Predestination and Election

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Despite Johnson's attempt at twisting the scripture, 1 Cor 2:15 is quite clear, the natural man (the non-born again man) cannot receive the things of the Spirit. The reason given is that they are spiritually discerned.

Only the spiritual man (the born again man) can receive the things of the Spirit. That is why one has to be born again.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Duplicate

 

[nobdysfool]

Quote:
Actually none of you have refuted each other. That is an impossibility. You cannot refute one system of theology with another system. All you can do is point out the differences or what each point might be in each system. One must either stay with their own interpretations or accept the other system. You cannot be piecemeal and think that the system remains unchanged. You are simply evolving a whole new theological system if you add or substract from another. I guess that is how one can claim to be a three-point Calvinsist. Just what is that?
​

That's not true --- in my post #517, are clear refutations of verses supposed to endorse "Calvinism" and the refutations are not subject to opinion.

And by your own measure, since you have not and apparently will not answer Fru's posts, wherein he has refuted several points of your theology, your silence indicates that Fru's refutations stand. You can no longer claim that none of your theology has been refuted. It clearly has. Your word is not the final word. And refutation IS subject to opinion. In my opinion, your theology has many serious flaws in it. We have tried repeatedly to show you those flaws, but you dismiss that correction, and then claim that your refutation "overturns" any other conflicting refutation. You cannot make such a unilateral declaration. It carries no weight. It is merely your opinion, nothing more.

Opinions vary.

 

[heymikey80]

Quote:
On Paul's statement, copiously quoted to you. No human will is why God is choosing people.​

What verse? Rom3:10? Have you "whited-out" 2:3-8? Will you answer what "justifier" means, in the Greek, in 3:26?

Rom3:10 is NOT "Paul's statement", it's citing Psalms 14 & 53. In no way does "No one (in general) seeks", conflict "if you seek you will find".

Pshaw, I haven't whited-out 2:3-8. I've included it, as Paul does, IN ROM 3:9-20:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
​

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
​

When we actually read Paul -- read Paul's Romans 3 as well and in as context with Paul's Romans 2 -- Paul is demanding Jewish people walk away from this method to be justified (as well as those trying to find righteousness by another list of commands -- ever looked up the word "law"?). The system failed -- the motive of being justified this way failed -- Gentiles as well as Jews are all under sin, and we will find God judging and indeed condemning Gentiles by works as well as Jews (3:9, cf 2:3-8).

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin Rom 3:9​

And so this scheme of being (or remaining) justified by doing commands fails. Period. In fact, Paul says the motive of men trying to be justified by works is what came up with "righteousness by works of law" in the first place:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone Rom 9:30-32
​

The rules have changed on righteousness. It's not by works.

Quote:
But what's more, that's exactly what the Pharisees were doing. Just take a look at some of the scholarship characterizing Judaism. It's not works-righteousness Jesus is objecting to. It's this idea that God accepts or rejects people through some attraction they're generating within themselves. Read Jesus as reacting to that. Because that's what Judaism was generally about, from Temple Saduceeism to Pharisaism to Zealotry to asceticism. And that's what's been uncovered now for 30 years.​

And Pharisees were shutting off the kingdom to those who WERE ENTERING.

Leaving you struggling to explain, "they weren't REALLY entering", or "they weren't REALLY shut off". Matt23:13

This is really funny. Jesus makes a direct paradox of the words, and you happen to pick one as overriding the other? Well, that's what happens with an ingrown theology. Read the words:

You don't enter yourselves -- those entering, you aren't allowing to enter. Mt 23:13
​

So tell me. Those entering -- did they enter? Because the verse says the Pharisees weren't allowing them to enter.

The paradox is yours. What the Pharisees were attempting was either a failure or a success. If it was a failure, then Jesus wasn't saying this right. If it was a success, then Jesus wasn't identifying "those entering" right.

And indeed, "people entering" doesn't mean they entered. "The man pled with the people entering the Coliseum to leave." Did they enter? Did they heed his plea? Hm?

Of course Reformed theology has an obvious answer to this. Jesus also could've intentionally set the paradox. The Pharisees weren't allowing people into the Kingdom of Judah, presuming this to be the Kingdom of God. Jesus' statement perfectly represents this mistaken presumption.

But I think your assertion comes from a misunderstanding the environment Jesus was addressing. Plus a mistaken presumption that your people are somehow entering, and then leaving. When they're not. They're not allowed to enter, Ben. That would mean, if the Pharisees were successful, the grammar prohibited the enterers from entering.

So the challenge is actually yours. It's not a Reformed problem. Because we recognize: not everything is soteriology.

 

[heymikey80]

So much of this is simply your diverging into your own idiomatic theology, if you have something in particular to deal with, bring it back up. I don't see you dealing with the issue, just reacting to it, so I'm not going to point out again what I've pointed out so often, that just because you believe something about a passage, doesn't mean you're right.

Quote:
When the category of "temporary faith" is recognized as not being saving faith, then this fits perfectly. When someone with a temporary faith comes to unbelief, then that man has rejected Christ. James 1:14-16 doesn't address belief in Christ.

It certainly does! By "beloved brethren", James can only be referring to "saved". By "soul-death", using "psuche-thanatos", James can only be presenting "unsalvation".

Sorry, no. There are plenty of people I call "beloved brothers" whom I don't know to be saved. You too. You're just willing to believe God to vacillate -- taking back what He gives, un-creating from the New Creation, and generally waiting to see what happens in people's death throes to decide whether to give saving grace.

James is addressing people in Temple. Who do you think he's talking to?

Quote:
James 5:19-20 says the person brought back from wandering is then saved (James said it).

To assert "they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place" (false-professing lurking amongst the saved) --- James would have to be asserting "They wandered away from faith they never really HAD, and were brought back to where they never WERE".

Brought-back, Mike; not "brought TO INITIAL salvation.

Wandering and returning to the people of God is just fine.

Quote:
Hebrews 3:14 points out that we've only come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

Does not! "Do not harden YOUR hearts!" 3:8

"Be careful lest YOUR hearts be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God"!

And you think hardening hearts can hold their original confidence? Please. Don't.

Only then does he say "we partner in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

His message is painfully clear, when we read verses 18-19 (the Israelites were denied entrance into their "rest" because of unbelief and disobedience) --- and then read 4:11:
"THEREFORE (against the Israelites), let us be diligent TO enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating their disobedience and unbelief."

Hmmmm; exactly WHAT can we fall from, by unbelief and disobedience?
Can anyone be "unbelievingly" or "disobediently" saved? No.

Any way that "GOD'S REST", cannot mean "salvation"? No.

Yep. By reducing it you can reduce it to ultimate salvation. But the Apostle is not mentioning this in isolation.

He's talking about more.

But aside from that, the Apostle's already said Israel fell because their actions weren't combined with faith - and so they disobeyed.

Quote:
Temporary faith doesn't appear as saving faith in these verses.

Tell us why you perceive them as "temporary/unsaved faith".

And to be credible, your answer must have somthing other than "because they fell away".

I see them as "temporary faith" because Scripture says so. I see this kind of faith as not saving because I have no Scriptural reason to consider it otherwise.

Why don't you perceive them as "temporary faith"? And what's your reason for asserting people are saved temporarily, and that through temporary faith?

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

And by your own measure, since you have not and apparently will not answer Fru's posts, wherein he has refuted several points of your theology, your silence indicates that Fru's refutations stand. You can no longer claim that none of your theology has been refuted. It clearly has. Your word is not the final word. And refutation IS subject to opinion. In my opinion, your theology has many serious flaws in it. We have tried repeatedly to show you those flaws, but you dismiss that correction, and then claim that your refutation "overturns" any other conflicting refutation. You cannot make such a unilateral declaration. It carries no weight. It is merely your opinion, nothing more.

Fru did not refute Ben's theology from Ben's peradigm. He simply pointed out the theological interpretation from within whatever paradigm Fru has, Calvinism or pseudo-calvinism or some other variety.
But you are right that opinion is open to further statments, corrections, and interpretations. This is the whole basis of Sola Scriptura. Individuals have the authority to interpret for themselves and no other authority is higher. Protestants have been doing this for 400 years and will continue to do it, elevating it to a fine art.

 

[Rick Otto]

The only authority sola scriptura asserts is the authority of scriptures.

 

[Rightglory]

Rick Otto,

The only authority sola scriptura asserts is the authority of scriptures.

based on the personal interpretation of individuals. A book does not have any authority, as any document does not. Not even the Constitutution of the United States. The authority is the good faith and will of the American People.

 

[Rick Otto]

Based on the authority of truth.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

The scripture is not the authority. The Spirit is. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Only that which gives life, is worthy of assuming authority, which is why we are told elsewhere that the husband, who is head of the wife, must love her as himself.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RTE:
Despite Johnson's attempt at twisting the scripture, 1 Cor 2:15 is quite clear, the natural man (the non-born again man) cannot receive the things of the Spirit. The reason given is that they are spiritually discerned.

Only the spiritual man (the born again man) can receive the things of the Spirit. That is why one has to be born again.​

Because the "things" of the Spirit are spiritually discerned, and because their spiritual discernment is by the RECEIVED (belief!) Spirit...

1Cor2:12-15 does NOT assert "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus".​

What is established in 1Cor2:12-15, is that receiving the Spirit precedes "revealing of spiritual things". So saving-faith is NOT one of "THOSE THINGS". There is no argument against this. The passage may not prove "men's responsibility", but it also does not prove "sovereign election", either.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
And by your own measure, since you have not and apparently will not answer Fru's posts...​

That's correct. When I said that "things went badly when Fru and I interacted in the past", I don't mean once or twice, but dozens of times. I am unwilling to be the cause of any harm to the message board community; I won't take the chance.

Quote:
wherein he has refuted several points of your theology​

If you think that several of my points were "refuted" (and I won't admit it), then cite one or more of those points, and we'll discuss it.

Quote:
your silence indicates that Fru's refutations stand. You can no longer claim that none of your theology has been refuted. It clearly has.​

I searched this thread for the discussion of "Titus3:5-6" --- didn't find it. Tell me the "refutation", and we'll discuss it.

Specifically, "God saved us ...by the washing and renewal of regeneration, through the Holy Spirit which He POURED on US through Jesus-our-Savior".

Tell me why "poured" is not an aspect of the regenerating Spirit (and not as your doctrine asserts, subsequent TO regeneration). It is established that "poured" is "after belief", which Titus endorses by saying "poured through Jesus OUR SAVIOR".

Quote:
Your word is not the final word.​

That's true --- and neither is yours. Theological debate is arguing about what SCRIPTURE says --- because Scripture is "God-breathed", Scripture has the "final word".

Quote:
And refutation IS subject to opinion. In my opinion, your theology has many serious flaws in it.​

Look at what I just said to RTE about 1Cor2:12-15 --- that is inarguable. So is what I said about Jn10:38 (Jesus saying that "we can believe in Him just by looking at what He has DONE"), 2Cor4:3-4, Mk4:11-12, and many other previously-misunderstood passages.

Quote:
We have tried repeatedly to show you those flaws, but you dismiss that correction, and then claim that your refutation "overturns" any other conflicting refutation.​

I don't "dismiss your refutations" out-of-hand --- I respond with Scripture showing you how Scripture does not support your position.

...and then I spend time asking you to cite Scripture in return...

Quote:
You cannot make such a unilateral declaration. It carries no weight. It is merely your opinion, nothing more. ​

That is correct, IF my posts do not back themselves with Scripture citation. Nearly every post has specific Biblical references --- and (meaning no disrespsect) most of your posts do not.

Quote:
Opinions vary.​

That's true; and we discuss Scripture to reveal which opinions reflect what Scripture says.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Pshaw, I haven't whited-out 2:3-8. I've included it, as Paul does, IN ROM 3:9-20:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

When we actually read Paul -- read Paul's Romans 3 as well and in as context with Paul's Romans 2 -- Paul is demanding Jewish people walk away from this method to be justified (as well as those trying to find righteousness by another list of commands -- ever looked up the word "law"?). The system failed -- the motive of being justified this way failed -- Gentiles as well as Jews are all under sin, and we will find God judging and indeed condemning Gentiles by works as well as Jews (3:9, cf 2:3-8).
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin Rom 3:9
And so this scheme of being (or remaining) justified by doing commands fails. Period. In fact, Paul says the motive of men trying to be justified by works is what came up with "righteousness by works of law" in the first place:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone Rom 9:30-32​

Hi, Mike --- thanx for your answer.

You understand Rom3 to be asserting "no one can seek God, therefore God must CHANGE men so that they CAN seek". My point is that Rom3 does not conflict the idea that "if you seek God, you will find Him".

You cite Rom9:31-32, which states "They did not arrive at their law of righteousness because they did not pursue it by FAITH, but pursued it by WORKS". Recognize that Heb3:18-20 says the same thing about the Israelites, and then in 4:11 WE are warned "Do not fall and fail to enter God's rest by IMITATING the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

I can't imagine there are two meanings to that wording...

Quote:
The rules have changed on righteousness. It's not by works.​

Precisely. And we are warned not to fall by being disobedient and unbelieving, like they were.

 

[Ben johnson]

QUote:
This is really funny. Jesus makes a direct paradox of the words, and you happen to pick one as overriding the other? Well, that's what happens with an ingrown theology. Read the words:
You don't enter yourselves -- those entering, you aren't allowing to enter. Mt 23:13

So tell me. Those entering -- did they enter? Because the verse says the Pharisees weren't allowing them to enter.​

"Are entering", does not mean "are entering"? In your paradigm, those who ARE "elect", cannot be "stopped"; but neither can those who are NOT elect, because they are ALREADY stopped!

"Stop", is a change in motion. And your position claims "no one can be changed, for God decrees BOTH positions".

See the problem?

Quote:
The paradox is yours. What the Pharisees were attempting was either a failure or a success. If it was a failure, then Jesus wasn't saying this right. If it was a success, then Jesus wasn't identifying "those entering" right.

And indeed, "people entering" doesn't mean they entered. "The man pled with the people entering the Coliseum to leave." Did they enter? Did they heed his plea? Hm?​

You are asserting "are entering does NOT REALLY mean are entering". Please tell me someone who is NOT predestined (and can NEVER enter/be-entering), can be STOPPED from entering.

How can the Pharisees "shut off Heaven from men"?

"Shut off", also implies a "change".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:

Of course Reformed theology has an obvious answer to this. Jesus also could've intentionally set the paradox. The Pharisees weren't allowing people into the Kingdom of Judah, presuming this to be the Kingdom of God. Jesus' statement perfectly represents this mistaken presumption.​

First "are-entering" doesn't really mean "are-entering" --- now "this is not speaking of Heaven"?

Quote:
But I think your assertion comes from a misunderstanding the environment Jesus was addressing. Plus a mistaken presumption that your people are somehow entering, and then leaving. When they're not. They're not allowed to enter, Ben. That would mean, if the Pharisees were successful, the grammar prohibited the enterers from entering.​

Do you deny that you're asserting "NOT REALLY entering"?

Jesus said "ARE entering", you say "not really". I find that conflicting, even if you don't.

QUote:
So the challenge is actually yours. It's not a Reformed problem. Because we recognize: not everything is soteriology.​

Claiming something "is not soteriology", doesn't make it SO.

"Are-entering-the-kingdom-of-God", means "saved".

Soteriology.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Pshaw, I haven't whited-out 2:3-8. I've included it, as Paul does, IN ROM 3:9-20:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

When we actually read Paul -- read Paul's Romans 3 as well and in as context with Paul's Romans 2 -- Paul is demanding Jewish people walk away from this method to be justified (as well as those trying to find righteousness by another list of commands -- ever looked up the word "law"?). The system failed -- the motive of being justified this way failed -- Gentiles as well as Jews are all under sin, and we will find God judging and indeed condemning Gentiles by works as well as Jews (3:9, cf 2:3-8).
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin Rom 3:9
And so this scheme of being (or remaining) justified by doing commands fails. Period. In fact, Paul says the motive of men trying to be justified by works is what came up with "righteousness by works of law" in the first place:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone Rom 9:30-32​

Hi, Mike --- thanx for your answer.

You understand Rom3 to be asserting "no one can seek God, therefore God must CHANGE men so that they CAN seek". My point is that Rom3 does not conflict the idea that "if you seek God, you will find Him".

Ben, I understand Romans 3 to be asserting "no one does seek God" rendering moot the point of "What happens if someone does seek God?"
This question about ability is ability of will. I've said this again & again, and you're constantly jumping it back to incapacity of power. It's not lack of power. It's that the will is unwilling, being corrupted by sin.

You cite Rom9:31-32, which states "They did not arrive at their law of righteousness because they did not pursue it by FAITH, but pursued it by WORKS". Recognize that Heb3:18-20 says the same thing about the Israelites, and then in 4:11 WE are warned "Do not fall and fail to enter God's rest by IMITATING the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

Bait & switch. Recognize that Paul states flatly -- they pursued it by works. I've no need to change the subject. The question of works being something to accomplish salvation is directly contradicted by Paul in Rom 9.

As by the Apostle:

whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
​

I can't imagine there are two meanings to that wording...

Quote:
The rules have changed on righteousness. It's not by works.​

Precisely. And we are warned not to fall by being disobedient and unbelieving, like they were.

And obedience is resting from our works.

 

[heymikey80]

QUote:
This is really funny. Jesus makes a direct paradox of the words, and you happen to pick one as overriding the other? Well, that's what happens with an ingrown theology. Read the words:
You don't enter yourselves -- those entering, you aren't allowing to enter. Mt 23:13

So tell me. Those entering -- did they enter? Because the verse says the Pharisees weren't allowing them to enter.​

"Are entering", does not mean "are entering"? In your paradigm, those who ARE "elect", cannot be "stopped"; but neither can those who are NOT elect, because they are ALREADY stopped!

"Stop", is a change in motion. And your position claims "no one can be changed, for God decrees BOTH positions".

See the problem?

I pointed out, this isn't a theological problem with one or another theology. The problem you're citing strikes at the core of the grammar here. Are you saying Scripture isn't speaking in a grammatical paradox here? Which is it: "entering", or "preventing from entering"?

And no, it's a serious misunderstanding as I've said before, to demand that faith, conversion, evangelization, communion, edification, and good works are monergistic. It's not Calvinism. So it's not the case. You're tilting at windmills until you understand this.

As I pointed out, the paradox is yours. It's a grammatical paradox. Which point is about to be reiterated.

Quote:
The paradox is yours. What the Pharisees were attempting was either a failure or a success. If it was a failure, then Jesus wasn't saying this right. If it was a success, then Jesus wasn't identifying "those entering" right.

And indeed, "people entering" doesn't mean they entered. "The man pled with the people entering the Coliseum to leave." Did they enter? Did they heed his plea? Hm?​

You are asserting "are entering does NOT REALLY mean are entering". Please tell me someone who is NOT predestined (and can NEVER enter/be-entering), can be STOPPED from entering.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the terms are contradicting one another in even conventional talk. You're treating Jesus' statements like a science text.

How can the Pharisees "shut off Heaven from men"?

"Shut off", also implies a "change".

Actually, it doesn't. I can shut off a valve without changing the direction of one drop of water. I can shut off an error in code even though it's never occurred.

 

[heymikey80]

Quote:

Of course Reformed theology has an obvious answer to this. Jesus also could've intentionally set the paradox. The Pharisees weren't allowing people into the Kingdom of Judah, presuming this to be the Kingdom of God. Jesus' statement perfectly represents this mistaken presumption.​

First "are-entering" doesn't really mean "are-entering" --- now "this is not speaking of Heaven"?

Never said the first. Sorry you're having trouble with this idea. It's never a good idea to project your conclusions atop your opposition's assertions.

You've yet to say they're entering or not. You've also yet to say how someone can prevent those actually entering from actually entering.

Quote:
But I think your assertion comes from a misunderstanding the environment Jesus was addressing. Plus a mistaken presumption that your people are somehow entering, and then leaving. When they're not. They're not allowed to enter, Ben. That would mean, if the Pharisees were successful, the grammar prohibited the enterers from entering.​

Do you deny that you're asserting "NOT REALLY entering"?

I've no reason to deny it or demand it. It's a plural term, talking about a group of people. There's no reason to think something uniform is happening to the entire group to prevent their entrance, nor that their entrance is actual. Both are probably occurring, because the Pharisees have no power to absolutely prevent what's occurring, but may still prevent people from entering the kingdom that they do have power over.

Jesus said "ARE entering", you say "not really". I find that conflicting, even if you don't.

I find it baffling that you would require more of my theology that you'd require of yours, and assume that would invalidate my theology and not yours.

That's favoritism. And it's partiality. But it's not a test for truth.

QUote:
So the challenge is actually yours. It's not a Reformed problem. Because we recognize: not everything is soteriology.​

Hi, Mike.But claiming something "is not soteriology", doesn't make it SO.

"Are-entering-the-kingdom-of-God", means "saved".

Soteriology.

It's flatly demonstrable that the scribes and Pharisees held to a confusion of kingdoms. Until you realize that, the depth of Jesus' statements flitters around issues Jesus isn't addressing. 20th Century issues of "Is this individual saved? Is that individual saved?" Instead of 1st Century issues of "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of Israel". Their understanding was leading them to consider people entering the Kingdom of Heaven as if they were not.

Jesus placed that interpretation into a contradiction -- He even used grammatical paradox to show how crazy it was. A theology that doesn't realize that -- such a theology is vulnerable to the exact same mistake. Your objection is implicitly making that same mistake.

Interesting.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,

Fru did not refute Ben's theology from Ben's paradigm. He simply pointed out the theological interpretation from within whatever paradigm Fru has, Calvinism or pseudo-Calvinism or some other variety.

Ben may not choose to accept the fact that Fru refuted Ben's theology, but from a logical standpoint alone, Ben's theology has problems. Fru has highlighted some of them, and shown them to be wrong. Non-acceptance of those clear facts is Ben's problem, not ours, and not yours.

But, to coin a phrase, you really don't have a dog in this race. We are not discussing EO theology. And I don't believe that any of us really wish to, in the context of this thread.

But you are right that opinion is open to further statments, corrections, and interpretations. This is the whole basis of Sola Scriptura. Individuals have the authority to interpret for themselves and no other authority is higher. Protestants have been doing this for 400 years and will continue to do it, elevating it to a fine art.

And you are entitled to view the entire discussion in that light, if you wish. Your view rises no higher than Ben's, Fru's or mine. It is your opinion, no matter how much you might try to dress it up. I know the basis for which you make this statement, but to discuss it would seriously sidetrack this thread, so we aren't going there. Suffice it to say that neither Ben, Fru, or I accept the basis from which your opinion flows.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is the whole basis of Sola Scriptura. Individuals have the authority to interpret for themselves and no other authority is higher.

No, that is the basis of reality. We all have to interpret ultimately for ourselves because we all experience it for ourselves.
Sola scriptura is using scripture to verify spiritual truth. Scripture verifies scripture.

That individuals have to decide for themselves what is real, is just a fact of life.