As I said great sermon. But it is not theologically Calvinistic in my opinion. In my anecdotal experiences, a lot of folks going to Reformed churches have little grasp of what their theology actually entails. But that is true of almost every church.

dermdoc said:

---

As I said great sermon. But it is not theologically Calvinistic in my opinion. In my anecdotal experiences, a lot of folks going to Reformed churches have little grasp of what their theology actually entails. But that is true of almost every church.

---

That was my point. You've let your misconstrued "opinion" shape something into something it isn't.

And that's unfortunate. My experience is completely the opposite, but that's how anecdotes work.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

---

But I think that's what I'd like more people to understand about the doctrines of grace, because Spurgeon is a bone fide Calvinist. Every single sermon preached in my church includes the gospel with an earnest plea to repent and believe in Christ. Your opinion that it "doesn't sound very Calvinistic at all" is exactly what I'm talking about when the discussions leads to the inevitable "caricatures."

Maybe another angle; the creator-creature distinction. Calvinism is looking through the window from God's point of view and his sovereignty over all things that He created for His own glory. We cannot look from that side of the window and see the elect, or the intricate workings of His purposes. We are tasked with obedience and bringing the truth of His Word to the world, and are the ordained means through His providence through which others hear the gospel. No Calvinist believes that there are people we should ignore because they are not "the elect." We believe even the most vocal counter-christian you can imagine could potentially be in that group, and we treat them as such.

---

But who is "doing" the obedience? If we are unconditionally elected and given the regeneration needed to stay obedient, is it really us staying obedient? If obedience is tasked to us, and we are to respond in kind, then does it not follow that we are capable of disobedience and losing our salvation?

That's why it doesn't "sound" Calvinistic.

dermdoc said:

---

As I said great sermon. But it is not theologically Calvinistic in my opinion. In my anecdotal experiences, a lot of folks going to Reformed churches have little grasp of what their theology actually entails. But that is true of almost every church.

---

It is a fair and noted point.

I know for us in our 2 year + time with our reformed baptist church, although we were familiar with TULIP and some of the broad ideas of reformed theology, we are still really drinking from a firehose as far what the theology entails.

I attribute this to my ignorance as well as to these other mainstream non-denominational churches I have attended that are theologically watered down with really no reverence towards church history (modern or ancient). On top of that, traditional public education and the history they teach is completely void of some of this major events in history that have influenced the church.

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

---

But I think that's what I'd like more people to understand about the doctrines of grace, because Spurgeon is a bone fide Calvinist. Every single sermon preached in my church includes the gospel with an earnest plea to repent and believe in Christ. Your opinion that it "doesn't sound very Calvinistic at all" is exactly what I'm talking about when the discussions leads to the inevitable "caricatures."

Maybe another angle; the creator-creature distinction. Calvinism is looking through the window from God's point of view and his sovereignty over all things that He created for His own glory. We cannot look from that side of the window and see the elect, or the intricate workings of His purposes. We are tasked with obedience and bringing the truth of His Word to the world, and are the ordained means through His providence through which others hear the gospel. No Calvinist believes that there are people we should ignore because they are not "the elect." We believe even the most vocal counter-christian you can imagine could potentially be in that group, and we treat them as such.

---

But who is "doing" the obedience? If we are unconditionally elected and given the regeneration needed to stay obedient, is it really us staying obedient? If obedience is tasked to us, and we are to respond in kind, then does it not follow that we are capable of disobedience and losing our salvation?

That's why it doesn't "sound" Calvinistic.

---

As I noted above a page or two, it is no doubt the Lord at work in our lives in a synergistic path towards our sanctification. Of course the Lord is our source of strength and of course we need to choose to trust and obey. We regrettably choose our other idols routinely in this battle of the flesh and spirit that we have. But we can't even entertain this concept until we are born again as Jesus outlines to Nicodemus in John 3.

This is the part. This is what I take issue with:

God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want? Which is how we get to this quote. He does it for His glory because it's what He wants to happen.

This to me is what should be the bright red flag. God can't want sin. He can allow sin from truly free being that are free to accept or reject Him, but to want the sin to remain? I don't think that works. And as much as you say "He doesn't want us to sin but we choose to", do you really choose to if He could have taken away your fallen state and didn't? He already overwhelmed your will enough to choose Him once? Why not keep going if it wasn't what He wanted?

And that's just with the elect. With the unelected, only He could have elected them. He didn't. Therefore He is making an active choice to keep people stuck in their sin. He wants them there. He wants the sin. This is why monergism (whether Calvin's, Luther's, or even a universalists' version) should be tossed out. Each monergistic view saying that God is the sole actor of salvific faith necessitates the He be the author, or at very least the maintainer, of sin.

This is why Luther didn't like Calvin's views of double predestination. It went "too far" and made God to cause of sin. And Calvin didn't like Luther for stopping too short on what monergistic salvation meant, but tried to argue that God somehow still isn't the cause of sin. They both saw the logical result of each other theologies. And rather than realize they made a mistake, they stuck with it. Even with universalists saying the God will eventually overcome all of our efforts to resist Him only show that God is perfectly fine with our sin right now because He'll fix it all one day.

Synergism, on the other hand, says that He desires (this is for you, Derm) all men be saved, but some of us won't be. Some of us will choose to go our own way. God is not the author of sin, but He allows us to choose it because only though that freedom can love actually exist. He wants there to be zero sin, but the only way to make that happen is to overwhelm our wills, so He doesn't. He lovingly calls us to come back. To get up out of the pig sty and come home, just like the prodigal son.

We've probably all heard that love is an action, not a feeling. If God is taking the loving action to reach out to us AND the loving action of responding to His own call on our behalf, what we have is God just loving Himself through us as vessels for Him to toy around with.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

---

But I think that's what I'd like more people to understand about the doctrines of grace, because Spurgeon is a bone fide Calvinist. Every single sermon preached in my church includes the gospel with an earnest plea to repent and believe in Christ. Your opinion that it "doesn't sound very Calvinistic at all" is exactly what I'm talking about when the discussions leads to the inevitable "caricatures."

Maybe another angle; the creator-creature distinction. Calvinism is looking through the window from God's point of view and his sovereignty over all things that He created for His own glory. We cannot look from that side of the window and see the elect, or the intricate workings of His purposes. We are tasked with obedience and bringing the truth of His Word to the world, and are the ordained means through His providence through which others hear the gospel. No Calvinist believes that there are people we should ignore because they are not "the elect." We believe even the most vocal counter-christian you can imagine could potentially be in that group, and we treat them as such.

---

But who is "doing" the obedience? If we are unconditionally elected and given the regeneration needed to stay obedient, is it really us staying obedient? If obedience is tasked to us, and we are to respond in kind, then does it not follow that we are capable of disobedience and losing our salvation?

That's why it doesn't "sound" Calvinistic.

---

As I noted above a page or two, it is no doubt the Lord at work in our lives in a synergistic path towards our sanctification. Of course the Lord is our source of strength and of course we need to choose to trust and obey. We regrettably choose our other idols routinely in this battle of the flesh and spirit that we have. But we can't even entertain this concept until we are born again as Jesus outlines to Nicodemus in John 3.

---

You did say that. And I said that if it becomes synergistic, then we have to leave open the possibility that we choose to walk away from it. And if we can choose to walk away from it, we have to continue to accept it.

Luther did not agree that, even after regeneration, that we could choose to accept it. Calvin did not agree we could walk away from it. Only two churches at the time taught what my first paragraph states, and it isn't any of the reformers.

ETA: it's why the Lutherans earlier on this thread tried to appeal to mystery. But it's not a mystery. It's just wrong and we can tell because of the logical traps that we fall into.

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

---

I'm fine with mystery. But any theology that makes God the creator and/or sustainer of sin should be easily identified as wrong theology, no?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

---

But I think that's what I'd like more people to understand about the doctrines of grace, because Spurgeon is a bone fide Calvinist. Every single sermon preached in my church includes the gospel with an earnest plea to repent and believe in Christ. Your opinion that it "doesn't sound very Calvinistic at all" is exactly what I'm talking about when the discussions leads to the inevitable "caricatures."

Maybe another angle; the creator-creature distinction. Calvinism is looking through the window from God's point of view and his sovereignty over all things that He created for His own glory. We cannot look from that side of the window and see the elect, or the intricate workings of His purposes. We are tasked with obedience and bringing the truth of His Word to the world, and are the ordained means through His providence through which others hear the gospel. No Calvinist believes that there are people we should ignore because they are not "the elect." We believe even the most vocal counter-christian you can imagine could potentially be in that group, and we treat them as such.

---

But who is "doing" the obedience? If we are unconditionally elected and given the regeneration needed to stay obedient, is it really us staying obedient? If obedience is tasked to us, and we are to respond in kind, then does it not follow that we are capable of disobedience and losing our salvation?

That's why it doesn't "sound" Calvinistic.

---

As I noted above a page or two, it is no doubt the Lord at work in our lives in a synergistic path towards our sanctification. Of course the Lord is our source of strength and of course we need to choose to trust and obey. We regrettably choose our other idols routinely in this battle of the flesh and spirit that we have. But we can't even entertain this concept until we are born again as Jesus outlines to Nicodemus in John 3.

---

You did say that. And I said that if it becomes synergistic, then we have to leave open the possibility that we choose to walk away from it. And if we can choose to walk away from it, we have to continue to accept it.

Luther did not agree that, even after regeneration, that we could choose to accept it. Calvin did not agree we could walk away from it. Only two churches at the time taught what my first paragraph states, and it isn't any of the reformers.

ETA: it's why the Lutherans earlier on this thread tried to appeal to mystery. But it's not a mystery. It's just wrong and we can tell because of the logical traps that we fall into.

---

Jesus being the ultimate good shepherd will absolutely not let his flock leave his grasp.

Does he let them wander, get lost and encounter hardship and wolves? Yes. Does he sometime need to break their legs so he can carry them back under his watchful eye? Yes.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

---

I'm fine with mystery. But any theology that makes God the creator and/or sustainer of sin should be easily identified as wrong theology, no?

---

My understanding is that God absolutely did not create sin but does permit it.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

---

I'm fine with mystery. But any theology that makes God the creator and/or sustainer of sin should be easily identified as wrong theology, no?

---

My understanding is that God absolutely did not create sin but does permit it.

---

That's the historic position of the Church. Which is why the church has rejected monergism, irresistible grace and unconditional election. They are incompatible with the idea of God "permitting" anything. If monergism is true, all the sin happening in the world right now is because that is the way God wants it.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

---

But I think that's what I'd like more people to understand about the doctrines of grace, because Spurgeon is a bone fide Calvinist. Every single sermon preached in my church includes the gospel with an earnest plea to repent and believe in Christ. Your opinion that it "doesn't sound very Calvinistic at all" is exactly what I'm talking about when the discussions leads to the inevitable "caricatures."

Maybe another angle; the creator-creature distinction. Calvinism is looking through the window from God's point of view and his sovereignty over all things that He created for His own glory. We cannot look from that side of the window and see the elect, or the intricate workings of His purposes. We are tasked with obedience and bringing the truth of His Word to the world, and are the ordained means through His providence through which others hear the gospel. No Calvinist believes that there are people we should ignore because they are not "the elect." We believe even the most vocal counter-christian you can imagine could potentially be in that group, and we treat them as such.

---

But who is "doing" the obedience? If we are unconditionally elected and given the regeneration needed to stay obedient, is it really us staying obedient? If obedience is tasked to us, and we are to respond in kind, then does it not follow that we are capable of disobedience and losing our salvation?

That's why it doesn't "sound" Calvinistic.

---

As I noted above a page or two, it is no doubt the Lord at work in our lives in a synergistic path towards our sanctification. Of course the Lord is our source of strength and of course we need to choose to trust and obey. We regrettably choose our other idols routinely in this battle of the flesh and spirit that we have. But we can't even entertain this concept until we are born again as Jesus outlines to Nicodemus in John 3.

---

You did say that. And I said that if it becomes synergistic, then we have to leave open the possibility that we choose to walk away from it. And if we can choose to walk away from it, we have to continue to accept it.

Luther did not agree that, even after regeneration, that we could choose to accept it. Calvin did not agree we could walk away from it. Only two churches at the time taught what my first paragraph states, and it isn't any of the reformers.

ETA: it's why the Lutherans earlier on this thread tried to appeal to mystery. But it's not a mystery. It's just wrong and we can tell because of the logical traps that we fall into.

---

Jesus being the ultimate good shepherd will absolutely not let his flock leave his grasp.

Does he let them wander, get lost and encounter hardship and wolves? Yes. Does he sometime need to break their legs so he can carry them back under his watchful eye? Yes.

---

1. This goes against what tk said a couple posts ago.

2. Then why did the biblical writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, waste so much time and ink warning people about the dangers of falling away from the faith? It was absolutely unnecessary.

In an attempt to give a blanket answer I would likely refer to Jesus' explanation in the Parable of the Sower.

Is Jesus still a "good shepherd" if he is letting those in his flock get devoured? The imagery of sheep and their shepherd is dripping all over scripture, so I would be curious what the church fathers thought or how the RCC or EO communities explain that picture, if they do in fact believe we can lose our salvation.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In an attempt to give a blanket answer I would likely refer to Jesus' explanation in the Parable of the Sower.

Is Jesus still a "good shepherd" if he is letting those in his flock get devoured? The imagery of sheep and their shepherd is dripping all over scripture, so I would be curious what the church fathers thought or how the RCC or EO communities explain that picture, if they do in fact believe we can lose our salvation.

---

And now we're getting back into biblical interpretation. For every shepherd parable we can counter with a parable of people choosing to disobey God.

That's why this whole thread was based on challenging the presuppositions of our beliefs. Not because the Bible is not true, but because of the presuppositions we have agreed to prior to reading the Bible and how it affects our interpretations. This is why I keep saying that Jesus didn't leave any texts. He left people to teach.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

---

I'm fine with mystery. But any theology that makes God the creator and/or sustainer of sin should be easily identified as wrong theology, no?

---

My understanding is that God absolutely did not create sin but does permit it.

---

That's the historic position of the Church. Which is why the church has rejected monergism, irresistible grace and unconditional election. They are incompatible with the idea of God "permitting" anything. If monergism is true, all the sin happening in the world right now is because that is the way God wants it.

---

Romans 8:28

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In an attempt to give a blanket answer I would likely refer to Jesus' explanation in the Parable of the Sower.

Is Jesus still a "good shepherd" if he is letting those in his flock get devoured? The imagery of sheep and their shepherd is dripping all over scripture, so I would be curious what the church fathers thought or how the RCC or EO communities explain that picture, if they do in fact believe we can lose our salvation.

---

This is why I keep saying that Jesus didn't leave any texts.

---

Does the RCC conclude that the canonized 66 books of the Bible are no different in importance than the works of the early church fathers? Does the RCC believe the 66 books are divinely inspired? What about the works of the church fathers?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Good thing God will vanquish sin in the end. And it will not be slow.

Again, human perception and our inability to even fathom the plans and attributes of God. With the Lord, one day is like a thousand years (1 Pet 3:8).

---

I'm fine with mystery. But any theology that makes God the creator and/or sustainer of sin should be easily identified as wrong theology, no?

---

My understanding is that God absolutely did not create sin but does permit it.

---

That's the historic position of the Church. Which is why the church has rejected monergism, irresistible grace and unconditional election. They are incompatible with the idea of God "permitting" anything. If monergism is true, all the sin happening in the world right now is because that is the way God wants it.

---

Romans 8:28

---

Again, requires biblical interpretation that has opposing proof texts to make the Bible say something opposite.

This again proves my point. This is exactly why Jesus didn't command us to all "read and believe".

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In an attempt to give a blanket answer I would likely refer to Jesus' explanation in the Parable of the Sower.

Is Jesus still a "good shepherd" if he is letting those in his flock get devoured? The imagery of sheep and their shepherd is dripping all over scripture, so I would be curious what the church fathers thought or how the RCC or EO communities explain that picture, if they do in fact believe we can lose our salvation.

---

This is why I keep saying that Jesus didn't leave any texts.

---

Does the RCC conclude that the canonized 66 books of the Bible are no different in importance than the works of the early church fathers? Does the RCC believe the 66 books are divinely inspired? What about the works of the church fathers?

---

The Catholic Church believes the 73 books of the Bible to be set apart as divinely inspired. And they are a part of a divinely inspired tradition. Sacred scripture along with sacred tradition.

The church fathers are the sacred tradition that helps us to understand and protect the faith. The Bible is the guides that keeps the sacred tradition on track. Tradition cannot go against the Bible. The Bible cannot be removed from Tradition.

This is evidenced by the 80 bajillion denominations that sprung up since sacred tradition was removed from the sacred scriptures.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a strange take. The letter is addressed to Christians but that does not mean the general truths on mankind he expounds on are unique to Christians and non-existent to others.

---

I didn't say they were. But if I say all apples will either be cider or pie, it does not necessarily follow that all fruits will be juiced. The important thing is we do have explicit statements about what all people will be judged by. We should start there.

In their context. You seem intent on zooming out at only viewing the primary original overarching intent of Paul's writing in Rom 9, but want to zoom in with a microscope on his passage in Rom 2, without reading on to discover what his goal with that statement was.

Quote:

---

Everyone will be resurrected, but after that you are incorrect. The death referred to in light of "the debt to sin" is more than the earthly physical one. John 5:25-29; they will resurrected for judgement by the Son, and that will not end well for everyone.

---

Talking past each other here, dont think we really disagree.

Quote:

---

Correct; it had a specific purpose; why would this negate the theological applications that can be gleaned from Paul's explanations?

---

It doesn't. But it also means that - much like the church fathers - we need to be careful taking them and applying them in ways they are not intended. Polemics are different than pastoral letters. St Paul is not always consistent (depending on who his co-authors are too!) in how he describes things, so getting too caught up in one sentence of one letter can lead you into all sorts of opposite errors.

Oh definitely agree

Quote:

---

Paul is building up an argument

---

I think we differ on what his argument is. His argument is not that "nobody can do what is right in God's eyes to his standard." That actually contradicts what he writes that to people who persist in doing good God will give eternal life. If his argument was what you say, he would have to follow that with "but that won't be anyone".

That's what he says in Rom 3. It is the work of Christ that saves; not the deeds of man. If both Jews and gentiles are judged by their own works, they fall short.

I think his argument is instead that there is only one way to be pleasing to God, and it isn't being Jewish - it is faithfulness to Jesus. Abraham's faithfulness is the example - before and after circumcision.

This does not contradict that to those who persist in doing good God will give eternal life, because persistence in doing good is the stuff faithfulness is made of. In other words, the judgment is about faithfulness, because the judgment is about what you have done. They're the same thing.

Again, Rom 3:21-30, which he bolsters with the explanation of the faith of Abraham.

Quote:

---

Because they were created to serve a purpose for His glory. That is the whole point of the potter argument.

---

It's always a good assumption that St Paul uses scripture correctly. The "potter argument" is a direct reference to Jeremiah.

Jer 18:16 is not out of view, but Paul's quotation is not from Jer, it's straight from Is 29:16, and it's primarily demonstrating the unquestionable sovereignty of the creator over His creation to do with them as He pleases.

Quote:

---

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, "Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

---

What were the good things God intended for Egypt? You don't know.

Neither do any of us? They are good things in His own plan, not necessarily things we can pen from our perspective as "good" as we would see fit.

Quote:

---

That's not what it says

The passover included mercy for God's people by passing over them and their households, and judgement on Egypt for their failure to repent. You are conflating the two again. Was it merciful for the Egyptian children to be killed? No, but it was judgement. How about the Canaanites? Israel was commanded to enter the land, destroy or drive out every single one of them, and some cities were devoted by God's decree to complete obliteration of every single man, woman, and child (and not as retribution for their offenses against Israel). Their death was still just because of their sins against God as pagans. Certainly not merciful.

---

It is what it says, moreover it is what happened. Pharaoh himself was a firstborn, was he not? God showed mercy to him. God showed mercy to him the entire time he tolerated his evil; he showed mercy to him by permitting him to be in authority in the first place.

Yes we would agree that Pharoah was shown mercy, as were the children that were eventually killed, during their lives through their experience of God's goodness that is present in the world. I was referring to the specific event.

He also says in Exodus to Moses that He wanted to reveal Himself not only to Israel but also to the Egyptians and to the whole world.

I quoted this in the last post, but from Paul's use of it in Rom 9. That would be a display of glory.

Justice and mercy meet, and that mercy resulted in Egyptians being saved and becoming part of Israel in the Exodus. Some of the Egyptian people went with them, a mixed multitude went out of Egypt. The gods of Egypt are judged (Pharaoh being one of them) - not the people - they are shown to be powerless, empty.

Yes, the plagues were also a stark polemic display against the false gods of Egypt. It is true that some among the Egyptians went with the Israelites too, and may have joined with them in faith. Another great show of mercy for those! Like many other proselytes throughout the history of Israel. I think we were not on the same page as far as individuals vs collectively. I didn't mean to imply that those that died in the final plague were being judged for any actions against Israel - just the broader sense that they received justice just as any sinner that does not have faith, and they died under the judgement that all sinners receive. They did not receive the mercy of being passed over and granted life.

The outcome is that people all over the world are saved. This is the basic story of the scriptures. God shows mercy and longsuffering, evil is judged, the world is saved.

And again, destruction of the Canaanites comes after mercy. Their cup of iniquity was filled - the delay is mercy. The same as Sodom and Gomorrah. Actually its the same as the gospel St Paul preaches - God has shown mercy for your ignorance, but the time of ignorance is over. God's character is never partial, He never changes. His Mercy and Justice are not ever contradictory or in conflict. This does not make them the same, but it does make them in perfect harmony.

Agree with all this

He does not show Justice to some, and Mercy to others. The scriptures never say this! In fact Jesus says the opposite -- to love your enemies in order to be like God, because he blesses the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

This is where we're aren't quite on the same page - common grace (that which all people experience as a result of, well, being alive) is a form of mercy; the permission of the very existence of God's creatures during their time on earth despite their transgressions against Him is a mercy. I think we're in agreement there, but I'm talking specifically about those who receive it in a particular form, like salvific mercy.

The Psalms are replete with appeals for justice as well, which are equated with mercy. This framework you use focuses on juridical justice, as opposed restorative or ontological justice. Punitive justice does not imply mercy - restorative justice absolutely does, to the party who was wronged! The righteous long for the justice of God, because to them it is mercy.

They do not equate them (present them as meaning the same thing), but show quite often how the two are related to each other. Punitive justice doesn't imply mercy; neither do restorative, ontological, or any other adjective you want to put in front of justice. Mercy is when the judge releases and absolves the judged from whatever they are rightfully sentenced with.

Quote:

---

The cross does exhibit both justice and mercy because God's justice had to be served, but by sending His son to die in order to serve it was the ultimate mercy. The lambs of the passover died in the place of the Israelites passed over. There were no lambs that died in the place of the Egyptian first-borns; that's where you can see your conflation of mercy and justice break down.

---

This is not how the Passover works. It doesn't make sense. It wasn't one lamb per firstborn. It wasn't even strictly one lamb per family, if you had a small family, you could share a lamb with another family. It also doesn't say second borns or people without kids are excused. That is not how it worked, and that is similarly not how the Cross worked. Eating the Passover was about obedience and faithfulness to identify yourself as an Israelite. It never says the lamb dies in their place, it says that the blood is a sign for them, and will cause them to be passed over. In other words, faithfulness expressed through obedience saves. Participating the Passover was opting in, and trusting God.

Getting a little into the weeds. Heh I know the lambs werent one-to-one and I'm not sure where you got that from my statement (yes the whole Israelite family was commanded to be involved, but the targets of the angel of death were firstborns)...but the lambs, did in fact, represent a covering/atoning much as the sacrifices in Levitical law would. There is great significance in the fact that the lambs were spotless and unblemished (1 Pet 1:19). Only a spotless counterpart to the uncleanness of sin would be acceptable - hence Christ's representation as the passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7). Trust and Obedience was required on their part to do what they were told, but the obedience wasn't what saved them, it was that God had provided them the means to be passed over.

My point was that in that particular instance (the final plague), mercy was shown to the Israelites and not the Egyptians. The offer to paint the blood of an unblemished lamb was only extended to God's people, and there was no relationship between the mercies received through life by those that died that night and the death they suffered as the judgement (again, the judgement of death without faith and being judged for sins, not a reciprocal judgement for something they did specially) they received in lieu of mercy on the Israelites. When tying this to the idea of salvation, this is where you were conflating mercy and judgment - in its application between those that receive it and those that don't in effectual salvation.

Christ Jesus was a sacrifice - a pure gift, pleasing to God. His purity cleansed the world of sin in the exact same way that the pure goat's blood cleansed the temple (notably NOT the goat that had the sins put on it). And His purity could not be overcome by sin, the same way that when the woman with the issue of blood touched Him she became clean rather than Him becoming unclean. And salvation works the same way - opting in to faithfulness to God.

I agree with this up to the last sentence. Again I'd go back to Rom 3:28; justification is through faith apart from works, because no one meets the standard based on their own righteousness. We are still commanded to be obedient and that obedience is the evidence of true faith (James 2:14-26), but not the means. That probably opened up a whole new can of worms but we probably already understand where your tradition and mine do not agree on that.

---

This is great, Zobel - if I ever sound terse in my response I mean no offense, trying to squeeze in answers in between work. Thanks for really trying to understand my positions; I hope I sound like I'm trying to do the same.

Then I don't really understand the statement of Jesus didn't leave behind writings, but yet the 73 books the RCC recognizes are "divinely" inspired?

I agree that Jesus himself, to our knowledge, didn't pen the gospels or other books we have, but surely we agree the Holy Spirit gave supernatural and perfect revelation in the 66 (or 73) books in the canon? This is what makes them sacred. Seems to me the Godhead did in fact leave behind writings, no?

Do you also affirm the idea that the holy spirit gave supernatural and perfect revelation to the early church fathers which allowed tradition to become sacred? Which church fathers?

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Jesus being the ultimate good shepherd will absolutely not let his flock leave his grasp.

Does he let them wander, get lost and encounter hardship and wolves? Yes. Does he sometime need to break their legs so he can carry them back under his watchful eye? Yes.

---

1. This goes against what tk said a couple posts ago.

---

Which part? I agree with his statement. Its perfectly complementary to what I said about us retaining our sinful bodies. We still sin, right? Sometimes we get caught up in sins that need discipline to get us back on track with our sanctification. I dont believe (like many methodists do) that sanctification is a linear, or at least, a consistently positively tracking process.

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

That's entirely my point which I'm probably terrible at getting across. I apologize.

God can wipe all sin from this earth right now. In an instant. But He doesn't. Why?

I don't see any other answer than He wants man to choose Him. He wants us to answer His call. He calls all of us but won't make any of us do anything. This means we have to "do" something in our salvation. We have to choose Him. Then we have to keep choosing Him. That's it. We don't have to stack up X number of good works or avoid X number of bad works as if we earn heaven. We have to do one "work": obey. And that "work" takes on many forms over our entire life, but we can abandon it if we choose.

None of the reformers agreed with this. This is the whole reason for the reformation. We can say it was the Bible alone or faith alone or whatever, but it was because of THEIR definitions of faith alone. And that faith alone could not possibly use one ounce of our energy, if their writings and the writings of the churches they left behind are to believed.

Why is this important? The part that I wrote on love. Love is an action. Love is a choice. If we are incapable of making that choice on our own volition, it is not love, but bondage that keeps us united to God. So God doesn't overwhelm our wills. He doesn't wipe out sin. He gives us the grace to avoid sin, if we so choose, so that we can freely love Him and He can freely love us. Anything short of that is not love.

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Jesus being the ultimate good shepherd will absolutely not let his flock leave his grasp.

Does he let them wander, get lost and encounter hardship and wolves? Yes. Does he sometime need to break their legs so he can carry them back under his watchful eye? Yes.

---

1. This goes against what tk said a couple posts ago.

---

Which part? I agree with his statement. Its perfectly complementary to what I said about us retaining our sinful bodies. We still sin, right? Sometimes we get caught up in sins that need discipline to get us back on track with our sanctification. I dont believe (like many methodists do) that sanctification is a linear, or at least, a consistently positively tracking process.

---

The breaking the legs part. Does this not contradict your statement that believers aren't dragged kicking and screaming?

Y'all need to re-holster your rhetorical pistols and retire this for a while.

I was really just referring to Hebrews 12:5-9, which is taken from Proverbs.

The idea that our lives aren't always roses and that is often by design.

Proverbs 3:11-12
11 My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline
or be weary of his reproof,
12 for the Lord reproves him whom he loves,
as a father the son in whom he delights.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Y'all need to re-holster your rhetorical pistols and retire this for a while.

---

I honestly get a lot out of the dialogue. I am trying to better understand other perspectives and the idea of defending my own is quite edifying.

So I am not at all coming at this from an aggressive stand point.

I appreciate all that chime in.

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Jesus being the ultimate good shepherd will absolutely not let his flock leave his grasp.

Does he let them wander, get lost and encounter hardship and wolves? Yes. Does he sometime need to break their legs so he can carry them back under his watchful eye? Yes.

---

1. This goes against what tk said a couple posts ago.

---

Which part? I agree with his statement. Its perfectly complementary to what I said about us retaining our sinful bodies. We still sin, right? Sometimes we get caught up in sins that need discipline to get us back on track with our sanctification. I dont believe (like many methodists do) that sanctification is a linear, or at least, a consistently positively tracking process.

---

The breaking the legs part. Does this not contradict your statement that believers aren't dragged kicking and screaming?

---

He's not talking about salvation, he's talking about sanctification. In neither case is anything forced in the robotic sense. We do believe that some things occur in our lives that God providentially put there to spur us back on the right track.

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

That's entirely my point which I'm probably terrible at getting across. I apologize.

God can wipe all sin from this earth right now. In an instant. But He doesn't. Why?

I don't see any other answer than He wants man to choose Him. He wants us to answer His call. He calls all of us but won't make any of us do anything. This means we have to "do" something in our salvation. We have to choose Him. Then we have to keep choosing Him. That's it. We don't have to stack up X number of good works or avoid X number of bad works as if we earn heaven. We have to do one "work": obey. And that "work" takes on many forms over our entire life, but we can abandon it if we choose.

None of the reformers agreed with this. This is the whole reason for the reformation. We can say it was the Bible alone or faith alone or whatever, but it was because of THEIR definitions of faith alone. And that faith alone could not possibly use one ounce of our energy, if their writings and the writings of the churches they left behind are to believed.

Why is this important? The part that I wrote on love. Love is an action. Love is a choice. If we are incapable of making that choice on our own volition, it is not love, but bondage that keeps us united to God. So God doesn't overwhelm our wills. He doesn't wipe out sin. He gives us the grace to avoid sin, if we so choose, so that we can freely love Him and He can freely love us. Anything short of that is not love.

---

Sure but you're only talking about salvation. Why doesn't he wipe out the other effects of the fall? Disease? Natural disasters? How are those related to how people will choose Him (not saying that sometimes he does use those things, but more in the sense of say, the book of Job?)

The Banned said:

---

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The implication of this is that God wants there to be sin. Not that He ALLOWS sin but that He intentionally keeps it in place. Why keep in place something that He does not want?

---

How is this only a problem for my doctrinal stance? We agree that God hates sin. Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

Anything short of that is not love.

---

Don't forget that our human definitions of things like love are so terribly void of their true, pure and eternal meanings.

So some of my Calvinist friends think God causes evil since He is sovereign.

Surely you do not think that?

Quote:

---

That's what he says in Rom 3. It is the work of Christ that saves; not the deeds of man. If both Jews and gentiles are judged by their own works, they fall short.

---

Ah yes, but he never says this. He says over and over again that the works of the Torah, ie being Jewish, do not save you. He doesn't say "through works no man will be made righteous" but "through works of the Torah". He also doesn't say "one is made righteous by faith apart from works" but again "apart from works of the Torah."

The entire point of Romans 3 is that the righteousness of God comes separate from following the Torah, ie being a Jew. There being "no distinction" is between Jew and non-Jew.

What makes it grace is that it was offered as a gift, unilaterally while we were enemies, and it involved passing over our former sins up til that point. The same form of mercy God showed in the OT - until the cup of iniquity was full. This is the warning of the gospel, at some point that patience ends. The form this grace took was in the blood of Christ which takes away the sin of the world, allows non-Jews to approach, and that grace is received by faithfulness - without regard to whether you are a Jew or a non-Jew.

Quote:

---

Again, Rom 3:21-30, which he bolsters with the explanation of the faith of Abraham.

---

Yes, the faithfulness of Abraham is what made him righteous, pleasing before God. Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 are the same message. In the Jewish Messiah Jesus, those of the other nations were brought near and reconciled. St Paul brought this message of hope to them, what was previously a mystery. What was the mystery? "Those of the nations are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise [of Abraham] in Jesus Christ." Abraham is brought forward as an example because he was pleasing to God before he was circumcised. His circumcision was a mark confirming his faithfulness, which is why he is father to faithful people of the nations, and faithful people of the Jews. This of course is perfectly consonant with St James saying "Wasn't Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faithfulness was active along with his works, and faithfulness was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" -- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." St Paul and St James aren't at odds. Faithfulness working through love, faithfulness completed by works.

The point being made is that faithfulness is not completed by works of the Torah. When you conflate good works with works of the Torah, the entire message is completely lost.

Quote:

---

Is 29:16 primarily demonstrating the unquestionable sovereignty of the creator over His creation to do with them as He pleases

---

You're right - I missed this. Which is great, because it is even more in line with the theme of this passage. The rule of thumb that St Paul knows scripture is always good. It is addressed to people hiding deep from the Lord as if he doesn't know, and that turns things upside down. The objection here is that God knows and will not be confused or tricked by people.

Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."

Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
whose deeds are in the dark,
and who say, "Who sees us? Who knows us?"
You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
"He did not make me";
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
"He has no understanding"?

This doesn't end saying yeah, and some of those people are damned forever and others aren't. It goes on to say that the blind see, the meek get joy, the poor exult, the ruthless come to nothing, those who watch to do evil will be cut off, and more importantly the children of Jacob (note: THE GENTILES) will be in his midst - those who go astray in spirit come to understanding, and will accept instruction. Which, you know, is the whole point of Romans 9-11, that the gentiles returning reconstitute all Israel, united Ephraim and Judah. The branches broken off make room for those to be grafted in. St Paul is just exegeting this passage.

Quote:

---

just the broader sense that they received justice just as any sinner that does not have faith, and they died under the judgement that all sinners receive. They did not receive the mercy of being passed over and granted life.

---

Every single person from Adam to now, excepting Christ Jesus, Enoch, and Elijah received that same judgment.

Quote:

---

Mercy is when the judge releases and absolves the judged from whatever they are rightfully sentenced with.

---

I mean, we agree above that mercy comes in all kinds of form. Of course restorative justice is mercy. This seems to be an unnecessarily narrow definition of mercy that is constrained in order to be opposed to justice. But just as justice isn't limited to a juridical sense - and absolutely it is not exclusively used this way in the OT - mercy should not be limited to being defined as "the opposite of judicial justice."

Quote:

---

Trust and Obedience was required on their part to do what they were told, but the obedience wasn't what saved them, it was that God had provided them the means to be passed over.

---

Well, this is kind of the point in a nutshell isn't it? It is both. If they were no obedient, they would not have been saved. If the means had not been offered, they would not have been saved.

Quote:

---

that obedience is the evidence of true faith (James 2:14-26), but not the means.

---

As above, St James teaches that obedience, or action, completes faith. It is the means. Which is why it is perfectly in harmony that we will be judged by what we have done. That is the same thing as saying we will be judged by our faith, our faithfulness. It's also why if you're faithful to the Messiah you won't violate the Torah. It all works together as a seamless teaching - St Paul, St James, St John, St Peter, the Lord... they all taught the same thing. And not a single one spoke of faith apart from works. Only cautioned that good works were not the same as works of the Torah, because then merely being a Jew would be salvific. QED.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

As I said great sermon. But it is not theologically Calvinistic in my opinion. In my anecdotal experiences, a lot of folks going to Reformed churches have little grasp of what their theology actually entails. But that is true of almost every church.

---

That was my point. You've let your misconstrued "opinion" shape something into something it isn't.

And that's unfortunate. My experience is completely the opposite, but that's how anecdotes work.

---

I just read the theology. Every letter of TULIP I disagree with except perseverance of the saints. And double predestination is way off the rails from traditional orthodox theology.

I am glad your church does not focus on those. Sounds like the sermons are very similar to the ones I have heard all my life. Which I am fine with. I am not fine with theology or soteriology as written.

And this is a great discussion.

Quote:

---

Does God have the power to completely wipe sin from the earth right now in an instant? Why doesn't he?

---

Mercy. To give more the time to repent.

Some day the cup of iniquity will be full, and the cries of the martyrs and the oppressed for justice will tip the scales.