Cross Reference
New member
That is evident.
I edited my last for clarity:
"If God Authored it then, by virtue of His indwelling life, it is of God. Therefore, Jesus was born in sin. Do you really want to believe that?"
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
That is evident.
I edited my last for clarity:
"If God Authored it then, by virtue of His indwelling life, it is of God. Therefore, Jesus was born in sin. Do you really want to believe that?"
Sonnet
New member
You are not a Calvinist. Spurgeon would have called you a heretic.
Sonnet
New member
And this is the decree of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
Canons of Dort - Article 15: Reprobation
https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, this is the problem. The solace could be that the "??" is shared by so many, I suppose. But that's really no solace.
The Gospel is ontological and epistemological, not just economical and methodological. The Gospel is being translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son; seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; living and moving and having one's being in Christ; putting on Christ and putting off the old man.
This is an ontology of existence as a new creation. It's not about doctrinal posturing.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. Like most, you don't understand it.
No. That's the human entitlement speaking. The good news is that you don't have to be a false hypostasis and can be translated into Christ by the faith God gives working the grace God also gives.
It's not good news to tell someone they can do something to effect their own salvation or they will think they earn.
No one looked on the serpent and lived without the noun of hearing. It's the noun of hearing out from which comes the noun of faith.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Your unsurety is, ironically, part of the proof. But you can't know that.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Romans 10:17 is faith, the NOUN (the thing believed); which comes out of hearing, the NOUN (the thing heard); and the thing heard comes by means of the Word (the thing thought and spoken about by God), the NOUN.
None of those nouns are verbs that we do. THAT's definitely part of the good news that is the Gospel entrusted to Paul by God.
All you modern Englishizers presume your verb of hearing and your verb of looking is that which saved you (according the serpent being lifted up as the type of Christ).
It was the Word, which is also not a verb; so it wasn't the speaking, but the thing thought and spoken about. Just as it was the thing heard as the thing believed.
Man does nothing to effect his own salvation. The looking is a verb from the noun of hearing.
Looking didn't save them. The thing believed coming out of the thing heard as the thing God thought and spoke about... that saved them. The looking was a work OF that faith, and it healed them.
None of those nouns are verbs that we do. THAT's definitely part of the good news that is the Gospel entrusted to Paul by God.
All you modern Englishizers presume your verb of hearing and your verb of looking is that which saved you (according the serpent being lifted up as the type of Christ).
It was the Word, which is also not a verb; so it wasn't the speaking, but the thing thought and spoken about. Just as it was the thing heard as the thing believed.
Man does nothing to effect his own salvation. The looking is a verb from the noun of hearing.
Looking didn't save them. The thing believed coming out of the thing heard as the thing God thought and spoke about... that saved them. The looking was a work OF that faith, and it healed them.
Hey, PPS, you surely are impressed with yourself. I guess somebody has to be?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, I'm impressed with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, entrusted to Paul by God.
I couldn't care less what men think of me; especially heretics and pseudo-Christians espousing anti-scriptural doctrines from their own hearts and minds instead of the Word.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Was being snake-bitten something they did? Or was it their condition of impending death by something externally inflicted?
Did everyone have access? Apparently not, since only those who believed accessed the healing. Faith (the noun; the thing believed) was required, and it came from hearing (the noun; the thing heard).
You presume it was the ultimate act of man looking that saved them, when it was the thing heard, which was the thing thought and spoken about by God. It was the Word alone that saved them. Their looking was merely their inevitable obedience.
No thing thought and spoken about by God? No healing.
No thing heard? No healing.
No thing believed? No healing.
Looking was not what healed them. Human action never saves, including whatever we think and speak about by our own word/s.
A Greek-thinking/speaking audience would have understood this on at least the minimal level of faith to give them access into the grace.
THAT is the Good News. Man effecting his own salvation by even one work himself is NOT.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Phos (light as the means for seeing, the noun) comes from phone (sound as the means for hearing, the noun), NOT the inverse.
One may only have seeing because one has hearing. And there is no looking (the verb) without seeing (the noun) from hearing (the noun), which is by means of the Word.
Access as a noun has NO economy of action if it does not become the verb of accessing. Those who did not access (the verb) are those who did not have faith (the noun) or hearing (the noun), and thus the source of their unbelief as faithlessness was their own thought and action apart from God's provision by His Word, which is the thing thought and spoken about.
Those who did not access (the verb) had no access (the noun) because of their own faithlessness, not because God's provision was lacking.
One may only have seeing because one has hearing. And there is no looking (the verb) without seeing (the noun) from hearing (the noun), which is by means of the Word.
Access as a noun has NO economy of action if it does not become the verb of accessing. Those who did not access (the verb) are those who did not have faith (the noun) or hearing (the noun), and thus the source of their unbelief as faithlessness was their own thought and action apart from God's provision by His Word, which is the thing thought and spoken about.
Those who did not access (the verb) had no access (the noun) because of their own faithlessness, not because God's provision was lacking.
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
Ah, yes, a dispee. A screwed up one to boot. And I thought it all couldn't become more laughable.
:loser:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm the most anti-Dispensationalist human who has ever drawn the breath of life. And it doesn't matter what a Hegelian Kenoticist thinks about anything anyway.
You don't seem to understand that EVERY Apostle and Patristic and theologian for two thousand years would declare you a heretical schismatic and anathema to the faith. Every last one of them, beginning with Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, the Apostles John and Peter, and every early, later, and Reformed theologian. Period.
This isn't opinion and speculation. It's the historical Christian faith. You are an extreme heretic.
Sonnet
New member
Salvation for the select few? You are turning scripture on its head. God must be sovereign but you do so at the expense of man's choice.
The analogy Jesus used makes it clear that we can turn in faith.
Sonnet
New member
Removing any trace of man as a worthwhile creation?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Seriously? It's you and the vast majority who turn nouns into verbs so your salvation can be of your own work. I clearly demonstrated that.
Sonnet
New member
If they believed what Moses said then they might look (verb) and live.
You think God isn't omnipotent enough to allow choice and remain in control?
Faith is not a work; that's why we are credited, as a gift, with righteousness.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Not worthwhile enough to effect his own salvation, no. Worthwhile for God to redeem by granting repentance, providing grace, and giving faith? Yes.
You remove any trace of God as a worthwhile Creator.
God saved man. Man does not save himself. He can't. Self-salvation is the pride of life.
Your sin condition is the internal drive to insist man can and does save himself instead of God.
There are no elect few. There are only those whose sin has excluded themselves, and blaming God or misrepresenting Him and His salvation for mankind.
If you cannot see that, then you are blinded by the pride of sin.
Sonnet
New member
Romans 4:1ff says otherwise.
Sonnet
New member
So the Gospel crystallizes into Russian roulette?
No - but you don't consider Him able to remain in control whilst allowing choice.
Agreed.
No elect few?
- Status