Is death just another life?

[Gary K]

There's a simple fix for that.


That's because you're vain enough to think that it's you I care to influence.


You misunderstand.

I do not care what you think, Gary. I don't care about anything you think, say or believe because you've demonstrated that you have neither intelligence nor wisdom nor do you have the ability to clearly articulate your own position, never mind establish it. You rarely post anything more to two or three sentences long because your mind is empty of substance. To the extent that you think at all, it is in the format of sound bytes and cliche. You add exactly nothing of value either to me or to this website and ought to be embarrassed.

I know you don't care a whit about me. I don['t think you ever have.

 

[Derf]

I do not care what you think, Gary. I don't care about anything you think, say or believe

There's a simple fix for that.


That's because you're vain enough to think that it's you I care to influence.


You misunderstand.

I do not care what you think, Gary. I don't care about anything you think, say or believe because you've demonstrated that you have neither intelligence nor wisdom nor do you have the ability to clearly articulate your own position, never mind establish it. You rarely post anything more to two or three sentences long because your mind is empty of substance. To the extent that you think at all, it is in the format of sound bytes and cliche. You add exactly nothing of value either to me or to this website and ought to be embarrassed.

If he adds nothing, and you don't care what ge thinks or posts, doesn't that make your comments back to his of less worth than his?

I think we can officially say that Clete considers his own posts to be of negative value, even in his own estimation.

There's a fix for that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

When you claim not or understand a point should I call you a liar?

That would first require you to make a point that is easily understood. So far, you haven't made any points that would fall under that category.

 

[Derf]

Of course they are. They weren't intended to be but, as stated, they were exactly that, which was and continues to be my point.

Here's Gary's post.

What the thief was demonstrating in his actions on the cross is that Jesus forgives us and sanctifies us at the same time and that it is impossible to separate the two. This also demonstrates that justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us.

Actions can demonstrate something that those actions don't cause. Therefore, Gary's statement about the thief's actions demonstrating the effect caused by Christ's sacrifice is totally valid, and not contradictory.

 

[Gary K]

Here's Gary's post.


Actions can demonstrate something that those actions don't cause. Therefore, Gary's statement about the thief's actions demonstrating the effect caused by Christ's sacrifice is totally valid, and not contradictory.

Thanks for this. It's exactly the point I was making, but I understood this instinctively and couldn't express it in words.

 

[Idolater]

Here's Gary's post.


Actions can demonstrate something that those actions don't cause. Therefore, Gary's statement about the thief's actions demonstrating the effect caused by Christ's sacrifice is totally valid, and not contradictory.

But that's Calvinism. The other thief didn't respond in faith. Based only on the above ("Gary's post" which you quoted), the only reason St. Dismas repented and believed in Our Lord, is because Our Lord chose to impose His mercy onto Dismas, but not on the other thief. Surely the two were both given the same opportunity. Only one of them believed and was converted.

Dispensationalist Open Theists hate Calvinism, even the hint of it. That's how I'm reading their exchanges. Could be wrong.

 

[Derf]

But that's Calvinism. The other thief didn't respond in faith. Based only on the above ("Gary's post" which you quoted), the only reason St. Dismas repented and believed in Our Lord, is because Our Lord chose to impose His mercy onto Dismas, but not on the other thief. Surely the two were both given the same opportunity. Only one of them believed and was converted.

Dispensationalist Open Theists hate Calvinism, even the hint of it. That's how I'm reading their exchanges. Could be wrong.

That may be so, but Calvinism isn't contradictory on those points, though it is on some others.

 

[Gary K]

But that's Calvinism. The other thief didn't respond in faith. Based only on the above ("Gary's post" which you quoted), the only reason St. Dismas repented and believed in Our Lord, is because Our Lord chose to impose His mercy onto Dismas, but not on the other thief. Surely the two were both given the same opportunity. Only one of them believed and was converted.

Dispensationalist Open Theists hate Calvinism, even the hint of it. That's how I'm reading their exchanges. Could be wrong.

That is not Calvinism. It's the results being a free moral agent. Everyone has been given the right to accept or reject the chance of salvation. Calvinism believes in an unjust God.

 

[Idolater]

That is not Calvinism. It's the results being a free moral agent. Everyone has been given the right to accept or reject the chance of salvation. Calvinism believes in an unjust God.

You said, "justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us." So what was the difference between St. Dismas (the good thief) and the other guy then? You're thought there is apparently only partial. That was my point.

 

[Gary K]

You said, "justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us." So what was the difference between St. Dismas (the good thief) and the other guy then? You're thought there is apparently only partial. That was my point.

The thief who was saved accepted Jesus' offer of salvation. The other thief didn't.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The thief who was saved accepted Jesus' offer of salvation. The other thief didn't.

So the first did something and the second did not do it?

 

[Gary K]

So the first did something and the second did not do it?

Do the saved and the lost do the same things?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do the saved and the lost do the same things?

You said:

justification does not rely on what we do

Then you said:

The thief who was saved accepted Jesus' offer of salvation. The other thief didn't.

Why was the first saved, and the second not?

 

[Derf]

That is not Calvinism. It's the results being a free moral agent. Everyone has been given the right to accept or reject the chance of salvation. Calvinism believes in an unjust God.

Here's where your view falls apart. It is Calvinism if the one thief that believed had some special extra something from God that allowed him to believe where the other thief did not have that.

If you say that both thieves had the same things, the same promptings by the Holy Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, and one believed and the other didn't, that upholds free moral agency, but it has to be exactly the same things. If one gets a bigger dose of Holy Spirit than the other before the one believed, then God is playing favorites, and it slips back into Calvinism.

 

[Gary K]

You said:



Then you said:



Why was the first saved, and the second not?

You can't figure that out?

Because salvation depends on Jesus and the HS's work in us. We can only accept or reject what is offered. Nothing else we do, other than getting yo know Jesus on a personal level is of value.

John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Salvation is relational.

 

[Gary K]

Here's where your view falls apart. It is Calvinism if the one thief that believed had some special extra something from God that allowed him to believe where the other thief did not have that.

If you say that both thieves had the same things, the same promptings by the Holy Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, and one believed and the other didn't, that upholds free moral agency, but it has to be exactly the same things. If one gets a bigger dose of Holy Spirit than the other before the one believed, then God is playing favorites, and it slips back into Calvinism.

Nope. God is not unjust. He offers the same opportunities to everyone. It's not His fault people reject the offer of eternal life. That would be the Calvinistic view of salvation. You make some mighty big jumps in assuming God is playing favorites, even though you know I reject Calvinism.

 

[Derf]

Nope. God is not unjust. He offers the same opportunities to everyone. It's not His fault people reject the offer of eternal life. That would be the Calvinistic view of salvation. You make some mighty big jumps in assuming God is playing favorites, even though you know I reject Calvinism.

That's fine...I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at. Sometimes people say they hold to something or reject something, but when they describe it, they are using the wrong label.

So you are saying that both thieves got the same things, the same amount of Holy Spirit prompting, and they reacted differently. And according to your post:

What the thief was demonstrating in his actions on the cross is that Jesus forgives us and sanctifies us at the same time and that it is impossible to separate the two. This also demonstrates that justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us.

The thief that believed was demonstrating in his actions that Jesus forgives and sanctifies us. Whether it is impossible to separate the two, I'm not sure, since the forgiveness allows us entry into the body of Christ, while the sanctification could be stretched out over the whole of our lives while we are in the body of Christ.

My point, here:

And we choose whether to apply it in our minds or not (faith).

was to suggest that the salvation was equally available to both thieves. I'm not sure, but it seems that the salvation is actually going to be executed in everyone's resurrection. But we that believe in this life are "alive" in Christ, because we know we will be resurrected, so we can live the kind of life that does not result from fearing death--We will be with Jesus in Paradise--whether that death comes sooner (the thief) or later. I think that's part of that sanctification you talk about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You can't figure that out?

No, Gary, I can't read your mind. That's why I asked you a question.

Because salvation depends on Jesus and the HS's work in us. We can only accept or reject what is offered. Nothing else we do, other than getting yo know Jesus on a personal level is of value.

John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Salvation is relational.

So then which is it?

Was the man saved because of the work of the Holy Spirit? Or was the man saved because of his decision?

 

[Clete]

When you claim not or understand a point should I call you a liar?

Gary, you have no discernment whatsoever. No one would believe you because most everything you believe you believe for basically no reason.

This idiotic question is as good an example as anything. I didn't call you a liar merely because you claimed not to understand a point. There are all kinds of complex things that people can talk about, especially when discussing doctrine and so failing to understand a point someone has made is common and should be expected. So, no, it isn't merely failing to understand a point that's the issue. It's claiming to not understand a point that there isn't any rational way to not understand, that's the problem. Not only was my point patently obvious to begin with but it had been repeatedly and explicitly explained to you multiple times by more than one person prior to your claiming to not understand it.

You lied, everyone here knows it. Either repent or stop belly-aching about someone who isn't afraid to hurt your feelings by calling you out.

 

[Clete]

I know you don't care a whit about me. I don['t think you ever have.

The fact is that I don't know you except for the interactions I have seen here on TOL. If you had been substantive and meaningfully responsive I'd have no problem with you whatsoever. I have the patience of Moses with people who ask real questions and are substantively responsive, whether they ever agree with me on anything or not. It's people who are a waste of time, especially intentionally so, that I lose patience with. And, I have no tolerance at all for fools who can't be bothered to write more than three sentences per post and, in less time than that, still manage to prove that they haven't any idea what they're talking about who then act like I'm somehow the problem.

If you want to be treated with respect, then repent of this shallow waste of time nonsense and earn some respect by engaging the mind God gave you and make actual arguments that support the things you believe. You'll see an instantaneous change in the way I respond.