Featured A Novel Soteriological Explanation in the Calvinism vs Arminianism Debate

Then what did you mean by:

??

 

Theology without biblical warrant is fiction. If this needs explanation, there is nothing I could possibly say.

John 6:29 says faith in Christ is the work (singular) God requires. If this needs explanation, there is nothing I could possibly say.

Theology based on not understanding ambiguous verses is the basis of false doctrine. If this needs explanation, there is nothing I could possibly say.

NLT: Jesus told them, “This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.”

CEV: Jesus answered, "God wants you to have faith in the one he sent."

NET: Jesus replied, "This is the deed God requires--to believe in the one whom he sent."

And here is a portion of the Pulpit Commentary:

Christ's reply really solves the great problem which had long perplexed the schools of Palestine, and often, and even to the present hour, is dividing into two hostile camps the Christian Church. Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God. Observe, not "works," but "work" - the one work which is the germ and the consummation of all the partial workings which are often made substitutes for it. There is "one work" which God would have man do.​

 

John 6:29 is not ambiguous. Explicitly to believe in Christ.is God's work, not the person who believes work.

 

You are claiming this. Is not what it says or means.

 

Absurd nonsense.

 

Did you not comprehend all the folks that say this based on my post. I am not claiming this: I am saying the mainstream understand of John 6:29 is that the work we are required to do is believe in the One God sent.

Barnes Commentary: This is the work of God - This is the thing that will be acceptable to God, or which you are to do in order to be saved.

Clark's Commentary: This is the work of God, that ye believe - There is nothing you can be employed in more acceptable to God than in yielding to the evidence set before you, and acknowledging me as your Messiah and the Savior of a lost world.

 

What you are saying is wrong.

 

The work to.believe in the one God sent is God's work. It does not say it to be the believer's work.

 

Still not addressing the topic.

 

Sorry, sir but your view is the minority view. And based on the misunderstanding of John 6:29 some cite it in support of the bogus total spiritual inability view. But actually it plainly supports the limited spiritual ability view. We are to believe the gospel!!!

 

John 6:29 means what it says. Belief in the one God sent is God's work.

 

Your view is not bolstered by saying "work of God" means God does the work, when Dr. Wallace says it means the work God requires of us.

 

Do you see how the house of cards is built, one false view being supported by another false view. John 6:29 cannot mean the work God requires the fallen to do, because of the doctrine of "total spiritual inability." Therefore it means the work God does. I kid you not.

 

I never quite understood all the controversy.
God in his own power sometimes chooses to limit his own power - such as to experience delightful surprise at finding out the names Adam would give to the animals.
God in his own power sometimes chooses to experience time and outcome and emotion - such as when he repents of creating man.
However, God never repents or changes his mind about any outcome guaranteed by his word.

So, sometimes he limits himself, and sometimes he doesn't.
What's the big deal? Where's the difficulty?

 

It doesn't matter between "image" and "likeness". You can use either one, since God used both:

[Gen 1:26 KJV] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Either one could include (and does, as you've agreed already) emotions.

And thank you for pointing out that your theology is in a completely different language from the one we are using to communicate in this forum. "Archangel" indeed! What kind of messenger are you if you can't speak the language of those you are trying to give a message to?

This sentence was not in existence two minutes ago. (see? no waiting required!)

Again, "basic theology" is worthless (actually worse than worthless--it's harmful) if it isn't supported by scripture. Your presupposition is that God "can't regret" while viewing a verse that says He does sometimes. If the "warp and woof" of scripture means you get to poor alien meanings into words, that only you and a select few get to define, you have just removed the truth of the bible from the common man and hidden it in the hands of a priestly class that now can tell the population what to do and think and how to worship God according to your own whims.

If God is really all about "hate", but He says in His word that He is "Love", how are we going to believe Him? If He tells us He regrets something, but really it means that He doesn't ever regret anything, how are we going to believe Him when He says, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."? Wouldn't it follow that He really means, "God doesn't love the world", and "He didn't give His only begotten Son", and "only the people God chose--certainly not 'whosoever'--from the foundation of the world are going to have everlasting life"

Let's try it this way. If "God never regrets" is plain through the warp and woof of scripture, then you should be able to find a verse or two that says "God never regrets". Since you have already pointed out that there are scriptures that say "God regrets" you have your work cut out for you. Please let's resume this conversation when you find one or two.

 

Faith in whom God sent is required. It is God's work, not the work of the one who trusts. Trusting in one's work for God's work is not doing God's will. See Matthew 7:21-23.

 

You know you are replying to a thread where I already posted one possibility for God being 'surprised' by what others have done, right? And you are providing examples here where God is doing something Himself, right (like observing and understanding how He was going to form David in the womb or that he can observe David's thoughts before he speaks them)? And are you really going to insist that God has to surprise Himself (i.e., not even know what He Himself was going to do) in order for Him to be able to experience "surprise"? Usually one has to get the strawman to stand up before one can knock him down.

Here's the definition of "surprise" from your citation that I think fits the best: "a completely unexpected occurrence, appearance, or statement:His announcement was a surprise to all." You'll notice that it uses the third person (God is unlikely to surprise Himself). So if God clears and plants a vineyard and walls it in for protection and waters and tends it, and God is a good vinedresser (which I think we both would agree with), isn't it a surprise when God, the best gardener around, can't get good grapes to grow? Is it a surprise to God? Maybe. The text seems to suggest it, though the actual word wasn't used.

That's kind of like God, after creating the earth, saying, "yuck, what a terrible job I did." Why would He be surprised or disgusted by what He Himself did? The idea here is that God is not the only agent in the world now. Men have the ability to do great and not so great things. So a man might be able to surprise God. "Surprise" as an emotion of God isn't a hill I would feel compelled to die on, but I don't think it's outside of the possibilities. "Disgust" is another one. I don't think God could disgust Himself, yet God calls some things "abomination", which shows His disgust.

And you certainly haven't swayed me in your direction by claiming your presuppositions are more to be trusted than God's actual word.

 

"Derf B,

I tried to offer you scripture, but you are unable to understand what was being offered.
Psalm 139 shows God is aware of every aspect of life, who we are, our thoughts, our vocations....and yet you suggest An All knowing God does not know everything, but can be surprised...Are you that unlearned?
You quote isa 5 without understanding as Jesus already interprets it for us, mt 21...

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

You are not speaking of the same God I am. Your cavalier attitude borders on profane speech. If you decide to get serious,let us all know.
Do not waste my time with your foolish speculation and smug attitude.

 

We as sinners had no inherit faith to do that what God intended, so he gave to us "saving faith"

 

Remember that you are trying to explain them to me. If I'm unable to understand what does that say about your ability to explain?

But you offered me scripture that not just DIDN'T apply, but COULDN'T apply, for the reasons I gave, which you didn't seem to have an answer for.

Psalm 139 speaks eloquently about the Lord knowing 1. the things that are, and 2. the things that He is doing. If it helps, here's the first verse:
[Psa 139:1 KJV] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known [me].
Can God search and know David before he exists? No! the very start of the chapter explains that God knows "David" personally. That He actively sought to know David ("searched")--it wasn't some automatic knowledge, but an active seeking for knowledge about David. The rest of the psalm is an explanation of that first line. There are parts where David talks about when he was in the womb. God knew him even then, and was working to make him whole and healthy.

Does an all-knowing God know things that aren't? Does He know the thoughts of someone who doesn't exist? Did God know your thoughts 100 years ago, before you were alive to think any thoughts? What about 500 years ago, or 5000 years ago? Did your thoughts exist before you did? If so, then they aren't your thoughts. If God created you with thoughts that had been around from before "the heavens and the earth and all that in them is" was created, then they aren't your thoughts, they are His thoughts. Yet He says:
[Isa 55:8 KJV] For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[Isa 55:9 KJV] For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Our thoughts are our own, and we must take responsibility for them, rather than blaming the Lord for them.

Did Jesus say He was explaining Is 5 in Matt 21? They don't even sound the same. Is 5 talks about the vines (the people) producing bad grapes. Mt 21 talks about the husbandmen (the leaders of the people) not treating the vineyard owner or His prophets or His son with the honor due Him. These are different messages.

If I'm speaking of the God of the bible, who revealed Himself through His word and He's not the same God you are speaking of, just who are you speaking of?? By "get serious", you mean start agreeing with you and worshipping a god that is not the God of the bible??

Listen, if you don't have anything to refute what I'm saying, that's fine. And if you feel the need to insult me, that's fine, too, but don't be leading people to worship a god that is not the God who has revealed Himself in the bible. And I'm serious about that!