ECT Saying we are saved "by grace alone" can only mean hyper-Calvinism

[SimpleMan77]

Obedience reveals evidence of a changed heart. Obedience is proof of genuine faith.

Obedience serves the moral standards and righteousness of God. Faithful believers live holy lives because they serve a new Master who is holy.

Obedience is not a means to meriting or earning salvation. Christians obey the will and word of God because they have already been raised to new spiritual life by His grace, alone.

God told Abraham "leave your homeland, and I'll give you a son and bless you". Abraham beloved God and responded by leaving, and the entire New Testament points to him as the Father of Faith.

Ask yourself this question: if Abraham would have refused to leave, would he have had faith?

God would have discarded him, and found someone else who would have had true faith.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Hi and in Rom 16:25 and 26 !!

dan p

According to Paul, that mystery was also "Christ in you, the hope of Glory". That is the same Holy Ghost that Jesus was referring to when he said "I am with you, but I shall be in you", and the same message that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (concerning the promise and gift of the Holy Ghost).

All 3 preaching the same mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nang]

God told Abraham "leave your homeland, and I'll give you a son and bless you". Abraham beloved God and responded by leaving, and the entire New Testament points to him as the Father of Faith.

Ask yourself this question: if Abraham would have refused to leave, would he have had faith?

God would have discarded him, and found someone else who would have had true faith.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

For a thorough discussion of Abraham evidencing faith in God through obedience, see this debate on the "One On One" Forum:

"Does Abraham's Faith Disprove Unconditional Election"

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...th-disprove-Unconditional-Election-One-on-One

 

[DAN P]

According to Paul, that mystery was also "Christ in you, the hope of Glory". That is the same Holy Ghost that Jesus was referring to when he said "I am with you, but I shall be in you", and the same message that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (concerning the promise and gift of the Holy Ghost).

All 3 preaching the same mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hi and your CONTEXT is NOT even close !!

Christ coming was pridicted by Moses in Acts 3:22 and by Isa 6 and by Luke 13:6-9 and it IS all a PROPHESY and was not MYSTERY and Paul's gospel was HIDDEN from the worls until it was revealed to Paul in Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 and that is why it is called a MYSTERY , you are KIDDING and just BLOVIATING !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

According to Paul, that mystery was also "Christ in you, the hope of Glory". That is the same Holy Ghost that Jesus was referring to when he said "I am with you, but I shall be in you", and the same message that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (concerning the promise and gift of the Holy Ghost).

All 3 preaching the same mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Nope that is not THE Mystery - that is THE RICHES of the glory of this mystery (of the Mystery that Paul was referring to).

There is The Mystery.

And there is Its' Glory.

And there is Its' Riches.

Christ in you is the third of these three.

Of course, as with your off-base conclusion...some MADs...will view this...differently...due to a...different...study approach...on...their part...as well.

 

[Danoh]

God told Abraham "leave your homeland, and I'll give you a son and bless you". Abraham beloved God and responded by leaving, and the entire New Testament points to him as the Father of Faith.

Ask yourself this question: if Abraham would have refused to leave, would he have had faith?

God would have discarded him, and found someone else who would have had true faith.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You're off-base again.

That was Abraham...after...he was in Circumcision. Compare Genesis 15 with Genesis 17.

Which is why James...who was of the Circumcision that believed, and whose gospel ministry after Israel fell was of (belonging to) they of the Circumcision which had believed prior to said fall...speaks of faith from that point in Abraham's life...in James 2.

James 2 is per his agreement with Paul in Galatians 2 that he, James, would now confine his ministry to they of (belonging to) the Circumcision which had believed...prior to Israel's fall.

Whereas Paul speaks of Abraham's faith...before...he was in Circumcision...before...he received the sign of Circumcision, see Romans 4.

Paul's is a ministry of (belonging to) the Uncircumcision.

With unbelieving Israel's fall just prior to Paul's salvation, calling, and commissioning, after Paul...the term Uncircumcision referred to both lost Jews and Gentiles, Acts 7; Romans 2 and 3.

It is why is Paul went to both, to the seeming inconsistency of his agreement in Galatians 2.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Nope that is not THE Mystery - that is THE RICHES of the glory of this mystery (of the Mystery that Paul was referring to).

There is The Mystery.

And there is Its' Glory.

And there is Its' Riches.

Christ in you is the third of these three.

Of course, as with your off-base conclusion...some MADs...will view this...differently...due to a...different...study approach...on...their part...as well.

Where does "the mystery of the kingdom of God" come into this?

Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Here, it seems Jesus was referring to the entirety of his teachings and the work that He had both done and was going to do.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

You're off-base again.

That was Abraham...after...he was in Circumcision. Compare Genesis 15 with Genesis 17.

Which is why James...who was of the Circumcision that believed, and whose gospel ministry after Israel fell was of (belonging to) they of the Circumcision which had believed prior to said fall...speaks of faith from that point in Abraham's life...in James 2.

James 2 is per his agreement with Paul in Galatians 2 that he, James, would now confine his ministry to they of (belonging to) the Circumcision which had believed...prior to Israel's fall.

Whereas Paul speaks of Abraham's faith...before...he was in Circumcision...before...he received the sign of Circumcision, see Romans 4.

Paul's is a ministry of (belonging to) the Uncircumcision.

With unbelieving Israel's fall just prior to Paul's salvation, calling, and commissioning, after Paul...the term Uncircumcision referred to both lost Jews and Gentiles, Acts 7; Romans 2 and 3.

It is why is Paul went to both, to the seeming inconsistency of his agreement in Galatians 2.

My point was simply that Abraham's faith was counted him for righteousness, and that was before he was circumcised. However, it was not before he obeyed.

I repeat: if Abraham would have believed that he was going to be blessed and all the nations of the world would be a blessed in him (a promise that could not be fulfilled unless he had a son), but had refused to obey, the Bible would not have ever said that he had faith.

Read Hebrews chapter 11. Every hero of faith was a person of action and of obedience. Refusing to obey would have disqualified them from "having faith".


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

Where does "the mystery of the kingdom of God" come into this?

Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Here, it seems Jesus was referring to the entirety of his teachings and the work that He had both done and was going to do.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

"It seems" is no way to study a thing out on, nor to base a thing on.

The word "mystery" has several meanings.

As with any word, its' use, where it is found being used, and in relation to who, as to what, when, how, and why are ever a factor as to what intended sense is the one meant.

He is speaking there not to just any Israelites; but to believing ones.

What did Moses say to Israel about such things?

What did their Prophets: Isaiah and Daniel, and so on...say?

What did one of the Apostles of the Circumcision later write concerning their mystery?

None of that is The Mystery Paul is speaking of.

Only first glance, surface level impression makes it appear it is the same.

 

[SimpleMan77]

"It seems" is no way to study a thing out on, nor to base a thing on.

The word "mystery" has several meanings.

As with any word, its' use, where it is found being used, and in relation to who, as to what, when, how, and why are ever a factor as to what intended sense is the one meant.

He is speaking there not to just any Israelites; but to believing ones.

What did Moses say to Israel about such things?

What did their Prophets: Isaiah and Daniel, and so on...say?

What did one of the Apostles of the Circumcision later write concerning their mystery?

None of that is The Mystery Paul is speaking of.

Only first glance, surface level impression makes it appear it is the same.

My MO is to put "it seems" in if there is even a 1% chance I'm wrong. Your MO "seems to be" to declare thing as absolute, whether they are a stretch or not.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

My MO is to put "it seems" in if there is even a 1% chance I'm wrong. Your MO "seems to be" to declare thing as absolute, whether they are a stretch or not.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Lol

It seems that way...to you.

Actually, I go years some times on some things...

Just studying and restudying a thing out in light of all the Scripture...

Refusing to allow myself to go by on "well, perhaps this...may be that...what if I look at it from this angle...or from this one...or from that one..."

And all the other kinds of errors it is too offten obvious to many subscribe to...

I've long since learned I only hurt my own understanding should I allow myself such fool hardy practices...

It is one reason why I am such a pain with others with my endless "yeah, but..." lol

It is a trait among the MADs I associate with, outside of TOL.

Those do not allow one another to assert a thing to one another without challenging its' basis.

I like that.

Everyone needs the iron sharpeneth iron of such a practice.

Of course, it does not go well, when the insecure are approached in such a manner - boy do such right off take offense - MADs...or not :chuckle:

 

[SimpleMan77]

Lol

It seems that way...to you.

Actually, I go years some times on some things...

Just studying and restudying a thing out in light of all the Scripture...

Refusing to allow myself to go by on "well, perhaps this...may be that...what if I look at it from this angle...or from this one...or from that one..."

And all the other kinds of errors it is too offten obvious to many subscribe to...

I've long since learned I only hurt my own understanding should I allow myself such fool hardy practices...

It is one reason why I am such a pain with others with my endless "yeah, but..." lol

It is a trait among the MADs I associate with, outside of TOL.

Those do not allow one another to assert a thing to one another without challenging its' basis.

I like that.

Everyone needs the iron sharpeneth iron of such a practice.

Of course, it does not go well, when the insecure are approached in such a manner - boy do such right off take offense - MADs...or not :chuckle:

I honestly do enjoy being challenged - answering any question that I'm asked (and digging back into study if I can't be fully satisfied with the answer), and have others respond in kind.

I like for people to challenge me and disagree with me. Usually it "sharpens" me, and sometimes it shown me how much I don't know.

What I can't stand is people who'd rather insult and call names. I hate pettiness and childishness. I hate it when people can't respond intellectually, spiritually and biblically (all three at the same time preferably), so they revert to bullying.

I appreciate your honest response above.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

With unbelieving Israel's fall just prior to Paul's salvation, calling, and commissioning, after Paul...the term Uncircumcision referred to both lost Jews and Gentiles, Acts 7; Romans 2 and 3.

Can you explain when Israel fell? As a nation they rejected Jesus from the time he started His ministry.

After the ascension, they went from 120, to 3,000 added, to 5,000 added, to a great company of the priests being added... what scripture says Israel fell just prior to Paul's conversion?

It looks like an exponential expansion of what Jesus died to implement.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[DAN P]

Can you explain when Israel fell? As a nation they rejected Jesus from the time he started His ministry.

After the ascension, they went from 120, to 3,000 added, to 5,000 added, to a great company of the priests being added... what scripture says Israel fell just prior to Paul's conversion?

It looks like an exponential expansion of what Jesus died to implement.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hi and Israel's rejection is in Acts 13:46 and in Acts 18:6 and in Acts 28:28 !!

dan p

 

[SimpleMan77]

Hi and Israel's rejection is in Acts 13:46 and in Acts 18:6 and in Acts 28:28 !!

dan p

DANOH said Israel's fall was just before Saul's conversion. He's pointing to an event it seems, not a series of rejections. That's why I'd like him to clarify...


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

Hi and Israel's rejection is in Acts 13:46 and in Acts 18:6 and in Acts 28:28 !!

dan p

That is the three times Paul is asserting why God had turned from Israel.

 

[DAN P]

DANOH said Israel's fall was just before Saul's conversion. He's pointing to an event it seems, not a series of rejections. That's why I'd like him to clarify...


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hi and if you did read those verse , Israel was given a opportunity to REPENT and then Jesus would come back , in Acts 3:20 and when STEPHEN was killed the 3 verses kin Acts are a done deal as far as Israel is concerned and are set aside , until the Departure of the Body of Christ happens in Rom 11:25 , THEN God will again deal with Israel !!

dan p

 

[meshak]

Saying we are saved "by grace alone" can only mean hyper-Calvinism

This is what most protestants believe.

they don't believe your works matter even though Jesus says we will be judged according to what we have done.

 

[DAN P]

That is the three times Paul is asserting why God had turned from Israel.

Hi yes , but we know that Israel was reject back in Isa 6 and in Luke 13:6-9 and Luke is a clear picture of when Israel was technically set aside , Not the cross but in Acts 28:28 as any good Acts 28er would say !!

Pick any verse you wany , BUT by Acts 28:28 it was a done deal as Paul by Acts 9:6 Paul was in transition with the Gospel of the Grace of God Acys 20:24 !!

dan p

 

[SimpleMan77]

Saying we are saved "by grace alone" can only mean hyper-Calvinism

Saying we are saved "by grace alone" can only mean hyper-Calvinism

Hi and if you did read those verse , Israel was given a opportunity to REPENT and then Jesus would come back , in Acts 3:20 and when STEPHEN was killed the 3 verses kin Acts are a done deal as far as Israel is concerned and are set aside , until the Departure of the Body of Christ happens in Rom 11:25 , THEN God will again deal with Israel !!

dan p

Acts 3:20 simply states that Jesus will be in heaven until the restitution of all things. I agree that the 3 verses mentioned highlight the Gospel, in Paul's words, is "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek". That isn't speaking of dispensations, it is speaking to the fact that the Jews were still (and are still) the chosen people of God. We are grafted into the stock of their vine.

3 points: 1)I don't see any scripture saying that Jesus would have come back if the Jewish nation had received Him. He ascended, and 120 was the number of faithful followers he had. I'd venture to say at the stoning of Stephen there were 10s or 100s of thousands of Christians. The rejection by the ruling Jews was fanning the flames of revival.

2) There is no point shown in scripture there is a change from Jewish believers being held to the law and then being released from it. It was a gradual transition, starting with the evangelization of the Samaritans, then the conversion of Cornelius. You are saying it was Stephen's death that triggered it. Where does it say that in scripture?

3)and most importantly, the three verses mentioned span a lot of years, with the last one coming just before Paul's death. At that point, he was still reaching to the Jews first.

The gradual change from law to Grace was embraced more quickly by some then others, with Paul leading the charge, but it was already happening well before he was converted.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL