Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So [does] He permit or decree abortion?
Last edited:
Is Faith Without Works Dead?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
So [does] He permit or decree abortion?
I think you’re confusing terms. What you’re talking about sounds like foreknowledge to me.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
The part that is predetermined is God’s response to sin, and that is what He declares. Not the sin, but His response to it, and that would be the cross.
Or, perhaps it’s not backwards. Esau is the one who sold his birthright, placing no value in it at all.
In fact, Jacob is the one who profited through Esau’s ”stumble”. I‘d never thought of this before, but it fits that they are used as examples here.
Whichever, it’s God’s mercy being shed on those innocent babies.
They go immediately to the Lord. No more pain or sorrow for them.
Derf
Well-known member
More like Jacob has now "supplanted" Esau in despising his birthright as the primary beneficiary of Christ's coming.Or, perhaps it’s not backwards. Esau is the one who sold his birthright, placing no value in it at all.
In fact, Jacob is the one who profited through Esau’s ”stumble”. I‘d never thought of this before, but it fits that they are used as examples here.
Derf
Well-known member
Are you saying that God is pleased with people's sin? You say that Is 46:10 is proof that God decrees all things that happen , and that He does so from before the beginning of time (if I understand you correctly). And you say that Is 46:10 gives the reason for how God is able to declare the end from the beginning
What does that have to do with Is 46:10 and God decreeing all evil that has ever happened or ever will happen because He is pleased by it?
Derf
Well-known member
Are you talking Calvinism or "Idolaterism"?
Isn't committing evil one of God's eternal choices He already made about everybody?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Calvinism.
It's separate from my comment. Unconditional election, the U in TULIP, necessarily requires what's called moral anti-realism or nihilism, because as I said, God already made the choice about you, and you can't change it, so therefore there's no point in trying, and that's just a hard fact, which means there's no such thing as moral obligation. This is based on syllogistic reasoning, no Calvinists ofc say any of this, but it's the same way with Mary mother of God. The Bible doesn't say Mary mother of God, but syllogistically, Mary mother of God is the truth, and Calvinism doesn't say moral nihilism, but syllogistically, moral irrealism inheres Calvinism.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Right, but syllogisms entail that Calvinism believes many aborted babies in the womb are in Hell rn.
Yeah, lots of people teach lots of things, many are the doctrines of demons. We have the indwelling Spirit and He will give us understanding as we read the word for ourselves.
1 Cor. 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
God doesn’t have a mother, and it doesn’t matter what big word you use, “Mary mother of God” is error and a devious error at that. One of those ”Thou shalt not surely die” lies Satan is so good at spreading.
That supplanting lie was spread by the liar Esau.
Gen. 27:36
And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?
Derf
Well-known member
You don't think Rom 9 is talking about how Israel had despised the whole purpose of being the chosen people by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah? And so they have worsted Esau's rejection of his birthright to a hundred-fold.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No. You have to be a Nestorian to deny Mary mother of God.
But the point is that Mary mother of God isn't in the Bible, and the Apostles didn't call Our Lady Mary mother of God, but syllogistically, Mary mother of God is required.
And it's the same with Calvinism requiring no moral obligations. It is necessary that there are no moral obligations, under Calvinism.
I might be missing your point, but I will say this about that.
I think they took pride in being the people of the law, and like Esau they had no real regard for the blessing. They squandered it. In their own eyes, they were special with all their washings and rituals and …..heck, the power to stone women caught in adultery. There was nothing Godly about that, as Jesus let them know when He came upon the scene.
I have some sympathy for them, however. Right out of the gate they were given a huge number of rules. I suspect it was to keep them busy so they didn’t build another golden calf. The complaining about the manna was the worst. It’s like Esau selling his birthright because he was ”starving” to death. All fleshly desires and nothing of the spirit.
Of course you know that Jesus was fully man and fully God.
God, who is Spirit, has no beginning hence no mother.
The man, Jesus Christ, did have a mother. A human mother.
The term itself is a lie, and needs to be called out. There, got to the bottom of that one.
I don't even know what to say to this. Do you not read the Bible before making a statement like this?
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.
Before this, God said Abraham believed him and it counted for righteousness. James refers to Abraham in the covenant, Paul refers to Abraham when not in the covenant. This is why Paul says to study.
I was talking about the offering of Isaac not being accounted to Abraham for righteousness. Clearly you missed my point. The covenant of grace with Abraham had nothing to do with circumcision. Circumcision was added, and it was Jewish entailing works.
Put simply, Abraham was justified when he believed God, and any work that followed after did not justify his righteousness. It merely proved his faith was real. Paul makes it clear when he says Abraham had whereof to glory in his works, but not before God.
We see many people professing faith, but it’s clear from their actions and their words that their faith is false.
Paul warns us of those who are merely pretenders.
2 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
I see you did miss the point.
James refers to Abraham while under the covenant. Paul refers to Abraham while not under the covenant. This is why you are to study and divide the contradictions. James said Abraham was justified when he offered his son.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
And as you know, he tells them by not taking care of their neighbor, they (we all) sin against God, not just their brother. The covenant of circumcision requires obedience to the law of Moses.
It is only in the dispensation of grace that we are saved by grace.
I’ll be honest and say I don’t know for sure why you posted that text. I see James saying the same as Paul, both speaking of good works that point to that first saving faith.
Nor do I see the connection to obedience to the law of Moses when I read James.
In fact, James himself says if you fail in one point, you fail in all, therefore righteousness under the law was unheard of.
What I do see is the obedience of faith, which Paul speaks of all the time. There are works for believers, too, not being associated with the law of Moses., and I think that’s the crux of James’ message. He’s basically saying false faith is dead, just as Paul does.
Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.
The passage you cite above is a moral law which has been there from the beginning, before the law, and never actually prosecuted under that law either, from what I’ve gleaned. You simply cannot love the stranger because the law tells you to. Therefore it has to be under the covenant of Grace…that Abrahamic covenant of being saved by grace through faith. Abraham believed God.
Deut. 10:17-19.
17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Paul says the same grace has appeared to all men…..includes Noah and Abraham.
Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Titus 3:8
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.