Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We are not guilty and guilty at the same time?

Justification is a declaration of righteousness (legal) where we are treated as if we never sinner. Regeneration is monergistic.

Sanctification is positional (set apart as holy) and progressive (actual transformation) as the Spirit works out the life and character of Christ in us, the fruit of the Spirit. There seems to be a synergistic aspect to this work, as other Reformed scholars have stated.

Justification and sanctification are distinguished by the following:
1. Justification removes the guilt of sin, restoring the sinner to all the filial rights involved in his state as a child of God, including an eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and renews the sinner ever increasingly in conformity with the image of God.
2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively. Sanctification takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.
3. Justification takes place once for all. Justification is not repeated, nor is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. Man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all. Whereas sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.
4. While the meritorious cause of justification and sanctification lies in the merits of Christ, there is a difference in the efficient cause. God the Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies him.

 

[Clete]

:yawn:

 

[Nang]

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." Matthew 5:6

"He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty." Luke 1:53

"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." Isaiah 55:1

"Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, My servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be ashamed; behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow of heart and wail for grief of spirit.'" Isaiah 65:13&14

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nang I can post Bible verses also....

Judges 4:21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

1Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.

2Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Psalms 52:6 The righteous also shall see and fear, And shall laugh at him, saying,
7 “Here is the man who did not make God his strength, But trusted in the abundance of his riches, And strengthened himself in his wickedness.”

 

[PKevman]

Nang I can post Bible verses also....

Judges 4:21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

1Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.

2Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Psalms 52:6 The righteous also shall see and fear, And shall laugh at him, saying,
7 “Here is the man who did not make God his strength, But trusted in the abundance of his riches, And strengthened himself in his wickedness.”

I am sure the significance of this post will forever elude Nang's grasp because it was NOT predestined before the foundation of the world for her to understand.

:roftl:

:mock: Calvinism

 

[patman]

Nang I can post Bible verses also....

Judges 4:21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

1Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.

2Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Psalms 52:6 The righteous also shall see and fear, And shall laugh at him, saying,
7 “Here is the man who did not make God his strength, But trusted in the abundance of his riches, And strengthened himself in his wickedness.”

Hey, you posted Judges 4:21 - the biblical cure for the head ache!:hammer:

Way to quote'em!

 

[Lon]

Hmmmm. Narrative context or doctrinal context.... :think:

 

[Lon]

I've been perplexed at Bob's absence on your one-on-one. Even a short answer would have been beneficial acknowledgement. He asked you a question. You asked for clarity, and now two weeks later something so simple isn't addressed.

At this point is he waitng for Christmas? Hoping you'll go away? Something else? I'm not perplexed at the lack of debate, but lack of acknowlegement: as much as a simple clarifier for what was requested and/or call to hold off for a given number of weeks or something.

Any insight Knight?

 

[godrulz]

Hmmmm. Narrative context or doctrinal context.... :think:

God reveals aspects of His character, attributes, and ways (dealing with man, etc.) in the narratives. Didactic portions may be easier to pick out doctrine, but both are valid means of inspired self-revelation. Jews (Hebrew language/culture) tend to communicate with stories (cf. Jesus), while Greeks were perhaps more didactic/logical.

Both/and, not either/or.

 

[Lon]

God reveals aspects of His character, attributes, and ways (dealing with man, etc.) in the narratives. Didactic portions may be easier to pick out doctrine, but both are valid means of inspired self-revelation. Jews (Hebrew language/culture) tend to communicate with stories (cf. Jesus), while Greeks were perhaps more didactic/logical.

Both/and, not either/or.

Oh, I agree, but my point is that both should and do as well (agree). It isn't wise to build all one's doctrine mostly or exclusively off of narrative. That is and will continue to be a very strong argument in my repetoire. Call it a challenge to arise to, for OVers.

Props were given for saying "Hey, it is totally okay laugh and mock." There are no doctrinal directives to do so here, just examples of it being done. I appreciate that those guys in the narrative did. We have to ask a bunch of questions however before we adopt a doctrinal position on following suit.

Knight addressed Nang's doctrinal passages with narrative. This was and still is my point.

 

[Clete]

The problem is Lon you never make the argument. All you ever do is say "Hmmmm. Narrative context or doctrinal context....:think: ", or something along those lines, as though that makes the argument for you.

It doesn't!

If the point being made by quoting Scripture is nullified by its context then don't just say it, prove it! Make the argument Lon - if you can!

I don't believe you can. What I believe is that you feel the need to reject what the Bible plainly teaches and you've latched on to this idea that the narrative passages of Scripture some how teach something contrary to the overtly doctrinal passages as one of your favorite excuses to do so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

The problem is Lon you never make the argument. All you ever do is say "Hmmmm. Narrative context or doctrinal context....:think: ", or something along those lines, as though that makes the argument for you.

It doesn't!

If the point being made by quoting Scripture is nullified by its context then don't just say it, prove it! Make the argument Lon - if you can!

I don't believe you can. What I believe is that you feel the need to reject what the Bible plainly teaches and you've latched on to this idea that the narrative passages of Scripture some how teach something contrary to the overtly doctrinal passages as one of your favorite excuses to do so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

There are no doctrinal directives to do so here, just examples of it being done. I appreciate that those guys in the narrative did. We have to ask a bunch of questions however before we adopt a doctrinal position on following suit.

The doctrinal passages interpret all narrative or it is hit/miss for a proper extrapolation for meaning. This is the key to hermenuetics and is the foundational premise for every Inductive Bible Study seminary class.

 

[Lon]

My stance is explained here as well.

The example you asked for is given here.

 

[patman]

I've been perplexed at Bob's absence on your one-on-one. Even a short answer would have been beneficial acknowledgement. He asked you a question. You asked for clarity, and now two weeks later something so simple isn't addressed.

At this point is he waitng for Christmas? Hoping you'll go away? Something else? I'm not perplexed at the lack of debate, but lack of acknowlegement: as much as a simple clarifier for what was requested and/or call to hold off for a given number of weeks or something.

Any insight Knight?

Lon,

Read through the last few posts of this. I am not aiming this frustration at you because I do not know if you know a lot about Bob...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42313&highlight=care#73

Basically Bob has other things on his plate right now.

 

[Clete]

The doctrinal passages interpret all narrative or it is hit/miss for a proper extrapolation for meaning. This is the key to hermenuetics and is the foundational premise for every Inductive Bible Study seminary class.

If so then make the argument Lon!

I personally believe the distinction to be a fallacious one in the first place. The Bible does not contradict itself. If there is a principle taught in the narrative portions of Scripture then it will be either supported by or taught outright by the doctrinal portions of Scripture. The distinction you are making between the two is contrived, artificial and arbitrary. Who decides what is doctrinal and which is narrative and on what basis?

So there it is Lon. I've directly challenged the varsity of your argument to the pathetic extent that you've made it. Now, either make the argument or admit that you cannot and stop making it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Lon,

Read through the last few posts of this. I am not aiming this frustration at you because I do not know if you know a lot about Bob...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42313&highlight=care#73

Basically Bob has other things on his plate right now.

That's kewl. That is what I was asking, nothing more. Thanks

 

[Lon]

If so then make the argument Lon!

I personally believe the distinction to be a fallacious one in the first place. The Bible does not contradict itself. If there is a principle taught in the narrative portions of Scripture then it will be either supported by or taught outright by the doctrinal portions of Scripture. The distinction you are making between the two is contrived, artificial and arbitrary. Who decides what is doctrinal and which is narrative and on what basis?

So there it is Lon. I've directly challenged the varsity of your argument to the pathetic extent that you've made it. Now, either make the argument or admit that you cannot and stop making it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I linked the argument against God changing His mind very clearly. I'll do it again to ensure you didn't miss it.

You can either hit the link which I provided or admit you really aren't interested in anything but making irrational unfounded comment. I don't believe this about you, you hate links. I remember, but it would be redundant to repost and drag bandwidth unnecessarily. Both previous links are mine and directly challenge your posit.

 

[patman]

That's kewl. That is what I was asking, nothing more. Thanks

:thumb:

 

[Lon]

Clete,

Clete,

I've been making this distinction for days and thought I'd help you out.

How to tell what is doctrine or narrative

Scripture doesn't
contradict itself

Bob Hill made the error of building doctrine with only narrative passages.

The danger of building doctrine off of narrative

An example of this danger played out

It isn't either or, it is both (either or is what I've been complaining about-almost every text from OV is narrative alone for proof-texting).

Historical problems with misunderstanding narrative for lack of doctrine.

Here is a well written piece that may explain to you my position and stance.

 

[Clete]

I linked the argument against God changing His mind very clearly. I'll do it again to ensure you didn't miss it.

You can either hit the link which I provided or admit you really aren't interested in anything but making irrational unfounded comment. I don't believe this about you, you hate links. I remember, but it would be redundant to repost and drag bandwidth unnecessarily. Both previous links are mine and directly challenge your posit.

I read the link and it does NOT make the argument Lon.

Try again. Only this time actually make some attempt to actually address the points I've brought up.

You like to pick on Bob Hill. First, show us how his teaching removes the passages he uses to substantiate his teaching from their intended context then show us how that removal nullifies the teaching.

In order to do that you are going to have to prove that the passages he uses are "only narrative passages" and that those passages somehow contradict the so called doctrinal passages.

It would seem, according to your arbitrary standard that the Moses basically wrote no doctrinal passages to speak of at all aside from "about half" of the book of Deuteronomy. That's a totally ridiculous position that you have no hope whatsoever of defending. It's down right laughable! Genesis is referred to as the "see plot" of the Bible for a very good reason. It is perhaps the most important book of doctrine in the entire Bible! It is the very foundation of the entire Christian faith and worldview! Job is the oldest book in existence and is entirely narrative from beginning to end and yet it too is practically bursting at the seems with doctrine.

In you last post you claimed that "Scripture does contradict itself"and provided a link to a post where you said, "I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself."

It would seem that it is you who contradict yourself Lon. Care to clarify?

It isn't either or, it is both (either or is what I've been complaining about-almost every text from OV is narrative alone for proof-texting).

WHAT?

One of our favorite places to start a debate on predestination vs. free-will is with Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18! You've lost your mind on this one Lon. Not only is your position arbitrary and self-contradictory but you've based it on the completely false basis that we use "only narrative" passages to support our position.

And finally the last of your links only makes things harder for you Lon because that piece comes right out and says that one is not required to get doctrine exclusively from didactic passages of Scripture and so whether Bob Hill or some other Open Theist uses narrative/historical passages or not isn't really the issue at all. The issue is whether or not the passage actually does teach what we say it teaches, which of course has been the real issue all along. That article effectively states the very thing I've been stating (except that I don't think the distinction is necessary in the first place). You cannot simply cry "Narrative passage!" and thereby trump any teaching that disagrees with your doctrine. You have to make the argument Lon. That's the only way it works.

Resting in Him,
Clete