Bladerunner
Active member
I have been wrong about many things especially in the Bible. But it seems you cannot....WOW!
Good, I am glad to hear that.
Is Faith Without Works Dead?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Bladerunner
Active member
I guess that too is your opinion.
I'm not angry but it is annoying to have to repeat myself like I'm talking to an idiot.
Stupidity!
What are you doing, just making this nonsense up as you go along or did you just fail to notice that what you are suggesting is that God is "sovereign" (by your definition) over salvation but not "every day affairs"?
Further, Calvinist doctrine, as articulated by figures like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and contemporary Reformed theologians, holds that all events—whether spiritual or mundane—are foreordained by God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 3:1) states:
“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
This does not limit predestination to salvation but applies to everything, including "everyday affairs."
I can! And have been! But it wasn't because it was my opinion!
Can you really not grasp the distinction?
Bladerunner
Active member
Does Predestined work that way? Really....He has total control over all things. yet the predestination spoken in the Bible only pertains to Salvation.....I am sad you cannot see that
Okay, you are definitely intentionally wasting my time.Does Predestined work that way? Really....He has total control over all things. yet the predestination spoken in the Bible only pertains to Salvation.....I am sad you cannot see that
Good bye.
Bladerunner
Active member
You believe it was wrong, simply as you say I am wrong..You believe it thus it is you opinion..Your belief. I can but can you is the question?
There is no point of view on the author of Hebrews. He said he heard from others who was ministered directly by the Lord Jesus Christ.
I was only speaking about the author of Hebrews tells us he heard from others. That excludes Paul. Which was in your post.
Bladerunner
Active member
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Heb 1:1-2) "God tells us that He has given all things to his son, Jesus Christ and that things were made by His Son"
By the way, the Author is GOD or Jesus Christ, himself.
This has nothing to do with the fact that Paul didn't write Hebrews.
Lon
Well-known member
All true, just get rid of the stupidity comment. "If" one is stupid, it doesn't make a whit if you say it, they'll never get it. It is dismissive and it doesn't matter intent: always an insult. If not stupid? Then you've yet started shutting down conversation with a value statement that is not: 2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. Ephesians 4:15 "Speaking the truth in love... we grow up..." Implications are not ▲this▲ when we don't. Speaking God's word should be the greatest joy, even and assuredly in repetition.
James 3:1 is a 'why.' My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
More than that, our message is lost for tenor. If such is a true rendering to God, we simply must follow instructions with teaching doctrine. A lot that goes on, on TOL, isn't gentle but those who are mature must do decidedly better. Gentleness is akin to patience. You've done incredibly better on TOL when you try. "People don't care what you know, until they know you care." - Joseph Aldrich
Bladerunner
Active member
Oh yes it does.For if it were not Paul who wrote it, then it was some one else and suddenly, God is not the author anymore....People you playing games with God's Word.
Right Divider
Body part
I think that it was you that invented the non-sequitur.
Is English your second language?
Definitely so. Paul cannot have been the author of Hebrews. Arguments to the contrary are usually esoteric points about Greek grammatical constructs and such which are far from compelling on their own and which are all eclipsed entirely by the biblical evidence such as that which you point out. His authorship of Hebrews would introduce contradictions that are impossible to explain.
The rest can't be true without proving the "stupidity comment". And telling a stupid person that they're stupid on a public forum isn't for the benefit of the stupid person quite so much as it is for the rest of the audience. And stupidity SHOULD be dismissed and yes, it is an intentional insult.
What's more, you're own stupidity has lost you the right to say this sort of nonsense to me. If I never read another word you ever write, I'd not lose a wink of sleep over it. You're a lukewarm, wishy-washy, half baked, gratifier who is far more interested in riding fences than taking a stand for anything other than not being offensive to people who say flagrantly stupid things.
Lon
Well-known member
Enyart and I talked about this on forum. He agreed 'sparingly.' For me, usually never. I've tried it a couple of times, it is always a conversation ender. The problem is we lose at that venture. All of us. If, in good faith something is exasperating, it isn't our best foot forward. The scripture intent is that we do have a high calling.No. It. Has. Not. You 'think' you get to say it, and so you do. You aren't taking the high road either logically nor scripturally at that venture and because it is a scriptural breach, God has the right. If through me, so be it. I've had enough of the comments from you to have earned the right in spades.
That's on you. We all stand before Him. Sure it is under the blood, but Christ-in-us should be prompting something better. Enyart agreed with me btw, and with you in mind (doesn't seem to have made it through the TOL purge, thread I started). He defended you, up to a point and wholly agreed with me we should be what you wrongly call whishy washy. It is grace, patience, longsuffering and strength under God's guidance, self-controlled. You ineptly attack the Body of Christ, not pagans, and you shouldn't even do it to them (I've been guilty, apparently doing much better than you at growing up).
I've been very upfront against Open Theism. Difference between you and I: I know that entertaining a thought will take it down the road and iron sharpens iron. You cannot take all those verses from God and call them whishy washy, which is the effect.
Here is the thing: You actually do it up to a point and are very good at it...until you are not, get to that exasperation point. That comes from within, Clete. That guy is you! I'm glad you are passionate, but if you are passionately wrong? I could take you in a debate or on the street any day of the week, prior to wanting to grow wishy washy. I grew up that way, but when I became a man, I put it away: It never, Clete, never does any good. James 1:20 If I am whishy washy, it is God's doing. I'm not that bully/bully-hater any longer. I've been kind to you. Call it whatever you like. I've taken enough of your insults to show you anything but that. I've prayed, often, for something better in you and all on TOL who do this nonsense. I much prefer when you tell me: I'm done! That is a good way to end a conversation. In fact, I predict you'll say just that right after reading this. Some win for me, some win for you.
Last edited:
Perverters of the gospel say Paul wrote Hebrews, after you show them he did not, for 1 reason. To pull people from the faith. The author of Hebrews says (IAW the covenant of circumcision) you can sin your way out of salvation. You can't back slide, repent, and come back.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Whether Paul did or did not write Hebrews aside, what are we to do with Biblical passages like this? Because Jesus also sounds like He's saying this too. How does that square with Paul teaching that we are saved by Faith Alone?
Especially since Paul frequently warns us to not sin too. I mean they all warn us to avoid sin, that's for sure, it's just that Jesus and Hebrews and James and Peter and John all sound like you can sin your way out of salvation, and meanwhile Paul (who's also just as hard telling us to not sin) also tells us basically we can't sin our way out of salvation.
In Jesus's words, or in the non-Pauline books, is there any hint or indication that it is faith alone that saves? It can just be a hint of it really, and then the whole New Testament does cohere with Paul.
And that's really I think the main problem Mid Acts is trying to solve, is the apparent incoherence between Paul and the rest of the New Testament, including Jesus Himself.
They can show from the Scripture the apparent incoherence. So there's high initial plausibility for Mid Acts. Which means to defeat Mid Acts, you have to come up with a defeater or two or more defeaters, and then those defeaters must stand up, and then you can defeat that high initial plausibility that the Mid Acts position does possess. It does seem like Paul sounds like he's singing a different key, at first blush, prima facie, at first glance, etc.
But if there are defeaters that stand up, then Paul's not singing a different key at all, and your position merely appears to be right, but it isn't actually right, because it's all built on the idea that Paul's singing a different key, but he isn't.
Mid Acts says Paul's singing a different key, and that has high initial plausibility, it can be shown from the Scripture, so it stands, unless there are defeaters for it (and that stand instead). And that consists of any hint that we are saved by faith alone, found in the non-Pauline New Testament. (If Paul wrote Hebrews then ofc that would be a defeater for Mid Acts, because then you would have Paul saying Faith Alone, AND sounding like you can sin your way out of salvation.) But it doesn't have to be very clear, it need only be a hint. Such as John 3:16 for example. whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I'm saying this because the position with the highest initial plausibility is that the New Testament coheres. This is apparently true, since it begins with Jesus, and He is definitely a new major character in the story of the God [of] Israel. So it's different from the Old Testament. But the New Testament coheres, is the position with the highest initial plausibility.
Mid Acts in showing incoherence is a defeater to this view.
If the apparent incoherence isn't actual incoherence, this can be shown by a defeater. If this defeater stands, then Mid Acts is defeated, and Mid Acts itself is a defeater of the view that the N.T. coheres. [So, that position would hold up.]
Last edited:
That's because sin is bad, regardless of dispensation.
Because salvation for the Jews (and Israel) is the establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom. You can be kicked out of that one, because there are physical consequences.
We in the Body of Christ, on the other hand, are saved from death caused by sin, and our security lies within the very character of God, not what we do or do not do.
You're basically asking for eisegesis.
Don't do that.
Look at what the context says.
Israel is about to finally get her kingdom, her Messiah has come, people are converting to the New Covenant that God promised He would make with Israel... and then a year after Pentecost, which was supposed to be when the final week of Daniel's prophecy takes place, yet Israel is in a miserable state, people who are supposed to be expecting Christ to return are constantly complaining about earthly things, keeping money for themselves they were supposed to give to the elders for sustaining the church, a man who claims to speak for God is killed, and then all of a sudden, a new apostle is chosen, who's only command is to take the gospel he was given to the Gentiles, a gospel that tells people that they don't needd to circumcise, which is literally the identity of the Jews, and not only do you not have to circumcise, but you don't have to keep any sort of law, yet you can have a relationship with God.
So what happens? People start to complain about that, too. "We're the people of the circumcision, God HAS to focus on us!"
This is literally what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11!
There's no room for there to be "a single gospel" because the story of the Bible doesn't allow it!
Not only does it try to solve it, it solves it by just letting scripture say what it says!
It sounds like it because that's what the story is telling us!
The problem is that scripture isn't going to have defeaters against itself.
Just because there are similarities between dispensations doesn't make them the same gospel, Idolater.
Things that are different are not the same, especially if the context of the story doesn't allow them to be.
Yes, the Bible coheres. Scripture does not contradict itself.
That doesn't mean that it teaches the same message throughout.
Mid-Acts shows coherence within the story the Bible presents, not coherence in every doctrine it teaches.
If it taught the latter, then atheists would have every right to reject it, because things that contradict cannot be true in the same way at the same time.
The Bible says what it says. It says different (sometimes seemingly contradictory) things at different points. The context of what it says, combined with the fact that the Bible is written as a singular coherent story, allows for this.