The Five Points of Calvinism

[JLB]

Your claim is that pisteuo means to obey. Even in the "evidence" that you've presented, there is NO MENTION of obedience. I have no idea why you've highlighted "saving faith in red. Yes, believing is doing something, but that doesn't equate to believing being obedience.

Saving faith is in the definition of Pisteo.

Faith without the work or act of obedience is dead.

Therefore I say that Pisteo carries the idea of obedience, since it has saving faith, ie; doing something in its definition.

As you have been shown by many scriptures, repentance is a foundational concept of the Gospel.

Turning away from Satan, as the lord you obey and turning to Jesus as the Lord you obey, is how the bible teaches we are forgiven of sins.

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Acts 26:18

...that they may receive forgiveness of sins.

I believe we need to balance what the scriptures say, as a whole.


JLB

 

[JLB]

I said this:
"All these verses support the point of James in ch 2 about being justified in the eyes of other people by our works."

I provided many verses throughout the NT that affirm the fact that James was speaking about being justified in the eyes of others. Ignore those verses or whatever. Makes no difference. Truth is truth.

If James was speaking about being justified in the eyes of God in James 2:24, then he was directly contradicting all of Scripture. And that's what your theology does.

46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say? Luke 6:46


JLB

 

[MarkT]

Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law?

He said He came to fulfill the law.

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

until it's fulfilled.

The law was added til the seed should come. Galatians 3:1


13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

He, which is God Himself, has made it obsolete.

When God spoke through the mouth of Jeremiah, the words "I will make a New Covenant" the old became obsolete, and was ready to pass away. When the same Lord that spoke through the mouth of Jeremiah, also said "behold the new covenant in My blood" the old had vanished away.

The scripture also plainly says that the law of commandments contained in ordinances was abolished.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
Ephesians 2:14-15

I think we should take this discussion to PM, so as not to derail this thread.

Thanks JLB

How is God supposed to judge the world if the law has disappeared? No. The law has not passed away. All will be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

The new covenant began with Jesus and the good news of the kingdom. 'Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets.' Mt. 5:17 So Jesus was not sent to abolish the law and the prophets. Rather he was sent to fulfill the requirement of the law - the penalty for breaking the law is death - to die on the cross in our place.

God's way, through faith in Jesus Christ, discharges those who believe in Jesus Christ from the law of sin and death. It doesn't discharge everyone. It doesn't discharge the ungodly or those who do not believe.

Remember, there are two paths and two gates here.

So ready to vanish does not mean it has vanished.

Ok If you want to continue by PM

 

[Brother Mike]

OK, 1 out of your 3 verses don't mention believing. So what? That's batting .333 which isn't very good.

If we had an umpire that knew the difference between a strike and a ball, JLB would be batting 1.000

 

[JLB]

The new covenant began with Jesus and the good news of the kingdom. 'Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets.' Mt. 5:17 So Jesus was not sent to abolish the law and the prophets. Rather he was sent to fulfill the requirement of the law - the penalty for breaking the law is death - to die on the cross in our place.

Please send this post to me as a PM


Thanks JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I believe we need to balance what the scriptures say, as a whole.

Please explain this verse:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

 

[FreeGrace]

46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say? Luke 6:46
JLB

What does this verse have to do with the discussion? Please explain.

 

[JLB]

All that said, your understanding of the difference between believe and obey is still very lacking.

To who?

You?

 

[WIP]

Alright fellas. Let's back off the personal stuff please.

 

[JLB]

All that said, your understanding of the difference between believe and obey is still very lacking.

Did Adam believe God?

 

[JLB]

What does this verse have to do with the discussion? Please explain.

Is Jesus our Lord if we don't obey Him?

 

[JLB]

Please explain this verse:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

21 Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
2 Corinthians 8:21

Justified is not mentioned in this verse.

Why did you post this verse?

Your understanding of justified is very lacking.


JLB

 

[childeye]

For what it's worth, I think you guys are arguing semantics. If Christ said believe in me and someone did believe, then that persons believing could be construed as obeying and visa versa. I don't see the problem. So what is the problem?

 

[JLB]

For what it's worth, I think you guys are arguing semantics. If Christ said believe in me and someone did believe, then that persons believing could be construed as obeying and visa versa. I don't see the problem. So what is the problem?

Freegrace is defending a OSAS position.

In other words he doesn't believe a person must repent, which is to say, turn away from serving Satan as Lord, meaning as long as someone "believes" they can live any way or do anything at all and still be saved, since once they are saved, they are always saved, even if then turn away from the Lord and confess Allah as Lord.

JLB

 

[childeye]

Freegrace is defending a OSAS position.

In other words he doesn't believe a person must repent, which is to say, turn away from serving Satan as Lord, meaning as long as someone "believes" they can live any way or do anything at all and still be saved, since once they are saved, they are always saved, even if then turn away from the Lord and confess Allah as Lord.

JLB

Thanks for the info. You of course will forgive me when I say your description of the problem may differ from how Freegrace sees it. I still think you're arguing semantics. I could easily argue that believing in Jesus is repentance.

 

[reba]

Closed for some clean up...

 

[WIP]

Okay, I have removed multiple posts and edited other comments for violations of the ToS; particularly 2.4 about respecting others. If we can't find it within ourselves to be respectful, stronger discipline will follow.

 

[JLB]

Thanks for the info. You of course will forgive me when I say your description of the problem may differ from how Freegrace sees it. I still think you're arguing semantics. I could easily argue that believing in Jesus is repentance.

It may differ, never the less, what I said is what he believes.

Ask him, if a Born again Christian, who later decided to convert to Islam, and they renounced Jesus as Lord, and confessed Allah as Lord, if they are still saved.

I say No.

He says yes.

I know this from previous discussions about this subject.

Thanks for your input.

JLB

 

[Brother Mike]

Ask him, if a Born again Christian, who later decided to convert to Islam, and they renounced Jesus as Lord, and confessed Allah as Lord, if they are still saved.

Well, then you have two gods working for you. One telling you to strap a bomb to your backside and blow people up right after you convert them to Jesus.

Makes sense to me.

 

[FreeGrace]

Freegrace is defending a OSAS position.

Of course. Because that is the Biblical position. When God saves someone, there are no "strings attached", no warnings of losing that salvation. Because salvation is by grace. Those who understand what grace is don't have any problem with how the child of God may act later on. I don't mean that turning back to a sinful lifestyle isn't a problem, both for the one who turns back and the believer who observes it. For the one who does turn back to sin, the problem will be God's discipline during their lifetime, up to and including removal from this earth and loss of eternal reward. They will NOT reign with Christ, as 2 Tim 2:12 clearly indicates. Does reigning with Christ sound like something that would be quite nice for eternity? It sure does. Does being disciplined by God during this lifetime sound like something that would be quite unpleasant? It sure does.

God has given His children both positive and negative motivation for serving Him.

otoh, no one from the non-OSAS side has provided any evidence from Scripture that any of the warning passages are about loss of salvation. That continues to be just an opinion, and a faulty one at that.

In other words he doesn't believe a person must repent, which is to say, turn away from serving Satan as Lord, meaning as long as someone "believes" they can live any way or do anything at all and still be saved, since once they are saved, they are always saved, even if then turn away from the Lord and confess Allah as Lord. JLB

Interesting that the word 'believes' was in quotes. As if to suggest that they really haven't believed, or something like that.

The Bible is very clear; if a person has put their faith/trust in Christ for eternal life, they HAVE it (Jn 5:24). And it is a gift (Rom 6:23) that is irrevocable (Rom 11:29). End of story.

No one has refuted that. If it can be refuted, I will repent of my view and reject it. Until then, there is no reason in Scripture to believe what is not taught.