User Tag List

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 233

Thread: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

  1. #91
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I understand what you're saying, but Jesus also had a natural body, so it wasn't a full dichotomy. Being the "second man" didn't mean the second in a line of men that are the same, but Jesus was starting a new line, one that didn't have the sin nature. Adam was the first "race" of man, and Jesus is the second--one that is not headed toward death.
    Derf, the whole "context" is about the two different bodies which the Christian will put on. You ignore the context and place a total and unrelated meaning on what Paul is discussing.

    Let us look at this passage again:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words above which are "underlined" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here in "bold":

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Since this verse is speaking about salvation "through sanctification of the Spirit" then why would we not think that 1 Peter 1:2 is also speaking about salvation?

    What do you think that the words "through sanctification of the Spirit" mean?

    Thanks!

  2. #92
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    So are you saying that when the jailer believed then as a result his household was saved?
    No. I'm saying that this verse does not prove your point.

    You still have not answered what is in "bold" in this verse:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).
    Interesting that you should think that salvation comes through sanctification and not justification.... Are you becoming Catholic?

    However, I think you're attempting to tie "chosen" to "sanctification" a bit too closely. The original text reads:

    πετρος αποστολος ιησου χριστου εκλεκτοις παρεπιδημοις διασπορας ποντου γαλατιας καππαδοκιας ασιας και βιθυνιας

    Peter, an apostle of Christ, to the chosen refugees who are scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
    The use of "who are chosen" is an attempt to smooth out Greek phraseology, so that the subsequent prepositional phrases make sense.

    Also, you are attempting to connect these prepositional phrases together, and I don't think there is warrant for that. Peter is making three distinct assertions about them: Foreknown, sanctified, obedient, and sprinkled.

    So, the text as it was written doesn't support your contention.

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Therefore, it is evident that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking about "salvation" and nothing less.
    Again, unless you're embracing Catholic soteriology, you have a problem, as you've just claimed that we are saved by sanctification, not justification.

    And the fact remains that they became chosen when they believed. Paul is referring to the time when this church began.

    So, once again, without the assumption of individual election, we cannot conclude individual election.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  3. #93
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    No. I'm saying that this verse does not prove your point.
    It does indeed prove my point that salvation is in regard to "indiviuals" and is not "corporate" in nature. The following verse proves what I said is correct:

    "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"
    (Ro.1:16).

    Don't overlook the words in "bold."

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Interesting that you should think that salvation comes through sanctification and not justification.... Are you becoming Catholic?
    Let us look at this verse again:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Do you deny that the words "through sanctification of the Spirit" have nothing to do with receiving salvation? I have already explained what those words mean to you but I will repeat what I said. Please note what is in "bold" here:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    In this passage the Greek word translated "through" means "of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished...by means of, by (through)" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

    So we can see that being "elected" is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

    Therefore, we can understand that being chosen or elected is through the instrumentality of the Spirit when He separates a person to God. That happens when a person is baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit:

    "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit"
    (1 Cor.12:13).

    It is "indivduals" who are baptized into the Body of Christ. So these words must be in regard to the LORD foreknowing "individuals." Therefore, we can understand that the being elected or chosen mentioned at 1 Peter 1:1-2 is in regard to being baptized into the Body of Christ by One Spirit; therefore it is "salvation" which is in view at 1 Peter 1:2 and hence it is the "individual" which is foreknown by God.

    If I am wrong then give me your own interpreation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    Thanks!
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 16th, 2017 at 11:21 AM.

  4. #94
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    (1) You ignored what I said about the wording of 1 Peter 1:1-2. Peter identifies the elect refugees from the various regions, and then says that they are saved through sanctification. The connection doesn't exist as you attempt to make it.

    (2)Let's read some context in 2 Thess 2:

    13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    They became chosen by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Believing came before becoming chosen.

    Further, they were called to become chosen by the preaching of the gospel.

    So, once again, you've assumed the conclusion and missed the text. "Chosen" or "elect" is the result of faith, not the cause of it. Thus, when we (corporately) are said to be chosen, it is because we have already believed.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to themuzicman For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 15th, 2017)

  6. #95
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    They became chosen by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Believing came before becoming chosen.
    That is not what the verse says. Instead, it says that they were chosen by belief in the truth and "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    Why didn't you answer what I said here?:

    If I am wrong then give me your own interpretation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    You didn't prove that anything which I said is error and you did not even attempt to give your interpretation of those words. Instead, you just ignored the "word "sanctification" as if that word was not even in the verse.

  7. #96
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 448 Times in 314 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    152828
    Jerry, I went back to this post, as you answered my question about it, and the ripostes were just side conversations to this one, as far as I can tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The Lord did not put on a new nature but instead was clothed in an earthly body. Here Paul likens our bodies to being "clothed upon":

    "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Cor.5:1-4).
    If so, then it seems that new body, the corruptible one, of Christ's, is one that He is stuck with forever. Because even after the resurrection, He had nail prints in His hands, and a hole in His side. But I guess you're saying He had those from all eternity, right, since He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

    Paul refers to the "inner man" and that is man's essence and his outward appearance is something that is likened to putting on clothes.

    I say that the Lord Jesus had two natures while He walked on the earth, being fully Man and fully God. And we read this about Him:

    "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).

    Since He remains the same then before He came to the earth He had two natures. According to your idea we must believe that the Lord Jesus remains the same as He was before even though He took on a new nature when He came to the earth. Let us look at this verse:

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

    The Lord Jesus descended from heaven when He was the "Son of Man." That can only mean that before he came down to earth He was in heaven as the "Son of Man."
    As the "Son of Man", He must have come from somebody, and therefore is someone's son, and that someone must have been a man. The only person who could be Jesus' father, if Jesus was the Son of Man from eternity, is God, the Father, right? So that makes God a man. But God tells us He is not a man. Here are 3 verses stating God is not a man:
    [1Sa 15:29 KJV] 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.
    [Job 9:32 KJV] 32 For [he is] not a man, as I [am, that] I should answer him, [and] we should come together in judgment.
    [Num 23:19 KJV] 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


    I would put forth that Jesus was not a man either, at the time of those verses, but at the very least, God the Father was not a man and is not a man, so Jesus title of Son of Man must not be a title He has held from all eternity--His receipt of that title must have happened after the time of Numbers 23:19. Therefore, the Heb 13:8 passage must have a different meaning than you are trying to put into it. Or, we face the possibility that Jesus is not God.
    The following verse also makes it plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as the "Son of Man" before He came to the earth:

    "What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?"
    (Jn.6:62).
    And what if Jerry Shugart's children were to see their father and their mother's husband return to his birthplace, from whence he came? Does that mean you were born both married and with children? You read much more into that passage than is there.

    Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. The verses which you quoted can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

    "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly"
    (1 Cor.15:46).
    I was trying to show what your interpretation was leading to. If I misrepresented your statement, I'd appreciate the correction. Let me go back through that conversation and see where I got your statement wrong.
    You said:
    The very nature of the Lord Jesus is that of being fully God and fully Man. And since He is the same yesterday, today and forever then that means that His nature has always been that of being both God and Man.
    I replied:
    You astound me with this. Your argument, turned on its head, is used (pretty effectively imo) to argue against a rigid view of God's immutability. In other words, if the Logos actually took on a human nature (which He didn't have before), then it must mean that God is mutable in that sense--that He can acquire a nature that He didn't previously have.

    As you use it, it suggests that Adam was not the "first" man and Jesus was not the "last" Adam (contrary to [1Co 15:45, 47 KJV] 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. ... 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.), which doesn't seem biblical to me. [Jhn 1:14 KJV] 14 And the Word was made 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.

    I think in more recent posts you have confirmed what I said--that you believe Jesus was really the first man, and Adam was really the second man. Do I have your view correct? Does it bother you that such a view is not only dismissing the literality of the verse, but is making it devoid of any meaning whatsoever, since the "reality" is the opposite of the message in the verse? If we can take biblical passages that way, can we trust anything the bible says? Or is it always possible that the "real" meaning is exactly the opposite of the apparent meaning?

    That leads to such problems as interpreting John 3:16 as, "For God didn't love the world, and He didn't give His son, who really wasn't begotten at all, so that everybody would perish, and nobody would have everlasting life."
    Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

    So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.
    I agree that Paul is pointing out that we start out earthly, with a natural body that will be changed when we are either raptured or resurrected. But I don't think he is trying to say Jesus had only a spiritual body (is that an oxymoron?). When He was here on earth, He had a physical body. When that physical body died, His resurrected body retained the scars from His physical body. I don't pretend to know how that works or all that it means, but there seems to be a direct correlation between the two bodies.

    I do believe that Jesus is the federal head of a new race of man, one that is populated by those who believe in Him. And the only other federal head of an entire race was Adam. Therefore Jesus is the "second man" and the "last Adam". But if He is the "second man" or "last Adam", then He must not have been man before Adam. Man is a created being, and Jesus was not man from all eternity. But as far as I can tell, He will be a man for all eternity. Thus there's a distinct dividing line between eternity past and eternity future. And so there may not be something like what we experience as time, but there's definitely some sort of sequence, a "before" and "after", or a progression. Which in my mind eliminates the idea of an "eternal now".


    The verse is speaking of the salvation of the soul. So you must believe that the faith being spoken of in the verse is "individual." Right?

    Let us look at this passage again:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
    Are you saying that we are saved by the foreknowledge of God? I thought it was the blood of Jesus that saves us, and belief in the truth. But those things aren't bolded in either verse. Maybe I could use another clarification from you.

    Thanks Jerry!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 16th, 2017)

  9. #97
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    That is not what the verse says. Instead, it says that they were chosen by belief in the truth and "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    Why didn't you answer what I said here?:

    If I am wrong then give me your own interpretation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    You didn't prove that anything which I said is error and you did not even attempt to give your interpretation of those words. Instead, you just ignored the "word "sanctification" as if that word was not even in the verse.
    Paul is obviously as interested, here, in their final salvation as he refers to our "sanctification." And in that sense, we are foreknown after we believe to that final sanctification.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to themuzicman For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 16th, 2017)

  11. #98
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    As the "Son of Man", He must have come from somebody, and therefore is someone's son, and that someone must have been a man.
    Let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:

    "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?"
    (Acts 13:10).

    Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil. So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Therefore, the Heb 13:8 passage must have a different meaning than you are trying to put into it.
    No, my interpretation of what is said at Hebrews 13:8 is supported by what is said here:

    "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal.3:6).

    According to your ideas the LORD had only one nature before He came to the earth and then later He took on another nature and He experienced no change. The LORD says that He does not change but you say that He does.

    But God tells us He is not a man. Here are 3 verses stating God is not a man:
    [Num 23:19 KJV] 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
    This translation expresses better what is said:

    "God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it"
    (Num.23:19; God's Word Translation).

    Here Balaam is saying that God is not like the people of the earth who lie.

    And what if Jerry Shugart's children were to see their father and their mother's husband return to his birthplace, from whence he came? Does that mean you were born both married and with children? You read much more into that passage than is there.
    You are misreading what is said here:

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

    According to this no "man" has ascended up to heaven except for the Man Jesus Christ, the same Man who is now in heaven.

    I was trying to show what your interpretation was leading to. If I misrepresented your statement, I'd appreciate the correction.
    OK, let us look at these verses:

    "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:42-50).

    From start to finish the subject under discussion by Paul concerns the two types of bodies which Christians will possess at one time or another. He always mentions the "natural" body first and the "spiritual" body second. Then he says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

    So in the following verses when Paul uses the word "first" he is using Adam as an example of a natural body. Then when he uses the word "second" he is using the Lord Jesus' body (as it is now in heaven) as an example of a spiritual body. Nothing more and nothing less.

    I think in more recent posts you have confirmed what I said--that you believe Jesus was really the first man, and Adam was really the second man. Do I have your view correct? Does it bother you that such a view is not only dismissing the literality of the verse, but is making it devoid of any meaning whatsoever, since the "reality" is the opposite of the message in the verse? If we can take biblical passages that way, can we trust anything the bible says? Or is it always possible that the "real" meaning is exactly the opposite of the apparent meaning?
    The verses which I quoted are only in regard to the different bodies which Christians possess or will possess in the future and nothing more. You are reading into these verses which are not said. Let us look at these words and interpret them they way that you are trying to interpret these verses:

    "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven"
    (1 Cor.15:47).

    Of course we know that the Lord Jesus was not the "second" man because we know that Cain was the second man.

    Are you saying that we are saved by the foreknowledge of God? I thought it was the blood of Jesus that saves us, and belief in the truth. But those things aren't bolded in either verse. Maybe I could use another clarification from you.
    In this verse Paul speaks of the process by which men are chosen or elected:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    In this passage the Greek word translated "through" means "of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished...by means of, by (through)" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

    So we can see that being "elected" is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

    Therefore, we can understand that being chosen or elected is through the instrumentality of the Spirit when He separates a person to God. That happens when a person is baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit:

    "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit"
    (1 Cor.12:13).

    It is "indivduals" who are baptized into the Body of Christ. So these words must be in regard to the LORD foreknowing "individuals." Therefore, we can understand that the being elected or chosen mentioned at 1 Peter 1:1-2 is in regard to being baptized into the Body of Christ by One Spirit; therefore it is "salvation" which is in view at 1 Peter 1:2 and hence it is the "individual" which is foreknown by God.

    If I am wrong then give me your own interpreation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

    Thanks!

  12. #99
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Paul is obviously as interested, here, in their final salvation as he refers to our "sanctification." And in that sense, we are foreknown after we believe to that final sanctification.
    So you are finally admitting that the LORD foreknows the individuals who will be saved. And since the LORD foreknows those who will be saved then He also foreknows those who will believe. And those are the ones who He ordains to eternal life here:

    "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

    The LORD first ordained or appointed some Gentiles to eternal life and then every single one of them who were ordained believed.

  13. #100
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    So you are finally admitting that the LORD foreknows the individuals who will be saved. And since the LORD foreknows those who will be saved then He also foreknows those who will believe. And those are the ones who He ordains to eternal life here:
    Funny how when people here realize that they can't refute what's been said, that they resort to this kind of obvious straw man fallacy, clearly twisting what I've said, because the appropriate response would be to concede, and cognitive dissonance takes over.

    If you'll bother to read what I said, I said that we become foreknown after we believe, that we are foreknown to our eventual sanctification.

    It is interesting that you appear to be Catholic in your beliefs regarding justification and sanctification, as protestants fairly universally separate the two.

    "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

    The LORD first ordained or appointed some Gentiles to eternal life and then every single one of them who were ordained believed.
    Again, you've returned to what has already been proven false by a simply exegetical examination of the chapter. I suppose this is probably the result of your cognitive dissonance, too.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  14. #101
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    If you'll bother to read what I said, I said that we become foreknown after we believe, that we are foreknown to our eventual sanctification.
    Earlier you said that the LORD only foreknows things in regard to "corporate" things. Now you are saying that He foreknows things in regard to "individuals."

    It is interesting that you appear to be Catholic in your beliefs regarding justification and sanctification, as protestants fairly universally separate the two.
    it's not funny how you continue to say that despite the fact that I told you exactly what the word "sanctification" refers to at 1 Peter 1:2.

    Again, you've returned to what has already been proven false by a simply exegetical examination of the chapter. I suppose this is probably the result of your cognitive dissonance, too.
    Do you really think that Paul COMMANDED some men to eternal life and after he did that everyone of them who were commanded believed? If anyone has a case of cognitive dissonance it is you.

    I can just hear Paul telling people, "I command you to eternal life!"

  15. #102
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 448 Times in 314 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    152828
    I'm starting to get to the limit of my multi-tasking in the different topics we're addressing in single posts. I'd like to narrow down to just one for now, if you don't mind. I'm going to suggest one, but if you'd rather talk about a different one, I'm game. At some point, I'll probably play the off-topic card and try to make sure we're still talking about the thread topic, and then we can take others to new threads if we need to.

    The first one I'd like to eliminate is the individual vs corporate salvation/election. I think it's an important topic, and is somewhat related to the thread topic, as depending on how it is perceived, could be a major point in discussions on either side. So I recognize we might and likely will get back into it, but for now, I'd like to get the final word in and then let it drop for awhile. I propose that salvation is individual (I think you agree with me), and I propose that election scriptures do not specify very clearly whether election is corporate or individual or possibly contingent on future actions. I'd be interested in a new thread, but I can't guarrantee how much time I could invest in it, unfortunately.

    The topic I'd like to retain for now is the subject of Jesus nature(s) and how that fits into our perception of time and timelessness.

    And now, back to our program...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:

    "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?"
    (Acts 13:10).

    Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil. So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man.
    I agree with you here about Elymas. I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that the same kind of language is being used of Jesus when "man" is described in such a negative context below:
    This translation expresses better what is said:

    "God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it"
    (Num.23:19; God's Word Translation).

    Here Balaam is saying that God is not like the people of the earth who lie
    Again, I agree with you on what these passages are saying, but if mankind's nature is to tell lies, change his mind, and not to keep his promises, how can you say that Jesus calling himself the "Son of man" is an indication that He has the nature of man? Surely that nature of man is not in any way a reflection on Jesus.

    Maybe "Son of man" is really just an indication that He was born into the human race. It's the most literal interpretation, and it doesn't seem to have any negative reflection on Jesus, does it? Are you not a "son of man"? Am I not one, too? There must be a reason why that particular title is one He used of Himself in such a way as to distinguish from something else, and I would suggest it is to distinguish Himself from a God that has no familial connection to His creation. In other words, He is at once calling attention to the fact that He is man and calling attention to the fact that He is God, all in the same title. "Son of God" doesn't do that, but "Son of man" sure does.


    No, my interpretation of what is said at Hebrews 13:8 is supported by what is said here:

    "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal.3:6).

    According to your ideas the LORD had only one nature before He came to the earth and then later He took on another nature and He experienced no change. The LORD says that He does not change but you say that He does.
    I'm not saying He does, I'm saying He did. And I'm not saying it based on my own knowledge, but based on what the scriptures tell us--that Jesus was made man. And if He ever changed, then that verse must not mean that He never changes in ANY way. Rather the context, which you've included (thank you), is that He doesn't go back on His promises to the sons of Jacob. God had made a promise to Jacob, that included what He would do with Jacob's progeny, and God was going to keep His promise. Mal 3:6 is not restricting the possibility that God never changes in any way, but it doesn't require it, either. Rather, it appears that God is talking about never changing in His character or His purposes, and part of His character is that He doesn't renege on His promises.

    I like to take things to the extreme to see how ideas play out. Imagine then that God really doesn't ever change in any way. Then when you see a verse that says "And God said...", you can immediately throw it out as false, since at one point God was not speaking, and then He spoke. That's a change of state between two opposites: God speaking and God not speaking. If God never changes, then He cannot start speaking, or if He is speaking, He cannot stop.

    He also can't befriend anyone, as that would be a change (See James 2:23). Before Abraham was created, God was not his friend, since he didn't exist, but then when Abraham came into existence, God was his friend. If such a change is not allowed by scripture, then God's very nature and existence is contingent on Abraham--without Abraham, God is not complete, since He is, was, and always will be, the friend of Abraham. Abraham, obviously, would have the upper hand in that relationship, as he would have the power to "unfriend" God, but God couldn't unfriend Abraham (as that would be a change). Therefore the God you describe is both finite and powerless, all while being infinite and almighty. God is not contradictory, is He?

    Of course, God's relationship with Abraham, even if Abraham were co-eternal, would be very one-sided, as God can't really communicate to him, or even listen to him, since those things would be changes in God. (Which is why Abraham might unfriend God.)

    Obviously these things are ridiculous, as we know God is not powerless to act and speak and enter into a relationship with someone, or even break off a relationship with someone. God can change in those ways. And in other ways, too, like being angry but not forever--Jer 3:12, or being merciful but time will run out for each of us. I think we have to let the Bible's descriptions of God drive our conception of how he can change.

    Can Jesus, being God, change in such a way that whereas He used to NOT be a man, now He is a man (while also being God)? I struggle to see how anyone can argue with a "yes" answer to that question, but you seem to be doing so.

    You are misreading what is said here:

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

    According to this no "man" has ascended up to heaven except for the Man Jesus Christ, the same Man who is now in heaven.
    I would appreciate just a little attention to my scenario. The point was that you became both husband and father, and yet you are still able to return to your birthplace, as a husband and father, without violating any laws of physics or metaphysics.

    In the same way, if Jesus descended to the earth (He must have if He was once not on the earth and then He came to earth--or is that a change that's not allowed by Mal 3:6?), and took on the form of a man, then it's quite likely that the title "Son of man" did not apply to Jesus before He was born to Mary, but now it applies to Him. And when He ascended back to heaven, He retained His title and a human body (of some type that was recognizable both as human and as Jesus).


    OK, let us look at these verses:

    "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:42-50).

    From start to finish the subject under discussion by Paul concerns the two types of bodies which Christians will possess at one time or another. He always mentions the "natural" body first and the "spiritual" body second. Then he says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

    So in the following verses when Paul uses the word "first" he is using Adam as an example of a natural body. Then when he uses the word "second" he is using the Lord Jesus' body (as it is now in heaven) as an example of a spiritual body. Nothing more and nothing less.



    The verses which I quoted are only in regard to the different bodies which Christians possess or will possess in the future and nothing more. You are reading into these verses which are not said. Let us look at these words and interpret them they way that you are trying to interpret these verses:

    "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven"
    (1 Cor.15:47).
    Regarding the highlighted part of the quote above: If all you are trying to say with those verses is that Adam represents an earthy body like what we have now, and Jesus represents a spiritual body that we hope to be like in eternity, I have no issue with what you are saying, but it also doesn't seem to be germane to our topic. I suggest we eliminate that rabbit trail, too.

    Of course we know that the Lord Jesus was not the "second" man because we know that Cain was the second man.
    Therefore, if the verses that talk about Jesus being the "second man" mean anything at all, it is not in the same way that Cain was the "second man" (which is that Cain was the second in the same type). But that doesn't mean we can throw out all verses talking about Jesus being the "second man" or "last Adam" as meaning nothing. That's why I proposed, and haven't seen much response to, the idea that Jesus is the head of a second "type" or "race" of man, one that is not subject to the frailties and limitations that the first race of man was subject to ever since Adam.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 16th, 2017)

  17. #103
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    The topic I'd like to retain for now is the subject of Jesus nature(s) and how that fits into our perception of time and timelessness.
    We have a basic disagreement over the meaning of the words here in regard to the Lord Jesus:

    "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever"
    (Heb.13:8).

    I think that this verse is referring to the same thing:

    "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed"
    (Mal.3:6).

    None of what is said there makes any sense if we say that before He came to the earth He only had one nature and then on earth He gained another nature. That would be a huge change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I agree with you here about Elymas. I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that the same kind of language is being used of Jesus when "man" is described in such a negative context below
    A man comes out of the womb in a state of innocence so how he is described in the verse is a result of his own actions and not because of his nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Again, I agree with you on what these passages are saying, but if mankind's nature is to tell lies, change his mind, and not to keep his promises, how can you say that Jesus calling himself the "Son of man" is an indication that He has the nature of man? Surely that nature of man is not in any way a reflection on Jesus.
    Again, man's nature is not to tell lies. Telling lies is the result of his free will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Maybe "Son of man" is really just an indication that He was born into the human race.
    The meaning of the words "Son of..." when it is regard to "man" must have the same connotation of the words "Son of..." when it is in regard to God. And it is plain that the Lord Jesus was not born into anything, since with Him there is no beginning. So then we can understand that when the words "Son of Man" are used the reference is in regard to Him being a Man and it has nothing to do with Him being born of Mary.

    Besides that, who do you think that the words in "bold" are referring to?:

    "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"
    (Gen.3:22).

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm not saying He does, I'm saying He did. And I'm not saying it based on my own knowledge, but based on what the scriptures tell us--that Jesus was made man.
    This verse tells us in what sense He was made man:

    "And the Word was made 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" (Jn.1:14).

    He changed the way in which He was clothed before. He exchanged His heavenly body for an earthly body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    And if He ever changed, then that verse must not mean that He never changes in ANY way. Rather the context, which you've included (thank you), is that He doesn't go back on His promises to the sons of Jacob. God had made a promise to Jacob, that included what He would do with Jacob's progeny, and God was going to keep His promise. Mal 3:6 is not restricting the possibility that God never changes in any way, but it doesn't require it, either. Rather, it appears that God is talking about never changing in His character or His purposes, and part of His character is that He doesn't renege on His promises.
    So you are saying that the LORD's character never changes but His very "nature" can change and despite that He will remain the same as He was before?

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    He also can't befriend anyone, as that would be a change (See James 2:23). Before Abraham was created, God was not his friend, since he didn't exist, but then when Abraham came into existence, God was his friend.
    To explain that, let us look at this verse:

    "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).

    Since the LORD looks at the heart of man (1 Sam.16:7) then He would know for sure whether or not Abraham feared Him. Therefore, He certainly did not need to see any of Abraham's actions in order to know whether he feared Him or not.

    What is said at Genesis 22:12 is in regard to this figure of speech:

    "Antropopatheia; Ascribing to God what belongs to humans and rational beings..." (The Companion Bible; Appendix 6).

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I would appreciate just a little attention to my scenario. The point was that you became both husband and father, and yet you are still able to return to your birthplace, as a husband and father, without violating any laws of physics or metaphysics.

    In the same way, if Jesus descended to the earth (He must have if He was once not on the earth and then He came to earth--or is that a change that's not allowed by Mal 3:6?), and took on the form of a man, then it's quite likely that the title "Son of man" did not apply to Jesus before He was born to Mary, but now it applies to Him. And when He ascended back to heaven, He retained His title and a human body (of some type that was recognizable both as human and as Jesus).
    That does not explain away the explicit statement here:

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven"
    (Jn.3:13).

    According to this no "man" has ascended up to heaven except for the Man who came down from heaven, the Lord Jesus. So if words have any meaning the Lord Jesus was in heaven as Man before He came to the earth. And he is now in heaven as Man without a flesh and blood body. That means that a natural body is not essential to being a man. We too will remain men even though we will have a spiritual, heavenly body instead of a natural body.

    Thanks for your responses, Derf.
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 18th, 2017 at 01:29 PM.

  18. #104
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Earlier you said that the LORD only foreknows things in regard to "corporate" things. Now you are saying that He foreknows things in regard to "individuals."
    Again with the twisting of words. I said that God's foreknowledge of the elect is corporate. God foreknows what group will be saved without knowing which individuals will be there.

    Individuals, then, when they believe, become elect and then part of those who are foreknown.

    This isn't rocket science.

    it's not funny how you continue to say that despite the fact that I told you exactly what the word "sanctification" refers to at 1 Peter 1:2.
    Except that it violates your belief about salvation by justification alone.

    Do you really think that Paul COMMANDED some men to eternal life and after he did that everyone of them who were commanded believed? If anyone has a case of cognitive dissonance it is you.

    I can just hear Paul telling people, "I command you to eternal life!"
    It doesn't matter what I think. IT matters what the text says. In the case of a passive verb without an indirect object to indicate the actor, the actor is the active force in the context. The only active force in the context is Paul's preaching, Thus, that's what did the commanding.

    Peter commanded those at Pentecost to repent and be baptized. Why is it so hard to think that Paul might command people, too?
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to themuzicman For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 17th, 2017)

  20. #105
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,375
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 7,768 Times in 6,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I should probably apologize up front for this.
    Don't bother. God decreed from eternity past that you would make this monumental blunder.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 17th, 2017),Tambora (January 18th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us