Is Calvinism Wrong?

[glorydaz]

1. Faith working by love should be the point: salvation has always been by faith regardless of what specific commands God has given to any people or individual.

2. Glory doesn't agree that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross; she thinks it is something separate and eternal apart from the Law of Moses. Maybe talk with her on this?

Stop talking about me if you're going to add to or change what I have said.

What is your goal here? Are you bent on deceit? :loser:

I said NOTHING about what was or was not nailed to the cross.

And the Ten are apart from the Law of Moses.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deuteronomy 9:10 And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.​

The book of the law which Moses wrote was kept in the SIDE of the ark.

Deut. 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.​

The two tablets of stone written with the finger of God were inside the ark.

1 Kings 8:9
9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.​

And the law of God is written in the conscience of man. That would be the ten, not the book of the law that Moses wrote.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another​

Grow up, Rosie. This is getting old fast. I got two warning because of your slippery tongue.

 

[glorydaz]

When did the Lord Jesus ever preach that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24).

Those closest to Him didn't even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34) until shortly before the Cross.

Right you are, Jerry. :thumb:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Rosenritter]

Here it starts....Falsely accusing me of arguing against the commandment to love one another. I was explaining to you why the law was given. And then to top it off, you presume John is speaking to members of the body of Christ...to which I responded you presume too much. From which you lament I'm saying I'm not a member of the body of Christ.

I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. Nor did I bristle....that, too, is a false accusation. I also think it is an attempt to deceive those who are reading this thread.

Here it is. I've gotten two warnings because of your ignorance. I'll call it ignorance because to call it what I think it is has become off limits. I understand those limits, and I will follow the letter of the law.

I believe you are attempting to deceive, since I did not ever say it was wrong of you to presume I was a brother or sister in Christ and a child of God. I won't bow to your ignorance, Rosenritter, so stop misstating what I say. If you can't get it right, don't say it at all.

You actually did literally say those things. The first time (which you quoted above) appeared as either carelessness or snide accusation. That's why I asked again, being very specific what was meant, asking you to please be careful not to exclude yourself from those groups. You were pretty quick to say that I shouldn't be presuming any such thing, complete with your signature smiley face. I noticed you didn't repeat that part.

Whether you were saying that specifically to taunt me or your eagerness to contradict meant that you write without reading or caring what you actually say, it still amounts to a problem with anger or aggression. That wasn't a trap; it was a sincere appeal that presumed that we were on the only side that actually mattered.

Regardless, if you repeatedly mock someone for presuming that they are speaking to a member of Christ and a friend of God, confirming their meaning when they ask you to be careful not to exclude yourself, can you really blame them if they finally take you at your word?

Do you also remember (not soon thereafter) when I said I only wanted answers to four questions... "Do you attempt to love God (and your neighbor, and your enemy, and one another) in faith and belief?" Those weren't trick questions either, I never imagined that would be hard for any Christian. A heathen could see the right answer: that was also an outreach. You wouldn't answer those simple (redeeming) questions multiple times, later even mocking them as "magic questions."

Clete answered the questions... they weren't hard.

Spoiler

The expected answers were: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I am not looking for a fight, and if that is what you want you need to go elsewhere. You have not been falsely accused, and if you have warnings of some sort it is probably because of something Glorydaz has done rather than ignorance on someone else's part. Maybe things like "I believe you are attempting to deceive" (above) might play some sort of factor in such things.

If want to talk constructively there is private message which is probably more appropriate and also absent from background chatter. Otherwise I don't think there's much to be gained from raging in public forums.

 

[Clete]

Thanks for explaining your meaning. You meant "to pursue the circumcision unto salvation" (in symbolism) rather than a literal "circumcision" which would simply avail nothing. Other than the "this new gospel" phrase (in light grey) your explanation is agreeable.

The only way what you say is "agreeable" makes any sense is if there is a new gospel.

 

[Clete]

1. Faith working by love should be the point: salvation has always been by faith regardless of what specific commands God has given to any people or individual.

No, Rosen, it has not.

Sure, faith has always been an important and necessary aspect in any dispensation but before Paul, faith alone wasn't enough. It was "trust and obey for there's no other way..." as the modern and erroneous hymn puts it.

Jesus Himself said so! When he was asked "What must I do that I may have eternal life?" His answer was a list of things for him to do, including the Ten Commandments. (Matt 19)

And for those who were saved before Israel was cut off, they were saved under a dispensation of Law and they remained under the law (Rom. 11:29). This is why certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15) and why James states plainly that his followers were "zealous for the law" (Acts 21) and why James says as clear as day that "faith without works is dead" (James 2).

2. Glory doesn't agree that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross; she thinks it is something separate and eternal apart from the Law of Moses. Maybe talk with her on this?

Well, I very much doubt that! I mean there is hardly anything more blatantly stated in the Bible than the fact that the Law was nailed to the cross.

Colossians 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Not Legalism but Christ

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.​

That passage alon ought to completely shut the mouth of anyone who would deny that the Law was nailed to the cross.

But it also speaks directly to our discussion as well. If you died with Christ, neither Circumcison nor "Thou shalt not steal." nor any other aspect of the law can apply to you. Death is the last word the Law has to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Stop talking about me if you're going to add to or change what I have said.

What is your goal here? Are you bent on deceit? :loser:

I said NOTHING about what was or was not nailed to the cross.

And the Ten are apart from the Law of Moses.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Deuteronomy 9:10 And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.​

The book of the law which Moses wrote was kept in the SIDE of the ark.

Deut. 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.​

The two tablets of stone written with the finger of God were inside the ark.

1 Kings 8:9
9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.​

And the law of God is written in the conscience of man. That would be the ten, not the book of the law that Moses wrote.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another​

Grow up, Rosie. This is getting old fast. I got two warning because of your slippery tongue.

Is it your intention to suggest that because there is some distinction made between the Ten Commandments that were physically written on stone tablets by God's own hand and the entirety of the Law of Moses which was based on the Ten Commandments but written down by Moses, that, therefore, the Ten Commandments are somehow still in effect?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sure, faith has always been an important and necessary aspect in any dispensation but before Paul, faith alone wasn't enough.

In order to understand exactly how "all" people down through the ages have been saved let us look at the following words of Paul where he speaks of the gospel of grace:

"And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and this righteousness of God is through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those who believe, -- for there is no difference, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God --being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

Paul says that this righteousness of God which is apart from law is now being made known. Then he says that this righteousness of God comes to all who believe. This blessing is made possible because believers are "declared righeous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Now let us look at what is in "bold" here:

"And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and this righteousness of God is through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those who believe..."​

Paul is saying that the truth of the believer receiving this imputed righteousness which is of God was revealed by him first but the Old Testament testifies that even in those times believers were also obtaining the imputed righteousness which is of God. And then Paul first uses Abraham as an example of believers who receive this blessing by faith:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Ro.4:1-3).​

Then Paul moves on to David, who lived under the law:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:4-8).​

Next, Paul made it plain that both the Jews and the Gentiles receive the same blessing in the same way:

"Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also" (Ro.9-11).​

All believers down through history have received this blessedness which is apart from law or works. And then Paul makes it plain that both the Jews and the Gentiles are saved by faith on the principle of grace:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

If anyone wants to argue that those under the law could not be saved apart from works then they certainly do not understand that if salvation is of works then that salvation cannot be described as being of "grace."

Jesus Himself said so! When he was asked "What must I do that I may have eternal life?" His answer was a list of things for him to do, including the Ten Commandments. (Matt 19)

Yes, if a Jew could keep the law perfectly he could obtain eternal life. You forgot to mention that the Lord Jesus said the following to the Jews who could not keep the law perfectly:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Sir Robert Anderson addresses this point, writing that "There are two alternative principles on which alone justification is now theoretically possible. The one is by man's deserving it; the other is through God's unmerited favour. Let a man, from the cradle to the grave, be everything he ought to be, and do everything he ought to do; let him, as our author puts it, love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself walking 'purely, humbly, and beneficently while on earth,' and such an one will 'inherit eternal life.' But all such pretensions betoken moral and spiritual ignorance and degradation. All men are sinners; and being sinners they are absolutely dependent upon grace" (Anderson, The Silence of God, [Kregel Publications, 1978], p.100).

 

[beloved57]

jerry

his blessing is made possible because believers are "declared righeous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Nothing about this blessing being made possible. Thats a false statement. Those Christ died for have been freely justified through redemption period.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nothing about this blessing being made possible. Thats a false statement. Those Christ died for have been freely justified through redemption period.

Christ died for every man:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

Not every person whom He died for has been "declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

 

[beloved57]

Christ died for every man:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

Not every person whom He died for has been "declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

You made a false statement !

 

[beloved57]

jerry

Not every person whom He died for has been "declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

False statement. What scripture says that ? Rom 3:24 says the opposite

 

[beloved57]

jerry

Christ died for every man:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).

Yes, for every man He died for. He calls them His Sheep Jn 10:11

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, for every man He died for.

If that is the correct meaning then the author of the book of Hebrews would have said that. But he didn't:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

Anyone can make the Scriptures say anything he wants them to say by adding words which are not there, like you have done. By your effort is in vain because the Scriptures say that He died for EVERY MAN!

 

[beloved57]

If that is the correct meaning then the author of the book of Hebrews would have said that. But he didn't:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

Anyone can make the Scriptures say anything he wants them to say by adding words which are not there, like you have done. By your effort is in vain because the Scriptures say that He died for EVERY MAN!

You are handling word deceitfully. He tasted death for every man He died for ! He died for His Sheep Jn 10:11

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are handling word deceitfully.

You don't believe the word:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

 

[beloved57]

You don't believe the word:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

He died for every man He died for. The Sheep Jn 10:11

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

No, Rosen, it has not.

Sure, faith has always been an important and necessary aspect in any dispensation but before Paul, faith alone wasn't enough. It was "trust and obey for there's no other way..." as the modern and erroneous hymn puts it.

Faith manifests itself in trust and obedience; it is impossible to have faith without trust, and willing disobedience is evidence of a lack of faith. When Adam took of the forbidden tree, he showed that he did not have faith in the word of his Creator, trusting Eve and the serpent over God.

Jesus Himself said so! When he was asked "What must I do that I may have eternal life?" His answer was a list of things for him to do, including the Ten Commandments. (Matt 19)

He also said that keeping those commandments was not enough, that with those he still lacked something very important, did he not?

Well, I very much doubt that! I mean there is hardly anything more blatantly stated in the Bible than the fact that the Law was nailed to the cross.

Colossians 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Spoiler

Not Legalism but Christ

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

That passage alon ought to completely shut the mouth of anyone who would deny that the Law was nailed to the cross.

But it also speaks directly to our discussion as well. If you died with Christ, neither Circumcison nor "Thou shalt not steal." nor any other aspect of the law can apply to you. Death is the last word the Law has to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I think that argument was (or at least it resembled) that "The Ten Commandments" were not part of the Law of Moses that was nailed to the cross, and that it was an Eternal Law ... that would always exist and always had existed "and would be written in our hearts?" Usually when someone says that the law was "nailed to the cross" they mean that it is abolished and of no more legal effect.

I suspect that some people take that position because (for example) they innately know that "adultery" is sin and thus deduce that there must be law or else there would be no more sin but because when they think "law" they look for a specific code such as a list of "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not." But the Ten Commandments (which were part of the Law of Moses) were first given at Mount Sinai and also specifically include the Sabbath Days which the apostles declare as not binding in the New Testament, as well as other statements that the law entirely stands together or falls together, to break one item is to break the whole law.

I agree that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, not in part, but in whole. So while I agree (and would maintain) that the presence of sin proves the presence of law, I could not say that "the Ten Commandments" are that binding law. Law (which some people seem to think is a dirty word) would have preceded those Commandments or else there could have been no sin from either Adam or the Serpent.

Perhaps we might discuss other items later....