Taking credit for your salvation

[praise_yeshua]

Christlike @praise_yeshua-not speaking in a condescendingly manner.

You say "Christlike" when I know how Jesus acted. I know how Jesus dealt with those teaching false doctrine. You ask me to be "Christlike" and then requirement me to actually not act like Jesus.

I can meet your demands but I ask that you don't try to "sell me" that being "Christlike" doesn't involve confrontation.

 

[civic]

You say "Christlike" when I know how Jesus acted. I know how Jesus dealt with those teaching false doctrine. You ask me to be "Christlike" and then requirement me to actually not act like Jesus.

I can meet your demands but I ask that you don't try to "sell me" that being "Christlike" doesn't involve confrontation.

And calling out heresy like Jesus and the Apostles did in their writings

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It means something purposed. God used the brother’s actions to accomplish his purposes.

Doug

The word "meant" goes beyond that. God meant for it to happen.

 

[Johann]

You say "Christlike" when I know how Jesus acted. I know how Jesus dealt with those teaching false doctrine. You ask me to be "Christlike" and then requirement me to actually not act like Jesus.

I can meet your demands but I ask that you don't try to "sell me" that being "Christlike" doesn't involve confrontation.

There is a Jewish proverb "Are you selling, or buying?"

This ain't going to work-some enjoy "confrontation" I don't. I might have fell for this a year ago but no more. You are on your own.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If you're going to just claim it is a paradox of sort, then I'll leave it at that.

However, when you say God purposed it, you basically have three or four options to explain the "how". I've never seen you say anything that makes me think that you hold a position outside the common arguments between Calvinists and Arminians.

Calvinism insists that predestination makes God responsible for all events. This creates culpability for God. "Create" fits your position better than just leaving "meant" (I reject Determined) open for interpretation.

I see no problem with culpability for God. That's the difference between my views and the views of the free-willers on here. Scripture says God can do whatever He wants with His creation, and he is not unjust in any of His decisions just because we don't grasp what went into those decisions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is a Jewish proverb "Are you selling, or buying?"

This ain't going to work-some enjoy "confrontation" I don't. I might have fell for this a year ago but no more. You are on your own.

I said I will meet your demand. I asked you not to sell me that Christlike doesn't equal confrontation.

I will meet your demand. Tell me if I deviate and I will correct it.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I said I will meet your demand. I asked you not to sell me that Christlike doesn't equal confrontation.

I will meet your demand. Tell me if I deviate and I will correct it.

Confrontation isn't necessarily accusatory. You can present contrasting scripture without bringing the person himself into the argument. Jesus confronted error against those whose father is the devil. I think it's at least polite to assume nobody here has the devil as his/her father.

 

[Johann]

I see no problem with culpability for God. That's the difference between my views and the views of the free-willers on here. Scripture says God can do whatever He wants with His creation, and he is not unjust in any of His decisions just because we don't grasp what went into those decisions.

Careful-I am a "free willer" but believe my will should be wholly swallowed up in the sweet boule /thelema of Christ Jesus i.e. the ego eimi totally dethroned and not suppressed.

Make use of the online Greek and Hebrew show them the Morphologies and Syntax brother. In my culture I would call you "yster" meaning Iron.
I had enough of this confrontation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Careful-I am a "free willer" but believe my will should be wholly swallowed up in the sweet boule /thelema of Christ Jesus i.e. the ego eimi totally dethroned and not suppressed.

Make use of the online Greek and Hebrew show them the Morphologies and Syntax brother. In my culture I would call you "yster" meaning Iron.
I had enough of this confrontation.

By "free willer", I mean those who believe they are saved due to their "free will" choice to be one believing. I believe we have "free" will, but it is bound to our inclination, which is evil until we are saved and receive the Holy Spirit. So our free will is limited, not libertarian. And that includes after we are saved, too, when we become slaves to righteousness.

 

[Rockson]

Scripture says God can do whatever He wants with His creation, and he is not unjust in any of His decisions just because we don't grasp what went into those decisions.

Keep in mind that would include telling you you're wrong about his character and it doesn't make me less God by allowing my creatures to have free will.

 

[civic]

I see no problem with culpability for God. That's the difference between my views and the views of the free-willers on here. Scripture says God can do whatever He wants with His creation, and he is not unjust in any of His decisions just because we don't grasp what went into those decisions.

Yet God let’s man more often than not do things against His will therefor your fatalistic deterministic view of God is false.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Confrontation isn't necessarily accusatory. You can present contrasting scripture without bringing the person himself into the argument. Jesus confronted error against those whose father is the devil. I think it's at least polite to assume nobody here has the devil as his/her father.

Jesus called Peter "Satan" because of what Peter said. Jesus got Peter's attention. Paul confronted Peter because he was to blame. I could go on and on.

Complaints about not being "Christlike" is usually nothing more than a debate tactic. Just arguing the point.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Jesus called Peter "Satan" because of what Peter said. Jesus got Peter's attention. Paul confronted Peter because he was to blame. I could go on and on.

Complaints about not being "Christlike" is usually nothing more than a debate tactic. Just arguing the point.

Matthew 16:22-23
22 And having taken him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying, `Be kind to thyself, sir; this shall not be to thee;' and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

The day I rebuke Jesus, then you have my permission to call me "adversary".

 

[praise_yeshua]

I see no problem with culpability for God. That's the difference between my views and the views of the free-willers on here. Scripture says God can do whatever He wants with His creation, and he is not unjust in any of His decisions just because we don't grasp what went into those decisions.

I don't see how you can accept that God is culpable for sin.

It would seem that anyone can rightfully claim that God is not actually righteous but guilty of sin. Can you post a definition of "culpable"?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't see how you can accept that God is culpable for sin.

It would seem that anyone can rightfully claim that God is not actually righteous but guilty of sin. Can you post a definition of "culpable"?

20 As for you, ye devised against me evil -- God devised it for good, in order to do as [at] this day, to keep alive a numerous people;

That's culpability for what Joseph's brothers did.

 

[Johann]

Matthew 16:22-23
22 And having taken him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying, `Be kind to thyself, sir; this shall not be to thee;' and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

The day I rebuke Jesus, then you have my permission to call me "adversary".

Don't mind him brother-that was directed at me and he is on ignore for a long time now-with good reason.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Matthew 16:22-23
22 And having taken him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying, `Be kind to thyself, sir; this shall not be to thee;' and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

The day I rebuke Jesus, then you have my permission to call me "adversary".

So you're not allowing me to be "Christlike" in this manner?

Remember. Young was an amateur.

If you're going use a "literal" translation then use the ESV for the NT.

Mat 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

As far as "rebuking" Jesus, I believe you came rather close (if not actually) do such with your "judgement" comments.

Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

 

[praise_yeshua]

20 As for you, ye devised against me evil -- God devised it for good, in order to do as [at] this day, to keep alive a numerous people;

That's culpability for what Joseph's brothers did.

I read that earlier. What you haven't provided is a definition of culpable.

You're avoiding this request. I know what the definition is but you should commit to this and stop avoiding the difficult aspects of commiting.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Don't mind him brother-that was directed at me and he is on ignore for a long time now-with good reason.

No. It wasn't. I would have tagged you in the comment if it were.

 

[praise_yeshua]

20 As for you, ye devised against me evil -- God devised it for good, in order to do as [at] this day, to keep alive a numerous people;

That's culpability for what Joseph's brothers did.

Also, what happened to the "meant" translation?