Nope.
Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Nope.
TestedandTried
New member
I do not agree at all. That point is too obvious...he never would have expended his energy pointing out the oh so obvious.
Yes, the elect are sealed...I'm saying we do not know who those elect are exactly.
Yes, the elect are sealed...I'm saying we do not know who those elect are exactly.
TestedandTried
New member
Again...who are the true body of Christ. Yes, all are susceptible to falling away and not repenting if they find they love that sin more than Christianity. Why are we all warned again and again to WATCH?
Rosenritter
New member
How can it be understood when its proponents will not explain it their meaning, and why should it be accepted blindly if its advocates will not subject it to scrutiny? Each time someone has started to give a meaning their rules have fallen back into contradiction... and then it's back to the meaningless "You don't understand how to Rightly Divide the Scriptures(TM)"
I recognize that there may be many different types of views and perspectives, which even if all may not be entirely accurate in every aspect it matters more what fruits (effects) they produce upon those who share those views and others. The effects that I have seen is a type of spiritual racism justifying itself as akin to "separate by equal."
"What God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6) and in that spirit (albeit a different context) God has joined the Jew and the Gentile together into the same body and the same branch. Those in God are in Christ (and our Christ was their God) and those in Christ are joined into the same body, into the same assembly and church of the firstborn Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 12:22-23 KJV
(22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
(23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
In addition to this artificial separation of the body of saints there is also a teaching of legalism that for some people salvation can be earned by works of the law. And when subjects of love for and forgiveness of others become an offensive subject of controversy how can this but trip red flags of alarm? Whatever the perceived benefits of a "Dispensationalism" doctrine might be it doesn't seem to produce healthy fruit of the spirit in those areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
Besides its practical effects, it's also a very new doctrine and seems entirely unnecessary. The bible read harmoniously and perfectly well enough without needing to be torn asunder through a misapplication of 2 Timothy 2:15. It's one Lord and one God, consistent in his love and his character, one salvation through faith under grace for all people both Jew and Gentile..
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, members of the body of Christ are justified by His blood. Rom. 5:9KJV
Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
When you mix up words like sanctified and justified, it's no wonder you make these errors. You read things into what is written, like you just did with Hebrews, and you end up with contradictions.
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
How can we go on when oil and water don't mix?
You have just tried mixing law and grace again. Law is forgiving in order to be forgiven. Those are works of men. All the law requires some work of man. Grace does not. Believing is NOT a work as Paul makes clear over and over again.
Tell me.....where do you find the word justified in Hebrews?
And in James you'll see justified by works. We are justified by faith in His blood.
You have to start by seeing what is written to the Jews and what is written to the Gentiles. Hebrews was not written to the Gentiles. There are too many contradictions otherwise.
oikonomia
oikos nomos
house law
house management
Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
glorydaz
Well-known member
On the contrary, why should they explain over and over again what you dismiss out of hand?
You're so invested in what you think you know, that you refuse to even consider what they say.
See, that's what you always do.
opcorn:The church of the firstborn isn't the body of Christ.....there is no Jew or Gentile in the body of Christ. JESUS CHRIST is not the "firstborn" being spoken of there.
The church of the firstborn is Israel....just as the church in the wilderness was. Acts 7:38KJV Jer. 31:9KJV ie a Jewish church.
Exodus 4:22
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
No, what trips red flags is when people attempt to make things the same that are clearly different. Your view is filled with contradictions.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Jesus Christ is the Elect One, and those IN Christ Jesus are the elect. Isaiah 42:1
Rosenritter
New member
Sanctification and justification are not separable concepts; you don't find the saints justified without sanctification, and you don't find the saints sanctified without justification.
1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV
(11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
How is it that you read that "justified by his blood" (Romans 5:9) as if that was some sort of contradiction against "sanctified by his blood?" (Hebrews 10:29?) Most normal people would recognize that the blood of Christ (a metaphor for Christ Himself) both justifies and sanctifies.
Or do you maintain that the blood of Christ is a magical potion that has a different effect from one person to the next? It is written "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself... " (Col 1:20) and in another place "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7)
Besides this, you cannot seize hold of one tiny phrase and insist that it is a "work of art." There is a multitude of phrases and metaphors used to describe how we are sanctified. I can never tell which books you will toss out as "inapplicable" so I included one from each from a variety including Acts, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, and Jude.
Spoiler
All of his saints are justified and sanctified by Him, but the scriptures do not limit themselves to one fixed term from one epistle to the next. It is a matter of variety of speech, not two (or seven) different gospels and alchemical formulae for Salvation. For example, we are told that we are sanctified by:
1. By the Holy Ghost (Romans)
2. By Jesus Christ with the washing of water by the word (Ephesians)
3. By the commandments of Lord Jesus (1 Thessalonians)
4. Of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians)
5. By departing from iniquity (2 Timothy)
6. By the offering of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews)
7. By God the Father (Jude)
And given that range of description for sanctification do you really want to argue that you we are sanctified by something other than His blood? Just because that particular description comes from the book of Hebrews? Will you also be consistent and maintain that you are not sanctified by God the Father because that was written in Jude?
1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 KJV
(1) Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
(2) For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
(3) For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
While we were at it, I thought I'd point out that the Thessalonian Christians were sanctified by the commandments by Lord Jesus. You seemed to object to the word "commandments" before, saying that you didn't need to follow the commandments of Jesus because they were only for Jews. Remind me please, is Thessalonians considered a Jewish epistle or a Gentile epistle? I can never tell which ones we are supposed to ignore.
Forgiving others to be forgiven of sin was never part of the law. Read the law, Glory. Search it until you get tired of looking, it's not there.
Is your argument become that Jewish believers in Christ are not justified? "The just shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4, Galatians 3:11).
Galatians 3:11 KJV
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
I can just hear the chorus now, "Paul, you don't know how to rightly divide the word of truth!"" What is Paul doing taking an Old Testament scripture written to Jews and applying this to all men in a epistle to the Gentiles? But Paul is very clear here. No man is justified by the law, for it is evident, "The just shall live by faith."
If none are justified by works of the law, but the just shall live by faith, that would include Jewish Christians.
James does not say we are justified by works of the law. James speaks in the context of faith, and says that Abraham was justified by the works of his faith. James addresses a dead faith, a fake faith, against an interpretation of belief that is as hollow as the same belief that the devils also possess. Read the passage again, does it say "works of the law?" Or does it say that a true faith has works?
And does he not also say that Abraham was justified by works? Abraham was before the law, this is not possibly "works of the law." And how does he summarize his meaning? He says "the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..." (James 2:23)
If you've been reading that as "justified by works of the law" you've been reading it all wrong and against the context. Besides this, your interpretation would necessarily create a contradiction where Paul quotes the Old Testament to prove that no man is justified by the law. Abraham was justified by the works of his faith which were plainly seen when he offered Isaac on the altar, without works of the law.
You already have Paul contradicting your interpretation of James. Read James as written and there is no contradiction. "Works" is used throughout scripture and it is always "works" of something, whether it is the works of our hands, works of the law, works of the Lord God, or works of faith.
Romans 3:27-28 KJV
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
James 2:17-18 KJV
(17) Even sofaith,if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
(18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
You don't show faith by works of the law but rather you show faith by works of faith. So even as Paul speaks of the law of faith, and James speaks against those who deceived themselves through a dead faith without belief. There is no contradiction here, no justification to impose an artificial lens with which to tear scripture asunder. No man is justified through the law is a solid rule without exception.
Glory, I suspect that the perceived mandate for "Mid Acts Dispensationalism" stands or falls on the claim of "justification by works of the law" which isn't taught by scripture for any person or any peoples. James doesn't say that, that's what other people say about James. Besides, Paul dispels that notion flat out, using plain language that excludes anyone and everyone, and "the scripture cannot be broken."
Regardless... this is hardly bad news. Doesn't it make far more sense that God is consistent with everyone? If MAD dictates that some are justified by works of the law and Paul says that no one is justified by the works of the law, I'd go with Paul. Any day.
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
One can, in fact, be sanctified (set apart) without being justified.
Israel was sanctified, set apart from the world, but they were far from being justified. That's what the mosaic law was for.
However, the Body of Christ is both sanctified AND justified, because we are in the world but not of the world, set apart, and because Christ's blood has paid for our sins, made righteous, justified.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Israel was sanctified, set apart from the world, but they were far from being justified. That's what the mosaic law was for.
However, the Body of Christ is both sanctified AND justified, because we are in the world but not of the world, set apart, and because Christ's blood has paid for our sins, made righteous, justified.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
glorydaz,
Please read this whole post before responding to any of it. You've taken offense where none is/was intended....
That isn't a joke and I'm not kidding. Every time you do this "resting at the end of the week" business, you revive your flesh and tacitly obligate yourself to follow the whole law. Your every success in such an endeavor is injurious to your relationship with Him who has done all this work for you and is your righteousness. Please, please find something strenuous to do on Saturday's and do it twice before climbing up on that cross to rescue the law!
And, by the way, why did you say "at the end of the week"? I asked specifically about Saturday and quoted the passage from the Ten Commandments but you respond with "at the end of the week". And you may well have used that wording to refer to Saturday, which is totally fine. I just ask because some people have somehow convinced themselves that the Sabbath got changed to Sunday.
You're here defending the Ten Commandments as having not been nailed to the cross and said, in so many words, that the Law, which applied only to Israel is what was nailed to the cross, not the Ten Commandments.
In response to that I point out Romans 1 where Paul talks about the condemnation of "all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" and talks about homosexuality and other things that are not listed in the Ten commandments.
In response to the unassailable point, you said that all that Romans 1 stuff was included in the Ten Commandments, effectively turning the Ten Commandments into the WHOLE LAW!!!
And you did so with no biblical support or any other rational explanation.
That is TEXTBOOK rationalizing. (That's not intended as a personal slight, just an observation.)
The Ten Commandments have TEN commands and not a one of them says a word about homosexuality.
Don't you see that that's the whole point! That is just exactly the whole point! You're just so agonizingly close to the full answer!
I am not here advocating for sin. I am not saying that its alright to slap your mother or worship other gods or to steal or to murder. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't spend time focusing on God and on Spiritual things. What I'm telling you is that if you do or don't do things because there is a list of rules on the wall, then Christ will profit you nothing and you are a debtor to obey the whole law. For the very same God that said, though shalt not murder, also said to pay the tithe and to not eat animals with their blood and 600+ other things.
Notice that the standard Paul used in Romans 1 was NOT the Ten Commandments but rather natural law!
YOU DO NOT NEED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! (Capital letters should not be taken as me "yelling" - it's just for emphasis.)
Paul himself makes the connection most clearly in Romans 5 where Paul is speaking about "the offense"...
So, here we see that the Law simply picked up where the Tree left off. Further, a couple of chapters earlier Paul states outright that "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20) and then a couple chapter after he says, "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." (Romans 7:9) Thus, the Law teaches the knowledge of good and evil but does not produce righteousness in men, only death - which is precisely the same result the Tree had with Adam.
Christ, through His righteous act, has undone the curse and, therefore, as you rightly point out, just as Adam was commanded not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we are so commanded not to partake of the Law! They are two aspects of the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
The proof?
"Thou shalt not be a homo." is not in the Ten Commandments but everyone, including the homos themselves, knows it's a perverted sin.
My point was that there was a time when obedience to the law had a very great deal to do with whether one was righteous or not. Of course, no one could obey the law perfectly and so there has always been an element of grace through faith, even under the Dispensation of Law, but that should not be taken to mean that obedience to the law was in any way optional nor that such obedience didn't translate to righteousness. It absolutely was not optional and you were considered righteous to whatever extent you were obedient to it. Abraham was more righteous than most, for example, and David, though he sinned greatly, also repented greatly and was called "a man after God's own heart", an affectation not applicable to other poeple like the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time, for example.
But in Christ, there are no such distinctions made, for we are in Christ and we have NO STANDING before God in ourselves but are rather clothed in the righteousness of Christ Who is our ONLY standing.
And as such, the bottom line is....
If the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christ, they do not apply to you.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Please read this whole post before responding to any of it. You've taken offense where none is/was intended....
Do yourself a favor and use Saturdays to mow your lawn from now on.
That isn't a joke and I'm not kidding. Every time you do this "resting at the end of the week" business, you revive your flesh and tacitly obligate yourself to follow the whole law. Your every success in such an endeavor is injurious to your relationship with Him who has done all this work for you and is your righteousness. Please, please find something strenuous to do on Saturday's and do it twice before climbing up on that cross to rescue the law!
And, by the way, why did you say "at the end of the week"? I asked specifically about Saturday and quoted the passage from the Ten Commandments but you respond with "at the end of the week". And you may well have used that wording to refer to Saturday, which is totally fine. I just ask because some people have somehow convinced themselves that the Sabbath got changed to Sunday.
Intuitively, yes. Someone presents an argument that you don't know how to deal with and so your brain figures out a way to deal with it. Everyone does it to one degree or another.
Let's take a moment to dispassionately look at what actually happened...
You're here defending the Ten Commandments as having not been nailed to the cross and said, in so many words, that the Law, which applied only to Israel is what was nailed to the cross, not the Ten Commandments.
In response to that I point out Romans 1 where Paul talks about the condemnation of "all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" and talks about homosexuality and other things that are not listed in the Ten commandments.
In response to the unassailable point, you said that all that Romans 1 stuff was included in the Ten Commandments, effectively turning the Ten Commandments into the WHOLE LAW!!!
And you did so with no biblical support or any other rational explanation.
That is TEXTBOOK rationalizing. (That's not intended as a personal slight, just an observation.)
The Ten Commandments have TEN commands and not a one of them says a word about homosexuality.
Look, I'm not questioning your sincerity, I'm questioning whether you've thought this through properly. I'm only reacting to what you write on this forum. There was no offense intended.
It wasn't because of the Ten Commandments!
Don't you see that that's the whole point! That is just exactly the whole point! You're just so agonizingly close to the full answer!
I am not here advocating for sin. I am not saying that its alright to slap your mother or worship other gods or to steal or to murder. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't spend time focusing on God and on Spiritual things. What I'm telling you is that if you do or don't do things because there is a list of rules on the wall, then Christ will profit you nothing and you are a debtor to obey the whole law. For the very same God that said, though shalt not murder, also said to pay the tithe and to not eat animals with their blood and 600+ other things.
Romans chapter 2 is on the very next page from a passage where Paul talks about sins that are not included in the Ten Commandments...
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Notice that the standard Paul used in Romans 1 was NOT the Ten Commandments but rather natural law!
YOU DO NOT NEED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! (Capital letters should not be taken as me "yelling" - it's just for emphasis.)
The parallels between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Law are many and undeniable. A proper treatment of the biblical material would require more than is conducive to a chat forum. My posts are too long as it is! Bob Enyart spends something like fifteen pages on the subject in his book The Plot. I've already presented a brief summary of many of the parallels found in scripture so I won't go over that again here but I will just make one brief additional point on the subject just to give you a taste of what is there to been found on the subject...
Paul himself makes the connection most clearly in Romans 5 where Paul is speaking about "the offense"...
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So, here we see that the Law simply picked up where the Tree left off. Further, a couple of chapters earlier Paul states outright that "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20) and then a couple chapter after he says, "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." (Romans 7:9) Thus, the Law teaches the knowledge of good and evil but does not produce righteousness in men, only death - which is precisely the same result the Tree had with Adam.
Christ, through His righteous act, has undone the curse and, therefore, as you rightly point out, just as Adam was commanded not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we are so commanded not to partake of the Law! They are two aspects of the same thing, two sides of the same coin.
NO! Absolutely not! No way, no how!
The proof?
"Thou shalt not be a homo." is not in the Ten Commandments but everyone, including the homos themselves, knows it's a perverted sin.
My point was that there was a time when obedience to the law had a very great deal to do with whether one was righteous or not. Of course, no one could obey the law perfectly and so there has always been an element of grace through faith, even under the Dispensation of Law, but that should not be taken to mean that obedience to the law was in any way optional nor that such obedience didn't translate to righteousness. It absolutely was not optional and you were considered righteous to whatever extent you were obedient to it. Abraham was more righteous than most, for example, and David, though he sinned greatly, also repented greatly and was called "a man after God's own heart", an affectation not applicable to other poeple like the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time, for example.
But in Christ, there are no such distinctions made, for we are in Christ and we have NO STANDING before God in ourselves but are rather clothed in the righteousness of Christ Who is our ONLY standing.
And as such, the bottom line is....
If the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christ, they do not apply to you.
Resting in Him,
Clete
In light of 2 Timothy 3:16, what would you say is the roll of the non-Pauline books of the New Testament in the life of today's believer?
TestedandTried
New member
You are not once saved always saved so you do not know you are sealed.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How to Quote Posts
How to Quote Posts
There is a "Reply With Quote" button below all posts in a thread. Click that and then add your response below the ending quote tag [/quote] shown in the post edit window that appears.
This way the reader may know to whom you are responding.
For longer posts in which you wish to interact, you can break up the quoted text by adding beginning and ending quote tags and then post your comments.
Example:
Here is your post above:
Here is what your post would look like when I select "Reply With Quote" and I break it up in the post edit window while interspersing my own responses between the quoted sections:
[QUOTE="TestedandTried, post: 0"]You are not once saved always saved[/quote]
True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.
[QUOTE]so you do not know you are sealed.[/QUOTE]
OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warnings in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.
Note how I manually added quote tags when breaking up the post. I then interacted with each section of the post. Also note that I leave the first quote tag untouched which shows your username and a numeric link to your original post. This is important.
For a long post with multiple quotes, you might simply replace any subsequent beginning quote tags— [QUOTE] —with the initial quote tag— [QUOTE="TestedandTried, post: 0"].
Using the special beginning quote tag frequently makes it clear who is being quoted in a long post or in a post with multiple quotes from multiple users.
All bbcodes available at this site are shown here:
http://theologyonline.com/misc.php?do=bbcode
If you use the Reply With Quote button the window that will open is a basic editor. At the bottom right is a "Go Advanced" button that will re-open the editor with many more formatting functions such that you do not need to manually enter bbcodes for formatting. That said, there is no button that allows one to select a portion of text and then have beginning and ending quote tags automatically added. You must do this manually or use this offline tool to format posts that can be copied and pasted later in the board's post edit window: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/bbeditor/
bbeditor is very handy tool for discussion boards where you are dealing with long posts, debates, etc.
Note from this link the magical bbcode I used to show the quote tags above without them being rendered (parsed): [noparse] [/noparse] In fact if you quote this post you would see that to render those parsing tags I actually used the magic bbcodes to render the magic bbcodes! (In formal software development lingo this is known as a polymorphic function.)
Now, using the method above when you submit the content the result will appear as follows:
True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.
Now all we need is for @Knight to make a copy of these instructions in a TOL FAQ somewhere.
AMR
How to Quote Posts
There is a "Reply With Quote" button below all posts in a thread. Click that and then add your response below the ending quote tag [/quote] shown in the post edit window that appears.
This way the reader may know to whom you are responding.
For longer posts in which you wish to interact, you can break up the quoted text by adding beginning and ending quote tags and then post your comments.
Example:
Here is your post above:
Here is what your post would look like when I select "Reply With Quote" and I break it up in the post edit window while interspersing my own responses between the quoted sections:
[QUOTE="TestedandTried, post: 0"]You are not once saved always saved[/quote]
True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.
[QUOTE]so you do not know you are sealed.[/QUOTE]
OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warnings in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.
Note how I manually added quote tags when breaking up the post. I then interacted with each section of the post. Also note that I leave the first quote tag untouched which shows your username and a numeric link to your original post. This is important.
For a long post with multiple quotes, you might simply replace any subsequent beginning quote tags— [QUOTE] —with the initial quote tag— [QUOTE="TestedandTried, post: 0"].
Using the special beginning quote tag frequently makes it clear who is being quoted in a long post or in a post with multiple quotes from multiple users.
All bbcodes available at this site are shown here:
http://theologyonline.com/misc.php?do=bbcode
If you use the Reply With Quote button the window that will open is a basic editor. At the bottom right is a "Go Advanced" button that will re-open the editor with many more formatting functions such that you do not need to manually enter bbcodes for formatting. That said, there is no button that allows one to select a portion of text and then have beginning and ending quote tags automatically added. You must do this manually or use this offline tool to format posts that can be copied and pasted later in the board's post edit window: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/bbeditor/
bbeditor is very handy tool for discussion boards where you are dealing with long posts, debates, etc.
Note from this link the magical bbcode I used to show the quote tags above without them being rendered (parsed): [noparse] [/noparse]
In fact if you quote this post you would see that to render those parsing tags I actually used the magic bbcodes to render the magic bbcodes! (In formal software development lingo this is known as a polymorphic function.)Now, using the method above when you submit the content the result will appear as follows:
True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.
OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warnings in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.
Now all we need is for @Knight to make a copy of these instructions in a TOL FAQ somewhere.
AMR
Last edited: