Taking credit for your salvation

[TibiasDad]

You are deceptive responding to me. I wrote much more than this and you're ignoring it. Why? Is that Christlike of you?

PY,

You will have to clarify what you mean by “you are deceptive responding to me “.

Is my response to you and act of deception? Am I lying about you in my response? If so, what have I said that is untrue?

In the first place, I’m am not required to respond to all of your post. But that said, I have responded to that portion for which it was necessary for me to respond.

I make every attempt to not speak to anything but the arguments being made. I have not knowingly said anything about you personally, except that I think your self-study methodology is a dangerous endeavor. (Not that self-study is a bad thing to do, but to do so without verification by external sources and evidence is not a wise.)

If I have been un-Christlike, then I will accept the testimony of two or three witnesses, but I cannot imagine what in my response to you was in any way disparaging of the name of Christ.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Uses what you think you know about Greek in a "blurb" is much WORSE relative to danger.

The only question that matters is whether the information I posted is correct? Whether it is a “blurb” or not is irrelevant!

Incidentally, your response above is an ad hom attack, and not an answer to my post. Deal with the facts I posted and you will be on the right track!


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

The problem isn't with what the Scriptures say. It is how you interpret them.

It is a simple question. You claim you can kill something. Yet, you admit the problem is still there later. You obviously didn't kill it if it is still there later.......

The problem is with you. The way you're interpreting these Scriptures. The writer isn't actually claiming to "kill" the deeds of the flesh.

I hate that you get this way. I do. I don't have to discuss this with you.

It is an analogy. As such it doesn't have a literally application of actually KILLING the deeds of the flesh. You prove this every time you sin. Which is more often than you want to admit.

Nobody is saying we are literally killing the deeds of the flesh, and suggesting we do is a straw man argument.

It is a figurative statement that simply means stop doing the sinful things you used to do. We always have the choice of how to act in any situation, and having been set free from slavery to sin, we are no longer are obligated to obey the demands of the sinful nature, we now have the ability to say no to sin and yes to righteousness. (Rom 8:12-13)

Furthermore, to say that we can put to death our old ways of living, does not mean we can never sin, or that all our action are perfect.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

You're disconnecting your own experience with sin from your theological position.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here!

But one thing I can tell from this comment and others that you’ve made is that you think you know my pattern of life and that I am sinning on a regular basis.

I can only surmise that you think that I, and everyone else, must be sinning as much as you do; for your tendency toward sin is the only tendency that you can possibly know.

I have never said that I can’t sin or denied that I have sinned since becoming a believer 47 years ago. I have only said that I, and all believers, are able to not sin at any given point of temptation. We are not slaves to sin in that sinning is necessarily inevitable. We are still capable of sinning, and there is a likelihood that we may yet sin, but that is not the expected norm for a true believer.

Doug

 

[Rockson]

Furthermore, to say that we can put to death our old ways of living, does not mean we can never sin, or that all our action are perfect.

This might help. It might be like a coach saying to his team, "Stop allowing goals to be scored into the net!" Doesn't mean he can reasonably expect they never will occur but he's saying come on guys lets get with it!

 

[Rockson]

I believe I can convince you otherwise.

1. Did the breath of God that animated Adam's and Eve's bodies change when Eve sinned?

Sorry PY I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

2. Did their physical bodies change?

Yes I believe in some way, form or fashion. Death which I think we can rightly call degeneration had a certain effect upon all physical things. Even though Adam and Eve lived close to 1000 spiritual death entering in did effect their DNA genes or something like that. Even with the physicals Earth and other life weeds came about....they were probably some type of plant prior which was more beneficial.

The physical Earth itself was effected....maybe fractures started in the Earth. But because there were breakdowns and deficiencies maybe in their bodies DNA etc I don't necessarily think that connects to the idea of flesh that Paul talks about the lusts of the flesh. I think the flesh as Paul talked about usually always just meant the natural realm way of thinking about life outside the word of God. That type of ungodly thinking can spike the natural flesh with temptation but the natural realm way of thinking about life isn't a physical thing.

. When Adam sinned He became like God. He gained the ability to know the opposites

I think to know the opposites by experience. He could have settled with knowing the opposites by revelation as God told him sin is death. God Bless.

 

[TomL]

As for me I do agree with what you're saying.

So we see rhetoric in the scriptures going two ways. We are to put to death the misdeeds of the body and yet the Bible says we ARE dead free from sin. One might ask then what are we? Why would you need to put to death that which is already dead? That's how God looks upon us in the new creation. We're exhorted to lock into that way of thinking. But we're to do this every day by a process of reckoning it so. It's through actions of declaring and decreeing it so quoting the scripture that makes a clearance way for God's resurrection LIFE to continually have the reality in our experience.

The old man did die, isn't left in a place of just dying....but it did die. Water baptism serves as a reminder to our consciousness that that which is dead is buried . You don't bury dying people. You bury only that which is dead. By declaring and decreeing this (reckoning daily) its the same as my airplane illustration mentioned. Gravity is cancelled out although it still exists because you're applying the principle of active faith (like law of lift and thrust) you ascend elevated above the law of sin and death . One is not bound by the law of sin and death as they continue to do this. It's a daily thing though.....even an hourly thing a moment by moment walking in God's LIFE and LIGHT.

Agree with all you are saying, except for one thing, that is water baptism being a symbol of death. But I do know many would see it that way because of the way they practice it.

 

[Rockson]

Agree with all you are saying, except for one thing, that is water baptism being a symbol of death. But I do know many would see it that way because of the way they practice it.

And that's what I believe too. Perhaps I didn't say it just right.

 

[TomL]

And that's what I believe too. Perhaps I didn't say it just right.

No problem

 

[jeremiah1five]

"I SAVED MYSELF!" said the man that knows not Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This might help. It might be like a coach saying to his team, "Stop allowing goals to be scored into the net!" Doesn't mean he can reasonably expect they never will occur but he's saying come on guys lets get with it!

That is not the argument that either @TomL nor @TibiasDad are making. They are making a false grammatical argument insisting that the Scriptures tell them they can kill the deeds of the flesh. Yet, they still sin when they themselves still enjoy sin for a season..

I believe you just explained away their argument.

I told Toml that it was an analogy and you just one. You are agreeing with me. Not them. In typical Arminian fashion, they can't admit their own sinfulness.

 

[praise_yeshua]

PY,

You will have to clarify what you mean by “you are deceptive responding to me “.

Is my response to you and act of deception? Am I lying about you in my response? If so, what have I said that is untrue?

In the first place, I’m am not required to respond to all of your post. But that said, I have responded to that portion for which it was necessary for me to respond.

I make every attempt to not speak to anything but the arguments being made. I have not knowingly said anything about you personally, except that I think your self-study methodology is a dangerous endeavor. (Not that self-study is a bad thing to do, but to do so without verification by external sources and evidence is not a wise.)

If I have been un-Christlike, then I will accept the testimony of two or three witnesses, but I cannot imagine what in my response to you was in any way disparaging of the name of Christ.

Doug

Two or three decivers equals what? Were their two or three witnesses when Jesus faced the Sanhedrin or when Jesus was condemned to the cross?

You're referencing the law of Moses without any thought to all the other Scriptures.

You witness your own deception in this response. You state that you have no obligation to respond to me. You don't. If I were you I would respond either. You have a false damnable position that bonds heavy burdens upon other men and then you ignore your own sin while teaching the same nonsense.

Tell you what, I'll come to your church and you can call a meeting. We can review in great detail in front of the two or three witnesses of your choice and the remainder of the congregations. Can I bring two or three of my own witnesses with me?

Fact is you are weak. You are incapable of always pleasing God. When God saved you, your flesh didn't change. Form that moment to this moment, you have never ceased from sin. Never. You might of had brief moments where to might have not openly shown yourself sinful to others but what does that actually equal in this discussion? It certainly doesn't equal the requirements you teach.

You say and do not.

This why Paul said these words....

1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

 

[TomL]

That is not the argument that either @TomL nor @TibiasDad are making. They are making a false grammatical argument insisting that the Scriptures tell them they can kill the deeds of the flesh. Yet, they still sin when they themselves still enjoy sin for a season..

I believe you just explained away their argument.

I told Toml that it was an analogy and you just one. You are agreeing with me. Not them. In typical Arminian fashion, they can't admit their own sinfulness.

You have failed to show that it is a false gramatical argument. You have not dealt with the entire text and you have pitted your opinion of the grammar against that of multiple noted experts. Further you falsely assume my understanding of the clause put to death the misdeeds of the body and it really has no part in the argument.

Romans 8:1–13 (KJV 1900) — 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Paul shows now only that through the spirit we put to death the misdeed of the body but that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit

There simply is no way you can consistently exegete this passage so as to allow the man with the Spirit to be of no difference from the man without the spirit, and still being held in bondage

 

[praise_yeshua]

And that's what I believe too. Perhaps I didn't say it just right.

If the flesh died, then Paul couldn't have possibly said...

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have failed to show that it is a false gramatical argument. You have not dealt with the entire text and you have pitted your opinion of the grammar against that of multiple noted experts. Further you falsely assume my understanding of the clause put to death the misdeeds of the body and it really has no part in the argument.

Romans 8:1–13 (KJV 1900) — 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Paul shows now only that through the spirit we put to death the misdeed of the body but that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk after the spirit

There simply is no way you can consistently exegete this passage so as to allow the man with the Spirit to be of no difference from the man without the spirit being still in bondage

You don't know Greek Grammar. You are quoting the work of others as if you know what it means. I challenged on the semantic range of Greek words. You have no idea what that means. Study.

I never said he was in bondage. Nor men isn't different.
You are a sinful man. We all are. I'm recognize my own personal sin. You insist you have none. This is a lie of epic proportions. I've never meet a Arminian that wasn't a hypocrite. Do you really think that pointing to what God has done for you saves people? You make a convert and they become just like you.
I see a bunch of sinful men, myself included, all pretending they are always right while claiming fellowship with one another in Christ. Are we divided? Do we not walk as men?
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Now keep pretending. Nothing can change until you see something wrong.

 

[TomL]

You don't know Greek Grammar. You are quoting the work of others as if you know what it means. I challenged on the semantic range of Greek words. You have no idea what that means. Study.

You present no evidence

And it is an issue of grammar not the meaning of a word

You have ignored both the greek iva clause of purpose and the meaning of the subjunctive mood

There is no actual word might in the greek

what there is the subjunctive mood of fulfilled

Romans 8:4 (ESV) — 4 in order that (Iva) the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled (subjunctive mood) in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Your interpretation is contrary to God's stated purpose

I never said he was in bondage. Nor men isn't different.

Sure you did

Your interpretion of Rom ch 7 has Paul as a regenerated man

Romans 7:14–23 (ESV) — 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

that is bondage, and it is the status of an unregenerate man,

and if true regeneration provides man with no advantage over that of an unregenerate man.

That simply is unbiblical

 

[Johann]

You present no evidence

And it is an issue of grammar not the meaning of a word

You have ignored both the greek iva clause of purpose and the meaning of the subjunctive mood

There is no actual word might in the greek

what there is the subjunctive mood of fulfilled

Romans 8:4 (ESV) — 4 in order that (Iva) the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled (subjunctive mood) in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Your interpretation is contrary to God's stated purpose

There is no actual word "might" in the Greek?

John 3:16 (KJV)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life."

Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

In this verse, the phrase "might not perish" is translated from the Greek "μὴ ἀπόληται." Here’s the breakdown:

"μὴ" is a negation used with verbs in the subjunctive mood.
"ἀπόληται" is a form of the verb "ἀπόλλυμι" (to destroy, perish), which here is in the aorist subjunctive middle/passive, third person singular.
The subjunctive mood is often used to express potentiality or possibility, which in English can be translated with "might" or "may." Thus, "μὴ ἀπόληται" means "might not perish."

Similarly, in other passages where "might" is used in English translations, it often reflects subjunctive or conditional verb forms in the Greek text. Here are a few more examples:

Ephesians 2:7 (NIV)
"in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus."

Greek Text
ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Here, "ἐνδείξηται" is an aorist subjunctive verb meaning "he might show."

Thus, "might" in English translations accurately reflects the meaning of the subjunctive forms found in the Greek New Testament.

 

[TomL]

There is no actual word "might" in the Greek?

John 3:16 (KJV)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life."

Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

In this verse, the phrase "might not perish" is translated from the Greek "μὴ ἀπόληται." Here’s the breakdown:

"μὴ" is a negation used with verbs in the subjunctive mood.
"ἀπόληται" is a form of the verb "ἀπόλλυμι" (to destroy, perish), which here is in the aorist subjunctive middle/passive, third person singular.
The subjunctive mood is often used to express potentiality or possibility, which in English can be translated with "might" or "may." Thus, "μὴ ἀπόληται" means "might not perish."

Similarly, in other passages where "might" is used in English translations, it often reflects subjunctive or conditional verb forms in the Greek text. Here are a few more examples:

Ephesians 2:7 (NIV)
"in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus."

Greek Text
ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Here, "ἐνδείξηται" is an aorist subjunctive verb meaning "he might show."

Thus, "might" in English translations accurately reflects the meaning of the subjunctive forms found in the Greek New Testament.

In the addressed text

Go to Parallel Greek

Strong's Greek English Morphology 2443 [e] ἵνα hina so that Conj 3588 [e] τὸ to the Art-NNS 1345 [e] δικαίωμα dikaiōma righteousness N-NNS 3588 [e] τοῦ tou of the Art-GMS 3551 [e] νόμου nomou law N-GMS 4137 [e] πληρωθῇ plērōthē should be fulfilled V-ASP-3S

Interrestingly Bible hub does not translate might be fulfilled but should be fulfilled

 

[Johann]

In the addressed text

Go to Parallel Greek

Strong's Greek English Morphology 2443 [e] ἵνα hina so that Conj 3588 [e] τὸ to the Art-NNS 1345 [e] δικαίωμα dikaiōma righteousness N-NNS 3588 [e] τοῦ tou of the Art-GMS 3551 [e] νόμου nomou law N-GMS 4137 [e] πληρωθῇ plērōthē should be fulfilled V-ASP-3S

Interrestingly Bible hub does not translate might be fulfilled but should be fulfilled

Thanks-you made my case.

 

[TomL]

Thanks-you made my case.

Hardly

Rather, just the opposite.

There is no word might in the greek text.

There is simply the word fulfilled in the subjunctive mood, which is the mood of possibility or probability.

Biblehub obviously sees it as probable.

In case you forgot I was responding to one who seemed to think the word might would deny the purpose of the Iva clause

and argued about the semantic range of the word might

That is not the case