God Chooses His Elect

[TER]

No. Tithing was commanded in the law as well. It was not a mere tradition of the Pharisees any more than justice, mercy and faithfulness were. Jesus himself did not follow their tradition of washing hands. He basically told them to pound sand. And they whined that he was insulting them. He told them to pound sand again. And I don't think it was because he hated washing his hands.

You are free to believe as you wish. I tried to explain the importance of tradition, both written and oral, and why the Apostles struggled to ensure that their own disciples and the future generation of Christians would hand down the traditions given to them by their fathers in the faith.

[TER]

A good soul retrieved my earlier edit and sent it to me, and I post it below. Thank you!

------------------------------


I would disagree. Christ tells them to "practice the latter", referring to "justice, mercy, and faithfulness", WITHOUT neglecting the former, referring to the tradition of giving "a tenth of spices of mint, dill, and cumin". These are traditions based on the law.

Christ was reprimanding the Pharisees for not practicing mercy and justice. For being hypocrites. That is exactly what He was reprimanding them. It's not the tradition they proclaimed and personally did, but that they thought that by following these traditions that they could then ignore the greater parts of the law, which you nicely called it.

The traditions given by the Holy Spirit to the Prophets and holy men and women of the Old Covenant were never questioned. Indeed, in the Gospel we read:

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."" (Matthew 23)

The Lord told His disciples to obey the observances and traditions, for they "sit in Moses' seat", while avoiding their hypocrisy and evil sins.

-

Christ proclaims the Pharisees to be the defenders of the seat of Moses, (that is, the teachings of Israel), graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them). They had the process of ordination and holy orders, and the traditions of the Prophets and Righteous before them.

+

Christ proclaims tthem the defenders of the seat of Moses, graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them).


In contrast, the other group, the Saduucees, were waaaaay off.

-


The Saduccess were a small but powerful group who denied the Oral Torah. They only appealed to the Written Torah. They denied the traditions of the Pharisees, and anything outside of it had no authority against the Written Torah.

These Saduccees are not once put in a good light in the entire NT. This is in contrast to the Pharisees, with whom many rise up and do what is right, when St. Paul was defended for example. For we read of Pharisees who came to Christ and become Apostles. St. Paul still professed to be one twenty years after his conversion on the Road to Damascus.

The Saduccees were despised by the majority of the citizens and the Jews, not only because of their wrong theology, but their renown for corruption and seeking governmental power. This too is in contrast with the Pharisees, who the majority of the laity and the common man held to be defenders of the faith of Abraham. For they held onto the Oral Torah as well, and so they held onto the wisdom which have been revealed by God through His Prophets. And that is why they believed in free will, taught synergism theology, awaited the coming of the Messiah, and expected the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. Meanwhile, the 'Sola Scripturists' Saduccees denied all those things. Having only held onto the Written Torah and ignored the Oral Torah, (that is, ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit within the men of those times whom we call Saints), their theology was one of deism, finality of death with no resurrection or after life, and no Messiah.

The Pharisees (which was started by the Prophet Ezra (if I recall correctly), held onto the fullness of the Judean faith and were the defenders of the faith and Christ commanded His disciples to listen to them and do what they teach.

-

What He warned His disciples was to not do the works of evil which the leaders do, which is when they forget the greater parts of the law, and, instead , act unjustly and unmercifully. Christ commands us to not imitate their sinful actions, for "they teach but do not do".

-

Tradition does not end with the written books revered as the written Word of God, but also includes traditions of the Word of God acting within the world, in the lives of men and women who were faithful and sought reconciliation and eternal life.

+

Otherwise, we can easily ignore the greatest parts of the law, as the Saduccees did, and by ignoring the works of God in His faithful (which include the Saints of every century), we can blind ourselves from the expectations, hopes and understandings of the true faith, and create false doctrines which may serve political intentions, but estranged us from God Himself. The truths proclaim the traditions, and the traditions preserve the truth. Both are God-willed and important. Rather, it is the traditions of men which are sinful, such as acting hypocritically, or unjustly, or unmercifully, which destroy the truth and the souls of men.

[Sola_Fide]

A good soul retrieved my earlier edit and sent it to me, and I post it below. Thank you!

------------------------------


I would disagree. Christ tells them to "practice the latter", referring to "justice, mercy, and faithfulness", WITHOUT neglecting the former, referring to the tradition of giving "a tenth of spices of mint, dill, and cumin". These are traditions based on the law.

Christ was reprimanding the Pharisees for not practicing mercy and justice. For being hypocrites. That is exactly what He was reprimanding them. It's not the tradition they proclaimed and personally did, but that they thought that by following these traditions that they could then ignore the greater parts of the law, which you nicely called it.

The traditions given by the Holy Spirit to the Prophets and holy men and women of the Old Covenant were never questioned. Indeed, in the Gospel we read:

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."" (Matthew 23)

The Lord told His disciples to obey the observances and traditions, for they "sit in Moses' seat", while avoiding their hypocrisy and evil sins.

-

Christ proclaims the Pharisees to be the defenders of the seat of Moses, (that is, the teachings of Israel), graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them). They had the process of ordination and holy orders, and the traditions of the Prophets and Righteous before them.

+

Christ proclaims tthem the defenders of the seat of Moses, graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them).


In contrast, the other group, the Saduucees, were waaaaay off.

-


The Saduccess were a small but powerful group who denied the Oral Torah. They only appealed to the Written Torah. They denied the traditions of the Pharisees, and anything outside of it had no authority against the Written Torah.

These Saduccees are not once put in a good light in the entire NT. This is in contrast to the Pharisees, with whom many rise up and do what is right, when St. Paul was defended for example. For we read of Pharisees who came to Christ and become Apostles. St. Paul still professed to be one twenty years after his conversion on the Road to Damascus.

The Saduccees were despised by the majority of the citizens and the Jews, not only because of their wrong theology, but their renown for corruption and seeking governmental power. This too is in contrast with the Pharisees, who the majority of the laity and the common man held to be defenders of the faith of Abraham. For they held onto the Oral Torah as well, and so they held onto the wisdom which have been revealed by God through His Prophets. And that is why they believed in free will, taught synergism theology, awaited the coming of the Messiah, and expected the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. Meanwhile, the 'Sola Scripturists' Saduccees denied all those things. Having only held onto the Written Torah and ignored the Oral Torah, (that is, ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit within the men of those times whom we call Saints), their theology was one of deism, finality of death with no resurrection or after life, and no Messiah.

The Pharisees (which was started by the Prophet Ezra (if I recall correctly), held onto the fullness of the Judean faith and were the defenders of the faith and Christ commanded His disciples to listen to them and do what they teach.

-

What He warned His disciples was to not do the works of evil which the leaders do, which is when they forget the greater parts of the law, and, instead , act unjustly and unmercifully. Christ commands us to not imitate their sinful actions, for "they teach but do not do".

+

The Saduccess were a small but powerful group who denied the Oral Torah. They only appealed to the Written Torah. They denied the traditions of the Pharisees.

-

Tradition does not end with the written books revered as the written Word of God, but also includes traditions of the Word of God acting within the world, in the lives of men and women who were faithful and sought reconciliation and eternal life.

+

These Saduccees are not once put in a good light in the entire NT. This is in contrast to the Pharisees, with whom many rise up and do what is right, when St. Paul was defended. For we read of Pharisees who came to Christ and become Apostles.

-

Otherwise, we can easily ignore the greatest parts of the law, as the Saduccees did, and by ignoring the works of God in His faithful (which include the Saints of every century), we can blind ourselves from the expectations, hopes and understandings of the true faith, and create false doctrines which may serve political intentions, but estranged us from God Himself. The truths proclaim the traditions, and the traditions preserve the truth. Both are God-willed and important. Rather, it is the traditions of men which are sinful, such as acting hypocritically, or unjustly, or unmercifully, which destroy the truth and the souls of men.

+

The Saduccees, were despised by the majority of the citizens and the Jews, not only because of their wrong theology, but their renown for corruption and seeking governmental power. This too is in contrast the Pharisees, who the majority of the laity held to be defenders of the faith of Abraham. For they held onto the Oral Torah as well, and so they held onto the wisdom which have been revealed by God through His Prophets.%

It amazes me that you can't see the gospel right in front of your face, but I know these things are spiritually discerned.

Jesus was indicting the "holiest" people around, the ones who were supposed to be the teachers of the people, as lawbreakers in need of a savior.

Jesus was not telling them to start following the law and gain accepting with God, He was telling them that it is impossible to live the way God requires, and because they were lawbreakers, they were condemned.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus pointed to HIMSELF ALONE as the way that a man is saved, and He destroyed every ounce of self righteousness in even the most "holy" people around.

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep

A good soul retrieved my earlier edit and sent it to me, and I post it below. Thank you!

------------------------------


I would disagree. Christ tells them to "practice the latter", referring to "justice, mercy, and faithfulness", WITHOUT neglecting the former, referring to the tradition of giving "a tenth of spices of mint, dill, and cumin". These are traditions based on the law.

Christ was reprimanding the Pharisees for not practicing mercy and justice. For being hypocrites. That is exactly what He was reprimanding them. It's not the tradition they proclaimed and personally did, but that they thought that by following these traditions that they could then ignore the greater parts of the law, which you nicely called it.

The traditions given by the Holy Spirit to the Prophets and holy men and women of the Old Covenant were never questioned. Indeed, in the Gospel we read:

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."" (Matthew 23)

The Lord told His disciples to obey the observances and traditions, for they "sit in Moses' seat", while avoiding their hypocrisy and evil sins.

-

Christ proclaims the Pharisees to be the defenders of the seat of Moses, (that is, the teachings of Israel), graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them). They had the process of ordination and holy orders, and the traditions of the Prophets and Righteous before them.

+

Christ proclaims tthem the defenders of the seat of Moses, graced with authority which comes from God. While the men themselves and the priests can be sinners and hypocritical, the office and seat they occupy is indeed venerable and God proscribed. And notice, it is so because they held onto the written Torah (the written Law) and the Oral Torah (which where the teachings, worship and other traditions passed down by the fathers before them).


In contrast, the other group, the Saduucees, were waaaaay off.

-


The Saduccess were a small but powerful group who denied the Oral Torah. They only appealed to the Written Torah. They denied the traditions of the Pharisees, and anything outside of it had no authority against the Written Torah.

These Saduccees are not once put in a good light in the entire NT. This is in contrast to the Pharisees, with whom many rise up and do what is right, when St. Paul was defended for example. For we read of Pharisees who came to Christ and become Apostles. St. Paul still professed to be one twenty years after his conversion on the Road to Damascus.

The Saduccees were despised by the majority of the citizens and the Jews, not only because of their wrong theology, but their renown for corruption and seeking governmental power. This too is in contrast with the Pharisees, who the majority of the laity and the common man held to be defenders of the faith of Abraham. For they held onto the Oral Torah as well, and so they held onto the wisdom which have been revealed by God through His Prophets. And that is why they believed in free will, taught synergism theology, awaited the coming of the Messiah, and expected the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. Meanwhile, the 'Sola Scripturists' Saduccees denied all those things. Having only held onto the Written Torah and ignored the Oral Torah, (that is, ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit within the men of those times whom we call Saints), their theology was one of deism, finality of death with no resurrection or after life, and no Messiah.

The Pharisees (which was started by the Prophet Ezra (if I recall correctly), held onto the fullness of the Judean faith and were the defenders of the faith and Christ commanded His disciples to listen to them and do what they teach.

-

What He warned His disciples was to not do the works of evil which the leaders do, which is when they forget the greater parts of the law, and, instead , act unjustly and unmercifully. Christ commands us to not imitate their sinful actions, for "they teach but do not do".

+

The Saduccess were a small but powerful group who denied the Oral Torah. They only appealed to the Written Torah. They denied the traditions of the Pharisees.

-

Tradition does not end with the written books revered as the written Word of God, but also includes traditions of the Word of God acting within the world, in the lives of men and women who were faithful and sought reconciliation and eternal life.

+

These Saduccees are not once put in a good light in the entire NT. This is in contrast to the Pharisees, with whom many rise up and do what is right, when St. Paul was defended. For we read of Pharisees who came to Christ and become Apostles.

-

Otherwise, we can easily ignore the greatest parts of the law, as the Saduccees did, and by ignoring the works of God in His faithful (which include the Saints of every century), we can blind ourselves from the expectations, hopes and understandings of the true faith, and create false doctrines which may serve political intentions, but estranged us from God Himself. The truths proclaim the traditions, and the traditions preserve the truth. Both are God-willed and important. Rather, it is the traditions of men which are sinful, such as acting hypocritically, or unjustly, or unmercifully, which destroy the truth and the souls of men.

+

The Saduccees, were despised by the majority of the citizens and the Jews, not only because of their wrong theology, but their renown for corruption and seeking governmental power. This too is in contrast the Pharisees, who the majority of the laity held to be defenders of the faith of Abraham. For they held onto the Oral Torah as well, and so they held onto the wisdom which have been revealed by God through His Prophets.%

[TER]

+rep

Thanks! I edited it again because I realized I had repeated statements. Anyways, I am going to bed. Good night!

[pcosmar]

God Chooses His Elect

you know ,, rather than arguing.

the reverse is also true.

the Elect must Choose God.

marinate in that

He already knows

[Sola_Fide]

God Chooses His Elect

you know ,, rather than arguing.

the reverse is also true.

the Elect must Choose God.

marinate in that

He already knows

No. That is incorrect. Salvation is 100 percent free. Nothing is required from man for salvation whatsoever. Man can't do what is required of him to be saved.

What is required in salvation is a life of perfect obedience to God. Only Jesus did this. Salvation is found in HIS PERFECT LIFE, not in anything in man. Only those who believe in Jesus' perfect life on their behalf (and the belief is a gift of God) are saved.

The lie of ALL false religion is that there is something required from man in salvation.

[pcosmar]

No. That is incorrect.

NO You are incorrect.

Period.

[pcosmar]

What is required in salvation is a life of perfect obedience to God.

What a twisted view.
Why would a perfect life need salvation?

[Sola_Fide]

What a twisted view.
Why would a perfect life need salvation?

Who said a perfect needs salvation?

Pete, God is holy. To be with Him, He requires that you be holy like Him. He will not allow sin in His presence.

Man is unholy. He is a slave to sin. He has broken God's law.

Jesus is the only man to live a perfect life and do all that God requires. A man is saved when he trusts in Christ's perfect life on his behalf.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[heavenlyboy34]

What a twisted view.
Why would a perfect life need salvation?

It wouldn't. Not sure how SF even got into that. The presumption/doctrine that "Election" is a real thing renders obedience (and all other "works") irrelevant.

[pcosmar]

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

NO, it is not.

God saves the unworthy.
God saves sinners.

You have another "gospel" that is neither good nor news

[Sola_Fide]

NO, it is not.

God saves the unworthy.
God saves sinners.

You have another "gospel" that is neither good nor news

God saves the unworthy by imputing the perfect life of Jesus Christ to their account so that they stand in the presence of God without blemish.

This is the gospel of Jesus, and there is no other gospel than this one.

[pcosmar]

It wouldn't.

and we come from different backgrounds, traditions, and to some extent differing theology,,, to the same conclusion.

[Sola_Fide]

and we come from different backgrounds, traditions, and to some extent differing theology,,, to the same conclusion.

No. You are both part of the world religion that promotes the false gospel of works salvation.

[pcosmar]

God saves the unworthy by imputing the perfect life of Jesus Christ to their account so that they stand in the presence of God without blemish.

This is the gospel of Jesus, and there is no other gospel than this one.

No,, the Good news is that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. and did so.
That is the good News.
John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

and you are busy try to convince people otherwise.

[Sola_Fide]

No,, the Good news is that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. and did so.
That is the good News.
John 3:16


and you are busy try to convince people otherwise.

That's right. God gave His Son so that the believing ones would have eternal life. There is particularity in John 3:16. God sent His Son only for the believing ones.

Have you ever read the 3rd chapter of John, Pete? Because just a few verses before the one you posted, Jesus told Nicodemus that the only ones who are saved are the ones who are born above by the Spirit. I wonder if you've ever even read the chapter.

[lilymc]

No,, the Good news is that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. and did so.
That is the good News.
John 3:16


and you are busy try to convince people otherwise.

I'd +rep you if I could.

You have a lot of patience. Especially considering the prideful, condescending way he is talking to you.

The rotten fruit of a false doctrine, sadly.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd +rep you if I could.

You have a lot of patience. Especially considering the prideful, condescending way he is talking to you.

The rotten fruit of a false doctrine, sadly.

Actually Sola is correct, at least doctrinally speaking. I'd suggest taking the tone a bit less personally (whatever you may think of it) and seriously consider the very important doctrinal point being made.

[pcosmar]

I wonder if you've ever even read the chapter.

Yes.
I have.

I believe I have read the whole thing several times..
I had a lot of time to read in Prison,, and I read well,, reading comprehension above the the top of the class.
That's right.
The entire Story is quite remarkable.

[pcosmar]

That's right. God gave His Son so that the believing ones would have eternal life.

Believing ones?

Actually Sola is correct, at least doctrinally speaking. I'd suggest taking the tone a bit less personally (whatever you may think of it) and seriously consider the very important doctrinal point being made.

I hope so

[lilymc]

Actually Sola is correct, at least doctrinally speaking. I'd suggest taking the tone a bit less personally (whatever you may think of it) and seriously consider the very important doctrinal point being made.

No, he's not. But the last thing I want to do is get into discussion #9,567,895 on Calvinism. All it does is keep all the Christians here bickering non-stop, which turns off the non-believers or seekers, and never gets anywhere.

In light of what the bible says about pointless arguments and being quarrelsome....what spirit do you think is behind these never-ending threads?

[pcosmar]

No, he's not. But the last thing I want to do is get into discussion #9,567,895 on Calvinism. All it does is keep all the Christians here bickering non-stop, which turns off the non-believers or seekers, and never gets anywhere.

In light of what the bible says about pointless arguments and being quarrelsome....what spirit do you think is behind these never-ending threads?

Now Lilly,,

It is but an opportunity,,

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

[lilymc]

Now Lilly,,

It is but an opportunity,,

I figured that you were looking at it that way. As an opportunity. I guess I'm not as optimistic that certain people around here are open to changing their mind.

We can always pray, though. In fact, this religion section can use some serious intercessory prayer.

[Christian Liberty]

No, he's not. But the last thing I want to do is get into discussion #9,567,895 on Calvinism. All it does is keep all the Christians here bickering non-stop, which turns off the non-believers or seekers, and never gets anywhere.

In light of what the bible says about pointless arguments and being quarrelsome....what spirit do you think is behind these never-ending threads?

I don't think its controversy for controversy sake. The dispute is at a minimum very important, and potentially has salvific implications given that denial of Calvinism can (though does not always) lead to self-trust for salvation.

Plus the Bible is clear that seekers don't exist, so why you'd worry about "looking bad in front of them" I don't know :/

[Christian Liberty]

No,, the Good news is that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. and did so.
That is the good News.
John 3:16


and you are busy try to convince people otherwise.

Calvinists agree with that passage. The question is, what is the origin of belief?

[pcosmar]

Calvinists agree with that passage. The question is, what is the origin of belief?

Origin of belief?

Well that would be the Grace of God.. Poured out on all mankind.

Do you dispute this?

[pcosmar]

Origin of belief?

Well that would be the Grace of God.. Poured out on all mankind.

Do you dispute this?

on grace

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you.

Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim that anything comes from us, but our competence comes from God.

But by the grace of God I am what I am,

Were it not so I would likely be dead long ago,, and unknown here.

[Natural Citizen]

I'd +rep you if I could.

I got him for you. I was gonna rep you, too, but the collectivist bot is collective. I have to spread it around.

I must say that this section is becoming a real turnoff, though. Seems like some friends use it purely for the strategic purpose of creating division among Christians as a matter of organizational function. To organize in a way as to guide dialogue toward the false notion that some Christians are more worthy than others for the sake of projecting their own self-professed doctrinal superiority. That's not what this section is for. It's become a bad element as a consequence of ignoring it and letting it run amok.

Personally, I'd be content to see Bryan completely remove this sub-forum for that reason alone. Respectfully, I just don't think that the staff is of the astute means to recognize what is actually going on here. It's no different that when we see organized function for purposeful division on the main boards. And the perpetrators surely know it. I think it's why they've grown to be so obtuse and arrogant while continuing. There's no doubt about it, this section is being used counterintuitively to its intended purpose. It's being used to organize for the strategic purpose of creating targeted division. I'd permaban the minions if it were me in the interest of making the section functional in a beneficial way. Or the main culprit at the very least. But it's not me.

But I'm glad to see that you and Pete aren't giving our friends a free pass.

[Christian Liberty]

Origin of belief?

Well that would be the Grace of God.. Poured out on all mankind.

Do you dispute this?

The bold is what I'd dispute. Arminians teach pervenient grace, that God gives everyone enough grace to believe and then its in "their court" so to speak. Calvinists believe that God chose before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who wouldn't. That choice is manifested through belief but its not actually man's choice (in the ultimate sense) to believe. As Romans 9 explains very well.