Event vrs Process Justification

You have YET to deal with EVEN ONE line of Romans 2 let alone the chapter or all the points raised IN THAT CHAPTER.

That is called "running and hiding" on this board.

Surely you could have brought yourself to address ONE!!

I fully understand that you would RATHER talk about Romans 1 and 3! I get it!

I fully understand that you NEED to avoid the bulk of Romans 2 and "spin it" as IF it ONLY mentined the FAILING cases. (This was ALREADY pointed out in the analysis I gave of Romans 2!!)

So "so far nothing new" in your antics. IN fact my comments in Romans 2 written long before your participation here fully anticipated the antics you are now using! (As can be seen from my introduction to the chapter!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I post Romans 2: 1-11
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000006

You run and hide


I post Romans 2:11-13
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000007

You run and hide.


I post Romans 2:12-16 and 25-26
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000008

You run and hide!!


I post ALL Romans 2:17-29 as a group with comments
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000009

You run and …. .HIDE!

At some point – a “pattern” is noticed!

 

I resonde DIRECTLY to the DETAIL in your OP -- and you do not answer my points.

But you CHOOSE to focus on Romans 2 as if a closer look would help your case!! And would SHOW no Gospel hope in Romans 2!!!

I respond with a FULL disclosure of Romans 2 DETAIL and you "run and hide".

Then you post the next day --

But it is YOU that ran and hid Lloyd!

I directly responded to YOUR OP and even asked you questions about WHICH form of Justification you were referencing as I gave you SEVERAL places to CHOOSE from and pointed out that you would probably want to "run and hide" from the Gospel justification mentioned in Romans 2.

It is YOU that has turned on this and hidden from the direct response method!

How can you simply go on "pretending"??

For my part - since you never answered MY question about WHICH Justification texts you want to avoid or read -- we are LEFT with the same unanswered point!!

How can this continually be a surprise to you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

The scriptures tell us to study and rightly divided the word of truth. It also tells us that precept must be upon precept. Lloyd makes a good point that one should approach the bible as a whole, singling out each specific precept of God's Word and building a solid packaged doctrine. The bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the foundation on which we must build, which means starting with His purpose for coming, dieing and rising again to life. Then build doctrine from there.

It does no good to do an analysis of a single chapter or book from the bible without
1) identifying the precept you are desiring to interpret ( in this case justification and the object thereof)
2) refering to ALL of God's counsel concerning that precept. This is why Matt 18 has you believing in forgiveness revoked. Forgiveness revoked is such a bizzare notion it turns the biblical character of God upside down spinning on His head. No offense, but I would expect a babe in Christ to wrestle with such a parable and not one like yourself who has read enough scripture to know better. The full counsel of God negates any possibility of such an interpretation.

Anyway, one must understand God's justification of the sinner, which is ALL God and NONE sinner in order to rightly divide any part of God's Word.

Thanks for the post Lloyd!

God Bless!

 

Here we go again.

"Believe it or not" I get that part.

I also "get the silly point" that BOTH SIDES can STOP a close review of the Bible - BOTH could "run and hide from Romans 2" and INSTEAD just keep telling the OTHER SIDE that they are not "rightly dividing the word of truth"..

This is not the difficult part of the debate.

Both points I see very clearly!!

But I was hoping for some "substance".

See?

You can not argue that Romans 2 can not be read UNTIL you are first OSAS in doctrinal belief!

In fact you can not argue that ANY scripture that appears to refute OSAS CAN NOT be read until one is FIRST OSAS in bias!!

See?

Justification IS the subject of Romans 2 -- see Romans 2:11-13!! Paul points out the Gospel Justification so CENTRIC to the chapter.

This was ALREADY pointed out in my first comments on Romans 2.

I should hate to think that one can not read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 6 until one FIRST agrees to OSAS!!

In fact I would hate to think that ANY chapter of the Bible could not be read until one first agrees to OSAS!

What has been going on is the post of "reasons" from "bias" why someone does "not LIKE the points SEEN In THE TEXT" in Romans 2 and Matt 18.

But such posts are NOT exegesis not even REMOTELY exegesis.

How is this so difficult "to get"??

I see you not quoting the part of the text THAT SHOWS the debt RETURNING and the FORGIVENESS revoked.

I see you simply SAYING that you don't like the idea!

Don't YOU SEE - that such a response is NOT exegeting Matt 18 even REMOTELY?!!

How can you be satisified with such a response to the inconvenient points of scripture raised against OSAS?!!

I would much rather base my faith and belief in a sound exegetical rendering and ACCEPTANCE of each inconnenient point of the text.


You simply mask your own bias -- calling it "the full counsel of God" and then simply show how this is your basis for rejecting the inconvenient "details avoided" in Matt 18

To put it bluntly. I fully understand how such methods would appeal to the OSAS group and fellow members of it - as they are all challenged by the inconvenient points in each of these ENTIRE CHAPTERS that have been referenced.

That part I get.

What I don't get is how you would expect such subjective and biased methods to be seen as "compelling" outside of that little group.

Also - don't get me wrong about 4 and 5 point Calvinism as described in your comment above. I have no doubt that ONCE you are a Calvinist of that persuasion -- you are fully motivated to ignore the inconvient chapters of scripture that I am pointing out.

I get that!

And of course I am not a Calvinist. So I see how that wrecks your desired starting point for reading (and basically glossing over) Matt 18 and Romans2 and Ezek 18 and ...

But isn't that the very essence of the reason for this discussion area? To explore scripture MORE objectively OUTSIDE the confines of the yes-man club where all share the same bias?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since the "JUSTIFICATION" mentioned in Romans 2;11-13 is so "unnacceptable" to Calvinists and others of the OSAS bias...

(IN fact the OSAS supporters refuse to let this statement on justification be read until one has ANOTHER view of justification other than what Paul presents IN the chapter)

Lets try something else.

Rev 3 --

Here we have the SINNER who is ALONE and APART from UNION with Christ on the INSIDE and Christ on the OUTSIDE knocking.

Here we see the point BEFORE Justification and Christ walks us all the way through to the point FOLLOWING justification.

John 12:32 God DRAWS all of mankind

John 16:8-12 God CONVICTS all the world of sin and righteousness and judgement.

And in Rev 3 Christ STANDS at the door of the heart and knocks.

BUT THEN - the action CHRIST identifies for the one on the INSIDE who is ALONE and without Christ - must take place for UNION (regeneration) to take place.

It is clear.

And Obvious.

And Arminian.

And not OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I will provide my comments on Romans 1 and 3 if that is what is "stopping OSAS" posters from reading and responding to Romans 2.

Just let me know.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's not what I said.

Never said any of this.

Your missing the whole point of my post. One cannot simply disect a parable WITHOUT refering to the full counsel of God.

Such methods? If you do not consider the full counsel of God Bob then you will most always come up with a shakey interpretation of the passage.

Call me what ever you like Bob, but the full counsel of God concludes exactly what I said. Maybe you should step back and study it all together rather than getting yourself hung up on parables and exclusive passages hard to be understood.

Scripture interprets scripture Bob, but you want others to answer your post in the confines of each passage. This is what creates mis-interpretations.

God Bless!

 

See the other thread for Romans 3 - -hope this gets things started for the OSAS group.

 

You are making this too easy Lloyd.

You post factless, textless, scripture-devoid pointless posts and then claim that "soon" you will post something with substance.

Still waiting Lloyd!

I on the other hand have enumerated so many points FROM THE TEXT that you are simply awash in a backlog of UNANSWERED POINTS.

Which means - POINTS THAT REMAIN!

Get it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW Lloyd --

Thank you for pointing out that the information conveyed in the english text BY the TRANSLATORS is correct.

PASSIVE VOICE
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified

ACTIVE VOICE
Luke 16:15; Pres Act Ptcp; You are those who are justifying yourselves before men

There is nothing like having someone pedantically emphasize the rather banal point that the translators know what they are doing and the english is "correct".

I know I for one am always excited to see that same old point made over and over "as if it is news".

Thanks again.

 

Lloyd this may come as a surprise to you but the COMMON ground that you have with me is ONLY the Bible - not your pontificating. I am looking for you to post "substance" not speculation and blind Calvinist assertion.

ANYONE can simply ASSUME the salient points of their argument instead of PROVING them.

Get it?

Yet?

In Christ,

Bob