FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

This is not engaging with what I posted. It is nothing but an accusation, an implicit claim that you do believe all the words of Christ and I don't because I disagree with you. I explained---and from Scripture---what your assertion of interpretation of that passage and all the others you used out of category context was an incorrect interpretation. If you disagree that what I posted does not successfully do that, then don't just claim your rightness---show it.

That would require you to dismantle what I said, stone by stone, with no presuppositional bias involved. Utterly neutral.

The discussions on theology and doctrine are vital to our understanding it is imperative that we do it right.

Show that your interpretation in all of them was NOT a collapse of category which made your doctrinal conclusion invalid. If you need me to define terms in order to do that---ask me to and I will.

Start with "a collapse of category" what are you talking about

 

[BillyBob65]

The command does not imply the ability to obey. Does God command, "be ye holy"? Yet, none can do it, but Christ Jesus. Man is unable because of his will--that is true. But thus, unable. He is corrupt to the core, and so, unwilling. The commands are not meaningless. They establish the standard. And so they point to our inability and our need for Christ.

Take the viewpoint that says that God's foreknowledge is based on what he sees, 'down the corridors of time' (to which I don't subscribe, but I use it here to demonstrate that even the proponents of THAT claim, should admit to the logic. If God knew that we all would disobey, yet created anyway, he intended that we disobey. (I'm not saying that he likes it, but that it is a means to an end--redemption.) If he knows that we will all disobey, then how is the command any more invalid than if it was given to autonomous creatures capable of holiness?

By the way, in your references and points, you are mixing categories, again:

There is the command to everyone, which is not salvific. 'Obedience' to that is surface, in those who are at enmity with God--it is not submission. Those are unable to submit, per Romans 8:7,8.

There is the command to everyone, which is salvific. Repent Seek Believe Choose are all impossible to do salvifically, while at enmity with God. As we have already established, they WILL not, and according to Romans 8:7,8, they cannot submit, nor please God. (Note here, too, a caveat. For those elect, these commands are salvific only in that they are in keeping with Christ's righteousness, already applied. It is not their by the will of the redeemed that they are saved.)

There is the command to the born again, to those justified by (through, from) faith. These are finally enabled to obey, yet even they will not obey perfectly, except by Christ's righteousness.

You have included all three categories under one general statement, which is, apparently, to you, axiomatic, but which falls apart under scrutiny. (And no, I don't claim that a person has to know all this correctly in order to be saved. In fact, I thank God for the ignorance of some of those upon whom he has shown mercy and are born again (Romans 9). Their hearts and even their minds (Romans 8) know him, because of the Spirit of God within them (Ephesians 2; 1 Corinthians 2:14).)

There is the command to everyone, which is salvific. Repent Seek Believe Choose are all impossible to do salvifically, while at enmity with God.

That is the most craziest thing I have heard. If they are impossible to do then why would God insist that we do. Do you read your own words?

That is the essence of the gospel call that we respond to it accordingly. God interacts with his people not have them stranged up with puppet strings.

 

[makesends]

There is the command to everyone, which is salvific. Repent Seek Believe Choose are all impossible to do salvifically, while at enmity with God.

That is the most craziest thing I have heard. If they are impossible to do then why would God insist that we do. Do you read your own words?

That is the essence of the gospel call that we respond to it accordingly. God interacts with his people not have them stranged up with puppet strings.

Answer the question. Can you be holy as your God is holy?

And I completely reject the notion that "God [has] his people....stranged up with puppet strings." I would really like to see you try to prove your thesis, besides by scorn and consternation.

Your premise, by the way, is based on a mindset that assumes we are independent moral agents, the same way God is. No doubt you will disagree with that, but in the end, it is so. Your thesis assumes that we are indeed independently able to do whatever is necessary to match what God made us to be. That mindset exalts man's status to Godhood, or lowers God's sovereignty to the level of creaturehood. That worldview is found in scripture only by misreading that assumes it, or in several cases, by way of God rebuking those who think that way.

God did not make us to be perfect in this temporal life, except in Christ. We are not yet the completed creation that he spoke into existence.

 

[makesends]

That is the most craziest thing I have heard. If they are impossible to do then why would God insist that we do. Do you read your own words?

Leaving aside for now the Rules violation here, God's demand is by way of his utter purity. If you need to equate his utter purity to our ability, you have introduced a notion that, if taken to its logical end, implies that there is no such thing as sin. After all, why would he create creatures capable of sinning against him, who by force of will can exalt themselves above creaturehood into his realm?

I don't have the skills to illustrate this graphically. But God is not like us. His purity, his existence and sentience, and our best --even Adam's before he fell-- are not on the same level nor of the same kind of thing. The only time we will be pure, is, at present, 'in Christ', and in Heaven, glorified. We are not capable of reaching his level in and of ourselves.

 

[BillyBob65]

God created us with a mind to reason. He knew that we would chose many errors in our life and made a way to deal with that fact. No we will never be as perfect as God and thankfully He does not demand that but has provided the escape. Never does God say we can not understand his words but that we might reject his words. Yes we are a rebellious people but we are capable of seeing the light and searching to seek God. The bible is clear that God created us with a mind to understand. To many scriptures state that if we believe. It is up to us to believe because we are capable we can't lay our unbelief on God that is our part. The whole of the bible is asking us to believe. We are capable.

 

[Arial]

Start with "a collapse of category" what are you talking about

Thanks for asking for the clarification. A collapse of category is when you have two distinct categories are improperly merged. When that is done, and a doctrine is formed from doing that, the doctrinal statement is going to be incorrect.

So, let's look at it with the example we already have of deducing that people have the ability to choose to believe unto salvation by referring back to:

Acts 17:30 – “God now commandeth all men every where to repent.”

If repentance were impossible, the command would be unjust.

Joshua 24:15 – “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.”

Joshua tells Israel to choose, not because they cannot, but because they must.

The doctrine of an innate "ability to choose" is derived by collapsing two distinct biblical categories. These two categories are:

• A NT command to repent
• An OT command to obey covenant stipulations---specifically Israels obligation to worship Yahweh alone

Here is why that is a category collapse:

Josha 24:15 addresses:

• a redeemed covenant people
• already brought out of Egypt
• being warned against idolatry.

The choice is:

• which god to serve, not
• how one becomes spiritually alive

This is a covenant-loyalty category.

The NT category (Acts) addresses

• the universal obligation of sinners,
• in light of Christ's resurrection and coming judgement

The command establishes: accountability---not natural ability to produce repentance.

This is a gospel-summons category.

This is how the collapse happens. The argument moves like this:

• OT: Israel is commanded to choose whom to serve
• NT: All people are commanded to repent
• Conclusion: Therefore, all people possess the innate ability to choose saving faith

The problem with that is each step answers a different question.

OT: Who will you worship"
NT: What are you commanded to do"
Doctrine inferred: What are you able to do by nature?

In summary: Your argument commits a category collapse by treating covenantal commands and gospel summons as though they were statements about human spiritual ability. It also reverses biblical causality by making repentance the cause of spiritual life rather than its result.

 

[BillyBob65]

Okay I think that is grasping at straws. The NT is full of obey commands and the results if you don't obey. That was not good at dismissing the fact that I am incapable to obey the command of God to repent. That is something God requires of me and if I refuse I pay the consequences of it. Are you trying to tell me I don't have to repent?

I am sorry but I have no ideal what your summary means you might want to try again. What is this suppose to mean?
"It also reverses biblical causality by making repentance the cause of spiritual life rather than its result."

Red strike through violation of 2.2 misrepresenting a person's position.

 

[Arial]

That is the essence of the gospel call that we respond to it accordingly. God interacts with his people not have them stranged up with puppet strings.

I get sick of this false equivalency as thought here are only two options. Either we have free will and ability to choose to accept or reject the gospel or else we are "stranged" up like puppets.

Here is another option. God chose who to give to his Son as his inheritance, and he sends his Spirit to regenerate them so that they are both willing and able to believe the gospel. And the essence of the gospel call is not "respond accordingly" (according to what?). The essence of the gospel call is the gospel.

 

[BillyBob65]

I get sick of this false equivalency as thought here are only two options. Either we have free will and ability to choose to accept or reject the gospel or else we are "stranged" up like puppets.

Here is another option. God chose who to give to his Son as his inheritance, and he sends his Spirit to regenerate them so that they are both willing and able to believe the gospel. And the essence of the gospel call is not "respond accordingly" (according to what?). The essence of the gospel call is the gospel.

That view contradicts 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God wants ALL to come to repentance. See ALL remember God is no respecter of person He wants ALL not just a few but ALL the gospel call is for ALL Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ALL . The bible could not be more clear it is for All not just a select few that God hand picks. That is mans doctrine not from God because God says ALL.

 

[Arial]

That view contradicts 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God wants ALL to come to repentance. See ALL remember God is no respecter of person He wants ALL

I wonder what that would say if it were interpreted within its context instead of isolated from it. I wonder what it would be saying if all the clear scriptures pertaining to the order of salvation were considered. I wonder what it would say if Acts 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." were not misinterpreted so as to make it interpret 2 Peter 3:9 in the way you want it to be interpreted. (Incidentally that is another collapsing of categories an unacceptable and unreliable hermeneutic. It creates false doctrines. What are the two categories that are treated as though they were the same category? 2 Peter=Divine disposition/redemptive patience. Acts 10:34 = revelatory/redemptive-historical clarification. When scripture is used to interpret scripture, in the way you are applying it, both of the scriptures must be in the same category.) Acts 10:34 is not clarifying 2 Peter 3:9 or supporting your interpretation of 2 Peter.

When you have taken the time to remove the inappropriate use of Acts 10 on "no partiality" from the equation and interpreted 2 Peter 3:9 by careful evaluation within its context, we can discuss that.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ALL . The bible could not be more clear it is for All not just a select few that God hand picks. That is mans doctrine not from God because God says ALL.

If a school makes an announcement "All students must be in the auditorium by 9 a.m." do you think it does mean or has to mean every student on earth or students who are absent, expelled, graduated, or not enrolled?

"All" is defined by the scope of the group being addressed, not by universal inclusion. Now take that understanding into 2 Peter 3:9. Who is Peter addressing. As for Acts 2:39 that qualifies the "all" for you within the passage. "Even as many as our Lord shall call."

Not only that, your interpretation of "all" in 2 Peter defies a proper self-revealed doctrine of God. You have him violating himself. You present him as wanting something he cannot have by his own design. That being subjecting his own will and desire to the will of sinful man in order to preserve their freedom of choice.

 

[Carbon]

That view contradicts 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God wants ALL to come to repentance. See ALL remember God is no respecter of person He wants ALL not just a few but ALL the gospel call is for ALL Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ALL . The bible could not be more clear it is for All not just a select few that God hand picks. That is mans doctrine not from God because God says ALL.

What God wants, God gets. Once that last elect person is born Into this world and comes to know Christ as his Lord and God, it’s over.
God is not slow or slack, He is patiently waiting not willing to loose any elect,

 

[makesends]

BillyBob65 said:
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ALL . The bible could not be more clear it is for All not just a select few that God hand picks. That is mans doctrine not from God because God says ALL.

"All" is defined by the scope of the group being addressed, not by universal inclusion. Now take that understanding into 2 Peter 3:9. Who is Peter addressing. As for Acts 2:39 that qualifies the "all" for you within the passage. "Even as many as our Lord shall call."

Even in English, the word, "even" can mean "and", or "thus".

The Greek here doesn't include the word, "even", though. It is more clinical and less poetic sounding than the English translation. No cadence, the last phrase not adding meaning to the first. The last phrase, instead, defines, or narrows, the first. The phrase, "as many as our Lord shall call", is the definition of "all", in the first, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off..."

Yep. @BillyBob65 is right about one thing-- the Bible could not be more clear, here.

 

[BillyBob65]

I wonder what that would say if it were interpreted within its context instead of isolated from it. I wonder what it would be saying if all the clear scriptures pertaining to the order of salvation were considered. I wonder what it would say if Acts 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." were not misinterpreted so as to make it interpret 2 Peter 3:9 in the way you want it to be interpreted. (Incidentally that is another collapsing of categories an unacceptable and unreliable hermeneutic. It creates false doctrines. What are the two categories that are treated as though they were the same category? 2 Peter=Divine disposition/redemptive patience. Acts 10:34 = revelatory/redemptive-historical clarification. When scripture is used to interpret scripture, in the way you are applying it, both of the scriptures must be in the same category.) Acts 10:34 is not clarifying 2 Peter 3:9 or supporting your interpretation of 2 Peter.

When you have taken the time to remove the inappropriate use of Acts 10 on "no partiality" from the equation and interpreted 2 Peter 3:9 by careful evaluation within its context, we can discuss that.

If a school makes an announcement "All students must be in the auditorium by 9 a.m." do you think it does mean or has to mean every student on earth or students who are absent, expelled, graduated, or not enrolled?

"All" is defined by the scope of the group being addressed, not by universal inclusion. Now take that understanding into 2 Peter 3:9. Who is Peter addressing. As for Acts 2:39 that qualifies the "all" for you within the passage. "Even as many as our Lord shall call."

Not only that, your interpretation of "all" in 2 Peter defies a proper self-revealed doctrine of God. You have him violating himself. You present him as wanting something he cannot have by his own design. That being subjecting his own will and desire to the will of sinful man in order to preserve their freedom of ch

To modify the word of God destroys it effective. Adding terms like "collapsing of categories" is merely man's way to reject the truth of scripture to divert to man's way of teaching.

Mod Hat: This post uses inflammatory and marginalizing language. It falsely accuses, makes assumptions about the character and faith of the one being responded to. It addresses the person and not the topic or argument etc., etc. Violation of rule 2.2

Address the argument.

 

[BillyBob65]

I want to take a step back and address the incapable.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

It is not that man is incapable of hearing and understanding but that they waxed gross their hearts buy rejecting God's word.

BillyBob65 said:
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ALL . The bible could not be more clear it is for All not just a select few that God hand picks. That is mans doctrine not from God because God says ALL.

Even in English, the word, "even" can mean "and", or "thus".

The Greek here doesn't include the word, "even", though. It is more clinical and less poetic sounding than the English translation. No cadence, the last phrase not adding meaning to the first. The last phrase, instead, defines, or narrows, the first. The phrase, "as many as our Lord shall call", is the definition of "all", in the first, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off..."

Yep. @BillyBob65 is right about one thing-- the Bible could not be more clear, here.

I agree the "as many as our Lord shall call", is the definition of "all" as in
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

sorry deduplicate by accident.

The gospel is to be sent to ALL people not just a few select people.

 

[BillyBob65]

I want to take a step back and address the incapable.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

It is not that man is incapable of hearing and understanding but that they waxed gross their hearts buy rejecting God's word.

I agree the "as many as our Lord shall call", is the definition of "all" as in
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The gospel is to be sent to ALL people not just a few select people.

 

[BillyBob65]

What God wants, God gets. Once that last elect person is born Into this world and comes to know Christ as his Lord and God, it’s over.
God is not slow or slack, He is patiently waiting not willing to loose any elect,

Mans doctrine not from God but Calvin.

 

[makesends]

I want to take a step back and address the incapable.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

It is not that man is incapable of hearing and understanding but that they waxed gross their hearts buy rejecting God's word.

I agree the "as many as our Lord shall call", is the definition of "all" as in
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The gospel is to be sent to ALL people not just a few select people.

Aye, indeed the gospel is to be sent to all peoples. Not only that, but all individuals are without excuse, per Romans 1. God's eternal nature, not just deistically assessed but his intimate 'communion' with his creation implied, is about the gospel. (They resist it because his very nature implies submission of his creation, or in this case, his creatures.) So in some way, the gospel is indeed for all to see.

But the gospel given does not imply that all will be able to accept it. It is a valid offer, as demonstrated by the fact that the reprobate always turn it down, always willfully reject it, always at enmity with God.

As we have seen, Romans 8:7,8 shows their state--literally unable to submit to God's law, or to please God. And as we have said, unable because unwilling.

And the status quo is how God has ordained the facts. That the status quo is caused by myriad effects-become-causes, to include the wills of individuals, is not denied here. Their hearts are waxed gross because they are reprobate, or elect still at enmity with God. They will to not believe, and to dive deeper into their enmity, just as God has decreed. And so God hardens hearts. It is not just that both do it, but that God does so through their corrupt choice.

 

[makesends]

Mans doctrine not from God but Calvin.

What do you do with the fact that many of us--myself included--did not find what we believe through Calvin? I didn't even know of Calvin except by caricature. I found what I did, coming from your end of the spectrum, because that end of the spectrum in final analysis did not make logical sense, and because it did not add up with the whole of the council of God in Scripture, and because it left me empty and anguished and in desperate need of a more solid theology. I found what I did because God answered my agonized prayers to be what he had in mind for me. I didn't know he was already doing that. All he did is open my eyes, ('melting the wax in my gross heart').

Take a look at the last few posts in this thread: https://christcentered.community.fo...atural-vs-gods-intervention.3559/#post-134636

 

[BillyBob65]

Aye, indeed the gospel is to be sent to all peoples. Not only that, but all individuals are without excuse, per Romans 1. God's eternal nature, not just deistically assessed but his intimate 'communion' with his creation implied, is about the gospel. (They resist it because his very nature implies submission of his creation, or in this case, his creatures.) So in some way, the gospel is indeed for all to see.

But the gospel given does not imply that all will be able to accept it. It is a valid offer, as demonstrated by the fact that the reprobate always turn it down, always willfully reject it, always at enmity with God.

As we have seen, Romans 8:7,8 shows their state--literally unable to submit to God's law, or to please God. And as we have said, unable because unwilling.

And the status quo is how God has ordained the facts. That the status quo is caused by myriad effects-become-causes, to include the wills of individuals, is not denied here. Their hearts are waxed gross because they are reprobate, or elect still at enmity with God. They will to not believe, and to dive deeper into their enmity, just as God has decreed. And so God hardens hearts. It is not just that both do it, but that God does so through their corrupt choice.

But yet it was not God's desire that they would reject him. He wishes that all will knowing that all wouldn't but still he leaves it up to them he did not make up their mind one way or the other they had equal chance to choose God but THEY rejected not because God did not select them. God gave them the same chance .

 

[Arial]

To modify the word of God destroys it effective. Adding terms like "collapsing of categories" is merely man's way to reject the truth of scripture to divert to man's way of teaching.

Collapsing of categories is actually collapsing of categories. It has nothing to do with a way to reject the truth of scripture and to direct it to man's way of teaching. I showed you where you did so and how you used that collapsing to arrive at an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 and an incorrect interpretation of Acts 10:34---the two you were collapsing into each other. You did not address that. You neither successfully refuted my claim or did the work of interpreting within their own context.

All you did was dismiss and insult me. You did not deal with my post at all. Would you mind telling me why?