|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 8, 2010 20:48:46 GMT -5
Well I guess Didy, that my understanding of who these believers are that came from the nations is not heathen barbarians; but the children of the dispora from the the Assyrian invasion that sent the 10 tribes into exile because of their idolatry. These are the same children who Hosea prophecied about that God declared their fathers were 'not my people' but whose children would be gathered into a new covenant in the last days. A new covenant that came interestingly enough at the end of their 1,000 yrs of exile from Israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 9, 2010 14:35:05 GMT -5
Well I guess Didy, that my understanding of who these believers are that came from the nations is not heathen barbarians; but the children of the dispora from the the Assyrian invasion that sent the 10 tribes into exile because of their idolatry. These are the same children who Hosea prophecied about that God declared their fathers were 'not my people' but whose children would be gathered into a new covenant in the last days. A new covenant that came interestingly enough at the end of their 1,000 yrs of exile from Israel. Robin, I have no idea what you are saying. I haven't said anything about these things. You must be responding to someone else. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 9, 2010 20:55:39 GMT -5
Didy wrote:
Robin responded:
Which was all because Roo was trying to say something about being born into the covenant like Isaac - and somehow that is also supposed to apply to us who were never under the OC at all.
The distinction I was trying to make is that these so called Gentiles were not heathen barbarians in the first place. These were children of Abraham thru Isaac who had been cut off in the Assyrian dispora some 930+ years before. It was these children Hosea & Isaiah said would be gathered in the latter days into a new covenant.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 11, 2010 11:17:10 GMT -5
Mograce said:
Mograce,
The "faith of Christ" in James is that which included works. Right? That "faith" belonged to the "elementary doctrines of Christ" which the book of Hebrews explicitly says that we are to "LEAVE."
Note that repentance and faith as Christ taught it was on its way out even when the book of Hebrews was written. Faith as Christ and James taught it was replaced by Paul's faith doctrine. Paul himself said that the gospel which was revealed to him was the righteousness of God which was "out of faith into faith."
Note that Paul indicated that the righteousness of God "is being revealed" and that it was a righteousness [or justification] that brought the people of God "out of" faith and "into" faith. The faith that Paul brought them "out of" was a works faith. Paul's gospel brought them "into" that evangelical faith which is based in God's grace alone. Therefore, a man cannot be justified by his works today (3:21).
The Hebrew Christians were explicitly commanded to leave the "elementary doctrines of Christ." Repentance and faith were among those doctrines. Therefore, faith as Christ taught it was old covenant and does not apply today. This was the "faith of Christ" to which James referred.
Christ's teachings on faith were only foundational to the gospel which was later to be revealed through Paul. Hebrews 6 says that the foundation has been laid and we are not to lay it again. To lay that foundation again is equal to "crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to an open shame."
Preterists boast that they have totally left the old covenant behind. Yet some Preterists here continue to put new wine (the nc) into old wineskins (the oc). The "faith of Christ" and of James was old covenant faith. The faith of Paul is what we are now under. Peace be to all that walk according to Paul's rule!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 11, 2010 11:43:01 GMT -5
Morris said:
Morris,
Your statement above is flawed. First, you are confusing the two dispensations (oc & nc). Though works continue to be born of faith it is the faith that justifies and not the works which follow. But Abraham was justified both by the faith and the works which followed.
Second, we don't "hold" faith. God keeps us in that faith which He Himself produced. To say that we "hold" faith is to change faith into a work and to depart from the new covenant gospel. Faith rests in God alone! Rest is opposite of works!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 11, 2010 12:43:59 GMT -5
Mograce2u said;
Robin,
You have inadvertently made being born according to the Spirit OC only. For it says that Isaac being born into the covenant from his mother's womb was born according to the Spirit:
Just as Isaac came into the world according to the Spirit "even so it is NOW." When a man comes into the world he is either born according to the Spirit or according to the flesh. If He is born according to the Spirit he will hear the gospel and believe.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 11, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -5
Roo wrote:
I am trying to work thru what you are saying and it is good until you get here. This is coming from the Calvinist idea that sees regeneration coming before faith is birthed because it thinks we are the elect born into this world, chosen for salvation because of predestination, who are then arbitrarily regenerated by the Spirit at some point in time and given faith.
But I ain't buying it! You think I have the oc and nc confused - you can't get more confusing than this as you mix and match the two!
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 11, 2010 18:17:01 GMT -5
Roo wrote: First, I reject the doctrine of regeneration as the Calvinists have traditionally taught it. I am a Reformed Preterist and not a traditional Calvinist. Isaac was born according to the Spirit from his mother's womb. Traditional Calvinists say that a man must be born "again" at some point after his physical birth in order to be regenerated. But Jesus did not say that a man must be born "again." He said that a man must be born from "above." Paul explicitly said that Isaac was born from "above" at his natural birth. So Isaac was not born "again." He was born once and it was according to the Spirit. Paul's assertion concerning Isaac having been of the Spirit from the womb is staring us in the face. And there is no indication in scripture that any man after Isaac is born of the Spirit later in his life. The people of God are born once according to the Spirit from their natural births as Isaac. Second, even if regeneration as it is commonly understood were true it would necessarily infer that it precedes the act of faith. For a man that is yet unborn concerning the things of the Spirit cannot act according to the Spirit. Paul said that the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit (2 Cor. 2). So the traditional Calvinists are correct about the inability of those who are not born of the Spirit even though they err in saying that it is a "second" birth. Mograce: The real problem is that you were comfortable with the non-Calvinist's selective use of the scriptures in formulating their doctrines. Now you are being challenged to think it all through. Mograce: I think it is clear that I have made a clean break from the old covenant. I deny that works play a role in salvation as they did under the oc. Yet you say that I "mix and match" the two. Maybe you say this because I say that we are born according to the Spirit at birth as Isaac. But keep in mind that Isaac was born according to the Spirit at his natural birth before Moses came. Therefore, being born according to the Spirit at birth is not oc. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 12, 2010 0:00:15 GMT -5
Ok Roo then explain when it was you came to know the Lord and why that didn't happen as soon as you were able to speak! Do we hear of some epiphany that came to Isaac? No, because he heard of the Lord from birth from his father to whom the promise was given. Was your father given a similar promise before you were born so he could tell you of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 12, 2010 6:40:45 GMT -5
Ok Roo then explain when it was you came to know the Lord and why that didn't happen as soon as you were able to speak! Do we hear of some epiphany that came to Isaac? No, because he heard of the Lord from birth from his father to whom the promise was given. Was your father given a similar promise before you were born so he could tell you of it? Hi Robin, Men are heirs before they are able to speak. Why God does not bring some men to know Him as soon as they are able to speak is His secret. Paul told the Galatains that they were heirs before they were able to speak. The word "child" here is "nepios" which means "one that does not speak." Then Paul said, Paul said that they were heirs under bondage when they did not speak. They were immature intellectually and morally. But they were still heirs!They were born heirs as Isaac. They were therefore of the Spirit from their birth as Isaac. But they remained children under bondage and unable to speak until Christ came to redeem them. So your point that men cannot not know God before they come to speak does not prove that they are not heirs before they come to speak. Christ came to redeem the Galatians from their status as "child" so that they might become adopted as sons. They were born heirs as Isaac. As children they were "unable to speak." They were "immature." But Christ came to redeem them so He could place them into full son standing. Therefore, we did not become God's children at the moment we had faith. We were born into God's family as Isaac. We became [adult] sons by faith: Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 12, 2010 10:42:31 GMT -5
You are taking Gal 3 way out of its context. The Seed/ Heir of the promise given to Abraham is Christ. We receive the inheritance and become sons of Abraham and heirs of the promise ONLY thru faith in Christ. You are confusing the natural seed of Israel to whom the promise was their hope in the coming of Messiah with the sons who are born of faith in Him when the Promise came. Not all Israel received their promise because not all Israel believed on Jesus as the Christ.
So the way you are going about this is to say we were spiritually heirs before faith came - and that is not being said by Paul anywhere here in Gal. Being a heir to the promise as Isaac was is because he prefigured Jesus the true Heir. You want to work your election backwards to before you were born, but that is not the way scripture reveals it - being first born of water then born as the Spirit wills according to faith is how scripture lays it out. Which faith only comes once one has heard the truth and believed it. Then he becomes an heir in Christ.
The inheritance was ever only for Christ for the promise was only given to Abraham for Him. Without Christ we remain under wrath. That is the only inheritance we are born into naturally!
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 13, 2010 11:20:19 GMT -5
Mograce said:
Robin,
First, we were chosen IN CHRIST before the foundation of the age (the nc age). So we were already heirs in Christ before the foundation of the age. Jesus planted ALL the sons of the kingdom during His earthly ministry. The devil likewise planted ALL his sons. They both grew together until the harvest at the end of that age when they were separated by the messengers which preached the gospel.
Second, we did not become child-heirs through faith. We were already child-heirs. We became adult son-heirs through faith (Galatians 4:6-7). The difference is that as child-heirs we did not actually possess salvation. But as son-heirs we actually possess our inheritance.
Mograce:
Now this is where you are taking chapter 3 way out of context. Paul takes it all the way back to the arrangement God made with Abraham which was before there ever was a physical Israel. According to Paul it had to do with our being in covenantal union with the promised seed which is Christ.
Mograce:
Paul is indeed saying that we were heirs before faith came. Specifically we were child-heirs until faith came when we became son-heirs.
Mograce:
This does not change the fact that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the nc age. If we were covenantally in Christ before the foundation of the nc age, then we were heirs though we did not actually possess our inheritance. Through faith we became heirs that actually possesed our inheritance.
Mograce:
This is thoroughly unbiblical IMO. First, Paul said that we were chosen (elected) in Christ before the foundation of the (nc) age. So my chronology on election agrees with Paul. Second, your whole statement about two births is incorrect because you assume that men are born "again." But there is no such statement in the scripture. Jesus did not ay that a man must be born "again." He told Nicodemus that a man must be born from "above." Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of a second birth and Jesus corrected him. Third, the grammatical construction "of water and spirit" indicates that Jesus was speaking about one birth. Fourth, Jesus was speaking about present realities in His time. He said, that which IS born of the spirit IS spirit. Paul explicitly said Isaac was born according to the spirit when he came into the world. So men were already being born of the spirit from their natural births. There is no such thing as two births in scripture and I challenge you to show that there is.
Mograce:
I disagree. When a man hears the truth and believes it he becomes and adult heir in Christ. In Galatians 4:1-6 Paul uses the word "heir" in the dual sense of the term. There is the child-heir who is the same as a servant and who has not yet taken possession of his inheritance. Then there is the adult son-heir who is free and who has taken possession of it. It is by faith that we became God's sons and we actually took possession of our salvation. But we were already child-heirs by our covenantal union in Christ.
See Vine's Expository Dictonary on the dual usage of the word "heir."
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 13, 2010 12:14:08 GMT -5
Morris, Your statement above is flawed. First, you are confusing the two dispensations (oc & nc). Though works continue to be born of faith it is the faith that justifies and not the works which follow. But Abraham was justified both by the faith and the works which followed. This is derived from doctrine, not scripture, IMHO. You will disagree with that, obviously. I don't believe for one moment that God 'changed the rules' so to speak. The single dispensation from God was revealed in different ways, but the laws that bind God (i.e. His character and nature) have never changed. I can see James and Paul saying the exact same things, once we understand the difference between works of justification (done by Christ) and works of love (done by Christ through us). So, what you call a flaw, I call the steadfast nature of God. James 2:1 " My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." We are to hold the faith of Jesus with impartiality. 1 Timothy 3:8,9 " Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience." We are to hold the faith with a pure conscience. Holding to the faith, i.e. believing in Christ, is to do the work of God. John 6:29 " Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” " Honestly, scripture is far more simple than we make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 13, 2010 13:35:02 GMT -5
I said:
Morris replied:
Your statement implies that there were not two covenants. But Paul clearly said that there were two covenants. The first covenant is Sinai whch produces bondage and is the "ministration of death" (Gal. 4: 2 Cor. 3). God's laws were not fulfilled under the first covenant. In the second faith alone covenant God's laws were upheld because they were fulfilled by the perfect man.
Morris:
The "faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" was replaced by Paul's faith doctrine. Paul said that the righteousness which was being revealed to him was "out of faith into faith" (Rom. 1:16-17). This means that faith in its old covenant content which included works was being done away and was replaced by that faith which is "apart from the law" (Romans 3:21). Note this well: Paul said that the righteousness which was revealed to Him was "apart from the law; even the righteousness which is by faith."
The content of new covenant faith is obviously different from old covenant faith which was still in effect when James wrote his epistle. James' old covenant justification is not in effect today. Paul made sure of that.
Hebrews 6:1-6 also says that we are to "leave the doctrine of the elementary principles of Christ." Repentance and faith as Christ taught it is listed among those "elementary principles" which we are commanded to "leave." The "faith of Christ" was only the foundation for the faith of Paul which would be revealed later on. We are under Paul's faith doctrine now. Paul was Christ's chosen vessel so we should listen.
Morris:
These passages do not talk about the way a man is justified do they?
You assume that Christ preached the full gospel. This assumption is erroneous. Christ preached only the foundational principles to the gospel He gave the full gospel revelation to Paul. Hebrews 6 commands us to leave the "elementary principles" of Christ and to not lay that foundation again. We are told that the laying of that foundation again is to "crucify the Son of God afresh and to put Him to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6).
Your works cannot justify you before God. The works of His Son alone are the "sweet smelling aroma" to Him.
Please explain why James makes no reference to Christ's sacrificial death. Explain how an epistle which omits the death of Christ can be a new covenant epistle?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 13, 2010 14:54:26 GMT -5
You assume that Christ preached the full gospel. This assumption is erroneous. Christ IS the gospel, the only gospel, in its entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 13, 2010 18:14:05 GMT -5
You assume that Christ preached the full gospel. This assumption is erroneous. Christ IS the gospel, the only gospel, in its entirety. We know now that Christ is the entire gospel because Paul told us. Christ Himself gave us only the foundational principles of the gospel. The full blown gospel came through Paul: The gospel that Paul preached came to him by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Please answer why James made no mention whatsoever of the sacrificial death of Christ. How can an epistle that omits the death of Christ be a new covenant epistle? I think these are fair questions. James said that a man is justified by works and not by faith only (James 2:24). Paul said that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 3:21). Both propositions cannot be true at the same time. Therefore, James was written when the old covenant was still in effect until the proper time for Christ to reveal the new covenant gospel to Paul. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 13, 2010 18:32:53 GMT -5
Question Roo,
What did Paul teach that Jesus did not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 13, 2010 19:57:35 GMT -5
... Hebrews 6:1-6 also says that we are to "leave the doctrine of the elementary principles of Christ." Repentance and faith as Christ taught it is listed among those "elementary principles" which we are commanded to "leave." The "faith of Christ" was only the foundation for the faith of Paul which would be revealed later on. We are under Paul's faith doctrine now. Paul was Christ's chosen vessel so we should listen. We've discussed this before and I still think you are misinterpreting the above. Leaving the elementary principles does not mean to abandon them! It means to move beyond learning about those things to the mature believer who actually practices righteousness. Hebrews 5 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.Hebrews 6 1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. The milk of the infant is intellectual knowledge; the solid food of the mature is practical application. Knowing vs. Doing. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 13, 2010 20:06:23 GMT -5
Question Roo, What did Paul teach that Jesus did not? Didymus, Jesus taught that the letter of the law would remain in effect until all was fulfilled. He said that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the law until all be fulfilled. Paul taught that the letter of the law had been fulfilled in the obedience of Christ (Rom. chaps 5-8). Jesus taught that obedience to the letter gives life. Paul taught that the letter "kills" and is the "ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3). Jesus' gospel was old covenant. Paul's gospel was new covenant. Paul claimed that the gospel he preached was his own which God kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:25) and that it came by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). Jesus himself said that Paul was His "chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15). Therefore, if Paul says that the letter of the law has been abrogated in reference to our justification then we had better listen. Paul was Christ's own "chosen vessel." Hebrews 6:1-6 says that we are to LEAVE the doctrine of the elementary principles of Christ. Faith and repentance as Christ taught them are among the list of the "elementary principles of Christ" which we are commanded to LEAVE. It is explicitly said that we are not to lay that foundation again. Severe warning is given to those who go back to the elementary principles of Christ. Those who go back to Christ's foundational teachings are guilty of "crucifying the Son of God again and putting Him to an open shame." Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 14, 2010 14:20:48 GMT -5
Please answer why James made no mention whatsoever of the sacrificial death of Christ. How can an epistle that omits the death of Christ be a new covenant epistle? I think these are fair questions. All such questions bring is conjecture, and I will not use conjecture as support for an understanding of scripture. We don't know why he didn't mention it in this letter. It just wasn't the point of what he was discussing. For that matter, we don't know of any of the other letters he may have written. There are many things we don't know. Now, why doesn't 2 Thessalonians mention the sacrificial death of Christ? Or Philemon? How about 2 John and 3 John? Jude? Furthermore, James was written at least 15 years after the death of Jesus. Jude was written between 37 and 50 years afterward. Paul was converted only about 3 years after Christ's sacrifice and spent another 3 or so in 'Arabia' receiving the revelation of Christ to him. Even so, that is only 6 years after Jesus that he begins preaching 'his gospel'. There is no contradiction between the two; I have already shown how they are complimentary to each other throughout NT scripture. Chronologically, this is incorrect, as Paul "had the new covenant" many years (could have been over 10) before James wrote his letter. Faith alone justifies. This is because God alone can justify someone. True faith will bring forth works. If there are no works, it is because there is no faith. " Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17). Faith without works is no faith at all; it is a dead faith. Not only that, but the works which come from faith also come from God. But the point is, it is not our works which justify us. It is by faith. When we have faith, God pours out His grace, and this grace saved us (Acts 15:11, Ephesians 2:8, 2 Timothy 1:9). The work of Christ justifies us when we place our complete trust (i.e. faith) in His ability to do so. When we are saved by faith (i.e. God saves us through our faith), His work comes through us. It is only because of the work of Christ that our faith brings justification; the work He did by obedience on the cross, and the works He continues to do through us. It all revolves around what God has done and is doing through His Christ. By submitting to His will, it is His works which are done, not our own, that He may get all the credit (i.e. glory). |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 14, 2010 16:54:31 GMT -5
Did I miss it? I am still waiting to find out how Preterism implies Calvinism.  |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 15, 2010 16:45:16 GMT -5
Greetings good friends, I caught a nasty cold and am layed up for a little while. Roo  |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 16, 2010 5:06:31 GMT -5
Did I miss it? I am still waiting to find out how Preterism implies Calvinism. Yes you missed it. Please read the thread over again. It is getting tiresome of answering your questions without any recripocation from you. Even though Morris and I disagree at least he engages the issues. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 16, 2010 10:02:07 GMT -5
Did I miss it? I am still waiting to find out how Preterism implies Calvinism. didymus, Major premise: Faith alone is Calvinist doctrine Minor premise: Faith alone makes a clean break from the old covenant. Minor premise: Preterism makes a clean break from the old covenant. Conclusion: Therefore, consistent Preterism implies Calvinism. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 16, 2010 12:49:03 GMT -5
I reasonably asked:
Morris replied:
Morris,
Ah but you do bring in your conjecture! You say that James' point was that faith produces works. But's that's not at all what James said his point was. He said that his point was that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone:
Morris:
The point of his discussion in chapter 2 is clearly about how a man is justified. Again, he says nothing whatsoever about the death of Christ. An inspired apostle does not refer to Christ's sacrificial death when all the other apostles did. James did not refer to Christ's death because justification was still by faith plus works. The new covenant age had yet not come and so they were still bound by the works of the law.
Morris:
ALL the apostles except James wrote of the death of Christ. Jude was not an apostle.
Morris:
James was written in the early 30's. It was the first epistle written. It was written before Paul received and disclosed his faith alone gospel from Jesus Christ. Paul taught that justification was apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:21) in opposition to James' teaching that justification was both by faith and by the works of the law (James 2:24).
Paul said that the "tablets of stone" (the ten commandments) was the "ministry of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Then he said that that covenant "IS PASSING AWAY" (vs. 11). Note the present participle "is passing" away. This indicates that the old covenant was not yet abolished though it was indeed in the process of being abolished.
James on the other hand gives no indication whatsoever that the ten commandments are on their way out in reference to our justification. Moreover, his epistle contains no new covenant truth whatsoever. So how could the writings of James and Paul have been contemporary?
Morris:
Jude was not an apostle. He stated the purpose for his writing. He said that he was writing about what the apostles of Jesus Christ foretold. By contrast James was discussing how a man is justified before God with no reference to Christ's death whatsoever.
Morris:
It doesn't matter. James was written in the early 30's before Paul received and preached his faith alone gospel.
Morris:
May I submit that you have not "shown." You have "explained" and your explanation does not work. James explicitly said that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Moreover, the epistle of James contains no new covenant truth in it whatsoever.
I said:
Morris replied:
I disagree. James was the very first epistle written. It was before Paul. Please give your evidence.
Morris:
At least we agree on this one though you do not maintain your assertion consistently.
Morris:
And according to James if there was no works there was no justification. Why can't you just accept it for what it says? It says that a man is "JUSTIFIED by works."
What do you not understand about the "not out of faith only" part? If James was written contemporaneously with Paul's reception and propagation of his gospel, then he clearly contradicts Paul for Paul totally excluded works altogether in reference to our justification.
Morris:
It is the point! James said, "You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." The word "then" means "therefore." James was concluding that a man is justified by faith plus works. His conclusion is totally opposite of yours.
Your explanation just as mine is an attempt to harmonize James with Paul. The difference is that your explanation does not work. James concluded that a man is justified by faith plus works. Paul excluded works altogether. Therefore, James was written before Paul received his gospel and I ask you to give your evidence that their writings were contemporary.
Morris:
The Westminster Confession refutes your statement in bold. We are not justified by God's work "through" us.
Note that we are not justified by anything that God does "in" us. You are confusing justification with sanctification. The works that God produces "in" us refer to sanctification which is totally separate from justification.
blessings,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 16, 2010 19:18:26 GMT -5
Did I miss it? I am still waiting to find out how Preterism implies Calvinism. didymus, Major premise: Faith alone is Calvinist doctrine Minor premise: Faith alone makes a clean break from the old covenant. Minor premise: Preterism makes a clean break from the old covenant. Conclusion: Therefore, consistent Preterism implies Calvinism. Roo Faith alone is Biblical doctrine. John 3.16 was written way before John Calvin was born. By making this statement, you making Calvin a part of the godhead. If this is your premise for saying Preterism implies Calvinism, it is a very weak premise.  - time for coffee |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 16, 2010 19:21:56 GMT -5
Did I miss it? I am still waiting to find out how Preterism implies Calvinism. Yes you missed it. Please read the thread over again. It is getting tiresome of answering your questions without any recripocation from you. Even though Morris and I disagree at least he engages the issues. Roo I only respond to things I know about. When it comes to Advanced Biblical Doctrine devised by man, I'm a total idiot.  - and proud of it too |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 16, 2010 21:37:18 GMT -5
Yes you missed it. Please read the thread over again. It is getting tiresome of answering your questions without any recripocation from you. Even though Morris and I disagree at least he engages the issues. Roo I only respond to things I know about. When it comes to Advanced Biblical Doctrine devised by man, I'm a total idiot. - and proud of it too I do not think you are an "idiot." But you asked me to answer a question which I answered. If you have no reply then don't reply. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 16, 2010 21:44:50 GMT -5
didymus said:
I have repeatedly said that faith alone was Paul's doctrine. Faith alone is Calvinistic in that it is the Calvinists that are the champions of it. All others attack it.
Didymus:
Well, if it wasn't for the fact that the Calvinists champoined faith alone starting with Martin Luther you might still be required to pay indulgences to the RCC.
Didymus:
Again, read the entire thread again starting from the beginning. I have never said that faith alone was my sole premise. Be fair. Fairness is a Christian quality.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 16, 2010 22:04:49 GMT -5
Roo,
The holes in your line of reasoning are numerous. Just because Calvin confirms 'faith alone' doesn't tell us a thing about how he defined that. So for preterism to imply Calvinism, we first have to see if they even agree on what 'faith alone' means. And as for your hair-splitting with James and Paul, I already mentioned that James spoke to his readers of their having the faith of Christ (James 2:1). Are you now going to say that these Jewish believers had a different faith in Christ than Paul's audience did?
So much for "faith alone"! Since now we must determine which faith it is...
|
|
