Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man

[Elin]

As I said previously, a Calvanist on another website, knew much of the 'backprop' as you put it,

That was not my word, but I am happy to own it.

but was lost , in fact he didn't even bother to discuss the Gospel of Grace, and when you put questions to him on it he refused to answer
I wonder if it was something to do, in his case, with his sidestepping of discussing the Holy Spirit, and
continually ridiculing the gifts of the Spirit for today, It seemed to me that his Trinity was Father, Son and the Bible. But he believed

he was qualified to teach the word, and, to use his words, 'stupid people like truck drivers were not'

Relevance. . .to the topic. . .or to me?

Are you insuating guilt by what you perceive as association?

To me, you can have all the theological discussion you want, but only the Holy Spirit can lead into truth,

Pardon me for saying so, but you have a marvelous grasp of the Biblically obvious. . .and lots of piety to go with it.

 

[Abiding]

Wherever did you get that?

The Reformation was 400 years ago, and addressed nothing regarding a future temporal earthly Messianic kingdom.

You seem to be grinding a personal axe regarding Ro 9, because that is not the best proof of amillennialism anyway.

That would be Da 2:44, where the kingdom of Messiah which was set up during the Roman empire endures forever, so there will not be two Messianic kingdoms, the current one and a future one.

In addition, are many other things presented in the NT; e.g.,

1) the parables of Jesus which consistently portray Jesus' kingdom as spiritual (of heaven) and as now (Mt 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 18:23, 20:1; Mk 4:26);

2) our reigning now with Christ (Eph 2:6) in his kingdom (Lk 22:69; Eph 1:19-22; Mk 14:62, 16:19; Ro 8:34; 1Co 15:25; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:12-13, 12:2; 1Pe 3:22; Rev 1:6; Ps 2:6 w/Heb 12:22).

The revelation of Jesus (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT given through the apostles, does not present a future temporal earthly Messianic kingdom. That notion has its origins in Jewish interpretation of prophecy, which in the third century linked Rev 20:4, 6 with that Jewish interpretation, which is an interpretation Jesus had rejected (Jn 18:36, 6:15; Lk 17:20-21; cf Mt 21:43, 23:38).

Ya busted. I prolly did get personal. I dont know what youd call it.
What i meant is that the best proof text for futurists since they cant
rely on Rev20 alone is Romans 11. Which cant be understood when
Romans 9 isnt understood in its proper context. Then they reverse-engineer
Daniel and the rest. Ahh nevermind.

 

[cfultz3]

Well, if we're going to stay with the Greek text, it reads: "and one of them is not having been forgotten before God."
It states nothing about "will bring all things to remembrance."

If you would, note that I was not quoting but was summarizing the jest of Luke 12:6-7 when I said, "Let us fear God, seeing that He forgets nothing, but will bring all things to remembrance". That is a major difference.

So what does Jesus mean by "not forgotten"?

From Luke 12:1, we see that we are not to become leaven. Verse 2 tells us quite plainly that God will bring all things to remembrance when it said," For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Verse 3 continues to tell us that even things spoken in secret will be revealed. So we are forewarned that we are not to be afraid of those who can only kill the body, but we should fear the One who cannot only kill the body, but has the power to thrown one into Hell.

So, what does it mean: Conclusively, we are held accountable to God, and He will lay open all things. So, keep that in mind.

 

[Elin]

I'm sorry to hear that you think Paul and Jesus were inconsistent.

I have to own up to the same thing about my reprobate brother.

As does zone about her mother.

What can I say. . .

Wow! you cut up and pasted my comment. Now its the opposite of my point. Nice work Elin.

I guess I need you to show me where the above is the opposite of your point, following:

Elin

IF limited atonement stands then why would Jesus cry?
Shouldnt He rejoice over the destruction of Jerusalem?
Wouldnt that glorify His Father?
Was He unable and ill informed as a man to handle the "meat?"

No your response had little to it.

I totally disagree with what you statements infer. Thats it what was is dubious.
Maybe not so much of what you say, but the logical implications are that come from them.

Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father. When He cried over Jerusalem we saw the
Fathers heart in human form. When He told Jerusalem He would have gathered them "but they wouldnt"
that was the Father talking. Why this is important is to show Gods will and decree is not accomplished
by total control.

Oh yes your right, bringing up Paul also.
One especially who wrote Romans you would think also
would have understood limited atonement....
a little inconsistent to show his human sentiment in one verse
then a few verses over write "who are you oh man"

Does this not state that Paul's statement of his human sentiment is inconsistent with what he wrote a few verses over?

 

[Abiding]

Elin,

So then thats your answer, final answer to Matt23?
Jesus was having a human moment?
It wasnt to show They refused His will?
And that God will use it anyway to do His ultimate will?

 

[Abiding]

I guess I need you to show me where the above is the opposite of your point, following:


Does this not state that Paul's statement of his human sentiment is inconsistent with what he wrote a few verses over?

Ok. My point is that neither Paul or Jesus was just having a human bad hair day.
Paul wanted his kinsman to be saved. He wasnt a reformed student otherwise
why would he fret? Wouldnt he know he cant question God?"who are you oh man"? yes he would have
known and been agreeable if that was true in what he was revealing in romans 9-11 especially 9.
That whoever God chose will be saved? My point is that Paul and Jesus are both consistent with each other
and with the will of God. Their sentiment isnt something to talk away, but rather highlite.

 

[Abiding]

i thought i understood amill.
i might be wrong about that also.
i'll think about it.
the types and shadows and God's Love for us was made bright and clear to me in Elin's Leviticus thread.
i guess she robbed God there of some other attribute.

mike, i appreciate your assessement of 'my theology', and i will take it under review.
what i do find unfortunate, though, is that even though you say you have it all down,
you haven't actually shared it with us.

maybe you're saving it?
isn't that robbery?
okay mike.
thank you.

Again, i didnt say i had it down. If i were to write a post on Romans 9-11
it would be a book. I found a rather brief display of my position in the last three
vids i put up in the thread call "another viewpoint" its not that long.

 

[Elin]

If you would, note that I was not quoting but was summarizing the jest of Luke 12:6-7 when I said, "Let us fear God, seeing that
He forgets nothing, but will bring all things to remembrance". That is a major difference.

The major difference is: that is not the jist of Luke.

From Luke 12:1, we see that we are not to become leaven.

No, the leaven was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

12:1 is in the context of the fierce opposition of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who besieged Jesus with questions waiting to catch him in something he might say (Lk 11:53-54).

Jesus tells them they are not to do as the hypocritical Pharisees do, who were questioning him, not for the sake of learning, but only to trap him.
If they do as the Pharisees do, they will also be hypocrites.

Verse 2 tells us quite plainly that God will bring all things to remembrance when it said," For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Verse 3 continues to tell us that even things spoken in secret will be revealed.

No, it doesn't, you have added that to v.2.

Vv. 2-3 tell them that nothing will be hidden in the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (v.2), and likewise in any hypocrisy they would practice (v.3).

Then follows the warnings and encouragements regarding persecution (vv. 4-7).

So we are forewarned that we are not to be afraid of those who can only kill the body, but we should fear the One who cannot only kill the body, but has the power to thrown one into Hell.

Yes, that forewarning is in regard to persecution, and has noting to do with the yeast of the Pharisees.

So, what does it mean: Conclusively, we are held accountable to God, and He will lay open all things.

No, it is not about accountability to God.

That is treated elsewhere.

So, keep that in mind.

And another really good thing to keep in mind is his warning against hypocrisy.

 

[Elin]

Elin,

So then thats your answer, final answer to Matt23?
Jesus was having a human moment?
It wasnt to show They refused His will?
And that God will use it anyway to do His ultimate will?

That is not my answer at all regarding Mt 23.

He was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem in judgment on their rejection of him.

My comments regarding human sentiment are in reference to Lk 19:41-44, which occurred before Mt 23.

 

[zone]

Yeah but remember He knows all the correct answers,so wouldn't He always win at Jeopardy?

Yeah but:

maybe he'd pretend he didn't know so the other contestants coul..........nah.

 

[zone]

My stance is not about His foreknowledge, it is the conclusion of 'limited atonement'.

no clue why really.
who cares about two words: "limited atonement" ppl can't stand.

unless you're a universalist, at the end of it all, the conclusion ought to be the same.
anyways

 

[Abiding]

That is not my answer at all regarding Mt 23.

He was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem in judgment on their rejection of him.

My comments regarding human sentiment are in reference to Lk 19:41-44, which occurred before Mt 23.

Hmm ok. But in that context, He lays the blame on them for not knowing the time of their visitation.
Hes sad and says because of their lack of expectation of Him they would be blinded. And judged.
What am i missing? What does His sentiment say thats mere human and not showing Gods(Fathers) exact sentiment?
I dont see how the order is significant.

 

[Elin]

Ok. My point is that neither Paul or Jesus was just having a human bad hair day.
Paul wanted his kinsman to be saved. He wasnt a reformed student, otherwise
why would he fret?

Why do zone and I fret?

Wouldn't he know he can't question God?"

Where does Scripture state that he questioned God.

My sadness doesn't cause me to question God about my reprobate brother.

he would have known and been agreeable

He did. . .and he was.

And although I strongly suspect. . .I am agreeable with, God's will for my reprobate brother.

Sadness does not mean disagreement.
I'm sad when they put my dog down, but that doesn't mean I am not in agreement with it.
I'm the one who made the decision and drove him to the vet.

My point is that Paul and Jesus are both consistent with each other and with the will of God.

Indeed they are. . .and so am I. . .which does not preclude human sadness.

Their sentiment isnt something to talk away, but rather highlite.

Isnt that what I did in the following?

Elin

IF limited atonement stands then why would Jesus cry?
Shouldnt He rejoice over the destruction of Jerusalem?
Wouldnt that glorify His Father?
Was He unable and ill informed as a man to handle the "meat?"

Is this a serious question?

I love the "meat," and everything about God' will and wisdom,

but it doesn't follow that I will not be sad about my brother, or zone, about her mother.

Your problem is subjecting the ways of God and the emotions of men to your logic.

Neither are a matter of human logic.

As I've said before, you draw the wrong implications from the sovereignty of God.

I will consider this as one of the "couple" I requested that I might show how your implications are incorrect.

 

[zone]

Again, i didnt say i had it down. If i were to write a post on Romans 9-11
it would be a book. I found a rather brief display of my position in the last three
vids i put up in the thread call "another viewpoint" its not that long.

i would like to see what you write on romans, mike
that's really all i was asking about.
i've seen those videos.

more calvinism vs arminianism.
lots of philosophy and not too much exegesis, really.
nothing new there for me.



awesome bible study and service today

 

[mark54]

More of that piety which we saw here. . .

Such piety. . .

Do we have a double standard here, between your own "non-endorsement" in I., and

then your criticism of the perceived same by someone else in II.?

Methinks so.

If you quote the correct post, I think I said that I endorse the scriptures you quoted but may have a different emphasis on the second of the two verses than you do(can't scroll through the posts to find it, don't have the time).
I noted that you did not say you endorsed the scriptures I brought forth
But as you continually, sidestep responding to the points made, I am not so sure you have as much 'meat' as you appear to believe you do, and you certainly don't have the scriptures to produce to back up your theology on this thread

Methinks, you evade very well though

 

[Elin]

Hmm ok. But in that context, He lays the blame on them for not knowing the time of their visitation.
Hes sad and says because of their lack of expectation of Him they would be blinded. And judged.
What am i missing? What does His sentiment say thats mere human and not showing Gods(Fathers) exact sentiment?

Scripture doesn't address that, so I'm not going to conclude it. (1Co 4:6)

I dont see how the order is significant.

The order is not significant.

The only significance is that Scripture reports Jesus twice warning of Jerusalem's destruction because they reject him.

 

[Elin]

certainly don't have the scriptures to produce to back up your theology on this thread

Methinks, you evade very well though

Still tryin' to communicate when you agree that we cannot. . .

 

[zone]

and you certainly don't have the scriptures to produce to back up your theology on this thread

 

[Abiding]

Scripture doesn't address that, so I'm not going to conclude it. (1Co 4:6)


The order is not significant.

The only significance is that Scripture reports Jesus twice warning of Jerusalem's destruction because they reject him.

Yes it does. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person

 

[Abiding]

i would like to see what you write on romans, mike
that's really all i was asking about.
i've seen those videos.

more calvinism vs arminianism.
lots of philosophy and not too much exegesis, really.
nothing new there for me.



awesome bible study and service today

Philosophy? ha you didnt watch the last three vids.
Or you would not have said that.