Frank Russell
Well-known member
Incorrect.
Free-willer Straw Man Argument
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Frank Russell
Well-known member
This makes a great replacement for the word However in correspondences, don't you think?
It would not fit under the circumstances.
You have provided no evidence to support your claim.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Of course not, it was a joke.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Ditto.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
He understood perfectly:
Luke 15:
25“Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31“ ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ”
And the Older Brother did not go out to try and bring him back, although that was his responsibility.
Doug
Frank Russell
Well-known member
The older brother refused to attend the party, it ended like Jonah's story, the father having the last word.
Moral of the story, don't be like that guy.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
This is why I posted the question about "Jesus came to seek and save the lost". In General.
Well the fact is there is no difference of agreement as to the text of Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:8 or John 15:16 or John 6:29 etc
There is a whole lot of theological disagreement however
I have a feeling this is a bogus claim. I wonder how many of those Calvinists affirmed infant baptism.
It should be obvious. He implies they agreed in lock step.
Yes, here is where Paul proved this before, talking to the mainstream preachers of his time.
Rom. 2: 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of "the righteous judgment" of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them "who by" patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that "doeth evil", of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that "worketh good", to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
So yes, there are both Jew and Gentile who are still under sin. Still transgress God's Commandments by their own religious traditions, still shame those whose refuge is the Lord. Still "workers of iniquity". It is these "children of disobedience" that he speaks to Tom. "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one".
Not the Jews and Gentiles who honor and love God and are "doers" of His Law, not hearers only, as Paul and Jesus and the One True God, and Peter, and ALL the Prophets and Disciples have taught since Eve was convinced to adopt a "Creed that was against God's Law".
Could Paul transgress God's Commandments by his own religious traditions, and be treated differently than the mainstream religions of his time who did the same? Of course not!! Was he better that they, that he could reject God's instruction in righteousness, and not be considered by God as the same as they? He has already proved before who is still under sin and who isn't. Did he exclude himself from his own teaching?
I know you are convinced that your adopted religious philosophy, namely that Paul's, and by extension, Jesus' "Creed was against God's Law". Have you ever considered that you might be the one who is deceived and wrong, and NOT the God of Abraham, His Son, the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ? "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Not Justified "By the Law" Tom, but justified "because" they repented from sin, turned to God, and became a servant of God's Righteousness instead of servants to sin. At least this is what Paul teaches.
When have I ever said anything about a human "never sinning"? Where does this even come from? All men have sinned. Is a man not to "Strive against sin"? Did Jesus not tell men to repent and "Be perfect, even my Father in heaven is perfect". doesn't Paul "press toward the mark of this high Called of God, which was in Christ Jesus? I am simply pointing out what Paul was speaking to the mainstream preachers of his time, concerning their practice of being justified by "Works of the Law".
The Jews rejected God's Laws so they could walk in their own religious tradition, they polluted God's Sabbaths and created their own. They rejected God's Judgments and Statutes and taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and yet every week they would show up with the blood of an innocent righteous being, according to the Law, claiming to be made righteous "by the Law".
It is the same for this world's religions today. They transgress God's Commandments by their own religious traditions, they reject His Sabbath and create their own. They despise His Judgments and Statutes and promote doctrines and traditions of men. And yet every Sunday they invoke the blood of the only truly innocent and righteous being, according to the Law, claiming to be made righteous by it.
And while these religions and their religious philosophy like, "Jesus and Paul's Creed was against God's Law" are seductive, and each man can then make up his own way, and it's a great marketing strategy to attract contributing members in order to grow their religious business, it is not the Gospel of Christ. At least, not the Gospel of the Christ "of the bible".
NO to Zero Sum view of Soli Deo Gloria.
Yes to SOLA DEO GLORIA! To God alone be the glory! Can I get a amen?
Romans 3:20–28 (KJV 1900) — 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
No such implications on my part; in this forum, Calvinism is strictly about soteriology, not all of Calvin’s beliefs.
Doug
