Calvinism / pre-destination

[Gadgeteer]

yeah, I am sorta shocked by this because I don't check verses that people list UNLESS i want to read more for context which was the case here. I simply don't get why anyone would do this. He even has it in quotes! Are you quoting yourself and your personal translation of the bible? I don't get it.

The quotes were valid. Obviously you missed the Greek Lexicon citation.

Let's move on in the discussion, now that we've proven men are not passive recipients of God-coming-to-men, but rather God receives those WHO seek Him. May we?

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb11:6, KJV.

Those who come to God must come by faith (not "He comes to men and GIVES faith"), and He rewards those who diligently seek Him.

[Gadgeteer]

Having a discussion about what a verse means or a word in a verse means vs. changing the words in a verse and putting them in quotes is totally different IMO. Night and day difference. I am hoping that the changing of words in verses is extremely minimal because I don't often spend the time to verify the verse. I assume that people cut and paste from a site, particularly if someone puts the entire thing in quotes...

I was very clear in the post that the Greek "Heurisko" has the meaning "find-by-seeking". Here is the post again:

Hi, Keyzer. I highlighted a couple of things from your post. You are perceiving that "your salvation could not be accidental, God had to be in control, God MADE SURE you lived until that conversation and made sure that conversation happened". That's correct, isn't it?

Let's read some Bible verses:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men. For you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. You travel about on land and sea to make one a convert; and when he becomes one, you make him twice a child of Hell as you are." Matt23:13-15.

"Do not destroy ...your brother for whom Christ died". Rom14:15.

"Save others, snatching them from the fire." Jude23.

"Take care about yourself and your teaching; persevere in these things; as you do you will save yourselves". 1Tim4:16.

Here are verses very clearly talking about KILLING eternally, people who WERE saved. And verses talking about SAVING people --- even ourselves. Is there any way to deny "were entering", and "for-whom-Christ-died" means "WERE SAVED"? Take the Jude23 verse --- you perceive that God made sure you heard the right preacher.

"How shall they believe in whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom10:14

Will you reconsider your thought that "God will not allow that"? Did God allow the Pharisees to CONVERT people FROM saved-belief (they were entering in!) into "twice-a-child-of-Hell-as-they-were"? Yes. Does God allow us to destroy a brother for whom Christ died? Yes. Each of us can fully affect who lives forever, and who does not. It is a sacred responsibility we are given.

Let's discuss another thing you believe --- that "God MAKES SURE those He ordains are saved".

"THEREFORE, brethren (against this man who WAS PURIFIED but now he has FORGOTTEN former purification/salvation!) --- be all the more diligent to make your calling and election firm/steadfast; as long as you practice these things you will never stumble/ptaio/BECOME-WRETCHED; for in this way the entrance (eisodos-gates!) of the Kingdom will be ...provided to you!" 2Pet1:5-11

What do you see there in Peter's words? GOD makes our election/salvation certain? Or does Peter say WE make God's election of us steadfast (bebaios)? This is the whole question --- in Scripture in terms of personal salvation do we find "GOD who ____"?

No; instead we find "MEN who ____"

In Jesus' words in Matt7:24-27, he WHO believes is wise, but he WHO disbelieves is foolish. In Romans2:6-8 God's kindness leads to repentance, but he WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, they receive eternal life; but he WHO pursues sin (in spite of God's kind leading!) receive wrath/Hell.

In John3:20-21 those WHO do good come to the light, but those WHO do evil avoid the light.


That's the thing --- "MEN who ____", and not "GOD who ____".


Exactly why were you there talking to your pastor? You were SEEKING, weren't you? You perceive that "GOD made sure you were there", and you are not recognizing that "YOU were seeking". This is why Jesus said "The gate is small and the way narrow that leads to eternal life, and few are those who find-by-diligently-seeking it." Matt7:14.

Heurisko. Few are THOSE WHO heurisko-find-by-diligently-seeking.

Those who. Not God who.

I'd like you to please read this post over a couple of times, maybe three; and tell me if you can find any error or Scriptural violation in it. If not --- what will you do next?

First you complained that I was insulting with the wording "read over a couple/three times"; now you're accusing me of altering Scripture. (I respectfully think if you had read it a couple of times, you would have seen "heurisko-find-by-diligently-seeking".)

...but what's really happening is you're not engaging what I said. Are you willing to respond to the idea of "MEN-who" and not "GOD-who" (which, although in quotations is not really a word-for-word Scriptural quote)?

Will you also respond to the Scripture-backed principle of "people's salvation can be affected"? (Also not a word-for-word Scriptural quote).

I really have no intent to insult you, nor to offend you; sometimes I think a horse can run away with the cart, and it's desireable to grab the bridle and turn him back to the path...

:-)

[Gadgeteer]

Well, I am not sure what or why he did. Perhaps he is expounding on the Greek, but I didn't investigate to see. Let me ask you, how is what he did any different than changing the meaning of "world" to mean "elect and some creation but excludes the non-elect". Is that any different than what he did with the verse you quoted?

VASTLY different. Now you know what the Greek "heurisko" means; but taking "Pas" to mean SOME in 1Tim2:4, violates the context --- where "all men" includes kings and all authority (we are to pray for their salvation, that our lives be peaceful!), undeniably exceeds "who will be saved", therefore it cannot mean "only-the-few-elect". It has to mean "everyone".

...and now I also know that not everyone reads all of my posts...

;-)

[Lily]

VASTLY different. Now you know what the Greek "heurisko" means; but taking "Pas" to mean SOME in 1Tim2:4, violates the context --- where "all men" includes kings and all authority (we are to pray for their salvation, that our lives be peaceful!), undeniably exceeds "who will be saved", therefore it cannot mean "only-the-few-elect". It has to mean "everyone".

...and now I also know that not everyone reads all of my posts...

;-)

You don't know how happy I am that you brought out this particular scripture. Not because of this thread (which I've been keeping up with [And for the record, I think it's both - God chooses and we choose]), but for another entirely personal reason regarding prayer and intersession for others. So know that while perhaps "not every one reads all of your posts" this one caught the attention of somebody who needed to see it!

Thanks!

: )

[Grunner]

I was wondering what people thought about this doctrine. I find it quite disturbing, as it appears to implie that there is no such thing as free will. Some people are chosen, pre-destined to be saved, whereas others are not. Things like irresistible grace I just cannot get my head around. I think it is at least partly because I am very new to all this, and envy some people their doctrinal certainty. I am not yet in that place of full assurance.

There's a thread on the apologetics forum on this topic that has been addressed over 60 pages. Might be worth checking it out.

However, let me ask you this:
In the Bible, we see the emergent recurring theme of choice. Did the following people have a real choice, or is the text leading us astray that they actually were predetermined in what they chose?
Adam and Eve to deliberately disobey God
Cain to murder his brother
Noah to build an ark (and possibly an arc... depending on if the plans called for one)
Abraham to make a covenant with God
Abraham to bring his son to Mt. Moriah for sacrifice (and if there was no choice, then why did God ultimately bless him for "obeying"?)
Jacob to wrestle with the "angel" (whom some would say was God incarnate, a foreshadow of the Messiah)
Moses to go back to Egypt
Joshua to follow God... along with his entire household
Saul to take up the crown and eventually try to kill David
David to obey God numerous times...
etc. from the OT
John the Baptist to call people to repentance
all the people to follow John and be baptized
Jesus to be baptized
all the disciples to follow Jesus
the rich man in Jesus' story to walk away saddened because he had great wealth
Saul/Paul to repent and follow Jesus

All of these are presented with a choice in the Biblical texts. Is that choice they are given a textual charade in order for the reader to believe in choice, but really there is no choice?

[Grunner]

One final thought (which actually might not be final at all)...
Is. 1:18 reads "Come, let us reason together...."

Why would God want to reason together unless there is a reasonable argument. And why would there be a reasonable argument if there is an irresistible compelling to follow for some and not for others.

The bottom line is that thematically and pervasively throughout the Bible we see choice (for example, Joshua calls for the people of Israel to "choose life"). Some people might cherry-pick a few verses (in or out of context) but if you read the Bible holistically, you must see that there is choice and there is relationship between God and humanity. That relationship is meaningless without choice.

[Noeb]

Because "That die is soulish" doesn't make any sense.

Makes perfect sense. That die (in Romans 8 that you just posted) is soulish. Besides, if you don't understand what someone means then ask, don't change.

"Mind will"? Mind will what?

Finish reading it. There's an "and" in there. That's more than enough to tell you I forgot the comas. You know soul - mind, will, and emotions.

There are two words in Greek, "pneuma" ghost, and "psyche" soul.

We are all well aware of this. Why do you mention it?

Is there any difference between "practicing-sin", and "unbelief"?

Not based on this previous definition of yours.

Suppose I belonged to a church that offered "confession and forgiveness". Suppose once a month I hired a prostitute; but then I confessed my sin and the person hearing me "forgave my sin". But then in a couple weeks I go out and hire the same prostitute again. Month after month, and year after year it's the same; I feel happy 'cause I know I can keep going to the prostitute, and all I have to do is confess and be forgiven. That's called "practicing-sin", and I would be THINKING that I am (sinningly) saved. Scripture may well contradict that thought, but I'm not really interested in learning it. "Surely a good and loving God will FORGIVE me a few indiscretions".

[Noeb]

Yes, he had; that was in chapter 6, the whole concept of "born-again". Five words used interchangeably, "died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED". It's all there.

"died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED" is not "received the knowledge of the truth in how to not sin and been enlightened , tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come."

Chapter 7 is the war between the new man and the old man; chapter 8 is the solution. It fits perfectly with Eph4:22-24, "lay aside the old man, put on the new man, be renewed in the spirit of your mind."
If I "lay aside the blue suit" and "put on the tan suit", do I have two suits? Yes.

This is the point exactly. No, you do not have two suits! You only have one! Having layed down the old and walked away with the new on. Put on the new and walk! Paul said! Get it?

This is why Paul emphisizes
It is a faithful saying in 2Tim 2:11. He did not say, it would be nice if you hear this. He said,
It is a faithful saying. For if we be dead with him........
Again, in the aorist Greek, past point in time -when born again. Paul is telling them to walk in what is already true because of what Christ has already done to them. Put down, and don't pick back up that dead man, and put on Christ and walk in this spiritual truth (walk in the Spirit).

Is God lying by saying you are a new creature? Old or new? Which are you? You cannot be both, my friend!

Yes, it did. In Galatians 2:20 Paul eloquently describes Christ living in us; if we walk in sin, Jesus would have to be participating in those sins

No, it does not say that.

And THAT, is pure "Antinomianism". In 1Jn3:5-10 those who practice sin are not of God, they are of the devil; "by this the children of God and the children of the devil are exposed."

No it is not, you just have different definitions than I. That is why we are going in circles. I doubt either are going to change them.

I think it wiser to let God decide when someone is apostate. By your definition, most believers have lost their salvation. Well, Hebrews says once you lose it, it's gone, and you can't get it back. I've been around time and know people fall into sin, die soulishly, don't lose salvation, repent, and are restored.

The KEY, is that the father said "He was DEAD, now is alive AGAIN". The kid was drunk, carousing, lying with harlots; in no way "saved".

Again, the soul that sins it shall die. We have different definitions.....

What do you think, "Noeb", have we resolved anything, or are we going in circles?

circles

I do thank you for your time and love your fervency. Peace and blessing.

[keyzer soze]

The quotes were valid. Obviously you missed the Greek Lexicon citation.

Let's move on in the discussion, now that we've proven men are not passive recipients of God-coming-to-men, but rather God receives those WHO seek Him. May we?

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb11:6, KJV.

Those who come to God must come by faith (not "He comes to men and GIVES faith"), and He rewards those who diligently seek Him.

You are probably right, I don't even know what a Greek lexicon citation is... so perhaps what you were doing was obvious to everyone but me. I always assumed that when someone quotes scripture they are using a known translation and not altering it to their own preference. This just really threw me when I went to look up which translation version you were using and couldn't find it anywhere... when you do this are you suggesting that all translations are wrong and your interpretation is superior to all known translations?

[keyzer soze]

Reading the O.T. and seeing the balance of God's sovereignty and man's free-will intertwined through the stories while participating in this thread has been amazing. Stop and think about how Rehoboam responded and whether or not he could have exercised free-will to listen to the elders... All because of Solomon angering God...

I believe this is a good example of how I view "free-will" vs. God's sovereignty. Did Rehoboam have free will to listen to the elders or his young friends? YES. However, it was God's will that he would choose his young friends which would divide Israel as God decreed when Solomon angered God with his actions... I see both as equally true, which obviously is hard to process, but to God I see this as simple.

9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

29 About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, 30 and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. 32 But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. 33 I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name. 37 However, as for you, I will take you, and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel. 38 If you do whatever I command you and walk in obedience to me and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my decrees and commands, as David my servant did, I will be with you. I will build you a dynasty as enduring as the one I built for David and will give Israel to you. 39 I will humble David’s descendants because of this, but not forever.’”

6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants.”

12 Three days later Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam, as the king had said, “Come back to me in three days.” 13 The king answered the people harshly. Rejecting the advice given him by the elders, 14 he followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” 15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.

Does no one have an opinion on this?

Here is another interesting passage where I would think that if a John146 or Gadgeteer was there to hear this, you would have had to stop Paul and correct him because Paul is not allowing for free-will.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

How can Paul know this? His household has not even heard the gospel and they not only need to hear it but then they need to process it and decide if they accept it with their free-will. Paul/God is skipping over this step and stating that their salvation will be a done deal if their father accepts Christ.... how do the "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty handle this passage?

[Gadgeteer]

They may not have been practicing sin (the text does not say) but you need to read it again if you don't think they were sinning.

5 I speak to your shame . Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong ? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded ? 8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

In describing sinful behavior (and admonishing change), Paul was really admonishing them towards salvation. It's exactly the same as in 2Pet1:5-11, where by our behaviors we are diligent about our continued salvation. Some people use your argument for passages like 1Cor5:1-5 that "these were carnal Christians". There is no such thing as carnal Christians --- the rebukes were towards salvation.

That's what the word means. That's how it historically was used before in other languages and how it was used in Greek literature. That's how it is used still. Again, only the church says one thing can have two natures.

Two concepts, not two people. You know, people say, "the old me would have....". You don't really think you are two people do you? Please tell me you don't think that!

The issue is that there are two choices --- we can walk in sin, or we can pursue righteousness. Though the second is only by His power, both are our choice.
Do you have any verse to support that? No. Ephesians 2 does not. It says they walked and so were.....

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Does that say dead before they walked, or dead because of plural tresspasses and plural sins because of their walk? This is personal sin not unscriptural original sin (singular) that only results in a walk.

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Wherein? In personal tresspasses and sins.
Walking according to, not born in.
Our conversation (lifestyle) in lusts and desires, not born in.
They walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.
and therefore were children of wrath.[/quote]I don't understand your argument. You asked if I "had any verses to support that", then you cited the verse. You're arguing with Paul, not me.

New creatures sinning. You didn't change the nature into a new creature and you can't change it back unless you commit apostasy.

What difference is there between "apostasy", and "walking-in-sin"? None! Apostasy is unbelief is sin! They are the same!

God is longsufferring wanting us to repent. You don't just get saved, fall back into sin and lose it.

Oh yes you do! Heb10:26, if we CONTINUE in sin Jesus' sacrifice no longer covers us!

If you lose it you can't get it back, and a lot of believers would no longer be believers if God held your beliefs.

On what basis can we "not get it back"? We can get it back in Rom11:21-23. We can get it back in James5;19-20. And the Prodigal is a great example of "getting-it-back", Luke15!

If you are a believer you are already forgiven, but believers don't run around killing people so your question doesn't make any sense.

If a person continues killing/stealing/fornicating/drunk/whatever, they they are NOT BELIEVERS. This is the whole issue! We are either IN Christ ("believers", saved), or we are in sin (unbelievers, unsaved)!

Actually repentance is a change of mind. Faith in the right thing is what causes the change in direction. If you sin every day and do not want to, you have already changed your mind from before you were saved and wanted to. You keep sinning because your faith is not on the right things. If it was in the faithful saying that you died with him when you were born again and are a new creature that does not have to sin, you wouldn't have to sin. If your faith is in anything else regardless if its christian or not, you will sin. Why, because believing your death with Christ and new birth is walking in the Spirit, truth, and gospel.

"If we sin every day and do not want to" --- then we would still be SLAVES to sin.

"Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. ...If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." John8:34-36.

You are proposing some kind of "enslaved-in-sin-SAVED".

We can replace "kill" with "fornicate", or "get-drunk", or any other sin; that which happens repeatedly is "practicing".

believers don't run around doing those things so your question doesn't make any sense.

That's exactly the point! Do you recognize that your statements are not consistent? Those who DO these things are not believers. They are not saved.

The fed up member was wrong because the man wasn't ever filled. Besides, filled has nothing to do with whether or not one sins. Your story doesn't make any sense. Filled is for miracles, signs, wonders, preaching, work of the ministry.

But just a bit ago you claimed a person can be engaging in these sins yet still be saved!

See, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about what no believer even claims. I'm talking about Romans 7 doing what I do not want to do. Ashame so much time has been spent on a non-issue.

It is a major issue! The person doing the wrong he doesn't want to do (like Paul in Romans7), is still a slave to sin! He does not belong to Jesus, he does not believe savingly!

No. You must first change your mind before you turn your faith towards God. You can see that in the gospels and Hebrews 6, the foundation.

"Change-your-mind" and "turn-your-faith-towards-God" are the same!

When you are committing the same sin over and over and over, are you wanting to sin?

Oh, so I can go rob the convenience store, and as long as I say "I'm sorry I don't really want to do this", it's okay? It's not okay, "Noeb", it's wrong. And if I do such a thing I'm still enslaved to sin, not enslaved to God. John8:34-36!

[Gadgeteer]

Makes perfect sense. That die (in Romans 8 that you just posted) is soulish. Besides, if you don't understand what someone means then ask, don't change.

"Noeb", when someone suggests a word to try to make sense of something, you can presume they meant no offense --- and if their suggestion is wrong you can gently correct them. Or you can act as if they did mean offense and condemn them for it. With respect, which leads to more productive discourse?

Finish reading it. There's an "and" in there. That's more than enough to tell you I forgot the comas. You know soul - mind, will, and emotions.

Ahh; sorry. So you support the idea of "spiritual death, because of practicing-sin"?

We are all well aware of this. Why do you mention it?

Some argue that "psyche-soul" is mind but not spirit.

Is there any difference between "practicing-sin", and "unbelief"?

Not based on this previous definition of yours.

But do you agree?

Yes, he had; that was in chapter 6, the whole concept of "born-again". Five words used interchangeably, "died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED". It's all there.

"died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED" is not "received the knowledge of the truth in how to not sin and been enlightened , tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come."

Why isn't it the same? What's the difference?

Chapter 7 is the war between the new man and the old man; chapter 8 is the solution. It fits perfectly with Eph4:22-24, "lay aside the old man, put on the new man, be renewed in the spirit of your mind."
If I "lay aside the blue suit" and "put on the tan suit", do I have two suits? Yes.

This is the point exactly. No, you do not have two suits! You only have one! Having laid down the old and walked away with the new on. Put on the new and walk! Paul said! Get it?

Got it. Don't agree. If you "lay down one" and "walk away with the new", there are still two there; what if you lay down the new and pick up the old again?

This is why Paul emphasizes
It is a faithful saying in 2Tim 2:11. He did not say, it would be nice if you hear this. He said,
It is a faithful saying. For if we be dead with him........

Cite the rest of the message. "IF we died, then we shall also live with Him; if we ENDURE, we shall also reign with Him. If we DENY Him He will deny us --- if we are faithless yet He remains faithful...

If we died and endure, then we're wearing the "new suit". But if we DENY Him and BECOME faithless, then we have picked up the old suit again!

There is no such thing as "faithlessly-saved"...

Again, in the aorist Greek, past point in time -when born again. Paul is telling them to walk in what is already true because of what Christ has already done to them. Put down, and don't pick back up that dead man, and put on Christ and walk in this spiritual truth (walk in the Spirit).

Exactly what I've been saying; and the "dead man" is there to BE picked up, if one turns back to sin.

Is God lying by saying you are a new creature? Old or new? Which are you? You cannot be both, my friend!

We are "new creatures", IF we continue in Christ. The conditional is in verses like Col1:21-23, Heb3:6 and 14, 1Cor15:2, and many other places.

...if we do not continue in Christ, if we are deceived away from Him back into sin, then we are old sinful men again...

[Gadgeteer]

You are probably right, I don't even know what a Greek lexicon citation is... so perhaps what you were doing was obvious to everyone but me. I always assumed that when someone quotes scripture they are using a known translation and not altering it to their own preference. This just really threw me when I went to look up which translation version you were using and couldn't find it anywhere...

Sorry, I should have made it clearer; I'll try to do better next time. :-)

when you do this are you suggesting that all translations are wrong and your interpretation is superior to all known translations?

Sometimes, occasionally. Like I said about the "me" construct --- NASV gets it right in 1Cor12:29-30 (the "not" is implied by the construct), KJV does not. But then they all get James2:14 wrong, "me-dunamai" should be translated:

"That faith (which does not produce good works) can NOT save you, CAN it!"

It's much more of a statement than question. Or to the point, it's a question that expects only an answer of "no". Although Peter treated Jesus' words in Jn6:67 as a real question, and answered it.

You have full access to lexicons. I like www.blueletterbible.org --- you can select one of a bunch of translations (but be aware that only the KJV has verb tenses). Out to the left of each verse is a series of six boxes --- click on the "C" one, and you can see the Greek. Be aware that subtleties are not in the basic lexicon; for instance, Romans1:17 must be read against a commentary, like Robertson's Word Pictures (also available online; see www.biblestudytools.com, and click on "commentaries"). Only in the commentary do we see "faith-the-start" and "faith-the-goal"; in other words, the righteousness of God is revealed from beginning faith to ending faith. Don't presume the commentator is always absolutely right; Gill and MacArthur have commentaries, which are biased with a Calvinistic view. But Robertson is very credibly right most times.

Acts13:48 is another verse that's not easily understood from a lexicon; you might think the verb is "tasso", and not realize the tense is represented by "tetagmenoi". Again, the commentary is useful. But even non-Greek-speaking-people like you and me can read context, and understand that if the Jews unelected themselves (Acts13:46), then it's unlikely that verse 48 asserts "predestined-salvation".

[tea]

I'm back, had a really great time, thanks!

Romans10:6 is a direct quote from Deuteronomy30:12:
....."It is not in Heaven that you should say 'Who will go get ...and make us hear ...that we may observe?' "
Romans10:8 is a direct quote from Deuteronomy30:14:
....."The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."

I see this. But Holy Spirit adds the brackets in Rom 10: 6 'But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, " 'Who will descend into the abyss?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)'

In context (including Deut30:17), it reads as those who have the word-of-faith in their hearts and mouths, can either confess and believe and be saved, or can turn away disobey and perish.

If I remember correctly, we agreed that the message of Deut and Rom were for the children of God?
I conclude that thus only the child of God has a choice to obey. Is this acceptable from what I've said?
Thus we, let's speak for ourselves[you and I];'... can either confess and believe and be saved, or can turn away disobey and perish.'

BUT

Is this perishing a perishing of the flesh[see Cor] or does it mean eternal seperation from God?

Thus, "the-word-of-faith" is the message, and "confessing/believing/becoming-saved" is acting upon the message, believing.
It is the Gospel of Jesus,

Here you seem to be saying they are one?[faith and the word of faith.]

I don't know what you mean by leaving the Deut portion out?

You've had some adventures you right handed man.

Iced tea, we make our own, but not regularly

[keyzer soze]

Originally Posted by keyzer soze
Reading the O.T. and seeing the balance of God's sovereignty and man's free-will intertwined through the stories while participating in this thread has been amazing. Stop and think about how Rehoboam responded and whether or not he could have exercised free-will to listen to the elders... All because of Solomon angering God...

I believe this is a good example of how I view "free-will" vs. God's sovereignty. Did Rehoboam have free will to listen to the elders or his young friends? YES. However, it was God's will that he would choose his young friends which would divide Israel as God decreed when Solomon angered God with his actions... I see both as equally true, which obviously is hard to process, but to God I see this as simple.

9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

29 About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, 30 and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. 32 But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. 33 I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name. 37 However, as for you, I will take you, and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel. 38 If you do whatever I command you and walk in obedience to me and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my decrees and commands, as David my servant did, I will be with you. I will build you a dynasty as enduring as the one I built for David and will give Israel to you. 39 I will humble David’s descendants because of this, but not forever.’”

6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants.”

12 Three days later Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam, as the king had said, “Come back to me in three days.” 13 The king answered the people harshly. Rejecting the advice given him by the elders, 14 he followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” 15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.
Does no one have an opinion on this?
__________________________________________________ ______________
Here is another interesting passage where I would think that if a John146 or Gadgeteer was there to hear this, you would have had to stop Paul and correct him because Paul is not allowing for free-will.

The Jailer Converted

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

How can Paul know this? His household has not even heard the gospel and they not only need to hear it but then they need to process it and decide if they accept it with their free-will. Paul/God is skipping over this step and stating that their salvation will be a done deal if their father accepts Christ.... how do the "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty handle this passage?
__________________________________________________ __________

So, David screws up and now God decrees a sin that David's son Absalom will partake in... Does this take place according to Absalom's free-will? YES. Does this take place according to God's sovereign will? YES.

11 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

20 Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”

21 Ahithophel answered, “Sleep with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

23 Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice.
__________________________________________________ ___________
And finally the passage below tells me that it isn't as simple as a 1 man, 1 equal free-will choice to follow the Lord or not follow the Lord. There is a LOT at play in life. You have the sin in the society you grow up in, the faith or lack there of by your parents, personal sin and issues, and ultimately God's plan. In all the above scenarios I believe there is free-will to sin and will be punishment for it. But for anyone to think that Absalom had a choice OUTSIDE of God's sovereign plan and could have NOT slept with David's wives after David sinned is to call God a liar as far as I can see it. God's sovereign plan trumps everything for He is the Word.

“You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6 )