Is Calvinism Wrong?

[TestedandTried]

There is a "Reply With Quote" button below all posts in a thread. Click that and then add your response below the ending quote tag [/quote] shown in the post edit window that appears.

This way the reader may know to whom you are responding.

For longer posts in which you wish to interact, you can break up the quoted text by adding beginning and ending quote tags and then post your comments.

Example:

Here is your post above:


Here is what your post would look like when "Reply With Quote" and I break it up in the post edit window and intersperse my own responses:

True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.



OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warning in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

​

Note how I manually added quote tags when breaking up the post. I then interacted with each section of the post.
Using the method above, when finally posted, the result will appear as follows:



True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.


OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warning in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

AMR

Why thank you for that informative post and I also see we agree on quite alot.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[/noparse] shown in the post edit window that appears.

This way the reader may know to whom you are responding.

For longer posts in which you wish to interact, you can break up the quoted text by adding beginning and ending quote tags and then post your comments.

Example:

Here is your post above:


Here is what your post would look like when "Reply With Quote" and I break it up in the post edit window and intersperse my own responses:

True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.



OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warning in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

​

Note how I manually added quote tags when breaking up the post. I then interacted with each section of the post.
Using the method above, when finally posted, the result will appear as follows:



True. OSAS is a punctiliar approach versus perseverance of the saints from Scripture.


OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish. Perseverance of the saints takes the warning in Scripture about one's salvation seriously. These warnings are a means by which God stirs up the faithful such that they will persevere, thus achieving His ends.

AMR

Why thank you for that informative post and I also see we agree on quite alot.

Go here and learn the tags please.

http://theologyonline.com/misc.php?do=bbcode

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Right Divider]

TNT stated: "OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish."

Once Saved Always Saved CREATES licentiousness? I thought I heard EVERYTHING, but this is one of the oddest 'Rationalizations' I've ever encountered.

It always sounds like an unsaved person that's making this accusation, doesn't it?

Being saved by grace is the greatest motivation to godliness that there is!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Clete]

TNT stated: "OSAS usually leads to licentiousness thinking that once someone has said a prayer, answered an altar call, etc., they are saved and can then continue acting as they wish."

Once Saved Always Saved CREATES licentiousness? I thought I heard EVERYTHING, but this is one of the oddest 'Rationalizations' I've ever encountered.

The argument presupposes that they are able to maintain their salvation themselves. All they need is a list of rules to follow.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why thank you for that informative post and I also see we agree on quite alot.

Perhaps.

See a more thorough treatment:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...RUST-IN-OSAS&p=4581989&viewfull=1#post4581989

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Robert Pate]

Years ago I came across 'James 2:14-17': "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Those Scriptures didn't seem to align with the preaching/teaching of the Apostle Paul. In fact, they were contradictory. Once we "Rightly Divide" the written word, everything falls into place. Paul was preaching/teaching the 'Gospel of the grace of God,' whereas, the Disciples of Christ and Christ Himself (during His earthly ministry) was preaching/teaching the 'Kingdom Gospel.'

Right.

The book of James was one of the first books written. James did not yet understand the Gospel and justification by faith apart from the works of the law. I am sure that he came into a full knowledge of the Gospel at a later date. It must have been very difficult for the Jews to give up living by law and to begin living by faith.

 

[Right Divider]

Right.

The book of James was one of the first books written. James did not yet understand the Gospel and justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

That's because the gospel of the grace of God had NOT been revealed yet. One cannot know something that was HID IN GOD (Eph 3:9) until God Himself reveals it.

This gospel was first revealed to and through Paul.

I am sure that he came into a full knowledge of the Gospel at a later date.

Your sheer speculation is just that.

It must have been very difficult for the Jews to give up living by law and to begin living by faith.

Living by faith was not something new at that time. Faithful Jews followed the law.

 

[Robert Pate]

That's because the gospel of the grace of God had NOT been revealed yet. One cannot know something that was HID IN GOD (Eph 3:9) until God Himself reveals it.

This gospel was first revealed to and through Paul.


Your sheer speculation is just that.


Living by faith was not something new at that time. Faithful Jews followed the law.

James was a Christian and died as a Christian, even though that is not evident in his writings.

Living by faith in the law is not the same as living by faith in Christ and his Gospel. Peter also had some problems with the Gospel and justification by faith. Paul had to straighten him out, Galatians 2:11-21.

 

[Right Divider]

James was a Christian and died as a Christian, even though that is not evident in his writings.

:juggle:

You're quite the mind-reader RP.

Living by faith in the law is not the same as living by faith in Christ and his Gospel.

I didn't say by faith IN THE LAW, RP. You're being very dishonest.

I've shown you before that Paul was quoting Micah about the just living by faith.

A faithful Israelite kept the law.

Peter also had some problems with the Gospel and justification by faith. Paul had to straighten him out, Galatians 2:11-21.

Peter had to be shown the gospel that Paul preached among the gentiles. It was given to Paul and not Peter. Peter already had a gospel. See Galatians 2:1-10 before you go on to the rest of the chapter.

 

[MennoSota]

That's because the gospel of the grace of God had NOT been revealed yet. One cannot know something that was HID IN GOD (Eph 3:9) until God Himself reveals it.

God showed grace in the Garden of Eden. God has always saved by grace. The gospel of God's grace has always been the only means by which a person is saved. Never, ever, has a person's good works saved them from the effects of sin. Never. It has always been the gospel of God's grace that saves.

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz,

Please read this whole post before responding to any of it. You've taken offense where none is/was intended....

I've read it several times, hoping I don't miss any point.

Do yourself a favor and use Saturdays to mow your lawn from now on.

Mowing the lawn is not my job. Besides which, and most importantly, when I did work, my body did better when I took at least a day of rest. It always has. Just as farmers give their working animals a day of rest. Just as the slaves in Egypt needed a day of rest. To me this is simple common sense built right into us as human beings. Of course, the older I get, the more rest I need and the less work I do. :idunno:

That isn't a joke and I'm not kidding.

I know. I realize that.

Every time you do this "resting at the end of the week" business, you revive your flesh and tacitly obligate yourself to follow the whole law. Your every success in such an endeavor is injurious to your relationship with Him who has done all this work for you and is your righteousness. Please, please find something strenuous to do on Saturday's and do it twice before climbing up on that cross to rescue the law!

You have the wrong idea, Clete. None of what you just wrote applies to me, nor do I look at it that way at all. Maybe this is why I see The Ten Commandments as distinct from the Law of Moses. All the added on requirements, ceremonies, and offerings are apart from the Ten themselves.

And, by the way, why did you say "at the end of the week"? I asked specifically about Saturday and quoted the passage from the Ten Commandments but you respond with "at the end of the week". And you may well have used that wording to refer to Saturday, which is totally fine. I just ask because some people have somehow convinced themselves that the Sabbath got changed to Sunday.

I say end of the week, as in end of the work week. It has nothing to do with my trying to rescue the law. I'm just taking what Jesus said seriously. He was the Creator who rested after working for six days straight, and He blessed the seventh day for man's benefit. He isn't referring to all the added restrictions and commands that certainly were not for man's benefit. The Ten doesn't mention not cooking or going out after sundown. Those things were added because of Israel's transgressions.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
​

Intuitively, yes. Someone presents an argument that you don't know how to deal with and so your brain figures out a way to deal with it. Everyone does it to one degree or another.

Well, I've had these same beliefs for quite some time simply from walking down the Romans Rd. (mainly).

Let's take a moment to dispassionately look at what actually happened...

You're here defending the Ten Commandments as having not been nailed to the cross and said, in so many words, that the Law, which applied only to Israel is what was nailed to the cross, not the Ten Commandments.

In response to that I point out Romans 1 where Paul talks about the condemnation of "all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" and talks about homosexuality and other things that are not listed in the Ten commandments.

In response to the unassailable point, you said that all that Romans 1 stuff was included in the Ten Commandments, effectively turning the Ten Commandments into the WHOLE LAW!!!

And you did so with no biblical support or any other rational explanation.

That is TEXTBOOK rationalizing. (That's not intended as a personal slight, just an observation.)

The Ten Commandments have TEN commands and not a one of them says a word about homosexuality.

Ah, but I believe the Ten DOES include every single thing our conscience tells us is right and wrong. It's the Ten themselves that are written on the conscience of men. As you said yourself, the homosexuals know it's wrong, and they know that deep inside their own being. The Ten say Do Not Covet what doesn't belong to you. They know in themselves that their desire is wrong. They know lusting after other men is coveting what does not belong to them. Man was created with that knowledge, which is why they have NO EXCUSE.

Look at Romans 1 again. The truth in God's Law (The Ten) is manifest IN men...indelibly written in our conscience. We know what's right and what's wrong. God just finally wrote it down in tablets of stone...same law from the beginning.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

]

Look, I'm not questioning your sincerity, I'm questioning whether you've thought this through properly. I'm only reacting to what you write on this forum. There was no offense intended.


It wasn't because of the Ten Commandments!

Don't you see that that's the whole point! That is just exactly the whole point! You're just so agonizingly close to the full answer!

I am not here advocating for sin. I am not saying that its alright to slap your mother or worship other gods or to steal or to murder. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't spend time focusing on God and on Spiritual things. What I'm telling you is that if you do or don't do things because there is a list of rules on the wall, then Christ will profit you nothing and you are a debtor to obey the whole law. For the very same God that said, though shalt not murder, also said to pay the tithe and to not eat animals with their blood and 600+ other things.

I'm sure we're on the same page here, Clete. For some reason, I'm not able to make myself clear.

Romans chapter 2 is on the very next page from a passage where Paul talks about sins that are not included in the Ten Commandments...

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

Notice that the standard Paul used in Romans 1 was NOT the Ten Commandments but rather natural law!

YOU DO NOT NEED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! (Capital letters should not be taken as me "yelling" - it's just for emphasis.)

What you call the natural law, I see more. There is the conscience on which the moral law (Ten) were written.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,​

The parallels between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Law are many and undeniable.....

I'll need to finish answering on a different post. I'm not good at long ones.

 

[glorydaz]

Spoiler

The parallels between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Law are many and undeniable. A proper treatment of the biblical material would require more than is conducive to a chat forum. My posts are too long as it is! Bob Enyart spends something like fifteen pages on the subject in his book The Plot. I've already presented a brief summary of many of the parallels found in scripture so I won't go over that again here but I will just make one brief additional point on the subject just to give you a taste of what is there to been found on the subject...

Paul himself makes the connection most clearly in Romans 5 where Paul is speaking about "the offense"...

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

So, here we see that the Law simply picked up where the Tree left off. Further, a couple of chapters earlier Paul states outright that "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20) and then a couple chapter after he says, "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." (Romans 7:9) Thus, the Law teaches the knowledge of good and evil but does not produce righteousness in men, only death - which is precisely the same result the Tree had with Adam.

But Paul is not saying the Law is at fault. The commandment in the garden wasn't the fault, either. It was sin that was at fault. Notice here where Paul is explaining that it isn't the Law that produces the fear of death. It is sin which produces death and the fear of death. That seems closer to the Tree in the garden.

1 Corinthians 15:56
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.​

Also, Paul in Romans 7 is saying the same. It is sin working death "by that which is good"...

Romans 7:9-13
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.​

Christ, through His righteous act, has undone the curse and, therefore, as you rightly point out, just as Adam was commanded not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we are so commanded not to partake of the Law! They are two aspects of the same thing, two sides of the same coin.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:​

This is where I'm not being convinced. Those who hang on a tree have been charged and condemned to death. That speaks specifically of the curse being the crime, not the law, itself. Why are we being told to not "partake" of the law at all. The law is not something we can partake of. But, sin is, and the condemnation that comes from the law for sin. The curse that's been undone then is the sting of death caused by sin....not the law at all. So, what is nailed to the cross would be the [condemnation) charges of sin against us that the law merely point out.

But in Christ, there are no such distinctions made, for we are in Christ and we have NO STANDING before God in ourselves but are rather clothed in the righteousness of Christ Who is our ONLY standing.

Agreed

And as such, the bottom line is....

If the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christ, they do not apply to you.



Resting in Him,
Clete

What do you mean by apply? If you mean we are not under the law for righteousness, I would agree. But if you mean the law is no longer written in our consciences because it's been nailed to the cross, I can't agree.