How to be saved?

30,074 Views | 576 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by dermdoc
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Pretty plain. He makes some of us for wrath, and some of us for glory. You just like to think that you play a part in that. You don't.
Ah, yes. The perfect justice of incomprehensible capriciousness. Such a creator truly embodies and maximizes wisdom and love as well. Since this creator doesn't use any of man's will or deeds as sources of judgement, He could use just about anything of which we have no control. Maybe the Calvinist God picks his elect by their birthday? August 19th gets in, sorry for everyone else. Or maybe people who die when the minute hand of Big Ben is at 6. Big Ben broken? Too bad for you. Maybe when the number of cobalt atoms in person add up to a prime number or are only divisible by 151? Truly such a god shows infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite wisdom and infinite love. After all, isn't that the whole point of the Calvinist God? That He is so perfect that man can only mess things up? Sure sounds perfect to me.

{cool story bro tangent warning}: I had a sociology professor at A&M who legitimately thought that everything in people's lives should be decided by lottery. Their wealth, their income, their spouse, their location, everything. Said it was the only fair way. The reasoning was that people are randomly born into wealth, talent, good looks, two parent homes, good upbringings, and safe areas to live. Since these are all markers for future success and they were random to start with, it only makes sense to allocate everything randomly. It was literally the dumbest theory I had ever heard. I was failing that class badly until the final, because I insisted on pointing out his faulty logic and assumptions at every turn. Was talking to a friend about my frustration and he told me just to write whatever the professor said. I was appalled and disgusted, but my friend rightly pointed out that the professor was never going to listen to an undergrad and was going to fail me no matter how right I was. My final essay parroted the professors awful arguments and I got a 100 and a B in the class. I never took another liberal arts class after that. {/cool story bro}
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That we were created for righteousness and not wickedness has no bearing on whether we choose to sin or not. I don't believe God created any human for condemnation. Yet some will not accept His will - that all men be saved. He wants all men to come to repentance, to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.

If you're full on predestination, that's fine. I just didn't know you believed that. I can't accept it, it doesn't match the God revealed in the scriptures or the experience of Christ Jesus I have in my church.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You are taking that chapter out of context. That chapter is about nations, not individuals.

But even so - Pharaoh was in for a penny, in for a pound. Go read Exodus. Sometimes pharaoh hardens his heart, sometimes God heardens it. But God didn't force him from before all time to do what he did, to choose what he chose.

"God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe." All means all.

From the very beginning God chose to work in His creation through Mankind. He chose to reign over His creation with men as His regents, He chose to imbue them with His image and likeness - including a rational soul and free will. What would be out of character for God would -not- be involving men in their own salvation.

We have agency in our lives. Otherwise the repeated pleadings, warnings of God make no sense - "all day long I stretch out my hands" or "turn from your wickedness and live!" Is He just being silly? I think not. He loves us, even to deign to become one of us. He's not play-acting when He tells us to do good and not evil. But He does not force.

That doesn't mean we have unlimited agency. We can chose our master - sin or righteousness, life or death. At some point when a person chooses sin, sin becomes their master and they no longer can choose otherwise. Much like Pharaoh, he chose it and was in for all of it at that point, that God might demonstrate His righteousness and judge the gods of Egypt.. Like God told Cain, sin is crouching at your door, it wants to rule you, but you must overcome it. We can become mastered by sin, or with the grace of God, through the Spirit, we can master it. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is not nonsense.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

That we were created for righteousness and not wickedness has no bearing on whether we choose to sin or not. I don't believe God created any human for condemnation. Yet some will not accept His will - that all men be saved. He wants all men to come to repentance, to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.

If you're full on predestination, that's fine. I just didn't know you believed that. I can't accept it, it doesn't match the God revealed in the scriptures or the experience of Christ Jesus I have in my church.


Actually, it perfectly matches the God from scriptures. His will be done. In fact, OTHERS praying has more to do with any salvation than the subject themselves. You apparently want a will of your own to justify yourself. Not me.
Acts 2:38
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

You are taking that chapter out of context. That chapter is about nations, not individuals.

But even so - Pharaoh was in for a penny, in for a pound. Go read Exodus. Sometimes pharaoh hardens his heart, sometimes God heardens it. But God didn't force him from before all time to do what he did, to choose what he chose.

"God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe." All means all.

From the very beginning God chose to work in His creation through Mankind. He chose to reign over His creation with men as His regents, He chose to imbue them with His image and likeness - including a rational soul and free will. What would be out of character for God would -not- be involving men in their own salvation.

We have agency in our lives. Otherwise the repeated pleadings, warnings of God make no sense - "all day long I stretch out my hands" or "turn from your wickedness and live!" Is He just being silly? I think not. He loves us, even to deign to become one of us. He's not play-acting when He tells us to do good and not evil. But He does not force.

That doesn't mean we have unlimited agency. We can chose our master - sin or righteousness, life or death. At some point when a person chooses sin, sin becomes their master and they no longer can choose otherwise. Much like Pharaoh, he chose it and was in for all of it at that point, that God might demonstrate His righteousness and judge the gods of Egypt.. Like God told Cain, sin is crouching at your door, it wants to rule you, but you must overcome it. We can become mastered by sin, or with the grace of God, through the Spirit, we can master it. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is not nonsense.


No it's not. Even Paul describes it as Jacob, and Esau. Not nations. Individuals. Nice try.
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Actually, it perfectly matches the God from scriptures. His will be done. In fact, OTHERS praying has more to do with any salvation than the subject themselves. You apparently want a will of your own to justify yourself. Not me.
There's so much confusion here

His will be done? Then all are saved.

"This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

"The Lord does not delay the promise, as some esteem slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but all to come to repentance."

"For to this we toil and strive, because we have hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."


But then you say - other's praying? Well, now, just a second ago it seemed you were arguing that what we did was irrelevant only God's will matters. Which is it? Is another man God?

Where did this become that a person's will is what justifies them? I'd say it was rhetorical sleight of hand but I honestly think it is just uncritical repetition.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Uh-huh it is too! Haha. Can we elevate the discourse above elementary school level argumentation, please?

You say "Even Paul describes"... No, no, and this is the warning flag of the exegesis you shared. St Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3. Which, of course, is about Israel and Edom, the nations which came from Jacob and Esau.

How can you know this is about Israel? Re-read up to chapter 9. The discussion St Paul is having is about God working in history to bring all mankind - Israel and the nations (gentiles) alike - to salvation. He is answering a couple of key questions. One, how does the Jewish Messiah save non-Jews, and two, if this is all going to plan why was Israel largely faithless? Why do some people, nations resist?

I already showed you, God did not hate Esau the man. God made a nation out of Esau the man - Edom. Esau inherited his portion of the inheritance through Abraham. The Lord says to Moses in Deuteronomy "command the people: You will pass through the territory of your brothers, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, so you must be very careful. Do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even a footprint, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as his possession. You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink." Edom is brother to Israel. Later, we aren't told why, Edom becomes an enemy to Israel and are defeated by Saul (1 Sam 14) and after that becomes a vassal state of Israel and later Judah.

Later again, the Edomites rebelled against Judah, causing prophets to speak against them. In Obadiah 1, you can read "This is what the Lord GOD says about Edom" and later - "how Esau will be pillaged, his hidden treasures sought out!" and again "everyone in the mountains of Esau will be cut down in the slaughter. Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame and cut off forever."

"On the day you stood aloof while strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gate and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were just like one of them."

This isn't in the story of Jacob and Esau in Genesis, because it isn't about Jacob and Esau the people - it is about the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah by Babylon, and how Edom did not come to aid Israel and actually gloated and looted with the Babylonians, and robbed the refugees.

"the house of Jacob will be a blazing fire, and the house of Joseph a burning flame; but the house of Esau will be stubble -- Jacob will set it ablaze and consume it. Therefore no survivor will remain from the house of Esau."

So St Paul references Malachi 1, which the full quote says

Quote:

"I have loved you," says the Lord.

But you ask, "How have You loved us?"

"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated, and I have made his mountains a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

Though Edom may say, "We have been devastated, but we will rebuild the ruins," this is what the Lord of Hosts says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Land of Wickedness, and a people with whom the Lord is indignant forever. You will see this with your own eyes, and you yourselves will say, 'The Lordis great -- even beyond the borders of Israel.'"

What about the other quote "The older will serve the younger"? Read the whole quote!
Quote:

"Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."
St Paul has all of this in his mind - because he likely had the entire OT memorized. And many of those he wrote to would have known this too. When he references "the older will serve the younger" and "Esau have I hated" they all knew he was talking about Israel and Edom, because they knew all that I just told you. So was he talking about nations or individuals?

But even contextually we know its nations, even if we didn't have the OT expansion. These quotes are offered to reinforce the point "Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are Abraham's descendants are they all his Children."

First, he mentions Ishmael not inheriting the promise - "Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned." The next example is to show that even further, even from the child of promise Isaac, there was a plan in place regarding the nations which were to come from Jacob and Esau (this is where the quotes fit in about the two nations which came).

And THEN we get the example of Pharaoh where the Lord tells him - "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Who is the "you" who was raised up? Pharaoh only? No - Pharaoh, and his officials, and the nation of Egypt, too - and the gods of Egypt which the Lord is judging (Ex 12:12).

Who are the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy? People? No, nations. Edom, Egypt, Israel. And of course, this makes sense because he began this section writing about "my brothers, my own flesh and blood, the people of Israel." And then he concludes this portion again talking about nations - Jews and the other nations (gentiles) - I will call them my people who are not my people - only the remnant of Israel will be saved - and that the nations will obtain righteousness.

Then he moves on (what is later marked out as chapter 10) concluding that he is praying for Israel, and still talking about how God is still pleading with Israel, a disobedient and obstinate people. And then chapter 11 concludes this portion of the letter, answering - why? Why have an Israel if it was just going to split? Why have a northern kingdom be raised up that lasted only a century or two? Why have so many tribes be completely wiped out? Why have all of these nations disobedient people, why allow them to prosper, if only to fail for their sins?

The answer is so that all nations, all men, may be saved and grafted in to the places the branches are broken off from Israel. And even further St Paul concludes by saying when the full number of the nations come in, all Israel will be saved (this is why in the Revelation, for example, St John sees all twelve tribes which by this time had not existed for centuries). And this is an amazing and miraculous work of God.

As He promised, He saves the world through Israel, through the destruction of the disobedient and faithless branches, which resulted in the diaspora, which caused Jews to be assimilated into all nations, and therefore those who came back from those nations are grafted in as Israel again.
Quote:

"Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone."
This is why he sings the hymn from Isaiah 40, because God's plan is amazing and wonderful once we see it revealed.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:


Quote:

Actually, it perfectly matches the God from scriptures. His will be done. In fact, OTHERS praying has more to do with any salvation than the subject themselves. You apparently want a will of your own to justify yourself. Not me.
There's so much confusion here

His will be done? Then all are saved.

"This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

"The Lord does not delay the promise, as some esteem slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but all to come to repentance."

"For to this we toil and strive, because we have hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."


But then you say - other's praying? Well, now, just a second ago it seemed you were arguing that what we did was irrelevant only God's will matters. Which is it? Is another man God?

Where did this become that a person's will is what justifies them? I'd say it was rhetorical sleight of hand but I honestly think it is just uncritical repetition.


And yet, there it stands, in the plainest and most unapologetic of terms, in Ephesians 1:5: "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ." And again six verses later: "In him (Christ) 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." Those Ephesians texts, along with Romans 9, much of John 6, and Jesus's high priestly prayer in John 17 toppled my commitment to free-will theology a decade ago. Acts 13:48 threw the knockout punch.
Acts 2:38
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Those which you have given me" keeps popping up over and over. What do you think it means? I think it means God gave the elect to Jesus. He chose them. It doesn't say, "those who have chosen me". Does it?

""I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world."
John 17:6-9, 11-12, 24 ESV
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Predestined is a crappy translation. Proorizo doesn't have any concept of destiny or fate in it. It means marked out before hand. The root words are pro which means before and horizo - boundary.

The plan was laid out to save. But you can't say that some verses you like therefore there's no free will and ignore the others. They're all correct. If there's nothing else you take away from our discussion, let it be that all of the scriptures are correct and mutually self-supporting.

You didn't want the portions about judgment earlier to be applied to Christians, but they are. Now you don't want God to will all men to be saved and to come to repentance because some don't. They're both true. God wills all mankind to be saved and has done everything, before time, foreordained, to craft the arc of history so that those who desire to be saved will be saved. This is how He foreknew, and foreordained. This doesn't eliminate free will but supports it, ratifies it, affirms it.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Those you have given me" are His apostles. That much is quite obvious from 17:12 - "And I guarded them, and none of them has perished, except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." That is to say, Judas.

That's not about you or me but about the Apostles. The prayer turns from them specifically at verse 20 - "I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."

But maybe that's because it comes back to that some will believe, others don't, but God wills all to believe.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where did I saw I was "full on predestination?" Where in any of my posting history would you come to that conclusion? You get so defensive and accuse me of drawing conclusions from what you post, yet here you go with what you accuse me of. Interesting.

It's odd...you seemingly have such great recall of Church Fathers, but can't remember or don't want to remember anything about other posters on this forum. Did I agree with Patriot when he was "full on double predestination?" No...yet now you turn around and essentially accuse me of the same thing.

------------------------------------
Quote:

That we were created for righteousness and not wickedness has no bearing on whether we choose to sin or not. I don't believe God created any human for condemnation. Yet some will not accept His will - that all men be saved. He wants all men to come to repentance, to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.

Where have I ever said that "God created any human for condemnation?" Nowhere.

I guess I could likewise accuse you of being a Pelagian since I could interpret that you believe we can choose our salvation right? It would be disingenuous, but I could certainly read that into what you wrote. I won't though out of respect.

-------------------------------------

So then what does Paul say? Paul points out that God initially created us for good works. We know from the first chapters of Genesis.

We also know that sin came into the world through Adam (Romans 5) and that Paul says in the next chapter that we are now "slaves to sin." He points out in Ephesians we are born "children of wrath" Who in that fallen state could understand what "good works" are on their own to even choose them?

So no, it's not that some were created for condemnation, but that we all were created in in such a state that we are condemned by our own actions.

So in my example, how could a tree produce good fruits on it's own? How could it be good on it's own in order to produce good fruits? It can't. There's no good outside of God.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Where in any of my posting history would you come to that conclusion?

You literally said a tree (meaning a person, by way of metaphor) has no choice, and does as it was created to do. I asked if you were no free will and you replied that people were created for good works. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your response. I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked, and said if you are, that's fine, I didn't know that. If you're not, that's fine too.

As you said, if men have no choice, and do as they were created to do, and some produce good and others bad, then some were created bad. This is what you said. I don't agree with it. Maybe you don't agree with it. I don't know.

You say, there's no good outside God, and of course I agree - synergism isn't man-monergism, but the cooperation of men with God.

Now you say, all are created to be good, but only some are good, and good because of God. So what is the difference between the good and the bad? Does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of free will, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Predestined is a crappy translation. Proorizo doesn't have any concept of destiny or fate in it. It means marked out before hand. The root words are pro which means before and horizo - boundary.

The plan was laid out to save. But you can't say that some verses you like therefore there's no free will and ignore the others. They're all correct. If there's nothing else you take away from our discussion, let it be that all of the scriptures are correct and mutually self-supporting.

You didn't want the portions about judgment earlier to be applied to Christians, but they are. Now you don't want God to will all men to be saved and to come to repentance because some don't. They're both true. God wills all mankind to be saved and has done everything, before time, foreordained, to craft the arc of history so that those who desire to be saved will be saved. This is how He foreknew, and foreordained. This doesn't eliminate free will but supports it, ratifies it, affirms it.


If you say so. But I will stick with two thousand years of scholarly consideration.
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two thousand years? When do you reckon it was first translated to English?

In Greek it is proorizo where "horizo" means to mark off, to determine something, from "horos" which means boundary, or "horion" which is a territory or region.

Anyway, "predestined" comes from the Latin Vulgate, "praedestinati". Destinato means to bind, or fasten, or secure but can carry a lot of the same as "horizo" - to establish, or fix, or determine, to devote, to appoint, to choose. It can also mean to aim.

The problem isn't in those words, the problem is in the burden of the English word "Destine". Destine itself, again, is OK - " to decree beforehand" is pretty heavy, but to designate or assign, or to direct, or set apart for a purpose is good too.

The real kicker is that it calls to mind destiny, which means "something to which a person is destined : fortune" and "a pretermined course of events held to be an irresistible power or agency." Uh oh. Now we've got some conceptual drift!


////


Here's a fun exercise. Go to every place this is used (here) and swip-swap predestined with foreordained. They're the same exact word, one uses the Greek route to translate to English and the other uses the Latin route. Like Holy and Saint - same exact word in Greek (but we have the Holy Bible, not the Saint Bible; and Saint Paul, not the Holy Paul). If changing from "predestined" to "foreordained" changes how you read and understand the verse - you need to at least pause and think about what that might mean. Because, I mean this in a bit of kidding around, it wasn't written in English, so we need to be really considerate of the baggage we bring in when we translate, even just in our own minds.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And I'll see your "two thousand years of scholarly consideration" and raise you two thousand years of consistent Church theological consideration.

St John Chrysostom on Ephesians 1 is wonderful. Emphasis below mine.
Quote:

What is meant by, "He chose us in Him?" By means of the faith which is in Him, Christ, he means, happily ordered this for us before we were born; nay more, before the foundation of the world. ...

But wherefore has He chosen us? "That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him." That you may not then, when you hear that He has chosen us, imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, says he, has He chosen us, and on this condition, "that we should be holy and without blemish." ...

"In love," says he, "having predestinated us." Because this comes not of any pains, nor of any good works of ours, but of love; and yet not of love alone, but of our virtue also. For if indeed of love alone, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it the result of our virtue alone, then were His coming needless, and the whole dispensation. But it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our virtue, but of both.

He chose us, says the Apostle; and He that chooses, knows what it is that He chooses. "In love," he adds, "having foreordained us;" for virtue would never have saved any one, had there not been love...

His vouchsafing us so great privileges was the effect of His love, not of our virtue. Because our being rendered virtuous, and believing, and coming near unto Him, even this again was the work of Him that called us Himself, and yet, notwithstanding, it is ours also. But that on our coming near unto Him, He should vouchsafe us so high privileges, as to bring us at once from a state of enmity, to the adoption of children, this is indeed the work of a really transcendent love....

"According to the good pleasure," he continues, "of His will." ... What he means to say then is this, God earnestly aims at, earnestly desires, our salvation.
This was preached around 395 AD. If you can find an earlier exegesis of this verse that supports your point, maybe we can talk about number of years of consideration.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

And I'll see your "two thousand years of scholarly consideration" and raise you two thousand years of consistent Church theological consideration.

St John Chrysostom on Ephesians 1 is wonderful. Emphasis below mine.
Quote:

What is meant by, "He chose us in Him?" By means of the faith which is in Him, Christ, he means, happily ordered this for us before we were born; nay more, before the foundation of the world. ...

But wherefore has He chosen us? "That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him." That you may not then, when you hear that He has chosen us, imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, says he, has He chosen us, and on this condition, "that we should be holy and without blemish." ...

"In love," says he, "having predestinated us." Because this comes not of any pains, nor of any good works of ours, but of love; and yet not of love alone, but of our virtue also. For if indeed of love alone, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it the result of our virtue alone, then were His coming needless, and the whole dispensation. But it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our virtue, but of both.

He chose us, says the Apostle; and He that chooses, knows what it is that He chooses. "In love," he adds, "having foreordained us;" for virtue would never have saved any one, had there not been love...

His vouchsafing us so great privileges was the effect of His love, not of our virtue. Because our being rendered virtuous, and believing, and coming near unto Him, even this again was the work of Him that called us Himself, and yet, notwithstanding, it is ours also. But that on our coming near unto Him, He should vouchsafe us so high privileges, as to bring us at once from a state of enmity, to the adoption of children, this is indeed the work of a really transcendent love....

"According to the good pleasure," he continues, "of His will." ... What he means to say then is this, God earnestly aims at, earnestly desires, our salvation.
This was preached around 395 AD. If you can find an earlier exegesis of this verse that supports your point, maybe we can talk about number of years of consideration.


I will do some study on the matter. See if I can find something earlier. However, you do realize we have no virtue of our own? We have none. The only righteousness we have is Christ. He is perfect, and he is our righteousness. We have no other. We are filthy, poor, wretched, and blind. If you think you are any better, you're mistaken. We have only one hope, we have only one righteousness. Neither comes from us at all.
Acts 2:38
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Pretty plain. He makes some of us for wrath, and some of us for glory. You just like to think that you play a part in that. You don't.

That's not actually what is says though is it?

Quote:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"

It says that God is "enduring with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." It does not say that he created them for destruction. For what reason would there be to show patience for something he created for a specific cause? There'd be no reason to because they are doing what he intended them to do and yet that's not what is said. So the argument you're trying to make doesn't seem to hold up to the Scripture.

However, you are correct then to highlight that Paul does make it clear that God is making himself known to the "vessels of mercy." It is clear that God, through the Word of God, has made the riches of Himself known to all of those who have faith.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
On the contrary, we were made Good. Humanity is good, made in the image and likeness of our creator. He loves us. If there were nothing good left in humanity, there would have been nothing for Christ to become incarnate from - He would have been wholly other. But He is not - He is Man, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man. He is the most human that there ever has been. Not different than us - no, instead like us in every way except only sin.

And even this is not ours, because we can take no credit for how we were made. But we were "fearfully and wonderfully made." Yes, tarnished, yes grievously injured by the fall, yes slaves to sin and bound for death as a result. But not without grace (because without God's work what could still exist?), and not without the freedom to accept the call He gives to all men.

So you see, the point you're making is right, but your conclusion is wrong. He saved all mankind from sin and death - every single one. He took away the sin of the whole world into Himself, because the sin of all men is nothing but a handful of sand in the sea of God's love. He became sin so that we may become righteous, and He gives us that righteousness too.

The sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. The difference is not that God gives little grace to some, saves others a little more, gives no grace to the third. The difference is in our own free choice - and this, also, is absolutely given to us by God, but still ours to use.

This isn't so we can glory in our own - where is boasting? It is precluded - but that we know that we are called - commanded - to righteousness. We were redeemed, therefore we are obligated to work, in gratitude, in love. There is one greatest commandment in two parts: love God with your whole being, and love others as yourself. And if a person chooses to not do this, there is no forgiveness left for that person, because that person does not know God and has rejected all the gifts: salvation, virtue, even his own free will - because such a person remains a slave and dead in their sins.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How about Augustine? Roughly the same time period.

Quote:

Upon moving to Rome and seeing what he thought was the lax discipline of Christians there, Pelagius thought he could solve the problem: just teach people they are not bound in sin to Adam (i.e., deny the doctrine of original sin), and tell them they can be perfect if they'll just work hard enough, and all will be well! Well, all wasn't well for Pelagius, because his teaching called forth the theological ire of Augustine, whose moniker "Doctor of Grace" owes itself to his reaction to Pelagius's heresy. Fueled by his reading of Paul's epistles, Augustine averred that God

has appointed them [people condemned in Adam] to be regenerated . . . whom he predestined to eternal life, as the most merciful giver of grace. To those whom he has predestined to eternal death, however, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment, not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing to it.
Acts 2:38
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sigh...

Quote:

You literally said a tree (meaning a person, by way of metaphor) has no choice, and does as it was created to do.

Correct, and I provided Ephesians 2:10 to show that we were created to do good works or after the fall, good works. Do you deny that we will do works regardless? If something does no works, isn't that something dead?

Quote:

As you said, if men have no choice, and do as they were created to do, and some produce good and others bad, then some were created bad. This is what you said. I don't agree with it. Maybe you don't agree with it. I don't know.

The more interesting thing is it seems to be your position that we can will perfection or our salvation on our own?

Because if we cannot will perfection or salvation on our own, than it seems our choices are necessarily limited.

Quote:

You say, there's no good outside God, and of course I agree - synergism isn't man-monergism, but the cooperation of men with God.

If there's no good outside of God, how can we cooperate with God? Seems we would need some source of good within us, that is not part of God to achieve this. Either that or you're unnecessarily splitting God's "goodness" to claim we have the ability to cooperate.

Quote:

Now you say, all are created to be good, but only some are good, and good because of God. So what is the difference between the good and the bad? Does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of free will, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

I always find it entertaining how you try to make it seem like everybody is just making the oh so confusing statements and only you are 100% clear every time.

And how you came to this conclusion is interesting. I quoted Scripture and you're response is to ignore that.

As I said, based on Scripture, we aren't born "good." Scriptures point out we were conceived in sin (Psalm 51) and that there is sin within us that we don't even realize (Psalm 90). Thats before the other verses I provided around being "children of wrath" and "slaves to sin."

So do we have free will to choose God on our own? No. If we've not heard the Word of God, we can't know what is good or evil. I've been 100% consistent that we cannot will our salvation, only God can give it to us.

But in terms of standard things, such as walking old ladies across the street or driving the speed limit, of course we have free will. Through regeneration and the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, we can begin to understand, in an imperfect way, good and evil, but we will remain flawed beings until we are truly reunited with God, either at our death or the return of Jesus, whichever comes first.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pelagius is of course a heretic, because he taught that man could be saved by his work without grace and that man was born with the ability to do good apart from God. Often the condemnation of Pelagius at the time at the council of Carthage is misunderstood. You can read what they said was error - it's fairly short here canons 108 through 116.

But actually in the fathers, St Augustine stands apart on this issue. It's a bit extreme, and it was done so out of polemic desire (Against Pelagius). The real travesty is that the West placed so much emphasis on such a small part of his teaching, to the exclusion of the rest of the inheritance of the Church. St John Cassian's thoughts on this subject are worth a read - conference 13, chapter 10 on.

Here is a thing I put together some time past on free will and the fathers.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2932570

And I don't know how St Augustine would talk about this verse in particular. Or any of the scriptures you've quoted. I'll try to find it. If you can, that'd be interesting reading for both of us.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

Quote:

Pretty plain. He makes some of us for wrath, and some of us for glory. You just like to think that you play a part in that. You don't.

That's not actually what is says though is it?

Quote:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"

It says that God is "enduring with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." It does not say that he created them for destruction. For what reason would there be to show patience for something he created for a specific cause? There'd be no reason to because they are doing what he intended them to do and yet that's not what is said. So the argument you're trying to make doesn't seem to hold up to the Scripture.

However, you are correct then to highlight that Paul does make it clear that God is making himself known to the "vessels of mercy." It is clear that God, through the Word of God, has made the riches of Himself known to all of those who have faith.


Yes, God has put up with great mercy those who are prepared for distraction. They have an incredible life here as opposed to what they are destined for. That is all by Gods grace. Not that he's waiting around for them to change their mind. They are destined. Destined for destruction. Before salvation, you are dead in your trespasses. Not sick, dead. Only God can create the new life, the new birth, eternal salvation. We play no part in it, except to bring our sin to Him for forgiveness once called.
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

The more interesting thing is it seems to be your position that we can will perfection or our salvation on our own?
Actually what is fascinating here is that in spite of me explicity denying this point over and over - probably ten times in this thread alone - you keep bringing it up. Please quote me, or drop it. The point being - on our own. What man is on his own? What man exists apart from God?

Quote:

If there's no good outside of God, how can we cooperate with God? Seems we would need some source of good within us, that is not part of God to achieve this. Either that or you're unnecessarily splitting God's "goodness" to claim we have the ability to cooperate.

Because He gives grace to men. We have the good within us given to us by God. We have free will given to us by God.

If this just comes back to the assertion that all good comes from God -> salvation comes from God, then yes, sure. I agree. I've never said anything against that. But if you don't also include free will, then that statement affirms both "all salvation comes from God" and "all evil comes from God". Men have free will, which is a good thing that comes from God.
Quote:

So do we have free will to choose God on our own
There's that "on our own" phrase again... Either everyone has grace, or God only gives grace to some. I think you reject limited atonement, but I'm not sure. So who is on their own?


Ok - so what comes next isn't a trick question, and it isn't a trap. It is a logical question based on your statements. You didn't answer it before. Please explain.

You say that all are created to be good, but only some are good, and those are good only because of God.

What is the difference between the good and the bad? Does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of free will, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So do we have free will to choose God on our own? No. If we've not heard the Word of God, we can't know what is good or evil.
Christ is the Word of God, and everyone has experienced him. The world was made with him and through him, so every part of existence knows and is known by him. All people, even people who haven't heard the Gospel, have some sense (if incomplete) of love, goodness, mercy, justice, and self-sacrifice. As Paul says, some without the Law act as though they are under the Law despite never having known the Law (the Law being Hebrew shorthand for right/wrong and good/evil), and therefore no one has any excuse on the day of judgement.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

On the contrary, we were made Good. Humanity is good, made in the image and likeness of our creator. He loves us. If there were nothing good left in humanity, there would have been nothing for Christ to become incarnate from - He would have been wholly other. But He is not - He is Man, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man. He is the most human that there ever has been. Not different than us - no, instead like us in every way except only sin.

And even this is not ours, because we can take no credit for how we were made. But we were "fearfully and wonderfully made." Yes, tarnished, yes grievously injured by the fall, yes slaves to sin and bound for death as a result. But not without grace (because without God's work what could still exist?), and not without the freedom to accept the call He gives to all men.

So you see, the point you're making is right, but your conclusion is wrong. He saved all mankind from sin and death - every single one. He took away the sin of the whole world into Himself, because the sin of all men is nothing but a handful of sand in the sea of God's love. He became sin so that we may become righteous, and He gives us that righteousness too.

The sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. The difference is not that God gives little grace to some, saves others a little more, gives no grace to the third. The difference is in our own free choice - and this, also, is absolutely given to us by God, but still ours to use.

This isn't so we can glory in our own - where is boasting? It is precluded - but that we know that we are called - commanded - to righteousness. We were redeemed, therefore we are obligated to work, in gratitude, in love. There is one greatest commandment in two parts: love God with your whole being, and love others as yourself. And if a person chooses to not do this, there is no forgiveness left for that person, because that person does not know God and has rejected all the gifts: salvation, virtue, even his own free will - because such a person remains a slave and dead in their sins.


This is where we disagree completely. Mankind is sick, evil, there is no good in man. None.

Psalm 53:3
Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

Luke 18:
18And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 19And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

"Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."
Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV

Romans 5:12,19 - sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

Psalm 143:2 - Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.

2 Chronicles 6:36 - "there is no one who does not sin"

Isaiah 53:6 - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turnedevery oneto his own way

Micah 7:2-4 - The godly has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind; they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts the other with a net. Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well; the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge.

Romans 3:9-12 - What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (c.f. Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3)

1 John 1:8,10 - If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar, and his word is not in us.

Jeremiah 17:9 - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

Titus 1:15-16 - to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 - Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Romans 1:28-31 - And since 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 foolish

Ephesians 4:17-18 - you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

Jeremiah 10:7-8,14 - among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like you. They are both stupid and foolish Every man is stupid and without knowledge

Matthew 15:19 - "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." (c.f. Mark 7:21-23)

Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 - The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually from his youth.

Proverbs 28:26 - Whoever trusts in his own [heart] is a fool

John 8:34 - Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin."

2 Peter 2:19 - They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

Titus 3:3 - For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

Galatians 4:8-9 - Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Romans 6:6,16,17,19,20 - We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Romans 7:14 - For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

2 Timothy 2:25-26 - God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

We can never agree on this, if you feel that mankind has any good in them whatsoever. That's the difference in our belief systems. You think man is sick needing a physician, I think he is dead in his trespasses in need of a resurrecting God.
Acts 2:38
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And I'm absolutely not surprised that you used a quote from someone who taught the heresy of purgatory. Really, you must be Catholic.

John Chrysostom Taught The Heresy Of Purgatory
"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them".
(Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5) [A.D. 392]

"Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf".
(Homilies on Philippians 3:910) [A.D. 402]
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here's probably what we are looking for.

On the Predestination of the Saints

At any rate, I find his stance here extreme. He says, for example, "[the gift of faith] is given to some, while to some it is not given" but then basically says - it's fine if He doesn't give it to everyone, because nothing He does is unrighteous. I'm not on board with that, as I said. It's a non-starter for me.

Some is a true argument against Pelagianism - i.e., that we can have merits which precede grace, which of course I reject. And a lot is a pretty in-the-weeds argument about sins a person might have committed except for death, whether baptism clears those too or not. Not sure I really care about the hypothetical, to be honest.

(Side argument - you'll probably freely disagree with St Augustine on Chapter 27 - that "The Book of Wisdom Obtains In The Church The Authority Of Canonical Scripture".)

Chapter 30 is a really weird argument. Best to avoid.

Chapter 34 is probably the relevant point - but I'm having trouble following his argument. He says they were elected before they believed, but then that they were called so that they might believe...but they, beyond a doubt, chose him when they believed. Ok, I guess that's fine, we can always have grace precede (of course). But He doesn't really answer what I think is the real question about what I'd call the "unChosen".

Same thing in 36 - "Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so." Now I'm confused. Haha. "Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe." Yikes. This almost seems as if St Augustine is saying that some are called and don't repent in order for others to believe after being called. Which, maybe? I mean, if we say, God calls all men then all of this is very simple. God calling some but not wanting them to repent in order to save others seems... capricious? arbitrary?

Hm, I reread it and maybe he means the calling which is without repentance, as in, the calling before repentance. Which is fine, again.

To me, the argument here against the Pelagians is about who makes the first move. Pelagians said we do by believing or having faith, St Augustine said God does - and before creation. But, I say, isn't creation itself the first move? What then?

I think St John Cassian is right - that grace always precedes (and thus Pelagius is unequivocally incorrect); but the will remains free to accept or resist - and thus we refrain from attributing arbitrary and capricious behavior to the God who loves all men and wills all men to come to knowledge of the truth. Because if God does not call all, then He does not truly will all to be saved, and there is a fundamental and blatant contradiction in the scriptures.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Look - I also have a bible, and I also read all of those verses. So let's accept that not only do I believe them, but that I understand what they are saying differently than you. That men sin does not mean the image of God is completely destroyed in man. That man is sold into slavery does not mean that there is nothing good left.

So, having said that I ask you: Is Jesus Christ fully man? From where did He get His humanity?

If humanity itself was left with nothing good, how is He like us in every way except only sin? It would seem that if "sin" is the only thing left, then Jesus Christ is like us in no way whatsoever, and He is not human - or at least, if He is human, than we are not. Can you explain this?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pierow said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quote:

Pretty plain. He makes some of us for wrath, and some of us for glory. You just like to think that you play a part in that. You don't.

That's not actually what is says though is it?

Quote:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"

It says that God is "enduring with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." It does not say that he created them for destruction. For what reason would there be to show patience for something he created for a specific cause? There'd be no reason to because they are doing what he intended them to do and yet that's not what is said. So the argument you're trying to make doesn't seem to hold up to the Scripture.

However, you are correct then to highlight that Paul does make it clear that God is making himself known to the "vessels of mercy." It is clear that God, through the Word of God, has made the riches of Himself known to all of those who have faith.


Yes, God has put up with great mercy those who are prepared for distraction. They have an incredible life here as opposed to what they are destined for. That is all by Gods grace. Not that he's waiting around for them to change their mind. They are destined. Destined for destruction. Before salvation, you are dead in your trespasses. Not sick, dead. Only God can create the new life, the new birth, eternal salvation. We play no part in it, except to bring our sin to Him for forgiveness once called.

I don't think that works. What or why does God endure in your scenario? If he's predestined those to heaven or hell, there's nothing to endure. Those going to hell won't hurt those going to heaven and those going to heaven need not worry about anything.

Further you used the potter and clay example...if God is annoyed by those he predestined to hell, can't he just stamp them out? Whats the point of enduring if he's already condemned them?

To say God endures in a situation where he's already picked the winners and losers doesn't make sense. Or said another way, God is causing his own annoyance simply to cause his whole annoyance and that doesn't work with what we know of God.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One - those don't affirm purgatory.

Two - if you reject St John for that, I've got some real bad news for you with regard to St Augustine.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

So do we have free will to choose God on our own? No. If we've not heard the Word of God, we can't know what is good or evil.
Christ is the Word of God, and everyone has experienced him. The world was made with him and through him, so every part of existence knows and is known by him. All people, even people who haven't heard the Gospel, have some sense (if incomplete) of love, goodness, mercy, justice, and self-sacrifice. As Paul says, some without the Law act as though they are under the Law despite never having known the Law (the Law being Hebrew shorthand for right/wrong and good/evil), and therefore no one has any excuse on the day of judgement.

I don't think this works.

Sure, even non-christians can use philosophy to deduce that there was a creator. I believe that Aristotle did this (or maybe it was Plato). You might even claim in some capacity that this creator must have been good given all that we have. You might also claim he's evil because of all the death and problems in this world.

Which then leads to your second part. As Paul says, we all have some sense of the Law. We can come to an understanding that there are universal moral laws.

However, the question is, from those point can we come to the realization that we need the Gospel on our own? By Gospel I mean the free gift of Salvation from God that comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus so that all who believe will not die, but live in Christ?

I don't think you'll be able to build a bridge from the first two points to the third without someone introducing the Word of God to them.

I also want to point out the same thing I pointed out to Zobel. When I say good, I don't mean good in the sense of driving the speed limit is simply good, but I mean to say that our motivation for why we drive the speed limit is correct. People can and do good things in a moral sense for all the wrong reasons.

For example, if I turn in a coworker for stealing from the company, it certainly looks like I'm doing good right? What if I did that because I wanted that persons job and wanted that person out of the way? What if I'm stealing too and was mad that person took all the good stuff. Simply having something look good externally doesn't mean internally a person isn't corrupt.
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Look - I also have a bible, and I also read all of those verses. So let's accept that not only do I believe them, but that I understand what they are saying differently than you. That men sin does not mean the image of God is completely destroyed in man. That man is sold into slavery does not mean that there is nothing good left.

So, having said that I ask you: Is Jesus Christ fully man? From where did He get His humanity?

If humanity itself was left with nothing good, how is He like us in every way except only sin? It would seem that if "sin" is the only thing left, then Jesus Christ is like us in no way whatsoever, and He is not human - or at least, if He is human, than we are not. Can you explain this?


Jesus Christ is 100% man, and 100% God. He is the only Man on this planet who has ever lived that was sinless. Perfect. Regardless of genetics. All of man's works are but filthy rags. Scripturally, it's akin to a description of used menstrual cloths. That's how disgusting we really are. If you want to consider there's something good in there, we simply don't agree.
Acts 2:38
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where did Christ take His humanity from?
Pierow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Where did Christ take His humanity from?


The line of David, what's your point?
Acts 2:38
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.