Topic: Election of Angels Proves Rom 8:28ff not about election

[Alfred Persson]

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. (Luk 2:46 KJV)

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.(Mat 13:52 KJV)

 
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (Act 23:6 KJV)
 

Symbols sometimes are premises in Talmudic dialogue, the respondent must infer the point made. For example, Rabbi Jesus (Jo 1:38) proved the resurrection of the body by citing Ex 3:6 I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob(Mark 12:36f). This at best proves only life after death, not the resurrection of the body UNLESS one deduces from the scene the impossibility of God not fulfilling His promises to these they would serve Him physically forever.


Jesus’ audience understood the implied premise:


28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well. (Mar 12:26-28 KJV)
 
Compare:


'There is no section of the (written) Torah which does not imply the doctrine of the Resurrection, but we have not the capacity to expound it in this sense' (Sifre Deut. Section 306; 132a)


'Whence is the doctrine of the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, 'Ye shall give the Lord's heave-offering to Aaron the priest' (Num xviii. 28). But did Aaron live for ever to receive the offering? Is it not true he did not enter the land of Israel? Consequently the text teaches that he is to be restored to life (in the Hearafter) and will receive the heave-offering. Hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah (Sanh. 90b).  


This and other examples can be in Abraham Cohen’s “Everyman’s Talmud” (Schocken Books, New York, 1995), -pp 358-359


While instructing Jews (Jas 1:1) on the “Law of Liberty” (1:25; 2:12), which is a salvation through faith by grace alone, and not by works of Mosaic Law, a disputer states James’ position, and his own economically:


18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:


Thou hast saving faith which according to your law of liberty, doesn’t require works, and I have faith that works of Mosaic Law can save.


Having stated both positions well, the “vain man” pounces on an apparent contradiction in James’ faith, apparently it cannot exist without works, therefore:


Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.


“When you cite your works to prove you have saving faith, THEN you prove faith cannot exist without works and therefore prove my faith in works of Mosaic Law for salvation is correct.”


James' refutation is two fold:


19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


a)Faith can exist without works, the demons have faith so real they tremble.
 
b)You believe your Orthodox faith saves? The Devils also have Orthodox faith---it didn’t save them, neither will it save you.


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


With this proof in mind, will you agree faith without works of charity is dead, not a saving faith?


26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.(Jam 2:26-1 KJV)


James then analogizes Abraham and Rahab to living faith, similar to how works of love for God and man evidences its alive, so also the works of Abraham and Rahab justified  (δικαιόω) calling them righteous.


God implanted faith is made perfect (Jas 2:22 τελειόω) when the works God ordained it do are actualized in our sphere (Eph 2:8-10) making the evidence its saving faith from God “sure” cp βέβαιος, 2 Pe 1:10) in the eyes of angels and men.


 
Now our target text, expecting the audience will see the connection, Paul says:

 
 28 We know God interacts with everything in the best interests of those who love him, those called to implement his purpose.
 29 Because he foreknew them, he also preplanned for them to conform to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
 30 As for those he foresaw, he also called them; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.
 31 What then is our response to these things? If God is on our side, what does it matter who is against us? (Rom 8:28-31 MIT WG MacDonald Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, 2008)

 
Election is a fact in verse 28, not the subject. Paul is discussing all things working together for the elect’s good, and we know this is true BECAUSE (Ὅτι) God προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν  the Elect,  the two acts are cited as proof FOR the claim.


God did “Foreknow and (KAI) Predestine” those He had already elected, and this proves all things work together for their good.


The context has nothing to do with election per se, that’s why the non elect aren’t mentioned.
 

Its easy to see how predestination unto salvation is a benefit, but how did God's foreknowledge benefit us?
 
 
The context provides the clue:


33 Who can call into question God's chosen ones? God takes up for them.
34 Who would condemn us? Would Christ who died? Rather, he was raised, stationed at God's right, and also intercedes for us! (Rom 8:33-34 MIT)


Words injure…the allegation the elect aren't better than the Devil’s children would be a cut bleeding for all eternity, given survivors guilt.


Doubts about God’s justice, His impartiality, would be a plague killing our happiness.


Its impossible to predict what would develop from the delusion we didn't belong in God's Kingdom, that we really were no better than the Devil’s children who didn’t make it. Conceivably it could lead to another rebellion.


So God foreknows the elect in an alternate reality, where their free will was truly free, where the Devil never existed. And in that reality, none of the elect rebel against God like the Devil did, not one of them turn from loving God forever.


This proves God was not unjust saving them, and He was NOT showing partiality either, as He left the door open to the non elect and everyone of them had the opportunity to prove God’s foreknowledge wrong.


An analogy, suppose someone criticized the King’s choice of cars. The King has these cars in his fleet for his own reasons he won’t divulge to the critics. They are his, period. But to stop the criticism, he arranges a road test be done, to prove they are road worthy. The King didn’t reveal why he liked those cars---he likes them for his own good purpose and will, and NOT because of anything the cars themselves are or do, and its no one's business precisely why.
 
But he allows the test so his critics would know he didn’t choose cars that were unfit for the road. And if we stretch this analogy, the cars themselves needed to know, for their own peace of mind, lest they harbor some delusion they wrongly saved.
 
Then what is written, will be fulfilled:
 
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1Jo 3:8 KJV)
 
I am convinced not one child of God, not even a hair on their head, will be lost because of the devil's work. God will have utterly destroyed the works of the devil, and it will be (for us) as though the devil never been.
 
Amen, come LORD Jesus!
 
 
This is truly love before time.  
 
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. (Rom 9:29 KJV)
 
It’s a sad commentary on us all, even many of those who love God, will succumb to the temptations of evil…and be eternally lost, if not for God’s mercy.
 
 
As the context in Rom 8 is not about election, reprobation is not implied.

Scripture is quite clear, the non elect can repent and live with God in peace. That was expressly stated by the LORD Jesus Christ, the Word of God:
 
 
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen 4:7 KJV)
 
 
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Mat 13:15 KJV)
 
 
If a non elect would repent in truth and believe, while yet far off, God would hasten to a meet on the road:
 
 
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
(Luk 15:18-24 KJV)


That's the kinda of God He is, Light (1 Jo 1:5) and Love (1 Jo 4:8).


 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 (Rev 3:20-22 KJV)


END


Election clearly is separate from foreknowledge and predestination, for neither happened to the angels yet some of their number are elect also:
 
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. (1Ti 5:21 KJV)

[Thankful]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

I repent, that's no way to treat fellow believers in my LORD Jesus Christ.

[Thankful]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!  

I repent, that's no way to treat fellow believers in my LORD Jesus Christ.

It's nice to "see" you again. I hope all is well.  

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!  

I repent, that's no way to treat fellow believers in my LORD Jesus Christ.

It's nice to "see" you again. I hope all is well.  

It is, and I trust our LORD has blessed you also.

I do hope all read what I posted carefully, I am very curious what your reponses will be.

Good night!

May God grant peace to your house

[Alfred Persson]

I forgot to explain how forekowledge is a proof:

Its easy to discern why predestining the elect to be saved is a proof all things work together for their good, but how is foreknowing them a proof?

Those God foreknows He does not cast away, and this loyalty does not depend upon them:

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
 (Rom 11:2-6 KJV)

[FrChris]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

He lied then. Should a past history of lies such has been proven be an indicator of his present and future actions? 

[Philoumenos]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

He lied then.

Or maybe he had a change of heart.

[Melodist]

Welcome back.

[FrChris]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

He lied then.

Or maybe he had a change of heart.

A change of heart would indicate a change of behavior. There is no behaviorial change noted in him; he continues to develop a case for his own unique interporetation of Christianity that has been described here previously as Perssonism.

[ialmisry]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

He lied then.

Or maybe he had a change of heart.

Or maybe a change of feet?

[SolEX01]

Alfred!  I thought you shook our dust off your feet!   

He lied then.

Or maybe he had a change of heart.

Or maybe a change of feet?

Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.   

[Alfred Persson]

Because God is Omniscient some believe references to God’s prescience an anthropomorphism, figurative language denoting a time yet future to us.

As first that seems logical as it is impossible anything exist past, present or future, that does not have God’s concurrence to exist:

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:17 ESV)

For in him we live, and move, and have our being (Act 17:28 KJV)
.
“The Holy One, blessed be He, is the place of His Universe, but His Universe is not His place” (Gen. R. LXVIII. 9). He encompasses space but space does not encompass Him."-(Abraham Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, p. 8).

But that hasty generalization ignores the foreknowing happened before the foundation of the world, that is, before our time space continuum, past present and future, existed:

who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake, (1Pe 1:20 ASV)

God the Eternal Son is not being foreknown here, rather the man Jesus as God’s Ransom sacrifice--- “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8) who as yet didn’t exist.

Something must exist to be known, otherwise there’s nothing to know about it. Therefore foreknowledge does not contradict omniscience.

Collaborating this are the texts showing the lamb was slain the moment God created, and that we already are in heavenly places, in the eternal now of God, but finite creatures living in time and space won’t know this till the coming ages:

“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev 13:8 KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7 KJV)



So God’s foreknowledge is actual, and because its God who is foreknowing, its perfect. It follows those He foreknew were very real to Him, and that is when He loved the Elect, hence its impossible God cast them away:

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. (Rom 11:2 KJV)

When Paul cites God’s foreknowledge proof all things work together for their good, its likely because its when mutual love was experienced rendering impossible God cast them out. [/b][/i]

So election occurred via God’s omniscience, but it was foreknowing His Elect that benefits them.

As this foreknowledge is God knowing potentials, it logically includes seeing the Elect in an alternate reality without the Fall, the devil---nothing preventing their free will choice to love God forever.
 
It is logical God would preserve this record, for apologetic purposes, and out of concern for His beloved to remove any survivor’s guilt, lest they be plagued self doubt about themselves and God’s impartiality, forever.

[SolEX01]

God the Eternal Son is not being foreknown here, rather the man Jesus as God’s Ransom sacrifice--- “⁷It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.  And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation.  ⁸All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written inthe Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:7-8 ) who as yet didn’t exist.

You need the rest of Revelation 13 to understand what you cited regarding the Antichrist and the authority God gives Antichrist to vanquish the Church. 

Besides, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Your posts are still rambling and incoherent.  However you spent your time away from this forum wasn't beneficial....

[Alfred Persson]

Perhaps that's too much for one post, lets discuss the fundamental point:

Both Calvin and Arminius wrong as Election happened separate from foreknowledge and predestination:

28 We know God interacts with everything in the best interests of those who love him, those called to implement his purpose.
 29 Because he foreknew them, he also preplanned for them to conform to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
 30 As for those he foresaw, he also called them; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.
 31 What then is our response to these things? If God is on our side, what does it matter who is against us? (Rom 8:28-31 MIT WG MacDonald Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, 2008)

 
Election is a fact in verse 28, not the subject. Paul is discussing all things working together for the elect’s good, and we know this is true BECAUSE (Ὅτι) God προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν  the Elect,  the two acts are cited as proof FOR the claim.


God did “Foreknow and (KAI) Predestine” those He had already elected, and this proves all things work together for their good.


The context has nothing to do with election per se, that’s why the non elect aren’t mentioned.


Election clearly is separate from foreknowledge and predestination, for neither happened to the angels yet some of their number are elect also:
 

21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. (1Ti 5:21 KJV)

[Iconodule]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them the Orthodox are, and therefore they are just as wrong.

...unless you can prove the Orthodox are right on this, with scripture.

[Iconodule]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

unless you can prove you aren't.

The false assumptions you make are your own problem, not ours.

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

[Iconodule]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

Now if you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10)

You've been admonished more than twice.

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

Now if you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10)

You've been admonished more than twice.

No, I am definitely not a heretick, but you dishonor me.

But as you have reached your limit, I will expect not to hear from you again.

Out of your own mouth, is the witness against you, if you keep admonishing me, against the apostles teaching.

[SolEX01]

No, I am definitely not a heretick.

Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?   

But as you have reached your limit, I will expect not to hear from you again.

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.

Out of your own mouth, is the witness against you, if you keep admonishing me, against the apostles teaching.

A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.   

[ialmisry]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

[SolEX01]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?   

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.   

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?  

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.  

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?    

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.    

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.

ps: I didn't repay the insult with insult, and I followed Christ's lead in situations like this:

Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. (Joh 8:49 NKJ)


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend your beliefs with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

[ialmisry]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?  

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.  

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?    

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.    

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.

ps: I didn't repay the insult with insult, and I followed Christ's lead in situations like this:

Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. (Joh 8:49 NKJ)


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend your beliefs with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

Christ I know and St. Justin Martyr I know, but who are you?

rambling does not an argument make.

[dcommini]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?   

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.   

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?   

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.   

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend the faith with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

And it's time for you to actually study the Scriptures you claim to love so much and find out what they really say instead of jumping on the latest band wagon of what ever Protestant preacher you favor. You're arguments aren't arguments at all, its just you copying and pasting scripture to fit your most current idea.

Perhaps the people on this forum don't want to have an actual dialogue with you because of your past behavior on this forum; behavior such as false assumptions, straw men, completely ignoring those posts refuting your theories (there have been many), and general disrespect for Orthodoxy as a whole. No body wants to have a dialogue with you because they know that it will not profit them anything, we can not persuade you and you can not persuade us so there is no point in mocking the debate process on this forum any longer.

Even if we disregard your past behavior on this forum we still run into another problem with you. That problem is that you have told us that you are leaving this site for good, and then you pop back in here. We can not rightly trust your word because you have shown us through these actions that you can not be trusted, and if you can not be trusted by your actions how can you be trusted by your words? Actions speak louder than words, and you actions do not give us hope for any actual dialogue.

Now I am not saying all of this to hate on you, I am not trying to bash you. What I am saying is that if you truly desire to have a dialogue with us then show us that your actions have changed, don't try to claim that we can not refute your beliefs when no body decides to respond to you. We have seen too many times before how you have been refuted and yet you push on like nothing was said. Change your actions, respect us (truly respect us), respect our opinions, and stop trying to goad arguments out of us - then we might want to hold a dialogue with you.

[Alfred Persson]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?  

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.  

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?    

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.    

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend the faith with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

And it's time for you to actually study the Scriptures you claim to love so much and find out what they really say instead of jumping on the latest band wagon of what ever Protestant preacher you favor. You're arguments aren't arguments at all, its just you copying and pasting scripture to fit your most current idea.

Perhaps the people on this forum don't want to have an actual dialogue with you because of your past behavior on this forum; behavior such as false assumptions, straw men, completely ignoring those posts refuting your theories (there have been many), and general disrespect for Orthodoxy as a whole. No body wants to have a dialogue with you because they know that it will not profit them anything, we can not persuade you and you can not persuade us so there is no point in mocking the debate process on this forum any longer.

Even if we disregard your past behavior on this forum we still run into another problem with you. That problem is that you have told us that you are leaving this site for good, and then you pop back in here. We can not rightly trust your word because you have shown us through these actions that you can not be trusted, and if you can not be trusted by your actions how can you be trusted by your words? Actions speak louder than words, and you actions do not give us hope for any actual dialogue.

Now I am not saying all of this to hate on you, I am not trying to bash you. What I am saying is that if you truly desire to have a dialogue with us then show us that your actions have changed, don't try to claim that we can not refute your beliefs when no body decides to respond to you. We have seen too many times before how you have been refuted and yet you push on like nothing was said. Change your actions, respect us (truly respect us), respect our opinions, and stop trying to goad arguments out of us - then we might want to hold a dialogue with you.

Prove every charge you made, or apologize for the smear.


Is there no defender of the faith here?

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong?

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.

[ialmisry]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?  

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.  

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?    

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.    

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend the faith with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

And it's time for you to actually study the Scriptures you claim to love so much and find out what they really say instead of jumping on the latest band wagon of what ever Protestant preacher you favor. You're arguments aren't arguments at all, its just you copying and pasting scripture to fit your most current idea.

Perhaps the people on this forum don't want to have an actual dialogue with you because of your past behavior on this forum; behavior such as false assumptions, straw men, completely ignoring those posts refuting your theories (there have been many), and general disrespect for Orthodoxy as a whole. No body wants to have a dialogue with you because they know that it will not profit them anything, we can not persuade you and you can not persuade us so there is no point in mocking the debate process on this forum any longer.

Even if we disregard your past behavior on this forum we still run into another problem with you. That problem is that you have told us that you are leaving this site for good, and then you pop back in here. We can not rightly trust your word because you have shown us through these actions that you can not be trusted, and if you can not be trusted by your actions how can you be trusted by your words? Actions speak louder than words, and you actions do not give us hope for any actual dialogue.

Now I am not saying all of this to hate on you, I am not trying to bash you. What I am saying is that if you truly desire to have a dialogue with us then show us that your actions have changed, don't try to claim that we can not refute your beliefs when no body decides to respond to you. We have seen too many times before how you have been refuted and yet you push on like nothing was said. Change your actions, respect us (truly respect us), respect our opinions, and stop trying to goad arguments out of us - then we might want to hold a dialogue with you.

Prove every charge you made, or apologize for the smear.


Is there no defender of the faith here?

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong?

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him"-God, through the mouth of Solomon (Prov. 26:4).

[bogdan]

What have we to discuss? Heretical teachings about Predestination are not ravaging the Church; we are of one mind on this subject. The Fathers did not troll about, looking for debates with those outside the Catholic Church who would not submit to their authority anyway. The Fathers presented the truth, and people could take it or leave it.

So here's the truth. This is the third Decree of the Confession of Dositheus.

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain  salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High?  We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation.  But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

And a bit from Decree 14.

A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace, as has been said in treating of predestination. Consequently, he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.

(Source)

You can take it or leave it, but this is the truth as it has been proclaimed by the synod of Jerusalem in 1672. This is all I intend to post on the matter.

[SolEX01]

Prove every charge you made, or apologize for the smear.

Is there no defender of the faith here?

Sorry, no one else is defending your faith.

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong?

We have.  You won't listen.  Dianetics is a pretty thick book if I recall although I will never read it.

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

We have cited from the Fathers which have fallen on your deaf ears.

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.

It is you who is behaving differently.  You made the choice to behave in the manner that you have on this forum.  Our choice is in how we respond to you and many have chosen to ignore you rather than dialogue with you on things that we deem heretical.  After all, Protestantism broke away from Roman Catholicism because each Protestant wanted to be Pope.  You choose to follow "Pope" John MacArthur and came on this forum to lead us astray....

[dcommini]

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

I understand if you don't know what the orthodox believe, but why respond to my post if that's the case?

If you do know, how does your response comply with apostolic doctrine:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

The Lord's express command:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Mat. 10:14 (KJV)

Adios! Have a good trip!

I'm staying to see if any will dialogue with me, which i believe is the purpose of the board, to showcase Orthodoxy.

You won't dialogue with me - does that mean Orthodoxy has won?   

But is it really about winning or losing ... or your absolute failure to make your points on this forum.   

Reply 11: Or maybe the OP read all the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reply 21: Is that always the defense given by heretics ... No, I'm not a heretic but that guy is a heretic?   

Your time away from the forum was not well spent.  Instead of coming back in humility, your arrogance remains at that level from March 2011.
A self-fulfilling prophecy ... pertaining to you.   

That’s not dialogue, that’s hate.

I pray theives never strike me down where you walk, you'd finish the job.

The responses I've received so far are showcasing Orthodoxy, but not in the light Christ would approve.


Won't anyone replicate Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", defend the faith with scripture as he did...

I posted my arguments...its time you rebut them, if you can.

And it's time for you to actually study the Scriptures you claim to love so much and find out what they really say instead of jumping on the latest band wagon of what ever Protestant preacher you favor. You're arguments aren't arguments at all, its just you copying and pasting scripture to fit your most current idea.

Perhaps the people on this forum don't want to have an actual dialogue with you because of your past behavior on this forum; behavior such as false assumptions, straw men, completely ignoring those posts refuting your theories (there have been many), and general disrespect for Orthodoxy as a whole. No body wants to have a dialogue with you because they know that it will not profit them anything, we can not persuade you and you can not persuade us so there is no point in mocking the debate process on this forum any longer.

Even if we disregard your past behavior on this forum we still run into another problem with you. That problem is that you have told us that you are leaving this site for good, and then you pop back in here. We can not rightly trust your word because you have shown us through these actions that you can not be trusted, and if you can not be trusted by your actions how can you be trusted by your words? Actions speak louder than words, and you actions do not give us hope for any actual dialogue.

Now I am not saying all of this to hate on you, I am not trying to bash you. What I am saying is that if you truly desire to have a dialogue with us then show us that your actions have changed, don't try to claim that we can not refute your beliefs when no body decides to respond to you. We have seen too many times before how you have been refuted and yet you push on like nothing was said. Change your actions, respect us (truly respect us), respect our opinions, and stop trying to goad arguments out of us - then we might want to hold a dialogue with you.

Prove every charge you made, or apologize for the smear.


Is there no defender of the faith here? (goading)

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong? (more goading)

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.

Red text above is mine.

First up, telling us that you are leaving (and disrespect):

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Yup. That, and don't feed the troll.

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.

You, sir, have crossed the line of rudeness.

While discussion of greater discipline for you has been conducted, it was decided to continue to allow you to post here due to the following reasons:

1. Your poorly structured "arguments" display for all this site the lack of substance behind anyone holding your position.

2. You entertain many of us with your belief system.

The consequences of your  Post Moderation status has been explained to you previously.

+FrChris
Admin

Being called swine and troll by moderators was the last straw...


I shake the dust off my feet of this place. May the peace I brought, leave with me.

Next, false assumptions:

Who cares what Calvin and Arminius thought? This is not a Reformed forum.

So, they cover the full spectrum of thought on this. Somewhere between them you are

Except they don't, and we're not. They are not a part of our doctrinal heritage. All the time you spend posting interminable essays on this website you could better spend learning about Orthodoxy and its history.

unless you can prove you aren't.

The false assumptions you make are your own problem, not ours.

On to straw man:

Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.

^Here is a straw man and false assumption rolled into one.

This I believe leaves us with you being refuted:

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.

Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

Refuted twice and yet you still pressed on. Another refutation:

a)why they ran into the lake

But for what intent did the devils destroy the swine? Everywhere they have labored to drive men to dismay, and everywhere they rejoice in destruction. This, for instance, the devil did with respect to Job, although in that case too God suffered it, but neither in that case as complying with the devil, but willing to show His own servant the more glorious, cutting off from the evil spirit all pretext for his shamelessness, and turning on his own head what was done against the righteous man. Because now also the contrary of what they wished came to pass. For the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed, and the wickedness of the demons, from which He delivered those possessed by them, was more plainly indicated; and how they want power to touch even swine, without permission from the God of all.
And if any would take these things in a hidden sense, there is nothing to hinder. For the history indeed is this, but we are to know assuredly, that the swinish sort of men are especially liable to the operations of the demons. And as long as they are men that suffer such things, they are often able yet to prevail; but if they are become altogether swine, they are not only possessed, but are also cast down the precipice. And besides, lest any should suppose what was done to be mere acting, instead of distinctly believing that the devils were gone out; by the death of the swine this is rendered manifest.
And mark also His meekness together with His power. For when the inhabitants of that country, after having received such benefits, were driving Him away, He resisted not, but retired, and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, having given them for teachers them that had been freed from the demons, and the swine-herds, that they might of them learn all that had happened; whilst Himself retiring leaves the fear vigorous in them. For the greatness withal of the loss was spreading the fame of what had been done, and the event penetrated their mind. And from many quarters were wafted sounds, proclaiming the strangeness of the miracle; from the cured, and from the drowned, from the owners of the swine, from the men that were feeding them.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

b)what happened to them after they did

. . .the devils destroy[ed] the swine. . .

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Now, should any one say, “And wherefore did Christ fulfill the devils’ request, suffering them to depart into the herd of swine?” this would be our reply, that He did so, not as yielding to them, but as providing for many objects thereby. One, to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine, unless even in their calamity they had enjoyed much of God’s providential care. For that they hate us more than the brutes is surely evident to every man. So then they that spared not the swine, but in one moment of time cast them all down the precipice, much more would they have done so to the men whom they possessed, leading them towards the desert, and carrying them away, unless even in their very tyranny the guardian care of God had abounded, to curb and check the excess of their violence. Whence it is manifest that there is no one, who doth not enjoy the benefit of God’s providence. And if not all alike, nor after one manner, this is itself a very great instance of providence; in that according to each man’s profit, the work also of providence is displayed.
And besides what hath been mentioned, there is another thing also, which we learn from this; that His providence is not only over all in common, but also over each in particular; which He also declared with respect to His disciples, saying, “But the very hairs of your head are numbered.” And from these demoniacs too, one may clearly perceive this; who would have “been choked” long before, if they had not enjoyed the benefit of much tender care from above.
For these reasons then He suffered them to depart into the herd of swine, and that they also who dwelt in those places should learn His power. For where His name was great, He did not greatly display Himself: but where no one knew Him, but they were still in an insensible condition, He made His miracles to shine out, so as to bring them over to the knowledge of His Godhead. For it is evident from the event that the inhabitants of that city were a sort of senseless people; for when they ought to have adored and marvelled at His power, they sent Him away, and “besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts.”

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

And another:

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.

Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

Dart is correct. Alfred is positing a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Holy Tradtion come in and through the Church. Sola Scripturists sever the branches (Scripture) from the roots (The Church). Apart from their Life-giving source, the Scriptures become malleable to the subjective interpretations of the individual and individual sects- all claiming to have the proper "hermeneutical principles." We must not forget that satan himself was a skilled biblical apologist.


Selam

And another post showing that we can not trust you by your actions (see red bolded text):

If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

See you said

I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.

I have delivered. Of course you will most likely say that the quotes above don't really prove anything at all and still demand an apology. You might even fall back on your old tactic of not reading long posts. But, alas, that seems the game to be played... Any more questions?

[Alfred Persson]

I have delivered. Of course you will most likely say that the quotes above don't really prove anything at all and still demand an apology. You might even fall back on your old tactic of not reading long posts. But, alas, that seems the game to be played... Any more questions?

Is there no defender of the faith here? (goading)

Is God goading?:
Thus says your Lord, The LORD and your God, Who pleads the cause of His people:  (Isa 51:22 NKJ)

Rather than goading, this is accurate commentary on the responses I received:

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong? (more goading)

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.


How is it Orthodox honor the fathers, when they don’t treat me as the fathers would have…

What father responds to Bible argument the way you folks have?

Name one father that answered similar as you folks do in this thread, to me.

You cannot, because the Fathers are like me, they knew the scripture, and cited it for their beliefs. Compare any of my OP, and you will see apologetic like that of the fathers.

Compare any of your responses, and you see how unbelievers treated God's servants, Jesus and His apostles.

That is a fact.


I want to discuss Bible doctrine, with someone who knows what the orthodox believe…and so far, no one like that has appeared.

That is odd indeed, very unlike the fathers you claim to honor.

[Shlomlokh]

I have delivered. Of course you will most likely say that the quotes above don't really prove anything at all and still demand an apology. You might even fall back on your old tactic of not reading long posts. But, alas, that seems the game to be played... Any more questions?

Is there no defender of the faith here? (goading)

Is God goading?:
Thus says your Lord, The LORD and your God, Who pleads the cause of His people:  (Isa 51:22 NKJ)

Rather than goading, this is accurate commentary on the responses I received:

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong? (more goading)

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.


How is it Orthodox honor the fathers, when they don’t treat me as the fathers would have…

What father responds to Bible argument the way you folks have?

Name one father that answered similar as you folks do in this thread, to me.

You cannot, because the Fathers are like me, they knew the scripture, and cited it for their beliefs. Compare any of my OP, and you will see apologetic like that of the fathers.

Compare any of your responses, and you see how unbelievers treated God's servants, Jesus and His apostles.

That is a fact.


I want to discuss Bible doctrine, with someone who knows what the orthodox believe…and so far, no one like that has appeared.

That is odd indeed, very unlike the fathers you claim to honor.

Are you familiar with the term "prelest"?

In Christ,
Andrew

[dcommini]

I have delivered. Of course you will most likely say that the quotes above don't really prove anything at all and still demand an apology. You might even fall back on your old tactic of not reading long posts. But, alas, that seems the game to be played... Any more questions?

Is there no defender of the faith here? (goading)

Is God goading?:
Thus says your Lord, The LORD and your God, Who pleads the cause of His people:  (Isa 51:22 NKJ)

No, God is not goading, but you are goading especially as you presume to speak for Him.

Rather than goading, this is accurate commentary on the responses I received:

Not one who will do as the fathers did, take up the scriptures and prove where I am wrong? (more goading)

That is what the fathers did...profusely...

You honor them, yet behave differently, its inconsistent.

Why should we take up the scriptures and prove you wrong like the Fathers did? They already proved you wrong for us, profusely!

How is it Orthodox honor the fathers, when they don’t treat me as the fathers would have…

What father responds to Bible argument the way you folks have?

Name one father that answered similar as you folks do in this thread, to me.

You cannot, because the Fathers are like me, they knew the scripture, and cited it for their beliefs. Compare any of my OP, and you will see apologetic like that of the fathers.

Compare any of your responses, and you see how unbelievers treated God's servants, Jesus and His apostles.

That is a fact.

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means...

I want to discuss Bible doctrine, with someone who knows what the orthodox believe…and so far, no one like that has appeared.

That is odd indeed, very unlike the fathers you claim to honor.

Then actually discuss Bible doctrine! Plenty of people engaged you when you first appeared on this thread. Prove to us you really want an honest to God discussion, prove to us you will actually respect what we say. And please, do not ever equate yourself with the Early Church Fathers, who surely did know scripture far beyond that of any of us on this thread, again; if you knew scripture like they did then you would be in the same Church they were in.

[PeterTheAleut]

Does anyone here honestly think they can change Alfred by continuing to engage him? So why are you all still trying?

[Alfred Persson]

Then actually discuss Bible doctrine!...

Sure:

The Orthodox believe "God's acts according to foreknowledge" http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

That cannot be correct for it is written:

8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,-NET Bible

"Because" in dialogue identifies what follows is the premise for the conclusion in vs 28.

Its clear God's Omniscience elected, and then He treats the Elect differently than the non elect, He predestines they be saved.

THAT is why the non elect aren't in the context, they are irrelevant, this isn't about election, its about all things working together for the elect's good.


Paul confirms this saying we were chosen "according to the good pleasure of His will" which precludes it was according to His foreknowledge of us:


 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Eph 1:4-5 KJV)

Therefore Calvin, Arminius, the Orthodox...everyone misreading this context, which isn't about election, are wrong.

[dcommini]

Then actually discuss Bible doctrine!...

Sure:

The Orthodox believe "God's acts according to foreknowledge" http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

That cannot be correct for it is written:

8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,-NET Bible

"Because" in dialogue identifies what follows is the premise for the conclusion in vs 28.

Its clear God's Omniscience elected, and then He treats the Elect differently than the non elect, He predestines they be saved.

THAT is why the non elect aren't in the context, they are irrelevant, this isn't about election, its about all things working together for the elect's good.


Paul confirms this saying we were chosen "according to the good pleasure of His will" which precludes it was according to His foreknowledge of us:


 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Eph 1:4-5 KJV)

Therefore Calvin, Arminius, the Orthodox...everyone misreading this context, which isn't about election, are wrong.

Maybe it is my simple mind unable to grasp what you are trying to say here, but in no way do I see how the verses you cited negate that "God acts according to foreknowledge" especially since the website you posted says that...

"predestination" is basically another way of saying "God's acts according to foreknowledge"

If you wish to see the Orthodox stand point on this... (from a link found in the article that you posted above http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P15.htm#Saints)

THE TEACHING ON PREDESTINATION AND THE VENERATION OF SAINTS. Luther and his followers could not bring themselves to draw the extreme conclusions that logically flowed from their false teaching on man's salvation. Calvin and Zwingli and their reformer-followers proved to be more consis-tent. If good works have no significance whatsoever in the matter of salvation, if man through sin has lost every capacity for good, and if even faith - the sole condition for salvation - is God's gift, the question naturally arises: why then are not all men saved, why do some receive grace, while others believe and perish? There can be only one answer to this question, and the reformers give it: "From eternity, God predestined some for salvation, others for perdition, and this predestination depends not at all on a man's personal freedom and life."

The erroneousness of the reformers'teaching is obvious. It perverts the truly Christian understanding of God's justice and mercy, of man's worth and purpose as a free and rational being. God appears here not as a loving, merciful Father, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:4), but as a cruel, unjust despot, who saves some without any merit and dooms others without fault to perdition.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes predestination, but does not consider it unconditional, that is, independent of men's free well and based on a groundless decision of the divine will. Accord-ing to Orthodox teaching, God, as omniscient, knows, foresees the moral state of men and, on the basis of this foresight, preordains, predetermines for them a certain fate.

But He does not preordain for anyone a definite moral state; He does not preordain either a virtuous or a sinful life and does not at all inhibit our freedom. Therefore, even the Apostle Paul, whom the reformers cite, very closely connects the teaching on predestination with the teaching on God's foresight. In the Epistle to the Romans, he explains this thought in detail, and, incidentally, says concerning predestina-tion: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son? Moreover whom he did pre-destinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30). In this way, God predestinates to glory not according to His groundless arbitrariness, as the reformers think, but according to His foreknowledge of a man's merits accomplished through his free will.

Please forgive me, but again I really do not see what you are trying to get at here, Alfred. Are you saying that predestination exists? If so, it would appear that the Orthodox agree, to a point. Are you saying that God does not act according to foreknowledge? If so, how could there be those predestined? I'm sorry but I am afraid you are going to need to spell this out for me... maybe its just my lack of caffeine. Can somebody else maybe clue me in?

[Alfred Persson]

That site was giving the Orthodox position, not mine. Its where I got the quote.

I think your quote reverses the order, that Luther got reprobation from his soteriology, he rather got it from here:

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Rom 9:18-19 NKJ)

And they inferred it from Rom 8:29ff reasoning if the elect only are predestined to salvation, that implies the non elect are predestined to damnation.

I don’t believe in reprobation, but that is a tangent we can discuss if you like, but for now I’d rather clear up any confusion about what I said.

Some argue God is omniscient therefore God “foreknowing” is anthropomorphic, figurative language only.

But that is based upon a hasty generalization fallacy as it ignores “there is nothing to know about non existent entities.”

In other words, God’s omniscience covers all that exists, and all God muses may exist, but not what doesn’t exist because there is nothing to know when it does not exist.

So whenever God contemplates bringing something into existence, then everything about it is instantly known.

So God’s omniscient knowledge of all that exists would increase, the moment He contemplates adding to what exists.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, (Eph 1:4 KJV)

While you can call this “foreknowledge”, Election here is a function of God’s omniscience.


Foreknowledge is an aspect of God’s omniscience. While God’s instantly knowing whatever He contemplates creating could be called foreknowledge, Romans 8:28ff isn't about election, its about all things working together for the Elect’s good and both foreknowing and predestining the elect are being cited as PROOF of the proposition---HOTI "Because" in dialogue identifies what follows is the premise for the conclusion in vs 28.

As verse 28 has Election as a fact, then verse 29 cites foreknowing and predestining in a different relation, different from knowing when He Elected---foreknowing is an aspect of God's omniscience and not an anthropomorphism.

I infer from Rom 11:2 that God’s foreknowing “highlights” what is already known, perhaps making it as real as gets without actually creating it.

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. (Rom 11:2 KJV)

The implication is God knew these in a special way, that it became “personal” when God foreknew them. Now He cannot cast them away.

To sum up, if one accepts the Scripture’s teaching God foreknows, and not call it figurative only, then foreknowledge is knowing what God already knows, in a special way.


Hence if the Orthodox mean God elects according to His foreknowledge, and they point to Rom 8:29 as proof, they are wrong, the context isn’t about election, its about all things that work together for the elects good, who were already elected prior to this particular act of foreknowledge.

[ozgeorge]

prior to this particular act of foreknowledge.

So you believe that God was once ignorant and later gained foreknowledge?

[Alfred Persson]

prior to this particular act of foreknowledge.

So you believe that God was once ignorant and later gained foreknowledge?

Nope, read it again.

[ozgeorge]

prior to this particular act of foreknowledge.

So you believe that God was once ignorant and later gained foreknowledge?

Nope, read it again.

OK, let me explain this slowly.
You say:
"... its about all things that work together for the elects good, who were already elected prior to this particular act of foreknowledge."

But how can the "elect" be "elected" prior to God's "act of foreknowledge" without these two so-called "acts of God" (i.e. "electing" and "foreknowledge") being in a certain chronological order?

[ozgeorge]

Therefore if, as you claim, "election" precedes "foreknowledge", then God:
A) Elected the elect without foreknowledge (which means it was a random choice), and
B)God is not omniscient since He was once ignorant of the future and later gained foreknowledge (after He chose the elect).
Which, of course, is a load of cobblers.

[genesisone]

In other words, God’s omniscience covers all that exists, and all God muses may exist, but not what doesn’t exist because there is nothing to know when it does not exist.

So whenever God contemplates bringing something into existence, then everything about it is instantly known.

So God’s omniscient knowledge of all that exists would increase, the moment He contemplates adding to what exists.

So is what you're trying to say that for God, all creation is an eternal present? If so, that seems very Orthodox to me. That's why our prayers can be effective even outside of time - how often have you prayed for someone or something and then found out that your prayer was answered unbeknownst to you long before you prayed it? It's also why our liturgical life is so meaningful. Let this be a bit of explanation about what I mean: We do not reenact the events of Christ's life - e.g., Transfiguration - but on August 6 we recognize and celebrate its eternal and present significance.