False Christs, False Prophets and False Teachers. These are the days we live in.

[GodsGrace]

3 (from above)...


I'm not surprised. Do some research. It's not hard. You owe it to yourself to know what you're arguing so strenuously against. <smile> That's the thing, GodsGrace. You've made statement after statement through all of this about "the reformed," and Calvinism, and Augustine, and other reformers, and even about me that are not true ~ though you think they are, I get it ~ but you just... as you say here of Covenant theology... don't really even know. You don't. You could, but you don't. You don't even know, really, what you're so opposed to. Again, I don't mean to disparage, or anything like that.

Silly boy.
I asked you what YOU mean by Covenant theolgy.
I KNOW what it means and what the reformed believe it means (the same).

Seems to me it's a good idea to get our definitions before continuing ad infinitum about a phrase we may not even agree on.

And as to ME not knowing Covenant theology,,
that's pretty funny Pinseeker since I taught 7 of the covenants.

You are UNABLE to have a real discussion...
just like all calvinists.

It quickly becomes personal....
maybe because you cannot support your position with scripture.

All those verses in paragraphs after statements in the Confession could be explained away in a minute.

Incorrectly understood scripture
leads to incorrect theology.

Ah, you know that's true in the sense that the covenants God made with Adam/Noah (life), Abraham(land, people, personal blessing, blessing for all families through him), Moses (the law), and David (kingship over Israel) were different, but not true in the sense that they are cumulative, each one building on the previous one/ones, and finally coming to full fruition in the Person of Christ Jesus, Who embodies all of them in one everlasting Covenant... so, in order, "I am the way, truth, and the life" (life, of course, even eternal life)... "the meek shall inherit the earth" (land)... and then personal blessing and blessing and true brotherhood for all of Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, in Christ and an innumerable multitude, all one in Christ Jesus and co-heirs with Him. You see?

Do I SEE??????????
Oh my.
The Covenants build on each other!!

So happy to learn this!

No, the New Covenant is the full fruition of the covenant of grace. Which... I think we'll disagree on when the covenant of works ended and the covenant of grace began... I'll give you a really strong hint. <smile> The first proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ~ albeit veiled ~ is... Genesis 3:15... With Adam and Eve standing there, of course, God says to the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

YOU call it the Covenant of Grace.
No other denomination does.
THIS was my point.
You even have different titles for the Covenants.

Yes they do... <smile> Many don't, but many do. But this is non sequitur, really, it is what it is.


Suit yourself. In the sense that John Calvin was one of the original reformers in the Reformation, I'm with you here... <smile>


We do. Humanly and individually speaking, we always have free will. The will is not the issue. See above.


He did...


Yes, God chooses who will be saved... agreed on that. But Paul says in Romans 8 that... well:

"...those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)​

So okay, yes, not "by" foreknowledge, agreed, but because of, or following from, His foreknowledge... His foreknowledge is the first step in this, what we call "the golden chain of salvation," and... the rest of the chain cannot and will not happen without His foreknowledge having first taken place. Now, I know this because we've talked about it before, but you and I will disagree on what this foreknowledge ~ His foreknowledge ~ really is.

You want to discuss the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8?
Then let's do THAT.

Just quick:
The golden chain of redemption ONLY functions as YOU udnerstand it IF man has no free will.

Put free will in there and at any point...the chain is BROKEN.

You're all over the place.

Agreed; you misunderstand what I mean by "lesser." Lesser, not in the sense that they are any less important than the "greater"... but that they point to, and in this case are, altogether, the absolutely necessary building blocks of the "greater," that the "greater" is the fullness of all the "lessers" together.


Sure!

Continued below...

 

[GodsGrace]

4 (from above)...


Ah... well... good. <smile> I sure wish you'd quit... uh... saying so many dispensational things... one might wonder why you keep doing that... <smile>


Right; never said or insinuated otherwise. Our belief is the direct result of God having given us faith, which... Hebrews 11:1... is His assurance of things hoped for, and the Holy Spirit's convicting us of things not seen. And this is the action of God upon our heart, not our will.


Ohhhh, back to the focus on personal will... Goodness gracious. Okay... <smile> The issue is how we will always use our free will before and/or after we are saved... before or after we are born again of the Spirit... so, before this happens, who is our father, and then, for some of us, after this happens and Who (capital 'W') is our Father (capital 'F'). God saves us by His grace, as you know, and gives us this new spirit in His salvific act. It's not difficult.

"Save us before we can be saved"...? What does that even mean? How do you even get such a thing? Wow. I mean, no need to answer, really...


Agreed, except... a small but important clarification: faith is the vehicle through which we are saved by grace. I don't really disagree with what you say here, GodsGrace, but... WHO GIVES US THIS FAITH? See above... Again, considering the very definition of faith given in the Bible in Hebrews 11:1, do you assure yourself of things hoped for or convict yourself of things not seen? You cannot assure yourself of things hoped for or convict yourself of things not seen. None of us can. But we can certainly have it, and it is our own... if it is given to us by... the Giver.


I'm not sure how you can't... Jesus said, in response to the question "Who then can be saved?"... "What is impossible with man is possible with God.”


Suit yourself, but it can't be avoided, really... <smile> Now I'm not saying you are, but Paul knows the difficulty of acceptance of what he's saying and anticipates that even in his writing: "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"


"Off the cuff"... yeah not even sure what you mean by that. I mean, it is what it is. Difficult to accept, maybe... probably, actually... But not unclear. And like I said above, Paul anticipates that difficulty. But Paul says what he says ~ and even God says what He says, there, considering Paul's indirect quotation of God through Moses in Exodus 33 ~ in no uncertain terms.


We and the Israelites are one people, the people of God. The New Testament Church is the New Testament expression of God's Israel ~ which does not replace the Israelites of old in the sense of being God's chosen people but rather joins them. Another issue in dispensationalism, unfortunately. But as the writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews 1:1-2, using inclusive language, in no uncertain terms, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by his Son, Whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world."


Three things:

• Our belief has... a prerequisite... <smile> ...which we cannot cause to happen. "...by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8)
• "...at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).
• Regarding who, then, can be saved, Jesus says, “What is impossible with man is possible with God” (Luke 18:27)

Right, but this is not what you attributed to me before, the thing which I was denying, GodsGrace. What you attributed to me (and Augustine, and Calvin, and all "the reformed" I guess) is that God chooses who will be damned. I think those were your exact words, and that's what I was denying; that is what is absolutely untrue.

But yes... "admitting"... <chuckles> I have said many times, yes, what you are saying here is exactly what Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5, that God "chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him (God). In love (God) predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will..." Those are Paul's words verbatim.


And there it is... <shaking my head> Well, if you say that by exclusion, or indirectly, then... maybe... but really no. God does not actively choose people to be damned. He chooses some to be saved, to be conformed to the image of His Son, and predestines them to that. But, using exactly what Paul says in Romans 1... because they have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things, (God has) given them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." ~ all acts of their own free will ~ "God gave them up to dishonorable passions... they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Again, all these things are acts of their free will, GodsGrace. All of them. And if it were not for the grace of God, we would freely do these same things, and God would give us up, give us over to dishonorable passions also.


It would be, if that were the case, but it is not. <smile> They have no one to blame but themselves. They have no excuse, exactly as Paul says.

Continued below...

More nonsense.
Sorry Pinseeker.
Didn't even read all of it.

I caught something at the end.
"God does not actively choose some to be damned...."

That is double pre-destination.

Please explain the difference:

God chooses who will be saved.
God chooses who will be damned. double pre-destination


and

God chooses who will be saved.
God passes over all the others.

THUS DAMNING THEM.

Sir, God is still making the choice.

 

[GodsGrace]

From above... Hopefully this will be all; I think this is page 5 but really I've lost count... <smile> And I may be repeating something from above; if so, you'll have to give me some grace... <smile>


Of course not.


Under no circumstances. To do so would be... the unforgivable sin, actually. Which God Himself keeps us, His elect, from.


No. <smile> There's only the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Never do we read of the sin of the Spirit. <smile>


Then tell me what you think it to mean... as if I haven't asked an innumerable multitude of times before, to you and others and gotten nothing but crickets in return...


Even though Paul speaks specifically of Jacob and Esau, who were... persons... using them as examples of all people... Hmmm...


So parts of Scripture are in opposition to one another... Hmmm...


That it is...


God predestines. This is an action, GodsGrace. Something God does. For some, but not all... predestines them to be conformed to the image of His Son, according to His will alone.


In all cases, to all individuals... whom He chooses to do so, as Paul says in Romans 9 of Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad⁠ ~ in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him Who calls⁠..." and in Ephesians 1 of us who have been born again of the Spirit, "(God) chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved. In (Christ) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of (God's) grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth in Him. In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory."

Nope... one more time I guess... continued below...

Jacob and Esau represent NATIONS.
It's clear.

God DOES NOT pick individuals for salvation.

The premise is incorrect.

Again:

Incorrect understanding of scripture
leads to incorrect theology.

And there' s more??

LOL

 

[GodsGrace]

From above... page number unknown... <smile> And yes, I know I'm wearing you out, but that's really not my intention...


LOL! Well we fail from time to time, yes, we do not do His will perfectly. Yes, for now, we still sin. But when we confess our sin, He is always faithful and just to forgive... and remove our sin as far as the east is from the west, right?


No, we confess our sin, and repent... you know that... It's on us... <chuckles> As I said, as Paul says, for now, the old man is still with us, but we strive ~ because we want to ~ put off the old man and put on the new (2 Corinthians 5). Goodness gracious.


If you get it right I don't care what you call it, GodsGrace. But therein is the rub... <smile>


I do. That's too bad. <smile> But it is what it is. <smile>


Well we both agree that we have it, so what discussion is there to be had? <smile>


I'm just answering as you do, GodsGrace. These things do tend to get rather unweildy, though, because... well it always happens in these discussions... one thing leads to another, and another, and another...


Uhhhh... are you talking about TULIP here?


It's the final, full, perfect iteration of the one everlasting Covenant. Embodied by Christ. Which was being progressively revealed through the Old Testament. In the same sense as all the types and shadows of Jesus throughout the Old Testament, point to and foreshadow the Real Thing ~ Jesus Himself, of course ~ in the Gospels. You remember; Jesus said the whole Old Testament ~ Moses and the prophets ~ was about Him, explicitly in John 5:46 and implicitly, by Luke, in Luke 24:27 and Luke 24:44-45.


Right, and then ~ if you really agree on that ~ you have to accept the covenantal understanding of Scripture. There really is no middle ground... or other-ground, except to just not believe Scripture... <smile>


Right, nothing personally taken. But, um... "system"... I mean, there is such a thing as we all call systematic theology. And in the case of the Bible, there are only two "systems." <smile> Or, again, possibly a third, which would be to just say it's all bunk... <smile>


Right, but what is faith, GodsGrace? Hebrews 11:1 gives us the definition. Yes, so assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things not seen. Yes, so do you assure yourself of these hoped for things? Do you give yourself conviction of things not seen? No, you cannot... we cannot. It has to be given to us by... something, someone, actually... outside ourselves. If we do it for ourselves, then I would argue it is no real assurance or conviction at all. God gives us this assurance, God's Grace. And it is the Holy Spirit Who convicts us of these things we do not see. And our faith itself is a gift of the Holy Spirit; Paul says this specifically and explicitly in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and faith is mentioned specifically and explicitly in verse 9. Now Paul is speaking specifically of those who have been born again here:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God Who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills."


We cannot save ourselves; only God can do this. You know that. But the implication of what you have been saying... and I know very well this is not your intent, but it is the implication... is that we are at least partially responsible for our own salvation.


Right, you avoid it. Or try to explain it away as a "method"... <smile> But it is what it is.


Yes, individual Israelites. Same now as then. As he did for Jacob but not for Esau, who were both Israelites... even twin brothers, actually; you know that, too...


Wow. I mean you actually say it here and then refute it: "to all who believe in him," so to the persons WHO believe in Him, so both individually and corporately, and then "not the person." I mean that's just astounding, given your obvious intelligence.


Only Moses and the prophets and the apostles... the writers of the Bible... had God's Word breathed into them and were thus inspired. I'm really not sure who you consider to be "ECF," and it's really no concern to me, to be honest.


Fair enough. Not a concern.


But not inspired in the sense of Biblical inspiration.


But not inspired in the sense of Biblical inspiration.


Paul addressed many in his letters, especially the ones to the Corinthians and the Galatians.


Good. Although that seems an abrupt about-face... But, if so, great.


Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... you're a girl. LOL!


Have we not discussed it ad nauseum now? We have... And we agree that we have it, so what is there to discuss further? <smile>


Absolutely.

Grace and peace to you!

Yes.

You have not properly replied to my comment in the very first response up above.

I stated that if we give the Holy Spirit ALL THE CREDIT (monogism) when we do His will,,,
then we also have to give Him total responsibility when we sin.

And you're responding by stating that we sin from time to time and how to be forgiven?!!


I can't spend time with
HE SAID
SHE SAID

I think this was the last post.

As I said....IF you care to have a real discussion...
pick a topic...
give your understanding of it WITH SCRIPTURE....
and I'll reply WITH SCRIPTURE.


I'm here for theology
NOT general conversation which is just a person's opinion.

 

[stevesonthebay]

Hi Stevesonthebay
I couldn't agree with you more.
What's funny is that you've received a like from a member that doesn't even believe that Jesus is God...the main doctrine/teaching of the Christian faith !

The church certainly does not look like the early church.
What about its beliefs?

Seems to me that some are trying to change those too.

Paul warned about this.
Heretics existed in the early church and the early church kept out heresy.
WHO/WHAT is keeping out heresy today?

Do we hear any preaching from any pulpit about this?
I don't.

Welcome to the Forum!

Thank you. I think everyone does not like a hypocrite. Theres something in us that is provoked. Almost as though we know that there is a truth and know when people are not aligning with that.

So it makes sense that if the church actually lived the teachings like the early church. Then this would stand out. People would be impressed and respect the church more.

It begins at the top. Paul says an Elder has to be above reproach. That means not even being seen as associated with controversy or politics. No charge can be brought against them None at all.

Thats a hard task in todays world.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you. I think everyone does not like a hypocrite. Theres something in us that is provoked. Almost as though we know that there is a truth and know when people are not aligning with that.

So it makes sense that if the church actually lived the teachings like the early church. Then this would stand out. People would be impressed and respect the church more.

It begins at the top. Paul says an Elder has to be above reproach. That means not even being seen as associated with controversy or politics. No charge can be brought against them None at all.

Thats a hard task in todays world.

Agreed.
And even they fail at times.
One pastor of a denomination I attended for over 10 years in the states, turned out to be
stealing money.

Now I'm here and I know a few priests really well.
A couple I can think of leave much to be desired.

But some are faithful men and love Jesus and serve Him and their fellow man.
One give his monthly stipend to the needy. (not all of it!) when necessary.

We're all only human,,,but, yes, those that claim to serve God should be held to a higher standard.

Also in reference to your comments....Jesus said we are to be the light of the world, and the salt of the earth.

Are we??

 

[PinSeeker]

This convo will soon come to an end.

I'd like that, but I don't leave folks hanging. Not saying you do, but just... I don't. But yes, that would be fine with me.

You're requesting me to PROVE that Augustine did not believe in free will.

Well no, not really, because I know you can't... <smile>

Augustine....the FIRST Catholic....in the 5th century that taught PREDESTINATION...which REQUIRED man have no free will.

The Catholic Church has its problems, for sure. Augustine did not teach this, however. Here's proof for you... <smile>

"St. Augustine of Hippo... did not teach “double predestination,” i.e., that not only does God predestine some to heaven, he also ordains that others will go to hell so that there is nothing they can do to reverse their eternal damnation.... The Catholic understanding of predestination or divine election encompasses man’s free-will response in accepting God’s gift of eternal salvation. As Augustine, the great Father and Doctor of the Church, summarized so well, ,God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.'" Catholic Answers​

Now, they're wrong about Calvin and Luther, but that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.

Dennis Carroll, I'm sure, is a really nice fellow... <smile>

I NEVER said Augustine was not an intelligent person.

I didn't say you did.

What I stated, and will repeat is that Augustine was not WELL VERSED in BIBLICAL LANGUAGE.

Yes, I know, and you were and are wrong in stating this. But no matter; I think we can stop arguing about Augustine...

If you recall, it was HIS interpretation of Romans 5:12 that have caused much grief in Christian theology in reference to ORIGINAL SIN and what it means for each person.

Ah, yes, well, the issue is really the doctrine of Original Sin itself. The followers of Pelagius and Arminius are the ones who get that wrong, who disavow that. This state of death in sin is the natural human condition, first acquired by Adam and Eve as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3 ~ even after God warned Adam this is what would happen in Genesis 2:17 ~ and so this death spread to all men, just as Paul says there in Romans 5:12. We can pair this closely with what he, Paul, says in Ephesians 2:1-3, that we who have been born again of the Spirit "were dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience⁠ ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

Also, you mention the Latin version of the NT.
If his mentors were tranlsators of the Greek into Latin....
do you accept those LATIN versions??
Or do you they are as incorrect as the translation by Jerome??

<eye roll> The discussion was about Augustine and his supposed inability regarding the Greek language, God'sGrace. And I said he learned under Cicero, who translated the original Greek New Testament into Latin. I was not saying anything about the Latin versions themselves. Wow.

Augustine's spiritual journey had EVERYTHING to do with his ultimate conclusions. This was due to GUILT.

Not only is this statement idiotic, you have no possible way of knowing that. Even if correct, though... God moves and works in mysterious ways...

You really should read some books about him that are written by those that do not have a reformed bend toward him.

You mean like the actual Catholic source I linked above? <smile>

You might start with Dr. Ken Wilson.....I did mention him to you.

Right. He's wrong. See above. We could have a brief discussion about Dr. Ken Wilson... I say you should stay away from such Arminian influences. <smile>

The problem is that YOU don't get to decide what Augustine taught.

LOL! I'm not; the record is clear. See above. The problem, really, regarding Augustine, is a misunderstanding of what he taught.

Scholars have already done this for us.

Ah yes, "scholars"... I think we can stop talking about Augustine. And "scholars." <smile> Isn't that enough about them? I mean, not to disparage them, but yeah...

Continued below...

 

[GodsGrace]

I'd like that, but I don't leave folks hanging. Not saying you do, but just... I don't. But yes, that would be fine with me.


Well no, not really, because I know you can't... <smile>


The Catholic Church has its problems, for sure. Augustine did not teach this, however. Here's proof for you... <smile>

"St. Augustine of Hippo... did not teach “double predestination,” i.e., that not only does God predestine some to heaven, he also ordains that others will go to hell so that there is nothing they can do to reverse their eternal damnation.... The Catholic understanding of predestination or divine election encompasses man’s free-will response in accepting God’s gift of eternal salvation. As Augustine, the great Father and Doctor of the Church, summarized so well, ,God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.'" Catholic Answers​

Now, they're wrong about Calvin and Luther, but that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.

Dennis Carroll, I'm sure, is a really nice fellow... <smile>

Dennis Carroll explained PERFECTLY how Augustine changed through the years.
Re the reply by the CC:

They're extremely embarrassed by the fact that they accepted his teachings in the 5th century because he was such a good debator in regards to Pelagius and he served the CC well.

Today, they still believe he is one of the big intellectuals of the Catholic religion...
but HOW to explain his crazy idea that man does not have free will??

Perhaps the following will be more to your liking?


What the CC believes about free will:

The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man's will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man--who is by nature a free cause--to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man's future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Francisco Suárez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will.

Free will and the Protestant Reformers​

A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate. In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains. With Calvin, God's preordination is, if possible, even more fatal to free will. Man can perform no sort of good act unless necessitated to it by God's grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of the human will "co-operating" with God's grace, for this would imply that man could resist the grace of God. The will of God is the very necessity of things. It is objected that in this case God sometimes imposes impossible commands. Both Calvin and Luther reply that the commands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, the Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v).


source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will


Yes sir.
The CC is trying to run as fast as it can from Augustine's teaching that man has no free will.


page 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

page 2 of 2

I didn't say you did.


Yes, I know, and you were and are wrong in stating this. But no matter; I think we can stop arguing about Augustine...

Isn't it interesting that YOU brought up Augustine,,,as all Calvinists/Reformed do,,,
by stating that Calvinism started with HIM.

And yet YOU state that he did believe in free will.
Strange.

Ah, yes, well, the issue is really the doctrine of Original Sin itself. The followers of Pelagius and Arminius are the ones who get that wrong, who disavow that. This state of death in sin is the natural human condition, first acquired by Adam and Eve as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3 ~ even after God warned Adam this is what would happen in Genesis 2:17 ~ and so this death spread to all men, just as Paul says there in Romans 5:12. We can pair this closely with what he, Paul, says in Ephesians 2:1-3, that we who have been born again of the Spirit "were dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience⁠ ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

Didn't finish reading the above.
Sorry.

SO...YOU believe that a baby is born IN SIN and that if he dies he'll be going straight to hell because HE IS responsible for Adam's sin just as much as Adam is?

Re Ephesians 2:1-3
Can a baby WALK IN SIN?


The bible, both the OT and the NT teaches that we are each responsible for our own sins.

<eye roll> The discussion was about Augustine and his supposed inability regarding the Greek language, God'sGrace. And I said he learned under Cicero, who translated the original Greek New Testament into Latin. I was not saying anything about the Latin versions themselves. Wow.

Go back.

It was about Augustine being unfamiliar with BIBLICAL LANGUAGE.

And so here we are:

HE SAID
SHE SAID

Not only is this statement idiotic, you have no possible way of knowing that. Even if correct, though... God moves and works in mysterious ways...


You mean like the actual Catholic source I linked above? <smile>


Right. He's wrong. See above. We could have a brief discussion about Dr. Ken Wilson... I say you should stay away from such Arminian influences. <smile>


LOL! I'm not; the record is clear. See above. The problem, really, regarding Augustine, is a misunderstanding of what he taught.


Ah yes, "scholars"... I think we can stop talking about Augustine. And "scholars." <smile> Isn't that enough about them? I mean, not to disparage them, but yeah...

Continued below...

Mabye YOU misunderstand.
I studied for about 10 years under a Catholic Friar/Monk and I know what the CC teaches about Augustine.

THEY LOVE HIM.
BUT HATE WHAT HE TAUGHT.

So excuses must be sought.

They don't even believe that a baby that is not baptized and dies goes to hell !!

That's strike two

 

[GodsGrace]

@PinSeeker

I was just leaving.
You haven't picked a topic with scripture.

Talk is cheap.

Good night.

 

[PinSeeker]

From above... (2)

The discussion should be direct toward whether or not man has free will.

It has been, for several posts. We really should be able to stop talking about that, too.

This requires SCRIPTURE and not long paragraphs of what YOU believe.

Ah, even though my posts have been saturated with Scripture... Hmmm...

Choose ONE TOPIC And we'll continue.

Like I said, you can if you want.

You don't know what I would say.

I can anticipate, and I think I would be preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty accurate. But yeah, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You might think otherwise, but I'm not.

Perhaps you don't know that I happen to know the Covenants really well.

LOL! Even though I went through them thoroughly in a previous post... Hmmm.....

These posts are a waste of time since they contain no WORD OF GOD...scripture.

Wow.

...scripture will be necessary,,which you have posted above.

Oh, well thanks for acknowledging that I did in fact include Scriptural quotes in my post(s)... <smile> But what you say is in direct opposition to what you said immediately above. Isn't that strange... <smile>

MAKE YOUR POINT and stop writing a thesis.

<eye roll>

If I have idiotic ideas.... WHY do you wish to waste your time here?

Because I want to help folks out of them. <smile>

When persons begin to speak idiocy,,, I quickly stop posting to them.

Fair enough. You be you, for sure. You know, free will and all... <smile>

If I recall we have not come to an agreement as to what free will means.

I mean, does anybody disagree concerning what free will means? Ohhhh, yeah, the compatibilist vs. liberterian thing... I mean respectively, that's really a rationalization. It is what it is. But there is a bit of a difference between what free will is with regard to the things of the one true God and the god of this world, certainly. A couple of verses that jump immediately to mind for me here are, "Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart...The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way" (Psalm 37:4, 23), and "I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart" (Psalm 40:8), and "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps." (Proverbs 16:9), and "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23)... Not an exhastive list, but you get the idea. <smile>

verse that comes to mind is, "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will direct your steps" (Psalm 34)

YOU believe in compatiblist free will,,,which is not biblical. I believe in libertarian free will...which is biblical.

LOL! And what's the difference between the two, GodsGrace? So many labels for everything... <chuckles> Yeah, I understand, really; no need to define (see above). As I said before, you can call it what you like; it is what it is.

As I said above, the will, and whether it is free or not, is not really the issue. The issue is complete autonomy, complete free agency... and even self-existence... really even wanting to be God. Which is Adam's and Eve's sin, really; the serpent deceived her into thinking she could be like God, and Adam was right there with her... And... once again... in response to His disciples question, "Who then can be saved," Jesus looked at them ~ and we should see the emphasis, to put it mildly, with which He is answering... His very pointed reply; "He looked at them and replied" ~ "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27), "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27).

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

From above (3)...

Oh my. You really do need to learn the Reformed faith.

That seems to be all you, GodsGrace. You keep saying wrong things about it, over and over and over again. And I correct, but you just keep going. But that's kind of good, I guess, in the sense that as long as you do, there is hope for you... <smile>

Silly boy.

Ah. LOL! The conversation seems to be... devolving... <smile>

I asked you what YOU mean by Covenant theology.

And I answered. I mean it's a big subject, but I think I was very clear and concise.

I KNOW what it (Covenant theology) means...

Even though you said you didn't... Hmmm. I mean you said, in your post #46, "Don't really even know what you mean by Covenant theology." Kinda crazy, huh? <smile> And to that, I said I wasn't surprised. And I'm not.

and what the reformed believe it means (the same).

Hmmmm.... <smile> I mean it is what it is... And dispensational folks are opposed to it, unfortunately.

Seems to me it's a good idea to get our definitions before continuing ad infinitum about a phrase we may not even agree on.

No, I think definitions are good. Kinda gotta agree on those... And many times make sure you're defining things the right way on both sides of the larger discussion. Yeah, that's really, really important.

And as to ME not knowing Covenant theology,,

Right... which you said in Post #46...

that's pretty funny Pinseeker since I taught 7 of the covenants.

About them is not the issue.

You are UNABLE to have a real discussion...

It's a matter of wanting to, and not rejecting things out of hand, which... you keep doing....

just like all calvinists.

...like so many Arminians. Not all... I mean, I used to be Arminian... grew up in an Arminian church, a Baptist church (not all of which are Arminian, but most are)... and didn't really even know it, because I had never been exposed to anything else. Which is the case of so many out there even today.

It quickly becomes personal....

Not for me... I mean, I'm always careful, even overly so sometimes, to keep things on my end from being personal.

maybe because you cannot support your position with scripture.

Even though I have, yeah. I mean, in all the times I have, rarely ~ because you have occasionally, like what you have said about election and Romans 9 ~ but rarely have you offered any kind of alternate explanation or understanding.

All those verses in paragraphs after statements in the Confession could be explained away in a minute.

Sure, but with validity? I'd call it rationalization and/or denial. So, no... <smile> It really all boils down to just a very few things, GodsGrace. It really does. One in particular, and we have even discussed it here. <smile> It's like in golf, cutting across the ball, with the clubface just slightly open, and the result is... well, what in golf parlance is a big "banana ball," sliced way right of the fairway (or left, if the golfer is left-handed) into the woods (or lake) and out of bounds.

Incorrectly understood scripture leads to incorrect theology.

Right. Absolutely.

The Covenants build on each other!! So happy to learn this!

Well, good... I mean I get your sarcasm, but yeah, a good first step at least... There's more to it than that. Which I opened the door to, but anyway, yeah, so you agree that there have been many, even though before you said otherwise...

YOU call it the Covenant of Grace.

I do. Scripture does. We are all... all, GodsGrace... saved by grace through faith, as Paul says in Ephesians 2 (and other places in other ways), and Hebrews 11 is very clear on that, starting with Abel and through all the heroes of the faith. Well, not all... as the writer of Hebrews says there, time would fail him if he tried to tell of all the rest...

No other denomination does.

Another ignorant statement.

You even have different titles for the Covenants.

Because... Scripture does... the lesser covenants ~ and again, you misunderstood before what I meant by "lesser;" please don't do it again ~ but the lesser covenants are about different things, and with different people. But they are for all, through those people. And finally and completely, about and in and through Jesus, for all of us who are in Christ Jesus, as I said.

You want to discuss the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8? Then let's do THAT.

Just quick:
The golden chain of redemption ONLY functions as YOU understand it IF man has no free will.

Put free will in there and at any point...the chain is BROKEN.

It is what it is, GodsGrace. With ~ and even because of ~ the fact that we do have free will. The only clarification I would make to that is that it doesn't depend on our free will... which is what Arminians will not accept, but is exactly what Paul says just a few sentences later in the same letter, in Romans 9:16, that being one of God's elect "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." Again, nothing about whether folks can make choices or not... of course they can... so no denial of such, and in fact clear implication that they can and do. But it depends on God, Who has mercy... Who has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. And yes, we have discussed this many times before. Talking to a brick wall is hard (pun intended)... <smile>

You're all over the place.

I'm nothing if not consistent. And consistently consistent. And that's really the problem with what Pelagius and Arminius taught... it causes all kinds of inconsistencies. Like a big banana ball out of bounds... <smile>

More nonsense.

<chuckles>

Sorry Pinseeker.

<chuckles>

Didn't even read all of it.

<chuckles> Not surprised.

I caught something at the end.

Oh yeah, a drive-by shooting...

"God does not actively choose some to be damned...."

That is double pre-destination.

I mean, it would be double predestination if I said God does actively choose some to be damned, right? Yeah...

Please explain the difference:

God chooses who will be saved.
God chooses who will be damned. double pre-destination

<smile> See directly above.

God chooses who will be saved.

Yes, Ephesians 1...

God passes over all the others. THUS DAMNING THEM.

But not actively.

Sir, God is still making the choice.

By exclusion, by not choosing them and giving them His salvation by Christ, yes, and this is exactly what I said. And as I pointed out in what Paul said in Romans 1, God gives them over to their own selfish desires. They exchange the truth for a lie ~ even though they know that truth, because God has clearly shown it to them, as everything that can be known about God has been clearly seen from the beginning. So God gives them what they choose for themselves. Now, yes, you could say this is His choice... to give them what they choose for themselves, but still, they have made their choice, and God has merely ~ although it is no mere thing ~ given them what they choose for themselves.

Jacob and Esau represent NATIONS.

They do, they are what we would call the progenitors of those nations, but those nations are made up of individuals. And Jacob and Esau, as individuals, respectively represent them all in what Paul is saying in Romans 9.

It's clear.

Yes, it is.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

Continued from above (4)...

God DOES NOT pick individuals for salvation.

Hmmmm... so nations are born again of the Spirit?

He does. Goodness gracious. Both Jew and Gentile. Individuals from every tongue, tribe, and nation. And ultimately, as Jesus says in John 5:28-29, "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." Yes, this is the second resurrection, of all individuals, from every tongue, tribe and nation. But only the former ~ all those individuals, the ones on Jesus's right (Matthew 25), "will be in the congregation of the righteous and stand in the Judgment" (Psalm 1).

The premise is incorrect.

Yours. Yes. That's what I said.

Incorrect understanding of scripture leads to incorrect theology.

Agree.

And there' s more??

There's always more. God is infinite, and infinitely good...

You have not properly replied to my comment in the very first response up above.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but maybe now I have... although maybe not to your satisfaction...

I stated that if we give the Holy Spirit ALL THE CREDIT (monogism) when we do His will,,, then we also have to give Him total responsibility when we sin.

Okay, and I said that was an idiotic statement, really. And it is.

And you're responding by stating that we sin from time to time and how to be forgiven?!!

<eye roll>

I can't spend time with HE SAID SHE SAID

No idea what you're referring to here.

I think this was the last post.

One can hope... <smile> Our free will allows us that... <smile>

As I said....IF you care to have a real discussion...

I've been trying... <smile>

pick a topic...

You can do that if you want; I'll be right there with you if you do. I mean if you want me to be... <smile> ...and maybe even if not... <smile>

give your understanding of it WITH SCRIPTURE....

Again, as if I haven't... Wow.

and I'll reply WITH SCRIPTURE.

You mean for like the first time? Yes, that would be nice...

I'm here for theology

Well good, but it often seems... otherwise... <smile>

NOT general conversation which is just a person's opinion.

Well now, two things: One, general conversation is not necessarily just opinion, and two, that's very, very hypocritical statement... Now, you're not a hypocrite, but that's a hypocritical statement...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[bdavidc]

There is a plague in this modern era. It is an infectious agent running amok in the body of Christ. It is an infirmity of lies and deception. It is a vile contagion that infects many and they in turn infect others. It's ultimate goal is the damnation of the soul.

Yes, these warnings are real. But the danger is not just “bad teachers out there.” The danger is a false gospel being accepted as Christianity.

Scripture does not leave it vague. “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you… let him be accursed” ~Galatians 1:8. That means sincerity does not matter if the message is different.

Many talk about Jesus while replacing repentance with comfort and the new birth with belonging. Yet Christ said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ~John 3:3. Not improved, not inspired, born again.

False teaching is not merely error in details. It is anything that leaves a person religious but still in their sins. “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him” ~Titus 1:16.

So the question is not only who the false teachers are. It is whether the message people are hearing actually saves. If it does not bring repentance and faith in Christ alone, it may gather crowds, but it does not gather the redeemed.

 

[PinSeeker]

Dennis Carroll explained PERFECTLY how Augustine changed through the years.

For the most part, yes. For the most part... and then the other part of it is that you're only hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest (The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkel, 1968). And you're letting some of the things about him color your whole opinion and take on him, which is all on you.

What the CC believes about free will:

We're not talking about the Catholic Church, and we're not even really talking about Augustine anymore. But the fact is, neither Augustine, nor Luther, nor Calvin denied free will. Here's the misunderstanding... on the Catholic Church's part, on Dennis Carroll's part, and yours. From your copy/paste...

"they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts..."

Stop right there. Yeah, "the human will, instead of being the master of its own acts" Now this is really about the person, of course, because the human will is an intangible thing, and therefore cannot be the master of anything. The person is the "master" of his own will ~ uses it at any point in time in the course of his life as he sees fit. No one ever denied that, nor ever will. Even so, as I have said over and over again, the will is not really the core issue here. The issue is the heart, which drives the will. And at any point in time in the course of one's life, a person uses his (free) will in accordance with his heart, his core being, his true inner self. And the person, in his heart, his core being, his true inner self, is always of something... of someone, actually, either of the devil or of God. And that's what causes the person to use his will accordingly, he will always, at any point in time in the course of his life, either:

• if in his natural state, with his father the devil and therefore of the devil... do the will of his father the devil (and this does not mean that he or she only does evil things).

or...

• if born again of the Spirit of God, with his Father God and therefore of God... do the will of his Father God (and this does not mean that he or she only does righteous, holy things).

I really don't care who doesn't believe that at this point; it is what it is. This is what the Bible ~ even Jesus Himself, as recorded by John in John 6, 8, and 10 ~ says.

Isn't it interesting that YOU brought up Augustine,,,as all Calvinists/Reformed do,,, by stating that Calvinism started with HIM.

I... guess... <chuckles>

And yet YOU state that he did believe in free will.

He did. Interesting that you take the Catholic Church's word for it... <smile> But see above. They misunderstand, and miss the point, just as... well, Dennis Carroll... and you... do. Now, you'll hate this, but you know what it is, GodsGrace? And I don't mean to offend you or anyone else with this... this whole free will argument is really about idolatry... idolatry of the self. That we determine our own direction and outcome with regard to our salvation. This is what I was alluding to a couple of posts ago. It is a form... and Christians can and do fall into this from time to time... but it is a form of exchanging the truth for a lie and worshiping creation rather than the Creator, in Paul's words in Romans 1. This is not to say that born-again Christians can become unsaved...

Ohhhhh, here we are at "OSAS" again... <smile>

...but Christians can get caught in that from time to time... sin so very easily entangles... But, yeah, you know this: "since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the Founder and Perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:1).

Didn't finish reading the above.

Yeah, not surprised. That's on you, though. You want to stay where you are. I get it. Totally. Yeah, you do you.

Sorry.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII don't think you are... <chuckles>

SO...YOU believe that a baby is born IN SIN and that if he dies he'll be going straight to hell because HE IS responsible for Adam's sin just as much as Adam is?

Re Ephesians 2:1-3
Can a baby WALK IN SIN?

Well, GodsGrace, every baby is born in sin... so sinful... just as king David said of himself in Psalm 51:5... "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." By the way, this conversation always gets here eventually... Without fail... <smile> It's not about whether he or she has actually sinned yet or not, it's... yet again... the state of his or her heart. He or she will inevitably sin, because he or she is a sinner, and therefore deserving of the condemnation of God. And we can go back to Romans 5:12... I know you don't want to do that, but it is what it is. This state of death that came upon Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, which God warned him of in Genesis 2:17, we all have from birth, even from conception (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, Ephesians 2:1-3, among others). We are in this state from the get-go. And in need of a Savior, of course... <smile> ...and in need of being born again of the Spirit, so that we can be freed from our bond-servant-ness, our slavery to unrighteousness, so that God can have this saving mercy and compassion on us if He so wills (Romans 9).

The bible, both the OT and the NT teaches that we are each responsible for our own sins.

Sure it does. Absolutely. We have already discussed this and agreed on it. Sure.

It was about Augustine being unfamiliar with BIBLICAL LANGUAGE.

He wasn't. And you can't possibly know that, really. But still, yeah... "still a man..." (or a girl, of course) "...hears what he..." (or she) "...wants to hear..." (and from whom he or she wants to hear it) "...and disregards the rest..." That's such a great song... <smile>

And so here we are...

Yes, here we are. Again and again and again...

Mabye YOU misunderstand.

Maybe. <smile> But maybe not... <smile>

I studied for about 10 years under a Catholic Friar/Monk and I know what the CC teaches about Augustine.

Great. Don't care. <smile> I mean good for you, but yeah. <smile>

They don't even believe that a baby that is not baptized and dies goes to hell !!

Ah, you know, yeah, this is important. The baptism that is effective unto salvation is that of the Holy Spirit. The water baptism that may or may not be given or... undertaken, I guess... by us is only an outward sign... for all of us, in any one instance... of the real saving work of Christ Jesus and of the Holy Spirit. So, regardless of who says what other than God Himself, no one HAS to be baptized by man (in a church or otherwise) to go to heaven. But we all, in order to go to heaven, have to be baptized by the Holy Spirit with water and fire. You know this, I know. And the latter... baptism by the Spirit... can happen at any age. That's any age, even at conception, if God so wills it; we know this was the case with John, who knew in his heart that he was in the presence of His Savior even when he and Jesus were both still in their mothers' (Elizabeth's and Mary's, respectively) wombs.

So this should answer your question above, too, actually... You asked... or, well, I'm not sure it was reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally a question... <smile> ...but I'll treat it as such: "YOU believe that a baby is born IN SIN and that if he dies he'll be going straight to hell because HE IS responsible for Adam's sin just as much as Adam is?" My answer is, maybe. <smile> We cannot know. What I think is, some are elect, and some are not, just like people of any age. We cannot know. Which kinda sucks from our perspective, for sure. But God is God; we are not, and... He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion.

That's strike two

<chuckles>

I was just leaving.

Yeah suit yourself. Cool.

You haven't picked a topic with scripture.

Again, you can. We've discussed a lot of things here. If you want to focus on one, I'm all for that. But you know as well as I do that these things tend to... burgeon... <smile> ...grow, lead to other things, which lead to other things, which... yeah. But again, focusing on one... I'm all for that...

Talk is cheap.

Sometimes, yes. <smile>

Good night.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yes, these warnings are real. But the danger is not just “bad teachers out there.” The danger is a false gospel being accepted as Christianity.

Scripture does not leave it vague. “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you… let him be accursed” ~Galatians 1:8. That means sincerity does not matter if the message is different.

Many talk about Jesus while replacing repentance with comfort and the new birth with belonging. Yet Christ said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ~John 3:3. Not improved, not inspired, born again.

Agreed.

False teaching is not merely error in details. It is anything that leaves a person religious but still in their sins.

No, its a matter of the heart. And in terms of Jesus's parable, the seed that falls... well, doesn't fall on fertile ground. And something has to make that ground fertile in the first place; it all starts out... bad...

...the question is not only who the false teachers are.

No, it's always a matter of the heart. I mean, Paul says, "...the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions..." (2 Timothy 4:3) This time is here, of course, and has been for a long time. But what I want to emphasize here in what Paul says, which is intimately related to what I said directly above, is, "to suit their own passions"... these passions are of the heart, the person's inner being.

It is whether the message people are hearing actually saves. If it does not bring repentance and faith in Christ alone, it may gather crowds, but it does not gather the redeemed.

Faith comes by hearing... (Romans 10:17)

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[bdavidc]

Agreed.


No, its a matter of the heart. And in terms of Jesus's parable, the seed that falls... well, doesn't fall on fertile ground. And something has to make that ground fertile in the first place; it all starts out... bad...


No, it's always a matter of the heart. I mean, Paul says, "...the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions..." (2 Timothy 4:3) This time is here, of course, and has been for a long time. But what I want to emphasize here in what Paul says, which is intimately related to what I said directly above, is, "to suit their own passions"... these passions are of the heart, the person's inner being.


Faith comes by hearing... (Romans 10:17)

Grace and peace to you, David.

Scripture never treats the condition of the heart as the only issue. The message must also be true. Paul warned that even sincere people can believe a false gospel, and if the message changes, “let him be accursed” ~Galatians 1:8. And the new birth comes through truth heard, not merely inner openness, because “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” ~Romans 10:17.

 

[PinSeeker]

Scripture never treats the condition of the heart as the only issue.

Well, first and foremost, it's whether or not God has had that mercy and compassion on the person, given them this mercy and compassion, or not. Which... still the condition of the heart is what it is before and/or after... it's receptiveness depends on God's mercy and compassion having been given, and the new spirit, even the Holy Spirit, given. If not... So, right, not the only issue... but for us, the first. <smile> Paul says what he says here in Romans 9, but just previous to this, in Romans 2, he has said:

"a Jew..." ~ a Jew of God's Israel ~ "...is one inwardly, and circumcision..." ~ a setting apart and made holy by God ~ "...is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

The changing of our heart from stone to flesh, the giving of the new spirit that we then have, the giving of His Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 11, 36), which occurs in our being born again of the Spirit (Ephesians 2), is our circumcision by the Spirit (Romans 2) and our initial step into His Israel, enabling us to see the Kingdom of God (John 3).

So again, right, not the only issue, but the first... <smile> ...after which our sanctification, also by the Spirit but in this case not a one-time event but an ongoing process, begins. And... He who began a good work in us will ~ will ~ bring it to completion at the day of Christ (Philippians 1:6).

The message must also be true.

Sure. But still, the message is not the core cause, but, being heard, the means. God can use anything to make His purposes reality. And it can be something very, very simple. God can use anything to make His purposes reality. He did speak the world, even the universe, into existence ~ by just saying, "Let there be..." after all, and it was, by God's own declaration, "very good." <smile> And it doesn't depend on any one of us to say just the right thing to make it happen. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rotsen777]

Let's inquire just what exactly these damnable heresies are and combat them with the light of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. With so many warnings about this are we not responsible?

The Pharisees [in the old days] were the Masters/Teachers of the Scriptures, which, in our time today, is the book called the Bible. From here on, it is easy to identify who the modern-day Pharisees are, and the heresies they are continuously plaguing the world of religious denominations around the globe. They are those self-proclaimed leaders whom the Lord Jesus did not send to preach or to teach the scriptures, as were the Pharisees in the old days.