Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

moved from RCC board

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daniel.
    started a topic moved from RCC board

    moved from RCC board

    RULE 24- Take this to the appropriate boards.


    Originally posted by tester View Post
    Any interpretation of Scripture that has "believers in the Son" falling under the wrath of God must be in error:
    agreed?
    No.

    Paul, addressing the Jewish believers in the Roman Church [Ro 2:17, 4:1, 7:1], says things like the following:

    Romans 2
    5But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

    Romans 8
    12So then, brothers,e we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

    Then he tells everyone:

    Romans 14
    23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.d

    Does that mean it isn't God working in us to will and to do for His pleasure? No, of course not. It just means that some Christians have God working in them to will and do, but they don't do it. Paul warns us about the reality of just such a situation:

    Philippians 2
    12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

    So does Jesus:

    Matthew 25
    24He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
    Last edited by Mod12; 01-02-19, 11:11 AM.

  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Commonly held but misguided view. When scripture says we are not under law it is always speaking in the specified context of either our justification or our righteousness. It never speaks of the law being done away with in its entirety. The NT calls the alw good and spiritual, lawful when it is practiced lawfully, and ALL of the NT writers cited it as a standard held out to the body of Christ.

    This is just one more clear example of where you've failed to read scripture in its context.
    You've misunderstood me.
    I never said we didn't fulfill the Law's righteous requirement when we are not under Law but under Grace; I simply said we were not under Law--and we're not.
    Certain parts of it do not apply to those under the New Covenant, thus we're not under the Law (it's all or nothing [Dt 6:25]).
    Not only are we not under the Law "for justification" (in fact, there is an upcoming justification based on works [Ro 2:6-16]), but we're not under Law as a method of serving God either. God is writing His Law on our hearts by the Spirit of Grace--such that even Gentile believers who do not know the Law are deemed "doers of the Law" Ro 2:13-15, 26, 27]. That is the New Covenant way [Ro 7:6].

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Yes, the statement made by tester is not wholly correct; Christians do experience judgment, wrath, and condemnation, but none of it negates a believer in Christ's eternal disposition. Those who place their faith in God's son are no longer eternally condemned. Those who are faithless were never converts in the first place and those whose fruit-bearing is meager may stand before God's throne empty handed but saved, nonetheless. I can (and have) point to scriptures that state as much.

    Not all mentions of wrath, condemnation, or judgment are alike in scripture. Scripture often uses like terms in diverse ways. Contextually different mentions should not be conflated, and whatever the distinctions they must be synthesized into a congruous whole because scripture never contradicts scripture.When it comes to the three issues listed (wrath, condemnation, and judgment) we must avoid pitting scripture against scripture in a manner that divides the body of Christ into those condemned and therefore covered with an impotent purchase and those not condemned because the purchase was effective. Those to whom the blood of Christ has been applied by God cannot deny God that purchase; that would make man more powerful than God.

    To have been purchased by Christ's blood means something. And since it's God doing the purchasing there must be some evidence that God renders worthless His own Son's blood. That is the inescapable burden of any claim "God rescinds the purchase."


    And all the proof-texting you've posted doesn't change those facts. You've assumed something not in evidence. You've had to resort to inferential treatment of scripture to support your claim and have nothing direct or explicit to overcome what is direct and explicit: There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus; whoever believes in him is not condemned.

    And it's too bad because I read somethings that were correct, like some who claim belief desire to return to Egypt and do so. They were never truly converted. They may have claimed to be Christians and they may have been treated as Christians, but being a Christian isn't entirely up to the human spouting those claims. God decides.

    And He decided the matter before anyone drew a single breath. If the root is holy so too are the branches. If the branches fall away or a pruned off it is because they never had a good root to begin with.
    Where to begin? So many errors--and in a conversation I never even wanted to be in with a person I never wanted to discuss the topic with.

    1. Again and again (and this is one reason I fear wasting my time with you--you don't pay attention to answers when they are given), you can't just divorce Paul's statement ("there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ") from the context. The preceding context was the inability of the Jew who is "in the flesh" [Ro 7:5] (this is not a Christian, since Christians are "not in the flesh but in the Spirit" [Ro 8:9]) to obey the Law, who is then delivered from the "captivity" to the Law of Sin in the body of Sin (which body is "brought to nothing" [Ro 6:6] by Christ [Ro 7:24, 25]) "because the Law of Life in Christ Jesus has set you free [he is no longer a captive but set free] from the Law of Sin and Death". The premise is that we are no longer captive slaves of Sin, but liberated, and therefore we are not bringing condemnation on ourselves.
    That said, we already have a precedent of slaves having been set free from slavery who desire to go back to bondage--and of Paul teaching that that actually corresponded to our own situation as Christians [1 Co 10:1-11]. There is no "false salvation" from Egypt in the Old Testament. They were actually (physically) saved. They left. That corresponds to our salvation from slavery to sin in the body of sin, but, again, Ro 8:12, 13 (which has been quoted to you over and over--you've just ignored it, so why keep wasting my time?) says that even though we are "in the Spirit" we have the ability to live a life of walking "after the flesh" instead of "after the Spirit", and that that life ends in death and not life. This corresponds to the judgment which will decide justification based on works spoken of in Ro 2:6-16--it determines whether we will be "repaid" with eternal life.

    2. I've not resorted to anything "inferential"; rather, I've provided explicit proof that God says He can and will rescind His forgiveness, so that the person is no longer saved from wrath on his sins, due to that servant's behavior, and you've decided you didn't like that.

    3. I've already answered the empty claim that only "false branches" (a term never used in Scripture) are cut off, so you can feel free to answer that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied

    Yes, the statement made by tester is not wholly correct; Christians do experience judgment, wrath, and condemnation, but none of it negates a believer in Christ's eternal disposition. Those who place their faith in God's son are no longer eternally condemned. Those who are faithless were never converts in the first place and those whose fruit-bearing is meager may stand before God's throne empty handed but saved, nonetheless. I can (and have) point to scriptures that state as much.

    Not all mentions of wrath, condemnation, or judgment are alike in scripture. Scripture often uses like terms in diverse ways. Contextually different mentions should not be conflated, and whatever the distinctions they must be synthesized into a congruous whole because scripture never contradicts scripture.When it comes to the three issues listed (wrath, condemnation, and judgment) we must avoid pitting scripture against scripture in a manner that divides the body of Christ into those condemned and therefore covered with an impotent purchase and those not condemned because the purchase was effective. Those to whom the blood of Christ has been applied by God cannot deny God that purchase; that would make man more powerful than God.

    To have been purchased by Christ's blood means something. And since it's God doing the purchasing there must be some evidence that God renders worthless His own Son's blood. That is the inescapable burden of any claim "God rescinds the purchase."


    And all the proof-texting you've posted doesn't change those facts. You've assumed something not in evidence. You've had to resort to inferential treatment of scripture to support your claim and have nothing direct or explicit to overcome what is direct and explicit: There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus; whoever believes in him is not condemned.

    And it's too bad because I read somethings that were correct, like some who claim belief desire to return to Egypt and do so. They were never truly converted. They may have claimed to be Christians and they may have been treated as Christians, but being a Christian isn't entirely up to the human spouting those claims. God decides.

    And He decided the matter before anyone drew a single breath. If the root is holy so too are the branches. If the branches fall away or a pruned off it is because they never had a good root to begin with.

    See ya in the next op where I hope you'll at least clarify your point of comment or inquiry.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    Not sure what you mean by "no disparity" since we're not under the Law.
    Commonly held but misguided view. When scripture says we are not under law it is always speaking in the specified context of either our justification or our righteousness. It never speaks of the law being done away with in its entirety. The NT calls the alw good and spiritual, lawful when it is practiced lawfully, and ALL of the NT writers cited it as a standard held out to the body of Christ.

    This is just one more clear example of where you've failed to read scripture in its context.

    Do something right now: go look through your NT and find all the references of our not being under the law, or the law being annulled, etc. and see if you can find one not couched in the context of justification or righteousness.

    When you don't find one, then please acknowledge that fact.




    My apologies. Never mind. I've just read through the rest of your post and I find there's still no thesis statement posted and there's still no scripture posted stating God rescinds His purchase. Since I can't get either out of you after repeated requests I understand asking you to now go back and check on the context of not being under the law would be a waste of my time.
    "avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, Knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Jesus is Israel (Hos. 11:1).
    You might say that Jesus is an Israel. Clearly, national Israel is still counted an "Israel" [Ro 11:7].

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    There is no disparity between what was to be taught under the old covenant and that under the new one, otherwise we'd have an inherent conflict in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
    Not sure what you mean by "no disparity" since we're not under the Law.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Everything in the old testified about Jesus and was fulfilled in him and nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. The new covenant he brought was the one promised Adam and Eve in Eden (Gen. 3:15) and Abraham; Jesus is the seed promised Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
    I would go further than that, and say it provided instruction about how to live Christian lives--e.g., Ro 15:4; 1 Co 9:8-12, 10:1-11.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Jesus is speaking to his disciples in John 15, but he is most definitely speaking in reference to the Jews who within a few hours will reject him and no longer remain in him. They will be gathered up, thrown into the fire and burened and that is exactly what happened to them. The disciples, on the other hand, would be scattered and only those who remained in him would bear fruit.
    1. Your argument can't even be salvaged with this naked eisegetical adulteration of the Scriptures, since, even if it had been the case that He had been referring to the Jews, "the life is in the Son" [1 Jn 5:11]: if they really were "in [Christ]" they would have been sharing in the life that was in the Son, and still would have been cut off and lost that life. This is why the commandment is to abide.

    2. No, Jesus was not talking about the Jews. What a ridiculous interpretation. He was speaking to the disciples, and he was speaking about disciples. 1 John 2 warns the children (the young disciples) to abide in Him so that when He appears they will not shrink back in shame at His appearing. These branches are part of Christ Whose "Kingdom is not of this world". These are not unbelieving Jews who had no part with Christ.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    All pre-Calvary and pre-Pentecost.

    Paul updates it all relevant to post-Calvary and post-Pentecost conditions in Romans 11. Bloodline nation-state Jews absent faith were discarded and the Gentile people who weren't previously Giod's people were grafted in, predicated upon faith.
    1. No, John 15 and Ro 11 are two different pictures. They are not spoken to the same ends.
    There is no "grafting" going on in John 15, those are branches organically growing out of Christ. They are part of Christ.

    2. The branches that were cut off were cut off at the advent of the New Covenant after the change of the terms and conditions. Prior to that, the Holy Ghost was still among the people. Remember that the High Priest prophesied (prophecy being an activity of God) that Christ would die for sins.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    So when Paul states, "if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either," the parallel must transfer: those that get cut out were never really truly branches in the first place.
    You must reconcile you position with the statement "if the root is holy so are the branches." Holy branches don't get cut out, especially not once bought and paid for by the shed blood of Christ.
    1. I have no problem with that statement, you do: He warns believers that if they don't remain in God's kindness they will be cut off. Paul doesn't teach that believers necessarily "stay put" on the tree.

    2. Since the Gentile branches that were brought in were "holy", and were yet capable of being cut off if they broke the "terms and conditions" for belonging on the tree (if they fell into unbelief), your premise (that I have to believe the original branches weren't "true" branches) isn't true--especially considering those very same branches could have been grafted back into the tree. In fact, Paul was one of those branches which had been cut off but was later grafted back in.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    When you say things like that's how you see it and that's your/my opinion you're arguing eisegetically. I asked you for something stated, not something eisegetically inferred. Your protests to the contrary don't amount to anything.
    You're entitled to view it as you please. It doesn't mean anything to me.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    You still haven't cited a scripture that states God rescinds Jesus' blood purchase. Without such a support you'll be unable to prove in-house judgment, wrath, or condemnation is identical to that which those outside of Christ experience.
    God rescinds the forgiveness. That's all I care about. I don't need to jump through your hoops (specific phrases you've arbitrarily concocted). You don't like what Scripture has to say, so be it. That's your problem, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    1. Jesus was teaching things that were to be taught to the nations under the New Covenant [Mt 28:20]; I argue this is one. We simply have a difference of opinion here.

    2. The forgiveness that had been granted was rescinded. This act corresponds to the faith being taken away from the unprofitable servant, because it is the measure of faith that is taken from him, and it is by "grace through faith" that the forgiveness is obtained [Ro 4:5-8]. This is reflected in Ro 2:5, 6:16, 8:12, 13. You can characterize it however you please (in order to try to make it fit your theology), that's fine. I reject your view. I just take God at His Word.


    Nope, you're mixing things up. You're trying to bring Romans 11 in, but that's not what's going on here. Jesus is the True Vine, and these branches are growing out of the True Vine...
    Jesus is Israel (Hos. 11:1). There is no disparity between what was to be taught under the old covenant and that under the new one, otherwise we'd have an inherent conflict in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Everything in the old testified about Jesus and was fulfilled in him and nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. The new covenant he brought was the one promised Adam and Eve in Eden (Gen. 3:15) and Abraham; Jesus is the seed promised Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Jesus is speaking to his disciples in John 15, but he is most definitely speaking in reference to the Jews who within a few hours will reject him and no longer remain in him. They will be gathered up, thrown into the fire and burened and that is exactly what happened to them. The disciples, on the other hand, would be scattered and only those who remained in him would bear fruit.

    All pre-Calvary and pre-Pentecost.

    Paul updates it all relevant to post-Calvary and post-Pentecost conditions in Romans 11. Bloodline nation-state Jews absent faith were discarded and the Gentile people who weren't previously Giod's people were grafted in, predicated upon faith. So when Paul states, "if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either," the parallel must transfer: those that get cut out were never really truly branches in the first place. You must reconcile you position with the statement "if the root is holy so are the branches." Holy branches don't get cut out, especially not once bought and paid for by the shed blood of Christ.

    When you say things like that's how you see it and that's your/my opinion you're arguing eisegetically. I asked you for something stated, not something eisegetically inferred. Your protests to the contrary don't amount to anything.

    You still haven't cited a scripture that states God rescinds Jesus' blood purchase. Without such a support you'll be unable to prove in-house judgment, wrath, or condemnation is identical to that which those outside of Christ experience.


    Show me scripture that states God rescinds His purchase. Don't show me an inferentially treated passage you make say God rescinds Christ's purchase; show the scripture that states God rescinds Christ's purchase. Third time asked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Both passages have to do with the judgements against the Jews and are not wholly applicable to Christians.

    Christians are not under the covenant of law, but that which comes via Christ. The servant in Matthew 18 didn't stop being a servant of his master, he simply remained a servant in bondage.
    1. Jesus was teaching things that were to be taught to the nations under the New Covenant [Mt 28:20]; I argue this is one. We simply have a difference of opinion here.

    2. The forgiveness that had been granted was rescinded. This act corresponds to the faith being taken away from the unprofitable servant, because it is the measure of faith that is taken from him, and it is by "grace through faith" that the forgiveness is obtained [Ro 4:5-8]. This is reflected in Ro 2:5, 6:16, 8:12, 13. You can characterize it however you please (in order to try to make it fit your theology), that's fine. I reject your view. I just take God at His Word.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Likewise the non-abiding branches are merely evidence the graft was invalid
    ...
    Branches that don't bear fruit were never correctly grafted in; they weren't converted. If you graft a dead branch into a tree it won't bear fruit!
    Nope, you're mixing things up. You're trying to bring Romans 11 in, but that's not what's going on here. Jesus is the True Vine, and these branches are growing out of the True Vine. These are literally parts of Christ. This is why the children are warned to abide in Christ in 1 Jn 2. Those who do not abide are exemplified in the Jews who "believed" Jesus and yet fell away from that faith [Jn 8:30+].
    Besides, even in Romans 11, there is no talk of any "invalid" grafting, since it is God Who performs the grafting--and the Gentiles are grafted in among the Jews because of their faith and yet they are told they can fall away from faith and be cut off for unbelief [Ro 11:17-21], so...

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    not that the purchase was rescinded.
    The branches were an answer to "things in the body of Christ" that do not remain (what you call "ineffective purchase").

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Go back to what I wrote earlier: it is difficult to discern which were the never-saved and which are the meagerly bearing purchases.
    Nope. This would invalidate Jesus's teaching that we can tell a tree by its fruit.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Romans 9 explains this: not all Israel are Israel. Lot's of "branches" were pruned because they were never actually part of the tree.
    Their existence as branches was invalid because the righteous will live by faith and not by bloodline or geo-politics or national identity, or being a false part of some "tree."
    1. You're just getting things mixed up. I wasn't referring to Romans.

    2. In Ro 9, Paul is talking about promises made to Israel not having failed, but that is because He brought a New Covenant in. The terms and conditions for being accounted part of God's People (distinguished by His presence [Ex 33:12-16]) were outlined in the Old Covenant, but now the terms and conditions were faith--if national Israel has disqualified itself and is cut off from Israel (even scholars reading the Servant Songs of Isaiah insist there are two different Israels being referred to--as is the case with the very passage in question "not all Israel is Israel"), God's promises have not failed, they're still being fulfilled.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    They are worthless branches, not fruitbearing branches.
    Yeah, because they're not abiding. This is why the warning goes out to the "children" in 1 John 2--to warn them to abide so that they do not shrink back in shame from His appearing.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Lot's of Jews claimed to know God in the old covenant but they didn't know and they were not known. The same applies to many within the church; they have an appearance of conversion but they have not been brought from death to life. These groups should not be conflated.
    When God grafts someone in, it is not because they have tricked God, but because God knows they have faith.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    So I'm afraid neither passage proves God rescinds His purchase.
    You're entitled to your opinions.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    To have been purchased by Christ's blood means something. And since it's God doing the purchasing there must be some evidence that God renders worthless His own Son's blood. That is the inescapable burden of any claim "God rescinds the purchase."
    The OT was written for our instruction 1 Co 10:11; when it says "they are no longer His children because they are corrupted" [Dt 32:5], this is precisely what is being referred to. God disowns His children. The Law even shows that one is to KILL their children for wickedness. God does the same. Adam died when he sinned. These things happened to them to teach us about the faith today [Ro 15:4; 1 Co 10:11; 2 Ti 3:15].

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    I will give you another opportunity in light of this exchange. Have you a passage that actually states God rescinds the purchase of His own Son's blood?
    I've already provided them.
    Last edited by Daniel.; 01-07-19, 04:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    nt

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    1. God rescinds His purchase
    Matthew 18
    23“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.g 24When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.h 25And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26So the servanti fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,j and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,k until he should pay all his debt. 35So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

    2. He redeemed us because He wanted a people zealous for good works; in Mt 25, therefore, those servants who are not doing good works, and for the right reason (not as if being threatened), but are engaged in "unprofitable deeds of darkness", are not going to remain, but are going to be thrown into outer darkness. This is what Jesus refers to in Jn 15 (branches in Christ that do not abide in Him are cut off and thrown in the fire).
    Both passages have to do with the judgements against the Jews and are not wholly applicable to Christians. Christians are not under the covenant of law, but that which comes via Christ. The servant in Matthew 18 didn't stop being a servant of his master, he simply remained a servant in bondage.

    Likewise the non-abiding branches are merely evidence the graft was invalid, not that the purchase was rescinded. Branches that don't bear fruit were never correctly grafted in; they weren't converted. If you graft a dead branch into a tree it won't bear fruit! Go back to what I wrote earlier: it is difficult to discern which were the never-saved and which are the meagerly bearing purchases. Romans 9 explains this: not all Israel are Israel. Lot's of "branches" were pruned because they were never actually part of the tree. Their existence as branches was invalid because the righteous will live by faith and not by bloodline or geo-politics or national identity, or being a false part of some "tree." They are worthless branches, not fruitbearing branches. Luke 6 expounds on this: thorn bushes don't grow grapes. Lot's of Jews claimed to know God in the old covenant but they didn't know and they were not known. The same applies to many within the church; they have an appearance of conversion but they have not been brought from death to life. These groups should not be conflated.

    So I'm afraid neither passage proves God rescinds His purchase.

    They most certainly don't state any such thing. My request was specific, Daniel. I didn't ask for a passage that you could claim inferred God rescinds His purchase. I asked for scripture that states God rescinds His purchase.

    To have been purchased by Christ's blood means something. And since it's God doing the purchasing there must be some evidence that God renders worthless His own Son's blood. That is the inescapable burden of any claim "God rescinds the purchase."



    I will give you another opportunity in light of this exchange. Have you a passage that actually states God rescinds the purchase of His own Son's blood?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    delete
    Last edited by Daniel.; 01-07-19, 12:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Would you please provide me with some scripture stating God rescinds His own purchase?


    After doing so, would you please giving me just the briefest of summaries how there might be things within the body of Christ that are definitely not in any way related to whether or not the purchase of Christ is ineffective?

    Just those two things; Thx
    1. God rescinds His purchase
    Matthew 18
    23“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.g 24When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.h 25And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26So the servanti fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,j and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,k until he should pay all his debt. 35So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

    2. He redeemed us because He wanted a people zealous for good works; in Mt 25, therefore, those servants who are not doing good works, and for the right reason (not as if being threatened), but are engaged in "unprofitable deeds of darkness", are not going to remain, but are going to be thrown into outer darkness. This is what Jesus refers to in Jn 15 (branches in Christ that do not abide in Him are cut off and thrown in the fire).

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Posts prove otherwise.

    Which is what was said in words different than your own.

    And you didn't respond to that content.

    Now here I get to hold you to your own words and your own standards: SOME condemnation is the opposite of justification and some condemnation versus justification has to do with one's eternal disposition and some does not.

    Yes, you did do that and in doing so conflated different types of condemnation. I stated these differing types of condemnation should not be conflated and it was ignored, then miocked, and now the very problem to be addressed is being repeated. Romans 14:23 will not in any way shape or form result in a person's loss of salvation. It does, however, have to do with their effectiveness in Christ.

    You are proving me correct, Daniel.

    So let me encourage you to take amoment and try to "step outside" your posts and re-read them as someone other than yourself might understand what's posted.



    Because if it is being suggest a person can or will lose their salvation because their faith in Christ is inconsistent with their eating food offered to idols that are nothing then that is incorrect and we should be discussing that so you'll gain a correct understanding. And if that's not what is being asserted then I should be reading some message of agreement so we can either discuss it for the benefit of other readers or we can move onto another example of in-Christ condemnation.

    Then all the more reason for you to state your thesis or ignore the op.
    I've already responded to your nonsense.

    Have a good day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    The issue isn't whether the purchase was effective--in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the purchase wasn't ineffective, it was just rescinded as a response to the servant's actions. Those to whom the blood of Christ has been applied by God cannot deny God that purchase; that would make man more powerful than God.
    Would you please provide me with some scripture stating God rescinds His own purchase?


    After doing so, would you please giving me just the briefest of summaries how there might be things within the body of Christ that are definitely not in any way related to whether or not the purchase of Christ is ineffective?

    Just those two things; Thx

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    Actually, what I did was I disproved your point (that there was now "NO condemnation"), but you had hoped to downplay my point by trying to show there are different kinds of condemnation.
    Posts prove otherwise.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    Oh then the line ought to have read "there is SOME condemnation, but it's like a different kind of condemnation--hold on, just hear me out!"
    Which is what was said in words different than your own.

    And you didn't respond to that content.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    Condemnation is the opposite of justification.
    Now here I get to hold you to your own words and your own standards: SOME condemnation is the opposite of justification and some condemnation versus justification has to do with one's eternal disposition and some does not.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    I showed that there was "condemnation" for a Christian who sins Ro 14:23, and that that corresponded exactly to Ro 8:1 (the "no condemnation" was about being able to fulfill the Law instead of breaking it and bringing condemnation on oneself).
    Yes, you did do that and in doing so conflated different types of condemnation. I stated these differing types of condemnation should not be conflated and it was ignored, then miocked, and now the very problem to be addressed is being repeated. Romans 14:23 will not in any way shape or form result in a person's loss of salvation. It does, however, have to do with their effectiveness in Christ.

    You are proving me correct, Daniel.

    So let me encourage you to take amoment and try to "step outside" your posts and re-read them as someone other than yourself might understand what's posted.



    Because if it is being suggest a person can or will lose their salvation because their faith in Christ is inconsistent with their eating food offered to idols that are nothing then that is incorrect and we should be discussing that so you'll gain a correct understanding. And if that's not what is being asserted then I should be reading some message of agreement so we can either discuss it for the benefit of other readers or we can move onto another example of in-Christ condemnation.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    No, I did not write an OP. I wrote a response to an OP, and someone must have complained that it was off-topic somehow, so they clipped it and moved it here.
    Then all the more reason for you to state your thesis or ignore the op.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel.
    replied
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    The posts speak for themselves and the posts show nothing of consequence was posted about the diversity with which scripture speaks of wrath, condemnation, and judgment, or how it reconciles with the verses I and tester have posted saying there is no lawful or eternal condemnation for Christians. You have now had at leat two opportunites to address those concerns and haven't, despite your protests to the contrary.
    Actually, what I did was I disproved your point (that there was now "NO condemnation"), but you had hoped to downplay my point by trying to show there are different kinds of condemnation. Oh then the line ought to have read "there is SOME condemnation, but it's like a different kind of condemnation--hold on, just hear me out!". LOL Condemnation is the opposite of justification. I showed that there was "condemnation" for a Christian who sins Ro 14:23, and that that corresponded exactly to Ro 8:1 (the "no condemnation" was about being able to fulfill the Law instead of breaking it and bringing condemnation on oneself). Some actually stipulate "for those in Christ who walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh", corresponding to Ro 8:12, 13 where it says Christians will "die" and not "live" if they walk after the flesh. This "death" corresponds to the "death" Adam suffered when he sinned, and the wrath the Jewish believers in Rome were storing up for themselves [Ro 2:5], since it would have meant they were not going to be repaid eternal life on that Day, but fall into that other category [Ro 2:6-16]), as well as Matthew 25 (which had already been mentioned) which teaches the same (the productive servants of Jesus enter the Kingdom, while unproductive servants of Jesus (unproductive because they were engaged in "unfruitful works of darkness" Ep 5:11--"wicked lazy servant") are thrown into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth). If you want to say that those are just little tiny not-the-same-as-condemnation sorts of condemnation, have at it. Enjoy.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    At this point it appears you've written an op you weren't wholly prepared to odefend and now that some legitimate concerns have been broached the discourse is falling apart on you
    No, I did not write an OP. I wrote a response to an OP, and someone must have complained that it was off-topic somehow, so they clipped it and moved it here.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    as evidenced by the earlier comments about Calinism and White
    That passage [1 Co 3] isn't the only passage on the Judgment that we see. You have to ask yourself why it differs so radically.
    James White gives the reason: it's about God's faithful workers.
    Starting at 17:07


    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    and not your lack of interest and my believing whatever I want.
    I have been engaged in other discussions. This is an older discussion I thought was already done. Then, out of nowhere, they clip a reply I made to someone's OP, and put it here. No, I really wasn't interested in having the conversation--especially not with you.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    You can either address the salient concerns or you can't You will either address the salient concerns or you won't and if you don't then you'll either do so blaming me for you lack of response or you won't. Under no circumstance is "Believe what ever you please. Entertain yourself," a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and topical response.
    In my opinion. you are an unnecessarily aggressive person, so I don't think you have the right to ask anyone to treat you extra daintily.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Why would any poster posting with authentic intent refuse that request?
    You've just misunderstood: I never posted this as an OP. If you'd only followed the comment back to its source (every quote box links back to the original quote) you'd've seen that.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    You don't remember writing "No..." in response to tester's thesis, "Any interpretation of Scripture that has "believers in the Son" falling under the wrath of God must be in error: agreed?"?

    If that's the case then you have my sympathies but I'm doubtful because the forum takes the handle of the writer and posts it to the post being created. If this isn't your content then why are you defending and doing so rudely? Why would that prevent the posting of a thesis statement that does better clarify your position on the matter? Why not post a single response to the op saying, "I did not write this op," and then seek correction or redress from the mods?
    This is a response (that someone must've complained was "off-topic"--even though it was clearly on-topic) to an OP.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    No matter who wrote the op my position is to disagree with the statement attributed to tester as written. Christians do fall under judgment, wrath, and condemnation but none of it is eternal.
    Well, the group that gets wrath (in Ro 2:6-16, and Mt 25:26) aren't the ones who are repaid eternal life or who merit entrance into the Kingdom of God.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Not all mentions of wrath, condemnation, or judgment are alike in scripture.
    That is irrelevant: the passages I am referring to show that eternal life and entrance into the Kingdom will be decided by those instances of judgment.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    Contextually different mentions should not be conflated, and whatever the distinctions they must be synthesized into a congruous whole because scripture never contradicts scripture.
    The condemned groups in Ro 2 and Mt 25 do not obtain eternal life or entrance into the Kingdom.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    When it comes to the three issues listed (wrath, condemnation, and judgment) we must avoid pitting scripture against scripture in a manner that divides the body of Christ into those condemned and therefore covered with an impotent purchase and those not condemned because the purchase was effective.
    The issue isn't whether the purchase was effective--in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the purchase wasn't ineffective, it was just rescinded as a response to the servant's actions. Those to whom the blood of Christ has been applied by God cannot deny God that purchase; that would make man more powerful than God.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    The measure of faith is something God gives believes. Unbelievers do not have faith do not have faith in Christ; they have no measure of relevant faith.
    Yeah, I know: the unproductive ("unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord"--not glorifying God, thus spreading the knowledge of the Lord, by not doing what is right, which righteousness is the way to glorify the Lord according to Mt 5:16 "let your light so shine that men may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven") has his talent ("measure of faith") stripped from him, damning him. This is the same as when the forgiveness (which forgiveness is obtained by faith) is rescinded in the parable of the unforgiving servant.

    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    So you're completely incorrect about the way you see it. That passage was written to believers about believers. People are either saved or they are not saved. Those saved bear fruit in either small or large amount. The difficulty comes in discerning who is not bearing fruit because they are not saved and those who bear little fruit because of their slothful disobedience.
    Salvation from Egypt is not a guarantee of a life lived pleasingly to God 1 Co 10:1-11. All believers are "saved" from bondage (Egypt was the House of Bondage) to the Law of Sin in the body of sin [Ro 6:6, 7:1-25], but some desire to go back to Egypt [Ro 8:12, 13] and will fall under God's wrath and not obtain eternal life [Ro 2:6-16].
    Last edited by Daniel.; 01-07-19, 10:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josheb
    replied
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    I addressed your point, but the first thing you say is "you didn't address my point".
    The posts speak for themselves and the posts show nothing of consequence was posted about the diversity with which scripture speaks of wrath, condemnation, and judgment, or how it reconciles with the verses I and tester have posted saying there is no lawful or eternal condemnation for Christians. You have now had at leat two opportunites to address those concerns and haven't, despite your protests to the contrary.
    Originally posted by Daniel. View Post
    I don't care enough about any thing you have to say to play these games.
    Then don'tr play them. Respond relevantly and cogently and there won't be any cause for complaint by anyone. At this point it appears you've written an op you weren't wholly prepared to odefend and now that some legitimate concerns have been broached the discourse is falling apart on you, as evidenced by the earlier comments about Calinism and White and not your lack of interest and my believing whatever I want. None of that is relevant. You can either address the salient concerns or you can't You will either address the salient concerns or you won't and if you don't then you'll either do so blaming me for you lack of response or you won't. Under no circumstance is "Believe what ever you please. Entertain yourself," a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and topical response.

    All that was asked of you was to post a single thesis statement so 1) we'd know exactly what it is we're discussing and 2) your position on that topic, clearly stated.

    Why would any poster posting with authentic intent refuse that request?
    Originally posted by Daniel
    I don't remember making this OP; my guess is that they just took my response to his OP and put it here as an OP.
    You don't remember writing and posting this op? You don't remember writing "No..." in response to tester's thesis, "Any interpretation of Scripture that has "believers in the Son" falling under the wrath of God must be in error: agreed?"?

    If that's the case then you have my sympathies but I'm doubtful because the forum takes the handle of the writer and posts it to the post being created. If this isn't your content then why are you defending and doing so rudely? Why would that prevent the posting of a thesis statement that does better clarify your position on the matter? Why not post a single response to the op saying, "I did not write this op," and then seek correction or redress from the mods?






    No matter who wrote the op my position is to disagree with the statement attributed to tester as written. Christians do fall under judgment, wrath, and condemnation but none of it is eternal.

    Not all mentions of wrath, condemnation, or judgment are alike in scripture. Scripture often uses like terms in diverse ways. Contextually different mentions should not be conflated, and whatever the distinctions they must be synthesized into a congruous whole because scripture never contradicts scripture.When it comes to the three issues listed (wrath, condemnation, and judgment) we must avoid pitting scripture against scripture in a manner that divides the body of Christ into those condemned and therefore covered with an impotent purchase and those not condemned because the purchase was effective. Those to whom the blood of Christ has been applied by God cannot deny God that purchase; that would make man more powerful than God.

    The measure of faith is something God gives believes. Unbelievers do not have faith do not have faith in Christ; they have no measure of relevant faith. So you're completely incorrect about the way you see it. That passage was written to believers about believers. People are either saved or they are not saved. Those saved bear fruit in either small or large amount. The difficulty comes in discerning who is not bearing fruit because they are not saved and those who bear little fruit because of their slothful disobedience.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X