Romans 4 vs James 2: Newborn babes vs converted Christians

[JIM]

The things that you think Augustine and Calvin distorted are the very things that the apostles taught and that the RCC corrupted. You apparently have chosen to follow the heresies of Pelagius and what attempted to tone that down without destroying it, semi-Pelagianism . Before you claim that is not true or that it isn't true because you know nothing about it, read about those heresies.

I don't follow Pelagius. In fact I have read very little about Pelagius. And I don't need to read anything about any heresies. Unforutnately, I can read more than I care to right here on the forum. I follow what the apostles and prophets of God wrote, you know, the things that you think are heresies.

 

[Arial]

I don't follow Pelagius. In fact I have read very little about Pelagius. And I don't need to read anything about any heresies. Unforutnately, I can read more than I care to right here on the forum. I follow what the apostles and prophets of God wrote, you know, the things that you think are heresies.

You did exactly what I ask you not to and in the process presented another empty post.

The things that you think Augustine and Calvin distorted are the very things that the apostles taught and that the RCC corrupted. You apparently have chosen to follow the heresies of Pelagius and what attempted to tone that down without destroying it, semi-Pelagianism . Before you claim that is not true or that it isn't true because you know nothing about it, read about those heresies.

 

[Mr GLee]

That was 1500 years after the apostles teaching which got terribly distorted by the likes of Augustine and His Manichaeism and Calvin picked up on it.

I would offer.

The idea apostles teaching. False dichotomy it can affect the outcome .

Apostle plant and water( preach). Christ the one good teaching master. who brings to our minds the previous thing he has taught No such thin as apostle succession apostle time period this or that .becarefull how the word is used. It can violate the law not add or subtract the meaning of one word and give it a new understanding .

It only reflection Catholicism has changed the meaning of the word apostle from sent errand boys .The ones with beautiful feet giving it over to highly venerable ones that lord it over the faith of the non-venerable pew warmers.

Faith and repentance precede baptism.

Faith as power is the work of Christ' "Let there be" a labor of love turning repenting us turning toward Him so that in return we can return to His love and do the first work yoked with him, both believe and move in accordance to his power (faith) . . . . . . . .. And "it was good"

Revaltion 2:3-6 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. (Hear the understanding of faith) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; (Believe God and move) or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

Faith as power is a Let there be work .

Human example . My wife who I faithfully trust she in return trust me and send me her apostles on a adventure to the supermarket with a list not to add to or subtract from .Completing the mission my faithful wife rewards her little apostle with two home made peanut butter chokies and a cold glass of milk.

My wife . "Let there be" and "the garbage taking out, and a new liner was put within " Yes dear lol

The work of faith. . the law of faith (power)

 

[Josheb]

Jim, I used my English bible to show how the Spirit uses the word "for"~I'm not interested in a Greek lessons of words, when I have the word of God in my own language, that makes no sense. The Lord Jesus, nor his apostles never mentioned using the originals meaning of words in the Hebrews, in order to teach a certain doctrines, they used the scriptures available to them, which were handed down to them by ready scribes, and so will I. For is used in the sense of "because of"~in so many scriptures, and not only that, the pure gospel of Jesus Christ demands such this sense, to keep man from thinking he has an active part in his salvation from sin and condemnation. Enough said.

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

This is the same message we tell sinners who have been saved from sin and condemnation~"go thy way, shew thyself to the disciples, and offer for thy cleansing those things which the word of God commanded."

WOW!

You "have the word of God in my own language, that makes no sense"? Is it using the Greek from which the English was taken that makes no sense, or the English that makes no sense?

Jesus never mentioned using the originals meaning of the words? Do you understand Jesus is the originals meaning of the words and, therefore, that statement is non-sensical and self-contradictory?

Anyone who uses an English translation of the Bible is, by definition, NOT using scribe-made-ready scriptures. At best, you would have to be reading a Hebrew Old Testament and a Geek New Testament and understanding both cohesively.

Jesus said, "go to the priest." You say, "go to the disciples," thereby blatantly mis-stating, misrepresenting, and misusing the verse cited.





I do NOT share, or agree with, @JIM 's synergist soteriology, but on this occasion, I'll side with him and say Post #181 is a mess. It's very poorly argued and contains multiple errors. Other than that part about the word "for" frequently being used to mean "because of..." (or consequent to...), I cannot find a single sentence in that post that is correct, valid, or veracious. It is because I share your viewpoint man does not have any active role in his salvation that I say the above. I want to read a better case made for that position.

 

[Mr GLee]

WOW!

You "have the word of God in my own language, that makes no sense"? Is it using the Greek from which the English was taken that makes no sense, or the English that makes no sense?

Jesus never mentioned using the originals meaning of the words? Do you understand Jesus is the originals meaning of the words and, therefore, that statement is non-sensical and self-contradictory?

Anyone who uses an English translation of the Bible is, by definition, NOT using scribe-made-ready scriptures. At best, you would have to be reading a Hebrew Old Testament and a Geek New Testament and understanding both cohesively.

Jesus said, "go to the priest." You say, "go to the disciples," thereby blatantly mis-stating, misrepresenting, and misusing the verse cited.





I do NOT share, or agree with, @JIM 's synergist soteriology, but on this occasion, I'll side with him and say Post #181 is a mess. It's very poorly argued and contains multiple errors. Other than that part about the word "for" frequently being used to mean "because of..." (or consequent to...), I cannot find a single sentence in that post that is correct, valid, or veracious. It is because I share your viewpoint man does not have any active role in his salvation that I say the above. I want to read a better case made for that position.

Amen I would offer

There are two laws that protect the integrity of the author for those who would add or subtract from it. in that way change the meaning of one word One in Deuteronomy 4 In respect to one word do not change and the other in Revaltion 22 sealing up the do not add or subtract from whole .Two workings as one .

Deuteronomy 4King James Version Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,(singular) that ye may keep the commandments (plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Its a miracle that there are only a few of that kind of work (Plagiarism). The word Apostle one of the higher if not highest in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2

Changing the meaning of the word messenger prophets sent with prohecy to highly venerable men that lord it over the faith of the non- venerable .

First apostle sent with prohecy, first martyr born again Able.

The second born seed (Christ) passed it to second born Enoch.It was then God allowed mankind to call on him .The born again family

 

[JIM]

You did exactly what I ask you not to...

Since when is it wrong or improper for me to do exactly what you asked me not to....?

 

[Arial]

Since when is it wrong or improper for me to do exactly what you asked me not to....?

I did not say it was improper or wrong. I just said you did it. But since all you can do is this type of thing, I am done talking to you. If you keep it up I will start taking them down. They are a blight to the forum.

 

[JIM]

I did not say it was improper or wrong. I just said you did it. But since all you can do is this type of thing, I am done talking to you. If you keep it up I will start taking them down. They are a blight to the forum.

What type of thing are you talking about?

 

[Red Baker]

Jesus never mentioned using the originals meaning of the words? Do you understand Jesus is the originals meaning of the words and, therefore, that statement is non-sensical and self-contradictory?

Josheb, If you desire to debate this issue, then let's go to a thread and debate it, no problem~I have debated this subject and heard it debated for fifty years, and I'm 100% sure of my position, maybe you are also. I generally do not waste much time on this subject, because of good men on both sides, yet if someone push me into a corner, then I'm coming out fighting.

Jesus said, "go to the priest." You say, "go to the disciples," thereby blatantly mis-stating, misrepresenting, and misusing the verse cited.

I said what I did on purpose! Because of who baptized Paul. That is what we do in our day, since we do not have priest per se....

Acts 9:10​

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.”

I used the word disciple, because that is who can baptized those that confess Jesus Christ, you do not need to be an ordained minister as so many vainly teach. I do not use words without a purpose as you will see if you read very much of what I post.

say Post #181 is a mess. It's very poorly argued and contains multiple errors.

Josheb, I'm hearing what you have to say, but do respectfully disagree.

 

[Arial]

What type of thing are you talking about?

Jabs and pokes aimed at posters with no discussion of what is posted.

 

[Red Baker]

Red, Ghada said

He is absolutely correct here. There are some that think that Jesus was so good, that it made up for everyone else's failures. Jesus only did exactly what God required of Him as a human being. It was not more that God has asked and required of us as human beings. There wasn't any extra in what Jesus did; there wasn't any "above and beyond", there wasn't any "more than enough". What Jesus accomplished in living the perfect life was to become qualified as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Jim, I would expect you to agree with him, just wasn't sure to the degree you would go with them down the road of this heresy. But, I assure you from the scriptures he's far from being absolutely correct ~ actually he has departed from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Btw, why not take some of the scriptures I posted to him and prove them being used incorrectly? That's how arguments are proven right or wrong. Again, I provided these scriptures only for a starter, we have much to give.

First, God put our sins on sinless Jesus Christ, Who then died as a Substitute for them (Isaiah 53:4-12; Daniel 9:24; Romans 5:6-10,15-21; 1st Cor 15:3; Hebrews 9:15; 10:10-14; Ist Peter 2:24; 3:18; Revelation 1:5; 5:9)!

Second, God put the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ on us, by choosing us acceptable in Him (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 3:21-26; 5:15-21; 8:3-4; Ist Cor 1:30; Ephesians 1:3-6; Philippians 3:9)!

The very sinlessness of Christ was the necessary basis of His work of sin-bearing (2nd Corinthians 5:21). He must be innocent to stand for the guilty; He must be holy to take the place of the unholy, otherwise He too had needed a Savior. It was the Just who suffered for the unjust (1st Peter 3:18). Thus the wondrous life of Christ is far more than a spectacle to be gazed at in admiration, and more than an example for His people to follow (1st Peter 2:21); it must be regarded as the work of one for the many. Unique, glorious, perfect, was His lovely life. "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me" (John 5:30), sets forth the guiding principle which ever regulated Him- cf. John 4:34. "I do always those things that please Him" (John 8:29). His was a life of constant service to God: uninterrupted in duration, perfect in degree, flawless in its balance. One grace neither excluded nor marred another: all was there, all was perfectly blended. Such a life, such obedience, such service, merited reward, and is actually bestowed on all He represented, on all whose substitute He was.

Jim, have ever read the short letter to Philemon with a little understanding?

Philemon verses 10-20~"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say."

Jim, why do we have this in the word of God preserved for us? I can assure you that it is not here just to fill up space. I'll wait to comment on these scriptures until you give me your understanding of what I have quoted from Philemon. Give it your best effort.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, If you desire to debate this issue, then let's go to a thread and debate it, no problem

Is there some inability to discuss and correct the existing errors here and now? Valid criticisms were posted, and the response is akin to, "We can debate that elsewhere." That's a red herring. Yes, we could, but that does NOTHING to address the critique or correct the mistakes in Post #181.

~I have debated this subject and heard it debated for fifty years, and I'm 100% sure of my position, maybe you are also. I generally do not waste much time on this subject, because of good men on both sides, yet if someone push me into a corner, then I'm coming out fighting.

Who cares? Every word of that is an appeal to personal anecdotal experience. The appeal is completely fallacious (logically speaking), evidence of the problem to be solved, AND adds to the already existing list of problems existing in the prior post.

I said what I did on purpose! Because of who baptized Paul. That is what we do in our day, since we do not have priest per se....

Acts 9:10​

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.”

I used the word disciple, because that is who can baptized those that confess Jesus Christ, you do not need to be an ordained minister as so many vainly teach. I do not use words without a purpose as you will see if you read very much of what I post.

Appreciate the explanation, but that does not solve the problem; it worsens it. That explanation amounts to asking @JIM (and me, and anyone else) to subscribe to personal views and methods rather than anything we might be able to objectively measure and verify with well-rendered scripture. There are multiple significant problems with the bait and switch of priests and disciples, pre-Calvary and post-Calvary, unregenerate and regenerate conditions. Subjective appeals to Acts 9:10 do not solve that problem.

Josheb, I'm hearing what you have to say,

If that's true, then I'll read some improvement. Otherwise, the evidence indicates I was perhaps heard but not understood, taken seriously, or received with the spirit intended.

....but do respectfully disagree.

Posting fallacy is not respectful. The meaning of that claim is that you are incapable of doing better, incapable of making a better case than the one presented previously.


I do not believe that.


I know you can do better (wouldn't have wasted my time if I thought otherwise). Greek, properly rendered, trumps English every time. If KJVOists understood that there'd be no KJVOists. The explicit trumps the eisegetically inferential every time. If synergists understood that then there'd be no synergists . No one reading a post knows what an author meant to say. The reader knows only what was posted. As written, Post 181 has problems (such as the fact scripture also sometimes uses prepositions - like the word "for" - as a correlation, not causation, and that is important because synergists frequently read causation into scripture where none is stated). You will have defeated yourself if JIM uses your own words to find a scripture that uses "for" (or some other preposition) to show a synergistic causation.


I hope my critique is taken with some encouragement rather than adversarialness because it looks like I'm on your side of the discussion with @JIM (newborns do not have faith and any salvation any newborn may have is monergistic). I've said most of it before with him, so little if any of it is new to him, and I'm hoping you have better success than I. I simply don't see that happening with an error-ridden post like 181 (or 209). Perhaps I'm guilty of Proverbs 26:17, so I'll leave you to your methods with JIM, hoping at least some of what I posted will be taken seriously and apply it efficiently.

 

[JIM]

You will have defeated yourself if JIM uses your own words to find a scripture that uses "for" (or some other preposition) to show a synergistic causation.

I wasn't going to get any further into the middle of this. However, I feel compelled to make it clear that I do not believe in "synergistic causation". I do not believe we play any part in our salvation other than hearing, believing, repenting, and being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In doing that I have not in any way been a cause for salvation. The cause is fully, and only, God. In all of that I have only listened to God's promises.

Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

[JIM]

Jim, I would expect you to agree with him, just wasn't sure to the degree you would go with them down the road of this heresy. But, I assure you from the scriptures he's far from being absolutely correct ~ actually he has departed from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Btw, why not take some of the scriptures I posted to him and prove them being used incorrectly? That's how arguments are proven right or wrong. Again, I provided these scriptures only for a starter, we have much to give.

You posted the following:

First, God put our sins on sinless Jesus Christ, Who then died as a Substitute for them (Isaiah 53:4-12; Daniel 9:24; Romans 5:6-10,15-21; 1st Cor 15:3; Hebrews 9:15; 10:10-14; Ist Peter 2:24; 3:18; Revelation 1:5; 5:9)!

Second, God put the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ on us, by choosing us acceptable in Him (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 3:21-26; 5:15-21; 8:3-4; Ist Cor 1:30; Ephesians 1:3-6; Philippians 3:9)!

First, I don't even know what you mean by either of those statements, so I can't really comment on how or if any of the scriptures you posted are used correctly. What do you mean by the statement, "God put our sins on sinless Jesus Christ"? And what precisely do you mean by the statement, "God put the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ on us"?

So before I can comment on whether or not you have used the scriptures correctly, I have to understand your meaning for those statements. And I don't. I could guess, but that is not likely to be best.

The very sinlessness of Christ was the necessary basis of His work of sin-bearing (2nd Corinthians 5:21).

Here again, I do not know what you are intending with the term "sin-bearing". I could make some conjecture and then comment on it, but that probably wouldn't really be the best response.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Just the analysis of that verse is terribly complicated. For example, go to Albert Barnes commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21 to see that. I am not saying that I agree with Barnes on that verse, but it does illustrate the necessity of "rightly dividing the word of truth".

 

[Red Baker]

Perhaps I'm guilty of Proverbs 26:17, so I'll leave you to your methods with JIM, hoping at least some of what I posted will be taken seriously and apply it efficiently.

Proverbs 26:17~He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.​

Even a friendly dog will bite, if you grab and pull its ears. And here is the busybody, stopping to get involved in the strife of others, who will soon be bitten by both parties. The Preacher Solomon taught us the wisdom of avoiding getting into the conflicts of others.

I wasn't going to get any further into the middle of this. However, I feel compelled to make it clear that I do not believe in "synergistic causation"

so I'll leave you to your methods with JIM

Truly, I do not not mind in spite of what you said otherwise:

Posting fallacy is not respectful. The meaning of that claim is that you are incapable of doing better, incapable of making a better case than the one presented previously.


I do not believe that

This being said, I'll find a thread dealing with this subject and make a post there maybe sometime this week. I do truly appreciate your gift to debate which I have picked up on, so it should be interested for us to discuss this subject, for I do not believe you can change my mind of KJV being the very word of God for English speaking people~but pretty sure you could give it a good run, based on what I have read from you. As I said above, there are good men on both side of this issue, men that I have a lot of respect for and truly love~but, I must live according to the light God has given to me regardless where it may take me.

 

[Mr GLee]

You "have the word of God in my own language, that makes no sense"? Is it using the Greek from which the English was taken that makes no sense, or the English that makes no sense?

Jesus never mentioned using the originals meaning of the words? Do you understand Jesus is the originals meaning of the words and, therefore, that statement is non-sensical and self-contradictory?

Anyone who uses an English translation of the Bible is, by definition, NOT using scribe-made-ready scriptures. At best, you would have to be reading a Hebrew Old Testament and a Geek New Testament and understanding both cohesively.

Jesus said, "go to the priest." You say, "go to the disciples," thereby blatantly mis-stating, misrepresenting, and misusing the verse cited.

I would disagree.

The priests are the disciples like Jesus .A kingdom priests men women and children the living temple .

Change the meaning of one word change the whole

Remember we defend the faith that defends us as it is writen . Put on the Armor.

Especially today's transsexuals society. . gender dysfunction. . the identity theft Satan. What you see is not what your get.

Satan the lord of racism. Murder them all

The foundation of reincarnation as if the final ressurection has occurred and mankind comes back in the same body. or creature of choice .Just believe the lie and imagine

The hope of Catholicism and the virgin queen same body to match the idol images they seek help from

Even affecting the faith or understanding of some .

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Sound the Trump 14 more days lol

 

[Josheb]

I wasn't going to get any further into the middle of this. However, I feel compelled to make it clear that I do not believe in "synergistic causation". I do not believe we play any part in our salvation other than hearing, believing, repenting, and being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In doing that I have not in any way been a cause for salvation. The cause is fully, and only, God. In all of that I have only listened to God's promises.

Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

You do. You either haven't thought it through sufficiently, or you haven't acknowledged the causality to yourself. Simply put, if God conditions anything He does (or doesn't do) on the unregenerate sinner then that is necessarily causal. And if you are couching the hearing (works), believing (works), repenting (works) and getting baptized (works) in the unregenerate sinner and God's work is predicated on all the actions on that list then each one of those works is synergistic causation. That's a lot of causation, all of it predicate, conditional limits on God.

Now, this could be cleared up a great deal if you would answer each of the following questions with an immediate, direct, unqualified yes or no.

1. Does God cause the hearing?
2. Is the listening caused by God?
3. Is the understanding of what the unregenerate sinner has heard caused by God?
4. Does God cause the believing?
5. Does God cause the repenting?
6. Does God cause the receiving?
7. Does the baptism occur prior to regeneration?

If the answer to any of those questions is "No," then you do, in fact and undeniably, subscribe to a synergistic causality in salvation.



And as far as Acts 2:39-41 goes, the most important verse in that passage was left out. You have, once again and as is often your practice, quote mined God's word, and done so to defend a position that is completely indefensible once the whole of the larger passage is considered.

Acts 2:47b
...and the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

With all that is said and done in the Pentecost episode, that entire chapter, the final word of God revealing what has transpired is that God did the adding AND there isn't a single mention of the unregenerate sinner doing anything causal.

• God did it = explicit mention
• Unregenerate sinner did it = zero mention

AND this is critically important because there are several places where scripture explicitly cites God as causal but not a single place where scripture explicitly cites the unregenerate sinner's thoughts, words, or deeds as causal to his/her salvation.

 

[Josheb]

I would disagree.

The priests are the disciples like Jesus .A kingdom priests men women and children the living temple.

This is another example why I often ignore your posts. I assume this occasion is due to a lack of thought because I believe had the matter been considered with any depth it wouldn't have been posted. The priests to which Jesus sent those he healed, and the sacrifices he directed them to perform do not have any comparison with post-Calvary and post-Pentecost conditions. A temple of stone is nothing like the temple of regenerate believers. The former is dead and lifeless, built by human hands. The latter is living and alive and built by God. What you've just done is compare God's works to sin.

That nonsense is to be repudiated.

 

[JIM]

You do. You either haven't thought it through sufficiently, or you haven't acknowledged the causality to yourself. Simply put, if God conditions anything He does (or doesn't do) on the unregenerate sinner then that is necessarily causal. And if you are couching the hearing (works), believing (works), repenting (works) and getting baptized (works) in the unregenerate sinner and God's work is predicated on all the actions on that list then each one of those works is synergistic causation. That's a lot of causation, all of it predicate, conditional limits on God.

Now, this could be cleared up a great deal if you would answer each of the following questions with an immediate, direct, unqualified yes or no.

1. Does God cause the hearing?
2. Is the listening caused by God?
3. Is the understanding of what the unregenerate sinner has heard caused by God?
4. Does God cause the believing?
5. Does God cause the repenting?
6. Does God cause the receiving?
7. Does the baptism occur prior to regeneration?

If the answer to any of those questions is "No," then you do, in fact and undeniably, subscribe to a synergistic causality in salvation.



And as far as Acts 2:39-41 goes, the most important verse in that passage was left out. You have, once again and as is often your practice, quote mined God's word, and done so to defend a position that is completely indefensible once the whole of the larger passage is considered.

Acts 2:47b
...and the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

With all that is said and done in the Pentecost episode, that entire chapter, the final word of God revealing what has transpired is that God did the adding AND there isn't a single mention of the unregenerate sinner doing anything causal.

• God did it = explicit mention
• Unregenerate sinner did it = zero mention

AND this is critically important because there are several places where scripture explicitly cites God as causal but not a single place where scripture explicitly cites the unregenerate sinner's thoughts, words, or deeds as causal to his/her salvation.

You have

 

[JIM]

You do. You either haven't thought it through sufficiently, or you haven't acknowledged the causality to yourself. Simply put, if God conditions anything He does (or doesn't do) on the unregenerate sinner then that is necessarily causal. And if you are couching the hearing (works), believing (works), repenting (works) and getting baptized (works) in the unregenerate sinner and God's work is predicated on all the actions on that list then each one of those works is synergistic causation. That's a lot of causation, all of it predicate, conditional limits on God.

Now, this could be cleared up a great deal if you would answer each of the following questions with an immediate, direct, unqualified yes or no.

1. Does God cause the hearing?
2. Is the listening caused by God?
3. Is the understanding of what the unregenerate sinner has heard caused by God?
4. Does God cause the believing?
5. Does God cause the repenting?
6. Does God cause the receiving?
7. Does the baptism occur prior to regeneration?

If the answer to any of those questions is "No," then you do, in fact and undeniably, subscribe to a synergistic causality in salvation.



And as far as Acts 2:39-41 goes, the most important verse in that passage was left out. You have, once again and as is often your practice, quote mined God's word, and done so to defend a position that is completely indefensible once the whole of the larger passage is considered.

Acts 2:47b
...and the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

With all that is said and done in the Pentecost episode, that entire chapter, the final word of God revealing what has transpired is that God did the adding AND there isn't a single mention of the unregenerate sinner doing anything causal.

• God did it = explicit mention
• Unregenerate sinner did it = zero mention

AND this is critically important because there are several places where scripture explicitly cites God as causal but not a single place where scripture explicitly cites the unregenerate sinner's thoughts, words, or deeds as causal to his/her salvation.

Nearly all of that is false. And it all derives from a faulty understanding of regeneration. Your view of regeneration leaves the one born again not having his sins forgiven. All those who responded according to Acts 2:38 were unregenerate. Their regeneration came as a result of following Peter's command given in that verse. But of course, you don't understand that. Or rather, you refuse to accept that.