"Not by works" - false!

[posthuman]

Gabriel was clear there in Luke 1

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Absolutely. But absolutely not at the time of His first appearing. He showed zero interest ever in sitting in an earthly throne when He came and actively avoided it.

You will say, this was because Israel did not accept Him. But He knew from the beginning they would not and that is exactly why Christ was sent. He in fact hardened and blinded them to Himself. Their rejection of Him, and His coming to them as He came, as the Son, was establishing their guilt, not ruining His plan and thwarting His intentions.

 

[jaybird88]

All scripture is profitable for doctrine.

The Bible is not a collection of writings that one must decide to pick parts out of to build doctrine.

It is doctrine; sound doctrine.

Your view is not a wise way to approach the scriptures.

The Bible says Pauls teachings were tested against scripture.
Cherry picking one passage that can not be supported anywhere else is unwise? Not sure on that one.

 

[jaybird88]

the tribe of the priests was chosen by God and their appointments to service was by casting lots ((1 Chronicles 24:31, Nehemiah 10:34 e.g.))

there aren't 'democratic elections' in the Bible... ? not for priesthood or kingship.
as in, they were not supposed to be 'chosen by the people' at all. they were to be chosen by God.
you might be right that by the time Christ appeared they weren't choosing by lot anymore, tho i'm not sure about that; would be interesting to find out.

I wasn't trying to suggest they were elected I was trying to emphasize that Herod and his cronies did not represent the people of Israel. I don't think it's fair to blame the actions of a few bad men on the entire nation, a few bad men that the majority did never wanted to begin with.

 

[posthuman]

The Bible says Pauls teachings were tested against scripture.
Cherry picking one passage that can not be supported anywhere else is unwise? Not sure on that one.

Bible also says Paul's messages when tested against other scripture were shown to be true.

So I'd think if we can't find support for what he writes, we haven't looked well enough.

 

[posthuman]

I wasn't trying to suggest they were elected I was trying to emphasize that Herod and his cronies did not represent the people of Israel. I don't think it's fair to blame the actions of a few bad men on the entire nation, a few bad men that the majority did never wanted to begin with.

As I understand, the Herodians were a completely different group than the Pharisees or Sadducees... And that it was significant all three groups set aside their differences to unite against Jesus, who they thought of as a common enemy.

Just that, I wouldn't assume the priests etc were cronies of Herod.

 

[Guojing]

Absolutely. But absolutely not at the time of His first appearing. He showed zero interest ever in sitting in an earthly throne when He came and actively avoided it.

You will say, this was because Israel did not accept Him. But He knew from the beginning they would not and that is exactly why Christ was sent. He in fact hardened and blinded them to Himself. Their rejection of Him, and His coming to them as He came, as the Son, was establishing their guilt, not ruining His plan and thwarting His intentions.

I believe omniscience is compatible with free will for mankind.

 

[posthuman]

I believe omniscience is compatible with free will for mankind.

Me too.

But if it is true omniscience, as it truly is, then freewill does not frustrate it neither does it preclude. It cannot because God is greater, and He creates and upholds all things, even human freedom and life.

Bottom line for me is, I believe the dispensational idea that Christ in any way whatsoever meant to take an earthly throne 'depending on man's reaponse' when He came incarnate is great shortsighted error. He came to serve, and part of that service is establishing judicial guilt, a guilt declared already long before, even when they asked Samuel to anoint a king over them as the nations around them. It was at that time Yah said, it is He they have rejected - the incarnation of our Lord is the establishing of this in the court of heaven with the tangible evidence of His blood. Being rejected in person by His people is part of why God stepped down and took on the form of man.

 

[Guojing]

Me too.

But if it is true omniscience, as it truly is, then freewill does not frustrate it neither does it preclude. It cannot because God is greater, and He creates and upholds all things, even human freedom and life.

Bottom line for me is, I believe the dispensational idea that Christ in any way whatsoever meant to take an earthly throne 'depending on man's reaponse' when He came incarnate is great shortsighted error. He came to serve, and part of that service is establishing judicial guilt, a guilt declared already long before, even when they asked Samuel to anoint a king over them as the nations around them. It was at that time Yah said, it is He they have rejected - the incarnation of our Lord is the establishing of this in the court of heaven with the tangible evidence of His blood. Being rejected in person by His people is part of why God stepped down and took on the form of man.

If you believe, then Israel had a legitimate choice to make, they could have accepted their King.

That is why only after Stephen was stoned, then Jesus raised Paul to reach the Gentiles.

Even though God knew about it since the world began, it does not mean Israel must reject Jesus.

 

[Fastfredy0]

@Guojing @posthuman

You two may be talking past each other in regard to "free will". There are two major definitions.

Augustine: Free will simply means that we have the capacity to choose what we desire the most at the moment

Armenian: Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

Aside: Maybe you have another definition you are using?

 

[Judges1318]

@Guojing @posthuman

You two may be talking past each other in regard to "free will". There are two major definitions.

Augustine: Free will simply means that we have the capacity to choose what we desire the most at the moment

Armenian: Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

Aside: Maybe you have another definition you are using?

Does a rat in a maze have free will?
Of course he does.
But he can only exercise that free will within the confines of the maze.

 

[posthuman]

If you believe, then Israel had a legitimate choice to make, they could have accepted their King.

That is why only after Stephen was stoned, then Jesus raised Paul to reach the Gentiles.

Even though God knew about it since the world began, it does not mean Israel must reject Jesus.

It was long before Stephen that Christ refused to let them make Him king.

Christ is YHVH, and the people rejected Him as king immediately after leaving Egypt.

whatever choice they had was made long ago. Yet He will not forsake them forever, He is their King forever.

 

[ScottyPchristian]

Paul still followed the law

Acts 21:24
take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

Which law did Paul follow, was it the one he wanted to follow or did he follow the one he didn't want to.

Paul did say something along the lines of, "I do that which I wouldn't do". He described his battle with living in a corrupt body, so his spirit was willing but his flesh was weak.

Is there anything in the Bible, to suggest that a believer can live a clean sinless life? I haven't found anything, so please let me know if I've missed something.

 

[Pulie]

Yes, they do not have to hear the specifics of the gospel to be declared righteous.
But this is only true for the person who does not have knowledge of the law and the gospel.

In the case of these people, the law that is written on their hearts is the law of their own conscience, just as we who do have the law/gospel have the law written on our hearts.

14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) - Romans 2:14-15

We don't understand this because of bad teaching in the church. We have effectively separated being righteous from acting righteously.



He responds to the conviction of his own conscience.

There is divine revelation and general revelation as per Romans1:18-20. God will also judge them based on their faith in the basic revelation or general revelation.

 

[Fastfredy0]

@posthuman

I am curious. What is your definition of FREE WILL?

 

[Judges1318]

@Fastfredy0 ,

Refresh my memory as to what point you wanted to address about this:

"11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit." - Ephesians 2:11-18

We must ask ourselves, "how did the law discriminate against gentiles?"

 

[Fastfredy0]

Refresh my memory as to what point you wanted to address about this:

Well, I was addressing the issue of the availability of salvation to those that never heard the gospel. No need to continue the discussion. I did learn that some people on this site believe people who had not heard the gospel can be saved. To be candid, this is a completely novel idea to me... so I queried the web to see if anyone else held this doctrine. I was surprised to find out that you are not alone. It goes under the title of INCLUSIVISM. Seems there are a lot of ways to heaven of which I was unaware. The following is a quote from wikipedia ...

Inclusivism
Inclusivism is the belief that God is present in non-Christian religions [that would be your concept of salvation to those who did not hear the gospel] to save adherents through Christ. The inclusivist view has given rise to the concept of the anonymous Christian by which is understood an adherent of a particular religion whom God saves through Christ, but who personally neither knows the Christ of the Bible nor has converted to Biblical Christianity. This position was popularized by the Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner (b. 1904-d.1984).

One important issue that Rahner raises is about the salvation of those who have never had the opportunity to listen to the gospel of Jesus Christ. To Rahner, then, people can be saved apart from allegiance to the Christian church. It is God in Christ who reaches out to the individual in his own personal religious history to save him. Rahner used the term ‘anonymous’ to denote people who experience the grace of God in Christ regardless of what religion they belong to. Inclusivism is based on two axioms: the first is that salvation is through Christ alone, the second is that God wills the whole world to be saved. Consequently, God saves people through Christ alone; however, he makes this possible through ways that extend to all humanity.

To Rahner, a non-Christian religion is a lawful religion for until its followers have a Christian witness it is a means by which non-Christians gain a right relationship with God. Also, the religion is included in God’s plan of salvation which God has ordained for the communication of His grace.

Inclusivism has a great appeal to people because of its sympathetic approach to religion.


Aside: Ah, the "God loves everyone without exception" second chance for salvation doctrine. Well, I learnt something.

We must ask ourselves, "how did the law discriminate against gentiles?"

I have not been a part of this discussion.

 

[Judges1318]

It goes under the title of INCLUSIVISM.

Whether 'Inclusivism' is completely right or wrong, I don't know, but it actually goes under the title of Romans 2:12-16.

Seems there are a lot of ways to heaven of which I was unaware.

No, silly.
Not a lot of ways to heaven. Where did you get that?
Just a way that God speaks to men who have not heard of the law or the gospel--the way of conscience.

 

[Judges1318]

Aside: Ah, the "God loves everyone without exception" second chance for salvation doctrine. Well, I learnt something.

What does 'second chance for salvation' have to do with Romans 2:12-16?
Explain, using those verses.

 

[Fastfredy0]

No, silly.
Not a lot of ways to heaven. Where did you get that?
Just a way that God speaks to men who have not heard of the law or the gospel--the way of

Semantics.

 

[Judges1318]

I have not been a part of this discussion.

Didn't you bring up the matter of the Ephesians 2 passage?
If you did, we have to start with, "how did the law discriminate against the gentile so as to distance them from hope in Christ?"