10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess that is where we go our separate ways then as we could consider that all peoples, namely Jews and Gentiles alike.

Now, one thing I am going to have to wrestle with and confirm where I am coming from on this (in good faith just laying out all of my cards here for you), in the spirit of early church fathers, is that it would have been nice for me if Polycarp and/or Ignatius had somewhat collaborated this translation, but I don't think that was ultimately the case.

---

So may I ask what you think the interpretation is?

My interpretation of 12:32 or interpretation of how Polycarp/Ignatius don't dig into it (I think)?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

My interpretation of 12:32 or interpretation of how Polycarp/Ignatius don't dig into it (I think)?

---

Your interpretation of 12 32. You don't have to answer if you do not want. This is not a grilling. Just seems contradictory to Reformed/Calvinist theology.

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

---

Universalism vs double predestination. The ultimate monergistic showdown.

Or….

Just a couple additional references for the Strong's G3956 - pas

Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Do you believe Herod literally kill every single male child 2 years and younger in Bethlehem?

Matthew 4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Do you believe Jesus literally healed every single disease and affliction from anyone suffering?
Do you believe literally every single sick person was brought to him?

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

---

Universalism vs double predestination. The ultimate monergistic showdown.

Or….

---

I told you I am moving away from universalism and am becoming convinced God gives man the free will ability to reject Him.

I went to Christian Universalism because it was the only way, in my opinion, to make monergism consistent with God's character as revealed through Jesus Christ.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

---

Universalism vs double predestination. The ultimate monergistic showdown.

Or….

---

At the very least, I think DP is the approach with the most humility, so I'd prefer to heir on that side.

Proverbs 11:2: When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just a couple additional references for the Strong's G3956 - pas

Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Do you believe Herod literally kill every single male child 2 years and younger in Bethlehem?

Matthew 4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Do you believe Jesus literally healed every single disease and affliction from anyone suffering?
Do you believe literally every single sick person was brought to him?

---

Will have to see what the Greek word was used.

Sounds like to me Scripture says Jesus healed everyone in His presence. I fail to see how that compares to John 12 32.

The same word is used in all of these references, including John 12:32.
Strong's G3956 - pas

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just a couple additional references for the Strong's G3956 - pas

Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Do you believe Herod literally kill every single male child 2 years and younger in Bethlehem?

Matthew 4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Do you believe Jesus literally healed every single disease and affliction from anyone suffering?
Do you believe literally every single sick person was brought to him?

---

Every translation is an interpretation. Who translated these verses that you're using? Why do you give that person or those people so much weight in understanding what's actually being said? What do you know about them? Was it done by your denomination?

This isn't to say it's unknowable, but merely to say more ancient teachings have fewer barriers to the root knowledge, understanding, and application. Why discount that for your own, personal thoughts about someone else's translation so far removed? It seems like you center yourself and your knowledge to the exclusion of Christian's across time to do so. Or am I misreading your posts?

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

---

Universalism vs double predestination. The ultimate monergistic showdown.

Or….

---

I told you I am moving away from universalism and am becoming convinced God gives man the free will ability to reject Him.

I went to Christian Universalism because it was the only way, in my opinion, to make monergism consistent with God's character as revealed through Jesus Christ.

---

I know. I'm just having fun watching two guys getting down to brass tacks versus the "God doesn't let us tell Him yes but somehow we can still tell Him no" discussion. That has hurt my brain for years and it wasn't until these last few threads that I was able to figure out why

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just a couple additional references for the Strong's G3956 - pas

Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Do you believe Herod literally kill every single male child 2 years and younger in Bethlehem?

Matthew 4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Do you believe Jesus literally healed every single disease and affliction from anyone suffering?
Do you believe literally every single sick person was brought to him?

---

Every translation is an interpretation. Who translated these verses that you're using? Why do you give that person or those people so much weight in understanding what's actually being said? What do you know about them? Was it done by your denomination?

This isn't to say it's unknowable, but merely to say more ancient teachings have fewer barriers to the root knowledge, understanding, and application. Why discount that for your own, personal thoughts about someone else's translation so far removed? It seems like you center yourself and your knowledge to the exclusion of Christian's across time to do so. Or am I misreading your posts?

---

Much easier to say as a Catholic or high church Anglican like yourself. Many Protestants are brought up with few to zero references to the historical church fathers. 10 has said that he desires to learn more about them

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All types of people, mainly getting after the inclusion of gentiles into God's redemptive plan.

The wording at the beginning "when I am lifted up" seems to me that there has been a historic event that happened in which some people had been excluded and no longer will be.

Otherwise, if it means literally every single person, now you have to do the math on if that means only at this moment going forward from Jesus being lifted up? Does this mean some were still excluded beforehand?

---

I believe the redemption of the cross goes forward and backward in history.

I believe all means all. Why the need to add words like "types" or "kinds"?

---

Universalism vs double predestination. The ultimate monergistic showdown.

Or….

---

I told you I am moving away from universalism and am becoming convinced God gives man the free will ability to reject Him.

I went to Christian Universalism because it was the only way, in my opinion, to make monergism consistent with God's character as revealed through Jesus Christ.

---

I know. I'm just having fun watching two guys getting down to brass tacks versus the "God doesn't let us tell Him yes but somehow we can still tell Him no" discussion. That has hurt my brain for years and it wasn't until these last few threads that I was able to figure out why

---

I am getting there. It is hard to get monergism completely out of my thought processes.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Just a couple additional references for the Strong's G3956 - pas

Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Do you believe Herod literally kill every single male child 2 years and younger in Bethlehem?

Matthew 4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Do you believe Jesus literally healed every single disease and affliction from anyone suffering?
Do you believe literally every single sick person was brought to him?

---

Every translation is an interpretation. Who translated these verses that you're using? Why do you give that person or those people so much weight in understanding what's actually being said? What do you know about them? Was it done by your denomination?

This isn't to say it's unknowable, but merely to say more ancient teachings have fewer barriers to the root knowledge, understanding, and application. Why discount that for your own, personal thoughts about someone else's translation so far removed? It seems like you center yourself and your knowledge to the exclusion of Christian's across time to do so. Or am I misreading your posts?

---

Much easier to say as a Catholic or high church Anglican like yourself. Many Protestants are brought up with few to zero references to the historical church fathers. 10 has said that he desires to learn more about them

---

Agree. And I think that is admirable. That quest for me several years ago led me to where I am now. A synergist.

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

This is where it gets fun: if it's synergistic after, can you lose your salvation?

Typically before that I'd ask that if you were chosen monergistically doesn't that mean others were left out in the same manner with no hope, but you're already comfortable with that.

I wouldn't say I am comfortable with it. The true comfort I do have is in the fact that God is God (and good) and will bring about what he pleases. My little human brain cannot grasp the King's better ways.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

So in your theology/soteriology, created people by God not chosen are doomed? To ECT hell?

Is that what you believe?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I wouldn't say I am comfortable with it. The true comfort I do have is in the fact that God is God (and good) and will bring about what he pleases. My little human brain cannot grasp the King's better ways.

---

This is Luther's position. We can't accept it but we can reject it. The issue with it is that, by acknowledging we can reject it, then it a necessity that we also choose to stay. Calvin and Luther both rejected that because it violated monergism.

Not saying you can't hold to it, but I will pray for you as you stay faithful and work through it as we all do.

Uh oh, I think I heard the 5pm Friday bell ring. Must be time for a drink.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

I would like to suggest that the highlighted text seems entirely consistent with the Catholic understanding of "faith alone" and how our initial salvation is entirely a movement of God towards us, but after that initial conversion we CO-operate with the grace that God continues to provide us and the more we CO-operate the more grace we get (i.e. the more we align ourselves to God's will the greater the sharing/participation in the divine life we receive, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Quote:

---

Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile. You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake. Through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:13-21, RSV-CE)

Quote:

---

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:3-11, RSV-CE)

---

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Uh oh, I think I heard the 5pm Friday bell ring. Must be time for a drink.

---

Yes sir. Even though I am 69, I am afraid to retire as that 5pm call could get earlier and earlier.

GK Chesterton wrote about that. As did David Bentley Hart.

And you and I need to hang out together. Charles Spurgeon sharing a cocktail with CS Lewis.

Hopefully will make a game down at Olsen this spring; I will have to let you know!

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

So in your theology/soteriology, created people by God not chosen are doomed? To ECT hell?

Is that what you believe?

---

Yes that is essentially what it boils down to.

I don't see a huge difference between this idea and the other semi-pelagian view that God purposefully creates people, and as he looks down the through the corridors of time in his all knowing wisdom, knows they will not choose him through their free will. Does that really make the reality of people facing damnation and God's wrath completely palpable? In either situation God knows it will pass and doesn't relent.

I think the proper disposition in either camp is to come to the feet of Jesus acknowledging we don't fully grasp his eternal and truly good ways. We have things that are hard for us to grasp and things we may misunderstand. But at the day we have his word that proves to us over time, that he is good.

If we are pretending to know the motives or special will of God, we are essentially elevating ourselves as some kind of co-equal with God. We need to know our place.

The hyper Calvinist views of simply not sharing the good news because "what will be will be" is something that should be outright rejected and is a problem in reformed circles. Missions needs to be elevated more, with the same submission to God, knowing we don't know who will be saved but entering into obedience to share his word unapologetically and lovingly with all. At that point we leave his sovereign and saving grace in God's hands.

I guess the difference is that your camp believes it's more loving to give unlimited free will to make a choice. I believe that wildly unloving - using the analogy of having kids. I don't give them free rein to choose what is right and wrong. For a lot of their young lives I make choices for them for their own good. It's not a perfect example obviously since that structure will taper off but still holds true for children.

Again, this is ultimately grounded in total depravity which I believe is one of the most clear cut truths in all of scripture. So if we truly are depraved and unable to come to God, how much more unloving is it it God leaves us to that? How loving it is that he changes the heart in regeneration and gives us the ability to follow Him.

It all goes back to whether or not you think we are totally depraved. The entire reformed theology is built upon it. If that is not true, it is going to fall down like a house of cards.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess the difference is that your camp believes it's more loving to give unlimited free will to make a choice. I believe that wildly unloving - using the analogy of having kids. I don't give them free rein to choose what is right and wrong. For a lot of their young lives I make choices for them for their own good. It's not a perfect example obviously since that structure will taper off but still holds true for children.

Again, this is ultimately grounded in total depravity which I believe is one of the most clear cut truths in all of scripture. So if we truly are depraved and unable to come to God, how much more unloving is it it God leaves us to that? How loving it is that he changes the heart in regeneration and gives us the ability to follow Him.

It all goes back to whether or not you think we are totally depraved. The entire reformed theology is built upon it. If that is not true, it is going to fall down like a house of cards.

---

I agree. Reformed theology falls apart without total depravity. The issue is we are totally depraved. The doctrine of original sin is a much, much better fit for the world that we see around us. We see non-Christians do good things. To call those actions depraved anyway is a commitment to a doctrine that was taught, not an open look at the issue.

Original sin accounts for the reality that we cannot come to God through our good works. He has to come to us BUT we are capable of rejoining Him when He does. He doesn't trap us in it. We are free to choose, because if we are not, we are not free to love. Love is an action. It is a choice. It's not something that is possessed.

So for your child example, we have to stay small children for it to hold true. Again I call the example of the prodigal son to the table. The son had to get up. He had to walk back. He had to humble himself. He could not force his father to take him back, similar to how we can not force God to take us back. But he wants us back and we have to acknowledge, humbly, that we can't do it without him.

Maybe your next step is reading more of the doctrine of original sin vs total depravity. Personally I believe TD doctrine requires us to call objectively good acts works of evil, and I can't go there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

So in your theology/soteriology, created people by God not chosen are doomed? To ECT hell?

Is that what you believe?

---

Yes that is essentially what it boils down to.

I don't see a huge difference between this idea and the other semi-pelagian view that God purposefully creates people, and as he looks down the through the corridors of time in his all knowing wisdom, knows they will not choose him through their free will. Does that really make the reality of people facing damnation and God's wrath completely palpable? In either situation God knows it will pass and doesn't relent.

I think the proper disposition in either camp is to come to the feet of Jesus acknowledging we don't fully grasp his eternal and truly good ways. We have things that are hard for us to grasp and things we may misunderstand. But at the day we have his word that proves to us over time, that he is good.

If we are pretending to know the motives or special will of God, we are essentially elevating ourselves as some kind of co-equal with God. We need to know our place.

The hyper Calvinist views of simply not sharing the good news because "what will be will be" is something that should be outright rejected and is a problem in reformed circles. Missions needs to be elevated more, with the same submission to God, knowing we don't know who will be saved but entering into obedience to share his word unapologetically and lovingly with all. At that point we leave his sovereign and saving grace in God's hands.

---

And to this is would say the fact that God lets us choose is the only living action. Example:

Let's say prior to procreating for my wife I am actually making a child that will choose a terrible path in life I can try and help, show him love and do all the things, but he will be hell bent on ruining his life. Is it more loving to choose not to make that child, or make him anyway?

I argue it is to make him anyway. To not make him is to decide that he is unworthy to exist. I detest him so much that I will not allow him to even live out those choices that he's going to make. I get that people would say preventing him from living a tormented life is more loving, but in my opinion, you have to truly decide this child is not worthy of existing. I believe God doesn't do that because it isn't love.

I agree we will not know all of God's ways. No good church claims to do so. But if we let ourselves get hung up on our own opinions on the matter, we will never be one church.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess the difference is that your camp believes it's more loving to give unlimited free will to make a choice. I believe that wildly unloving - using the analogy of having kids. I don't give them free rein to choose what is right and wrong. For a lot of their young lives I make choices for them for their own good. It's not a perfect example obviously since that structure will taper off but still holds true for children.

Again, this is ultimately grounded in total depravity which I believe is one of the most clear cut truths in all of scripture. So if we truly are depraved and unable to come to God, how much more unloving is it it God leaves us to that? How loving it is that he changes the heart in regeneration and gives us the ability to follow Him.

It all goes back to whether or not you think we are totally depraved. The entire reformed theology is built upon it. If that is not true, it is going to fall down like a house of cards.

---

I agree. Reformed theology falls apart without total depravity. The issue is we are totally depraved. The doctrine of original sin is a much, much better fit for the world that we see around us. We see non-Christians do good things. To call those actions depraved anyway is a commitment to a doctrine that was taught, not an open look at the issue.

Original sin accounts for the reality that we cannot come to God through our good works. He has to come to us BUT we are capable of rejoining Him when He does. He doesn't trap us in it. We are free to choose, because if we are not, we are not free to love. Love is an action. It is a choice. It's not something that is possessed.

So for your child example, we have to stay small children for it to hold true. Again I call the example of the prodigal son to the table. The son had to get up. He had to walk back. He had to humble himself. He could not force his father to take him back, similar to how we can not force God to take us back. But he wants us back and we have to acknowledge, humbly, that we can't do it without him.

Maybe your next step is reading more of the doctrine of original sin vs total depravity. Personally I believe TD doctrine requires us to call objectively good acts works of evil, and I can't go there.

---

Agree.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't get me wrong, its only monergistic for my rebirth/regeneration. After that it is 100% synergistic in my sanctification.

Just like a physical birth, you can't spiritually birth yourself! Or even assist with it in the slightest. It is the most vulnerable part of anyone's life. Completely out of your hands.

---

So in your theology/soteriology, created people by God not chosen are doomed? To ECT hell?

Is that what you believe?

---

Yes that is essentially what it boils down to.

I don't see a huge difference between this idea and the other semi-pelagian view that God purposefully creates people, and as he looks down the through the corridors of time in his all knowing wisdom, knows they will not choose him through their free will. Does that really make the reality of people facing damnation and God's wrath completely palpable? In either situation God knows it will pass and doesn't relent.

I think the proper disposition in either camp is to come to the feet of Jesus acknowledging we don't fully grasp his eternal and truly good ways. We have things that are hard for us to grasp and things we may misunderstand. But at the day we have his word that proves to us over time, that he is good.

If we are pretending to know the motives or special will of God, we are essentially elevating ourselves as some kind of co-equal with God. We need to know our place.

The hyper Calvinist views of simply not sharing the good news because "what will be will be" is something that should be outright rejected and is a problem in reformed circles. Missions needs to be elevated more, with the same submission to God, knowing we don't know who will be saved but entering into obedience to share his word unapologetically and lovingly with all. At that point we leave his sovereign and saving grace in God's hands.

---

I agree we will not know all of God's ways. No good church claims to do so. But if we let ourselves get hung up on our own opinions on the matter, we will never be one church.

---

I think we can agree that we could stand side by side proclaiming the great Nicene Creed and nothing could be more unifying.

I think perhaps where I might struggle is that I often come away with the perception the RCC and Orthodox communities have got it all figured out since it's so clear from what our fathers left us. Even just my cursory understanding leads me to believe division has always existed. Paul immediately had to exhort the early church in many of their initial missteps. That cycle isn't going to ever go away.

I come at this with the idea that I do think the reformers largely got it right, but I absolutely leave room that they also could be misguided in some ways as well. None of which would leave me without Christ as my savior.

Do you think we can agree on a working definition of "faith" as "belief influencing behavior"?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Do you think we can agree on a working definition of "faith" as "belief influencing behavior"?

---

Belief lived

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Do you think we can agree on a working definition of "faith" as "belief influencing behavior"?

---

I have no issues with this

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Do you think we can agree on a working definition of "faith" as "belief influencing behavior"?

---

Belief lived

---

I like that.