glorydaz
Well-known member
Thank you, Clete. I'm glad to hear you aren't "attempting" to do what only God can do in us. :thumb:
(So much for the four magic questions.)
Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Thank you, Clete. I'm glad to hear you aren't "attempting" to do what only God can do in us. :thumb:
(So much for the four magic questions.)
glorydaz
Well-known member
You can't even get that one little thing right.
That tells me all I need to know about you. Zero spiritual discernment!
glorydaz
Well-known member
You don't know the meaning of the word "rest", do you? You certainly do kick against the goads.
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Rosenritter
New member
Spoiler
Now your lying is becoming manifest for all to see.
That's hardly evidence of what you've been claiming.
Item one:
Item Two:
Although the first statement might have been dismissed as merely careless reading and writing on your part, you were pretty clear the second time around. Do you pay any attention to the words you say? Or does talk about the necessity of love naturally stir up the adversary in you?
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
I haven't attacked you. I've said that I don't discuss Christian doctrine with people I don't consider Christians.
Ever heard of confirmation bias?
You're a fool if you think you can shame me into listening to you.
You need to stop. I'm not interested in making an enemy of you. You seem like a sincere enough guy. I'm simply not interested in your doctrine. Drop it, already.
Clete
Actually, yeah they were. Jesus even said that much.
Do you think that because we acknowledge that they were demands of the law that we think that its okay to dispise your neighbor and to hate God?
We do not think that and our doctrine does not imply that.
Romans 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
Romans 6:6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Of course you can!
If it is impossible then the Bible is false!
James was speaking to Jewish believers...
James 1:1 1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:
Greetings.
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:
Greetings.
His ministry was to the Jews and he preached the "gospel of the circumcision"...
Galatians 2: But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
James was preaching law and all of his followers were "zealous for the law"...
Acts 2:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
Who said anything about ignoring anything that Jesus said?
You're taking it too far.
It isn't what Christians do that's different so much as it is why we do it and, more importantly, how it is accomplished. The difference, at bottom, really has to do with the direction in which our faith is aimed and the order in which God works with us. The law says if you do right then you'll be blessed, grace says you are blessed therefore do right. Under the law, you were considered righteous because of your works. Under grace you are declared righteous and works come as a result. Jesus was asked, "What must I do to be saved?" and Jesus answered by listing off the Ten Commandments - the law! Paul, on the other hand, tells us that we are saved unto good works not because of them! But notice that good works are still part of the equation. Notice also that Paul was no push over when it came to sin either.
And so it isn't a question of whether good works are to be present (and sin absent) in the life of the believer. That's like asking whether God will do good works. The point is that whether devotion to God in the life of a believer comes in proper measure is an important issue but is not a salvific one. Our righteousness is apart from our works not a result of them.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
Resting in Him,
Clete
It is a huge boost to know that there are some who get it and that I'm not crazy.
You're always a blessing, glorydaz! Thank you!
Clete
Calvinism is an ideology of evil. It is anti-Christ.
The complete Truth is only found in the Catholic Church.
A brief excerpt from "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" (source link
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.
FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches. The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20). He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.
The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.
END EXCERPT QUOTE
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
No, love is not a "Jewish only" commandment. Read the letter from Paul to the Corinthians (he ranks love more important than faith), read the letters of John, who applies Christ's commandment to us as both a new commandment and one that we had from the very beginning.... and in the context of John, "the beginning" really means "the beginning." Love is the eternal law that does not change and is not subject to circumstance.
Love is the very opposite of legalism. Ironically, the attempt to separate oneself from any "liability" to "love" in the name of "grace" or "avoiding legalism" is itself a demonstration of legalism.... just like the man that asked "[but] Who is my neighbor?"
There is often a difference between theoretical belief and actual practice. You were able to say that you do attempt to fulfill God's will that we love him and one another through faith. On the other hand, someone else was adamant that I should not to presume to speak as if they were a child of God or his friend (Matthew 10:33) and wouldn't affirm those same questions.
So do I think that "you all" despise your neighbor and hate God? Not all, but the theory seems to allow it, and I see that exercised in practice.
You can speak for yourself and I already believe you.
No, you cannot be love without also doing love. Jesus speaks of a tree that produces no fruit, James speaks of a false faith that is dead that produces no fruits of love. I already anticipate that MAD will protest that "Jesus and James are only for the Jews" and if that is the response, to use legalistic maneuverings to evade scripture and what is obviously universal truth then I really don't feel like plastering up a Paul-based proof for people who are allergic to Jesus.
Mark 10:26-27 KJV
(26) And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
(27) And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
What were you suggesting was impossible?
James 1:8 KJV
(8) A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
But only for the Jew, right? Double-minded Gentiles are perfectly stable? What about "grudge not?" (James 5:9?) Only for the Jews? What about the tongue?
James 3:6 KJV
(6) And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
... or does one get to pick and choose what they like, and anything uncomfortable becomes "for the Jews?" That seems to be the pattern.I'm saying plainly that it is absurd, a plain Wrong Dividing on the truth.
Yes, the early Jewish converts took a little time to make full adjustment. Was this in dispute?
When someone disregards the direct words of Christ that is ignoring what Jesus says, even if it is under the justification of "Mid Acts Dispensationalism." This isn't the first place I've witnessed "MAD" in action.
I don't think you fully see what Jesus was saying when he responded to "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" I don't mean that in an accusatory sense, I just mean there's more it than that, and it wasn't a statement that "Following the law" was eternal life. There are two instances to consider: the first in Mark 10:17, and Luke 18:18; and the second in Luke 10:25. Let's touch these for a moment:
In the first Jesus asks him, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." That was not necessarily a rhetorical question, because the man is asking something that only God can give. When Jesus says "thou knowest the commandments" the man said he had kept these commandments always, yet Jesus did not say that was sufficient to inherit eternal life. He lacked something. This passage really deserves more treatment, but he lacked following God with his entire heart. That was a spiritual element, not a legalistic element. The schoolmaster of the first four commandments leads to "Love God" and Christ, which is eternal life.
Spoiler
In the second example, Jesus deals with a lawyer that sought to justify himself. Jesus asks him not about the specifics of the law, but his interpretation of the law. The lawyer answers correctly that the law can be summed in "Love God" and "Love thy Neighbor." This was a correct spiritual answer, and if one was truly obeying the law in spirit, discerning the intent and following God (who is our Christ) in faith and belief, that does lead to eternal life. That selfsame heart would follow God wherever he was, wherever he would lead, regardless of time or circumstance. such a heart follows God, not the pattern of law itself. (Notice that Paul also acknowledges a "law of God" compared to a "law of sin" in Romans 7.)
As such, Jesus can say "do this and live" yet he did not seem to give an indication that he was happy or pleased. The lawyer had no intent to "do this" and so the exchange did not end there. You know the rest.... "who is my neighbor?" The lawyer, while recognizing the spirit of the law, sought to limit its application. Perhaps "Love my neighbor" only applies to other Jews? Enter legalism, and his law now becomes the law of sin unto death. The rule is the same for both Jew and Gentile: salvation is always by faith and belief, disobedience to God is always sin, and love is an eternal commandment.
I certainly have never said nor meant to imply that the Christian (regardless of blood or cultural background) is immune to sin or its influence. That which is planted may take a while to bloom, but if the Spirit is present it will produce fruit. If we are not producing fruit of that Spirit we should ask ourselves why, it is an important warning to us that we should heed. If we have not the Spirit we are none of his (Romans 8:9) and it is possible to quench the spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) and to taste of the Holy Spirit and fall away without redemption (Hebrews 6:4).
The Holy Spirit is a salvation issue, and it is a universal truth that we are judged at the end of all things. Christ speaks to us through Ezekiel telling us that the righteousness of a man is for naught if he forsakes God to wickedness, just as the wicked are forgiven if they turn to God to do what is right. I almost anticipate that "MAD" would say "that was only for the Jew?" to which I would say that it is absurd to believe that God's ways are unequal.
Revelation 2:4-5 KJV
(4) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
(5) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
The imputation of righteousness is dependent in a continuing faith and belief which also manifests itself in a continual spirit of repentance. We give God all that we have, and grace covers the rest. Does not our baptism into Christ represent the death of the old man in totality and not in part? But if we promise all and yet hold back, does not our sin resemble that of Ananias? We are justified through faith, but likewise whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
I realize that I am addressing an angle or two that may not be specifically address your personal application of belief. I do have a post not to far back where I listed all of the "MAD" issues (at least concerning ignoring scripture on the Jew vs. non-Jew paradigm) and requested anyone to address the points on their merits. No one has cared to respond to that, you're welcome to open that up if you would like.
Last edited:
Agreed! :up:
I know that you're not going to accept what I'm going to say here and I don't want you to think that I'm over simplifying a response to such a lengthy post. I assure you that I am not. I know I normally respond in a point by point manner but it doesn't make sense to do so here because the issue can't be successfully broached by looking at details. It's a paradigm level (i.e. big picture) issue.
Your post is practically a text-book example of doing precisely what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism specifically allows one not to have to do. I mean, I literally could not have manufactured a more perfect example of just the exact sort of hermaneutics that Mid-Acts Dispensatioopnalism renders unnecessary if I had tried to do it. And I feel like I could do it pretty well if I tried!
When discussing law vs. grace (or any one of several other doctrinal issues), if you take dispensationalist out of the general Christian population and and set them aside, what you'd be left with, generally speaking, is a Christian population made up of two main groups. One group places their theological emphasis on the Pauline epistles and interprets the rest of the New Testament in light of those letters. The other group does the opposite; they interpret Paul in the light of the rest of the New Testament. The first group will take Paul to mean what he says but are forced to interpret Peter, James and John in order to fit with Paul. The second group does just the exact opposite. They take Jesus and the Twelve to mean what they say while Paul is interpreted accordingly. You are squarely in the later group. Incidentally, most people in both groups are not conscious of doing this. They just think their reading the Bible - thus my difficulty! The power of paradigm is a real doozy!
It is dispensationalists and Mid-Acts Dispensationalists in particular, that see that both groups have missed the fact that God changed something when He cut Israel off and turned instead to the Gentiles. For us the Bible is far easier to read and understand because I don't have to worry about whether Paul says the opposite of what James said (Rom. 4 vs James 2). There is no need to reconcile the two. They said different things because they were talking to a different set of people under a different set of rules (i.e. a different dispensation). Thus I don't interpret Paul in the light of James and I don't interpret Jesus in light of Paul or any other such thing. I read Jesus' words and take them to mean precisely what they say. I do the same for Peter, James, John and Paul and any other New Testament author.
Not only do I get to read the text and understand it to mean what it says but this understanding of a new dispensation starting with Paul also just happens to effortlessly resolve all kinds of seemingly unrelated doctrinal issues that have been debated and even fought over in the church for centuries. All because of a super simple idea that the Bible states as plain as day.
Further, not only are a great many doctrinal debates effortlessly resolved but several other New Testament oddities are explained. Things like the existence of Paul's ministry (i.e. where's the need for a thirteenth apostle?) and why did the Twelve force the believers under their authority to live in a commune and why did Paul refer to the gospel as "my gospel" and why was it necessary for him to explain "his gospel" to the Twelve? All of which (and a few other things) are, once again, resolved intuitively if one simply understands that Paul's ministry (and thus his gospel) was not the same as that of the Twelve.
Now, whether you accept all of that as true or not, think about what it would mean if it were true. IF what I am claiming here is actually true, what more powerfully eloquent argument could there be for a systematic theology than that?
I'll let you mull that over and I'll leave you with one additional point...
If Paul was preaching what you are saying he was preaching in the above post, why would Paul have been accused of teaching people that we can sin that grace may abound?
Have you ever been accused of preaching anything like that? I have! By you, no less! (In so many words)
Resting in Him,
Clete
Amen.
Rosenritter
New member
You'd have to be more specific. I don't see any contradiction between Paul and James.
Have you tried asking those questions to another to see if they are likewise easily resolved?
That God's ways are equal, there is neither Jew or Gentile, that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
... because at least some of his audience was still wrestling with the concept that the Law under Moses (with its commandments and the circumcision) differs from the spiritual law that we have had from the beginning. Paul acknowledges that sin still exists for the Christian, which itself proves that there is Law that is still applicable (for sin is the transgression of the law.) The Jews were so used to thinking of their traditional law as "the" law, thus the confusion because of a lifetime of tradition. We all have baggage, it just varies in content depending on where we start. We are all directed through the same door on the same path to the same Savior. One gospel. Different starting points.
Of course you don't!
You responded to my post before I was finished editing it (not your fault).
It is the power of paradigm! My greatest nemesis!
If you ever do see it, you'll wonder how in the world you couldn't see it before and you won't ever be able to not see it again.
Of course! I have spent my entire life looking for objectively superior theological systems. I mean literally since I was in sixth grade - even if I didn't understand what I was doing in those terms at the time.
I'm telling you, there are no exceptions. If you aren't a Mid-Acts Dispenstionalist and you write a book about whether you can lose your salvation (for example), you will either take Paul to mean what he says and interpret everything else in order to agree (or else ignore "problem texts" altogether) or you'll do the opposite. It doesn't matter if the author is a Baptist or a Catholic or Church of Christ or Pentecostal. I've never once seen any exception. The dividing line is ALWAYS the apostle Paul - always.
There used to be Jew and Gentile! Before Paul, if you wanted to have a relationship with God, you had to become a Proselite Jew and obey Moses (i.e. become circumcized and obey the Law). Before Abraham it was different as well. I mean, there was no circumcision before Abraham and after Abraham circumcision was REQUIRED. Now it not only isn't required it's forbiden! Before the flood, there was no law at all. People were simply expected to do right, which they failed at miserably, of course.
The point being that God changed things several times and at one time there very definitely was a distinction between Jew and Gentile. That distinction went away with the cutting off of Israel and the conversion of Paul (Acts 9) and not before.
There is no such thing as "spiritual law". There is the Spirit which brings life and there is the Law which bring the opposite.
False premise. Too far into the weeds. Paradigm!
Another super excellent example of interpretation of one set of epistle to agree with the other set.
Suffice it to say that no such sentiment as you've communicated here is ever stated anywhere in the New Testament. The Jews were NOT confused about what their gospel was! They were confuse about what Paul's was!
How does that not indicate that a dramatic change had occured that had to have started with Paul? The implication of your thesis is that the Jewish confusion over the Law vs grace extentend all the way up the line to the Twelve Apostles themselves to the point that Paul, an otherwise odd ball and unessary thirteenth Apostle, was instructed by direct divine revelation to go to Jeruselem and explain "his gospel", not to normal everyday Jewish people, which Paul actively avoided on that trip, but to the Twelve Holy Spirit indwelt Apostles of Jesus Christ. How would that make any sense if they were all preaching the same gospel?
When that meeting was over, there is no indication that Peter, James and John altered their message in any way whatsoever. In fact, if we simply read James, what do we find? Do we find "righteousness apart from works"? NO! We find just the opposite! Which is just what we'd expect a Jewish believer to preach. If they were confused and Paul set them straight, then my dispensational theology should have a big problem with explaining why James taught the same thing Paul taught? But I don't have that problem! As such, the book of James stands as one of the clearest proofs of my doctrine's veracity.
Resting in Him,
Clete