What About Progressive Sanctification?

[Noxot]

Good works can only be done with God. Only God is good. In as much as something of a person is good it is because of God. As much as God dwells in us is as much as we are saved. To be saved and to be sanctified is to be near and with God. Some are closer to God and others are further away. The devil is condemned because he lacks God. John is a saint because he is near God.

The Devil is a deceiver and therefore when he outwardly appears to do good, there are evil intentions and things against God in his heart.

 

[JAL]

It`s called the Bible. Did you want to bicker about God`s Omniscience or the Godhead? I thought you were going for the old Omniscience debate.

FYI, the verse I gave you parrots the definition of trinity nicely.

Definition of Trinity
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2: a group of three closely related persons or things

The verse doesn't clearly indicate what you'd like to establish - it's certainly less clear proof of a triune God than the sanctification passages are proof of progressive sanctification. That's all I'm saying.

I AM a staunch Trinitarian by the way, although my basis for it probably lies more in the Inward Witness than in exegetical proof.

As even Jehovah Witnesses have pointed out, the exegetical "proofs" for Trinitarianism could just as well be used as an argument for polytheism, i.e. Tri-theism. And if you reply that God is one, you are now providing a foundation for Unitarianism.

So let's be honest. You're reading those verses of yours with a Trinitarian bias - and nothing wrong with that, because it probably comes from the Inward Witness.

 

[JAL]

Only problem is that he found out that he couldn`t.

Right. That's an expected conclusion coming from someone committed to irrationality.

 

[RickReads]

The verse doesn't clearly indicate what you'd like to establish - it's certainly less clear proof of a triune God than the sanctification passages are proof of progressive sanctification. That's all I'm saying.

I AM a staunch Trinitarian by the way, although my basis for it probably lies more in the Inward Witness than in exegetical proof.

As even Jehovah Witnesses have pointed out, the exegetical "proofs" for Trinitarianism could just as well be used as an argument for polytheism, i.e. Tri-theism. And if you reply that God is one, you are now providing a foundation for Unitarianism.

So let's be honest. You're reading those verses of yours with a Trinitarian bias - and nothing wrong with that, because it probably comes from the Inward Witness.

Let honesty prevail. I`m not a Trinitarian so you dunno what you are talking about. Your quickness to make assumptions tells me you have no interest in a real conversation.

 

[RickReads]

Right. That's an expected conclusion coming from someone committed to irrationality.

Again, you are simply telling me that you have no interest in a real dialogue. Not that I care.

 

[JAL]

Again, you are simply telling me that you have no interest in a real dialogue. Not that I care.

Calvinists have had 500 years to reconcile the two self-contradictory propositions that I posted to you. There is no solution.

Here's what Calvinists don't get. I don't CARE how many verses you have to (supposedly) "back up" your conclusion. If that conclusion is internally self-contradictory, it MUST be an incorrect interpretation of the verses.

You want a dialogue? Fine. Start with a logically consistent interpretation of the verses, and then we can debate whether your interpretation or mine is better. That's how it's supposed to work.

 

[RickReads]

Right. That's an expected conclusion coming from someone committed to irrationality.

Read his posts and see.

 

[JAL]

Let honesty prevail. I`m not a Trinitarian so you dunno what you are talking about. Your quickness to make assumptions tells me you have no interest in a real conversation.

I'm just going by what YOU posted:

FYI, the verse I gave you parrots the definition of trinity nicely.

Definition of Trinity
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2: a group of three closely related persons or things

 

[RickReads]

Calvinists have had 500 years to reconcile the two self-contradictory propositions that I posted to you. There is no solution.

Here's what Calvinists don't get. I don't CARE how many verses you have to (supposedly) "back up" your conclusion. If that conclusion is internally self-contradictory, it MUST be an incorrect interpretation of the verses.

You want a dialogue? Fine. Start with a logically consistent interpretation of the verses, and then we can debate whether your interpretation or mine is better. That's how it's supposed to work.

I didn`t say I wanted a dialogue. You`re hateful sounding and so far you seem like one of those guys who likes to set up strawmen to attack instead of dealing with the scriptures.

Perfect example right here, I said you are showing me you don`t want real dialogue and you twist it and falsely accuse me of wanting dialogue with you. LOL! That`s pretty funny as I think about it.

But ok, I`ll ask you one question. Do you believe God is omniscient?

 

[JAL]

I didn`t say I wanted a dialogue. You`re hateful sounding and so far you seem like one of those guys who likes to set up strawmen to attack instead of dealing with the scriptures.

Perfect example right here, I said you are showing me you don`t want real dialogue and you twist it and falsely accuse me of wanting dialogue with you. LOL! That`s pretty funny as I think about it.

But ok, I`ll ask you one question. Do you believe God is omniscient?

Yeah - saying that God foreordained 10's of billions to hell is "just a little strawman". Right. I'm merely splitting theological hairs at this point, am I not?

 

[RickReads]

I'm just going by what YOU posted:

I just posted the verse from which the term originates. I gave no opinion on it apart from stating that it parrots the dictionary definition. Everything else is just assumption that you are making.

 

[JAL]

I just posted the verse from which the term originates. I gave no opinion on it apart from stating that it parrots the dictionary definition. Everything else is just assumption that you are making.

No it was a direct response to MY post where I brought up the Trinity. The fact that you skewed the conversation to a totally different usage of the word, without any clear forewarning, is just devious tactics on your part.

 

[RickReads]

Yeah - saying that God foreordained 10's of billions to hell is "just a little strawman". Right. I'm merely splitting theological hairs at this point, am I not?

You said that, I didn`t. I suspect people find it very hard to talk to you.

 

[JAL]

You said that I didn`t. I suspect people find it very hard to talk to you.

You have neither denied Calvinism nor that conclusion.

 

[RickReads]

No it was a direct response to MY post where I brought up the Trinity. The fact that you skewed the conversation to a totally different usage of the word, without any clear forewarning, is just devious tactics on your part.

I don`t know what that means. You said I couldn`t find trinity in the Bible and because I could find it and did find it you find fault with me for it. You are one silly rabbit.

 

[JAL]

I don`t know what that means. You said I couldn`t find trinity in the Bible and because I could find it and did find it you find fault with me for it. You are one silly rabbit.

Yeah right. You really thought that by "trinity" I merely meant "three related things" as opposed to The Trinity. Sure. Whatever. Now you're just further exposing your dodge-ball debating tactics here.

 

[RickReads]

You have neither denied Calvinism nor that conclusion.

I probably have about 2-4 hundred posts on 5 threads criticizing Calvinism. I do admit that Calvinism can be corrected.

 

[JAL]

I probably have about 2-4 hundred posts on 5 threads criticizing Calvinism. I do admit that Calvinism can be corrected.

That's not a denial of the two propositions.

 

[RickReads]

Yeah right. You really thought that by "trinity" I merely meant "three related things" as opposed to The Trinity. Sure. Whatever. Now you're just further exposing your dodge-ball debating tactics here.

Trying to debate two topics at once isn`t very relaxing. That`s why I only posted one verse about it.
Plus, the last Godhead thread got shut down so I`m not sure I want to get into it too much. I`m fine with trinitarian views so not much of an issue for me.

 

[RickReads]

That's not a denial of the two propositions.

I dunno what they are so I probably didn`t intend for it to be.

And FYI, You never answered my question which was a simple yes or no.