Is Faith Without Works Dead?

[Bladerunner]

We simply trash falsehoods... we can't help it that your theology falls into that category.

Calvinism, the falsehood you are speaking of is of soteriology only. Calvinism does not really address the nature of GOD.

 

[7djengo7]

Maybe I answer them and you do not hear them.

So far, you have not answered the questions I have asked you.

Maybe you "answer" them inside your head; and indeed, I do not hear what's going on inside your head. But you have not answered them in this thread. And even you know that you have not answered them, which is why you resort to such lily-livered, conviction-lacking language like "MAYBE I answer them and you do not hear them." Get real; even you know you have not answered any of the questions I asked you.

for the Last time I do not prescribe to the WCF. It is a man made document and as you said a non-God breathed.

"[F]or the last time"? Wait, how many previous times have you told me you "do not prescribe [sic] to the WCF"? But, it's interesting that you're throwing the WCF under the bus, here. Your post #287, so far as I can recall, is the first time you've posted a "reply" to one of my posts (in this thread, at least). But that post of yours is nothing but a confused, angry, childish reaction to a post (not even addressed to you) I had written in criticism of one of Calvinists' glaring, God-blaspheming errors confessionalized into a particular sentence in Calvinism's Westminster Confession of Faith. So, it's amusing that initially you were triggered to react to that post of mine, which was a criticism of that WCF monstrosity, but once you realized you have no hope of salvaging that WCF monstrosity from the criticism I levelled against it, you threw it under the bus and are now disowning it.

Again, Predestination in Eph 1:11 is

You're not paying careful attention to what I wrote. I specified exactly why I cited/quoted Ephesians 1:11: because the WCF "divines" (or their successors, some later custodians/editors/publishers of the WCF text) cited that passage of Scripture for a "proof" text for the God-blaspheming Calvinist monstrosity they published in that first portion of Chapter 3, Section 1 of their WCF. For them to do that was for them to claim (falsely) that what Paul teaches in Ephesians 1:11 is what they are teaching in that first portion of Chapter 3, Section 1 of their WCF. You would be lying through your teeth if, having compared their words against Paul's words, you were willing to say that they did not intend Paul's God-breathed phrase "all things" to be thought synonymous with their not-God-breathed phrase "whatsoever comes to pass". I said nothing about Paul's word "predestination", and I even bolded the particular phrase of Paul's that I was trying to bring to attention: worketh all things.

Please quit saying things to me like "for the Last time" and "again", since manifestly you have never yet said to me the things you're pretending to have said to me before.

There are many so-called Calvinist throughout the world and many of them follow the patterns established from earlier predecessors. That is they fell away from the Word of GOD as so many do today.

I like that you say that, right after having disowned the portion of the WCF I have been criticizing; indeed, like you say, the WCF "divines" fell away from the Word of GOD in their crafting of the God-blaspheming monstrosity they crafted in that first portion of their Chapter 3, Section 1 sentence!

Not everybody believes that the Bible is the complete Word of God.

That's true.

I believe you fit in that category?

What? What's with your question mark? Is Spanish your native tongue? Are you asking me if you believe I fit in that category? If so, I answer: No, you don't believe I fit in that category; rather, you just say things like that to lash out at me, and to perform your daily quota of sanctimony.

 

[7djengo7]

Calvinism, the falsehood you are speaking of is of soteriology only. Calvinism does not really address the nature of GOD.

ALL theology addresses the nature of GOD. Are you really not aware of the fact that soteriology is a department of theology?

 

[Bladerunner]

So far, you have not answered the questions I have asked you.

Maybe you "answer" them inside your head; and indeed, I do not hear what's going on inside your head. But you have not answered them in this thread. And even you know that you have not answered them, which is why you resort to such lily-livered, conviction-lacking language like "MAYBE I answer them and you do not hear them." Get real; even you know you have not answered any of the questions I asked you.

"[F]or the last time"? Wait, how many previous times have you told me you "do not prescribe [sic] to the WCF"? But, it's interesting that you're throwing the WCF under the bus, here. Your post #287, so far as I can recall, is the first time you've posted a "reply" to one of my posts (in this thread, at least). But that post of yours is nothing but a confused, angry, childish reaction to a post (not even addressed to you) I had written in criticism of one of Calvinists' glaring, God-blaspheming errors confessionalized into a particular sentence in Calvinism's Westminster Confession of Faith. So, it's amusing that initially you were triggered to react to that post of mine, which was a criticism of that WCF monstrosity, but once you realized you have no hope of salvaging that WCF monstrosity from the criticism I levelled against it, you threw it under the bus and are now disowning it.

You're not paying careful attention to what I wrote. I specified exactly why I cited/quoted Ephesians 1:11: because the WCF "divines" (or their successors, some later custodians/editors/publishers of the WCF text) cited that passage of Scripture for a "proof" text for the God-blaspheming Calvinist monstrosity they published in that first portion of Chapter 3, Section 1 of their WCF. For them to do that was for them to claim (falsely) that what Paul teaches in Ephesians 1:11 is what they are teaching in that first portion of Chapter 3, Section 1 of their WCF. You would be lying through your teeth if, having compared their words against Paul's words, you were willing to say that they did not intend Paul's God-breathed phrase "all things" to be thought synonymous with their not-God-breathed phrase "whatsoever comes to pass". I said nothing about Paul's word "predestination", and I even bolded the particular phrase of Paul's that I was trying to bring to attention: worketh all things.

I have said so many times that GOD is Sovereign over all things...Does this not cover "worketh all things"

Please quit saying things to me like "for the Last time" and "again", since manifestly you have never yet said to me the things you're pretending to have said to me before.

I like that you say that, right after having disowned the portion of the WCF I have been criticizing; indeed, like you say, the WCF "divines" fell away from the Word of GOD in their crafting of the God-blaspheming monstrosity they crafted in that first portion of their Chapter 3, Section 1 sentence!

That's true.

What? What's with your question mark? Is Spanish your native tongue? Are you asking me if you believe I fit in that category? If so, I answer: No, you don't believe I fit in that category; rather, you just say things like that to lash out at me, and to perform your daily quota of sanctimony.

That question mark was a hope that I was wrong and you do not fit. It is kind of far fetched but still hold out the hope.

Now to your question(s)?

 

[Bladerunner]

ALL theology addresses the nature of GOD. Are you really not aware of the fact that soteriology is a department of theology?

Yes, I do, It is like the debate of John between Dr. Flowers and Dr. White....Dr. Flowers would not stay in the John part,,,He wants to use everything else to muddle up the debate. Yes, you do that as well and would use theology as a whole to muddle up the soteriology of Jesus Christ, the Doctrines of Election.

 

[7djengo7]

I have said so many times that GOD is Sovereign over all things...Does this not cover "worketh all things"

OK, last straw. You've repeatedly shown that you are incapable of reading, much less responding rationally to anything anyone says. You write like a developmentally-disabled 10-year-old. You can't even get simple tasks right such as using question marks when they're called for and not using them when they are not. Why would I throw away any more time feeding your perpetual berserkin'-out, attention-begging meltdown/spectacle since all that comes from it is further spittings-out of butchered-English gibberish and other tokens that say you don't read anything I write? I wouldn't, see! So long, @Gary K redivivus! Bye, ignored troll!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, I do, It is like the debate of John between Dr. Flowers and Dr. White....Dr. Flowers would not stay in the John part,,,He wants to use everything else to muddle up the debate. Yes, you do that as well and would use theology as a whole to muddle up the soteriology of Jesus Christ, the Doctrines of Election.

Using scripture to interpret scripture is a good thing!

White lost that debate because he couldn't defend his position, BECAUSE He limited himself to John 6 alone. Ignoring the context of a passage in order to make a passage say what you want it to say is poor theology.

What you're doing is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Stop it.

 

[Clete]

Easy:
1) Tired of the same 'ol arguments, don't want to do it anymore (has nothing to do with you other being member #289 for the #290th time).
2) Disdain. Doesn't want to continue the conversation so a good insult will end it (but you and I are made of different stuff with long suffering and patience and want to learn. Open Theists, honestly, don't want to learn. I've written quite a bit on the omniscient thread that is very challenging to Open Theist views and they don't like to look at their own doctrine too closely. They'll deny it of course, but we only get mad if we are more dedicated to a group of scholars than we are to God. That said, Open Theism and Mid Acts are rather simple doctrines. If one is 'in' they look right because it is all balled up tight and I agree makes sense, for simplicity, but I've never found God that simple. His ways are much higher than ours. Think of it this way: When one's doctrine is so simple that it ALL makes sense, questioning what is simple can get very exasperating. They simply, aren't the same kinds of theologians most of us are (not a slam on them or us). It is rather they don't like entertaining broader pictures outside of that scope. Think of 'stupid' as "My theology is more right then yours!" but they actually mean 'simple' and they like it that way.
It really is that they cannot entertain another view. I've been very close to the Calvinist (not double-pred) and 2nd Acts camp. I love all those who espouse these opposing doctrines that I've met. They are all godly men and woman that love their Savior. It is like Open Theists either weren't very good Calvinists or 2nd Acts Dispensationalist or they have little remembrance or empathy. On point, I have empathy for them, but I think having your own theology constantly questioned is more difficult than Open Theists will admit.

Lon,

I keep giving you another chance and in less than a week, I regret doing so. No longer.

You are a liar. I don't know where you come off saying this but I no longer care. If it were up to me you'd be permanently banned for saying such blatantly slanderous things but it isn't up to me. What is up to me is that you will NEVER come off my ignore list again.

I bet you're proud of it!

Good riddance!

 

[Bladerunner]

OK, last straw. You've repeatedly shown that you are incapable of reading, much less responding rationally to anything anyone says. You write like a developmentally-disabled 10-year-old. You can't even get simple tasks right such as using question marks when they're called for and not using them when they are not. Why would I throw away any more time feeding your perpetual berserkin'-out, attention-begging meltdown/spectacle since all that comes from it is further spittings-out of butchered-English gibberish and other tokens that say you don't read anything I write? I wouldn't, see! So long, @Gary K redivivus! Bye, ignored troll!

why are YOU attacking me and not discussing God's Word...It is why I am here? Ok, good bye and may GOD Bless your day.

 

[Bladerunner]

Using scripture to interpret scripture is a good thing!

Yes it is a good thing. Good day to you JudgeRightly

White lost that debate because he couldn't defend his position, BECAUSE He limited himself to John 6 alone. Ignoring the context of a passage in order to make a passage say what you want it to say is poor theology.

Was not the Debate about John 6...yet Flowers keep roaming around to bash Calvinism. Dr. White ask Dr. Flowers is he used the same hermeneutics for the Doctrines of Election as he did for other parts of the Bible. Dr. Flowers answer was NO! This is a red flag as using the same hermeneutics unless the Bible demands different results in a better interpretation and of God's WORD.

What you're doing is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Stop it.

eisegesis:"An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that reflects the personal ideas or viewpoint of the interpreter;" Yes, I have been guilty of this, trying to get back on point
but it seems to no avail.

does that include the interpretation of others outside of the Forum (i.e. Dr. Flowers / Dr. White).

Either way, it is your forum and I will try to abide by limiting myself to the task at hand. God's Word...

 

[Lon]

Lon,

I keep giving you another chance and in less than a week, I regret doing so. No longer.

Internal struggle. I've ghosted you much longer before so I understand. We grate on each other but I'd suggest you've been a bit irritated on TOL lately. Take a few months.

You are a liar.

This isn't something adults say hardly at all to one another. It is rather a wrong value statement, likely from your own frustrations.
I was giving him a few possible reasons, guessing at 'whys.' Wrong? Okay, very different than a lie.

I don't know where you come off saying this but I no longer care. If it were up to me you'd be permanently banned for saying such blatantly slanderous things but it isn't up to me. What is up to me is that you will NEVER come off my ignore list again.

Thank God for little blessings. You'd ban somebody for making a guess as to 'why' there might be such strong pushback. Put this one up there with it.

I bet you're proud of it!

Good riddance!

While I hit buttons, I'm not sure if truth does this to people. If I hit a truth, well and fine. If the list needs further work? I'd imagine it did. I do a lot of prompts to get to things for needed discussion. That's it. That's all there was to the thoughts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes it is a good thing.

Then why are you acting like it's the worst thing ever?

Was not the Debate about John 6...

Indeed it was!

yet Flowers keep roaming around to bash Calvinism.

False.

Flowers was going through the CONTEXT of John 6, to show that White was reading Calvinism into the text by White ripping it OUT of its original context.

If the context of a passage precludes that passage from speaking about something, then you cannot just rip the passage out of its context in order to make it say what you want it to say.

White rips John 6 out of its context, in order to make it sound like it teaches Calvinism.

Flowers was showing that the context precludes John 6 from teaching Calvinism, therefore White is wrong.

Dr. White ask Dr. Flowers is he used the same hermeneutics for the Doctrines of Election as he did for other parts of the Bible. Dr. Flowers answer was NO! This is a red flag as using the same hermeneutics unless the Bible demands different results in a better interpretation and of God's WORD.

You're gonna have to provide the context for this.

eisegesis:"An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that reflects the personal ideas or viewpoint of the interpreter;" Yes, I have been guilty of this, trying to get back on point
but it seems to no avail.

does that include the interpretation of others outside of the Forum (i.e. Dr. Flowers / Dr. White).

Either way, it is your forum and I will try to abide by limiting myself to the task at hand. God's Word...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Lon]

Flowers was going through the CONTEXT of John 6, to show that White was reading Calvinism into the text by White ripping it OUT of its original context.

This debate?

 

[Bladerunner]

This debate?

thanks, I will go over it again, Keeps me from having to look it up on my system.

 

[Nick M]

The Apostle Paul tells us to study scripture. Literally. The NKJV calls it almost a legal term of doing your due diligence with the scripture. And you are to divide the gospel, not reconcile the obvious contradictions between the laws of Moses for the circumcision, and grace to the gentiles. Don't mix them. Have a nice day.

 

[Bladerunner]

The Apostle Paul tells us to study scripture. Literally. The NKJV calls it almost a legal term of doing your due diligence with the scripture. And you are to divide the gospel, not reconcile the obvious contradictions between the laws of Moses for the circumcision, and grace to the gentiles. Don't mix them. Have a nice day.

there are no contradictions in the Bible

 

[Lon]

there are no contradictions in the Bible

An inconsistency? There are none? Did Judas hang himself or spill his guts? The two 'seem' contradictory, but are they?
The Bible also records others as 'lying' (a contradiction against what is true), like Rahab who lied and said the spies were not with her.

How do you see these and how would we reconcile "the bible has no contradictions?"

From the Mid Acts concern: Specifically, Do Jews and gentiles have separate expectations from God, today? Back when the bible was written? Were gentiles allowed into the inner sanctuary at the temple?

A contradiction isn't necessarily a bad thing, but gentiles weren't allowed into the inner court of the temple and had to remain in 'the court of the gentiles.' Jesus told the gentile woman He wasn't sent for any but the house of Israel, etc. etc. Such, technically, can be seen as a 'contradiction' as it is saying what is good for the goose isn't for the gander, so to speak.

 

[Bladerunner]

An inconsistency? There are none? Did Judas hang himself or spill his guts? The two 'seem' contradictory, but are they?
The Bible also records others as 'lying' (a contradiction against what is true), like Rahab who lied and said the spies were not with her.

How do you see these and how would we reconcile "the bible has no contradictions?"

From the Mid Acts concern: Specifically, Do Jews and gentiles have separate expectations from God, today? Back when the bible was written? Were gentiles allowed into the inner sanctuary at the temple?

A contradiction isn't necessarily a bad thing, but gentiles weren't allowed into the inner court of the temple and had to remain in 'the court of the gentiles.' Jesus told the gentile woman He wasn't sent for any but the house of Israel, etc. etc. Such, technically, can be seen as a 'contradiction' as it is saying what is good for the goose isn't for the gander, so to speak.

In Acts 1:18."Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." and in Mark 27:5.."And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Notice that in Mark's verse we have a time and date that He hanged himself.....In Acts 1:18 happened around 40-50 days after the Resurrection of Jesus. The question there is: Could not the rope that hung him broke for some spilling him on the ground face first ? The scripture of GOD tells these things happened. You either believe God's Words or you do not...I take it that you do not Believe in God's Word as you have labored the Bible is in err. Many of the contradictions above are the regular talking points for a Atheist. I understand them, I don't understand why you believe the Bible is in err but you also believe the Mid Acts, Paul and Jesus has or will save you? Mind boggling!

 

[JudgeRightly]

In Acts 1:18."Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." and in Mark 27:5.."And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Notice that in Mark's verse we have a time and date that He hanged himself.....In Acts 1:18 happened around 40-50 days after the Resurrection of Jesus. The question there is: Could not the rope that hung him broke for some spilling him on the ground face first ? The scripture of GOD tells these things happened. You either believe God's Words or you do not...I take it that you do not Believe in God's Word as you have labored the Bible is in err. Many of the contradictions above are the regular talking points for a Atheist. I understand them, I don't understand why you believe the Bible is in err but you also believe the Mid Acts, Paul and Jesus has or will save you? Mind boggling!

He hanged himself. Which means there was something tall he had to use.

He fell headlong, meaning instead of jumping feet-first, he likely let himself fall with the noose around his neck.

The resulting whiplash killed him, and ripped him open, and his entrails gushed out as a result.

I'm not sure how you could get anything other than that from those passages... The text doesn't say the rope broke. It says Judas burst open. "Burst open" is the word used. ἐλάκησεν

The phrase is:

"headlong" "having fallen" "he burst open" "in [the] middle"

 

[Lon]

In Acts 1:18."Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." and in Mark 27:5.."And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Notice that in Mark's verse we have a time and date that He hanged himself.....In Acts 1:18 happened around 40-50 days after the Resurrection of Jesus. The question there is: Could not the rope that hung him broke for some spilling him on the ground face first ? The scripture of GOD tells these things happened. You either believe God's Words or you do not...I take it that you do not Believe in God's Word as you have labored the Bible is in err. Many of the contradictions above are the regular talking points for a Atheist. I understand them, I don't understand why you believe the Bible is in err but you also believe the Mid Acts, Paul and Jesus has or will save you? Mind boggling!

Yes, exactly: At least we see apparent contradictions.

My question was to rather give example and then ask: "What do you mean by no contradiction?"

I think rather, we mean "The Bible is consistently true, even if it records something like a lie" rather than that it doesn't contain apparent contradiction. The first book in the bible contains a contradiction 3 chapters in: "Has God really said..." (the serpent contradicts God and is recorded in the Bible accurately).

In this case, one might wonder what you mean "the Bible has no contradiction." Then, we'd also ask: Is there a contradiction between Jew and gentile (Acts 15) in what each was to observe? Etc. Etc. -Lon