 |
| 
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/26/2004 2:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
Which comes first, being saved or being deceived?
That is part of my question. I await your answer.
You're stuck and you're speechless....
Belief (mental act, habit of placing trust or confidence in another, mental acceptance, mental conviction) requires mental assent from you but if you remove mental assent, which you do, you're stuck. You can't know when or even IF you've moved from a state of deception to a state of belief.
I do not remove the mental assent. I agree that man has a "will" and makes choices. Paul wrote of how he "wills" to that which is right, but instead does that in which he hates (Rom. 7:15-17). His condition was due to the flesh, which is not subject to the law of God, which is emnity towards God, which is unable to please God, etc. (Rom. 8:1-8). One who's disposition is of the flesh will mind the things of the flesh and this will influence all of their choices. One who's disposition is of spirit will be influenced by the spirit. There is still choices being made according to one's preference. A person will "choose" to believe God once they are saved. So I take it you believe that I have to believe that I chose to accept God's offer on my own in order to "really" be saved and not decieved?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 10/26/2004 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
His condition was due to the flesh, which is not subject to the law of God, which is emnity towards God, which is unable to please God, etc. (Rom. 8:1-8).
Wrong. Which is why you only referenced Romans 8 instead of actually reading it.
Being human is NOT death.
Romans 8:
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so
The MIND set on the flesh is death.
The MIND set on the spirit (while being in the flesh) is LIFE.
Jesus was in the flesh but set His mind on the Spirit.
Adam and Eve were in the flesh and WERE NOT SINNERS.
Simply being born doesn't make you a sinner, simply being in the flesh is not enmity to God.
It's what the mind is set on.
Which is why Paul commands us to exercise our will:
Colossians 3:2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
Man's responsibility is seen in scripture from Genesis 4:
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
all the way to Revelation 22:
17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
But you're anal, we get it.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/26/2004 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: I was hoping you and I could stay on the topic. I pointed out that "responsibility" does not have a Hebrew and/or Greek equivalent in the scriptures. To place "moral" responsibility in the bible is to put it there through interpretation of scripture and not translation of scripture.
Tom: Before I suggest some biblical examples of moral responsibility, I first want to be clear on what you’ve just said. For the record, are you denying that human beings are responsible before God for their moral choices?
Lock: So I take it you believe that I have to believe that I chose to accept God's offer on my own in order to "really" be saved and not decieved?
Tom (jumping in): No, all we’re saying right now is that you ought to believe whatever is logically entailed in YOUR own system of beliefs (as do I, as do we all), and one thing that’s entailed in your view of how God saves people is the belief that we can never really know that we’re saved. We can believe ourselves to be saved because we feel it, because we live rightly, because we evidence the fruit of the Spirit, because we attest to the inner witness of the Spirit crying “Abba, Father,” or any number of evidences,but since the world is full of people who evidenced all these (and any other evidence you want to offer for your own assurance) but whose faith turned out to be false, you, Lock, given your beliefs, cannot offer any reason for believing your faith is not also false. Now, I didn’t wanna go in this direction. ModeratorsRelative  asked you how you knew you’re saved and that any of this applied to you, and you two went back and forth a few times. I was just trying to bring that little sparring match to an end by pointing out that given your own belief system, your question “Can a saved person be deceived?” is out of bounds. For the sake of argument, let me answer your question with “No. It’s not possible for a saved person to be deceived.” What help is this to YOU since you can never consistently argue any basis of assurance on the question of whether or not you’re even saved? Notice, I'm not saying your don't enjoy such assurance. I'm kinda hoping you do! But 'reasoning' your way through to explaining that ought to show you why some of your other beliefs about how God saves people cannot also be true if you're sense of assurance is true.
Now, my answer is in fact, “Yes, a saved person can be deceived about many things.” We’re finite creatures and are mistaken about a lot of stuff. We’re often deceived about issues. We often deceive ourselves about things. Can a true believer apostatize? Sure, I think it’s possible. I don't think it happens overnight. But believers can, over time, through making bad decisions, get to the place where they deceive themselves about who and what they are. But none of this means believers can't ALSO enjoy personal assurance that their faith is genuine and that they're not deceived. That we can under certain circumstances deceive ourselves doesn't mean we cannot under other circumstances know that we're not deceived. That's the whole point.
I’m just thinking about Heb. 3.13. “But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.”
Be encouraged Lock!
Blessings
Tom
PS Lock, don't forget my first question (in bold) above! It looks to me as if you're claiming straight up that we're not "responsible" for our choices/actions.
PS I'm travelling right now so might not be able to respond for a few days. Hey Laika! You'll never guess where I'm sitting right now. Yep. Amsterdam airport! On the "other" side of the glass. On my way to Beirut for two weeks. Connections are pretty bad there, so I might be offline during that time. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/26/2004 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Rats. I wanted Lock to answer my question about his (apparent) belief that we are not morally responsible to God. I know some hard core Calvinists admit this. Anyhow, I thought since I'm not sure I'll be able to post for a couple of weeks, I'd toss this in--
Just came to mind: Rom. 14.11-12
quote:
It is written: "As surely as I live,” says the Lord, “every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.” So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
There are many such examples that demonstrate we are responsible to God, justly held accountable for our choices and actions, and will give an account of them to God. To be called upon to “give an account” is to give an account of what we are “responsible” for, not for what we are not “responsible” for. The accounting is moral in nature.
I think the Isaiah passage Paul quotes is interesting with regard to the universalist’s claim that the “confession” every being is to give to God (in Philippians 2 where Paul alludes to Isaiah) entails the salvation of those who "confess." But the Isaiah passage doesn’t suggest this (I've posted elsewhere on the Isa. text), nor does Rom. 14.12, where it seems that bowing and confessing simply amounts to “giving an account” of one’s self to God. Hmmm.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 10/26/2004 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Rats. I wanted Lock to answer my question about his (apparent) belief that we are not morally responsible to God. I know some hard core Calvinists admit this. Anyhow, I thought since I'm not sure I'll be able to post for a couple of weeks, I'd toss this in--
Just came to mind: Rom. 14.11-12
quote:
It is written: "As surely as I live,” says the Lord, “every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.” So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
There are many such examples that demonstrate we are responsible to God, justly held accountable for our choices and actions, and will give an account of them to God. To be called upon to “give an account” is to give an account of what we are “responsible” for, not for what we are not “responsible” for. The accounting is moral in nature.
I think the Isaiah passage Paul quotes is interesting with regard to the universalist’s claim that the “confession” every being is to give to God (in Philippians 2 where Paul alludes to Isaiah) entails the salvation of those who "confess." But the Isaiah passage doesn’t suggest this (I've posted elsewhere on the Isa. text), nor does Rom. 14.12, where it seems that bowing and confessing simply amounts to “giving an account” of one’s self to God. Hmmm.
Tom
There is NO Hebrew word for "Certified Public Accountant" in scripture.
Reminds me of what deWaay said in a debate, "'free will' cannot be found in the bible". Well DUH. Neither can instructions on how to make a baby be found in the bible. Things that are so intuitive and plainly obvious don't have to be explained to us by God.
1 Peter 4:5 "In order to sustain yourself daily with food,
A. open mouth
B. insert food
C. chew vigorously
D. swallow
E. repeat..."
LOL
Individual election isn't in scripture either, but he believes that.
Catchya later after Lebanon.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/26/2004 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom-
I hope you get a chance to read this, but if not, it will be waiting for you when you get the chance...
quote:
Rats. I wanted Lock to answer my question about his (apparent) belief that we are not morally responsible to God.
This following link best puts forward my position concerning "responsibility"
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil021.html
quote:
Just came to mind: Rom. 14.11-12
As one who constantly speaks of CONTEXT, I am surprised you have put this forward. Romans 11 speaks of conduct towards other saints. Verse 12 speaks of the "dias" of God, in which those who are saved will give an acccount of our fruit. Paul speaks of this also in 1 Cor. 3
8 Now he who is planting and he who is irrigating are for one thing. Yet each will be getting his own wages according to his own toil.
9 For God's fellow workers are we. God's farm, God's building, are you.
10 According to the grace of God which is being granted to me, as a wise foreman I lay a foundation, yet another is building on it. Yet let each one beware how he is building on it.
11 For other foundation can no one lay beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone is building on this foundation gold and silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw,
13 each one's work will become apparent, for the day will make it evident, for it is being revealed by fire. And the fire, it will be testing each one's work -- what kind it is.
14 If anyone's work will be remaining which he builds on it, he will get wages.
15 If anyone's work shall be burned up, he will forfeit it, yet he shall be saved, yet thus, as through fire.
The "account" we give is of our work for God AFTER being saved. It will be revealed by fire. If it remains, we will recieve a reward, if it burns up, we are still saved. To apply this to ALL MEN and say it speaks of mankind and his "responsibility" to not sin, is pulling this passage out of its CONTEXT.
Check out this link more more on the "Dais" of God...
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheDais/TheDais001.html
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 10/26/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Second-
So you are saying that Enoch, Job, Abraham, Rahab, and the rest of those honored in Hebrews 11 have no need for Christ's atoning work, becasue they have done it on their own?
No.
It proves that people can <sometimes> choose good over evil.
It proves that people have the <ability> to "master" sin. Genesis 4
It disproves that people ALWAYS choose sin and NEVER choose obedience.
Even Job, declared blameless and upright by God, looked ahead to the atonement.
Even Abraham, declared righteous by God because of Abraham's mental assent and obedience, looked ahead to the lamb God would supply.
Like Jesus, we all have the ability to choose good and reject evil, it's just that we don't do it continuously like Jesus.
That ability of ours is why God can fairly hold us to a standard and rightly condemn us when we don't.
So why do Hindus stop at stop lights when they're red? 
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 10/26/2004 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Check out this link more more on the "Dais" of God...
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheDais/TheDais001.html
You know, you're ALWAYS referencing this same unitarian site, maybe you should broaden your scope of reading, you know, get a second or third opinion on things. It's the cultish, insular groups that produce cranks with the thousand yard stare.
When their own precious view of scripture contradicts ALL other versions of scripture, the works of hundreds of other Greek and Hebrew scholars, well, time to get out of the kool-ade line....
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/27/2004 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: I wanted Lock to answer my question about his (apparent) belief that we are not morally responsible to God.
Lock: This following link best puts forward my position concerning "responsibility"…
Do me the honor of not making me take the time (being on the road) to read through another website to get your answer. Just give it to me, yes or no. Does God hold humans responsible for their choices/actions?
quote:
Tom: Just came to mind: Rom. 14.11-12
Lock: As one who constantly speaks of CONTEXT, I am surprised you have put this forward. Romans 11 speaks of conduct towards other saints.
As one who cares about context I’m surprised you pay so little attention to the context of Isa 45 which Paul quotes. Granted, Paul’s concern in Rm 14 is the behavior of believers toward one another, but this is certainly not Isaiah’s concern or context. If Paul is even loosely applying Isaiah 45 to believers, then perhaps he applies it to believers precisely because it’s true of everybody. That is, Paul may be arguing FROM what is true generally of all people TO what is true specifically of some people. That the two contexts each have some things unique doesn't mean Paul can't be moving in this direction.
quote:
Lock: The "account" we give is of our work for God AFTER being saved. It will be revealed by fire. If it remains, we will recieve a reward, if it burns up, we are still saved. To apply this to ALL MEN and say it speaks of mankind and his "responsibility" to not sin, is pulling this passage out of its CONTEXT.
I’m not trying to “apply to all men” what is true only of the church. That would be to determine Isaiah’s meaning by Paul, which I’m uncomfortable with hermeneutically. I’d like to move in precisely the opposite direction and apply to the church what is true of all persons.
You’re preaching to the choir in mentioning 1Cor. No doubt God will test the service of believers, trying it by fire. I’m not disputing this.
Don’t go off in replying to what I’ve said until you first answer a simple question: Does God hold humans accountable for their choices/deeds? Yes or no? That humans in general are morally responsible/accountable to God is in my view so thoroughly biblical an idea (Mt 12.36; Ac 17.30f; Rm 3.19; Hb 4.13) I’m finding it really difficult to take you seriously, Lock.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/28/2004 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom-
It is too bad that you cannot take the time to read the link. Here are a few clips that will help answer your question. The key is to see the difference between "responsibility" and God holding us accountable for our actions...
quote:
THERE is an aspect of the theological doctrine of human responsibility, like that of free will, which is a direct contradiction of the deity of God. It denies the great gulf between the Creator and the creature, the Potter and the clay, the mighty Molder and His handiwork. It assumes an independence of God which elevates man while, at the same time, it degrades his Maker. So great is the reverence for this non-scriptural teaching, that it has become the touchstone by which to test truth. If any statement merely seems to ignore or set aside creature responsibility, it is rejected, even if it is clearly stated in the Scriptures. It has become one of the foundation stones of human religion, by means of which God's Word is made of none effect. It should never be confused with accountability.
quote:
No man is "responsible" for being a sinner. He was not consulted before he entered the family of Adam, and he has no means of extricating himself out of the penalty of Adam's sin. His first father sinned without his knowledge or consent, and he is obliged to suffer the consequences, which include the extreme penalty, death. Even his own sins are due to his inherited mortality. So, in reality, he cannot help himself. Here we have an example which should instruct us. Man suffers and dies even though he is not "responsible." And he will be raised and judged for the sins which he committed, even though we might easily prove his irresponsibility. God's judgment is not based on responsibility.
quote:
Responsibility is often confused with light. This is a mistake. The character and penalty of sin varies according to its relationship to God's will, not to man's capacities. A sin against light, such as that contained in the law, brings sin into closer contact with God. A transgression is no longer a mere failure or falling short. It becomes an act definitely directed against God, and as such demands a more severe corrective. And an offense, which wounds God's feelings, is liable to a still greater penalty. Judgment is not according to man's ability (miscalled "responsibility") but to God's revelation. To whom much is given, from him much will be required.
quote:
Before closing, we again earnestly beg the reader not to discard judgment along with responsibility, and thus give free license to sin and lawlessness. The reasoning is false that bases judgment on responsibility. Just as minors, who have not attained to the years of discretion, are, nevertheless, sent to houses of correction for their betterment, so God judges His irresponsible creatures, through our Lord Jesus Christ, for His own glory and their good. We do not allow a child to go without chastisement merely because it is irresponsible. Let us correct our ideas of God's judgment, and all reasoning as to responsibility will vanish. Judgment will be meted out impartially to all unbelievers, according to their acts. The fact that men are not responsible is not an incentive to sin, for it does not remove the judgment, and restores God to the throne of His omnipotence
quote:
To sum up: creature responsibility is a contradiction in terms, and denies the responsibility of the Creator. It is a necessary corollary of the doctrines of everlasting torment or eternal death. Man must be made responsible for such a fiendish fate, or God would be to blame. But once our eyes and hearts are opened to the truth of God's great ultimate, to be All in all, we are not forced to excuse Him by means of a theory, not only unknown to God's revelation, but contrary to its plain assertions, but freely acknowledge our own impotence and irresponsibility, in the glorious light of His revelation, that, because He is operating the universe in accord with the counsel of His own will, He will succeed in His grand purpose of becoming All in all.
Man is not responsibile for how he was created. Whether you believe as I do (that man is hindered by the flesh) and as you do (that there is no hinderance, but we simply choose to disobey) either way we both can agree that God created us that way. God created us with the ability to sin, and we had no choice in the matter. So we are not "responsible" for how we are created. According to God's revelation and light, we are held accountable. God will correct all that man has done wrong and this is for the good of man and God's glory.
When it comes to the context of Isa. 45, I asked, "exactly what state are we in before we are saved?" Are we not unrighteous and wicked? Were our thoughts and ways God's thoughts and ways? Later revelation given by Paul tells us that unless lead by the spirit of God we will never accept God's ways.
quote:
The crucial distinction in Romans 7 is that Paul wished to do that which he knew he ought (the desire to do what is right), but he does not say he willed to do that which was right.
Wish in one hand and poop in the other...
John-
Romans 7:
15 For what I am effecting I know not, for not what I will, this I am putting into practice, but what I am hating, this I am doing.
16 Now if what I am not willing, this I am doing, I am conceding that the law is ideal.
Will=thelo
Definition (Strong's)
to will, have in mind, intend
to be resolved or determined, to purpose
to desire, to wish
to love
to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
to take delight in, have pleasure
King James Word Usage - Total: 210
will/would 159, will/would have 16, desire 13, desirous 3, list 3, to will 2, miscellaneous 4
Thelo is used 7 times in Roman's 7 and even in the KJV it is never rendered wished or desired but will or would.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 10/28/2004 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
THERE is an aspect of the theological doctrine of human responsibility, like that of free will, which is a direct contradiction of the deity of God. It denies the great gulf between the Creator and the creature, the Potter and the clay, the mighty Molder and His handiwork. It assumes an independence of God which elevates man while, at the same time, it degrades his Maker. So great is the reverence for this non-scriptural teaching, that it has become the touchstone by which to test truth. If any statement merely seems to ignore or set aside creature responsibility, it is rejected, even if it is clearly stated in the Scriptures. It has become one of the foundation stones of human religion, by means of which God's Word is made of none effect. It should never be confused with accountability.
Even in this caricature, I see no contradiction.
Good is the opposite of Evil (Evil == ~Good)
God is good (God == Good)
Therefore, God is not Evil (God != Evil)
You say God is good and evil (Good == ~Good), THAT is a contradiction
quote:
No man is "responsible" for being a sinner. He was not consulted before he entered the family of Adam, and he has no means of extricating himself out of the penalty of Adam's sin.
Here's what contradicts this defective statement:
Deuteronomy 24:16, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
"own sin" shows where the responsibility for the creation of the sin lies, with the one who commits the sin.
Ezekial 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
21 "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22 "All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live.
Jeremiah 31:30 "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.
"own iniquity" shows where the responsibility for the creation of the iniquity lies, with the one who commits the iniquity.
Jesus was born into the "family of Adam". He was tempted on all points, just as we are. Same abilities as us, same opportunities as us.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
| 109 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|