Verses Freebirds ignore or misunderstand when reading their Bibles.

[subllibrm]

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.

I tried to talk to a fundy guy on a church website and he claimed a scriptural command to quit talking to me because I wouldn't bow to his position. Interesting that it never occurred to him that he may have been the one who need to bend.

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

It may be significant to him.

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.

Isn't the basic definition of synergism that both are at work?  ???

If it is both (and I believe it is) then who gets the credit for the work? This to me is really the rub for those who struggle with Calvinistic concepts of sovereignty. I chose to follow Christ but I get no credit for doing so because He did it in me. I obey because it is commanded and expected of me as a child of the King but I get no credit because He did it in me.

This is a distinction that is worth disagreeing on.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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.

I'm sorry, I overlooked this response yesterday, so I am just now answering you.  The sense in which the words "fear and trembling" are used is that of sober respect and attendance to the duties expected of us by God, to be done in humility.  I've never heard anyone try to insinuate that in this verse Paul is telling the believers to not attempt a works salvation.  Can you point me to any other translation or commentary that implies this interpretation?

 

[ALAYMAN]

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,....

Are we robots?

By the by, care to quit evading my (3) questions?  Or don't you know how to respond?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I tried to talk to a fundy guy on a church website and he claimed a scriptural command to quit talking to me because I wouldn't bow to his position. Interesting that it never occurred to him that he may have been the one who need to bend.

lol, that sort of position isn't dialogue, but monologue.  No iron sharpening going on there.

 

Isn't the basic definition of synergism that both are at work?  ???

Yes, but in what sense are they at work, and is the human effort somehow meritorious?  The answer to that is the crux of our disagreement.

If it is both (and I believe it is) then who gets the credit for the work? This to me is really the rub for those who struggle with Calvinistic concepts of sovereignty. I chose to follow Christ but I get no credit for doing so because He did it in me. I obey because it is commanded and expected of me as a child of the King but I get no credit because He did it in me.

This is a distinction that is worth disagreeing on.

Is there somewhere that I have written something that has given the impression that the born-again human being who cooperates with God in salvation is getting the credit (glory) for the work?

 

[subllibrm]

I tried to talk to a fundy guy on a church website and he claimed a scriptural command to quit talking to me because I wouldn't bow to his position. Interesting that it never occurred to him that he may have been the one who need to bend.

lol, that sort of position isn't dialogue, but monologue.  No iron sharpening going on there.

 

Isn't the basic definition of synergism that both are at work?  ???

Yes, but in what sense are they at work, and is the human effort somehow meritorious?  The answer to that is the crux of our disagreement.

If it is both (and I believe it is) then who gets the credit for the work? This to me is really the rub for those who struggle with Calvinistic concepts of sovereignty. I chose to follow Christ but I get no credit for doing so because He did it in me. I obey because it is commanded and expected of me as a child of the King but I get no credit because He did it in me.

This is a distinction that is worth disagreeing on.

Is there somewhere that I have written something that has given the impression that the born-again human being who cooperates with God in salvation is getting the credit (glory) for the work?

Nope. This is just me speaking for how I see synergism working.

 

[Recovering IFB]

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,....

Are we robots?

By the by, care to quit evading my (3) questions?  Or don't you know how to respond?

We're not robots, God creates us as new creatures. What's so hard to understand?
Without  going back and reading pat posts, why three questions?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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.

I'm sorry, I overlooked this response yesterday, so I am just now answering you.  The sense in which the words "fear and trembling" are used is that of sober respect and attendance to the duties expected of us by God, to be done in humility.  I've never heard anyone try to insinuate that in this verse Paul is telling the believers to not attempt a works salvation.  Can you point me to any other translation or commentary that implies this interpretation?

Original Word: ?????, ??, ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: phobos
Phonetic Spelling: (fob'-os)
Short Definition: fear, terror, reverence
Definition: (a) fear, terror, alarm, (b) the object or cause of fear, (c) reverence, respect.

While one minor interpretation of "fear" (phobos, from which "phobia" comes) could be "reverence" in the proper context, there's no variation of "trembling" that means reverence, which makes it impossible for that to be the context here. 

So "fear and trembling" means exactly that -- a trembling, quaking, fear.

Original Word: ??????, ??, ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: tromos
Phonetic Spelling: (trom'-os)
Short Definition: a trembling
Definition: a trembling, quaking, fear.

So your interpretation is not only wrong, it directly contradicts other scripture: 

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear [phobos], but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ?Abba, Father.?

 

[ALAYMAN]

We're not robots, God creates us as new creatures. What's so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand that our spirit was dead, incapable of doing anything at all good, but now that it has been quickened (made alive) it is capable of responding/cooperating with the Spirit.  You're right, it's not hard to understand.  Glad to see you're making progress.

Without  going back and reading pat posts, why three questions?

Those three question show how your approach to discussion is bankrupt, which is why you didn't answer them.  It's ironic that a guy who incessantly demanded a response to his petty quibbling wouldn't reciprocate with answers to more substantive discussion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Original Word: ?????, ??, ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: phobos
Phonetic Spelling: (fob'-os)
Short Definition: fear, terror, reverence
Definition: (a) fear, terror, alarm, (b) the object or cause of fear, (c) reverence, respect.

While one minor interpretation of "fear" (phobos, from which "phobia" comes) could be "reverence" in the proper context, there's no variation of "trembling" that means reverence, which makes it impossible for that to be the context here. 

So "fear and trembling" means exactly that -- a trembling, quaking, fear.

Original Word: ??????, ??, ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: tromos
Phonetic Spelling: (trom'-os)
Short Definition: a trembling
Definition: a trembling, quaking, fear.

So your interpretation is not only wrong, it directly contradicts other scripture: 

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear [phobos], but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ?Abba, Father.?

2 Cor 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

This same expression (fear and trembling) is used elsewhere in the sense that I have given.  By claiming Rom 8:14 as a prooftext  against "fear=reverence " you are making the word of God contradict itself.

And once again,  could you cite any reputable commentary or translation that interprets the Phil 2:12 passage in the manner you have?

 

[Recovering IFB]

Those three question show how your approach to discussion is bankrupt, which is why you didn't answer them.  It's ironic that I guy who incessantly demanded a response to his petty quibbling wouldn't reciprocate with answers to more substantive discussion.

Oh ok, this is what you mean by "mutually respectful" conversations, got it!!
I asked a question and this is your response?,
Now I'll give you an opportunity to redeem yourself, what three questions were you speaking of?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Those three question show how your approach to discussion is bankrupt, which is why you didn't answer them.  It's ironic that I guy who incessantly demanded a response to his petty quibbling wouldn't reciprocate with answers to more substantive discussion.

Oh ok, this is what you mean by "mutually respectful" conversations, got it!!
I asked a question and this is your response?,
Now I'll give you an opportunity to redeem yourself, what three questions were you speaking of?

The first thing I'd like to know is why you think a spirit that has been quickened, made alive, is incapable of responding to God's Spirit?  This is standard theology, and nothing that a Calvinist is afraid to answer.  Your answer to this might reveal why we talk past each other.

The three questions were....

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/verses-freebirds-ignore-or-misunderstand-when-reading-their-bibles/msg131818/#msg131818
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".

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

2 Cor 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

This same expression (fear and trembling) is used elsewhere in the sense that I have given.  By claiming Rom 8:14 as a prooftext  against "fear=reverence " you are making the word of God contradict itself.

No, that's an entirely different context for that phrase.  They met Titus with fear and trembling because they were engaged in such outrageous behavior and were shamed into sorrow.  They weren't working out their salvation.  They were being confronted about screwing their father's wives, etc. 

The context of Rom 8:14 is the same as the context of Philippians 2:12-13:  GOD. 

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear [phobos], but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ?Abba, Father.?

And once again,  could you cite any reputable commentary or translation that interprets the Phil 2:12 passage in the manner you have?

I don't read commentary anymore because I've found too much "reputable" commentary that is clearly in error, so I don't know what people are saying about this passage.  The Spirit and the Bible are sufficient for me. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

2 Cor 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

This same expression (fear and trembling) is used elsewhere in the sense that I have given.  By claiming Rom 8:14 as a prooftext  against "fear=reverence " you are making the word of God contradict itself.

No, that's an entirely different context for that phrase.  They met Titus with fear and trembling because they were engaged in such outrageous behavior and were shamed into sorrow.  They weren't working out their salvation.  They were being confronted about screwing their father's wives, etc. 

The context of Rom 8:14 is the same as the context of Philippians 2:12-13:  GOD. 

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear [phobos], but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ?Abba, Father.?

And once again,  could you cite any reputable commentary or translation that interprets the Phil 2:12 passage in the manner you have?

I don't read commentary anymore because I've found too much "reputable" commentary that is clearly in error, so I don't know what people are saying about this passage.  The Spirit and the Bible are sufficient for me.

Paul uses that phrase multiple times, and the way in which it is used is never in a manner as you suggest.  To import your interpretation into the Corinthian text means that God does indeed give a spirit of fear (towards men).  This is an incorrect interpretation of the text in I Cor 7:15, and it is further disproven as we look at his usage in Eph 6:5, which states...

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

The phrase clearly is used by Paul in a positive, not negative sense. The same concept is used throughout the OT as well in phrases like "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".  The Ephesian usage is also within the context of our attitude/countenance towards God as well as man.  This phrase ("fear and trembling") is used in this manner similarly in Phil 2:12 because Paul's admonition to them is rooted in Christ's humility (vv1-8) and to continue in obedience (a positive admonition found within the text of verse 12 itself).  There's no sense of shaming or chiding in this letter to the Philippians, but one of love and encouragement. 

Regarding your interpretation based on the Bible and the Spirit, that is a laudable attitude, but is fraught with potential pitfalls.  As has been said before by wise saints of the church, we stand on the shoulders of giants.  While there is room for disagreement and latitude on certain doctrinal nuances of matters non-essential, when there is a preponderance of exegetical analysis yielding a nearly  overwhelmingly identical interpretation of a text it is a bit foolish to claim that we alone have found the true meaning of a text.  Such is the makings of cults.  And I promise I'm not trying to tweek you here, but it  also smacks of  that radical sense of autonomy that leads to isolating one's self from authorities within the spiritual body, which are given providentially to look out for your soul.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm getting tired of going 'round and 'round on this, but one more reply.

The phrase clearly is used by Paul in a positive, not negative sense. The same concept is used throughout the OT as well in phrases like "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".  The Ephesian usage is also within the context of our attitude/countenance towards God as well as man.  This phrase ("fear and trembling") is used in this manner similarly in Phil 2:12 because Paul's admonition to them is rooted in Christ's humility (vv1-8) and to continue in obedience (a positive admonition found within the text of verse 12 itself).  There's no sense of shaming or chiding in this letter to the Philippians, but one of love and encouragement. 

That's exactly my point.  That's why Phil 2 is not comparable to 2 Cor 7. 

And Eph 6:5 talks about servitude to your fleshly master, with whom you have no salvation or guarantee of love, and no adoption as a son.  Your fleshly master could beat you into submission if you did otherwise.

And, yes, the fear of God is the BEGINNING of wisdom.  It's what makes you realize you are in danger of hell fire, and need forgiveness. 

But once you are forgiven, you enter into this:  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear [phobos], but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ?Abba, Father.?

You're just searching for the phrase "fear and trembling" and trying to make it fit Philippians 2.  Philippians 2 is a unique usage of "fear and trembling". It associated with "work out your own salvation", and it states that the REASON you should be working out your own salvation with fear and trembling is because it's God doing the work.  That makes absolutely no sense.  But my interpretation makes perfect sense. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm getting tired of going 'round and 'round on this, but one more reply.

I assume that means our conversation on this is over, so I'll make this summary post and leave it alone.

And Eph 6:5 talks about servitude to your fleshly master, with whom you have no salvation or guarantee of love, and no adoption as a son.  Your fleshly master could beat you into submission if you did otherwise.

Eph 6:5 uses the link of "as"(unto Christ) to show that we ought to serve God with the same dread of displeasing Him (moreso) than we do of fleshly masters.  The point of this (and other) use of the proverbial phrase "fear and trembling" is that we ought to have a sober view of our duties before Christ.  This notion is nearly universally understood of the phrase "fear and trembling" by commentators, not only in Eph 6:5 but Phil 2:12 and the others.  It's simply indisputable from the context that the phrase is used favorably as an exhortation to do our rightful part in pursuing righteousness.  That pursuit is commonly known in the Christian's journey as sanctification (for our part of striving, enabled by God's grace and power via the Spirit through faith).  Having said that, whether you agree or not, MANY staunch Calvinists understand this same synergistic approach to sanctification.  Getting back to the point of the thread, the pursuit of holiness means that we don't just act as apathetic robots in the process, but we passionately strive to bring ourselves into line with the will of God.

 

[prophet]

Looks like you'll never have to limit your liberty around ALAYMAN then!

Nope.  However much LAMER might take offense, I'm not giving offense in the way Paul is actually concerned with.

Right.

Ex: As far as my Arab associates go, they think me to believe absolute abstinence from alcohol.

Why? They would stumbled as I tried to lead them through the vestibule.

I don't believe that the Scriptures forbid alcohol, in either Testament, but I would never discuss that with them.
They admire my family, and beliefs, and observe me to be "good" according to Orthodoxy in Jerusalem.

So, I have good reason to not practice Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Etc, In front of them.



Earnestly Contend

 

[ALAYMAN]

Looks like you'll never have to limit your liberty around ALAYMAN then!

Nope.  However much LAMER might take offense, I'm not giving offense in the way Paul is actually concerned with.

Right.

Ex: As far as my Arab associates go, they think me to believe absolute abstinence from alcohol.

Why? They would stumbled as I tried to lead them through the vestibule.

I don't believe that the Scriptures forbid alcohol, in either Testament, but I would never discuss that with them.
They admire my family, and beliefs, and observe me to be "good" according to Orthodoxy in Jerusalem.

So, I have good reason to not practice Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Etc, In front of them.



Earnestly Contend

I NEVER took "offense" in the sense he implies and you amen.  Matter of fact, the very essence of what you write describes the point to a TEE which I made about limiting our liberty (and not flaunting it in the presence of weak brethren).

 

[prophet]

Looks like you'll never have to limit your liberty around ALAYMAN then!

Nope.  However much LAMER might take offense, I'm not giving offense in the way Paul is actually concerned with.

Right.

Ex: As far as my Arab associates go, they think me to believe absolute abstinence from alcohol.

Why? They would stumbled as I tried to lead them through the vestibule.

I don't believe that the Scriptures forbid alcohol, in either Testament, but I would never discuss that with them.
They admire my family, and beliefs, and observe me to be "good" according to Orthodoxy in Jerusalem.

So, I have good reason to not practice Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Etc, In front of them.



Earnestly Contend

I NEVER took "offense" in the sense he implies and you amen.  Matter of fact, the very essence of what you write describes the point to a TEE which I made about limiting our liberty (and not flaunting it in the presence of weak brethren).

Anyone who reads the NT understands this, which leads one to wonder why you see a fight to pick here, or pretend to be outraged at other's liberty.

1Co 10:29 ? 1Co 10:30
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

Just in case your much studying hath worn through this page and rendered these 2 verses indecipherable...

8)

Earnestly Contend

 

[ALAYMAN]

Looks like you'll never have to limit your liberty around ALAYMAN then!

Nope.  However much LAMER might take offense, I'm not giving offense in the way Paul is actually concerned with.

Right.

Ex: As far as my Arab associates go, they think me to believe absolute abstinence from alcohol.

Why? They would stumbled as I tried to lead them through the vestibule.

I don't believe that the Scriptures forbid alcohol, in either Testament, but I would never discuss that with them.
They admire my family, and beliefs, and observe me to be "good" according to Orthodoxy in Jerusalem.

So, I have good reason to not practice Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Etc, In front of them.



Earnestly Contend

I NEVER took "offense" in the sense he implies and you amen.  Matter of fact, the very essence of what you write describes the point to a TEE which I made about limiting our liberty (and not flaunting it in the presence of weak brethren).

Anyone who reads the NT understands this, which leads one to wonder why you see a fight to pick here, or pretend to be outraged at other's liberty.

1Co 10:29 ? 1Co 10:30
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

Just in case your much studying hath worn through this page and rendered these 2 verses indecipherable...

8)

Earnestly Contend

There has been antinomianism (which is the theme combatted in the thread) since man has had a choice to disobey God's laws.  If you don't think there are examples alive and well today then you need to get your head out of the sand.  I've given plenty of examples in this thread of antinomian behavior alive and well amongst our resident Freebirds.  Just because you were spiritually abused by a borderline legalist doesn't mean you should ignore the other side of the ditch.

 

[prophet]

Looks like you'll never have to limit your liberty around ALAYMAN then!

Nope.  However much LAMER might take offense, I'm not giving offense in the way Paul is actually concerned with.

Right.

Ex: As far as my Arab associates go, they think me to believe absolute abstinence from alcohol.

Why? They would stumbled as I tried to lead them through the vestibule.

I don't believe that the Scriptures forbid alcohol, in either Testament, but I would never discuss that with them.
They admire my family, and beliefs, and observe me to be "good" according to Orthodoxy in Jerusalem.

So, I have good reason to not practice Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Etc, In front of them.



Earnestly Contend

I NEVER took "offense" in the sense he implies and you amen.  Matter of fact, the very essence of what you write describes the point to a TEE which I made about limiting our liberty (and not flaunting it in the presence of weak brethren).

Anyone who reads the NT understands this, which leads one to wonder why you see a fight to pick here, or pretend to be outraged at other's liberty.

1Co 10:29 ? 1Co 10:30
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

Just in case your much studying hath worn through this page and rendered these 2 verses indecipherable...

8)

Earnestly Contend

There has been antinomianism (which is the theme combatted in the thread) since man has had a choice to disobey God's laws.  If you don't think there are examples alive and well today then you need to get your head out of the sand.  I've given plenty of examples in this thread of antinomian behavior alive and well amongst our resident Freebirds.  Just because you were spiritually abused by a borderline legalist doesn't mean you should ignore the other side of the ditch.

So, abuse caused me to read every verse in this passage?


Earnestly Contend