Who’s interpretation is true?

[ScottA]

Scott,

What does 'complete in God' mean?

You stated: 'Or we can join God and see things as they truly are, meaning: timeless, just as God is timeless'. We have an inability to see things as timeless because we are beings created in time.

What doctrine are you trying to convince us about?

Oz

No...we, if we are "in Christ", have been made new - "not of this world", as we once were.

This is "all truth" which is the promise of Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

I may have to take them one at a time:

Understanding just what "I am" means, is key. With God "I am" for our use here, means that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But that is a translation of God's timeless reality, into the timeline of this created world which exists apart from God.

If you can grasp that reality, and then if we are of God and begin to walk in the spirit, we will come to view things from His perspective. This is what is meant by "He must increase, but I must decrease", and "the world is passing away." In that "new" existence we, by walking in the spirit, we walk less in the world of time, and more in the timeless realm of God. In which case, we are less "I was", I will be", and more "I am."

Now, consider that "before the foundation of the world" "I am", meaning Christ, and realize that if we are "in Christ"...we too are "I am" just as He is "I am", or as I said before, we "are."

Alternatively, we remain within the bubble of created time until the end when all shall awaken before God. Thus, we are urged to "rise up" to "awaken" from our "slumber."
I was not referring to salvation (salvation was the object, not the subject), but rather to how we are inclined to see things as the world see things, because it is all we have known since birth. My point was, that if we are born [again], not into this world, but out of the world and into the kingdom of God, why should we continue to look at all things as we once did? We should rather look at all things anew, and as God does...which is timeless.

Again, alternatively we can remain within the bubble of created time, and catch all of what I am saying "in the twinkling of an eye" when "all are changed." But if we say that we are already changed but have not changed, then we kid ourselves, and we will have to wait until the end, even though there is no need to wait.
As I said, if we are "in Christ" and "it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us", then we should also say, "I am." To do otherwise is to deny Christ.
You again are addressing the "object" of the discussion instead of the "subject." My point was that because we are who we are, we will do what we will do. But none of what you refer to here changes who we "are."
Better then not to speculate.
It is the world that speaks in tongues, but I am now speaking plainly, not always to the understanding of those who see it as foreign. The alternative is more parables.

You are speaking esoteric language, i.e. abstract, puzzling language.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No...we, if we are "in Christ", have been made new - "not of this world", as we once were.

This is "all truth" which is the promise of Christ.

You didn't explain what I asked of Scott: What is 'complete in God'? Let's wait for Scott's response as he was the one who used that language.

 

[Stranger]

Please, please understand what I wrote. I'm not writing about election and its conflict with evangelism, but unconditional election and its hindrance to evangelism.

I believe the Bible teaches election of Christians to salvation, but not unconditional election.

Perhaps you need to understand what the Calvinists mean by unconditional election. It was you who stated above, 'I don't know what you mean by "unconditional election"' (#294).

Oz

Please understand what I have written. If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

The jury is still out on that.

I am being clear, so why shouldn't you understand me. You may disagree, but there is no need to say you don't understand me.

I'm not allowed to not understand you?
This makes you feel badly?
Maybe you use terms I've never heard before ... like "being of God" in a different way from what it means.
Maybe you didn't explain in a way I could understand.
Maybe I'm a bit thick.
If I don't understand you, I have to say it. Or I could just not answer you. Is that what you prefer? Just let me know for the future.

No, the atonement covered all sin. It is not limited. But it is only applied to those who are of God, who are in Christ , who come by faith. Even you must agree to this. Unless you think all go to heaven. Do you?

God doesn't pick who are to be saved. God saves those who are His.

There is no difference. You remain ignorant of the movie. Whatever that is.

Stranger

I STILL don't understand the above. I asked you to explain it a different way but it really doesn't matter.

But what came first?
The picking or the being His??

I remain ignorant of the movie because both my sentences mean the same thing... you see?

That sentence I highlighted makes no sense TO ME.
Maybe it makes sense to others.... I kind of doubt it though.

 

[ScottA]

You didn't explain what I asked of Scott: What is 'complete in God'? Let's wait for Scott's response as he was the one who used that language.

All things were completed in Christ before the foundation of the world. Are you in Christ?

Can you hear me now?

 

[ScottA]

You are speaking esoteric language, i.e. abstract, puzzling language.

Oz

Indeed, we are the chosen, wheat among tares. All language was confounded by God at the tower of Babel. Now we need a translator, which is the spirit of God, that the truth should escape the ungodly.

"“This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

 

[bbyrd009]

Indeed, we are the chosen, wheat among tares. All language was confounded by God at the tower of Babel. Now we need a translator, which is the spirit of God, that the truth should escape the ungodly.

"“This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

ha nice, i was just trying to bring this out in another thread, but experience tells me that these are read as coming from someone purporting to now "hear" perfectly or whatever, when this is not what i mean, so i just erased it. We might note how the apologetic language completely disappears in Paul though.

 

[ScottA]

ha nice, i was just trying to bring this out in another thread, but experience tells me that these are read as coming from someone purporting to now "hear" perfectly or whatever, when this is not what i mean, so i just erased it. We might note how the apologetic language completely disappears in Paul though.

Interesting point about Paul and apologetic language. Nonetheless, it was Paul who said, "We have the mind of Christ", and that "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." This is as it was intended for those who would take up their cross and follow Christ in His ascension in the spirit of God during these times of the gentiles, i.e., walk in the spirit. The days of the first Adam and the flesh have passed for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

The days of the first Adam and the flesh have passed for those who are in Christ Jesus.

for all two or three of them, yes, i agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

for all two or three of them, yes, i agree.

Ya.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not allowed to not understand you?
This makes you feel badly?
Maybe you use terms I've never heard before ... like "being of God" in a different way from what it means.
Maybe you didn't explain in a way I could understand.
Maybe I'm a bit thick.
If I don't understand you, I have to say it. Or I could just not answer you. Is that what you prefer? Just let me know for the future.


I STILL don't understand the above. I asked you to explain it a different way but it really doesn't matter.

But what came first?
The picking or the being His??

I remain ignorant of the movie because both my sentences mean the same thing... you see?

That sentence I highlighted makes no sense TO ME.
Maybe it makes sense to others.... I kind of doubt it though.

I use 'of God' as God through John wrote and meant it. And I explained it to you how it was the correct interpretation. If you want to ignore it, that is fine. Don't pretend you don't understand what I said. If you don't understand what I said, then how can you accuse me of using 'of God' in a different way then what it means. You understand very well. You just don't agree.

Whats so hard to understand. Jesus Christ paid the price for sin, all sin. All sin has been paid for. Thus there is no limited atonement. Thus I disagree with limited atonement. Is that hard to understand?

There is no picking, as you word it. We are of God or not of God. I have said this several times already. You are not ignorant of this, you choose to act ignorant.

God doesn't pick those who are to be saved. God saves those who are His. This doesn't make sense to you because you don't want to believe it. It goes against your whole works and merit doctrine.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

I use 'of God' as God through John wrote and meant it. And I explained it to you how it was the correct interpretation. If you want to ignore it, that is fine. Don't pretend you don't understand what I said. If you don't understand what I said, then how can you accuse me of using 'of God' in a different way then what it means. You understand very well. You just don't agree.

Whats so hard to understand. Jesus Christ paid the price for sin, all sin. All sin has been paid for. Thus there is no limited atonement. Thus I disagree with limited atonement. Is that hard to understand?

There is no picking, as you word it. We are of God or not of God. I have said this several times already. You are not ignorant of this, you choose to act ignorant.

God doesn't pick those who are to be saved. God saves those who are His. This doesn't make sense to you because you don't want to believe it. It goes against your whole works and merit doctrine.

Stranger

Perhaps.

 

[ScottA]

for all two or three of them, yes, i agree.

Many are those who do not live, but Christ lives in them. Lay it down, and live.

 

[OzSpen]

Please understand what I have written. If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me.

Stranger

I'm not. You are the one who said you didn't understand unconditional election and I sought to share some information about it.

I would never force any theological system on anyone, and certainly not Calvinism.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Indeed, we are the chosen, wheat among tares. All language was confounded by God at the tower of Babel. Now we need a translator, which is the spirit of God, that the truth should escape the ungodly.

"“This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

Indeed, even on here we have wheat and tares, who can tell us which is which, they all call them selves christians.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not. You are the one who said you didn't understand unconditional election and I sought to share some information about it.

I would never force any theological system on anyone, and certainly not Calvinism.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

Oz

I understand perfectly what you wrote and are trying to do. You want to align me with Calvinism because you believe you have a ready set argument against Calvinism.

If your understanding of who the elect are differs from mine, then show me. Don't try and teach me Calvinism.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

I understand perfectly what you wrote and are trying to do. You want to align me with Calvinism because you believe you have a ready set argument against Calvinism.

If your understanding of who the elect are differs from mine, then show me. Don't try and teach me Calvinism.

Stranger

You're erecting a straw man.

 

[Stranger]

You're erecting a straw man.

View attachment 1220

I ask you to respond to my statements and not to Calvinism and you say 'I' am erecting a straw man?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Indeed, even on here we have wheat and tares, who can tell us which is which, they all call them selves christians.

ha well if we can put up with you calling yourself a Christian, perhaps you could find it in your heart to allow the same someday mjr, yikes lol. Judge not, or you will be judged, i guess

Wheat and tares grow in the same heart, whether we would like to perceive ourselves as perfect or not

So don't be too good or too wise! Why destroy yourself?
Be not over-righteous, nor show thyself too wise, why art thou desolate?