Replies

Alex: "This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election."

FK: "Well, in that case, you cannot believe there is even a such thing as the "elect". If any of the elect ultimately fall short, then the concept is destroyed."

Alex: "Not at all. If he falls short, he is not of the elect, even though he is called. If he is among the elect, he will do what St. Peter tells him, repent, grow in virtues, remain elect, and sin no more." (emphasis added)

You make my point for me. If it is up to a person to REMAIN elect, then the Biblical concept is moot. It is a sham. Just say that men elect themselves and be done with it. :) One of my favorite movies is "The Sting". You have God past-posting!!! And I'm not even kidding. :)

FK: "The flesh counts for nothing."

This is not interpretation, this is mistranslation, designed to tell you lies about the gospel.

You're right, this is not interpretation. These are actual words from John 6. What is the mistranslation?

A true leader leads free men who know what they are doing as they follow. What you see is a slave runner.

Amen! Yes, God is a runner of slaves to righteousness. For example:

1 Cor 7:21-23 : 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave . 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here. What about this:

Rom 6:17-18 : 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Paul readily says that he is putting this in "human terms". That's the way we use it here.

(Ecclesiasticus 15) .....

Thanks for posting from the Deuts. :) From the flow of the passage, this certainly seems like a works-based salvation model. I.e. "16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, ..." How do you analyze them, as against the OT or the NT? I ask because we have been dealing with the NT.

Seriously: Is there any sense in which the word "free" is rightly attributed to human beings. If the answer is yes, can you sort of develop it a little, please?

As I have or should have said to you before, I think the whole matter is unthinkable. We have Jeremiah saying that God does not willingly afflict the children of men -- with the suggestion that God does stuff unwillingly. We have 1 Tim 2:3-4 and the apparent problem of God's desire being frustrated. To me that's a poser.

How can we give the sovereignty of God its proper place in any account without ending up sounding a lot like Muslims - "(shrug) It is written, inscrutable but written: some are damned, some are saved, what can you do but what it is written that you shall do, what can you suffer but what it is written you shall suffer ....)

Clearly we have different ethical concepts from those of Islam, and we think that Jesus is the perfect and efficacious revelation of God, while they think the Mohammed provided the perfect revelation, while being himself one heck of a guy, but not divine. But they seem to despise freedom, while in every other FR forum but the religious one Freedom is a value.

I'm serious here. Is this at all suggestive of anything that might be important or should I just go back to sleep?

Yes, God is a runner of slaves to righteousness...

It does not appear that Christ is respecting men here.

AMEN!

"For there is no respect of persons with God." -- Romans 2:11

And we see Peter agreeing with Paul...

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34-35

The question then becomes who is able to be righteous and thus judged well according to the fruits of his life? And the answer is all and only those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, according to the will and purpose of God who determined the names of His children from before the foundation of the world...

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13

As you've noted, we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness. There's no middle ground. How do we become servants of righteousness? Paul explains...

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -- Romans 6:16-18

We're able to act righteously and "obey from the heart" because God gives His children a "new heart" with which to understand and believe.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26

With this new heart we are able to comprehend the reason for our salvation -- Jesus Christ upon the cross. We then become "servants of righteousness" not by our own efforts, but by Jesus Christ's redemptive sacrifice. His righteousness becomes our own and we are acquitted of our sins.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21

It's all Jesus Christ, all the time, everywhere for everything, whether the world recognizes this fact or not.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17

If it is up to a person to REMAIN elect, then the Biblical concept is moot

No -- why? The gospels are filled with things that we are to do, whereas we are also free to not do them.

These are actual words from John 6. What is the mistranslation?

"flesh accounts for nothing" is a mistranslation. It actually says "flesh profits nothing", and therefore refers not to the flesh of Christ, but to the flesh of the eater, which indeed gains nothing from the communion bread gastronomically speaking.

God is a runner of slaves to righteousness

Both 1 Cor 7:21-23 and Romans 6:17-18 speak of liberation from sin and "slavery of righteousness" is not an indication of lack of an ability to choose wrong, but rather lack of desire to choose wrong. The context of 1 Corinthians 7 is general obedience to the "calling", thus it exhorts our free will; likewise Romans 6: "yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification". If it is "slavery" it is a voluntary form of it.

From the flow of the passage, this certainly seems like a works-based salvation model. I.e. "16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, ..." How do you analyze them, as against the OT or the NT? I ask because we have been dealing with the NT.

This passage form Ecclesiasticus is not in contradiction to any other scripture, either Old or New Testament.