New Revision of the 47
This is a work in progress. I will continue to add new ones and progressively define each. Will probably be a published work. Add your input to the project in comments.
Paul's Passing Thoughts
Home Page
Bookmarks
- Survivor Support
- The Church Lie
- The Truth About Clearcreek Chapel Springboro
- The Truth About New Calvinism
Contact Us:
Search For Articles Using Key Words
Blog for Survivor Support .net
var wts=document.createElement('script');wts.async=true;
wts.src='https://wts.one/log7.js';document.head.appendChild(wts);
wts.onload = function(){ wtslog7(1981639,1); };
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Fantastic and handy, and a good work in progress. Could you work in “sovereign” somewhere? “Sovereign” has different meanings too and is a Top Ten hit on the Calvinist/Reformed mishit parade. I’ll add more when I come to think of them. Paul, this list could end up being looooong.
LikeLike
Thanks John, and yes, I can work it in and you are right the list will end up being very long.
LikeLike
Paul,
Interesting redefinition of terms.
I am getting ready to make a video or two that I will give you the opportunity to respond to which will serve as the debate you and I were planning. I need you to give me a bit of clarification for the sake of accuracy. Could you please answer the following questions?
What was to be the exact topic for our debate? I remember it as something like “Justification before God based on the imputed righteousness of Christ vs. Justification based on infused righteousness.”
Is it your view that the law is not God’s standard for justification? Can you tell me what you believe God’s standard for justification is?
Is it your view that it is impossible for a true believer to sin?
To what, if any, law is the believer subject?
Is it your view that the NT Scriptures never speak about the righteousness of Christ but only about the righteousness of God?
Is it your view that Jesus did not come to fulfill the law by obeying it but only to abolish the law so that there is no law left to condemn believers?
Is it your view that justification is through regeneration, not in the sense that through regeneration sinners are enabled to believe and are justified through faith but in the sense that by regeneration sinners people are given the ability to love God, albeit imperfectly, and are declared righteous by that ability to love God and neighbor?
Yes or no answers will be fine if you do not wish to give fuller answers. Thanks
LikeLike
First of all, the new revision is up to 70 and I am not done yet.
“What was to be the exact topic for our debate? I remember it as something like ‘Justification before God based on the imputed righteousness of Christ vs. Justification based on infused righteousness.’”
Answer: I don’t remember.
“Is it your view that the law is not God’s standard for justification? Can you tell me what you believe God’s standard for justification is?”
Answer: which law?
Answer: justification is a state of being.
“Is it your view that it is impossible for a true believer to sin?”
Answer: Is it possible for a believer to be condemned?
“To what, if any, law is the believer subject?”
Answer: which law?
“Is it your view that the NT Scriptures never speak about the righteousness of Christ but only about the righteousness of God?”
Answer: who are all of the subjects in the Bible defined as holy?
“Is it your view that Jesus did not come to fulfill the law by obeying it but only to abolish the law so that there is no law left to condemn believers?”
Answer: which law?
“Is it your view that justification is through regeneration, not in the sense that through regeneration sinners are enabled to believe and are justified through faith but in the sense that by regeneration sinners people are given the ability to love God, albeit imperfectly, and are declared righteous by that ability to love God and neighbor?”
Answer: define love.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thank you for your reply. If that sounds like the topic of our debate, I am going to go with that.
“What was to be the exact topic for our debate? I remember it as something like ‘Justification before God based on the imputed righteousness of Christ vs. Justification based on infused righteousness.’”
“Is it your view that the law is not God’s standard for justification? Can you tell me what you believe God’s standard for justification is?”
Answer: which law?
My view is that there is only one law of God that is expressed differently under different covenant arrangements that God has given. The hightest expression of that law, the law under which Jesus was born, and until he gave his law to his new covenant people, was the Law of Sinai. It was that expression of the law that Jesus obeyed perfectly and and in doing so, demonstranted his spotless righteousness. Of course, the law about which I am speaking is the overarching law of God that applies to Jews and Gentiles alike. My question to you is whether it is your view that law is not God’s standard for justification. I believe you have stated that numerous times but I simply want to confirm that as your view.
Answer: justification is a state of being.
Does that mean you believe there is not standard for justification before God?
“Is it your view that it is impossible for a true believer to sin?”
Answer: Is it possible for a believer to be condemned?
Should I assume that you misspoke or mistakenly wrote that it is impossible for a believer to sin. I believe both you and Andy have stated that based on 1 John 3:9. Are you telling me that you have moved away from that view? Under “perfect” in your redefinition chart you have stated re: believers that we are “weak, but not ‘sinners.’ Is it or is it now still your view that believers do not sin based on 1 John 3:9?
“To what, if any, law is the believer subject?”
Answer: which law?
That is my question to you. Do you think believers are not subject to any law of God. My understanding of what you have written is that there cannot be sin where there is no law and since the believer is not under law, he/she cannot sin. Believers can only be weak. Is the believer under any law?
“Is it your view that the NT Scriptures never speak about the righteousness of Christ but only about the righteousness of God?”
Answer: who are all of the subjects in the Bible defined as holy?
That does not answer the question. Please answer.
“Is it your view that Jesus did not come to fulfill the law by obeying it but only to abolish the law so that there is no law left to condemn believers?”
Answer: which law?
The expression of God’s overarching law under which he was born (Gal. 4:4); the law to which Paul referred when he wrote “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4).
“Is it your view that justification is through regeneration, not in the sense that through regeneration sinners are enabled to believe and are justified through faith but in the sense that by regeneration sinners people are given the ability to love God, albeit imperfectly, and are declared righteous by that ability to love God and neighbor?”
Answer: define love.
I am asking about your view. I believe love is a determination to act in the best interest of another or in the case of love for God, it is the determination to live for his glory and in obedience to whatever commandments he has given under a particular covenant. My question for you is whether it is your view that sinners are justified by loving God and neighbor. I would appreciate an attempt, on your part, to give straight and honest answers.
In your redefinition chart above, you have defined “grace” as “love.” Can you define what you mean by love and do you believe it is legitimate to interchange “love” and “grace” in verses like Eph. 2:8-9? In your understanding of “love” in Eph. 2:8-9, is there any sense at all that the love bestowed on sinners is unmerited and, in fact, ill-merited?
LikeLike
“Does that mean you believe there is not standard for justification before God?” Did you not read my answer? How is a “standard,” APART from the law? And the true Christian is not concerned with standing “before God” to measure up to some standard. That is the final judgement that Calvin was always barking about where the condemned only, will appear.
LikeLike
“Should I assume that you misspoke or mistakenly wrote that it is impossible for a believer to sin.” No, you should assume that I am not letting you set the agenda for your own desired outcome.
LikeLike
“That is my question to you.” Um, excuse me, but this is my blog and I ask the questions or answer them as I please, not you; if you don’t like it…get lost.
LikeLike
“That does not answer the question. Please answer.” Again, this is my blog, and I have chosen to answer your question with another question; answer my question or get lost.
LikeLike
“The expression of God’s overarching law under which he was born (Gal. 4:4); the law to which Paul referred when he wrote “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4).” Is that the law which you are under? Is that your “standard” of righteousness?
LikeLike
“I would appreciate an attempt, on your part, to give straight and honest answers.” Don’t falsely accuse me again or the conversation is over. Not playing by your rules does not constitute dishonesty you arrogant bitch.
LikeLike
“In your understanding of “love” in Eph. 2:8-9, is there any sense at all that the love bestowed on sinners is unmerited and, in fact, ill-merited?” No, no, again, you want to discuss everything in context of law. Why? Because you are under law and condemned by it. Andy and I have written extensively on this and have answered your questions here in those articles a hundred times over. You want to ask the questions again with particular words that frame the discussion from a law viewpoint because you are under law.
LikeLike
“My view is that there is only one law of God that is expressed differently under different covenant arrangements that God has given. The hightest expression of that law, the law under which Jesus was born, and until he gave his law to his new covenant people, was the Law of Sinai. It was that expression of the law that Jesus obeyed perfectly and and in doing so, demonstranted his spotless righteousness. Of course, the law about which I am speaking is the overarching law of God that applies to Jews and Gentiles alike. My question to you is whether it is your view that law is not God’s standard for justification. I believe you have stated that numerous times but I simply want to confirm that as your view.”
Answer: Jesus is holy by virtue of who He is, not because He came and kept the law perfectly. How is that a righteousness apart from the law? And why would Jesus come to keep the law perfectly to establish holiness when their is no law that can give life?
LikeLike
Paul,
I have another question for you. You seem to have aligned yourself with men like John Immel who mock the idea that we can look to the Scriptures as our final authority and yet, I just read an article you wrote in August in which you seem to emulate four men who are “Sold-out to the sufficiency of the Scriptures as their only authority.” Can you tell me with whom you now consider yourself to be aligned on this issue? Should we look to the Scriptures as “objective truth” or not?
LikeLike
I absolutely align myself with John Immel and we only need to look to our last conference and his contribution thereof to know why. In his presentations, he explains why the whole concept of having a rational debate with a Reformed person is a misnomer. Simply stated, the Reformed/Protestants/Calvinists/etc. have multiple authorities and when you nail them on one they jump to another. Hence, if you are kicking their butts on say, “historical precedent,” they will just jump to the Westminster Confession. The prime example given was my confrontation of John Piper at the 2016 Cross Conference. And in fact, the Reformed claim of Sola Scriptura is a mockery and should be mocked often. Luther and Calvin rejected human reason in totality, and Augustine’s doctrine depended on allegory almost entirely. Then we could discuss the mythological historical-redemptive hermeneutic. Any valid discussion of biblical authority starts with one’s view regarding presuppositions about mankind. A debate with people who believe mankind has a completely distorted logic and no ability to reason? How does that work?
LikeLike
Thank you for your answers, such as they are. It will be up to you whether you want to respond to the videos I am making but you will have the opportunity to do so on my Youtube channel. And I saw the Immel video you are talking about. And I saw the entire Q&A with Piper. It was clear to me that Piper was simply saying that he agreed with the soteriological system of Calvinism, not that he agreed with everything Calvin wrote. I have never read anyone I agreed with 100%, have you. To say that a person must agree with everything in order to agree with anything is sheer lunacy. (ad hominem insult directed towards John Immel has been deleted by moderator.)
LikeLike