ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Bradley D]

For which repentance brings forgiveness else what is the result of that one who prsumptuously believes he has been forgiven only to return to "his vomit"? 2. Why would he do that if he also claims to be born again?

If one returns to the same sin. I would question whether they were truly repentant and truly born again.

 

[God's Truth]

I disagree . . nothing is left to "chance" within the purposes and will of God.



The above is a delineation of the moral demands of the old Covenant of Works, by which no soul has ever found life, for no corrupted human being is capable of perfect obedience, and all of us by nature, fail to perform this covenant.

It is only by being brought into the Covenant of Grace by the grace of God, and the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ alone, that any soul finds everlasting life.

You do not enter the New Covenant unless you drink Jesus' blood and eat his flesh.

Believing is as drinking his blood.

Obeying is as eating his flesh.

After you eat and drink, Jesus gives pure water to drink, the Holy Spirit is that water.

 

[heir]

Nick's earlier thread OP includes the quote of Romans 5:18 to suggest that the death of Jesus Christ universally paid for "all" sins, but Romans 5:19 quantifies Paul's gospel message as pertaining only to "many."

It had not been revealed until "due time" that God will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth/ that the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV). Paul was still being sent to the Jew first and also to the Greek at the writing of Romans (Romans 1:16 KJV). He was not yet sent to all men including Gentiles such as we (the "ye of Ephesians 1:13 KJV), who in time past had no hope and were without God in the world (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV). So once again, it is your failure to 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV that leads you to your false conclusion.

 

[Sonnet]

Let's look at the bolded above of your statement. "That which was proposed to them" was the thing thought and spoken about. A noun. Healing (as an analogy for salvation).

"Trusted" is a verb, not a noun. (And trust [elpis] is not faith [pistis], but that's another subtle distinction of interrelated terms that get conflated; so that will have to be clarified later.) Trusted, the verb, is not faith, the noun. The difference between faith and "faith-ing" is noun and verb.

As a noun, faith is "the thing believed"; just as hearing, as a noun, is "the thing heard". Romans 10:17 clearly indicates "the thing believed" comes OUT OF/FROM (ek) "the thing heard".

As an example, if there are fireworks and no explosive report as a sound, then there is no thing heard. The report is the thing heard. The human auditory sense is not initiatively doing an action.

And the thing heard is by means of (dia) the Word (Rhema) of God/Christ (there are textual variants with each, likely the latter being preferred).

Their action of looking was from their "faithing", which requires them to have the noun of faith. And that faith (noun) came out of the report/hearing (noun), which was by means of God's Rhema (Word).

That which was proposed to them is what delivered faith by the report, and by that faith they "faithed" and looked.

Without the Rhema, there would be no faith. They had none until it was administered and directed by God through His Rhema.

The best news man could ever have is that he can't and doesn't effect his own salvation by his own "faithing". For if he did, it would not have come from God; but from himself.

Not sure there is a conclusion here.

 

[Lon]

Not sure there is a conclusion here.

I think, that the difference between monergism and synergism and it tends to be over what nouns are misinterpreted as verbs, and vice-versa. -Lon

 

[Sonnet]

Because "determining" is volition/intention as the will in action as a verb. You just referred to hearing (the noun) as hearing (the verb), presuming hearing is an action that accomplishes something. That's the quandry you're in. That's why you can't understand. Because of English construction, your heart and mind is patterned to process such nouns as verbs. You can't get away from it. It's your fundamental epistemological default.

I can't understand? How would you know that?

Until you actually make a clear statement about your understanding, then moving forward wont be possible.

You keep processing nouns as verbs, insisting man can effect his own salvation;

And you assume that when a man chooses to believe that it is 'effecting his own salvation.'

but then denying that it's a work. Faith (belief) is not a work; but believing (faith-ing) IS a work.

This is closet Calvinism is it not? Perhaps you should explain what you think Abraham's part was when he believed. Did he play a part or not? Or was his response an automatic response to 'hearing' (the noun)?

By saying that any man believes and is saved, it means that man has accomplished his own salvation.

Rather, everything was achieved at the cross.

Faith is a noun. It isn't doing. One must have faith TO do anything as believing. That faith comes from hearing, which is also a noun. It's not the action of hearing. Hearing doesn't save. Any action associated with, or subsequent to, hearing doesn't save.

The thing heard and the thing believed saves. That's the Rhema of God, and it's by God's grace and the faith that He gives.

Election and reprobation...you're just wont admit that you are a Calvinist.

The verb again. This is the hugest obstacle for Modernism-sculpted English thinkers/speakers. You can't even think or speak about the noun. It's always the verb. And that's because you presume man can save himself by believing. The belief/faith that comes out of the thing heard is the Word (Rhema) of God flowing forth.

I understand your assertion.

Rhema is Rheo- and -ma. Rheo- is both to flow and to speak; and -ma is the Greek suffix that always represents "the result of". Rhema is the resulting flowing of speaking as a noun. And it's anarthrous, not articular.

It takes a bit to understand that, and one has to be willing instead of clinging to a presupposed disposition by one's own conceptualization in English. Englishizers have NO grid whatsoever for Greek anarthrous nouns, and instead have something ELSE in their place. It's a double whammy.

Again looking for a verb. The anarthrous Rhema refers to latent qualitative functionality that is NOT a verb, but is activity.

For instance, a table that is holding up several items is simply exhibiting its anarthrous qualities as a noun by "doing" that. It's an activity related to the nature and design of its "tableness". A table is never "tabling" to hold up a lamp or book or candles or whatever. It's a noun. But there is a latent functional activity for that table that includes its designed purpose.

God's Word, hearing, and faith (and ALL Greek nouns) each have that anarthrous form. English can only use adjectives and endless employment of semantics to provide some translational equivalent, because this is a structural inequity between donor and receptor languages.

So all the translators got it wrong?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Not sure there is a conclusion here.

There very certainly is. What I've said is the precise and exact exegetical truth of scripture, whether anyone understands it or not; and most won't and can't because they're English thinkers/speakers who can't divest themselves of their grammatical error-induced presuppostional perceptions.

Cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the conclusion.

 

[Sonnet]

Says the anti-Christian heretical schismatic who promotes another Jesus...

Did God unconditionally choose whom He would save and whom He would not save?

 

[Sonnet]

There very certainly is.

you make hints, but I don't actually see anything definitive.

What I've said is the precise and exact exegetical truth of scripture, whether anyone understands it or not; and most won't and can't because they're English thinkers/speakers who can't divest themselves of their grammatical error-induced presuppostional perceptions.

Cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the conclusion.

Assertion.

 

[Sonnet]

There very certainly is. What I've said is the precise and exact exegetical truth of scripture, whether anyone understands it or not; and most won't and can't because they're English thinkers/speakers who can't divest themselves of their grammatical error-induced presuppostional perceptions.

Cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the conclusion.

You have decided that most of those that read English bibles have no clue as to what was in the original Greek.

That's quite a statement.

 

[Sonnet]

There very certainly is. What I've said is the precise and exact exegetical truth of scripture, whether anyone understands it or not; and most won't and can't because they're English thinkers/speakers who can't divest themselves of their grammatical error-induced presuppostional perceptions.

Cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the conclusion.

Canons of Dort
Article 7: Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Thoughts?

 

[Sonnet]

..................

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4697709&viewfull=1#post4697709

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I can't understand? How would you know that?

Until you actually make a clear statement about your understanding, then moving forward wont be possible.

Ummm... There likely hasn't ever been more clear statements than I have made. It's the combination of your cognitive dissonance and refusal/inability to understand the basic usage and applications of nouns and verbs (and Greek noun forms from which English nouns are translated from).

And you assume that when a man chooses to believe that it is 'effecting his own salvation.'

Now it's not just man's action of believing rather than the noun of faith, it's man's will TO believe?! This is like double-downing in poker and having the worst hand imaginable.

Man wills to believe, and thus be saved by an action from his own volition? No.

This is closet Calvinism is it not?

No. Closer to Lutheran.

Perhaps you should explain what you think Abraham's part was when he believed. Did he play a part or not? Or was his response an automatic response to 'hearing' (the noun)?

If you understood hearing (the noun), you wouldn't ask. You're desperately clinging to your presuppositional position rather than wanting to actually know the truth.

Rather, everything was achieved at the cross.

Exactly. But you don't represent that. You insist man's own volition and action of believing saves him.

Election and reprobation...you're just wont admit that you are a Calvinist.

Nope. You just won't admit you're a full-blown Pelagian, though. And attempting to effect your own salvation by your own volition and the action of believing that comes from your own will.

I understand your assertion.

It certainly seems you don't at all. And your continued responses would concur that you don't.

So all the translators got it wrong?

No. Your reading OF the translations by the translators is the problem, along with your presuppositions.

You don't seem to be able to stand a sovereign God who don't need man to help Him with the new creation in Christ. God must then depend upon man and man's sovereignty over himself and the faith and grace and mercy and love that God freely gives.

Since when is man's volition capable of producing faith? Since when is man's believing (the verb) capable of saving himself?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Canons of Dort
Article 7: Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Thoughts?

Many problems with the above. I don't affirm the Canons of Dort.

And it begins with "before the foundation of the world...". God is timeless. There is no "before" for God.

Calvinism superimposes time upon the timeless God; just as Arminianism throws God's sovereignty under the bus of man's unequivocal pride.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Obviously you do not know what biblical exegesis is . . .

Obviously, I really don't care what you think. Ya know why? Because you're the BIGGEST grouch on TOL. You're always cranky. Perhaps it's your Calvinist belief system that makes you that way?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Sonnet]

Ummm... There likely hasn't ever been more clear statements than I have made. It's the combination of your cognitive dissonance and refusal/inability to understand the basic usage and applications of nouns and verbs (and Greek noun forms from which English nouns are translated from).

Now it's not just man's action of believing rather than the noun of faith, it's man's will TO believe?! This is like double-downing in poker and having the worst hand imaginable.

Man wills to believe, and thus be saved by an action from his own volition? No.

Synergism is not man acting on his own.

No. Closer to Lutheran.

Still waiting for clarification.

If you understood hearing (the noun), you wouldn't ask. You're desperately clinging to your presuppositional position rather than wanting to actually know the truth.

Calvinists assert that only the elect 'hear'.

Exactly. But you don't represent that. You insist man's own volition and action of believing saves him.

Synergism has already been mentioned.

Nope. You just won't admit you're a full-blown Pelagian, though. And attempting to effect your own salvation by your own volition and the action of believing that comes from your own will.

See above.

Please explain God's election then.

No. Your reading OF the translations by the translators is the problem, along with your presuppositions.

Rather, your presupposition of Calvinism (or the equivalent) has led you to your position.

You don't seem to be able to stand a sovereign God who don't need man to help Him with the new creation in Christ. God must then depend upon man and man's sovereignty over himself and the faith and grace and mercy and love that God freely gives.

I assert God's sovereignty. I also believe that your position regarding man's inability to choose makes god's creation totally worthless. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Since when is man's volition capable of producing faith? Since when is man's believing (the verb) capable of saving himself?

Romans 4:1-4. John 12:32. Romans 10:1ff.

 

[Sonnet]

Many problems with the above. I don't affirm the Canons of Dort.

And it begins with "before the foundation of the world...". God is timeless. There is no "before" for God.

Since "before the foundation of the world..." is scriptural, why would you have a problem with it?

Please define what the 'many problems' are.

Since you are the one claiming you have the understanding then you should explain why that is so.

 

[Sonnet]

I challenge anyone to explain compatibilism.

 

[Lon]

I challenge anyone to explain compatibilism.

Brief article here does a nice job for a wiki.

Basically, both Calvinists and Arminians use compatiblism to understand any sort of freewill and God's sovereignty and determinism. The Calvinist, in answering, tends to diminish free-will in explanation and the Arminian and others tend to diminish God's foreknowledge in trying to balance any conflict between the two (three linked articles to this point).

The way I illustrate it is thus: If I 'could' get an Almanac from the future, everything in it is certain and I have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of everything there. However, I had no way of influencing those events. My knowledge alone does not necessitate that it will happen. It is logic trying to work both ways on a time-scale but it is like trying to do mathematics backwards without changing the function. For instance: 1+1=2 In order to prove that, it is not 2+1=1 but rather 2-1 Similarly, compatiblism seeks to prove by changing the needed function for reverse. In no way can you say you didn't have a will when you chose and it was recorded in the almanac. My getting it from the future is not a derivative function and can be logically demonstrated. God, being infinite, must have multiple functions to conceive of His infinite ability. "We" have not capability being finite, to overtly estimate what is infinite. It does, suggest, and I think rightfully as a Calvinist, that we certainly do have a limited free will, though all concede this at some point in discussion. I just think it is a LOT less than many others seem to think. -Lon