Verses Freebirds ignore or misunderstand when reading their Bibles.

[The Rogue Tomato]

So then effectively we ought to read the verse to say "work out your own salvation, because God is working it out in you", and somehow that helps the monergistic argument, how exactly?  That's either blatant gobbledygook, or it means what it says, that we are to cooperate as God works (as the first cause) in us that have a spirit which is now alive and able to respond to God's grace.

If it means what "it says" (what you think it means), then it IS gobbledygook.  It doesn't say anything about cooperation.  It says God works in you TO WILL AND TO DO.  What you will and what you do is a result of God's work.  And if it is God's work, then why fear and tremble?  Obviously, the reference to "fear and trembling" doesn't mean what you think it means.

It is a message to people who think they can work out their salvation by the acts of their own will.  Do that with fear and trembling, because you've got it wrong.  It is God who works in you to will and to do according to HIS good pleasure.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You first brought up porn (in the form of "torture porn"), Bo followed up, then I said I could not in good conscience watch porn, a comment you turned into an attack...

I clarified that to him before you ever responded to it by saying that it had nothing to do with sexual porn.  You then came in and attempted to muddy the waters by saying that sexual porn could be viewed with liberty.  Clearly the context to that point was not about sociological or academic research, but rather using one's liberty to do things in the presence of a weaker brother that would cause him/her to stumble.  Your obfuscsation was clearly off-topic, as others pointed out (as you went "dancing").  To pretend otherwise is clearly to live in, well, delusion.  More to the point, this is the sort of disingenuous misdirection that cheapens your arguments and turns them into sophistry, undermining your credibility.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Okay, let's pick a sin -- adultery. 

Please explain the synergy.  What does the Spirit do, and what does the believer do to be faithful instead of committing adultery? 

Be specific.  "The believer cooperates" is not specific.  The believer does what exactly in order to cooperate?  The Spirit does what?

The believer, by faith, exercises his will regarding the grace that God extends in his spirit via the Holy Spirit through the written or spoken word.  So the Holy Spirit is the active agent to enable our spirit when it hears the word to inform our intellect and motivate our will.

By the way, I think that some of what separates us is likely semantics.  This quote (closer to what you undoubtedly believe about the human contribution to sanctification) is pretty close to my opinion on the matter....

It is imperative that we realize our complete dependence upon the Holy Spirit. We must not forget, of course, that our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent in the process of sanctification. But we must not rely upon our own strength of resolution or purpose. It is when we are weak that we are strong. It is by grace that we are being saved as surely as by grace we have been saved. If we are not keenly sensitive to our own helplessness, then we can make the means of sanctification the minister of self-righteousness and pride and thus defeat the end of sanctification. We must rely not upon the means of sanctification but upon the God of all grace. Self-confident moralism promotes pride, and sanctification promotes humility and contrition (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 147).

 

[ALAYMAN]

So then effectively we ought to read the verse to say "work out your own salvation, because God is working it out in you", and somehow that helps the monergistic argument, how exactly?  That's either blatant gobbledygook, or it means what it says, that we are to cooperate as God works (as the first cause) in us that have a spirit which is now alive and able to respond to God's grace.

If it means what "it says" (what you think it means), then it IS gobbledygook.  It doesn't say anything about cooperation.  It says God works in you TO WILL AND TO DO.  What you will and what you do is a result of God's work.  And if it is God's work, then why fear and tremble?  Obviously, the reference to "fear and trembling" doesn't mean what you think it means.

It is a message to people who think they can work out their salvation by the acts of their own will.  Do that with fear and trembling, because you've got it wrong.  It is God who works in you to will and to do according to HIS good pleasure.

Why does the Scriptures inform the believer to "work out your salvation" instead of just leaving it at "God is at work to do these things in you"?  The "work" admonished in this verse means what it says, as indicated in Strongs...

G2716
?????????????
katergazomai
kat-er-gad'-zom-ahee
From G2596 and G2038; to work fully, that is, accomplish; by implication to finish, fashion: - cause, do (deed), perform, work (out).

 

[ALAYMAN]

bump for the RecoveringIFB who wanted "specifics" but seems short on answers to those specifics.

Then vs. 13 says " for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
I'm sorry; who's at work in you? I wasn't paying attention, musta' been the bourbon.....

Well, since TRT has elected not to respond to my query (there seems to be a trend here amongst you Freebirds ) I suppose you'll have to do.

Three things:

1)  When you phrase your responses to me with contempt, derision, and condescension, what kind of rebuttal do you think you invite?

2) Is your hermeneutical apparatus for deciding how to interpret apparently contradictory theological concepts based on counting which one has more verses?

3) Being a Calvinist as you are, do you realize that within your own (reformed) camp that many fully certified Tulip-sniffers (like Sproul, Berkhoff, Hodge, etc) describe sanctification as synergistic?

Please make an honest attempt at answering each of these simple questions, unlike your last effort at "respectful dialogue".

 

[rsc2a]

You first brought up porn (in the form of "torture porn"), Bo followed up, then I said I could not in good conscience watch porn, a comment you turned into an attack...

I clarified that to him before you ever responded to it by saying that it had nothing to do with sexual porn.  You then came in and attempted to muddy the waters by saying that sexual porn could be viewed with liberty.  Clearly the context to that point was not about sociological or academic research, but rather using one's liberty to do things in the presence of a weaker brother that would cause him/her to stumble.  Your obfuscsation was clearly off-topic, as others pointed out (as you went "dancing").  To pretend otherwise is clearly to live in, well, delusion.  More to the point, this is the sort of disingenuous misdirection that cheapens your arguments and turns them into sophistry, undermining your credibility.

So let's see...you claimed that I "responded with the "porn distraction"". Since I was responding to points that you and others made, your insinuation that I brought up the distraction was a falsehood. (aka: you lied).

My immediate response after your ignorant personal attack (ignorant because unless you have somehow gained the ability to read minds, you could not and cannot speak for what I am thinking), I stated:

Not necessarily because there is still the problem with the type of industry you are supporting with your viewing, and the support of that industry would be facilitating the spread of evil. But I'm not going to say there is never an appropriate occasion for viewing porn. The world is a lot bigger than just the situations you and I are aware of.

In fact, the two particular cases I was thinking about were both research and education, points I later brought up. No where did I state (or even think) that viewing porn for lustful reasons would be appropriate. But, in your magical ability to (incorrectly) read minds, you decided to assume my position for me then attack me for it.  Perhaps I should respond in kind and ask why you are such a strong supporter of bestiality?

 

[ALAYMAN]

So let's see...you claimed that I "responded with the "porn distraction"". Since I was responding to points that you and others made, your insinuation that I brought up the distraction was a falsehood. (aka: you lied). ..

Nope, the topic of "torture porn" is categorically different than that of sexual porn, which YOU introduced to the topic, and in doing so you were coy about your intent in introducing that element.  It is simple obfuscation, which you were called on.  Go ahead and deny it, but I'm done with it.  Have the last word, as my efforts and energies are more concerned with subject matter more on topic, with less pedantic rabbit trails.

 

[rsc2a]

So let's see...you claimed that I "responded with the "porn distraction"". Since I was responding to points that you and others made, your insinuation that I brought up the distraction was a falsehood. (aka: you lied). ..

Nope, the topic of "torture porn" is categorically different than that of sexual porn, which YOU introduced to the topic, and in doing so you were coy about your intent in introducing that element.  It is simple obfuscation, which you were called on.  Go ahead and deny it, but I'm done with it.  Have the last word, as my efforts and energies are more concerned with subject matter more on topic, with less pedantic rabbit trails.

Which BO introduced.

So what in particular makes you a supporter of bestiality?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So then effectively we ought to read the verse to say "work out your own salvation, because God is working it out in you", and somehow that helps the monergistic argument, how exactly?  That's either blatant gobbledygook, or it means what it says, that we are to cooperate as God works (as the first cause) in us that have a spirit which is now alive and able to respond to God's grace.

If it means what "it says" (what you think it means), then it IS gobbledygook.  It doesn't say anything about cooperation.  It says God works in you TO WILL AND TO DO.  What you will and what you do is a result of God's work.  And if it is God's work, then why fear and tremble?  Obviously, the reference to "fear and trembling" doesn't mean what you think it means.

It is a message to people who think they can work out their salvation by the acts of their own will.  Do that with fear and trembling, because you've got it wrong.  It is God who works in you to will and to do according to HIS good pleasure.

Why does the Scriptures inform the believer to "work out your salvation" instead of just leaving it at "God is at work to do these things in you"?  The "work" admonished in this verse means what it says, as indicated in Strongs...

G2716
?????????????
katergazomai
kat-er-gad'-zom-ahee
From G2596 and G2038; to work fully, that is, accomplish; by implication to finish, fashion: - cause, do (deed), perform, work (out).

katergazomai: to work out
Original Word: ????????????
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katergazomai
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-er-gad'-zom-ahee)
Short Definition: I work out, produce, accomplish
Definition: I effect by labor, achieve, work out, bring about.

This fits exactly with my interpretation.  Effect by labor, achieve, or bring about your own salvation with fear and trembling, because that's not how it works.  It is God, not you, who works in you to will and to do according to his good pleasure.  Do you really think you can achieve or bring about your own salvation?  And the term "your own" is important here.

Even the definition "finish" directly contradicts other clear scripture.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It is imperative that we realize our complete dependence upon the Holy Spirit. We must not forget, of course, that our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent in the process of sanctification. But we must not rely upon our own strength of resolution or purpose. It is when we are weak that we are strong. It is by grace that we are being saved as surely as by grace we have been saved. If we are not keenly sensitive to our own helplessness, then we can make the means of sanctification the minister of self-righteousness and pride and thus defeat the end of sanctification. We must rely not upon the means of sanctification but upon the God of all grace. Self-confident moralism promotes pride, and sanctification promotes humility and contrition (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 147).

"...our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent" does not answer my question.  What activity? 

"If we are not keenly sensitive to our own helplessness, then we can make the means of sanctification..."  Okay, then what is the means of sanctification?  Our activity?  What activity?  The question remains unanswered. 

The believer, by faith, exercises his will regarding the grace that God extends in his spirit via the Holy Spirit through the written or spoken word.  So the Holy Spirit is the active agent to enable our spirit when it hears the word to inform our intellect and motivate our will.

But that's not what the scripture says.  Let me illustrate by an example:

Have you ever heard a miraculous testimony of an alcoholic or drug-addict?  What do they say?  "The Spirit motivated me to work at giving up alcohol/drugs, so I worked hard at resisting the temptation until I was able to be free of my addiction?" 

No, they say "The Lord took away my addiction."  That's another way of saying, "The Lord changed me, and the result is that I'm no longer an alcoholic or drug addict." 

Now, I realize that not all alcoholics or drug addicts are miraculously freed from their addictions.  But this is an illustration of where the horse and cart belong.  God changes us, and our behavior changes as a result.  That's God working in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

 

[ALAYMAN]

"...our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent" does not answer my question.  What activity? 

Substitute any act of obedience to the will of God you'd like and it would be an appropriate answer.  Obedience to the command of Christ is our duty (our part) and it occurs by the understanding that is given to us by the Grace of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Our (spirit's) part is to yield/submit via faith to Christ actively living in and through us ("walking in the Spirit").  So when a drunk/druggie trusts Christ in that moment of temptation to give them the strength, they avoid the sin of intoxication by relying upon Him in them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled program...



Heb 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"...our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent" does not answer my question.  What activity? 

Substitute any act of obedience to the will of God you'd like and it would be an appropriate answer.  Obedience to the command of Christ is our duty (our part) and it occurs by the understanding that is given to us by the Grace of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Our (spirit's) part is to yield/submit via faith to Christ actively living in and through us ("walking in the Spirit").  So when a drunk/druggie trusts Christ in that moment of temptation to give them the strength, they avoid the sin of intoxication by relying upon Him in them.

I can see you still don't get it.  And I have a feeling you never will, this side of heaven.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I can see you still don't get it.  And I have a feeling you never will, this side of heaven.

<at least> Three distinct possibilities exist. 

1) I don't get it, whatever "it" is.  But I promise you that it's not because I am willingly obstinate, but that I am unconvinced by whatever argument that you think you've made.  As a good fundy I know that it is easy to quit on dialogue and write people off rather than attempt to use patient discussion to try to persuade them.  It seems that you have chosen that same fundy route in our discussion.

2) You are unwilling to concede the common ground we may have, and focus on differences that are insignificant.

3) Given the preponderance of staunch Calvinists who likewise believe that there is a synergistic element in sanctification I would say it is possible that it is you who won't see "it" until heaven, not because there isn't some truth in it, but rather because you have a view of God's sovereignty that won't allow you to place any good whatsoever with humanity, even though Scripture on balance speaks in such terms as it relates to our own duty to obey after we are quickened.

 

[ALAYMAN]

but then........ who actually has that "rule" at any given time is the big question........ there are times when it is very clear who that is... and just exactly what the limits of that rule are......... there are other times when it not so clear......... and in the case of someone pretending to rule or assuming an authority they do not... or no longer.. have a right to exercise.............. are we still obligated to submit to them just because we might have had an obligation to before?......... can a person who once had legitimate right to rule be suddenly disqualified?....... and who has the right to determine that he is no longer qualified?...........

if that authority is determined to be corrupt or in violation of law themselves.... to reject the attempts of that would be ruler to control them and throw it off altogether?........

or is that scripture intended to be a blanket and arbitrary command telling christians to obey any and all authority at all times, no matter what the circumstances?........... 

That's an easy one and a hard one at the same time.   No, all authority is not legitimate authority to be obeyed, as evidenced when Peter said that we ought to obey God rather than men.  The types of situations that arise to pose challenges to our conscience are no small matters, and we certainly could tackle that topic in another thread, but by and large, what I am getting at by citing that passage, is those that have a radical view of autonomy that does not fit with the notion found in Scripture that we are to place ourselves under the authority of the God-given institutions that rightly look after our souls.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I can see you still don't get it.  And I have a feeling you never will, this side of heaven.

<at least> Three distinct possibilities exist. 

1) I don't get it, whatever "it" is.  But I promise you that it's not because I am willingly obstinate, but that I am unconvinced by whatever argument that you think you've made.  As a good fundy I know that it is easy to quit on dialogue and write people off rather than attempt to use patient discussion to try to persuade them.  It seems that you have chosen that same fundy route in our discussion.

2) You are unwilling to concede the common ground we may have, and focus on differences that are insignificant.

3) Given the preponderance of staunch Calvinists who likewise believe that there is a synergistic element in sanctification I would say it is possible that it is you who won't see "it" until heaven, not because there isn't some truth in it, but rather because you have a view of God's sovereignty that won't allow you to place any good whatsoever with humanity, even though Scripture on balance speaks in such terms as it relates to our own duty to obey after we are quickened.

Ezekial 36:26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

the only way we are able to obey,(which I believe you are confusing in your synergistic view with you working with God)is through God's mercy and grace.
As I tell PY/Cu in our Cal/Arm debates; it's all God all the time,....

 

[subllibrm]

<snip>

I stated:

Not necessarily because there is still the problem with the type of industry you are supporting with your viewing, and the support of that industry would be facilitating the spread of evil. But I'm not going to say there is never an appropriate occasion for viewing porn. The world is a lot bigger than just the situations you and I are aware of.

In fact, the two particular cases I was thinking about were both research and education, points I later brought up. No where did I state (or even think) that viewing porn for lustful reasons would be appropriate. But, in your magical ability to (incorrectly) read minds, you decided to assume my position for me then attack me for it.  Perhaps I should respond in kind and ask why you are such a strong supporter of bestiality?

Weird thing is, I took your first post exactly the same way as did Aman. It wasn't until you were asked specifically that you added in the "conditions" that you were thinking of.

Could have saved a lot of cyber space had you declared your full point from the get go.

 

[rsc2a]

Could have saved a lot of cyberspace is people had asked for examples instead of assuming things.

 

[subllibrm]

Could have saved a lot of cyberspace is people had asked for examples instead of assuming things.

Um, we did.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes, after the attacks.

And I provided them.