PDA

View Full Version : Arminians' Dilemma



Pages : [1] 2

Samie
March 18th, 2016, 01:56 PM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

jamie
March 18th, 2016, 03:27 PM
Salvation is initiated by The Father who leads people to Christ by his Spirit. The Father seeks those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth.

Samie
March 18th, 2016, 03:48 PM
Salvation is initiated by The Father who leads people to Christ by his Spirit. The Father seeks those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth.Thanks for the response.

But if you are among the Arminians, your response does not seem to absolve their dilemma.

genuineoriginal
March 18th, 2016, 04:51 PM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

The only dilemma is in your own mind because you took a fraction of a verse out of context and made it into a dogma.
I already explained that in another thread.

Try a real Arminian dilemma.
Even though I am not an Arminian, I will try to answer it.

Samie
March 18th, 2016, 11:43 PM
The only dilemma is in your own mind because you took a fraction of a verse out of context and made it into a dogma.
I already explained that in another thread.

Try a real Arminian dilemma.
Even though I am not an Arminian, I will try to answer it.The dilemma is given in the OP.

Ostrich defense does not eliminate the existence of the dilemma, brother. What you said as the explanation you gave in another thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117006-Can-a-Man-Believe-While-NOT-In-Christ&p=4651706&viewfull=1#post4651706)is simply a DENIAL of the existence of the dilemma. No explanation was ever given.

Please address the OP SQUARELY, brother.

jamie
March 19th, 2016, 08:45 AM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.


Was Paul an Arminian? Paul said, "The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."
(Romans 8:7)

Samie
March 19th, 2016, 12:00 PM
Was Paul an Arminian? . . .I don't think, he was. Paul said all died when Christ died (2 Cor 5:14, 15) and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). The Arminians do not teach this, neither do the Calvinists.

genuineoriginal
March 20th, 2016, 08:19 AM
The dilemma is given in the OP.

Ostrich defense does not eliminate the existence of the dilemma, brother. What you said as the explanation you gave in another thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117006-Can-a-Man-Believe-While-NOT-In-Christ&p=4651706&viewfull=1#post4651706)is simply a DENIAL of the existence of the dilemma. No explanation was ever given.

Please address the OP SQUARELY, brother.
I have addressed your delusion squarely.

Your delusion is this:
Jesus told the disciples that they could bring forth no fruit unless they continued in Him.
You twist this to claim that nobody can do anything unless they are in Jesus.

Your problem is that you have no clue what it means to be in Jesus and you think Jesus was speaking to those that are not in Him.

Samie
March 21st, 2016, 12:58 PM
I have addressed your delusion squarely.

Your delusion is this:
Jesus told the disciples that they could bring forth no fruit unless they continued in Him.
You twist this to claim that nobody can do anything unless they are in Jesus.

Your problem is that you have no clue what it means to be in Jesus and you think Jesus was speaking to those that are not in Him.Is continuing in Him continuing being in Christ? If Yes, then you have just discovered your own dilemma.

If the disciples CONTINUE to be in Christ, then they bear fruit. If they don't, then they can't bear fruit. Why? Because they CEASE being in Him. You TWIST that to mean as applying ONLY to the disciples and NOT to any other human being. And that's your dilemma.

The disciples can't bear fruit unless they CONTINUE to be in Him, but you CLAIM you can bear fruit even if you are NOT in Christ. You are against my position that people can't bear fruit UNLESS they are in Christ, because it exposes the error of your theology.

You bury your head in the sand and pretend there is NO dilemma. Here, take a look at your dilemma. I bolded them in red so you can better see:

John 15:5-6 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 01:06 PM
You are against my position that people can't bear fruit UNLESS they are in Christ
That is not the position I am against.

I am against the false doctrine that claims that nobody can accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior unless they are already in Christ.

The Bible states that the wicked who turn from their wickedness and do that which is lawful and right will live. (Ezekiel 18:27)
You are claiming that the wicked must be in Christ first before they can turn from their wickedness and live, based on your misunderstanding of a single verse in scripture.

Samie
March 21st, 2016, 03:24 PM
That is not the position I am against.

I am against the false doctrine that claims that nobody can accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior unless they are already in Christ.By that you are indirectly saying that Jesus preached a false doctrine. Jesus said that while NOT in Him man can do NOTHING. You insist man can do SOMETHING. If yours is the correct doctrine then Jesus' doctrine is false.


The Bible states that the wicked who turn from their wickedness and do that which is lawful and right will live. (Ezekiel 18:27)
You are claiming that the wicked must be in Christ first before they can turn from their wickedness and live, based on your misunderstanding of a single verse in scripture.You are the one NOT understanding it. You refuse to because it is against your genuinely original false theology.

The wicked are asked to turn from their wickedness, to repent of their evil deeds, and do that which is good instead. Why are they asked to do good IF they are not able to? Do you ask your baby girl to do the laundry? Attached to Him Who is their Strength for doing good, the wicked have His Power to do what is good. But instead of using His Power to do good, they use that Power to do evil. And if they persist in their wickedness then they are blotted out from the book of life when they die because only overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

You teach that even if NOT in Christ people can do good. That is unscriptural. That is a false doctrine. That is against the words of Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING"!!! Why can't you believe in these words of our Savior? What prevents you from simply believing our Savior's plain statement?

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:09 PM
The wicked are asked to turn from their wickedness, to repent of their evil deeds, and do that which is good instead. Why are they asked to do good IF they are not able to?
Your problem is that you are refusing to believe that people are only being asked to do what God already gave them the power to do by giving them free will.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 21st, 2016, 11:25 PM
Your problem is that you are refusing to believe that people are only being asked to do what God already gave them the power to do by giving them free will.

Good post!

Grosnick Marowbe
March 21st, 2016, 11:29 PM
You teach that even if NOT in Christ people can do good. That is unscriptural. That is a false doctrine. That is against the words of Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING"!!! Why can't you believe in these words of our Savior? What prevents you from simply believing our Savior's plain statement?

What KIND of good are you speaking of? Worldly/fleshly good or Spiritual good?

Grosnick Marowbe
March 21st, 2016, 11:44 PM
ALL of humanity is capable of choosing to do good or evil. Hitler, Manson, Mao, etc., chose to do excessive evil. Some choose to do lesser evil/bad. Some choose to serve their fellow man and do good. However, they're doing the kind of good that is of no Spiritual value. (Fleshly/worldly good.) The "True Believer" does Spiritual good that brings glory to God. The kind of Spiritual good that's created by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Unsaved man does worldly good and True Believers do Spiritual good. When the True Believer stands before Christ (The Bema Seat) they will receive rewards for those things done while in the flesh. Whereas, the unbeliever will stand before God the Father and be judged by their works and suffer eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. Their goods works/deeds will be of no benefit to them.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 21st, 2016, 11:48 PM
Calvinism is, "Another gospel." Its "belief system" changes the character and intent of the God of the Bible. I don't know that god.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 21st, 2016, 11:52 PM
Was Paul an Arminian? Paul said, "The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."
(Romans 8:7)

Until one hears the True Gospel" places their faith in Christ as Savior, is sealed, indwelt and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ, and receives the righteousness of Christ, that verse of Scripture stands true.

Jamie Gigliotti
March 22nd, 2016, 06:35 AM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Paul equates being in Christ in Romans 8:1-4 as walking according to the Spirit. Before a sinner repents and turns to God, God's Spirit convicts of sin. All is dependent upon Him because we need the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Apart from Him we can do nothing. But none the less Man can refuse the Spirit and with his free will given by God choose to follow the Spirit's leading or not.

It is by Grace and His soveriegnty as He allows us to have free will.

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2016, 07:13 AM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

John 15-17:9 is about the 12 disciples specifically. Further, the context of John 15 is going out to do ministry, and not initial faith.


It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

That's only if you accept Calvinist eisegesis.


But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Again, poor exegesis. Galatians 5 is speaking of "faithfulness", and that only in those who are already saved. This isn't speaking of initial salvation.


Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

It's called "proper exegesis." You can't go to the bible looking for Calvinism. You need to go to the bible looking to correct Calvinism.

So, by your own standard, Calvinism is violating Galatians 1

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2016, 07:14 AM
Was Paul an Arminian? Paul said, "The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."
(Romans 8:7)

Technically, Paul was neither Arminian nor Calvinist. Both systematic theologies are man-made, and thus subject to error. Some more than others.

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2016, 07:15 AM
I don't think, he was. Paul said all died when Christ died (2 Cor 5:14, 15) and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). The Arminians do not teach this, neither do the Calvinists.

Paul also said that justification came to all men (Romans 5:18)

Samie
March 22nd, 2016, 02:32 PM
John 15-17:9 is about the 12 disciples specifically. Further, the context of John 15 is going out to do ministry, and not initial faith.So, when it is NOT about ministry, are you saying the disciples can do anything apart from Christ? If Yes, then you have a wonderful exegesis. It's called eisegesis.


That's only if you accept Calvinist eisegesis.Which I don't.


Again, poor exegesis. Galatians 5 is speaking of "faithfulness", and that only in those who are already saved. This isn't speaking of initial salvation.The Greek says 'pistis' brother, no matter how you tweak it in English.


It's called "proper exegesis." You can't go to the bible looking for Calvinism. You need to go to the bible looking to correct Calvinism.

So, by your own standard, Calvinism is violating Galatians 1Both Calvinism and Arminianism violate what Jesus Himself said.

themuzicman
March 22nd, 2016, 06:10 PM
So, when it is NOT about ministry, are you saying the disciples can do anything apart from Christ? If Yes, then you have a wonderful exegesis. It's called eisegesis.

No, that would be a straw man argument, as I've never made this claim. When not speaking about their ministry, it is unclear whether they can do some things and not others.


The Greek says 'pistis' brother, no matter how you tweak it in English.

Translation is more than just picking the lexical entry that fits your theology. Paul is speaking about those who are already saved, and thus this isn't about initial salvation.


Both Calvinism and Arminianism violate what Jesus Himself said.

As what you have said.

Samie
March 23rd, 2016, 03:51 PM
No, that would be a straw man argument, as I've never made this claim. When not speaking about their ministry, it is unclear whether they can do some things and not others. Paul said he can do all things through Christ, but you are not sure he can, are you?


Translation is more than just picking the lexical entry that fits your theology. Paul is speaking about those who are already saved, and thus this isn't about initial salvation.Do you know who the already saved are that Paul was speaking about? You aren't even sure Paul can do all things through Christ.

TulipBee
March 24th, 2016, 04:48 AM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).
Why would Christ save those that won't believe in him????
According to you, Jesus is too dumb to know who God has given to him to save.
Arminianism are poor sportsmanship. They cheat to decieve

themuzicman
March 24th, 2016, 07:10 AM
Paul said he can do all things through Christ, but you are not sure he can, are you?

Nice dodge. You get called out on a logical fallacy and then run to the next straw man.


Do you know who the already saved are that Paul was speaking about? You aren't even sure Paul can do all things through Christ.

False accusation.

Samie
March 24th, 2016, 02:56 PM
Why would Christ save those that won't believe in him????
According to you, Jesus is too dumb to know who God has given to him to save.
Arminianism are poor sportsmanship. They cheat to decieveWhy don't you try to bring yourself out first from your own Calvinist's dilemma? Answer the OP in the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4653373&viewfull=1#post4653373), if you can. But it appears you can't, and it's been 5 days and counting.

TulipBee
March 24th, 2016, 10:53 PM
Why don't you try to bring yourself out first from your own Calvinist's dilemma? Answer the OP in the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4653373&viewfull=1#post4653373), if you can. But it appears you can't, and it's been 5 days and counting.
This is not the other thread

Samie
March 25th, 2016, 05:53 AM
This is not the other threadThat's why I provided you the link to the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)so you can easily find it.

TulipBee
March 25th, 2016, 08:31 AM
That's why I provided you the link to the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)so you can easily find it.
Been there done that. Get creative and move on. If you had talent, you might convince me in an ongoing conversation in real time. Conversations between you and I end up dead due to your unfaithfulness and man made suggestions. Elects don't fall for your subliminal messages. It doesn't work on regenerates.

Samie
March 27th, 2016, 02:56 PM
That's why I provided you the link to the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)so you can easily find it.

Been there done that. Get creative and move on. If you had talent, you might convince me in an ongoing conversation in real time. Conversations between you and I end up dead due to your unfaithfulness and man made suggestions. Elects don't fall for your subliminal messages. It doesn't work on regenerates.Not a shadow of a bee brought any tulip to the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)thread. You lied.

TulipBee
March 28th, 2016, 05:23 AM
Not a shadow of a bee brought any tulip to the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)thread. You lied.
Nope, I forgot there wasn't anything for me to offer in that topic. It was a topic to mislead others. I got bored there due to too many man made questions

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 03:09 AM
Nope, I forgot there wasn't anything for me to offer in that topic.Of course. You knew you can't wiggle out from the dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma). So, why try when you knew all along it would be an exercise in futility?

TulipBee
March 29th, 2016, 07:02 AM
Of course. You knew you can't wiggle out from the dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma). So, why try when you knew all along it would be an exercise in futility?
Didn't wiggle out. I got bored there with all your man made demands to force God's arms to suit your OWN pleasures not God's, hence you're boring.

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 02:13 PM
Didn't wiggle out. I got bored there with all your man made demands to force God's arms to suit your OWN pleasures not God's, hence you're boring.Yes, it's boring to remain in the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4653373&viewfull=1#post4653373). 10 days and still counting.

TulipBee
March 29th, 2016, 10:28 PM
Yes, it's boring to remain in the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4653373&viewfull=1#post4653373). 10 days and still counting.
So is this topic cause you're always trying to start something

Samie
March 30th, 2016, 10:06 AM
So is this topic cause you're always trying to start somethingAny topic is boring to one who cannot defend his position relative to the topic. One good example is you because until now you cannot resolve the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4653373&viewfull=1#post4653373) and opt to stay in this thread instead.

blackbirdking
April 10th, 2016, 04:22 AM
[QUOTE=Samie;4653407]
...But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit...[QUOTE]


You are confused; believing is not a fruit of the Spirit.

You use scripture to argue, and scripture shuts you down because it says, "the devils also believe, and tremble"; according to you they are 'in Christ' because they 'bear fruit of the Spirit', so that even the devils are pawns of the Spirit. That makes you to look an awful lot like a Calvinist; maybe B57's brother.

Samie
April 10th, 2016, 05:02 AM
...But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit...
You are confused; believing is not a fruit of the Spirit.

You use scripture to argue, and scripture shuts you down because it says, "the devils also believe, and tremble"; according to you they are 'in Christ' because they 'bear fruit of the Spirit', so that even the devils are pawns of the Spirit. That makes you to look an awful lot like a Calvinist; maybe B57's brother.I did not say believing is fruit of the Spirit. It is faith which is fruit of the Spirit. Believing is exercising faith. "Faith" is noun; "to believe" is verb. Why get confused right away at your very first charge?

It's you who say devils bear fruit of the Spirit, not me. Those in Christ have the faith of Christ. The devils don't and cannot have the faith of Christ. IF there are those who you say can believe while not in Christ, then their believing is just like the devils' believing. You now understand, brother?

You may try again.

bling
April 10th, 2016, 06:46 PM
I did not say believing is fruit of the Spirit. It is faith which is fruit of the Spirit. Believing is exercising faith. "Faith" is noun; "to believe" is verb. Why get confused right away at your very first charge?

It's you who say devils bear fruit of the Spirit, not me. Those in Christ have the faith of Christ. The devils don't and cannot have the faith of Christ. IF there are those who you say can believe while not in Christ, then their believing is just like the devils' believing. You now understand, brother?

You may try again.
The Greek word can be translated faithfulness or faith, but since this is addressing Baptized believers it would have to be faithfulness and not faith since they already have saving faith.
Nonbelievers do lots of stuff, but cannot “do” anything worthy of anything including not being able to earn any part of their salvation.
The prodigal son did not do anything “worthy” by returning home, if the prodigal son had really been macho he would has stayed in the pigsty and died since he fully deserved that type of death; you have to pay the piper sometime. The prodigal son is not being “rewarded” for wimping out.
Soldiers who surrender in the heat of battle are not horrors.

Samie
April 11th, 2016, 06:41 AM
The Greek word can be translated faithfulness or faith, but since this is addressing Baptized believers it would have to be faithfulness and not faith since they already have saving faith.The Greek is πίστις (pistis). It is translated 238 times into faith and 3 as faithfulness. Favoring faithfulness over faith seems suspect.

Nonbelievers do lots of stuff, but cannot “do” anything worthy of anything including not being able to earn any part of their salvation.Which is basically what the OP is saying.

Arminians say that non-believers are NOT in Christ. But according to the Arminians, non-believers can do SOMETHING while NOT in Christ: the non-believers CAN believe so they can be in Christ.

On the other hand, Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, that is, while NOT in Him, they can do NOTHING. Hence Arminians seem to teach that non-believers are better off than Christ's disciples. While the disciples can do NOTHING, the non-believers can do SOMETHING.

And that's the Arminians' Dilemma.

Samie
April 11th, 2016, 07:13 AM
Arminians say that non-believers are NOT in Christ. But according to the Arminians, non-believers can do SOMETHING while NOT in Christ: the non-believers CAN believe so they can be in Christ.

On the other hand, Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, that is, while NOT in Him, they can do NOTHING. Hence Arminians seem to teach that non-believers are better off than Christ's disciples. While the disciples can do NOTHING, the non-believers can do SOMETHING.

And that's the Arminians' Dilemma.To get rid of the dilemma, one has only to believe that because of what God through Christ did for us in his life, death and resurrection, all are born spiritually alive, born already in Christ. Hence it is no problem believing when one is able to, being spiritually alive.

bling
April 11th, 2016, 12:03 PM
The Greek is πίστις (pistis). It is translated 238 times into faith and 3 as faithfulness. Favoring faithfulness over faith seems suspect.

.
The context determines everything and not the frequency. The author is addressing Baptized believers who have faith, but need to be faithful.


Arminians say that non-believers are NOT in Christ. But according to the Arminians, non-believers can do SOMETHING while NOT in Christ: the non-believers CAN believe so they can be in Christ.

On the other hand, Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, that is, while NOT in Him, they can do NOTHING. Hence Arminians seem to teach that non-believers are better off than Christ's disciples. While the disciples can do NOTHING, the non-believers can do SOMETHING.

And that's the Arminians' Dilemma.
The prodigal son story explains how you can still do stuff for selfish motivations and God will shower you with unbelievable gifts because you have allowed God to do it.

Samie
April 11th, 2016, 03:06 PM
The context determines everything and not the frequency. The author is addressing Baptized believers who have faith, but need to be faithful.Then you are saying that all verses in the Bible where πίστις is translated into faith, Paul is addressing non-believers? You just complicate your position.

Faith or faithfulness, it's πίστις that is fruit, and only those in Christ can bear fruit. Arminians teach that non-believers are NOT in Christ. Ergo, they have no πίστις because they can't bear fruit.


The prodigal son story explains how you can still do stuff for selfish motivations and God will shower you with unbelievable gifts because you have allowed God to do it.The prodigal son's story does not resolve the dilemma. The prodigal is already member of the family. Arminians teach that non-believers are not yet in Christ, hence, not yet members of the family of God.

The dilemma arises because Armininas seem not able to believe Christ's words that apart from Him - that is, while NOT in Him - man can do NOTHING.

Again, to resolve the dilemma, one only has to believe that people are born In Christ because of what God through Christ's life, death & resurrection, has done for humanity. Hence, non-believers are able to believe because they are already spiritually alive, being already In Christ. Unless Christ Himself removes them from His Body by blotting their names from the book of life, they remain part of the Body of Christ. And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life. And believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief.

Looks like Arminians have yet to overcome the evil of unbelief in Christ's words that apart from Him, man can do NOTHING.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 12:59 AM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

The fruits of the Spirit equate to works of the law; Paul taught that no one would be saved that way. Rather, salvation comes through faith. In Romans 4:1-5, Paul explicitly differentiates faith from works.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

So, clearly, faith is not work. If it were, then it would not be possible to save anyone. Look what Paul says:

Galatians 3:10-11
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.

See also Romans 9 (especially vv.30-32) and Romans 10.

Samie
April 12th, 2016, 08:10 AM
The fruits of the Spirit equate to works of the law; Paul taught that no one would be saved that way. Rather, salvation comes through faith. In Romans 4:1-5, Paul explicitly differentiates faith from works.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

So, clearly, faith is not work. If it were, then it would not be possible to save anyone. Look what Paul says:

Galatians 3:10-11
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.

See also Romans 9 (especially vv.30-32) and Romans 10.That seems not able to resolve the dilemma.

Are you saying that while NOT in Christ, people can have faith?

If NO, then non-believers can't believe. If YES, they still can't work because Jesus said apart from Him people can do NOTHING. And faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26).

So whether you answered with a YES or a NO, the dilemma remains unresolved.

What do you think is wrong with my suggestion on how to resolve the dilemma? Here again is my suggestion:
Again, to resolve the dilemma, one only has to believe that people are born In Christ because of what God through Christ's life, death & resurrection, has done for humanity. Hence, non-believers are able to believe because they are already spiritually alive, being already In Christ. Unless Christ Himself removes them from His Body by blotting their names from the book of life, they remain part of the Body of Christ. Only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life. And believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 10:35 AM
I don't think, he was. Paul said all died when Christ died (2 Cor 5:14, 15) and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). The Arminians do not teach this, neither do the Calvinists.

This is the dangerous slippery slope of Karl Barth's "theology" regarding atonement. In 2Cor 5:14, "all" is anarthrous, not articular. And it's a reference to the audience for the epistle, not the entirety of humanity.

The Ephesians 2:4-6 and Colossians 2:13 passages are according to the same hermeneutical considerations.

But since so few English thinkers/speakers understand Greek articular/anarthrous nouns, it leads to false Barthian atonement fallacies.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 10:56 AM
Pistis is a noun. Nouns are not verbs.

Faith, as a noun, is the thing believed; and it comes out of hearing, which is a noun not a verb. The noun of hearing is the thing heard; and that thing heard comes by means of the anarthrous noun Rhema, which is of God/Christ.

Faith, hearing, and Word are all nouns, not verbs. We do not believe, as a verb. The thing believed comes out of the thing heard, which is by means of the (anarthrous) Word of God.

None of these are verbs as action accomplished by any man. Nouns cannot be made into verbs to enforce a presuppositional misunderstanding taken to the text.

"Believing" is not a work. Faith is a noun.

bling
April 12th, 2016, 11:51 AM
Then you are saying that all verses in the Bible where πίστις is translated into faith, Paul is addressing non-believers? You just complicate your position..
No not at all, most of the time Paul is talking to Christians and talks about the saving faith they have, but if you’re talking to Christians about something they need it is faithfulness.

Faithfulness is a fruit, but saving faith is something Christians have already decided to express, non-Christians have the faith they need to be saved, but must extend this faith toward a benevolent Creator.




Faith or faithfulness, it's πίστις that is fruit, and only those in Christ can bear fruit. Arminians teach that non-believers are NOT in Christ. Ergo, they have no πίστις because they can't bear fruit..
The mature adult nonbeliever cannot be “faithful”, but does have a faith.


The prodigal son's story does not resolve the dilemma. The prodigal is already member of the family. Arminians teach that non-believers are not yet in Christ, hence, not yet members of the family of God..
Christ, using any words he wants to, had the father described to us twice: “the son was dead” even when the father knew the son was physically alive. So are you saying a “member of the family of God” can become spiritually dead as Jesus disrobed the prodigal son?


The dilemma arises because Armininas seem not able to believe Christ's words that apart from Him - that is, while NOT in Him - man can do NOTHING..
Just like the prodigal son could turn to the father in a “dead” state the nonbeliever in a “dead” state can turn to God, but that is not really doing anything worthy of praise.




Looks like Arminians have yet to overcome the evil of unbelief in Christ's words that apart from Him, man can do NOTHING.
“NOTHING” worthy of even the smallest of reward.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 01:48 PM
That seems not able to resolve the dilemma.

Are you saying that while NOT in Christ, people can have faith?

If NO, then non-believers can't believe. If YES, they still can't work because Jesus said apart from Him people can do NOTHING. And faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26).

So whether you answered with a YES or a NO, the dilemma remains unresolved.

What do you think is wrong with my suggestion on how to resolve the dilemma? Here again is my suggestion:

Is faith a work? Yes or no? If your answer is 'yes' then please explain Romans 4:1-5.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 02:01 PM
Pistis is a noun. Nouns are not verbs.

Faith, as a noun, is the thing believed; and it comes out of hearing, which is a noun not a verb. The noun of hearing is the thing heard; and that thing heard comes by means of the anarthrous noun Rhema, which is of God/Christ.

Faith, hearing, and Word are all nouns, not verbs. We do not believe, as a verb. The thing believed comes out of the thing heard, which is by means of the (anarthrous) Word of God.

None of these are verbs as action accomplished by any man. Nouns cannot be made into verbs to enforce a presuppositional misunderstanding taken to the text.

"Believing" is not a work. Faith is a noun.

That is very interesting - but if, as you say, faith is not believing as a verb, but as a noun - what exactly is occurring when someone comes to faith.

Surely it requires some action on the part of God and man? John 6:45.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 02:24 PM
Faith is not possible?

Genesis 15:1-6

After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:

“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,
your very great reward.”

But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 03:48 PM
That is very interesting - but if, as you say, faith is not believing as a verb, but as a noun - what exactly is occurring when someone comes to faith.

Surely it requires some action on the part of God and man? John 6:45.

Since faith is a noun, it isn't a verb. In John 6:45, heard is a noun. The particple is learned (manthano), which includes desire (changed by/as repentance resulting from faith, the noun); and the verb is cometh (erchomai) in the pinm (present indicative middle).

The pinm indicates continuous and repeated action in the context of representing the completeness of the action or the finished results. The middle voice (not easily represented in English) means action upon, within, or on behalf of oneself.

This is the inward completed and finished work resulting from the noun of faith, by the learner. And learned answers to the verb didasko, to teach; which denotes instruction concerning the facts and plan of salvation. In this sense, it means to cause oneself to know with a moral bearing and responsibility.

All of this occurs within us by the thing heard (hearing, the noun), out of which comes the thing believed (faith, the noun).

This is all inward activity from God granting repentance, and from Jesus Christ being the Teacher. We don't "do" anything. We yield and it is done in us. Man does not effect, initiate, or accomplish his own salvation.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 03:55 PM
Faith is not possible?

Genesis 15:1-6

After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:

“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,
your very great reward.”

But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Nouns are the source of all action. There is no action without a person, place, or thing "doing". Adjectives modify nouns. Adverbs modify verbs that are the action of the noun/s. Pronouns are dervied from nouns.

The noun of faith determines the verb of "faithing". In that manner, the verb is encompassed by, and represents, the noun. God speaking brought faith. His Rhema was the thing heard, out of which came the thing believed. That belief is inner activity and quality for all action of believing and the accompanying inevitable works.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 10:25 PM
Nouns are the source of all action. There is no action without a person, place, or thing "doing". Adjectives modify nouns. Adverbs modify verbs that are the action of the noun/s. Pronouns are dervied from nouns.

The noun of faith determines the verb of "faithing". In that manner, the verb is encompassed by, and represents, the noun. God speaking brought faith. His Rhema was the thing heard, out of which came the thing believed. That belief is inner activity and quality for all action of believing and the accompanying inevitable works.

This is not inferred from the scripture cited. Abraham (not God) believed (verb) the Lord and he credited to him as righteousness.

Sonnet
April 12th, 2016, 10:42 PM
Since faith is a noun, it isn't a verb. In John 6:45, heard is a noun. The particple is learned (manthano), which includes desire (changed by/as repentance resulting from faith, the noun); and the verb is cometh (erchomai) in the pinm (present indicative middle).

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

'Heard' and 'learned' are verbs.



The pinm indicates continuous and repeated action in the context of representing the completeness of the action or the finished results. The middle voice (not easily represented in English) means action upon, within, or on behalf of oneself.

This is the inward completed and finished work resulting from the noun of faith, by the learner. And learned answers to the verb didasko, to teach; which denotes instruction concerning the facts and plan of salvation. In this sense, it means to cause oneself to know with a moral bearing and responsibility.

All of this occurs within us by the thing heard (hearing, the noun), out of which comes the thing believed (faith, the noun).

This is all inward activity from God granting repentance, and from Jesus Christ being the Teacher. We don't "do" anything. We yield and it is done in us.

So Abraham did not believe but God caused it?


Man does not effect, initiate, or accomplish his own salvation.

This would be the case if Abraham had earned it through works. Abraham did not do that; nor could he.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 12th, 2016, 11:12 PM
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

'Heard' and 'learned' are verbs.

Heard is articular and aorist participle active.


So Abraham did not believe but God caused it?

This would be the case if Abraham had earned it through works. Abraham did not do that; nor could he.


Faith, the noun, is the thing believed. It is not another thing unto itself. The source of faith is God via Rhema (Word).

That thing believed (faith) is the source for action within/upon/on behalf of oneself, but it is not inherent within us. It comes from God and is given to us.

The danger is in resorting to Barthian theology for atonement that all mankind is "in Christ" and given spiritual life when born or some other time before salvation is inaugurated.

Believing comes from belief. Belief comes from God. He is the source. We are both recipient and agent.

Sonnet
April 13th, 2016, 12:52 AM
Heard is articular and aorist participle active.




Faith, the noun, is the thing believed. It is not another thing unto itself. The source of faith is God via Rhema (Word).

That thing believed (faith) is the source for action within/upon/on behalf of oneself, but it is not inherent within us. It comes from God and is given to us.

The danger is in resorting to Barthian theology for atonement that all mankind is "in Christ" and given spiritual life when born or some other time before salvation is inaugurated.

Believing comes from belief. Belief comes from God. He is the source. We are both recipient and agent.

Your understanding seems to show an awareness of the compatibilism antinomy. Is that right?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 13th, 2016, 01:49 AM
Your understanding seems to show an awareness of the compatibilism antinomy. Is that right?

Not as outlined in the OP, no.


I don't think, he was. Paul said all died when Christ died (2 Cor 5:14, 15) and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). The Arminians do not teach this, neither do the Calvinists.

This is Barthian fallacy. All is anarthrous followed by articular in both 2Cor 5:14 & 15. Ephesians 2:4-6 is clearly "we/us" as Believers. Colossians 2:13 is also clearly "you/your" in addressing Believers.

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 02:57 AM
This is Barthian fallacy. All is anarthrous followed by articular in both 2Cor 5:14 & 15. Ephesians 2:4-6 is clearly "we/us" as Believers. Colossians 2:13 is also clearly "you/your" in addressing Believers.Huh? I don't even know who Barth is.

But Scriptures say "All died when Christ died". That's Paul, not Barth. Was there a single Corinthian among whom Paul addressed his letter, who already was a believer when Christ died? It was thru Paul that Corinthians became believers. They weren't believers yet, like Paul, when Christ died. Yet Paul said, he was crucified with Christ. So were the Corinthians. They were crucified with Christ, died with Christ. And so with us.

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 04:25 AM
Is faith a work? Yes or no? If your answer is 'yes' then please explain Romans 4:1-5.I have already said that Faith is not work. Faith is what energizes man to do spiritual work. And faith without work is dead.

Seems you have failed in resolving the Arminians' Dilemma.

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 05:08 AM
No not at all, most of the time Paul is talking to Christians and talks about the saving faith they have, but if you’re talking to Christians about something they need it is faithfulness. You said before πίστις is "faithfulness" when talking about baptized believers, otherwise it is "faith". Now you are telling another story.


Faithfulness is a fruit, but saving faith is something Christians have already decided to express, non-Christians have the faith they need to be saved, but must extend this faith toward a benevolent Creator. How can they when Christ EXPLICITLY said apart from Him man can do NOTHING?


The mature adult nonbeliever cannot be “faithful”, but does have a faith.Dead Faith.


Christ, using any words he wants to, had the father described to us twice: “the son was dead” even when the father knew the son was physically alive. So are you saying a “member of the family of God” can become spiritually dead as Jesus disrobed the prodigal son?They are alive but became as dead by not overcoming evil with good. That's why many will be blotted out from the book of life.


Just like the prodigal son could turn to the father in a “dead” state the nonbeliever in a “dead” state can turn to God, but that is not really doing anything worthy of praise. Improper comparison. The prodigal IS a family member. Arminians teach that the non-believers are NOT family members, NOT in Christ. Hence, their faith which you say they have, is dead.


“NOTHING” worthy of even the smallest of reward.For whatever they do amounts to NOTHING. And the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 06:07 AM
I don't think, he was. Paul said all died when Christ died (2 Cor 5:14, 15) and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13). The Arminians do not teach this, neither do the Calvinists.
This is the dangerous slippery slope of Karl Barth's "theology" regarding atonement. In 2Cor 5:14, "all" is anarthrous, not articular. And it's a reference to the audience for the epistle, not the entirety of humanity.

The Ephesians 2:4-6 and Colossians 2:13 passages are according to the same hermeneutical considerations.

But since so few English thinkers/speakers understand Greek articular/anarthrous nouns, it leads to false Barthian atonement fallacies.I felt obliged to read who Barth is. It appears he is a universalist, just like Bociferous in this forum. I think my position is not the same as Barth's.

Barth believes all will finally make it to eternal life, no matter what. I don't.

I believe that because of what God through Christ has done for humanity in his life, death and resurrection, all had been saved, are being saved, BUT only overcomers will finally make it to heaven and eternity. All others will suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 13th, 2016, 10:28 AM
Huh? I don't even know who Barth is.

That doesn't keep his influential theology from affecting how you read scripture in some manner. In fact, if one doesn't know of him and his doctrines, it's not possible to eliminate them specifically from one's worldview.


But Scriptures say "All died when Christ died". That's Paul, not Barth. Was there a single Corinthian among whom Paul addressed his letter, who already was a believer when Christ died? It was thru Paul that Corinthians became believers. They weren't believers yet, like Paul, when Christ died. Yet Paul said, he was crucified with Christ. So were the Corinthians. They were crucified with Christ, died with Christ. And so with us.

No. One must understand the explicit distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, especially when they are coupled in sequence as the same word. English doesn't have anarthrous nouns, instead utilizing the vagueries of indefinite article nouns (which Greek does not have). This is the greatest area of misunderstanding and mistranslation by English speakers as comparative grammar.

All as an anarthrous noun is not all as an articular noun. Same "thing", but different reference for content and context. English speakers have to spend time having their mind renewed on this topic if they are to accurately represent scripture. It's an epidemic in modernity.


I felt obliged to read who Barth is. It appears he is a universalist, just like Bociferous in this forum. I think my position is not the same as Barth's.

Barth is not a Universalist, as many misportray; but he takes a position of universal atonement (not universal salvation) that is beyond unlimited atonement in any form.

His position (on which he wrote over 10 million words in 14 volumes) is that all died with Christ and are alive in Christ to be able to repent. He was attempting to resolve the same seeming paradox you refer to for Arminians and Calvinists, etc.

His problem was that he wasn't a Greek scholar, much like St. Augustine wasn't a Greek scholar (along with many others). None of these understood the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns. And this is also your source of confusion in coming to some gradient of the same conclusions as they did.


Barth believes all will finally make it to eternal life, no matter what. I don't.

That's a misrepresentation. Barth is not easily understood, as he intermixes many views he opposes to illustrate his own; and the distinctions aren't clear. Further, he has been mischaracterized by those who have not copiously read his work, and many have erroneously presumed him to be a full-on Universalist (Universal Reconciliation). He is not.


I believe that because of what God through Christ has done for humanity in his life, death and resurrection, all had been saved, are being saved, BUT only overcomers will finally make it to heaven and eternity. All others will suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire.

This is basically aligned with Barth, and it's fallacious. And predominantly because the English heart and mind has been patterned to replace Greek anarthrous nouns with either English definite article nouns or English indefinite article nouns.

This point of grammar is huge, and one who does not understand this cannot validly dismiss it OR readily comprehend it. It's an epistemological foundation of basic lingistic function, and it has been the pattern of thought since the womb and all stages of development into adulthood.

It's not a small issue, and it's the main reason for the proliferation of beliefs within Christendom for the last half millennia or longer.

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 02:37 PM
Scriptures are quite clear that All died when Christ died, and made alive together with Him when He resurrected. Your explanation says:


This is the dangerous slippery slope of Karl Barth's "theology" regarding atonement. In 2Cor 5:14, "all" is anarthrous, not articular. And it's a reference to the audience for the epistle, not the entirety of humanity.

The Ephesians 2:4-6 and Colossians 2:13 passages are according to the same hermeneutical considerations.Granting that Paul was referring merely to his Corinthian audience when he said all died when Christ died, again I ask, was his Corinthian audience already believers when Christ died? If NO, then, since Paul said all died when Christ died, why would the "all" not include all the other non-believers, since Scriptures say elsewhere that Christ died for every man (see Heb 2:9)?

Clete
April 13th, 2016, 02:39 PM
Arminians teach that Christ died for every one, but only those who, by faith, accept the gift of salvation can be in Christ. In other words, people are born NOT in Christ.

But Jesus told His disciples that apart from Him, they cannot bear fruit; apart from Him, they can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5). And if anyone is able to bear fruit and do something while NOT in Christ, then he is better off than Christ's disciples.

It appears that the gospel Arminians teach goes against the statement of Christ, because for the Arminians, while NOT in Christ and hence apart from Christ, people can do SOMETHING – they can believe and accept the gift of salvation – to be in Christ.

But believing is exercising faith which is fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and only those in Christ are able to bear fruit.

Will any Arminian please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel that goes against what Jesus Himself said. And Scriptures warn against preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).
Juvenile stupidity. (And I'm not even an Arminian!)

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Juvenile stupidity. (And I'm not even an Arminian!)If you have nothing to contribute relative to the issue of this thread, then please don't clutter this thread with your stupidity.

Clete
April 14th, 2016, 05:02 PM
If you have nothing to contribute relative to the issue of this thread, then please don't clutter this thread with your stupidity.

What's there to contribute? You open the thread with a post based on idiotic proof-texting stupidity that wouldn't convince an average public school third grader. The line of thinking is worth nothing except as a target of ridicule and derision.

If your doctrine is based on such idiocy, I strongly caution you against reading anything that isn't written from an overtly Christian bias. Anything written by even a half witted atheist will undermine your faith with little effort.

Resting in Him,
Clete

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 15th, 2016, 12:54 AM
Scriptures are quite clear that All died when Christ died, and made alive together with Him when He resurrected. Your explanation says:

"All" is anarthrous, then articular. Do you know the difference between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns? And between those and English definite and indefinite article nouns? Most don't.

Your entire presupposition is contrary to the grammar of the inspired text. No amount of insistence will change the meaning of the text that is not readily apparent in English.


Granting that Paul was referring merely to his Corinthian audience when he said all died when Christ died, again I ask, was his Corinthian audience already believers when Christ died? If NO, then, since Paul said all died when Christ died, why would the "all" not include all the other non-believers, since Scriptures say elsewhere that Christ died for every man (see Heb 2:9)?

Because you don't understand Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. You cannot presume to build doctrine and translate scripture meaning if you don't know basic grammar of both donor and receptor languages. This has been a long-standing problem for hundreds of years, and exaggerated in the last century. Please don't contribute to it with the fallacy of this OP.

Clete
April 15th, 2016, 07:02 AM
"All" is anarthrous, then articular. Do you know the difference between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns? And between those and English definite and indefinite article nouns? Most don't.

Your entire presupposition is contrary to the grammar of the inspired text. No amount of insistence will change the meaning of the text that is not readily apparent in English.



Because you don't understand Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. You cannot presume to build doctrine and translate scripture meaning if you don't know basic grammar of both donor and receptor languages. This has been a long-standing problem for hundreds of years, and exaggerated in the last century. Please don't contribute to it with the fallacy of this OP.

This post makes an excellent point but its not even necessary to be a Greek scholar to understand that Jesus wasn't saying what Calvinists suggest. All that is necessary is a little common sense. Words like "nothing" or "all" almost never mean "Nothing whatsoever" or "every single one without exception".

If the Calvinist line of thinking was valid then we must insist that every last Jew in all of Judea was baptized by John because we are told twice....


Matthew 3:5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Further, we must accept that Jesus got it wrong when He said...


Matthew 13:31“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

If we are to accept the Calvinist thinking then we must also accept that Jesus must have simply forgotten about the orchid seed as well as many other seeds that are smaller than the mustard seed.

I, of course, could give many more examples but I'm short on time and I think I've made the point anyway.




I wasn't kidding when I called the thinking in the opening post juvenile stupidity. It's childish nonsense that countless atheists (and other non-believers) use on a regular basis to undermine the Christian faith and to shipwreck their own souls. It's nothing but superficial, proof-texting stupidity. Even David Koresh could present proof texts to support the notion that he was the Messiah and that it was a good thing to send your daughters in to have sex with him. Now most of those morons are dead and in Hell. Proof-texting kills.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
April 15th, 2016, 07:10 AM
If the Calvinist line of thinking was valid...
I wasn't kidding when I called the thinking in the opening post juvenile stupidity.

Resting in Him,
Clete He's not a Calvinist. Quit scapegoating us for every blessed thing?

Samie
April 15th, 2016, 08:15 AM
Clete doesn't even know Samie is NOT a Calvinist.

Address the issue squarely. Don't resort to stupidity, please. You call it stupidity, because you are not able to refute it. Try proper reasoning, brother. Don't hide behind the skirt of stupidity.

Samie
April 15th, 2016, 08:26 AM
"All" is anarthrous, then articular. Was Paul aware of your anarthrous and articular nouns, PPS?

There's nothing wrong with all died when Christ died. If there's anything wrong, it's your pet doctrine that seems to be wrong because it cannot harmonize with what Paul said. And you have to bring in your anarthrous and articular invention in trying to save your day.

Samie
April 15th, 2016, 08:33 AM
I had already offered a solution to the Arminians' Dilemma. But I doubt whether Arminians will accept it:
Again, to resolve the dilemma, one only has to believe that people are born In Christ because of what God through Christ's life, death & resurrection, has done for humanity. Hence, non-believers are able to believe because they are already spiritually alive, being already In Christ. Unless Christ Himself removes them from His Body by blotting their names from the book of life, they remain part of the Body of Christ. Only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life. And believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief.

Samie
April 15th, 2016, 08:48 AM
Arminians teach non-believers are separate or apart from Christ. Hence, they are dead, spiritually dead, because Christ is our life (Col 3:4). It is only natural that apart from Christ, man can do NOTHING, being dead. Can the dead do anything?

Amazingly, Arminians require the non-believers, who they said are separate from Christ and therefore dead, to do SOMETHING - to accept the gift of salvation - so they can be in Christ, and be alive. Strange. I don't think any Arminian will tell the unconscious to get up and go to the doctor. Yet they require the spiritually dead to do the spiritual act of accepting the gift. Sigh.

Not able to refute it, Clete says it is stupidity. And PPS tries to rescue the Arminians with his anarthrous and articular inventions. See what are resorted to by these respectable gentlemen?

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 15th, 2016, 09:25 AM
Was Paul aware of your anarthrous and articular nouns, PPS?

Yes, which is why you don't understand what he said.


There's nothing wrong with all died when Christ died. If there's anything wrong, it's your pet doctrine that seems to be wrong because it cannot harmonize with what Paul said. And you have to bring in your anarthrous and articular invention in trying to save your day.

It's not my invention. It's the authorship by the Holy Spirit through a human Apostle. You are neither of those.

This is your cognitive dissonance. You will cling to your false belief when it could be easily corrected by basic grammar that gives English speakers fits.

"All" is an anarthrous noun, and then an articular noun in the passage to which you refer. Paul is not saying what you presume he is saying. That's because the Holy Spirit and the Apostle are not saying what you deduce from your mistreatement of that passage.

I don't have a pet doctrine. I just make sure that whatever doctrine that emerges from exegesis of the text isn't grammatical false like what you're attempting to say. Many theologians and non-theologians are victims of their own presuppositions in this manner.

You do not get to be the authority when you're not, just because you think you've made sense of something contrary to what the grammar and words actually say by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Don't blame me, blame yourself. And you'll STILL have to get an understanding of Greek articular and anarthrous nouns before you ever comprehend what the Holy Spirit (via Paul) has said in that passage (and all others).

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 15th, 2016, 09:28 AM
Arminians teach non-believers are separate or apart from Christ. Hence, they are dead, spiritually dead, because Christ is our life (Col 3:4). It is only natural that apart from Christ, man can do NOTHING, being dead. Can the dead do anything?

Amazingly, Arminians require the non-believers, who they said are separate from Christ and therefore dead, to do SOMETHING - to accept the gift of salvation - so they can be in Christ, and be alive. Strange. I don't think any Arminian will tell the unconscious to get up and go to the doctor. Yet they require the spiritually dead to do the spiritual act of accepting the gift. Sigh.

Not able to refute it, Clete says it is stupidity. And PPS tries to rescue the Arminians with his anarthrous and articular inventions. See what are resorted to by these respectable gentlemen?

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

I'm not trying to rescue Arminians or anyone else. Arminians are wrong for many foundational reasons. And so are you. I've tried to help you. You don't want anything but your own false autonomy. So keep it. I don't really care at this point. You won't heed basic admonition to look deeper and see your failing. It's a very elementary point, and you think it's some pinnacle of a solution.

You're as wrong as the Arminians.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 15th, 2016, 09:34 AM
Clete doesn't even know Samie is NOT a Calvinist.

Address the issue squarely. Don't resort to stupidity, please. You call it stupidity, because you are not able to refute it. Try proper reasoning, brother. Don't hide behind the skirt of stupidity.

Sorry, but that's actually where you're hiding. The difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns is HUGE, and is not readily represented in English.

patrick jane
April 15th, 2016, 09:37 AM
Hello Pneuman . . .

24002

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 15th, 2016, 09:42 AM
Hello Pneuman . . .

24002

I'm beyond done with you, heretic.

Clete
April 15th, 2016, 02:04 PM
He's not a Calvinist. Quit scapegoating us for every blessed thing?

He's making a Calvinist argument. The EXACT same argument I've seen dozens of other Calvinist make.

If you quack like a duck, you're a duck until proven otherwise.

Clete
April 15th, 2016, 02:20 PM
Clete doesn't even know Samie is NOT a Calvinist.
As I just stated in the last post, I had hardly be blamed for mistaking you for a Calvinist when you make the exact same argument that nearly every Calvinist in the world has made since John Calvin himself!


Address the issue squarely. Don't resort to stupidity, please. You call it stupidity, because you are not able to refute it. Try proper reasoning, brother. Don't hide behind the skirt of stupidity.

I already refuted it in post 70.

And the line "You call it stupidity, because you are not able to refute it." is the clarion call of mindless followers who make (parrot) stupid arguments. It isn't wrong to call something stupid so long as it is in fact stupid. The line of reasoning you presented in the OP is so flimsy it doesn't deserve anything other than to be ridiculed. It's flatly moronic. You simply must NOT allow such childish, superficial thinking to persuade you on things as important as theology. Use that sort of crap when deciding which car to buy or what color to paint your front door. Matters of a theological nature require disciplined reason, which requires actual effort and skill.

Think for yourself and stop listening to people who you think know something that you don't and are somehow smarter than you are. They aren't! People who teach the sort of silliness that your OP presents didn't come up with it any more than you did. The only reason they teach it is because they were taught it by someone else who was taught it too. It's the proverbial blind leading the blind. Open your eyes and see. It isn't complicated and it doesn't require being an expert in Greek or Hebrew. All it takes is a little common sense and a strict adherence to sound reason.

Incidentally, if you're not a Calvinist and you're not an Arminian, what are you? Those of us who are neither are few and far between. We may have more in common than either of us suspects at the moment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 15th, 2016, 02:38 PM
I had already offered a solution to the Arminians' Dilemma. But I doubt whether Arminians will accept it:

You've gotta stop! Now, you're building whole convoluted doctrines in order to solve dilemmas that do not exist in the first place!

You've gone all the way to believing in some sort of weird inverted universalism teaching just so you can solve a dilemma that only exists if you use texts of scripture as pretexts rather than using proper exegetical principles such as pneumonia (or whatever his name is) has presented and long established and rationally sound hermeneutics.

The solution is right in the OP of this thread! "Nothing" does NOT mean "nothing at all whatsoever". That's not what it means in almost every context in which the word is ever used even to the present day! It's called hyperbole and its an extremely common way in which language is used. All you have to do is think it through for about 20 seconds. Why would Jesus tell people to repent if it weren't possible for them to do so unless He did it for them in some mystical manner in which they neither chose to repent nor could have refused to do so? It's STUPIDITY! It's just exactly as if you took this single sentence that Jesus spoke and built a whole doctrine around it while ignoring, not just the immediate context in which the sentence was uttered, but the entirety of the bible and the whole history of mankind's relationship with God!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
April 15th, 2016, 03:23 PM
He's making a Calvinist argument. The EXACT same argument I've seen dozens of other Calvinist make.

If you quack like a duck, you're a duck until proven otherwise.

:nono: Just scapegoating, Clete. In particular, you should be smarter than this. The Pharisees get a lot of flak for every stupid-little-thing especially by cultists trying to substantiate their illogical existence against the rest of Christendom.

On top of that, Calvinists believe in a Limited Atonement. We often are accused of reading 'whole world' exactly against your assertion, no?

Clete
April 16th, 2016, 06:48 AM
:nono: Just scapegoating, Clete. In particular, you should be smarter than this. The Pharisees get a lot of flak for every stupid-little-thing especially by cultists trying to substantiate their illogical existence against the rest of Christendom.
This sentence made no sense to me.

I'm not scapegoating, I simply assumed that he was a Calvinist based on TWO pieces of pretty good evidence; 1. He started an anti-Arminian thread and 2. He made the exact same argument that thousands of Calvinist have made in the past. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make and every single point I made is not even altered, never mind undermined, by the fact that I addressed the argument against Calvinists. Indeed, I have no direct evidence yet that he is not a Calvinist but the point is that it doesn't matter, his argument is flat faced stupidity whether he's a Calvinist or not.


On top of that, Calvinists believe in a Limited Atonement. We often are accused of reading 'whole world' exactly against your assertion, no?

Precisely! Words like "All", "Every", "Always", "Never", "Nothing", etc are called 'Universal Qualifiers". The problem with using them in language is that people do not speak the way computers do and it is an error to interpret their use as though the speaker is talking about predicate calculus rather than speaking like a normal person, using generalities without the need to specify that he is doing so. It takes simple common sense and an outright refusal to proof-text your way through theology to remain on the same page that the biblical author is on.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 07:38 AM
You've gotta stop! Now, you're building whole convoluted doctrines in order to solve dilemmas that do not exist in the first place!

You've gone all the way to believing in some sort of weird inverted universalism teaching just so you can solve a dilemma that only exists if you use texts of scripture as pretexts rather than using proper exegetical principles such as pneumonia (or whatever his name is) has presented and long established and rationally sound hermeneutics.He - pneumonia (or whatever his name is) - simply presented his inventions and did not present any single verse backing up his anarthrous invention. He simply resorted to it because he has nowhere to hide in Scriptures.


The solution is right in the OP of this thread! "Nothing" does NOT mean "nothing at all whatsoever". You are telling me that NOTHING means SOMETHING? Are you serious?


That's not what it means in almost every context in which the word is ever used even to the present day! It's called hyperbole and its an extremely common way in which language is used. All you have to do is think it through for about 20 seconds. Why would Jesus tell people to repent if it weren't possible for them to do so unless He did it for them in some mystical manner in which they neither chose to repent nor could have refused to do so?That's precisely what the OP is pointing out. Jesus was asking the people to repent because they are capable of repenting, being NOT separate from Him.

And repenting is overcoming evil with good.


It's STUPIDITY!Correct, it is STUPIDITY to tell people to do SOMETHING when they are not able to. And that's what Arminians basically do. How so?

Scriptures say that Christ is our Life (Col 3:4). Hence, separate from Christ Who is our Life, man is dead, spiritually dead. Arminians know that those In Christ are spiritually alive. They consider the non-believers as being NOT in Christ, and therefore spiritually dead.

By requiring non-believers to first believe for them to be In Christ, the Arminians are in effect telling whom they know are dead to believe. And from your mouth, that's STUPIDITY.


It's just exactly as if you took this single sentence that Jesus spoke and built a whole doctrine around it while ignoring, not just the immediate context in which the sentence was uttered, but the entirety of the bible and the whole history of mankind's relationship with God!In John 15, Jesus was speaking to His disciples. His disciples are In Him, In Christ, hence spiritually alive. Now, they tell them, that they can do NOTHING when separate from Him. But you tell me that NOTHING means SOMETHING, so in effect you are saying that apart from Christ, the disciples can do SOMETHING. In summary:

Christ: "Apart from me, you can do NOTHING."
Clete: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING."

Which is STUPIDITY: to believe in what Christ said, or to believe in what Clete said?

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 07:48 AM
I'm not scapegoating, I simply assumed that he was a Calvinist based on TWO pieces of pretty good evidence; 1. He started an anti-Arminian threadDid you deliberately close your eyes to the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)thread I started on the same day this thread was started? Can you tell me honestly you were not really aware about that thread?

Lon
April 16th, 2016, 07:53 AM
This sentence made no sense to me.
Nutshell: Cults mindless scapegoat. You generally don't. It was a compliment toward your brain, a bit of chiding for not using it. I retract it given your further statements below.


I'm not scapegoating, I simply assumed that he was a Calvinist based on TWO pieces of pretty good evidence; 1. He started an anti-Arminian thread and 2. He made the exact same argument that thousands of Calvinist have made in the past. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make and every single point I made is not even altered, never mind undermined, by the fact that I addressed the argument against Calvinists. Indeed, I have no direct evidence yet that he is not a Calvinist but the point is that it doesn't matter, his argument is flat faced stupidity whether he's a Calvinist or not.
Granted then, but I think it a weird position if you seen it from Calvinists. Generally all of us read John 3:16 as world, but not 'whole' world, for instance, so we recognize where Jews employ a phrase that we have to take differently, at times.


Precisely! Words like "All", "Every", "Always", "Never", "Nothing", etc are called 'Universal Qualifiers". The problem with using them in language is that people do not speak the way computers do and it is an error to interpret their use as though the speaker is talking about predicate calculus rather than speaking like a normal person, using generalities without the need to specify that he is doing so. It takes simple common sense and an outright refusal to proof-text your way through theology to remain on the same page that the biblical author is on.

Resting in Him,
Clete
We do try to take what is given as literally as scripture allows, however. It also necessarily has to be supported in other (and hopefully plainer) texts among other examples of checks and balances to our respective theologies and exegesis.

So, while I don't think this an instance of Calvinist doctrine, I concede you may indeed have heard it from Calvinists, but I'd suggest they are inconsistent in their own Calvinism (and with mine). Thanks for setting me straight. Moving forward, Samie is not a Calvinist. He started a thread with the same name substituting "Calvinism" for Arminian prior to this one.

It is probably worth mentioning to Samie that you aren't an Arminian, either, just arguing against his point (may be unnecessary).

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:09 AM
Nutshell: Cults mindless scapegoat. You generally don't. It was a compliment toward your brain, a bit of chiding for not using it. I retract it given your further statements below.


Granted then, but I think it a weird position if you seen it from Calvinists. Generally all of us read John 3:16 as world, but not 'whole' world, for instance, so we recognize where Jews employ a phrase that we have to take differently, at times.


We do try to take what is given as literally as scripture allows, however. It also necessarily has to be supported in other (and hopefully plainer) texts among other examples of checks and balances to our respective theologies and exegesis.

So, while I don't think this an instance of Calvinist doctrine, I concede you may indeed have heard it from Calvinists, but I'd suggest they are inconsistent in their own Calvinism (and with mine). Thanks for setting me straight. Moving forward, Samie is not a Calvinist. He started a thread with the same name substituting "Calvinism" for Arminian prior to this one.

It is probably worth mentioning to Samie that you aren't an Arminian, either, just arguing against his point (may be unnecessary).

I've encounered many people through the years claiming to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and I have yet to be able to recognize even one of them that is not Arminian or some degree of Pelagian.

Most take some contorted contextual minutiae, like Samie here, and pretend to oppose both "sides" from some false foundation of not understanding basic translational grammar and semantics issues (like Samie has done).

It's been my nearly-20-year goal to reconcile all false binaries of doctrine in every area, while staying within the boundaries of orthodoxy. I have indeed reconciled the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism, but not by dismissing them both for some third nebulous alternative that does not exist.

The only answer is to demonstrate which facets of the singular central objective and knowable truth are represented best by Monergism and Synergism. There is no third option.

The truth lies in recognizing the distinction between the uncreated timelessness of God and the created chronological form of time for the fallen earth ages of the cosmos.

For God, there is no "before"; just as there is no "after". But for everything and everyone in time, all factors of the chronological form of time in the cosmos are the boundaries, just like space and matter as material substance (versus immaterial substance, which is either uncreated [God as Spirit and His Logos] or created [all else in the heavenly realm that is not physical in the tangible earthly sense, like angels, etc.]).

Eternity is God's timelessness, and is distinct from aeviternity (everlasting) in the created realms (which includes heaven). The timeless God interfaces with all forms of time in a superordinant manner; all forms of time being subordinate to Him. God is both "no-when" and "every-when", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". God is not subject to creation, so sequential and spatial material and non-material creation do not contain or constrain Him in any parameter of existence and functionality.

Time and space are not things that God is subject to. His existence is both transendant to, and immanent within, all created parameters of existence; but He is not subject to time or space while permeating all of creation. This is also the distinction between God's uncreated presence in creation when contrasted with the fallacies of pantheism and panentheism.

There is no sequence of whens and/or wheres for God. God is uncreated Self-conscious Self-existence "before" He created; but there is no "before" for God. There is "before" for creation, including time; but there is no "before" for God. That's why there is no "eternity past". God alone is eternal, and eternity is one of His incommunicable attributes. But time had a beginning. An inception. So there is only aeviternity (everlasting/ness) going forward from that initial creation of time; hence, no "eternity past".

When we are hypostatically translated into Christ by faith, our inner man is seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is the means of us communing from time into timelessness, and partaking of the divine nature. This fellowship of communion from time into timelessness is God's foreknowledge OF us, and His predestination for us to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Salvation is a means of resurrecting us into Christ during physical life to know God by the revelation of Jesus Christ, having been translated into Him by faith. From this position in Christ, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind and our restored spiritual life of constant communion with God is our gift of partaking into timelessness from time.

God knew "before" creation all those who would believe and recieve, but there is no "before" for God. His foreknowledge is our current communion with Him as we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

There IS synergism, but it's all monergistic; because the only eternal and uncreated uncaused cause is the one true and living God. Synergism can only occur relative to time. Monergism is the timeless mind and will of God accomplising what He knows and chooses. The only "before" is for us, and it's for us to remember the joy of salvation and communion into life by resurrection for all everlasting.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 01:41 PM
I've encounered many people through the years claiming to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and I have yet to be able to recognize even one of them that is not Arminian or some degree of Pelagian.

Most take some contorted contextual minutiae, like Samie here, and pretend to oppose both "sides" from some false foundation of not understanding basic translational grammar and semantics issues (like Samie has done).
...
Salvation is a means of resurrecting us into Christ during physical life to know God by the revelation of Jesus Christ, having been translated into Him by faith. From this position in Christ, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind and our restored spiritual life of constant communion with God is our gift of partaking into timelessness from time.In John 15:5, Jesus was telling His disciples, who of course are In Him, In Christ, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. I believe Him. You don't. Instead, you want me to believe that Jesus' NOTHING really means SOMETHING. Summarizing,

Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING."
PneumaPsucheSoma: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING".

Just like the Arminians, you consider non-believers as NOT In Christ, and therefore spiritually dead, being apart or separate from Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4). Yet, you tell the non-believers to first believe so they can be "translated into Him by faith" and thus "resurrect[ed] into Christ during physical life". That really amazes me, because despite your theological jargons and knowing that they are dead (not yet "resurrect[ed] into Christ") and can do NOTHING, you tell them to believe.

Clete calls that STUPIDITY.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 02:20 PM
In John 15:5, Jesus was telling His disciples, who of course are In Him, In Christ, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. I believe Him. You don't. Instead, you want me to believe that Jesus' NOTHING really means SOMETHING. Summarizing,

Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING."
PneumaPsucheSoma: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING".

Just like the Arminians, you consider non-believers as NOT In Christ, and therefore spiritually dead, being apart or separate from Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4). Yet, you tell the non-believers to first believe so they can be "translated into Him by faith" and thus "resurrect[ed] into Christ during physical life". That really amazes me, because despite your theological jargons and knowing that they are dead (not yet "resurrect[ed] into Christ") and can do NOTHING, you tell them to believe.

Clete calls that STUPIDITY.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

No. Your false binary actually indicates you are clueless and aligned much too closely with Barth and Univeral Atonement (which is but a breath away from Universal Reconciliation).

Aletheiophile
April 16th, 2016, 02:45 PM
In John 15:5, Jesus was telling His disciples, who of course are In Him, In Christ, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. I believe Him. You don't. Instead, you want me to believe that Jesus' NOTHING really means SOMETHING. Summarizing,

Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING."
PneumaPsucheSoma: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING".

Just like the Arminians, you consider non-believers as NOT In Christ, and therefore spiritually dead, being apart or separate from Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4). Yet, you tell the non-believers to first believe so they can be "translated into Him by faith" and thus "resurrect[ed] into Christ during physical life". That really amazes me, because despite your theological jargons and knowing that they are dead (not yet "resurrect[ed] into Christ") and can do NOTHING, you tell them to believe.

Clete calls that STUPIDITY.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Um...you do realize He was addressing the Disciples (minus Judas)? He was addressing a very specific audience, those whom had already believed unto Him, and most assuredly would believe unto Him.

Taking a specific address outside of the original context and audience is a big hermeneutical mistake. The general application can only be understood after the specific is addressed.

This whole section of John is Christ preaching the Gospel to His disciples, and revealing the mystery of God.

PPS is not saying that man can do anything outside of Christ at all. The source for hearing/repenting/believing is God. Man is not the agent, only the recipient. Thus, He is doing nothing. Being the passive recipient is not doing anything at all. So of course man can do nothing apart from Him, because He is the source of all things good, including salvation.

Clete
April 16th, 2016, 02:54 PM
Did you deliberately close your eyes to the Calvinists' Dilemma (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma)thread I started on the same day this thread was started? Can you tell me honestly you were not really aware about that thread?

Yes, I can tell you exactly that. I hadn't the slightest idea that any such thread existed, never mind that it was started by you.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 03:04 PM
Um...you do realize He was addressing the Disciples (minus Judas)? Judas was there.


He was addressing a very specific audience, those whom had already believed unto Him, and most assuredly would believe unto Him.

Taking a specific address outside of the original context and audience is a big hermeneutical mistake. The general application can only be understood after the specific is addressed.

This whole section of John is Christ preaching the Gospel to His disciples, and revealing the mystery of God. I agree. And He was telling His disciples that apart from Him, they can do NOTHING. And I believe Him. What I can't believe is PPS' telling me that Christ's NOTHING really means SOMETHING.


PPS is not saying that man can do anything outside of Christ at all.You may not have noticed it, but he did; in his last post.


The source for hearing/repenting/believing is God. Man is not the agent, only the recipient. Thus, He is doing nothing. Being the passive recipient is not doing anything at all. So of course man can do nothing apart from Him, because He is the source of all things good, including salvation.Yes, God is the source of Faith. But the exercise of this faith is man's act. Faith is what energizes man to believe. And PPS wants me to believe that non-believers can do the spiritual act of believing while apart from Christ.

IF and only if PPS is right, then, Christ is wrong. But because Christ can NOT be wrong, then PPS is wrong.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 03:14 PM
Yes, I can tell you exactly that. I hadn't the slightest idea that any such thread existed, never mind that it was started by you.That's fine with me.

Honestly, I am not at all concerned being called Calvinist or whatever. I am just saying I am not a Calvinist. If people don't believe it, then, I respect their not believing I am not a Calvinist. Their non-belief in me saying I am NOT a Calvinist does not make me a Calvinist.

Neither am I an Arminian.

So what am I? I am just a simple believer in what Jesus said, and that includes what He told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING.

Clete
April 16th, 2016, 03:33 PM
He - pneumonia (or whatever his name is) - simply presented his inventions and did not present any single verse backing up his anarthrous invention. He simply resorted to it because he has nowhere to hide in Scriptures.

You are telling me that NOTHING means SOMETHING? Are you serious?
Please don't go from parroting stupidity to being stupid!

We could potential have a substantive discussion here but I will not throw pearls before pigs. If you cannot think and respond rationally I'll simply ignore you.


That's precisely what the OP is pointing out. Jesus was asking the people to repent because they are capable of repenting, being NOT separate from Him.
Even by you own convoluted interpretation of the passage in question, the logic just doesn't work!


John 15:4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

You claim that you can nothing at all whatsoever, including repent, unless you are in Jesus.

What's there to repent of if you're already in Christ?


And repenting is overcoming evil with good.
No, to repent, strictly speaking, means to change your mind. But in the sense we are using the term it means to be sorry or regretful.

The Hebrew word is Nacham (Strong's 5162 (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5162&t=KJV))

See Gen 6:6; Exo. 32:12; Num.23:19; Jer. 18:8-10; etc


Correct, it is STUPIDITY to tell people to do SOMETHING when they are not able to. And that's what Arminians basically do. How so?
Arminians say no such thing. It's only in your pseudo-universalist world of weird English interpretation where generalities aren't allowed that any such teaching is detected.


Scriptures say that Christ is our Life (Col 3:4).
"Our" is referring to believers, numb-skull!


Hence, separate from Christ Who is our Life, man is dead, spiritually dead.
More Calvinism!

Actually, this is Augustinian thinking but its the same thing, applied in the same way. It's straight up stupidity. Or at least the way you are applying it is.

Spiritual death is not spiritual non-existence, its simply separation from God. That's all any sort of death is, a separation. Physical death is the separation of your soul/spirit from your physical body. Spiritual death is the separation of your soul/spirit from God. Jesus experienced both on the cross and remained dead for three days and was yet able, after having laid down His own life, to take it up again (John 10:18). If being dead means you can't do anything at all whatsoever, how do explain John 10:18?


Arminians know that those In Christ are spiritually alive. They consider the non-believers as being NOT in Christ, and therefore spiritually dead.

By requiring non-believers to first believe for them to be In Christ, the Arminians are in effect telling whom they know are dead to believe. And from your mouth, that's STUPIDITY.
You're just a box full of misconceptions and confusion. You've (actually, it wasn't you but whomever it was that taught you this silliness) constructed a whole theological paradigm designed to solve problems that don't actually exist.


In John 15, Jesus was speaking to His disciples. His disciples are In Him, In Christ, hence spiritually alive.
Being identified "in Christ" was not possible prior to the Dispensation of Grace, which began with Saul's conversion in Acts 9. Jesus was talking to His disciples, yes, but they were not "in Him". They were Jews, saved under the Dispensation of Law and remained under that dispensation until their physical deaths. (I Corinthians 7:17-24).


Now, they tell them, that they can do NOTHING when separate from Him. But you tell me that NOTHING means SOMETHING, so in effect you are saying that apart from Christ, the disciples can do SOMETHING. In summary:

Christ: "Apart from me, you can do NOTHING."
Clete: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING."

Which is STUPIDITY: to believe in what Christ said, or to believe in what Clete said?

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
Put whatever words in my mouth that make you feel good about being an idiot.

OR

You can respond with some rationality.

It's your choice but if you want to continue this conversation with me you are required to choose the later immediately.

Resting in Him,
Clete

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 05:53 PM
Judas was there.

I agree. And He was telling His disciples that apart from Him, they can do NOTHING. And I believe Him. What I can't believe is PPS' telling me that Christ's NOTHING really means SOMETHING.

You may not have noticed it, but he did; in his last post.

Yes, God is the source of Faith. But the exercise of this faith is man's act. Faith is what energizes man to believe. And PPS wants me to believe that non-believers can do the spiritual act of believing while apart from Christ.

IF and only if PPS is right, then, Christ is wrong. But because Christ can NOT be wrong, then PPS is wrong.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

You have no clue what I've said. You're a Universal Atonement proponent, and thus a heretic. It's that simple.

You could understand anarthrous Greek nouns if you weren't so hell-bent on just being right in your own mind.

"All" as an anarthrous noun doesn't mean "all" as an articular noun. You aren't searching for truth, just to preserve your own false understanding. In a sense, you're neither right nor wrong. You're just on a tangent that doesn't even deal with the issue.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 06:00 PM
Judas was there.

I agree. And He was telling His disciples that apart from Him, they can do NOTHING. And I believe Him. What I can't believe is PPS' telling me that Christ's NOTHING really means SOMETHING.

You may not have noticed it, but he did; in his last post.

Yes, God is the source of Faith. But the exercise of this faith is man's act. Faith is what energizes man to believe. And PPS wants me to believe that non-believers can do the spiritual act of believing while apart from Christ.

IF and only if PPS is right, then, Christ is wrong. But because Christ can NOT be wrong, then PPS is wrong.

The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.

For the faith that cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God... Both faith and hearing are NOUNS. Faith, in this instance, is NOT a VERB for action at all, and neither is hearing. Faith is the thing believed, and it comes out of the thing heard, which comes by means of the thing thought and spoken about by God.

Man takes no initiative action whatsoever. None of these are verbs. And repentance is granted.

You're a Synergist. An Arminian, if not a Semi-Pelagian.

Man cannot effect his own salvation. Even his cooperation in action is response to all God is and does.

You have a dilemna in taking issue with Arminians when you ARE ONE (or worse, a Pelagian of some degree; if there's even a difference beyond playing word games).

Epoisses
April 16th, 2016, 07:15 PM
You're a Synergist. An Arminian, if not a Semi-Pelagian.

And you're a Calvinistic monergist who believes that God ordained sin. It all goes back to God so he ordained sin, suffering and death. He ordained murder. He ordained adultery. He ordained rape. He ordained genocide. I could go on and on if the human has no input then life is just a show and theater and the judgment where we stand condemned before God I could say 'hey God you made me this way, what's your problem?'. I can at least deal with a Lutheran monergist but never a Calvinistic one.

Nang
April 16th, 2016, 08:15 PM
And you're a Calvinistic monergist who believes that God ordained sin. It all goes back to God so he ordained sin, suffering and death. He ordained murder. He ordained adultery. He ordained rape. He ordained genocide. I could go on and on if the human has no input then life is just a show and theater and the judgment where we stand condemned before God I could say 'hey God you made me this way, what's your problem?'. I can at least deal with a Lutheran monergist but never a Calvinistic one.

It is doubtful you know of what you speak in the matters of Divine Ordination . . .

God is not the author of sin. James 1:13-15

The wages of sin is placed upon mankind (
Romans 6:23); not God.

Only created men die . . . because of their sinful acts.

God never dies because God has no part of sin.


Duh . . .

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 08:30 PM
Hi Clete;

Compare your last post with my post you responded to, brother. You will see that you included in your post many ad-hominem leaning stupidities which should not have been included there. Just the same I will respond instead of resorting to threat of ignoring just like what you are inclined to do knowing that you will soon run out of Scriptural haven.

When I said:
You are telling me that NOTHING means SOMETHING? Are you serious?You responded with:
Please don't go from parroting stupidity to being stupid!So who is actually stupid? Samie who believes Christ's NOTHING is NOTHING or Clete who believes Christ's NOTHING means SOMETHING? Think of it and stop acting like stupid.

You said:
We could potential have a substantive discussion here but I will not throw pearls before pigs. If you cannot think and respond rationally I'll simply ignore you.Is it not rational enough to believe in Christ's words that NOTHING is NOTHING and not SOMETHING? I should be the one entitled to say I don't have to throw pearls before the swine. You can ignore me if you want. I did not even ask you to comment in the first place.

When I said:
That's precisely what the OP is pointing out. Jesus was asking the people to repent because they are capable of repenting, being NOT separate from Him.You replied:
Even by you own convoluted interpretation of the passage in question, the logic just doesn't work!Is that it? Just saying it won't work. How? Is that the substantive discussion you are referring to when your reply have no substance at all?

You said:
You claim that you can nothing at all whatsoever, including repent, unless you are in Jesus.

What's there to repent of if you're already in Christ?The better question should be: how can you repent when you are dead being NOT in Christ? Since the time you were In Christ, have you not committed any single sin, Clete? You can't answer NO, or be proven a liar. That sin is what you are going to repent of. Faced with the opportunity of committing the same sin again, you change your mind and do what is good instead. That is the essence of true repentance. See Acts 26:20.

When I said:
And repenting is overcoming evil with good.You countered with:
No, to repent, strictly speaking, means to change your mind. But in the sense we are using the term it means to be sorry or regretful.

The Hebrew word is Nacham (Strong's 5162)

See Gen 6:6; Exo. 32:12; Num.23:19; Jer. 18:8-10; etcYou want "repentance' used in the sense "we" are using that word, instead of how the Bible uses that word when people are to repent from evil. Notice that the verses you specified talk about God changing his mind (נָּחֵ֥ם nacham). What you should have given are verses that tell of how people are to repent (שׁ֤וּב shuwb). See for example Ezek 14:6; 18:30. Do you now know the difference between נָּחֵ֥ם nacham and שׁ֤וּב shuwb?

When I said:
Correct, it is STUPIDITY to tell people to do SOMETHING when they are not able to. And that's what Arminians basically do. How so?You responded with:
Arminians say no such thing. It's only in your pseudo-universalist world of weird English interpretation where generalities aren't allowed that any such teaching is detected.You simply resorted to denial. And who says I don't allow generalities when I simply believe NOTHING means NOTHING generally speaking? Think again.

When I quipped:
Scriptures say that Christ is our Life (Col 3:4).Here's what you retorted:
"Our" is referring to believers, numb-skull!See where your false belief have led your mouth to? And that's what you tell me "substantive discussion"? Are you saying all others derive their life NOT from Christ?

When I said:
Hence, separate from Christ Who is our Life, man is dead, spiritually dead.You replied:
More Calvinism!

Actually, this is Augustinian thinking but its the same thing, applied in the same way. It's straight up stupidity. Or at least the way you are applying it is.Here, you are insinuating that there is life separate from Christ. You know any other Source of life, Clete, other than the Father through Christ?

You said:
Spiritual death is not spiritual non-existence, its simply separation from God. That's all any sort of death is, a separation. Physical death is the separation of your soul/spirit from your physical body. Spiritual death is the separation of your soul/spirit from God. Jesus experienced both on the cross and remained dead for three days and was yet able, after having laid down His own life, to take it up again (John 10:18). If being dead means you can't do anything at all whatsoever, how do explain John 10:18?That's Christ, the Author of life. There's NOTHING impossible with Him. The Father gave Him that power. But how about us humans, Clete? Are you telling me, even while dead, we can do things like Christ was able to? Then you, Clete, don't need Christ. But I need Him.

When I said:
Arminians know that those In Christ are spiritually alive. They consider the non-believers as being NOT in Christ, and therefore spiritually dead.

By requiring non-believers to first believe for them to be In Christ, the Arminians are in effect telling whom they know are dead to believe. And from your mouth, that's STUPIDITY. You responded with:
You're just a box full of misconceptions and confusion. You've (actually, it wasn't you but whomever it was that taught you this silliness) constructed a whole theological paradigm designed to solve problems that don't actually exist.That's not unlike ostrich defense, is it? Burying its head in the sand so as not to see the coming danger, does not prevent the danger from coming. And you want to blame the one that taught me? Then blame the Scriptures.

When I said:
In John 15, Jesus was speaking to His disciples. His disciples are In Him, In Christ, hence spiritually alive.You replied:
Being identified "in Christ" was not possible prior to the Dispensation of Grace, which began with Saul's conversion in Acts 9. Jesus was talking to His disciples, yes, but they were not "in Him". They were Jews, saved under the Dispensation of Law and remained under that dispensation until their physical deaths. (I Corinthians 7:17-24).Dispensation of Grace began with Saul's conversion? Sorry, but it seems you're still in shallow waters, my brother. God's grace was given us in Christ BEFORE time began, Clete. See 2 Tim 1:8-10. Did you know that God's grace has appeared to all men? See Titus 2:11. Salvation is all by grace, my brother. NEVER by works. And that applies both to people BEFORE or AFTER the cross.

I think I now understand why you so vehemently deny and instead attach a different meaning to Christ's "apart from Me, you can do NOTHING". You even believe people BEFORE the cross were saved DIFFERENTLY from people AFTER the cross. And I thought you told me "it's difficult to teach art to a rat". It really seems you have wandered into the wrong schoolroom. Kindergartens are way down the hallway yet.

I now know why you call Samie an idiot. But you're not an idiot, kid. You have just not grown up yet.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 09:13 PM
For the faith that cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God... Both faith and hearing are NOUNS. Faith, in this instance, is NOT a VERB for action at all, and neither is hearing. Faith is the thing believed, and it comes out of the thing heard, which comes by means of the thing thought and spoken about by God.The issue is whether those NOT in Christ can hear in the first place. Again, Christ is our life (Col 3:4). Hence, those NOT in Christ are not In life; they are In death. So, dead. Is that rocket science it's too difficult for you to understand?


Man takes no action whatsoever. None of these are verbs. And repentance is granted.Man takes no action? Wow! So, when He comes again, who will Christ reward according to his works when no one has done anything?NIV Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

NIV Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.I guess I now know why you can't believe Christ when He told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING. You want it changed to "apart from Me, you can do SOMETHING", much in the same way you want His statement "I will give to everyone according to what he has done" changed to "I will give to everyone according to what he has NOT done". And you want Samie to believe you?


You're a Synergist. An Arminian, if not a Semi-Pelagian.

Man cannot effect his own salvation. Even his cooperation in action is response to all God is and does.And I thought you said man takes no action whatsoever. But you are now talking about man's cooperation in action. You seem to be confused, PPS. You are contradicting yourself. You are not yet settled as to what position to take.


You have a dilemna in taking issue with Arminians when you ARE ONE (or worse, a Pelagian of some degree; if there's even a difference beyond playing word games).I understand why you are saying that. You don't understand the issue, despite your intimidating display of theological jargons and anarthrous inventions. When Christ says anything that seems to go against your theology, you want Christ's words changed to what you want Him to mean.

You even say one thing and then contradict yourself later. Settle the issue first with your ownself, brother. And when you are sure of your position, come back and try again.

Epoisses
April 16th, 2016, 09:35 PM
It is doubtful you know of what you speak in the matters of Divine Ordination . . .

God is not the author of sin. James 1:13-15

The wages of sin is placed upon mankind (
Romans 6:23); not God.

Only created men die . . . because of their sinful acts.

God never dies because God has no part of sin.


Duh . . .

So how did sin happen if God is in control of everything??.....durrrrrr!!!!

Getting a straight answer out of these things is darn near impossible.

Nang
April 16th, 2016, 10:02 PM
So how did sin happen if God is in control of everything?

Adam failed to live up to the holy moral standards of God, according to his God-given secondary moral agency which allowed him subjective cause & effect control over his creaturely actions, limited by the creational Covenant of Works established between God & man before the fall.

Adam broke moral contract (Law) with God. That was the original sin . . .

God created Adam in His image as a responsible moral agent, but Adam fell short of his created glory. That was the original sin . .

Lesson: Created beings; neither angels nor men, equal God Almighty.

Nothing created can live up to His holy standards & find eternal life, apart from His Sovereign grace & power.

That is the Gospel message from the very beginning of history.

God has so ordained and manifested this eternal Truth.

Aletheiophile
April 16th, 2016, 10:03 PM
So how did sin happen if God is in control of everything??.....durrrrrr!!!!

Getting a straight answer out of these things is darn near impossible.

This is answered simply by understand what good and evil mean. In Hebrew, "tov" means functional. "Ra'a," evil, is dys/mal/nonfunction. And thus, in all function there is the potential for dysfunction. If God had not provided for it, it would be beyond Him and thus He would not be all-powerful.

Evil is simply the potentiality for dysfunction within function, inaugurated first by Satan and then introduced to mankind when Adam and Eve communed with the serpent. Thankfully, Christ has come to fill all dysfunction with Himself, that at the Resurrection there would no longer be any potential for evil.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:25 PM
And you're a Calvinistic monergist

Ummm... Nope. You have no idea that ra'a ("evil") is a privation of tov ("good"), just as hamartia (sin, the noun) is a "something-lessness" as a void or hole; and neither is directly from or by God in creation, but by negation of the decently and orderly complete functionality that scripture concisely declares repeatedly throughout the creation account in Genesis.


who believes that God ordained sin.

No. Just because your inferred presumptions are a compounding of your ignorance, it doesn't mean I'm representing an unreconciled view of all degrees of Lapsarianism in its various forms. God did not "ordain" sin. That's absurd.


It all goes back to God so he ordained sin, suffering and death.

No. Just because He works all things together for the good of them that love Him, that are the called according to His purpose, it doesn't mean He is the cause and source of sin, suffering, and death. You have no clue of Ponerology, Hamartiology, and the incommunicable and communicable attributes of God.


He ordained murder. He ordained adultery. He ordained rape. He ordained genocide.

Blasphemy. Your presuppositional myopic understanding does not mean there isn't vast comprehension beyond the false binaries you and most others install to be superordinate to God Himself in your artificial human deductive reasoning.


I could go on and on if the human has no input

I indicated no such thing. On the contrary, I insisted there IS Synergism within the functionality of creation. You just have no clue what foreknowledge and predestination are relative to a timeless God who is both "no-when" and "every-when", and for whom there is no "before" or "after" or "during" or any other constraining created time construct that He can or is subject to in subordination.

For God, there is NO Ordo Salutis; for it would require time to be superimposed and attributed to Him. He is timeless, with no sequentiality, linearity, duration, or elapsation. He transcends time, just as He pervades time. For all anyone knows, creation has unfolded in arrears from end to beginning; but that is irrelevant to a God that is beyond the created boundaries of time and all it is applied to.

Yours is a time-based approach to a timeless God, just like all Calvinists and Arminians (Pelagians). There is no third option beyond Monergism and Synergism; only the reconicilation of them both into a cohesive whole that represents God's attributes and nature from revelation of scripture by the Spirit.


then life is just a show and theater and the judgment where we stand condemned before God I could say 'hey God you made me this way, what's your problem?'.

Utterly and completely untrue. Your false dichotomy is your folly. It's a matter of epistemological functionality being understood or misunderstood.

I'm (hypostatically )tranlsated into Christ, seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, living and moving and having my being IN Christ; who is seated at the right hand (which is dexios, and isNOT a geographic location reference). I'm partaking of His divine nature through the Theanthropic perichoresis I share with the ascended eternal Son and the my hypostatic union with Him. That perichoresis allows me the vicarious access of fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit, just as the Son has for all eternity of pre-existence. And I'm communing from time into timelessness with the God and Father of my salvation as we collectively unfold creation's scroll on my behalf, along with all other Believers of all ages.


I can at least deal with a Lutheran monergist but never a Calvinistic one.

Well... Since you're not the final arbiter of truth by ANY stretch of the imagination; I'm not concerned about what you "can deal with" versus what you "can't deal with", since you haven't a clue of the depths, breadths, and heights of the ontological Gospel and its accompanying historical doctrines within the orthodox faith.

The ancients had a more eastern-based mind and focused on the aspects of Synergism; while the more modern mind is much more in need of focusing on Monergism to combat the onset of Modernism and other revolutions by the spirit of anti-christ to exponentially corrupt the epistemology and ontology of humanity in the last half millennia or more.

Monergism and Synergism coallesce into the manifestation of God's eternal immutable mind, and all the multi-versity of contingent potentialities are according to both His sovereignty and the delegation of our functionality of will as the stretching forth of the mind in phenomenological embrace or denial of His divine will.

If you understood the valid Theodicy of God's all-powerful and all-benevolent existence along with the presence of evil, you wouldn't have to be so bewildered and limited in your understanding as devoid of the revelation of knowledge, in which loves abounds.

And Lutheran Monergism is much closer to what I'm espousing, so presuming extreme Lapsarianism is your erroneous inference from me addressing an Arminian pretending not to be.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:27 PM
This is answered simply by understand what good and evil mean. In Hebrew, "tov" means functional. "Ra'a," evil, is dys/mal/nonfunction. And thus, in all function there is the potential for dysfunction. If God had not provided for it, it would be beyond Him and thus He would not be all-powerful.

Evil is simply the potentiality for dysfunction within function, inaugurated first by Satan and then introduced to mankind when Adam and Eve communed with the serpent. Thankfully, Christ has come to fill all dysfunction with Himself, that at the Resurrection there would no longer be any potential for evil.

THIS is exactly correct!! Finally... Another human who actually has a clue. If one doesn't understand Ponerology and Hamartiology in this respect of an appropriate Theodicy, then one is trapped in a false binary of man-made doctrines that deny both God's sovereignty and His transcendance, etc.

Samie
April 16th, 2016, 10:35 PM
THIS is exactly correct!! Finally... Another human who actually has a clue. If one doesn't understand Ponerology and Hamartiology in this respect of an appropriate Theodicy, then one is trapped in a false binary of man-made doctrines that deny both God's sovereignty and His transcendance, etc.High sounding theological jargons but devoid of truth when put to the test of Scriptures.

Have you stopped contradicting yourself, PPS? Do you now believe that when Christ comes again He will reward EVERY MAN according to what he has done, and that apart from Him man can do NOTHING?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:37 PM
So how did sin happen if God is in control of everything??.....durrrrrr!!!!

Getting a straight answer out of these things is darn near impossible.

Since it's one of the deepest spirit-revealed issues of scripture and the Holy Spirit, you shouldn't expect a dumbed-down answer as one who not even sought the historical recountings of Theodicy by the great theologians throughout human history.

Your false autonomy is glaring for all to see. Evil is the privation or negation of good. Tov (good) is more appropriately understood as "functionality", with ra'a (evil) being the privation of good as dysfunction, malfuction, or non-function. It's subtraction by addition.

Picture a completely functional automobile, and then imagine a 10-pound bag of sugar being added to the gas tank. That addition will subtract functionality, so the potentiality for degrees of dysfunction was in the functionality. It's indirect, and requires something added to un- or non- it.

If you don't understand this (and you don't, but you're in the vast majority who just conceptualize according to their own reasoning without accessing and understanding the authentic historical and theological history of the Christian faith they allegedly profess), then you haven't done much homework beyond exercising own Modernism-tainted epistemological imagination.

Read Isaiah 45 and tell me how and why it is that God creates evil. Exegete that from the text in the Hebrew langauge.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 16th, 2016, 10:41 PM
The issue is whether those NOT in Christ can hear in the first place. Again, Christ is our life (Col 3:4). Hence, those NOT in Christ are not In life; they are In death. So, dead. Is that rocket science it's too difficult for you to understand?

Man takes no action? Wow! So, when He comes again, who will Christ reward according to his works when no one has done anything?NIV Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

NIV Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.I guess I now know why you can't believe Christ when He told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING. You want it changed to "apart from Me, you can do SOMETHING", much in the same way you want His statement "I will give to everyone according to what he has done" changed to "I will give to everyone according to what he has NOT done". And you want Samie to believe you?

And I thought you said man takes no action whatsoever. But you are now talking about man's cooperation in action. You seem to be confused, PPS. You are contradicting yourself. You are not yet settled as to what position to take.

I understand why you are saying that. You don't understand the issue, despite your intimidating display of theological jargons and anarthrous inventions. When Christ says anything that seems to go against your theology, you want Christ's words changed to what you want Him to mean.

You even say one thing and then contradict yourself later. Settle the issue first with your ownself, brother. And when you are sure of your position, come back and try again.

You're a rebellious and stubborn idolator who only relies on his own faulty and frail modern reasoning. I, on the other hand, stand on two millennia of the authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith that you know nothing of in your arrogance and ignorance.

You haven't unveiled some paradox for Arminians. You ARE an Arminian, and are self-impugning all you say by your own historical and theological ignorance in obtuse cognitive dissonance.

This will be my last response to your drivelous and impetuous nonsense. You're a novice and a child, wanting to have a position in the body that you are not equipped for nor can fulfill as a Believer of full age.

Samie
April 17th, 2016, 07:25 AM
You're a rebellious and stubborn idolator who only relies on his own faulty and frail modern reasoning. I, on the other hand, stand on two millennia of the authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith that you know nothing of in your arrogance and ignorance.I rely on the Father through Christ and His words whose existence is from eternity to eternity. How is that compared with your 2 millennia of human inventions, brother?


You haven't unveiled some paradox for Arminians. You ARE an Arminian, and are self-impugning all you say by your own historical and theological ignorance in obtuse cognitive dissonance.I have shown in my recent response how you contradicted yourself. So whose suffering from cognitive dissonance?

You said "man takes no action whatsoever" and that tells me you are not even aware of Christ's words that He will reward every man according to what he has done. So, who's suffering from theological ignorance of Christ's words?


This will be my last response to your drivelous and impetuous nonsense. You're a novice and a child, wanting to have a position in the body that you are not equipped for nor can fulfill as a Believer of full age.Thank you for calling me a child, PPS - the wise and learned one.NIV Matthew 11:

25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

KJV 1 Corinthians 1:

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Clete
April 17th, 2016, 10:52 AM
God never dies because God has no part of sin.


Duh . . .
If you do not believe that God died, you are not even a Christian!

To reject the death of God is to either reject the death of Jesus or to reject that Jesus was/is God. Either way, you're disqualified as a Christian.

Clete
April 17th, 2016, 10:57 AM
Hi Clete;

Compare your last post with my post you responded to, brother. You will see that you included in your post many ad-hominem leaning stupidities which should not have been included there. Just the same I will respond instead of resorting to threat of ignoring just like what you are inclined to do knowing that you will soon run out of Scriptural haven.
I did not use any ad-hominem arguments you stupid idiotic fool!

An ad-hominem is an argument where one attempts to say that a truth claim is false based on the fact that the person making the claim is stupid. I made no such argument. I simply called you stupid. You don't understand the difference because I'm right, you are stupid.



When I said: You replied: Is that it? Just saying it won't work. How? Is that the substantive discussion you are referring to when your reply have no substance at all?
NO! That wasn't it! I explained precisely what I meant and made a very clear and specific argument starting with THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE!!!!!!

You are too stupid to waste a single more syllable with.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 11:29 AM
I rely on the Father through Christ and His words

No, you don't. You don't know what words mean. I've tried to help you and you just want to persist in your false concepts.


whose existence is from eternity to eternity.

No. Because you don't know the difference between eternal (aidios) and everlasting (aionis). Eternity is timeless and spaceless, so it isn't "from" "to".


How is that compared with your 2 millennia of human inventions, brother?

Horrific, since it's your own false autonomy as conceptualizations that aren't based on scripture at all.


I have shown in my recent response how you contradicted yourself. So whose suffering from cognitive dissonance?

No. You just presume that I did because you quoted my post before I edited it to clarify that man takes no INITIATIVE action for salvation. You don't, and can't, understand the vital importance of knowing the difference between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. You have changed and added to the text, and without being able to know it.


You said "man takes no action whatsoever" and that tells me you are not even aware of Christ's words that He will reward every man according to what he has done. So, who's suffering from theological ignorance of Christ's words?

Man takes no INITIATIVE action whatsoever.


Thank you for calling me a child, PPS - the wise and learned one.NIV Matthew 11:

25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

KJV 1 Corinthians 1:

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Man takes no INITIATIVE action for salvation. You are a heretical Universal Atonement proponent and an Arminian to the point of being some degree of Pelagian.

I didn't say you were LIKE/AS a child. You are a child who is not of full age. You're a novice, and my wisdom is from God. If you had any, you'd know that.

You're just trying to blaze a new trail you think has never been trod by anyone before. Instead, you're rehashing old territory that has been well-worn; but you don't know the meanings of words.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 03:49 PM
Adam failed to live up to the holy moral standards of God, according to his God-given secondary moral agency which allowed him subjective cause & effect control over his creaturely actions, limited by the creational Covenant of Works established between God & man before the fall.

Adam broke moral contract (Law) with God. That was the original sin . . .

God created Adam in His image as a responsible moral agent, but Adam fell short of his created glory. That was the original sin . .

Lesson: Created beings; neither angels nor men, equal God Almighty.

Nothing created can live up to His holy standards & find eternal life, apart from His Sovereign grace & power.

That is the Gospel message from the very beginning of history.

God has so ordained and manifested this eternal Truth.

So God is not absolutely sovereign in all things! Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 03:51 PM
This is answered simply by understand what good and evil mean. In Hebrew, "tov" means functional. "Ra'a," evil, is dys/mal/nonfunction. And thus, in all function there is the potential for dysfunction. If God had not provided for it, it would be beyond Him and thus He would not be all-powerful.

Evil is simply the potentiality for dysfunction within function, inaugurated first by Satan and then introduced to mankind when Adam and Eve communed with the serpent. Thankfully, Christ has come to fill all dysfunction with Himself, that at the Resurrection there would no longer be any potential for evil.

So God is not absolutely sovereign in all things! Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 03:53 PM
Ummm... Nope. You have no idea that ra'a ("evil") is a privation of tov ("good"), just as hamartia (sin, the noun) is a "something-lessness" as a void or hole; and neither is directly from or by God in creation, but by negation of the decently and orderly complete functionality that scripture concisely declares repeatedly throughout the creation account in Genesis.

Evil according to the NT is unbelief which would be you and you're Christ rejecting Calvinistic mysticism.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 03:55 PM
THIS is exactly correct!! Finally... Another human who actually has a clue. If one doesn't understand Ponerology and Hamartiology in this respect of an appropriate Theodicy, then one is trapped in a false binary of man-made doctrines that deny both God's sovereignty and His transcendance, etc.

LOL, if one doesn't understand that Christ is the savior of the world they are a godless heretic!

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 04:36 PM
So God is not absolutely sovereign in all things! Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

You're hilarious. That is the opposite of what I said. Good job.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 04:46 PM
Evil according to the NT is unbelief which would be you and you're Christ rejecting Calvinistic mysticism.

Poneros is much better understood in light of ra'a from Hebrew. And you don't know what apisteuo means, either.

You're clueless.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 04:54 PM
LOL, if one doesn't understand that Christ is the savior of the world they are a godless heretic!

You don't even know who Christ is. Your Christology is likely the vaguest of all things you could delineate.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. He was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for the entirety of humanity from the dawn of creation to the end of the fallen earth ages.

Just like all the rest of the Englishizers, you hold a conceptualized binary between Calvinism and Arminianims that you presume to plug me into and harp away.

Jesus Christ died having been made sin for ALL mankind. But since virtually no one understands articular and anarthrous Greek nouns in English, everyone is making presumptions based on their own ignorance.

God has not foreordained any singular individuals to an afterlife of eternal torment while foreordaining other singular individuals to life everlasting. It's not my fault you're ignorant of language translation and have established your own perspectives.

And you presume that you are your own Savior if you insist man can effect or initiate his own redemption by any work that he does. I'm not the one holding to a false binary like the rest of you who are ignorant of Satan's devices.

Your sweeping general statements would be more convincing if they weren't wrong because you don't know what the inspired text says in English even when you read it.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 04:59 PM
PPS,

It seems Epo is giving you a headache.

I wodner how long you can keep up with him???

He is sliming away everything you say.

You explain with lengthy posts and he reply with only one sentence.

He is not taking too much time arguing with you.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 05:24 PM
PPS,

It seems Epo is giving you a headache.

I wodner how long you can keep up with him???

He is sliming away everything you say.

You explain with lengthy posts and he reply with only one sentence.

He is not taking too much time arguing with you.

I won't spend much time on him. Don't worry. I'm fine.

patrick jane
April 17th, 2016, 05:28 PM
I won't spend much time on him. Don't worry. I'm fine.



http://theologyonline.com/images/metro/blue/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by meshak http://theologyonline.com/images/metro/blue/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4678821#post4678821)
PPS,

It seems Epo is giving you a headache.

I wodner how long you can keep up with him???

He is sliming away everything you say.

You explain with lengthy posts and he reply with only one sentence.

He is not taking too much time arguing with you.



I won't spend much time on him. Don't worry. I'm fine.

PPS has joined forces with shak

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 05:57 PM
Poneros is much better understood in light of ra'a from Hebrew. And you don't know what apisteuo means, either.

You're clueless.

I know that Jesus is the savior of the world. Along with all the other five year olds in Sunday school!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 05:59 PM
And you presume that you are your own Savior if you insist man can effect or initiate his own redemption by any work that he does. I'm not the one holding to a false binary like the rest of you who are ignorant of Satan's devices.

Show me where I said I can initiate my own Salvation? Post# please.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:00 PM
PPS,

It seems Epo is giving you a headache.

I wodner how long you can keep up with him???

He is sliming away everything you say.

You explain with lengthy posts and he reply with only one sentence.

He is not taking too much time arguing with you.

You don't even have a GED!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. He was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for the entirety of humanity from the dawn of creation to the end of the fallen earth ages.

This is more double talk. Did Christ die for the sins of the non-elect, yes or no?

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:09 PM
I know that Jesus is the savior of the world. Along with all the other five year olds in Sunday school!

Have fun remaining at a child's level of understanding.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Hebrews 5:11-14 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:10 PM
This is more double talk. Did Christ die for the sins of the non-elect, yes or no?

Wrong question.

beloved57
April 17th, 2016, 06:11 PM
This is more double talk. Did Christ die for the sins of the non-elect, yes or no?

No !

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:14 PM
Have fun remaining at a child's level of understanding.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Hebrews 5:11-14 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 1Tim. 4:10

All men and especially of those who believe.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:15 PM
Wrong question.

Didn't think you had the guts to answer it!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:16 PM
No !

At least your honest. Honestly wrong.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:16 PM
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 1Tim. 4:10

All men and especially of those who believe.

It's an anthropocentric question, rather than a theocentric question. There is an answer, but you won't hear it because you're focused on the man-centric conclusion, not the god-centric conclusion.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:18 PM
It's an anthropocentric question, rather than a theocentric question. There is an answer, but you won't hear it because you're focused on the man-centric conclusion, not the god-centric conclusion.

Let's hear the god-centric answer.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:18 PM
I know that Jesus is the savior of the world. Along with all the other five year olds in Sunday school!

No, you don't. And you don't know that you don't and can't know. This is the problem of English speakers, whose only grid is their own autonomy as the final arbitrage of alleged truth.


Show me where I said I can initiate my own Salvation? Post# please.

I said "if". I guess you're either a Monergist (unlikely... LOL)... OR... You presume that you're cooperating somehow WITH Monergism as Synergism; yet denying there must be Monergism for Synergism.


This is more double talk. Did Christ die for the sins of the non-elect, yes or no?

There are no "non-elect". Only the elect. You don't know what elect means, and presume it must be what you understand to be Calvinism.

You're just like a majority of non-linguists and non-theologians throughout history; insisting that your own false autonomy is the foundation for truth, without having any idea what fallacies you espouse from your ignorance of both the language you speak and the languages in which scripture was inspired.

It's an incomparable form of arrogance, magnified by being a contemporary result of Modernism upon culture and eptistemology, etc.

You can never consider that your entire foundation needs to be jack-hammered up, because... Cognitive Dissonance.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:20 PM
I won't spend much time on him. Don't worry. I'm fine.

PPS has joined forces with shak



Wrong. Get a life.

beloved57
April 17th, 2016, 06:21 PM
At least your honest. Honestly wrong.
You wrong

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:27 PM
Let's hear the god-centric answer.

It's not about saved or unsaved, elect or non-elect. It's not about labelling people. Those who are in Christ are timelessly in Christ. As Luther says, you are not a real person until you are regenerated in Christ. Only those who are in Christ have real existence anyway. Everyone else has a shadow of what God intended for life.

So is Christ's sacrifice applicable to all? Technically, it "can be". But that's because it is not about individual acts of sin, but about the quality, character, and activity of the universal sin-condition. But it is only applied and reckoned to those who are in Him.

If the death of Christ did not accomplish victory over all evil/dysfunction, then it was not true victory. But of course it was victory over all dysfunction. Christ, as the incarnation of God's righteousness, fills all unrighteousness with Himself. But that unrighteousness is not filled for those outside of communion with Him.

It's not about separating elect and non-elect, it's about God as the source of all salvation, who timelessly has communion with those in Christ, regardless of "when" "in time" their communion with Him begins. He is beyond time. There is no "beginning" for Him. He "always" knows those who are called by His name.

God does not actively damn those outside of communion. They were already born dead. They remain dead. He is not obligated to save anyone.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post



PPS has joined forces with shak

Hey PJ,

PPS is more in your side than mine. so you should not be so hysterical about him.

You guys are pathetic arguing over the words.

You don't seem to have much of self-esteem.

If you take Jesus' word seriously you will have confidence in your faith.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:32 PM
This is more double talk. Did Christ die for the sins of the non-elect, yes or no?

Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for all mankind of all ages of human history from creation to judgment.

If you knew what that meant in non-English, you wouldn't have to be both beligerent and obtuse in desperate ignorance and arrogance.

When you can tell me the explicit difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns in both the singular and the plural; and you can authentically apply that understanding to the words all rendered in English as some form of the word "sin"; then I can have a meaningful discussion with you beyond your false presuppositions that have caused you to maintain false doctrine.

But if you actually ever understand those Greek noun forms, the only conversation between us would be your humble admission of ignorance and an apology for your inapplicable tyrade of nothingness and nonsense.

Why not be a faithful steward of God's word instead of abusing it from your own false autonomous fallacies?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:35 PM
It's not about saved or unsaved, elect or non-elect. It's not about labelling people. Those who are in Christ are timelessly in Christ. As Luther says, you are not a real person until you are regenerated in Christ. Only those who are in Christ have real existence anyway. Everyone else has a shadow of what God intended for life.

So is Christ's sacrifice applicable to all? Technically, it "can be". But that's because it is not about individual acts of sin, but about the quality, character, and activity of the universal sin-condition. But it is only applied and reckoned to those who are in Him.

If the death of Christ did not accomplish victory over all evil/dysfunction, then it was not true victory. But of course it was victory over all dysfunction. Christ, as the incarnation of God's righteousness, fills all unrighteousness with Himself. But that unrighteousness is not filled for those outside of communion with Him.

It's not about separating elect and non-elect, it's about God as the source of all salvation, who timelessly has communion with those in Christ, regardless of "when" "in time" their communion with Him begins. He is beyond time. There is no "beginning" for Him. He "always" knows those who are called by His name.

God does not actively damn those outside of communion. They were already born dead. They remain dead. He is not obligated to save anyone.

Amen and amen and amen and amen and amen and amen and amen!!!!!!!!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:37 PM
Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for all mankind of all ages of human history from creation to judgment.

If you knew what that meant in non-English, you wouldn't have to be both beligerent and obtuse in desperate ignorance and arrogance.

When you can tell me the explicit difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns in both the singular and the plural; and you can authentically apply that understanding to the words all rendered in English as some form of the word "sin"; then I can have a meaningful discussion with you beyond your false presuppositions that have caused you to maintain false doctrine.

But if you actually ever understand those Greek noun forms, the only conversation between us would be your humble admission of ignorance and an apology for your inapplicable tyrade of nothingness and nonsense.

Why not be a faithful steward of God's word instead of abusing it from your own false autonomous fallacies?

LOL. So did Jesus die for everybody or not? You're an idiot philosopher who can't give a straight answer. Probably some bald guy in the seminary with a paper cut on his tongue.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:38 PM
Amen and amen and amen and amen and amen and amen and amen!!!!!!!!

:D

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 06:44 PM
Probably some bald guy in the seminary with a paper cut on his tongue.
There is something terribly wrong with being bald, in seminary, or having a paper cut???

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:45 PM
LOL. So did Jesus die for everybody or not? You're an idiot philosopher who can't give a straight answer. Probably some bald guy in the seminary with a paper cut on his tongue.

As I clearly said more than once... Jesus was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for all mankind for all ages from creation to judgment.

The reason you think I'm an idiot philosopher (while not knowing what either phileo OR sophos mean) is because you're too ignorant and arrogant to recognize the straighest answer you've ever been given.

At 53, I have nearly a full head of hair. I'm not at a seminary, though I'm planning to get a Doctorate in the next few years because of the widespread ignorance in the body such as yours. And I've rarely had any kind of paper cut.

I guess you have to lash out when you're too imbecilic to recognize your own errors from your own false autonomy without any real understanding of the meaning of scripture.

You don't understand God's timelessness and His incommunicable attributes. If you did, you wouldn't have to say anything you've said.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:46 PM
There is something terribly wrong with being bald, in seminary, or having a paper cut???

I just wanted to find out is Jesus is the savior of the world and I'm being obfuscated to death.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:49 PM
There is something terribly wrong with being bald, in seminary, or having a paper cut???

Apparently these are the things that are test of fellowship and authority, etc. LOL

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:50 PM
I just wanted to find out is Jesus is the savior of the world and I'm being obfuscated to death.

Not in the least; it's the inverse and you CAN'T even know it.

You were given the clearest and most direct answer in the history of the Christian faith. You just don't know what it means, which is the point.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by Epoisses View Post

Probably some bald guy in the seminary with a paper cut on his tongue.

this is so Madist.

You seem to be so intimidated by PPS.

You need to read Jesus' word and have more confidence in your faith, friend.

Jesus' word is so powerful, dear.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:52 PM
Not in the least; it's the inverse and you CAN'T even know it.

You were given the clearest and most direct answer in the history of the Christian faith. You just don't know what it means, which is the point.

No I wasn't and if you really understood you could give a straight answer. Obfuscation is the hallmark of unbelievers like you. Is Jesus Christ the savior of all mankind?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:53 PM
I just wanted to find out is Jesus is the savior of the world and I'm being obfuscated to death.

Of course He is, just as scripture says. Have you ever considered that it's a battle for Monergism instead of being Monergism versus Synergism?

Your Monergism and personal sovereignty is quite intact. Functionally, you negate God's Monergism on your behalf. But you can't know what that means, either.

Sorry for your linguistic illiteracy and arrogant false presumptions. Not my fault. I'm not warring for my own Monergism.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:55 PM
No I wasn't and if you really understood you could give a straight answer. Obfuscation is the hallmark of unbelievers like you. Is Jesus Christ the savior of all mankind?

LOL. Now I'm an unbeliever by your Monergistic judgment. That's very humorous, in a sad kind of way.

Yes, Jesus is the Savior of all mankind. I've said it repeatedly. He was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous) for all mankind for all earth ages from creation to judgment.

You're a trip, there, self-Monergism boy. LOL.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:55 PM
No I wasn't and if you really understood you could give a straight answer. Obfuscation is the hallmark of unbelievers like you. Is Jesus Christ the savior of all mankind?

Do you not see that he actually explains things quite clearly and explicitly? I'm very thankful for his kind explanations of complex concepts.

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 06:56 PM
I just wanted to find out is Jesus is the savior of the world and I'm being obfuscated to death.

1John 2:2 One Calvinist commentary says that John means 'Jews' when he says 'us,' such that 'whole world' means 'not just we Jews.'
I don't know everyone's answer, but I don't believe this necessarily had to be made by a Calvinist. That is, any scholar could understand John to be saying it with such a distinction. For instance, Clarke also suggests the same rendering of the text and Barnes says rather that "propitiation" should be seen as appeasing God's wrath by Christ's action, but not removing sins of unrepentant sinners. Most, as I'm understanding, disagree with a universal application of atonement, Calvinist or no.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 06:56 PM
Of course He is, just as scripture says. Have you ever considered that it's a battle for Monergism instead of being Monergism versus Synergism?

Your Monergism and personal sovereignty is quite intact. Functionally, you negate God's Monergism on your behalf. But you can't know what that means, either.

Sorry for your linguistic illiteracy and arrogant false presumptions. Not my fault. I'm not warring for my own Monergism.

So Jesus Christ died for and saved all mankind at the cross? All you on record as agreeing with that?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:56 PM
No I wasn't and if you really understood you could give a straight answer. Obfuscation is the hallmark of unbelievers like you. Is Jesus Christ the savior of all mankind?

Are you a proponent of Univeral Atonement or Universal Salvation?

Is Jesus the Savior of ALL mankind, with all mankind being saved?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 06:58 PM
So Jesus Christ died for and saved all mankind at the cross? All you on record as agreeing with that?

I'm "on board" with the very clear and succinct answer I've given to your question/s; not your obfuscatory nonsense of continued wrong questions from ignorance.

Are you a Universalist?

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 06:59 PM
So Jesus Christ died for and saved all mankind at the cross? All you on record as agreeing with that?

Your behavior in this discussion betrays that you do not understand what atonement/propitiation/reconciliation/salvation/justification even means.

Did the atonement sacrifice at Yom Kippur cover the sins of everyone in the world? Or just those in Israel? Hm...

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:00 PM
1John 2:2 One Calvinist commentary says that John means 'Jews' when he says us, such that 'whole world' means 'not just we Jews.
I don't know everyone's answer, but I don't believe this necessarily had to be made by a Calvinist. That is, any scholar could understand John to be saying it with such a distinction. For instance, Clarke also suggests the same rendering of the text and Barnes says rather that "propitiation" should be seen as appeasing God's wrath by Christ's action, but not removing sins of unrepentant sinners. Most, as I'm understanding, disagree with a universal application of atonement, Calvinist or no.

Exactly. The context is to include non-Jews. But you can't convince those who are self-taught and operate according to their own false autonomy apart from scripture and its actual meaning.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:00 PM
I'm "on board" with the very clear and succinct answer I've given to your question/s; not your obfuscatory nonsense of continued wrong questions from ignorance.

Are you a Universalist?

I am a proponent of a universal atonement but not a universal Salvation with all men going to heaven.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:01 PM
Your behavior in this discussion betrays that you do not understand what atonement/propitiation/reconciliation/salvation/justification even means.

Did the atonement sacrifice at Yom Kippur cover the sins of everyone in the world? Or just those in Israel? Hm...

Exactly. :)

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:01 PM
Do you not see that he actually explains things quite clearly and explicitly? I'm very thankful for his kind explanations of complex concepts.

Actually, it is not complex concepts.

but you guys are making it as if it is.

You and PPs are doing a good job making your opposes feel inferior with big words because they are not secure of their faith, even though they claim they are secure.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:02 PM
Did the atonement sacrifice at Yom Kippur cover the sins of everyone in the world? Or just those in Israel? Hm...

It didn't cover the sins of anyone. It was just theater and a shadow of the work of Christ.

You think Yom Kippur atoned for sin! LOL For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb.10:4

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:06 PM
I am a proponent of a universal atonement but not a universal Salvation with all men going to heaven.

That's because you have embraced the same linguistic fallacies as the "Neo-Liberal" theologian Karl Barth, who didn't understand Greek articular and anarthrous nouns, either.

Universal Atonement IS Universal Salvation. You don't understand the false ontology promoted by Universal Atonement. I can sniff it out every time.

You're a Pelagian. And... You'll deny it. It's all because of your lack of understanding Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. And you're now accountable for that fact.

What you don't realize is that this "encounter" is divine as provision for you to be taught of the Spirit as you pursue an understanding beyond your false paradox from ignorance of basic Greek grammar represented in your own native language.

I'm guessing you'll ignore it all, though.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:06 PM
It didn't cover the sins of anyone. It was just theater and a shadow of the work of Christ.

You think Yom Kippur atoned for sin! LOL

Wow. You have no understanding of how the OT sacrificial/temple system functioned. No wonder you don't understand salvation.

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 07:07 PM
It didn't cover the sins of anyone. It was just theater and a shadow of the work of Christ.

You think Yom Kippur atoned for sin! LOL For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb.10:4
I think Alethei's referring to John 1:29 though.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:08 PM
Actually, it is not complex concepts.

but you guys are making it as if it is.

You and PPs are doing a good job making your opposes feel inferior with big words because they are not secure of their faith, even though they claim they are secure.

As I said in another thread, maybe "big words" are being used because "small words" are insufficient. Yet you refuse to hear the good news and teaching. Everything we say could be found in a good study bible. If you don't like our big words, why don't you go get a good study bible and use it?

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:08 PM
Wow. You have no understanding of how the OT sacrificial/temple system functioned. No wonder you don't understand salvation.


For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb. 10:4

IDIOT!!!

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:08 PM
It didn't cover the sins of anyone. It was just theater and a shadow of the work of Christ.

You think Yom Kippur atoned for sin! LOL For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb.10:4

I guess you don't understand the distinction between temporary and permanent, either.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:09 PM
I think Alethei's referring to John 1:29 though.

Yes!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:09 PM
You're so dumb!! LOL

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:09 PM
Wow. You have no understanding of how the OT sacrificial/temple system functioned. No wonder you don't understand salvation.

Of course He doesn't. He's an advocate of Universal Atonement.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:09 PM
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb. 10:4

IDIOT!!!

Did you read the book of Hebrews? The sacrifical system covered temporarily, but did not permanently atone. That is why Christ is superior.

If the OT system did not function in atoning sin, then Christ's work is null.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:10 PM
I guess you don't understand the distinction between temporary and permanent, either.

I know that the blood of bulls and goats can't remove sin!!! LOL

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:11 PM
You're so dumb!! LOL

Well... At least this is your most cogent post thus far, even if it's still inaccurate like your entire foundationless doctrines of alleged salvation.

Let me guess... Third Wave Charismatic or New Apostolic Reformationist?

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 07:11 PM
That's because you have embraced the same linguistic fallacies as the "Neo-Liberal" theologian Karl Barth, who didn't understand Greek articular and anarthrous nouns, either.

Universal Atonement IS Universal Salvation. You don't understand the false ontology promoted by Universal Atonement. I can sniff it out every time.

You're a Pelagian. And... You'll deny it. It's all because of your lack of understanding Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. And you're now accountable for that fact.

What you don't realize is that this "encounter" is divine as provision for you to be taught of the Spirit as you pursue an understanding beyond your false paradox from ignorance of basic Greek grammar represented in your own native language.

I'm guessing you'll ignore it all, though.

I'm not sure we are all apt, but I'm glad to see online courses and discussion as well as churches that are taking up the ball and challenge with it. We can at least 'listen' and 'ask' when we come across those who have a better understanding. I've a bit to brush up on, but it is no dishonor to simply say "that's a bit above my pay-grade at the moment. Can you please explain this to me a bit more clearly?"

I'm guessing that you sadly don't get that response very often though? :(

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:11 PM
OMG you're the dumbest smart person I ever met!!!

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:12 PM
Well... At least this is your most cogent post thus far, even if it's still inaccurate like your entire foundationless doctrines of alleged salvation.

Let me guess... Third Wave Charismatic or New Apostolic Reformationist?

LOL. You're an educated moron!

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:12 PM
As I said in another thread, maybe "big words" are being used because "small words" are insufficient. Yet you refuse to hear the good news and teaching. Everything we say could be found in a good study bible. If you don't like our big words, why don't you go get a good study bible and use it?

Nope, thanks. I don't need big words to understand Jesus' simple salvation. I am secure in Jesus' word.

Jesus is for mainly for humble people like me. I feel secure without big words:) Jesus does not endorse puffed up faith.

I will not mess up with Jesus' simple salvation.

You don't seem to realize how chaotic Christianity is. You need to open your eyes to see the reality of it instead of treating like elephant in the room.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:13 PM
I know that the blood of bulls and goats can't remove sin!!! LOL

Again, it would help if you actually knew what "sin" even is, and in all its grammatical forms. It's not hard. I teach it constantly.

You could never face that your entire foundation needs to be dug up and repoured according to the actual meanings of scripture.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:15 PM
Again, it would help if you actually knew what "sin" even is, and in all its grammatical forms. It's not hard. I teach it constantly.

You could never face that your entire foundation needs to be dug up and repoured according to the actual meanings of scripture.

HAHAHA. I got drunk the other night. I'm gonna go kill a goat! LOL

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:16 PM
I'm not sure we are all apt, but I'm glad to see online courses and discussion as well as churches that are taking up the ball and challenge with it. We can at least 'listen' and 'ask' when we come across those who have a better understanding. I've a bit to brush up on, but it is no dishonor to simply say "that's a bit above my pay-grade at the moment. Can you please explain this to me a bit more clearly?"

I'm guessing that you sadly don't get that response very often though? :(

Sadly, not often.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:17 PM
Nope, thanks. I don't need big words to understand Jesus' simple salvation. I am secure in Jesus' word.

Jesus is for mainly for humble people like me. I feel secure without big words:) Jesus does not endorse puffed up faith.

I will not mess up with Jesus' simple salvation.

You don't seem to realize how chaotic Christianity is. You need to open your eyes to see the reality of it instead of treating like elephant in the room.

Wow..."for humble people like me." Humility does not point out humility.

How can you assume that I don't see the chaos of Christianity???? Reconciliation is the call of those in Christ. That is why pure doctrine is so necessary.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure we are all apt, but I'm glad to see online courses and discussion as well as churches that are taking up the ball and challenge with it. We can at least 'listen' and 'ask' when we come across those who have a better understanding. I've a bit to brush up on, but it is no dishonor to simply say "that's a bit above my pay-grade at the moment. Can you please explain this to me a bit more clearly?"

I'm guessing that you sadly don't get that response very often though? :(

I like you! :Db

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:18 PM
How many goats does it take if I cheat on my wife?

Just ask PPS. He thinks goat blood can atone for sin.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:18 PM
OMG you're the dumbest smart person I ever met!!!


LOL. You're an educated moron!


HAHAHA. I got drunk the other night. I'm gonna go kill a goat! LOL

This is the inevitable devolving of a topic when one has no clue what Greek articular and anarthrous nouns mean in English, and they've built their entire foundation on the sand of their own false autonomy that isn't even what their own first language means.

You're likely drunk right now, and not on the Spirit.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:20 PM
Wow..."for humble people like me." Humility does not point out humility.

Humble mean low education and low IQ. You guys seem to be competing with those quality.


How can you assume that I don't see the chaos of Christianity???? Reconciliation is the call of those in Christ. That is why pure doctrine is so necessary.

by reading your posts. You are not much different from your opposers, in the bottom line. Pot kettle...

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:21 PM
This is the inevitable devolving of a topic when one has no clue what Greek articular and anarthrous nouns mean in English, and they've built their entire foundation on the sand of their own false autonomy that isn't even what their own first language means.

You're likely drunk right now, and not on the Spirit.

Alright smart guy with the universal goat atonement!!!

It never gets old. LOL

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:22 PM
Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 17th, 2016, 07:29 PM
Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?

You still think sin is the merely the verb and the resulting act/s. You have no idea what the truth is.

"One single sin." Sin as an individual act is not hamartia/hamartiai. Wrong word altogether, much less not knowing the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns.

You have no idea how wrong you are. None. You don't know what "sin" is.

Epoisses
April 17th, 2016, 07:34 PM
You still think sin is the merely the verb and the resulting act/s. You have no idea what the truth is.

"One single sin." Sin as an individual act is not hamartia/hamartiai. Wrong word altogether, much less not knowing the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns.

You have no idea how wrong you are. None. You don't know what "sin" is.

You're beaten so badly. OMG!! I'll tell you what we'll go get some goats and offer em' up and then head to Vegas!! PARTY TIME!!

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 07:36 PM
Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?
Hebrews 10:4, I agree, regarding the offerings as a foreshadow.
Hebrews 10:5 goes on to say, however, 'that is why it had to be offered every year.'
(what PPS is getting at with his discussion of 'sin' verses 'sins of that year')
So, it isn't exactly what you are thinking here, they had no choice prior to Christ's fulfillment. JohnTB's commentary in John 1:29 was the fulfillment of Yom Kippur, a sacrifice once and for all.

Hebrews 10:8 says they 'were' required by law to sacrifice bulls and goats. but Hebrews 10:9 the one once-and-for-all had done away/replaced the former.

So, you are correct that the first foreshadowed the second, but It wasn't that the blood took sin away, but that "God" took them away in both instances (one the foreshadow of the latter).

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:48 PM
Aleth,

I have heard so many posters boast how high their IQ is.

GM used to mock posters who don't agree with him as non-intellectual. Now he is in the position of not so intellectual talking with you and PPS.

I know Jesus is not impressed with that kind of witnessing.

Aletheiophile
April 17th, 2016, 09:33 PM
Aleth,

I have heard so many posters boast how high their IQ is.

GM used to mock posters who don't agree with him as non-intellectual. Now he is in the position of not so intellectual talking with you and PPS.

I know Jesus is not impressed with that kind of witnessing.

????? I'm not boasting about my IQ. I'm appealing to the authority of the great scholars and theologians that have come before me. Big difference. I am nothing without them.

Nang
April 17th, 2016, 09:44 PM
If you do not believe that God died, you are not even a Christian!

To reject the death of God is to either reject the death of Jesus or to reject that Jesus was/is God. Either way, you're disqualified as a Christian.

You might want to give this more thought, considering the scriptural revelation of the unique hypostatic union of the two natures manifested in Jesus Christ, who was fully Man as well as fully God.

Lon
April 17th, 2016, 09:56 PM
If you do not believe that God died, you are not even a Christian!

To reject the death of God is to either reject the death of Jesus or to reject that Jesus was/is God. Either way, you're disqualified as a Christian.
God cannot die, but the Christ who died on the Cross was God.
You might want to give this more thought, considering the scriptural revelation of the unique hypostatic union of the two natures manifested in Jesus Christ, who was fully Man as well as fully God.
Nang is correct. See here (https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/god-cannot-die-jesus-died-therefore-jesus-cannot-be-god) a short explanation. Deuteronomy 32:40

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 04:46 AM
No, you don't. You don't know what words mean. I've tried to help you and you just want to persist in your false concepts.What false concepts when I just quoted Jesus own words? He said He will reward every man when He returns. What's false with it?

No. Because you don't know the difference between eternal (aidios) and everlasting (aionis). Eternity is timeless and spaceless, so it isn't "from" "to".Oh sorry. I should have used "from everlasting to everlasting" instead of "from eternity to eternity" since you take issue that the two phrases do not mean the same. But here's Scriptures:KJV John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.Seems like eternal and everlasting are interchangeable since "eternal" in v15 and "everlasting" in v16 are both from the same Greek αἰώνιον, adjective normal accusative feminine singular no degree, from αἰώνιος. I'm just beginning to wonder whether you really are what you are claiming.

meshak
April 18th, 2016, 04:57 AM
????? I'm not boasting about my IQ.
Don't flatter yourself.

I am not talking about just yourself.

meshak
April 18th, 2016, 05:02 AM
????? I'm not boasting about my IQ. I'm appealing to the authority of the great scholars and theologians that have come before me. Big difference. I am nothing without them.

How mpressive. You find the truth in men's wisdom, not from Jesus.

You see, your kind of faith make Jesus' simple gospel complicated. It is a grave sin to do that.

All denominational doctrines stem from your kind of faith which leads to chaotic Christianity.

Look at the mambo jumbo talk of this thread.

What you are doing is all about your ego, nothing esle.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 05:56 AM
No. You just presume that I did because you quoted my post before I edited it to clarify that man takes no INITIATIVE action for salvation. You don't, and can't, understand the vital importance of knowing the difference between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. You have changed and added to the text, and without being able to know it.Here's the text you said I changed and added to, that says Jesus will reward every man according to what he has done:NIV Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

NIV Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.Seems like you were not telling the truth in saying I changed and added to the text. What I posted is basically what the verse is saying.


Man takes no INITIATIVE action whatsoever.And that's what I had been saying in this forum. The INITIATIVE comes from God through Christ that's why people are born In Christ, hence they are born spiritually alive. People don't believe to be In Christ; they already are In Christ. But Arminians say that people need to first believe to be In Christ. And that's why I say they have a dilemma, because they require whom they consider to be yet spiritually dead to first believe so that they can become spiritually alive. Is this rocket science you can't seem to understand what I mean?


You are a heretical Universal Atonement proponent and an Arminian to the point of being some degree of Pelagian.That's why I say you don't understand my position. It's clear from Scriptures that Jesus died for all, for every man (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). How? Paul said a One New Man was created on the cross: Christ the Head, Humanity (Jews & Gentiles) the Body (Eph 2:11-19). There was yet no Ephesian nor Corinthian believer when Christ died, because it was Paul who preached Christ to them. But if only believers died with Christ, it follows that since there were no "believers" yet when He died, then no one died with Him and the One New Man has a Head but without a Body.

But No; the Body existed on the cross. It was in His Body that Christ carried humanity's sins (1 Pet 2:24), for He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the believers only? No, the sin of the world (John 1:29). That Body on the cross was us all - Jews and Gentiles - with all our sins. Having died with Him, we were likewise resurrected together with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), born again into a new hope of life eternal (1 Pet 1:3). Attached to the Head, the Body now has His Power to overcome evil with good (Phil 4:13; Rom 12:21). They now can believe to overcome the evil of disbelief and unbelief. They can now repent to overcome the evil of impenitence. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 06:19 AM
Here's the text you said I changed and added to, that says Jesus will reward every man according to what he has done:NIV Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

NIV Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.Seems like you were not telling the truth in saying I changed and added to the text. What I posted is basically what the verse is saying.

And that's what I had been saying in this forum. The INITIATIVE comes from God through Christ that's why people are born In Christ, hence they are born spiritually alive. People don't believe to be In Christ; they already are In Christ. But Arminians say that people need to first believe to be In Christ. And that's why I say they have a dilemma, because they require whom they consider to be yet spiritually dead to first believe so that they can become spiritually alive. Is this rocket science you can't seem to understand what I mean?

That's why I say you don't understand my position. It's clear from Scriptures that Jesus died for all, for every man (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). How? Paul said a One New Man was created on the cross: Christ the Head, Humanity (Jews & Gentiles) the Body (Eph 2:11-19). There was yet no Ephesian nor Corinthian believer when Christ died, because it was Paul who preached Christ to them. But if only believers died with Christ, it follows that since there were no "believers" yet when He died, then no one died with Him and the One New Man has a Head but without a Body.

But No; the Body existed on the cross. It was in His Body that Christ carried humanity's sins (1 Pet 2:24), for He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the believers only? No, the sin of the world (John 1:29). That Body on the cross was us all - Jews and Gentiles - with all our sins. Having died with Him, we were likewise resurrected together with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), born again into a new hope of life eternal (1 Pet 1:3). Attached to the Head, the Body now has His Power to overcome evil with good (Phil 4:13; Rom 12:21). They now can believe to overcome the evil of disbelief and unbelief. They can now repent to overcome the evil of impenitence. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

There's one heremeneutical context you don't understand, and you don't know how Greek noun forms affect English understanding.

This is why you presume to be right when you read the text. And you'll fight to the death for your conceptualizations. This is why every man's false autonomy can't be THE standard for truth and scriptural meaning.

We can't even converse because of your erroneous presuppositions and resulting deductions. THIS is why the modern Church-at-large is so jacked. The entire New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism and Denominational False Ecumenism are apostate and have Trojan Horsed endless theological garbage within the body as seed of A word to grow tares among the wheat.

If you knew language nuances in translation, you'd be appalled at yourself and all others like you. Instead, you refuse to take heed and just continue on more beliegerent than when you started.

I think you ultimately have a heart for truth. What you don't realize is the damage you're doing to yourself and any others who agree with you or learn from you. You're accountable for that, just as others are accountable for the many similar things they have infused into the Body that is shades of untruth because of language fallacies.

Sad.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 06:33 AM
What false concepts when I just quoted Jesus own words? He said He will reward every man when He returns. What's false with it?
Oh sorry. I should have used "from everlasting to everlasting" instead of "from eternity to eternity" since you take issue that the two phrases do not mean the same. But here's Scriptures:KJV John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.Seems like eternal and everlasting are interchangeable since "eternal" in v15 and "everlasting" in v16 are both from the same Greek αἰώνιον, adjective normal accusative feminine singular no degree, from αἰώνιος. I'm just beginning to wonder whether you really are what you are claiming.

What you don't and can't realize is how much this magnifies and underscores everything I've said. You've said "seems like" eternal and everlasting are interchangeable. Yeah... It "seems like" that because of everything I've said. And your "seems like" is exactly what scripture means when referring to "there's a way that 'seems right' to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death".

You've emphasized my exact point about Greek anarthrous nouns (and their necessary anarthrous adjectives that modify them).

In John 3:15-16, aionios is rendered eternal rather than everlasting because it's an anarthrous adjective for an anarthrous noun; indicating the quality and character and activity OF that everlasting life coming from it's eternal source.

You can't innately have life that had no beginning, for you are created and had an inception. But God exhibited the greatest love when He laid down His life (psuche - soul life) for His friends. It is because God, in Christ, laid down the eternal inner qualities and characteristics and functional activity of HIS life, that we might be born from above for all everlasting.

It's the anarthrous noun and its adjective that reveals this, and you have once again presumed to change word meanings just because of your ignorant arrogant presumption from your autonomous English perspective from which anarthrous Greek nouns are changed by your own prerogative of false deductive reasoning of "seems like".

It's not me who you should be wondering about, but yourself. Adding to scripture by subtracting anarthrous nouns is the most monumental subtraction of meaning in the history of mankind; and you're complicit in your oblivious ignorance and fixation upon maintaining some idea that you've presented and/or resolved some alleged paradox about Arminians (and Calvinists, I suppose).

You're just wrong, and egregiously so. But you can't be taught or told, so go ahead a pollute the Body further with your nonsense. Nobody can stop you. You're autonomy is what modern culture is all about. Relativism.

Everybody can be right in their own eyes. But not God's.

I don't do this to be "the guy" or for arrogant condescension. I do this to rigorously defend the authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith from damage done WITHIN by well-meaning, but deluded, autonomists. This is the category you've put yourself in. And you can still hear truth and walk away from your fallacies. If you will.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 06:36 AM
How mpressive. You find the truth in men's wisdom, not from Jesus.

You see, your kind of faith make Jesus' simple gospel complicated. It is a grave sin to do that.

All denominational doctrines stem from your kind of faith which leads to chaotic Christianity.

Look at the mambo jumbo talk of this thread.

What you are doing is all about your ego, nothing esle.

I'm not going to deal with you. You cannot and will not be reasoned with.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 06:39 AM
Declaring that all humanity is in Christ denies the Gospel.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 06:39 AM
There's one heremeneutical context you don't understand, and you don't know how Greek noun forms affect English understanding.

This is why you presume to be right when you read the text. And you'll fight to the death for your conceptualizations. This is why every man's false autonomy can't be THE standard for truth and scriptural meaning.

We can't even converse because of your erroneous presuppositions and resulting deductions. THIS is why the modern Church-at-large is so jacked. The entire New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism and Denominational False Ecumenism are apostate and have Trojan Horsed endless theological garbage within the body as seed of A word to grow tares among the wheat.

If you knew language nuances in translation, you'd be appalled at yourself and all others like you. Instead, you refuse to take heed and just continue on more beliegerent than when you started.

I think you ultimately have a heart for truth. What you don't realize is the damage you're doing to yourself and any others who agree with you or learn from you. You're accountable for that, just as others are accountable for the many similar things they have infused into the Body that is shades of untruth because of language fallacies.

Sad.I don't think you are in a position to be so sure of yourself. Why? How could you be when in the simple matter of "eternal" and "everlasting" you were not even right.

But face the issue mentioned in my posts, squarely. Don't just answer with all your blah blah's. What in my position is not in accord with what the Bible says? Again, according to what the Bible says NOT according to what you want the Bible to say.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 06:45 AM
Declaring that all humanity is [i]in[/in] Christ denies the Gospel.According to you.

But God so loved the world (Jn 3:16). The Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:19). God is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10). Jesus died for every man (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). Jesus came to give life to the world (Jn 6:33). Jesus came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15).

We can go on and on.

Your turn to show Scriptures.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 06:55 AM
I don't think you are in a position to be so sure of yourself. Why? How could you be when in the simple matter of "eternal" and "everlasting" you were not even right.

Really? Read the response to your ridiculously ignorant post about eternal and everlasting. And please note that you even accessed language tools and STILL had no idea why you were wrong. Maybe the Body has Teachers and leadership for a reason, so everyone isn't running around with infinite variations of theology because of their false autonomy and their English-tainted minds with diluted and conflated meanings for everything.


But face the issue mentioned in my posts, squarely. Don't just answer with all your blah blah's. What in my position is not in accord with what the Bible says? Again, according to what the Bible says NOT according to what you want the Bible to say.

I did. Read it above.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 06:57 AM
According to you.

But God so loved the world (Jn 3:16). The Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:19). God is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10). Jesus died for every man (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). Jesus came to give life to the world (Jn 6:33). Jesus came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15).

We can go on and on.

Your turn to show Scriptures.

It does no good to proof-text when on has no idea what words mean, beginning with anarthrous nouns and all they affect in every aspect.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 06:57 AM
In John 3:15-16, aionios is rendered eternal rather than everlasting because it's an anarthrous adjective for an anarthrous noun; indicating the quality and character and activity OF that everlasting life coming from it's eternal source.Wrong again. Eternal in v15 and everlasting in v16 are both from aionios.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:02 AM
It does no good to proof-text when on has no idea what words mean, beginning with anarthrous nouns and all they affect in every aspect.You are so enamored with your anarthrous invention. And who decides which is anarthrous and which is not? You?

That explains why you have to recourse to your anarthrous invention because you know you have no haven in Scriptures for your false theology.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 07:02 AM
It does no good to proof-text when on has no idea what words mean, beginning with anarthrous nouns and all they affect in every aspect.

Bonus... Tell everyone exactly what it means to be "in" Christ.

You can't. At best, it will be some tedious descriptive nothing as an analogy or about the things we do, or whatever.

I can explicitly outline every last exegetical and lexical nuance to illustrate the ontology and birth Jesus Christ into Believers; because that's what I'm called and equipped to do. My language study was part of the preparation for that.

You cheapen the Gospel by pretending to know what you don't know, and insisting on "teaching" others some alleged truth that is merely based on a horrific surface conceptualized deduction of your own unrenewed mind of flesh.

Any Believer would have heard my words by now and been quickened to the heart. Please stop.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:05 AM
Bonus... Tell everyone exactly what it means to be "in" Christ.

You can't. At best, it will be some tedious descriptive nothing as an analogy or about the things we do, or whatever.Then you did not even read my earlier posts. To be In Christ is simple even a first grader knows:

To be part of His Body.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:06 AM
Can you explain your theology as simple as I have done?

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:07 AM
Then you did not even read my earlier posts. To be In Christ is simple even a first grader knows:

To be part of His Body.Any objection? Spit it out. I will answer with Scriptures.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 07:12 AM
Wrong again. Eternal in v15 and everlasting in v16 are both from aionios.

And I told you exactly why. You still can't understand. English doesn't determine the meaning of Greek in arrears.

Aidios only appears in the inspired text in two places. Aionios is what is present everywhere else eternal or everlasting is rendered.

And this is huge area of general ignorance throughout Christian history. The difficulty in presenting the clear distinctions between eternal and everlasting. Much of that is because of individuals like you arguing in utter and abject ignorance about language with linguists.

Eternal is the quality and character and functional activity of the anarthrous form when applied to the noun aionios, which is everlasting.

Just because word meanings overlap, it doesn't mean they're interchangeable. You can stop being arrogant and presuming to know linguistics any time.

Why do people do this? You wouldn't go into a surgeon's office and start arguing about some subtle distinction in medical terms. You wouldn't do this to a computer programmer about a computer LANGUAGE. You wouldn't do this with very many technical fields and the expertise needed to know what most don't know who don't have the background and understanding, etc.

But no. Believers presume that they can know every nuance of meaning without being linguists, and solely deal with English. And then when they DO access some language tool, it's like they went into the operating room and grabbed the scalpel and started cutting without being a surgeon.

Seriously? Get over yourself. Theologians need to be linguists on some scale. Not all linguists are qualified theologians; but all theologians really need to be linguists.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 07:17 AM
Then you did not even read my earlier posts. To be In Christ is simple even a first grader knows:

To be part of His Body.

What does that even mean? You say these conceptual things that have no literal or figurative meaning.

And you're wrong. It's about hypostatic translation into Christ, and putting on His prosopon. You don't and can't know what that means.

But your ignorance not only doesn't stop you, it seems to fuel you. The "wronger" you are, the more you're determined to go on.

Stop already with your conceptualized nothingness. And no unbelievers are part of the Body of Christ, Universalist. If someone is IN Christ, they are saved to the uttermost. So now you made all mankind saved to the uttermost.

Universalism.


Can you explain your theology as simple as I have done?

I would never dare dumb-down and misrepresent the inspired text and the Gospel in such a manner as you presume to have done in your gross error. Don't drag me into that pit with you. You're there all by yourself.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 07:17 AM
According to you.

But God so loved the world (Jn 3:16). The Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:19). God is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10). Jesus died for every man (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). Jesus came to give life to the world (Jn 6:33). Jesus came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15).

We can go on and on.

Your turn to show Scriptures.

Universally accessible does not mean universally applied.

Matt. 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
Christ is the narrow gate. He explicitly says that not all will enter.

Matt. 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
"I never knew you," He says. Doesn't sound like all are in Him.

Matt. 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Hm, sounds like there's a distinction.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
From the mouth of Christ.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
That whoever believed shall not perish. There's a perishing for those unbelieving.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Same sermon. Same message. Unbelief = perishing.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
"To them which are in..." sounds pretty exclusive to me.

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh.
If all men are in Christ, how would Paul being cut off from Christ accomplish anything? It signifies that there are those who are not in Christ.

Romans 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Hm...even some of natural Israel are excluded.

Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Why would there be different vessels if all are in Christ?

Romans 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[c] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”
A Remnant. Doesn't sound like all or even a majority to me.

Romans 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Hm...if all are in Christ, why would we have to put Him on?

1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Again, to them that are sanctified--That's a limiting phrase.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Again, a group of people not in the Kingdom of God.

2 Thes 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Hm...Looks like a distinction there between damned and elect.

2 Thes 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Paul is clearly delineating saved and damned -- those who love the truth and those who are deceived

All that you quoted from scripture is true. But He didn't die for acts of sin(s). That's not what hamartia means. He was made the quality/character/activity of the dysfunctionality of the sin condition. That's the universal condition. But the death is not universally applied. Accessible, but not applied.

The OT sacrifices only cleansed the sins of those in Israel, not outside. Foreigners had to enter Israel in order to receive the atonement.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:18 AM
So much for eternal and everlasting. You were already proven wrong. But you can assume you were the one correct. Be content with that.

Back to topic. Any objection that to be in Christ is to be part of His Body? I'm waiting...

If none, then you agree...

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:21 AM
Universally accessible does not mean universally applied.How can you access His Power if He did not apply it to you first?

You have an answer for this, so we can proceed with the remaining portion of your post? I'll wait.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 18th, 2016, 07:24 AM
So much for eternal and everlasting. You were already proven wrong. But you can assume you were the one correct. Be content with that.

Back to topic. Any objection that to be in Christ is to be part of His Body? I'm waiting...

If none, then you agree...

I clearly explained eternal and everlasting to you TWICE above. You still ignore it and proceed with your false understanding and assertions.

You're everything that is wrong with modernity in the Christian faith. I'm done. You won't listen to truth. You are accountable for every word you speak and write according to this untruth.

Your mind is not renewed, and you have made all mankind saved to the uttermost. I have no time for insolent and ignorant non-linguists who presume to be theologians while destroying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and insisting every living human in all of history has been saved.

And you don't get to determine that I agree with you because I won't respond further. What a douchebag.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 07:28 AM
You are so enamored with your anarthrous invention. And who decides which is anarthrous and which is not? You?

That explains why you have to recourse to your anarthrous invention because you know you have no haven in Scriptures for your false theology.

http://i.imgur.com/L8sYK6u.jpg

Oh lookie. My study bible has it too!

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:29 AM
What does that even mean? You say these conceptual things that have no literal or figurative meaning.You don't know its meaning when you are showing off your anarthrous invention? You're not aware of 1 Cor 12? Read it so you will know what I'm talking about being part of the Body of Christ.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:30 AM
http://i.imgur.com/L8sYK6u.jpg

Oh lookie. My study bible has it too!Oh sorry. I am satisfied with the Bible only as the infallible word of God.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 07:30 AM
How can you access His Power if He did not apply it to you first?

You have an answer for this, so we can proceed with the remaining portion of your post? I'll wait.

...That's the point. It's only accessed by those to whom it is applied. I.E. Those that are called. Those who are His sheep and hear His voice. Those who hear the Word of God, repent and believe unto salvation. It's accessed when it is applied.

Because it is not about what man does. It has never been about what man does. It will never be about what man does. It is only ever what God has done in Christ. Period.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 07:31 AM
Oh sorry. I am satisfied with the Bible only as the infallible word of God.

...That is from my bible. It's a study help, for reading the Greek text. Because the New Testament is originally a Greek text. :duh:

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:33 AM
I clearly explained eternal and everlasting to you TWICE above. You still ignore it and proceed with your false understanding and assertions.

You're everything that is wrong with modernity in the Christian faith. I'm done. You won't listen to truth. You are accountable for every word you speak and write according to this untruth.

Your mind is not renewed, and you have made all mankind saved to the uttermost. I have no time for insolent and ignorant non-linguists who presume to be theologians while destroying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and insisting every living human in all of history has been saved.

And you don't get to determine that I agree with you because I won't respond further. What a douchebag.Thanks for your time, learned and wise one.

Best Regards,

Samie, a child in the arms of the Master.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:35 AM
...That is from my bible. It's a study help, for reading the Greek text. Because the New Testament is originally a Greek text. :duh:Who doesn't know that the NT was written in koine Greek, brother?

Back to topic. You have something to address here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117065-Arminians-Dilemma&p=4679374&viewfull=1#post4679374). I'm waiting.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:40 AM
...That's the point. It's only accessed by those to whom it is applied. I.E. Those that are called. Those who are His sheep and hear His voice. Those who hear the Word of God, repent and believe unto salvation. It's accessed when it is applied.

Because it is not about what man does. It has never been about what man does. It will never be about what man does. It is only ever what God has done in Christ. Period.So, when does one become His sheep? Before having been applied with His Power, of after having been applied with His Power?

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:48 AM
So, when does one become His sheep? Before having been applied with His Power, of after having been applied with His Power?While waiting for your response to my question, here's my position: People are born in Christ, part of His Body, sheep of His pasture.


What's yours?

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:50 AM
While waiting for your response to my question, here's my position: People are born in Christ, part of His Body, sheep of His pasture.It's all because of what God through Christ has done for humanity in His life, death, and resurrection.

Now, let's see your answer.

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 07:55 AM
So, when does one become His sheep? Before having been applied with His Power, of after having been applied with His Power?

Wrong question.

meshak
April 18th, 2016, 07:57 AM
I'm not going to deal with you. You cannot and will not be reasoned with.

I understand.

You are too majority centered and popularly approved.

You don't want to deal with bottom line of hypocrisy.

It is too politically and religiously incorrect to do that.

good day.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 07:58 AM
Wrong question.OK. Good night, brother. Don't waste my time. You don't know your theology despite your bragging about it.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 08:04 AM
Looks like Aleth and PPS have thrown in the towel.

Let's get back to the Arminians' Dilemma.

Again, to resolve the dilemma, one only has to believe that people are born In Christ, part of His Body, sheep of His pasture, because of what God through Christ's life, death & resurrection, has done for humanity. Hence, non-believers are able to believe because they are already spiritually alive, being already In Christ. Unless Christ Himself removes them from His Body by blotting their names from the book of life, they remain part of the Body of Christ. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.

Any objections?

Epoisses
April 18th, 2016, 08:09 AM
There's one heremeneutical context you don't understand, and you don't know how Greek noun forms affect English understanding.

This is why you presume to be right when you read the text. And you'll fight to the death for your conceptualizations. This is why every man's false autonomy can't be THE standard for truth and scriptural meaning.

We can't even converse because of your erroneous presuppositions and resulting deductions. THIS is why the modern Church-at-large is so jacked. The entire New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism and Denominational False Ecumenism are apostate and have Trojan Horsed endless theological garbage within the body as seed of A word to grow tares among the wheat.

If you knew language nuances in translation, you'd be appalled at yourself and all others like you. Instead, you refuse to take heed and just continue on more beliegerent than when you started.

I think you ultimately have a heart for truth. What you don't realize is the damage you're doing to yourself and any others who agree with you or learn from you. You're accountable for that, just as others are accountable for the many similar things they have infused into the Body that is shades of untruth because of language fallacies.

Sad.

I bet they know that the blood of bulls and goats can't remove sins. Apparently the educated dumb a$$es haven't figured that out yet. Edumacation Fail!!!

Epoisses
April 18th, 2016, 08:11 AM
It does no good to proof-text when on has no idea what words mean, beginning with anarthrous nouns and all they affect in every aspect.

So the bible can't be read at face value? Hasn't done you much good, intellectual idiot.

Epoisses
April 18th, 2016, 08:14 AM
Bonus... Tell everyone exactly what it means to be "in" Christ.

You can't. At best, it will be some tedious descriptive nothing as an analogy or about the things we do, or whatever.

Being 'in Christ' means you're a son or daughter of Adam and we were placed there at the incarnation. Notice I did not say I believe in the universal 'goat' atonement like you.

Epoisses
April 18th, 2016, 08:23 AM
...That's the point. It's only accessed by those to whom it is applied. I.E. Those that are called. Those who are His sheep and hear His voice. Those who hear the Word of God, repent and believe unto salvation. It's accessed when it is applied.

Because it is not about what man does. It has never been about what man does. It will never be about what man does. It is only ever what God has done in Christ. Period.

It is accessed by faith and human faith does not happen at the cross. Paul spoke of those who make ship-wreck of their faith. How does a reprobate person make ship-wreck of their faith when they were never given any to begin with. More hyper-grace trash.

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 08:42 AM
It is accessed by faith and human faith does not happen at the cross. Paul spoke of those who make ship-wreck of their faith. How does a reprobate person make ship-wreck of their faith when they were never given any to begin with. More hyper-grace trash.Faith is what energizes people to do what is pleasing in God's sight, for without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6); so, God dealt a measure of faith to every man (Rom 12:3), because He wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:3, 4).

But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

Clete
April 18th, 2016, 08:48 AM
You might want to give this more thought, considering the scriptural revelation of the unique hypostatic union of the two natures manifested in Jesus Christ, who was fully Man as well as fully God.

You telling me to give anything more thought is a laugh!

If God didn't die, we are all still in our sins. It was the fact that is was God doing the dying the made the death of sufficient value to pay the sin debt of anything more than a single other person. One perfect human would make a sufficient sacrifice for another human being but not enough to pay for even two other people never mind millions or billions and perhaps trillions of other people.

Besides, its just the gospel we're talking about.

God became a man.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!


God (Jesus) died - first spiritually then physically.

Spiritual death (spiritual separation from God the Father):

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

Physical Death (spiritual separation from the body):

Matthew 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

God rose from the dead.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

John 20: 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Acts 3:14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.


Believe it or die in your sin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 18th, 2016, 08:57 AM
God cannot die, but the Christ who died on the Cross was God.
Contradict yourself much?

Jesus was the physical incarnation of the Creator (John 1). You cannot get to be any more God than that!

God the Father did not die nor did God the Holy Spirit but only God the Son who was with God in the beginning and was God (John 1).

God the Son died and was resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8).

None of this is new. None of this is even controversial. If you aren't familiar with it its because those who have taught you Christian doctrine suck.


Nang is correct. See here (https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/god-cannot-die-jesus-died-therefore-jesus-cannot-be-god) a short explanation. Deuteronomy 32:40

Nang is not even a Christian! The god she worships doesn't simply allow children to be raped and murdered, He causes it to happen. A point she WILL NOT DENY.

She is a fraud and a liar. She is correct about nothing. A wolf in sheep's clothing and bound for Hell if she does not repent, which almost certainly will not happen because her mind is broken.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 09:24 AM
The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). So if Adam died that same day he fell into sin, then, he would have paid for the sin he committed. But that's his eternal end. He would have paid for his sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves.

So God implemented the plan He devised before the foundation of the world, before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:8-10). He made a way whereby man might not only be able to pay for his sin committed but also at the same time have another shot at life eternal. The death of an animal that same day Adam sinned, as with all animal sacrifices of the old covenant, pointed forward to the death on the cross of the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. No wonder, Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world!!!

On the cross, God through Christ created a One New Man: Christ the Head, humanity - Jews & Gentiles - the Body. Thus, He carried humanity's sin in His Body on the tree (1 Pet 2:24), because humanity was His Body on the cross (Eph 2:11-19). When the Head died, the Body died (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9); when the Head resurrected, the Body was resurrected TOGETHER with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), born again into a living hope of life eternal (1 Pet 1:3).

Being part of His Body, we are attached to Him Who is our Strength (Phil 4:13) for overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:21), and given faith (Rom 12:3) so we could please God (Heb 11:6), we have His Power to overcome. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

Samie
April 18th, 2016, 10:15 AM
It's past midnight from where I am. Good night, brethren.

chrysostom
April 18th, 2016, 10:19 AM
It's past midnight from where I am. Good night, brethren.

good night

Aletheiophile
April 18th, 2016, 11:10 AM
It is accessed by faith and human faith does not happen at the cross. Paul spoke of those who make ship-wreck of their faith. How does a reprobate person make ship-wreck of their faith when they were never given any to begin with. More hyper-grace trash.


http://youtu.be/zrWoG8IckyE

Seriously, that makes no sense.

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 05:29 PM
Contradict yourself much?
Listen brother, at one time, I was exactly of the same mind as you. I am wide open to correction, but I think it is true that God cannot die.
Death is 'separation from God' and death is departure from a human body. There is a part of Jesus, then, that cannot die, but certainly He left His physical body. For me "die" was the focal point of grasping what people were saying.


Jesus was the physical incarnation of the Creator (John 1). You cannot get to be any more God than that!Agree.


God the Father did not die nor did God the Holy Spirit but only God the Son who was with God in the beginning and was God (John 1). In John 2:19, Jesus says: "Destroy this temple/body and in three days, I will raise it up again. God the Son did not cease to exist, though. John 4:24 reminds us that God is Spirit (not physical) but Christ was physical, as a human. However, He was also God as Spirit. I'm not horribly hung up on terminology and the friction it causes, but at one time I was, so I think I appreciate where you are coming from AND I think when terms are spelled out, especially "death" we'd likely be on the same page coming out the other side of the discussion.


God the Son died and was resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8). Yes. Jesus said He'd raise Himself and the Father is said to have raised Him also. That's an expression and understanding of why we are Trinitarian.


None of this is new. None of this is even controversial. If you aren't familiar with it its because those who have taught you Christian doctrine suck.Not new. Some controversy "I think" because of how we define "death." Many think of it as cessation of existence. I agree God tasted death, but He overcame it.




Nang is not even a Christian! The god she worships doesn't simply allow children to be raped and murdered, He causes it to happen. A point she WILL NOT DENY.

She is a fraud and a liar. She is correct about nothing. A wolf in sheep's clothing and bound for Hell if she does not repent, which almost certainly will not happen because her mind is broken.


Resting in Him,
Clete Probably a point worth mentioning and I do disagree with that. I simply wanted to address whether God died on the cross or not. Thanks for dialogue. -Lon

Nang
April 18th, 2016, 09:33 PM
Probably a point worth mentioning and I do disagree with that.

Whether God is the cause of rapes? I would hope you disagree . . and I have never advocated such.

I have testified my belief that God is the first cause of all things; qualified with the understanding that God is not the author of sin. God created man with secondary moral agency, to live according to His most holy standards (Law), and man's' failures to do so, in all their vile forms, is totally blamed on the sinful creature . . Not upon the Creator.

Clete hatefully wants to find fault with the Reformed beliefs, so he resorts to inventing claims and false witness against us, that are totally unfounded.

I categorically deny ever blaming God for being responsible for rapes or for any sin committed by any of His creatures, anytime, anywhere, or anyhow.

God created man.

Man sinned.

God reconciled undeserving sinners.

So be it.

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 10:36 PM
Whether God is the cause of rapes? I would hope you disagree . . and I have never advocated such.

I have testified my belief that God is the first cause of all things; qualified with the understanding that God is not the author of sin. God created man with secondary moral agency, to live according to His most holy standards (Law), and man's' failures to do so, in all their vile forms, is totally blamed on the sinful creature . . Not upon the Creator.

Clete hatefully wants to find fault with the Reformed beliefs, so he resorts to inventing claims and false witness against us, that are totally unfounded.

I categorically deny ever blaming God for being responsible for rapes or for any sin committed by any of His creatures, anytime, anywhere, or anyhow.

God created man.

Man sinned.

God reconciled undeserving sinners.

So be it.
I've always been under this impression from you. I simply was trying to avoid getting side-tracked from talking about the nature of Christ as God dying on the cross. I'm not sure what the other had to do with this thread.