What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

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.

Fair enough. The problem is that I'm actually quite serious about what I said. I'm convinced that most Christians, including theologians, are not fully dedicated to being fully rational - they are not fully committed to eliminating all logical contradictions in their thinking. And therefore it's not very fruitful to debate with them (although I do so when I get bored).

I suspect this is largely because they have become emotionally attached to a certain point of view.

For example, I can demonstrate that the traditional evangelical concept of regeneration is self-contradictory. A proper definition LEADS to the idea of progressive sanctification. I was going to show you that argument, but again, I am not convinced that logical contradictions have any sway on this forum.

 

[JAL]

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

Again, the challenge raised at post 291 is not resolved by Calvinists, after 500 years.

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

I don't remember which one but I'll take a quick look.

 

[RickReads]

Fair enough. The problem is that I'm actually quite serious about what I said. I'm convinced that most Christians, including theologians, are not fully dedicated to being fully rational - they are not fully committed to eliminating all logical contradictions in their thinking. And therefore it's not very fruitful to debate with them (although I do so when I get bored).

I suspect this is largely because they have become emotionally attached to a certain point of view.

For example, I can demonstrate that the traditional evangelical concept of regeneration is self-contradictory. A proper definition LEADS to the idea of progressive sanctification. I was going to show you that argument, but again, I am not convinced that logical contradictions have any sway on this forum.

Everybody is serious and You are a latecomer to this thread and you want to jump in and straighten me out but I doubt you reviewed the arguments I already put up, which are substantial. I'm not interested in starting over with someone who hasn`t even reviewed my posts.

 

[JAL]

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

In the infinite sense?
Recall that you're not entitled to a conclusion if it is logically self-contradictory. If God has infinite foreknowledge, for example, does He have free will? I don't think so (feel free to prove me wrong).

Free will is a state of indecision where one DOES NOT FOREKNOW his impending decision because he has not yet decided. It's a period of deliberation persisting until the will becomes resolute with a decision.

Thus the claim that an infinite God has free will is a contradiction. What's your solution? Perhaps you'll conclude that He doesn't have free will? (That too leads to a contradiction).

 

[RickReads]

Again, the challenge raised at post 291 is not resolved by Calvinists, after 500 years.

I reread #291. I`m sorry that I did. It`s rude, hostile and you are telling me what my beliefs are instead of asking me.

Calvin strawman ready to go.

 

[Psalm 27]

What About Progressive Sanctification?

I don`t really believe in it.

Tell me why you do.

Do you mean that you believe in instant, or none at all?

Ive always believed in instant, but it hasn’t happened to me yet. I started to embrace gradual, but feel disingenuous doing that. Now I’m just bitter and confused.

 

[JAL]

Everybody is serious and You are a latecomer to this thread and you want to jump in and straighten me out but I doubt you reviewed the arguments I already put up, which are substantial. I'm not interested in starting over with someone who hasn`t even reviewed my posts.

But this is three times where I've challenged you and you didn't take me up on it.
(1) I alleged that justification can be shown multiple.
(2) I alleged that traditional regeneration can be shown self-contradictory.
(3) I alleged that Calvinist is stuck with 2 self-contradictory propositions.

and now in my last post I have just alleged that:
(4) Omniscience in the infinite sense can't be reconciled with God.

I think I've done enough work here to merit entrance into this thread. But if you want to move on, fine with me. This probably isn't where I should be spending my time.

 

[JAL]

I reread #291. I`m sorry that I did. It`s rude, hostile and you are telling me what my beliefs are instead of asking me.

Calvin strawman ready to go.

Um...alleging a contradiction in a debate is not rude nor hostile.

All this ad hominem from you IS rude and IS hostile.

 

[RickReads]

In the infinite sense?
Recall that you're not entitled to a conclusion if it is logically self-contradictory. If God has infinite foreknowledge, for example, does He have free will? I don't think so (feel free to prove me wrong).

Free will is a state of indecision where one DOES NOT FOREKNOW his impending decision because he has not yet decided. It's a period of deliberation persisting until the will becomes resolute with a decision.

Thus the claim that an infinite God has free will is a contradiction. What's your solution? Perhaps you'll conclude that He doesn't have free will? (That too leads to a contradiction).

Logic falsely so-called comes to mind as I read your comments. But reading the tea leaves I have determined that you deny that God is Omniscient. I foreknew that you didn`t

 

[JAL]

Logic falsely so-called comes to mind as I read your comments. But reading the tea leaves I have determined that you deny that God is Omniscient. I foreknew that you didn`t

When you continue to neglect to reconcile alleged contradictions, you're just confirming your dedication to irrationality.

 

[RickReads]

Um...alleging a contradiction in a debate is not rude nor hostile.

All this ad hominem from you IS rude and IS hostile.

You called me irrational twice in the post and you falsely accused me of being a Calvinist. Hardly ad hominem to call you rude and hostile.

 

[JAL]

Logic falsely so-called comes to mind as I read your comments. But reading the tea leaves I have determined that you deny that God is Omniscient. I foreknew that you didn`t

Got a simple multiple choice question for you. Which of the following options best describes biblical love (agape):
(1) Intervening to help others.
(2) Merely wishing them well-being.

Be careful how you answer, because I intend to show that the right answer contradicts divine infinitude (for reasons that should be obvious).

 

[JAL]

You called me irrational twice in the post and you falsely accused me of being a Calvinist. Hardly ad hominem to call you rude and hostile.

Again, I'm just going by what you posted:

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice". Those sheep are the elect. You won`t like it if you make me go Calvinist on you.

Those are strong words - and if I misunderstood those words, it doesn't justify your ad hominem. Everyone makes mistakes.

And again, there is nothing rude or hostile about accusing someone of illogic/irrationality in a debate - as long as I have a BASIS for it, i.e. referrring specifically to mutually contradictory propositions.

 

[RickReads]

When you continue to neglect to reconcile alleged contradictions, you're just confirming your dedication to irrationality.

It`s hard to talk to pseudo-intellectuals. As for your contention, barely worth a rebut. God made His choices about people in the beginning.

 

[JAL]

It`s hard to talk to pseudo-intellectuals. As for your contention, barely worth a rebut. God made His choices about people in the beginning.

That's not a reconciliation of the alleged contradictions. If you HAD one, you'd have posted it by now.

 

[JAL]

And the pseudo intellectual comment was more ad hominem. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

 

[RickReads]

Do you mean that you believe in instant, or none at all?

Ive always believed in instant, but it hasn’t happened to me yet. I started to embrace gradual, but feel disingenuous doing that. Now I’m just bitter and confused.

I believe that when God forgives your sins He sends His Spirit to wash you clean in your heart and to sanctify you. As we worship and pray God will renew His Spirit within us. This is the Biblical sanctification.
It`s not progressive because you can`t get more clean than clean and you can`t get more saved than saved.

Tell me why you feel bitter and confused?

 

[JAL]

I believe that when God forgives your sins He sends His Spirit to wash you clean in your heart and to sanctify you. As we worship and pray God will renew His Spirit within us. This is the Biblical sanctification.
It`s not progressive because you can`t get more clean than clean and you can`t get more saved than saved.

Tell me why you feel bitter and confused?

So the tree is fully clean but still manages to produce bad fruit, in many instances? That's an interesting position, given Christ's words:

3“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

 

[JAL]

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

 

[RickReads]

And the pseudo intellectual comment was more ad hominem. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

Yeah I see a pattern, you`ve made 25 posts to my thread going back to #289 and you haven`t quoted a single scripture.