paul can be so clear that his Calvinism shows.

We proved that "imperishable wreath", connects to "immortal prize". It's eternity itself.

Sorry, your proof is everyone else's shaky argument.

We proved the connection betwen 1:5:29, and 2:13:5 --- "adokimos" (unapproved/disqualified), equates to "not-being-IN-CHRIST". That's unsalvation.

Another shaky argument, pointed out as shaky and the challenge unresponded-to.

Heb12 also speaks of a "race" --- and plainly warns against "sin that so easily entangles us". Entangling sin, compromises the race; only by trying to assert "the race is not for eternity", can any position be forwarded of "it doesn't align with forfeitable salvation". But the race is for the "imperishable CROWN", which is not "others' salvation"; by saying "WIN", he presents it as PERSONAL.

A whole new context, suddenly because the Apostle uses an illustration of "race" then he must be thinking about the same imagery as in 1 Corinthians. He can't possibly use a race to illustrate something else. No: He must be clamped down to using the illustration in only one way. Otherwise Ben's argument is lost!

It's lost.

"Crown" in 9:25, is "stephanos"; "crown" in James1:12, is "stephanos". It is without credibility to recognize "Oh JAMES speaks of eternal crown", but stubbornly cling to the idea that "Paul does NOT". It is the IMPERISHABLE crown that Paul wrote, it is eternal life that he meant.

And Ben demands you'll only get one crown. Even though those who run, run many races, may win many races, and win more than one crown of laurel leaves.

It is equally non-credible to assert that Paul is not speaking of INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

"To those without law, ...I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a FELLOW PARTAKER OF IT. 9:21-23​

Thus is established that verse 27 does indeed connect Paul's "being a fellow partaker of the Gospel --- SALVATION". And the connection with 2:13:5 stands --- Christ is in us, unless WE fail the test just as PAUL COULD!

And Ben, thinking that coming into fellowship in partaking with a new believer, thinking that this is Paul's personal salvation instead of Paul's yearning to share fellowship with new believers -- thinking everything is soteriology, Ben leaps to grab hold of this bit of a phrase.

Paul doesn't lose his salvation every time he shares the gospel, hoping that in saving another son he will regain salvation.

That's just absurd. It's the conclusion from this interpretation of the phrase. And it's absurd.

"Failing the test", is "not having Christ in us". It is NOT salvation.

We race, individual races, that each of us "win our own crown" --- the crown of LIFE. And sin so easily entangles us, seeking to distract us from that crown. (James solidifies that idea, with verses 1:14-16!)
.

By cross-circuiting really average words in Greek like "disqualified", illustrations as vague as "a race" or "a field growing things", this alternate theology emerges that is straining incredibility from an exegetical standpoint.

It's nowhere near a fatal flaw in predestination. In point of fact it exposes ever more clearly the credibility of predestinary thought, and the incredibility of an alternative that has to resort to such extremes of ideas.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey:
Depends on your definition (and bootstrapping) of "choice".​

"Bootstrapping"???

Quote:
First you'll start with "choice", then awhile later will start talking about "free choice", then promote that into "independent choice".

When in reality, "No one is good, but God alone." Your choices aren't good. Why God would find them so is incredible.​

And yet, after all this time what still separates us is the issue of "God's perspective"; I perceive God responds to men's consideration, you perceive that God CAUSES men's consideration.

Quote:
Were this the case then Paul would accuse us all of Multiple Personality Disorder:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? 1 Cor 9:24

Paul can be so clear that his Calvinism shows.​

I don't see "Calvinism". Not here, not 1Tim4:16, not anywhere. But in this passage --- how does verse 23 not convey "risk", for Paul himself?

And if each of us is in our OWN race, then each of us receives the "crown of life".

Quote:
Sorry, your proof is everyone else's shaky argument.​

Then tell me what "imperishable wreath", is? I think you said "it's OTHERS' salvation". Didn't you?

Quote:
Another shaky argument, pointed out as shaky and the challenge unresponded-to.​

Why does "unapproved/disqualified" in one passage, not mean the same as "unapproved/disqualified" in the other? ANd in the "other", "disqualified" means "not in Christ." That certainly can't be "saved", even though it's an admonishment TO the saved...

Quote:
A whole new context, suddenly because the Apostle uses an illustration of "race" then he must be thinking about the same imagery as in 1 Corinthians. He can't possibly use a race to illustrate something else. No: He must be clamped down to using the illustration in only one way. Otherwise Ben's argument is lost!

It's lost.​

In one place he says "race" (and "for an imperishable CROWN"). In another place, "run the race with ENDURANCE, avoiding the sin that so easily entangles us".

How am I mis-perceiving that as "salvational"?

Quote:
And Ben demands you'll only get one crown. Even though those who run, run many races, may win many races, and win more than one crown of laurel leaves.​

Well, the "crown of life", is eternal life in James1. The "imperishable crown" --- what else could that be?

Quote:
And Ben, thinking that coming into fellowship in partaking with a new believer, thinking that this is Paul's personal salvation instead of Paul's yearning to share fellowship with new believers -- thinking everything is soteriology, Ben leaps to grab hold of this bit of a phrase.​

Huh-uh; he's plainly saying "partaker of the GOSPEL". Not "fellowship with believers".

Quote:
Paul doesn't lose his salvation every time he shares the gospel, hoping that in saving another son he will regain salvation.​

So help me understand --- when Paul subdues his own BODY, lest he be DISQUALIFIED, he's clearly struggling with SIN. (If not, then what else?) How does that not connect directly with "sin that so easily entangles us"?

And if it's SIN with which he struggles, what can sin disqualify him FROM, if not salvation? Thanx in advance for helping me understand...

Quote:
That's just absurd. It's the conclusion from this interpretation of the phrase. And it's absurd.​

I look forward to reading your explanation.

Quote:
By cross-circuiting really average words in Greek like "disqualified", illustrations as vague as "a race" or "a field growing things", this alternate theology emerges that is straining incredibility from an exegetical standpoint.​

I don't think it's "vague". One field is tilled; the field can yield EITHER good fruit, OR thorns. Can receive EITHER blessing OR curse. And it's nothing of the TILLER that decides which fruit will raise.

Thus it reflects precisely what Jesus said: "The GOOD soil, is those who hear the Word with an honest and good heart, and HOLD it fast and bear fruit with perseverance." Lk8:15 Identically what Paul said in 1Tim4:16...

Quote:
It's nowhere near a fatal flaw in predestination. In point of fact it exposes ever more clearly the credibility of predestinary thought, and the incredibility of an alternative that has to resort to such extremes of ideas.​

How? The "extreme", respectfully, is to assert "sinningly-saved"; which some on the board have.

The "fatal flaw", is the reality that we who are saved, do occasionally sin; the difference between us and the unsaved, is that sin is RARE, it ALWAYS is accompanied by remorse and repentance (and forgiveness!). For the unsaved, sin is frequent (and unrepentant).

...which brings us back to all the warnings --- if we sin again and again, then we have forsaken belief. Just as the man did in 2Pet1:9, Heb10:29, and other passages...
.

 

[frumanchu]

"Responsible Grace" theology leaves no room for the grace of God in salvation (except, of course, for its proponents). It teaches that you cannot sin and be saved, but to circumvent the obvious legalism it throws about terms like "practicing" sin...a term which "Responsible Grace" cannot (and will not) define any further lest its house of cards come tumbling down around it. It's proponents go on sinning...as do we all...yet they will not apply their own theology to themselves, either by right out refusal or by delusions of being less a sinner than they actually are. Meanwhile they place the chains of legalism about the hands and feet of Christ's brothers and sisters, holding the pendulum of lost salvation swinging over their heads, inching ever closer. They entice with gentle words while they rob the believer of their security in Christ, turning the Gospel of Grace in Scripture into a litany of warnings with occasional promises of good things for those who are lucky enough on their own to be obedient.

"Responsible Grace" theology forsakes the efficacy of the justification of the believer, turning it from "once for all" to "once...for now."

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey:
Depends on your definition (and bootstrapping) of "choice".​

"Bootstrapping"???

Yes, bootstrapping one definition which is not meant by a use of the word.

Also known as the logical fallacy of

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. -- K. Wheeler
​

Quote:
First you'll start with "choice", then awhile later will start talking about "free choice", then promote that into "independent choice".

When in reality, "No one is good, but God alone." Your choices aren't good. Why God would find them so is incredible.​

And yet, after all this time what still separates us is the issue of "God's perspective"; I perceive God responds to men's consideration, you perceive that God CAUSES men's consideration.

Nope. As before, I have it both ways, you're demanding it only one way.

We've discussed this before. False dilemma.

Quote:
Were this the case then Paul would accuse us all of Multiple Personality Disorder:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? 1 Cor 9:24

Paul can be so clear that his Calvinism shows.​

I don't see "Calvinism". Not here, not 1Tim4:16, not anywhere. But in this passage --- how does verse 23 not convey "risk", for Paul himself?

Verse 23 repeats the concept of Paul partaking with new believers. The idea that Paul is compelled to convert people or he loses his salvation is incredible, and not Paul's sense.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.​

The incredible meets the plausible ... again.

And if each of us is in our OWN race, then each of us receives the "crown of life".

And we compete with many of us. Concluding the multiple personality disorder to which I referred before.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 1 Cor 9:24
​

Quote:
Sorry, your proof is everyone else's shaky argument.​

Then tell me what "imperishable wreath", is? I think you said "it's OTHERS' salvation". Didn't you?

The imperishable crown is for others' conversion to eternal life, yes, and eternal communion with him. A soul won is eternally sharing in the blessings of Christ along with Paul.

Quote:
Another shaky argument, pointed out as shaky and the challenge unresponded-to.​

Why does "unapproved/disqualified" in one passage, not mean the same as "unapproved/disqualified" in the other? ANd in the "other", "disqualified" means "not in Christ." That certainly can't be "saved", even though it's an admonishment TO the saved...

Why? Grammar.

"disqualified" means something different in a different context when you say it or write it. "disqualified" is an adjectival word, qualifying another concept presented in the text. Ref. the use in 1 Cor 9, it's not referring to Paul's salvation.

Quote:
A whole new context, suddenly because the Apostle uses an illustration of "race" then he must be thinking about the same imagery as in 1 Corinthians. He can't possibly use a race to illustrate something else. No: He must be clamped down to using the illustration in only one way. Otherwise Ben's argument is lost!

It's lost.​

In one place he says "race" (and "for an imperishable CROWN"). In another place, "run the race with ENDURANCE, avoiding the sin that so easily entangles us".

C'mon. By the end of this discussion you'd have every word in Scripture meaning "salvation".

Next time you watch a race, tell me who gets saved.

Quote:
And Ben demands you'll only get one crown. Even though those who run, run many races, may win many races, and win more than one crown of laurel leaves.​

Well, the "crown of life", is eternal life in James1. The "imperishable crown" --- what else could that be?

Since "many run, but only one receives the crown, you'd better hope it's not salvation. Of course the grammar simply destroys this idea, so I'm quite confident in what God's actually said above your interpretation.

Quote:
And Ben, thinking that coming into fellowship in partaking with a new believer, thinking that this is Paul's personal salvation instead of Paul's yearning to share fellowship with new believers -- thinking everything is soteriology, Ben leaps to grab hold of this bit of a phrase.​

Huh-uh; he's plainly saying "partaker of the GOSPEL". Not "fellowship with believers".

He's plainly saying be a fellow-partaker. Sorry you omitted that so quickly and intentionally. Tell me how one becomes a fellow partaker without someone else being a partaker with Paul.

Quote:
Paul doesn't lose his salvation every time he shares the gospel, hoping that in saving another son he will regain salvation.​

So help me understand --- when Paul subdues his own BODY, lest he be DISQUALIFIED, he's clearly struggling with SIN. (If not, then what else?) How does that not connect directly with "sin that so easily entangles us"?

And if it's SIN with which he struggles, what can sin disqualify him FROM, if not salvation? Thanx in advance for helping me understand...

Are you saying non-athletes are sinful? Running any race requires subduing your own body.

Paul's point is that he disciplines his body for the task at hand.

Quote:
By cross-circuiting really average words in Greek like "disqualified", illustrations as vague as "a race" or "a field growing things", this alternate theology emerges that is straining incredibility from an exegetical standpoint.​

I don't think it's "vague". One field is tilled; the field can yield EITHER good fruit, OR thorns. Can receive EITHER blessing OR curse. And it's nothing of the TILLER that decides which fruit will raise.

Thus it reflects precisely what Jesus said: "The GOOD soil, is those who hear the Word with an honest and good heart, and HOLD it fast and bear fruit with perseverance." Lk8:15 Identically what Paul said in 1Tim4:16...

=sigh= I assume the next time someone talks about growing vegetables you'll ask which veggies are saved.

It is indeed incredible to just blithely apply the imagery of a parable on top of someone else's illustration. It rips the writer's intent to shreds. And I think both writers had the Holy Spirit when using similar illustrations for different points. Points that are obvious when you examine the context.

Quote:
It's nowhere near a fatal flaw in predestination. In point of fact it exposes ever more clearly the credibility of predestinary thought, and the incredibility of an alternative that has to resort to such extremes of ideas.​

How? The "extreme", respectfully, is to assert "sinningly-saved"; which some on the board have.

Equivocation, but no, it's not extreme.

Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself am serving the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I am serving the law of sin. Rom 7:24-25

if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:7-8

'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. Luke 18:13-14

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. Mk 10:18

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith Rom 9:30

to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." Rom 4:5-8
​

The reality is that the salvation process in corrupted creation involves constantly sinning, and ceasing from sin. Your own version of Responsible Grace constantly and persistently connects with this view as well -- thus the "Equivocation" is identified.

The "fatal flaw", is the reality that we who are saved, do occasionally sin; the difference between us and the unsaved, is that sin is RARE, it ALWAYS is accompanied by remorse and repentance (and forgiveness!). For the unsaved, sin is frequent (and unrepentant).

Oh, please. Where is it stated, Ben. Just because that's the direction, it's not the case in any measurable sense. Not in any measurable sense. No measurable sense. Thus no factual sense.

Sin is not rarer among believers. It is ceasing, but it is not rarer.

Sin is not always unrepented, either. We point out that it is characteristic of a Christian that he be repentant, yes. That's very different from always repenting.

...which brings us back to all the warnings --- if we sin again and again, then we have forsaken belief. Just as the man did in 2Pet1:9, Heb10:29, and other passages...
.

Everyone sins again and again.

This isn't the standard.

The rules have changed.

There's another standard.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Yes, bootstrapping one definition which is not meant by a use of the word.

Also known as the logical fallacy of

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. -- K. Wheeler​

And yet, Calvinism speaks out of both sides of its mouth; by saying "Man has free will", but ALSO saying "man's will always chooses according to depraved nature (if not sovereign-regenerated), or according to spiritual nature (if sovereign-elect-regenerated). So Calvinism claims "man's will is FREE, but CANNOT choose faith or unbelief freely"...

Quote:
Nope. As before, I have it both ways, you're demanding it only one way.

We've discussed this before. False dilemma.​

WRong. What comes first --- God CAUSING man's faith, or God RESPONDING TO man's faith? You can't straddle the fence.

Quote:
Verse 23 repeats the concept of Paul partaking with new believers. The idea that Paul is compelled to convert people or he loses his salvation is incredible, and not Paul's sense.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The incredible meets the plausible ... again.​

You can't insert the word "blessings" --- it's participation in the GOSPEL ITSELF that can be forfeit.
...no matter how much you may dislike the idea...

Quote:
And we compete with many of us. Concluding the multiple personality disorder to which I referred before.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 1 Cor 9:24​

Nope --- each competes in his OWN (individual) race. Just as Paul HIMSELF must individually subdue his body, lest he be DISQUALIFIED...

Quote:
The imperishable crown is for others' conversion to eternal life, yes, and eternal communion with him. A soul won is eternally sharing in the blessings of Christ along with Paul.​

Does not fit --- it's Paul's OWN PARTICIPATION in the GOSPEL that can be forfeit.

Quote:
Why? Grammar.

"disqualified" means something different in a different context when you say it or write it. "disqualified" is an adjectival word, qualifying another concept presented in the text. Ref. the use in 1 Cor 9, it's not referring to Paul's salvation.​

On what basis? There's nothing there more than your own "say-so".

Quote:
In one place he says "race" (and "for an imperishable CROWN"). In another place, "run the race with ENDURANCE, avoiding the sin that so easily entangles us".

C'mon. By the end of this discussion you'd have every word in Scripture meaning "salvation".​

Do you believe we can be "entangled in sin but REMAIN SAVED"?

Quote:
Since "many run, but only one receives the crown, you'd better hope it's not salvation. Of course the grammar simply destroys this idea, so I'm quite confident in what God's actually said above your interpretation.​

You haven't answered the question --- if it's a COMMUNITY race, what is the ONE CROWN?

Quote:
Paul's point is that he disciplines his body for the task at hand.​

Let's see if we can come to agreement on what the PRICE (crown!) is, and why it does not connect with James1 (as I said).

Quote:
=sigh= I assume the next time someone talks about growing vegetables you'll ask which veggies are saved.

It is indeed incredible to just blithely apply the imagery of a parable on top of someone else's illustration. It rips the writer's intent to shreds. And I think both writers had the Holy Spirit when using similar illustrations for different points. Points that are obvious when you examine the context.​

Complete dodge, Mike; what are the POINTS, and how are they DIFFERENT?

Quote:
Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself am serving the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I am serving the law of sin. Rom 7:24-25​

Please tell me if you think it's possible to walk in sin in our BODIES, but still prance into Heaven in our SPIRITS?

Quote:
Sin is not rarer among believers. It is ceasing, but it is not rarer.​

Really! So we-saved, sin just as much as the HELL-BOUND?

Do you really believe that???

Quote:
Sin is not always unrepented, either. We point out that it is characteristic of a Christian that he be repentant, yes. That's very different from always repenting.
Everyone sins again and again.
This isn't the standard.
The rules have changed.
There's another standard.​

I see --- so 1Cor6:9-11 clearly and plainly says "They will not inherit the KINGDOM".
Gal5:19-21 says the same. SO does Eph5:5-6.
1Jn3:5-10 says "He who practices sin DOES NOT KNOW GOD, but is OF THE DEVIL".

....yet you seem to be saying "there is an EXCEPTION, those absolutes no longer APPLY; we are now sinfully saved."

Do I have it right, or wrong?

 

[drstevej]

Ben, how often do you sin?

 

[moonbeam]

That we sin, exposes that we have a choice.

Of course we have a choice...the choice is to believe the good news that the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the condemnation we justly deserve for our sins, past, present, and future, by his shed blood on our behalf...or not.

mr johnson it seems has yet to make that choice...to believe.

mr johnson chooses to dis-believe that good news proclaimed by the Lamb of God...in doing so he chooses to sin.

 

[moonbeam]

"Responsible Grace" theology leaves no room for the grace of God in salvation (except, of course, for its proponents). It teaches that you cannot sin and be saved, but to circumvent the obvious legalism it throws about terms like "practicing" sin...a term which "Responsible Grace" cannot (and will not) define any further lest its house of cards come tumbling down around it. It's proponents go on sinning...as do we all...yet they will not apply their own theology to themselves, either by right out refusal or by delusions of being less a sinner than they actually are. Meanwhile they place the chains of legalism about the hands and feet of Christ's brothers and sisters, holding the pendulum of lost salvation swinging over their heads, inching ever closer. They entice with gentle words while they rob the believer of their security in Christ, turning the Gospel of Grace in Scripture into a litany of warnings with occasional promises of good things for those who are lucky enough on their own to be obedient.

"Responsible Grace" theology forsakes the efficacy of the justification of the believer, turning it from "once for all" to "once...for now."

Amen Brother

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Moonbeam:
Amen Brother​

"Amen"? Agreement?

Scripture warns us against deceivers, who fully intend to deceive us away from Christ. 1Jn2:26-28 is one; Col2:6-8 is another. 2Pet3:17 is a third, and 2Jn1:7-9 is a fourth.

Sin is something that can deceive us away from Christ, and words like "thanatos" (perish) are used. James1:14-16 states that. Heb3:6-14 is another, which uses words like "do not harden YOUR heart", and "hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God".

We are warned again and again to "persevere and be diligent", with the words "SO THAT YOU BE SAVED/ENTER HEAVEN" are clearly in view. 1Tim4:16 is one, 2Pet3:5-10 is another.

The only thing Calvinists can bring to the debate is a charge of "works salvation"; even though it's been clearly shown time and time again that works are NOT at issue, it's the dwelling in CHRIST that is at issue. He who dwells in Christ HAS good works, he who has not good works is revealed to not be dwelling in Christ.

And that is the issue --- can we be deceived away from Christ, by deceitful men, and by sin?

Scripture says "yes".

What is your agreement with Scripture, Moonbeam?

 

[frumanchu]

We are told that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and given an earnest guarantee of our salvation (Eph 1:13-14)...we are told that He is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us blameless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24)...we are told that He is at work within us both to will and to do (Phil 2:13)...we are told that He is able to preserve us and deliver us from every evil work (2 Tim 4:18)...we are told that those He justified will be glorified (Rom 8:30)...we are told He will confirm us to the end (1 Cor 1:8)...we are told we are sealed for the day of redemption (Eph 4:30)...we are told we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation (1 Pet 1:5)...we are told that whatever is born of God overcomes the world (1 John 5:4)...we are told it is God who give the increase (1 Cor 3:6)...we are told we are preserved in Jesus Christ (Jude 1)...we are told He is faithful to those He calls and will preserve them spirit, soul and body (1 Thess 5:23-24)...we are told none shall snatch His sheep out of His hand (John 10:28)...we are told He is able to put His fear in our hearts so that we will not depart from Him (Jer 32:40).

Indeed, Moonbeam...what is your agreement with Scripture?