Sonnet
New member
Faith doesn't involve trust? I think it does.
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
Faith doesn't involve trust? I think it does.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The strong implication for Paul in 2Cor. 12 seems to be more that what was heard was humanly impossible to utter.
As for that which the seven thunders uttered in Rev. 10, the command to John by the voice from heaven was to seal up those things and write them not.
Sonnet
New member
The noun faith describes the condition of having heard the Gospel and believed it. Verses 8-9 required cognitive action and thence should flow the fruits as Paul describes in Galatians.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Faith (pistis, the noun) underlies hope/trust. That's what hypostasis means. To stand (stasis) under (hypo). But they're not interchangeable.
Elpis/elpizo is earnest expectation and anticipation with desire of obtaining something in the future based upon promises made. Pistis is NOW. It underlies trust for an everlasting life in Christ after physical death and bring it into this physical life as foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence.
It's everlasting life that includes living it on this earth in this physical life. So of course faith "involves" trust; just not in a way you've ever yet even begun to imagine or fathom.
It's not "on Jordan's stormy banks I stand, and cast a 'wishful' eye". It's not just "some glad morning, I'll fly away". It's not "just over in the gloryland". It's NOW... by the faith that underlies trust for the future and brings it into reality.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You will stop at nothing to turn nouns into verbs. And it would require a renewed mind, even if it WAS about noun functionality being a verb.
You refuse to hear and understand. You've decided what it is for yourself, and nothing in inspired scripture will deter your own presuppositions.
Go find 10 competent spirit-filled linguists who are capable scholars to clarify this. They will agree with what I've said, and they will correct your error.
Your "condition of having heard is a verb from, not hearing (the noun). This is just crazy.
Sonnet
New member
If such were true and only the so called elect received this so that they may trust and hope then we would indeed arrive at the Calvinist's doctrines of election and irresistible Grace - an unconscionable prospect.
What are these? Hymns?
Pisits...now, you say - but only for certain individuals. Your okay with that?
That's for certain.
I'm with Nang on that one.
Now, that really stings, Bee.
:rotfl: Oh, the irony.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
One of God's incommunicable attributes is His Necessity. That's His non-contingency. Synergism is mutual contingency. It violates God's very eternal uncreated nature of existence.
Man isn't a spectator. That's a strawman. Man is refunctionalized from dys-/mal-/non-functionality by the same God who Monergistically created him completely functional originally.
...is volition as the functionality of the will, which the mind employs toward object as subject. An unrenewed mind cannot employ the will toward the object of God's righteousness as subject. Man cannot even know God's inner standard for character and outer standard for conduct. To comprehend that, one would have to know what death (thanatos) means relative to man's spirit.
Yeah, wrong statement-based question. You insist man's volition can choose God, but man's mind in unrenewed to do so. This would require understanding the depth of what metanoia (repentance) means (as a noun, and then as a verb).
Romans 10:2 speaks of them having a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (oida). Oida is the spiritual intuitive knowledge that comes with spiritual life. In spiritual death, man doesn't have this. This is what one is resurrected TO when translated into Christ by grace (the noun) through faith (the noun) {which cometh by hearing, the noun; which is by means of the Word of God}.
God's Word is the means of salvation, not our acting/s.
Man is God's entire purpose for creation. To procreate. To have children. Though they're not innately divine, but created. You're so transfixed on lobbying for the worth of man, you miss the worth of God that He bestows upon man and imputes to Him in Christ.
We are the object of His grace, and He's the one true and living God who IS love. There is no greater worth than being the His entire focus for the original creation and the new creation in Christ who is His eternal and uncreated Logos, proceeded forth into creation as the Son, and manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh for our redemption.
Our worth is that, even when in our sins, Christ died for us. God, who doesn't NEED anything, and who IS Necessity as the Creator, so loved us that He first created us and then redeemed us.
You say nothing of the worthlessness of men who would deny such a God and Savior. You say nothing of the unmatched and immeasurable riches and glory and holiness and righteousness of the Most High God. All you can go on about is man, man, man; and trying to make a case for man's worth in spiritual death and sin, and pride and lust, and concupiscence in the heart, and every vanity and stubbornness and disobedience that the world has seen for these thousands of years.
All that, and you want to lobby for man's worth? Seriously?!
If you knew the eternal glory of God given to man in Christ for all everlasting, you would be on your face in humility instead of ranting about the worth of man in the face of an almighty God and His sinless Son sent to die for the sin of the whole world.
This is the most illegitimate false platform I've encountered in some time. It's a horribly wrong question, and the presupposition is the Edenic lie itself.
God is non-contingent. That's His Necessity. So there is not only no possibility for Him to be in a contingent Synergistic mutuality with His creation, but there's in the multi-versity of all contingent potentialities there is not one that is not in His eternal uncreated mind. There is no contingent situation, occasion, circumstance, or occurance that could be considered throughout all human history (and that "science" wants to erroneously postulate as "multi-verse theory" of infinite universes) that God is not sovereign over.
Creation isn't "programmed". You're overlaying and integrating Deism and Determinism, along with a few other modern "isms" to get an odd syncretic confluence of human expectations to place upon God.
And you don't have the slightest idea about Ponerology (Evil-ology) or Hamartiology. You can't comprehend the Theodicy for God and creation.
I could sit down with you for months and expound extensive minutiae that you've never even thought to ask, and from every perspective to include or exclude.
Right now, you don't want to know. You've self-determined it all for yourself, and you're neither a linguist nor a theologian.
There's something stuck in you. I'm not sure what it is. It may be why you walked away from the Faith. I don't know. But I DO know you're positing wrong statements and questions from a faulty conceptualization as an English thinker/speaker, first and foremost. The rest is whatever hurts you or haunts you, or whatever. I pray you find enough peace to be able to hear this Word.
Hey, Nang, it's interesting that you can't stand me because I call your Calvinist belief system a false doctrine/false gospel. Therefore, you accuse me of derailing your thread. Whereas, at the very same time, Sonnet and PPS are discussing a totally different subject than your thread? Does that mean you're being biased Nang? Perhaps you ought to peruse the other posters on your thread, as well? You might be outraged and say: BAH!! Bah, is your usually reply. Usually, cranky type people use that silly word for some reason?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You're still stuck on Deism and Determinism.
God the Father made (poieo) Jesus Christ sin (singular anarthrous) who knew no sin (same). You're stuck on individuals when He died for singular anarthrous sin.
Yep Nang, they've completely metamorphosized your precious thread. Oh, what will you do now? Bah!
Sonnet
New member
Your interpretation renders man a mere spectator of a faith that is imposed.
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You focus on the noun of faith and ignore the cognitive action required of the individual; your assertion that this hypostasis of faith precedes the hope and trust is unwarranted. For why would Paul agonise over his kinsmen if he understood faith as you do? How can he genuinely be concerned for their salvation if the sin qua non is a download from God to certain individuals?
Sonnet
New member
And this makes a difference? Describing these concepts thus doesn't assist in the defence of your position. Even if you are correct...so what?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It's not an interpreatation. It's lexical support for translation. It's not mine. It's the text. You don't get to excuse what I say by demeaning scripture as being my opinion and merely interpretation.
You didn't even have a clue about nouns as verbs or Greek noun forms (and still don't, actually), so you're not qualified to speak on the matter.
Imposed? Please cite scripture.
And there's that tired "spectator" strawman silliness again. God has made man the object of His grace. The fact that there are those who frustrate it (lay it aside) doesn't mean He didn't make (poieo) Jesus singular anarthrous hamartia. That covers everyone for everything, inward and outward. What more could God have possibly done?
You miss the simple meaning of the word hamartia. It's the missing share or part, and is the condition of man from spiritual death. There's a void in man that can't do what you insist man can and must do to assist in saving himself.
That's because cognitive "action" is the innate functionality of the noun, not a verb. The cognitive action you refer to requires repentance (metanoia, the noun). Yes, repentance is a noun, from which the action comes forth. Repentance is granted by God. Man doesn't "do" it without the noun being granted for the verb to be the action.
God doesn't require what we cannot do. Man can't believe or repent. Only a renewed mind can do so. Only a renewed mind can cognize.
Do you know what a copula or gerund are?
Nope. Underlies. Sub-stands. Gives reality of existence to. NOT precedes. Time terms are not applicable.
Says the non-linguist who misrepresents most of what I say that is objective fact, and turns it into subjective opinion for dismissal.
For simple reasons you refuse to understand because you insist on processing everything through a superimposed grid of Deism and Determinism, etc.
It's not. Jesus didn't die for certain OR all individuals. He died for sin.
Election is a ship with passengers, not reserved seats for individuals. "The Elect" is a category.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Even if I'm correct... so what?
Evidently you don't care about what's correct. You only care about establishing some exponential worth for man that man doesn't have.
Look around you. Look at yourself. Take a gander. Do you see functionality? Do you see righteousness? Do you see something that looks like God's design as decently and in order?
And the only position I've taken is that of scripture. You just don't like it because you've probably been able to cat-and-mouse Calvinists all over the place into frustration with no answers. I'm not a Calvinist, and I've been communing from time into timelessness long enough to know what the Word says, even if you reject it for your preferred concepts and exaltation of man while demeaning God and denying His Necessity, etc.
If you want the truth, why don't you lock yourself in a room until God reveals Himself to you? Fast and pray. Set yourself aside from everything until God meets you where you are because you're desperate for Him.
You sure won't listen to me, and you're gonna keep weaseling around to make nouns into verbs somehow, regardless.
What if there's a veil over the eyes of your heart and you can't see? If I was in the UK, I'd come to your house. I'd spend whatever time was needed to answer your questions and let you pour out whatever it is that troubles you about anything and everything. I'd pray with you, and I'd search the scriptures with you. I can't logistically do that.
I know what it takes to birth Jesus Christ into someone by the Word. I do it daily and weekly and monthly with many in regular teaching. Go find that. Do whatever you have to do. Cry out to God. I'm convinced He will hear and answer.
Sonnet
New member
It's true that I have no explanation as to how God maintains control whilst permitting unpredetermined choice. However, you cannot explain how man remains responsible if he is left without access to salvation - such being the consequence of you theology.
But you have already described that this process is all of God. In what way isn't he a spectator?
Who's talking about 'knowing God's standard' as if it comes down to a work of righteousness. we are back to Romans 4.
Scripture?
AGAIN - if the sin qua non is unconditional election, then what on earth is Paul doing explaining how they might be saved? Your argument renders Paul disingenuous. Can't you see that?
Sorry, but it is axiomatic that without true unpredetermined choice then there can be no worth.
You mean those chosen don't you?
As above.
Evidence for God is damaged by evidence that speaks of a different 'truth'.
I wasn't lobbying for the worth of man in that sense. Straw man argument.
The eternal glory you speak of - of His death for us - is the VERY thing your theology damages!
Can't you see it?
For sure, nothing is not know by God, but without unpredetermined choice then God's creation is rendered NOT GOOD.
Agreed.
Attempting to defeat the charge by saying it isn't thus isn't going to be efficacious.
You might be right.
This might be a prescient.
I want to know but you are probably guilty of sentence 2, clause 1.
Ok.
Plenty of Arminians who consider themselves Christians making similar arguments.
I appreciate your concern.
- Status