Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on April 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
At least they haven’t blocked me yet, which I think might only be a matter of time. At least they still left my comment on there where I called White a gnostic hack. LOL!
This rude White dude, one of the Calvinists’ “gods” is not an apologist for the Christian faith; he is an apologist for the doctrines of disgrace, of damnation, of Calvinism, of death. Andy, yes, this rude guy is a gnostic hack indeed (that was very funny, Andy).
The silly meme (sans apostrophes, naughty) could actually be used against Reformed nonsense/Calvinism/Protestantism, whatever. This guy is a turn-off in general. Well, defending a false gospel and false doctrines of men tend to do that to a person. I think his personality has driven many away from Calvinism, and that is the only good thing I can say about this rude guy.
Of course “The Reformed Cage” (an appropriate name, wouldn’t you say? It’s hard to escape from a cage) would put a silly meme of one of their deceivers, idols and “defender of the faith”. They all work together for …. no, not the gospel of Christ, but for one another. It’s like Butch MacArthur and the Shoeshine Kid (Johnson). They incite one another and spend probably 23 hours a day on the Internet, spreading….no, not the gospel, but their poison…that false, despicable gospel.
And, Paul, of course, the rude White could/would not answer you. Reputation, Paul. Pride, Paul. Followers, Paul. Money, Paul. Hero worship, Paul. Oh, and because he knew he could not, of course. After all, his is a false gospel; a thing from Satan himself.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 9:01 AM
The debate would be centered on you defending the Protestant gospel of Justification By Faith and telling us why it’s not a law-based gospel because Jesus keeps the law for us. Good luck with that Bubba…when do you want to do it?
I am ready anytime you wish to do it. Let’s correspond and set up rules for the debate and decide on a format. We could easily do an opening statement and rebuttal and closing statements and put them together later. The only thing I am not sure I know how we could do and record it at the same time would be the question and answer portion. Perhaps you have someone with the tech skills to do that part. Perhaps you could hone the topic a bit so that we know precisely the issue we are debating. If you would like to discuss how we can approach the whole matter, we could Skype later. My Skype is rvseiver. I would, of course, want to change “Jesus KEEPS the law for us” to Jesus KEPT the law for us.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 9:38 AM
The debate would be on our radio program which easily facilitates two-way conversation and callers for Q and A. The rules are simple. The subject is justification, there will be two opening statements, rebuttable on points, and Q and A. Be sure of this: I don’t allow “rules” to dictate a desires outcome. I don’t play that game.
Paul, Let’s do it on Youtube. We would have a far larger audience. I would be more than happy to do it on both if you like, but I doubt your “radio program” reaches an audience that extends beyond your followers. We can agree on the rules before we debate.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 10:02 AM
We have NO “followers” that’s a Protestant thing. We are a collective contribution to a common cause. Are you saying your followers wouldn’t come to a radio venue? The radio program is also archived. It is also broadcasted on BoxCaste which can post to YouTube. So, we could use the radio program to conduct the debate and simultaneously record to YouTube if would like. You can call into the radio program via Skype and then the video part would be shown on BoxCaste. What I am saying is that it can all be done at once and used for whatever after the fact. You can also come here and debate me publically if you would like. We will pay for the media production and all venue costs, and your room and board. You would only have to buy your plane ticket.
I don’t really have followers either. I am willing to do it anyway you like. I would love to come and do it in person. I think that would be much better. Unfortunately, the fare would be quite expensive from CR. I do appreciate the offer to pay for my room and board. Why don’t we see how the first debate goes. We might want to debate other topics as well and perhaps people would be willing to pitch in to make it happen. Let’s talk about format, guidelines and date. You clearly know more about the technical side of this than I do. I’m leaving for the English and Spanish Bible studies I teach but will be home in three or four hours. Do you have a date in mind?
Paul, I am not easily frightened away. I think it would be great if we could debate in person. What is the closest international airport to you? I could at least check prices. SInce my wife will be away in early August, I would not have to leave her alone here in order to fly there for the debate.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 6:10 PM
You said first week of August that would probably work for us. Which suit would you prefer? The Patriot room, the wolf room, the medical room, or the 60’s room? Each room has internet, cable TV, and a desk. We have media capabilities here with triple redundancy internet backup, or we could rent the Xenia community center.
Let’s not reserve anything yet. That is quite a hefty sum for a guy on SS income. Let me see if I can scrape up the money, and we can continue to discuss the details. If we have to do the first one by Skype, that will work too. I just think it would be nice to see each other face to face in such a debate. Additionally, I think it would be nice to be able to do it before Aug or Sept if possible. What are your thoughts?
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 6:29 PM
We will explain on page 6 tonight (radio show) how all of your media wishes can be fulfilled simultaneously. We can integrate Skype, Google Group, the radio program, and BoxCast simultaneously.
Paul, I appreciate your busy schedule. I am not talking about an in person debate but a debate on Skype. Would that be the same for you? That is fine with me if Aug. is your earliest possible date. That will give some time to promote it.
Paul, It looks as if flights are running around $575. RT. I was looking at a weekend early in August. In September around mid-month the prices seem to be more in the $400-450 range. That would be into Dayton.
Andy, I was thinking the same thing about Jesus who “kept” the law. Before that, I’m sure He still was Jesus, eh? I advise against YouTube too; too many negatives, etc. Radio would be perfect.
Once it is recorded for Youtube, it would be a simple matter for you to record and play it as your radio program. I think I would be very helpful to a wide audience to clarify the issues.
Andy and Paul, good idea. If nothing else, this debate will be tremendously interesting. I’m looking forward to hearing your ideas exchanged in real time!
With the amount of time you have spent on these issues, I can’t imagine that you would need much time to prepare. I don’t know if it has occurred to you or not, but with the intricacy of this topic, more than one debate might be needed.
I would think that at least one debate would be needed to clarify the definitions of the terms we are using. If we don’t use terms univocally, we will simply talk past each other.
So that I can prepare better for the debate, can you explain more fully what you mean by Christians being “righteous as a state of being?” E.g., do you mean that Christians are sinless as far as our state is concerned?
It may be helpful if you could tell me as well by what standard you think we could determine whether that state of righteousness existed our not.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on April 30, 2017 at 11:46 PM
Not complicated. Our sins are not merely covered, they are ended. We are not simply declared righteous, we are righteous. And yes, we are sinless because where there is no law there is no sin and all sin is against the law and the law under the Old Covenant was a protector because all sin is imputed to the law and Christ came to end the law so we no longer need a guardian. In the Bible, “sin” regards condemnation. Under grace means we are obligated to fulfill the law through love. Faith “works through love.” Christians don’t sin against the law, they fail to love according to the law’s standard. We still fail to love because we are weak, but weakness dos not equal sin, the weak can be holy which is defined by having God’s seed within us; ie, being born of Him. The new birth defines righteousness/justification, not the law.
Just to clarify, it sounds as if you are not stating two different and contradictory ideas: 1. “Christ came to end the law. ..” 2. “Under grace means we are obligated to fulfill the law through love.” Could you tell me which one of those ideas you will stand by? Also, how can a person fail to love according to the standard of law that does not exist? If that standard does exist, and it is a codified legal standard, why is failure under that legal standard [law] not sin? Perhaps you could also clarify for me what there is about the new birth that, in itself, defines righteousness. Thanks
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 11:02 AM
Sigh. Do you think I am a freaking idiot? I will explain this once and then I am done playing your games. The Spirit uses the law for two purposes; to condemn those who are unregenerate and to convict them of the judgement to come, and to sanctify (John 17:17). Christ came to end the law in regard to condemnation for those who believe on Him. The new birth changes the relationship of the law, or if you will, the Spirit’s application of it, to the new creature. Romans 7 explains this in no uncertain terms. The new birth, viz, a literal dying of the old you and resurrection to the new you as established by Christ’s death and resurrection, FREES the believer to “SERVE” the law of the Spirit of life and thus fulfilling the law by love. A single perspective on the law enslaves one to serving the law of sin and death. The old man literally dies, and like anyone who dies, cannot be condemned by the law, you know, because they are freaking dead! For crying out loud, read Romans 7! The law and justification are mutually exclusive period; the law is for sanctification. That’s why God came and manifested a righteousness A-P-A-R-T (choris: “separate” “without”) from the law. The new creature is still mortal, and because of weakness, is subject to falling short of love, but weakness due to the flesh does not, biblically speaking, equal “sin” or “evil.” That, in fact, is a Gnostic concept. Are the holy angels weaker than God? It’s a rhetorical question. Are they yet “holy”? That’s a rhetorical question also. Creation is weak, yet still “good.” That’s why like creation, we long for redemption. Yes, redemption is different from the new birth…redemption is the salvation of the body and is future. Remember, the body can be used for good or evil purposes (Romans 12:1). Also, a word study will reveal that when Paul said our bodies are the temple of God, the Holy of Holies is actually what is being referred to. The new birth changes a person’s indifference to the law of God to a love for God’s law (see Psalms 119), and though the “flesh is weak” the spirit is “willing.” Such defines the new birth and justification/righteousness NOT perfect law-keeping regardless of who keeps/kept the law. “APART” means “WITHOUT.” This is Paul’s cardinal point in Galatians 3: if there is a law than can give life…FOR JUSTIFCATION…there is more than one seed, but “God is one.” If Jesus kept/keeps the law for us because it defines righteousness, then there is more than one seed and the law can give life. Duh! Folks, this is not rocket science. PLEASE stop reading your Bibles according to the BS that you have learned in church all of your lives. JUST STOP IT!
I am sorry Paul, but I need further clarification. It sounds now as if you are saying Jesus did not end the law. If it still stands as the standard for sanctification then it can be disobeyed even if by a lack of love. Your premise is that “sin cannot exist where law does not exist” but now you are saying the law does exist, it simply cannot condemn believers. I would agree that neither it nor any other law can condemn believers, but, of course, for a different reason. For my own understanding of your position, I simply need to understand whether you think law continues to exist and if law continues to exist, why you think sin can’t. I can understand why you would say condemnation can’t exist, but I can’t understand why you would say sin cannot exist.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:10 PM
Hmmmmm. Well let me help you. In your single perspective on the law, and citing James 2:10 for proof, and according to the Calvin Institutes 3.14.10,11, one violation off the law breaks the law at all points. But, somehow, you struggle with the idea that one act of love fulfills the whole law. Please explain because you can’t have one without the other. The point is the motives and desires of the new person, not the law as a fourth member of the Trinity.
Paul, No one says “one act of obedience to the law fulfills the whole law” and one act of love does not fulfill the whole law. One failure to love breaks the law of love.
OK Paul, I can see that you are agitated with the idea of having to clarify your views. Let me know by email when you are ready to suggest a topic and we can decide on a date for debate. I hope you understand that I am talking about a formal debate in which we both give an opening statement, a rebuttal, a cross examination, and a Q & A. I have to confess that at this point, you don’t seem to be showing that you have the ability to be sufficiently respectful to engage in meaningful debate. Statements like “Do you think I’m a freaking idiot” and “I’m not playing any more of your games,” are probably out of place in any kind of scholarly debate. I am simply trying to understand your position accurately and I am trying to do so as respectfully as I can. I would appreciate the same level of respect.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM
My agitation regards your assumption that I don’t understand your historical-redemptive metaphysical worldview, and your insistence to communicate with me as if historical-grammatical metaphysics are not reality. HRH would insist on a single perspective on everything or what we call the “either/or hermeneutic.” If one examines your annoying questions carefully, it rejects the premise of the law having two purposes and applications by the Spirit, and would reject the possibility that weakness can encompass holiness. Again, your questions flow from a rejection of my worldview, and moreover, your assumption that I don’t know what’s going on is particularly annoying.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:58 PM
My views have been stated here on this blog from a HGH perspective for years and you have been here 100’s of times interacting with them. In an email correspondence it was clearly defined that you believe that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not two perspectives on the law or two applications by the Spirit. Hence, I find your assertion that you are merely trying to understand my views egregiously disingenuous.
Actually, I don’t believe Rom. 8:2 refers either to two realms or to two perspectives on the law or two applications by the Spirit. I don’t believe the word “nomos” in that verse refers to law at all. Instead, it is being used in the sense of “principle.” Paul used it the same way at the end of Rom. 7. I find then a “law” a “principle.”
Paul, Actually, when we corresponded last, you had not yet come up with the idea that believers are unable to sin and that there is no longer any law at all. That is what I am trying to understand.
That is why I was asking for clarification. I can’t tell what your position is. If you argue that believers cannot sin because sin only exists where there is law, the conclusion would have to be that if believers cannot sin, law must not exist.
And that would depend on which of the many meanings “vomos” has in the NT Scripture. In my view, the Mosaic Law has no use for the Spirit in the life of the NC believer.
In what sense then does a justified man need justification? I am just responding to your own words. You said that no man lost or saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification. The conclusion is then that a saved man still needs to be justified. Unless you would like to revise that original statement.
I am not saying that a justified man does need to be justified. I was not speaking about a need for additional justification but about the nature of a believer’s works done subsequent to conversion. Though the believer’s works of obedience are pleasing to his Father since he has already been declared righteous and has been accepted in the beloved, those same works when measured by the standard of God’s righteousness would not be sufficiently righteous to justify him before God.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:38 PM
So, perhaps we can have a debate on HRH metaphysics versus HGH metaphysics. Then if necessary, we can go to Justification by Faith doctrine. Yah, that would work for me.
No, that would not work for me because there is no debate. I don’t believe one must give up one to pursue the other. You must be defining the Redemptive-Historical approach differently than I would.
A triple amen, Lydia. Just about every Calvinist blog/site is about “numbers” and followers, not to mention their Sunday fill-up stations. Numbers equal money… 🙂
Randy,
This is how you will know you are wasting our time with any of your particular comments; it won’t be posted. I said we don’t have followers here, so why are you calling these two people followers? Could you at least wait 48 hours since you have been back to this blog to be annoying?
Paul, I don’t care whether you post anything or not. I would perfer to communicate by email or Skype. I would be willing to bet that if I looked at your “followers” list on this blog, they would be on it.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 10:03 AM
Oh, I see, because WordPress uses the term “followers” in regard to email notices about new posts this makes them followers in regard to those who can’t think for themselves. Really? Randy, my patience is already running low with you.
This is why I believe definition is so important. I was using the word in the context in which it is used on Word Press, and you chose to use it in another context and give it a different meaning. This is the sort of thing that will make debate very difficult if we do not make sure we carefully define the terms we are using and agree on univocal definitions.
Paul, Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative by the questions I am asking. It it is simply that nothing will be served if we spend our time arguing against what we imagine they other person might be saying. Feel free to ask me questions pre-debate for the same purpose. If you like, you can use my email at hotmail. rseiver1@hotmail.com. Let me know as soon as you come up with a suggested topic for debate.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:03 PM
I have already suggested the Protestant Justification by Faith doctrine like, 25 times. Please help me understand what you are missing in regard to that “suggestion.”
Paul, That is fine but the last communication I read from you about topic was “I will come up with a date and a basic single subject topic and media protocol.”Protestant Justification by Faith Doctine” is fine for my side of the argument but Vs. what for your side?
I interpreted Randy’s comment about “followers” to mean your regular social media audience. I didn’t read it as “disciples” necessarily.
I also get what you mean about “not having followers” in the “fawning bootlickers” sense (that was so utterly ostentatious and gross in SGM). And I’m glad you constantly make that point, because it’s a very important distinction between what you and “orthodoxy”.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
At least they haven’t blocked me yet, which I think might only be a matter of time. At least they still left my comment on there where I called White a gnostic hack. LOL!
LikeLike
This rude White dude, one of the Calvinists’ “gods” is not an apologist for the Christian faith; he is an apologist for the doctrines of disgrace, of damnation, of Calvinism, of death. Andy, yes, this rude guy is a gnostic hack indeed (that was very funny, Andy).
The silly meme (sans apostrophes, naughty) could actually be used against Reformed nonsense/Calvinism/Protestantism, whatever. This guy is a turn-off in general. Well, defending a false gospel and false doctrines of men tend to do that to a person. I think his personality has driven many away from Calvinism, and that is the only good thing I can say about this rude guy.
Of course “The Reformed Cage” (an appropriate name, wouldn’t you say? It’s hard to escape from a cage) would put a silly meme of one of their deceivers, idols and “defender of the faith”. They all work together for …. no, not the gospel of Christ, but for one another. It’s like Butch MacArthur and the Shoeshine Kid (Johnson). They incite one another and spend probably 23 hours a day on the Internet, spreading….no, not the gospel, but their poison…that false, despicable gospel.
And, Paul, of course, the rude White could/would not answer you. Reputation, Paul. Pride, Paul. Followers, Paul. Money, Paul. Hero worship, Paul. Oh, and because he knew he could not, of course. After all, his is a false gospel; a thing from Satan himself.
LikeLike
Let me know when you would like to debate me. We can set it up on Skype and record it for Youtube. Just let me know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The debate would be centered on you defending the Protestant gospel of Justification By Faith and telling us why it’s not a law-based gospel because Jesus keeps the law for us. Good luck with that Bubba…when do you want to do it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am ready anytime you wish to do it. Let’s correspond and set up rules for the debate and decide on a format. We could easily do an opening statement and rebuttal and closing statements and put them together later. The only thing I am not sure I know how we could do and record it at the same time would be the question and answer portion. Perhaps you have someone with the tech skills to do that part. Perhaps you could hone the topic a bit so that we know precisely the issue we are debating. If you would like to discuss how we can approach the whole matter, we could Skype later. My Skype is rvseiver. I would, of course, want to change “Jesus KEEPS the law for us” to Jesus KEPT the law for us.
LikeLike
The debate would be on our radio program which easily facilitates two-way conversation and callers for Q and A. The rules are simple. The subject is justification, there will be two opening statements, rebuttable on points, and Q and A. Be sure of this: I don’t allow “rules” to dictate a desires outcome. I don’t play that game.
LikeLike
Paul, Let’s do it on Youtube. We would have a far larger audience. I would be more than happy to do it on both if you like, but I doubt your “radio program” reaches an audience that extends beyond your followers. We can agree on the rules before we debate.
LikeLike
We have NO “followers” that’s a Protestant thing. We are a collective contribution to a common cause. Are you saying your followers wouldn’t come to a radio venue? The radio program is also archived. It is also broadcasted on BoxCaste which can post to YouTube. So, we could use the radio program to conduct the debate and simultaneously record to YouTube if would like. You can call into the radio program via Skype and then the video part would be shown on BoxCaste. What I am saying is that it can all be done at once and used for whatever after the fact. You can also come here and debate me publically if you would like. We will pay for the media production and all venue costs, and your room and board. You would only have to buy your plane ticket.
LikeLike
I don’t really have followers either. I am willing to do it anyway you like. I would love to come and do it in person. I think that would be much better. Unfortunately, the fare would be quite expensive from CR. I do appreciate the offer to pay for my room and board. Why don’t we see how the first debate goes. We might want to debate other topics as well and perhaps people would be willing to pitch in to make it happen. Let’s talk about format, guidelines and date. You clearly know more about the technical side of this than I do. I’m leaving for the English and Spanish Bible studies I teach but will be home in three or four hours. Do you have a date in mind?
LikeLike
I will come up with a date and a basic single subject topic and media protocol.
LikeLike
Paul, I am not easily frightened away. I think it would be great if we could debate in person. What is the closest international airport to you? I could at least check prices. SInce my wife will be away in early August, I would not have to leave her alone here in order to fly there for the debate.
LikeLike
Dayton International Airport a mere 30 miles from the capital of heterodoxy here in Xenia, Ohio.
LikeLike
Let me check rates if you are serious? Have any idea about dates?
LikeLike
You said first week of August that would probably work for us. Which suit would you prefer? The Patriot room, the wolf room, the medical room, or the 60’s room? Each room has internet, cable TV, and a desk. We have media capabilities here with triple redundancy internet backup, or we could rent the Xenia community center.
LikeLike
Let’s not reserve anything yet. That is quite a hefty sum for a guy on SS income. Let me see if I can scrape up the money, and we can continue to discuss the details. If we have to do the first one by Skype, that will work too. I just think it would be nice to see each other face to face in such a debate. Additionally, I think it would be nice to be able to do it before Aug or Sept if possible. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
We will explain on page 6 tonight (radio show) how all of your media wishes can be fulfilled simultaneously. We can integrate Skype, Google Group, the radio program, and BoxCast simultaneously.
LikeLike
Ain’t technology great?
LikeLike
Would you also like to debate sooner rather than later? Let me know.
LikeLike
Susan and I have an over-the-top amount of things on our plate. Any sooner than August would be virtually impossible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, I appreciate your busy schedule. I am not talking about an in person debate but a debate on Skype. Would that be the same for you? That is fine with me if Aug. is your earliest possible date. That will give some time to promote it.
LikeLike
Yes on that wise sooner is possible but I would have to think through it. Right now I am on the air in an hour and have to go.
LikeLike
OK we can chat later.
LikeLike
…there are also international airports in Cinn. and Columbus.
LikeLike
Paul, It looks as if flights are running around $575. RT. I was looking at a weekend early in August. In September around mid-month the prices seem to be more in the $400-450 range. That would be into Dayton.
LikeLike
“I would, of course, want to change “Jesus KEEPS the law for us” to Jesus KEPT the law for us.”
So Jesus “kept” the law. Woopty-doo. Righteousness is still apart from the law. (Romans 3:21, 28) What more is there to debate?
LikeLike
Whoa there Andy, I really want to debate this guy….don’t scare him off.
LikeLike
Andy, I was thinking the same thing about Jesus who “kept” the law. Before that, I’m sure He still was Jesus, eh? I advise against YouTube too; too many negatives, etc. Radio would be perfect.
LikeLike
What is negative about YouTube? Did you see my message about airports?
LikeLike
Once it is recorded for Youtube, it would be a simple matter for you to record and play it as your radio program. I think I would be very helpful to a wide audience to clarify the issues.
LikeLike
We could add the Q & A from callers to the YouTube later.
LikeLike
Andy and Paul, good idea. If nothing else, this debate will be tremendously interesting. I’m looking forward to hearing your ideas exchanged in real time!
-Zach
LikeLike
Additionally, It would be preferable to have a civilized debate and keep the “Woopty-doos” and “gnostic hack” comments to a minimum.
LikeLike
Right, we will not be needing that though it won’t be as fun.
LikeLike
With the amount of time you have spent on these issues, I can’t imagine that you would need much time to prepare. I don’t know if it has occurred to you or not, but with the intricacy of this topic, more than one debate might be needed.
LikeLike
Not sure why more than one debate would be needed to clarify why “apart” doesn’t mean “apart.”
LikeLike
I will save the answer for the debate.
LikeLike
I would think that at least one debate would be needed to clarify the definitions of the terms we are using. If we don’t use terms univocally, we will simply talk past each other.
LikeLike
Paul,
So that I can prepare better for the debate, can you explain more fully what you mean by Christians being “righteous as a state of being?” E.g., do you mean that Christians are sinless as far as our state is concerned?
It may be helpful if you could tell me as well by what standard you think we could determine whether that state of righteousness existed our not.
LikeLike
Not complicated. Our sins are not merely covered, they are ended. We are not simply declared righteous, we are righteous. And yes, we are sinless because where there is no law there is no sin and all sin is against the law and the law under the Old Covenant was a protector because all sin is imputed to the law and Christ came to end the law so we no longer need a guardian. In the Bible, “sin” regards condemnation. Under grace means we are obligated to fulfill the law through love. Faith “works through love.” Christians don’t sin against the law, they fail to love according to the law’s standard. We still fail to love because we are weak, but weakness dos not equal sin, the weak can be holy which is defined by having God’s seed within us; ie, being born of Him. The new birth defines righteousness/justification, not the law.
LikeLike
Just to clarify, it sounds as if you are not stating two different and contradictory ideas: 1. “Christ came to end the law. ..” 2. “Under grace means we are obligated to fulfill the law through love.” Could you tell me which one of those ideas you will stand by? Also, how can a person fail to love according to the standard of law that does not exist? If that standard does exist, and it is a codified legal standard, why is failure under that legal standard [law] not sin? Perhaps you could also clarify for me what there is about the new birth that, in itself, defines righteousness. Thanks
LikeLike
Sigh. Do you think I am a freaking idiot? I will explain this once and then I am done playing your games. The Spirit uses the law for two purposes; to condemn those who are unregenerate and to convict them of the judgement to come, and to sanctify (John 17:17). Christ came to end the law in regard to condemnation for those who believe on Him. The new birth changes the relationship of the law, or if you will, the Spirit’s application of it, to the new creature. Romans 7 explains this in no uncertain terms. The new birth, viz, a literal dying of the old you and resurrection to the new you as established by Christ’s death and resurrection, FREES the believer to “SERVE” the law of the Spirit of life and thus fulfilling the law by love. A single perspective on the law enslaves one to serving the law of sin and death. The old man literally dies, and like anyone who dies, cannot be condemned by the law, you know, because they are freaking dead! For crying out loud, read Romans 7! The law and justification are mutually exclusive period; the law is for sanctification. That’s why God came and manifested a righteousness A-P-A-R-T (choris: “separate” “without”) from the law. The new creature is still mortal, and because of weakness, is subject to falling short of love, but weakness due to the flesh does not, biblically speaking, equal “sin” or “evil.” That, in fact, is a Gnostic concept. Are the holy angels weaker than God? It’s a rhetorical question. Are they yet “holy”? That’s a rhetorical question also. Creation is weak, yet still “good.” That’s why like creation, we long for redemption. Yes, redemption is different from the new birth…redemption is the salvation of the body and is future. Remember, the body can be used for good or evil purposes (Romans 12:1). Also, a word study will reveal that when Paul said our bodies are the temple of God, the Holy of Holies is actually what is being referred to. The new birth changes a person’s indifference to the law of God to a love for God’s law (see Psalms 119), and though the “flesh is weak” the spirit is “willing.” Such defines the new birth and justification/righteousness NOT perfect law-keeping regardless of who keeps/kept the law. “APART” means “WITHOUT.” This is Paul’s cardinal point in Galatians 3: if there is a law than can give life…FOR JUSTIFCATION…there is more than one seed, but “God is one.” If Jesus kept/keeps the law for us because it defines righteousness, then there is more than one seed and the law can give life. Duh! Folks, this is not rocket science. PLEASE stop reading your Bibles according to the BS that you have learned in church all of your lives. JUST STOP IT!
LikeLike
I am sorry Paul, but I need further clarification. It sounds now as if you are saying Jesus did not end the law. If it still stands as the standard for sanctification then it can be disobeyed even if by a lack of love. Your premise is that “sin cannot exist where law does not exist” but now you are saying the law does exist, it simply cannot condemn believers. I would agree that neither it nor any other law can condemn believers, but, of course, for a different reason. For my own understanding of your position, I simply need to understand whether you think law continues to exist and if law continues to exist, why you think sin can’t. I can understand why you would say condemnation can’t exist, but I can’t understand why you would say sin cannot exist.
LikeLike
Hmmmmm. Well let me help you. In your single perspective on the law, and citing James 2:10 for proof, and according to the Calvin Institutes 3.14.10,11, one violation off the law breaks the law at all points. But, somehow, you struggle with the idea that one act of love fulfills the whole law. Please explain because you can’t have one without the other. The point is the motives and desires of the new person, not the law as a fourth member of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Paul, No one says “one act of obedience to the law fulfills the whole law” and one act of love does not fulfill the whole law. One failure to love breaks the law of love.
LikeLike
Because you are under law. And by the way, “love covers a multitude of sins.”
LikeLike
OK Paul, I can see that you are agitated with the idea of having to clarify your views. Let me know by email when you are ready to suggest a topic and we can decide on a date for debate. I hope you understand that I am talking about a formal debate in which we both give an opening statement, a rebuttal, a cross examination, and a Q & A. I have to confess that at this point, you don’t seem to be showing that you have the ability to be sufficiently respectful to engage in meaningful debate. Statements like “Do you think I’m a freaking idiot” and “I’m not playing any more of your games,” are probably out of place in any kind of scholarly debate. I am simply trying to understand your position accurately and I am trying to do so as respectfully as I can. I would appreciate the same level of respect.
LikeLike
My agitation regards your assumption that I don’t understand your historical-redemptive metaphysical worldview, and your insistence to communicate with me as if historical-grammatical metaphysics are not reality. HRH would insist on a single perspective on everything or what we call the “either/or hermeneutic.” If one examines your annoying questions carefully, it rejects the premise of the law having two purposes and applications by the Spirit, and would reject the possibility that weakness can encompass holiness. Again, your questions flow from a rejection of my worldview, and moreover, your assumption that I don’t know what’s going on is particularly annoying.
LikeLike
None of the above is true. I am simply trying to understand your views accurately.
LikeLike
My views have been stated here on this blog from a HGH perspective for years and you have been here 100’s of times interacting with them. In an email correspondence it was clearly defined that you believe that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not two perspectives on the law or two applications by the Spirit. Hence, I find your assertion that you are merely trying to understand my views egregiously disingenuous.
LikeLike
Actually, I don’t believe Rom. 8:2 refers either to two realms or to two perspectives on the law or two applications by the Spirit. I don’t believe the word “nomos” in that verse refers to law at all. Instead, it is being used in the sense of “principle.” Paul used it the same way at the end of Rom. 7. I find then a “law” a “principle.”
LikeLike
That’s fine, I will state my case and you will state yours and let the folks decide.
LikeLike
Paul, Actually, when we corresponded last, you had not yet come up with the idea that believers are unable to sin and that there is no longer any law at all. That is what I am trying to understand.
LikeLike
No law at all? Really? You really think that’s my position?
LikeLike
That is why I was asking for clarification. I can’t tell what your position is. If you argue that believers cannot sin because sin only exists where there is law, the conclusion would have to be that if believers cannot sin, law must not exist.
LikeLike
If the law only has one purpose for the Spirit.
LikeLike
And that would depend on which of the many meanings “vomos” has in the NT Scripture. In my view, the Mosaic Law has no use for the Spirit in the life of the NC believer.
LikeLike
Ok.
LikeLike
Sorry Paul, Somehow I saw 30 seconds. Are you saying 30 minutes?
LikeLike
OK, At least we can agree about something.
LikeLike
Andy,
In what sense then does a justified man need justification? I am just responding to your own words. You said that no man lost or saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification. The conclusion is then that a saved man still needs to be justified. Unless you would like to revise that original statement.
I am not saying that a justified man does need to be justified. I was not speaking about a need for additional justification but about the nature of a believer’s works done subsequent to conversion. Though the believer’s works of obedience are pleasing to his Father since he has already been declared righteous and has been accepted in the beloved, those same works when measured by the standard of God’s righteousness would not be sufficiently righteous to justify him before God.
LikeLike
If you are this agitated with a few simply questions, how do you expect to endure an entire debate?
LikeLike
Because I plan to use you to better define our Biblicism to those watching.
LikeLike
So, perhaps we can have a debate on HRH metaphysics versus HGH metaphysics. Then if necessary, we can go to Justification by Faith doctrine. Yah, that would work for me.
LikeLike
No, that would not work for me because there is no debate. I don’t believe one must give up one to pursue the other. You must be defining the Redemptive-Historical approach differently than I would.
LikeLike
Fine, define it anyway you want to and let the folks decide.
LikeLike
Let’s stick to the original topic. Just let me know what you want to call your view that opposes the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith.
LikeLike
“We have NO “followers” that’s a Protestant thing. ”
Lol! Amen and Amen!!!!!
LikeLike
A triple amen, Lydia. Just about every Calvinist blog/site is about “numbers” and followers, not to mention their Sunday fill-up stations. Numbers equal money… 🙂
Blessings, Lydia
LikeLike
And this coming from two followers.
LikeLike
Randy,
This is how you will know you are wasting our time with any of your particular comments; it won’t be posted. I said we don’t have followers here, so why are you calling these two people followers? Could you at least wait 48 hours since you have been back to this blog to be annoying?
LikeLike
Paul, I don’t care whether you post anything or not. I would perfer to communicate by email or Skype. I would be willing to bet that if I looked at your “followers” list on this blog, they would be on it.
LikeLike
Oh, I see, because WordPress uses the term “followers” in regard to email notices about new posts this makes them followers in regard to those who can’t think for themselves. Really? Randy, my patience is already running low with you.
LikeLike
This is why I believe definition is so important. I was using the word in the context in which it is used on Word Press, and you chose to use it in another context and give it a different meaning. This is the sort of thing that will make debate very difficult if we do not make sure we carefully define the terms we are using and agree on univocal definitions.
LikeLike
Additionally Paul, “I don’t know of any reputable dictionary that would define “followers” as “those who can’t think for themselves.”
LikeLike
Have you given any more thought to a precise issue for our debate?
LikeLike
Paul, Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative by the questions I am asking. It it is simply that nothing will be served if we spend our time arguing against what we imagine they other person might be saying. Feel free to ask me questions pre-debate for the same purpose. If you like, you can use my email at hotmail. rseiver1@hotmail.com. Let me know as soon as you come up with a suggested topic for debate.
LikeLike
I have already suggested the Protestant Justification by Faith doctrine like, 25 times. Please help me understand what you are missing in regard to that “suggestion.”
LikeLike
Paul, That is fine but the last communication I read from you about topic was “I will come up with a date and a basic single subject topic and media protocol.”Protestant Justification by Faith Doctine” is fine for my side of the argument but Vs. what for your side?
LikeLike
I interpreted Randy’s comment about “followers” to mean your regular social media audience. I didn’t read it as “disciples” necessarily.
I also get what you mean about “not having followers” in the “fawning bootlickers” sense (that was so utterly ostentatious and gross in SGM). And I’m glad you constantly make that point, because it’s a very important distinction between what you and “orthodoxy”.
LikeLike
Agro, I also abhor the type of “followers” you are describing. None of us rise above the level of a bondslave.
LikeLiked by 1 person