<Romanist> hmm well ill throw out a question-do you
all think you cooperate in your sanctification in a way that you dont cooperate
in justification (not meaning you believe in synergy in justification of
course-just that properly nuanced you would agree with statements that god does
not justify us without our consent and such)?
<wonky> Ohh
that is sweet DrO and I are using the same windowblinds theme
<johnMark> define cooperate?
<CalvinDude> Whoo-hoo! I have a screen shot of my desktop too now! http://www.peterpike.com/screenshot.jpg
<SpideyGeek> rofl!!!!
<SpideyGeek> It's... the BSoD (tm)!
<DrOakafk> LOL
<wonky> DrO
and I must be linked deep in our psyches
<Romanist> respond to gods grace in your
sanctification. for instance, within sanctification you can resist god's grace
by sinning no?
<DrOakafk> wonky: Sort of like in Twins, huh?
* CalvinDude
has gotten so many of the BSoD (tm)'s...and that's just today.
* JoelYrick
is glad that he deleted that sound!
<wonky> I
do look sorta like Arnold but aren't you being alittle hard on yourself
<DrOakafk> I'm going to go lift now. :-)
<DrOakafk> ()()() James is
Away. Lord willing, he will return. :) ()()()
<-- Canterbury (canterbury@dialup-203-113-253-87.Hobart.netspace.net.au) has left #prosapologian
<CalvinDude> Better not levitate...
<StJohnCalv> God Bless DrOakafk
* OS_Xtypes
is ashamed to show his desktop.
<OS_Xtypes> It's cluttered with EVERYTHING.
<amylooz> DrOak... muah ! =) sleep well
bro...
<SpideyGeek> Bye, Doc!
<pquick> Romanist: I'm sure we differentiate between justification and
sanctification much more than the RCC does
<amylooz> So... I wonder why those Honda
Elements are so inexpensive...
* JoelYrick
notes that Wayne Grudem says that Sanctification is a cooperation unlike
Justification- and I wasn't sure if I agreed
<JoelYrick> and he =P
<Romanist> of course pquick-thats why im asking your
viewpoint
<Romanist> is wayne grudem reformed?
<Romanist> i havent heard of him sorry
<JoelYrick> yes Reformed Baptist
<pquick> Romanist: Wayne Grudem is a "quasi" reformed baptist -- he
went to school at a reformed seminary, is a baptist, but leans towards
charismaticism
<Romanist> okay
<Romanist> so you guys would disagree with his and
my statement?
<JoelYrick> so because he leans towards
charismaticism he's not fully reformed, or is there another reason?
<pquick> Romanist: he's the author of a
fairly recent Protestant Systematic Theology
--- You are now known as DrEvil
<pquick> Joel: yeah, kinda.
labels are tricky things
<DrEvil> Wayne Grudem is semi-reformed.
<DrEvil> He's quasi-reformed.
<DrEvil> He's the margarine of reformed.
<JoelYrick> I'm wanting to say that its no more
of a cooperation than Justification, but I don't know
* JoelYrick slaps DrEvil around a bit with a
Taco Bell hard shell taco
* CalvinDude
uploads a pic of his REAL desktop....
<DrEvil> He's the diet coke of reformed -
just one calorie, not reformed enough!
<StJohnCalv> JoelYrick, look at your pm.
<SpideyGeek> LOL, X
<pquick> Funny, X
<DrEvil> Y'know Joel, that's not something
one dude should say to another dude..yeah..
<CalvinDude> DUDE...
<CalvinDude> D()()()()()D!
<SpideyGeek> DUUUUUUUUUUUDE!
<SpideyGeek> d00d!
<DrEvil> dŸd!
<SpideyGeek> lol]
<SpideyGeek> lol
<CalvinDude> This is sooooooooooo....sloooooo
w.
--- You are now known as OS_Xtypes
<pquick> Romanist: It doesn't seem like this channel really wants to debate a
Roman Catholic on Justification / Sanctification right now. It's not that we are ignoring you...
<CalvinDude> OS_Xtypes--didn't you mean: þ+¾†Œ£€–’‰Ž
* JoelYrick
would very much like to get into the issue
<pquick> Romanist: Have you listened to any of Dr. James Whites debates with
Catholic apologists on these topics?
<JenOPCer> seems like it would be a lot of
hairsplitting
<johnMark> Grudem is a 5-pointer who beleives in the
gifts
<Romanist> thats cool pquick-btw im not looking to
debate-im just wanting to get a firmer handle on the reformed perspective.
yes i should go out and read some books and d/l some debates but i just thought
id ask here
<pquick> cool, Romanist. do you consider yourself a Catholic apologist
of sorts?
<Romanist> pquick-not at all
<JoelYrick> Romanist: <StJohnCalv> Santification
is synergistic.
<OS_Xtypes> Stop instigating, Joel :p
<CalvinDude> Nonsense. By all means, instigate.
* OS_Xtypes
slaps JoelYrick around a bit with a boston creme pie
<pquick> Sanctification is synergistic --
meaning we do cooperate with God
<pquick> right, Joel?
<JoelYrick> lol
<OS_Xtypes> Santification ?
<JoelYrick> I don't know, but I was able to
pull it out of SJC in PM
<StJohnCalv> sorry for the mis spelling
<StJohnCalv> lol
<CalvinDude> Mmmmm....now I'm getting hungry.
<theist> who is Peter Pike?
<StJohnCalv> I am doing 6 things at once.
<cowpoet> Yes, me and Micah had a blast!
<CalvinDude> theist--wouldn't you like to know.
<johnMark> yeah, WHO is Peter Pike?
--> Shade (shade@216.40.231.204) has joined #prosapologian
<JoelYrick> Santification- the act of becoming
Santa
<theist> CalvinDude: well...uhhhh....yeah
<pquick> get me some, CD crackers? ice cream?
<OS_Xtypes> Peter Pike - some lamer who runs a website or
two and thinks he has a network.
<OS_Xtypes> :-)
<pquick> heee laughs with Joel
<CalvinDude> OS_Xtypes--yeah, that sounds about right.
<SpideyGeek> X - Kinda like Julie Staples, eh?
<pquick> whew, I admire ya, Spidey
<johnMark> Romanist, does the RCC teach that one who
is a beleiver may not end up being santified?
<OS_Xtypes> Naw, JS is cool.
<CalvinDude> Peter Pike owns thecalvinist.com,
debateatheism.org, and peterpike.com (and soon, another URL which isn't active
yet)
<johnMark> Julie who?
<johnMark> oohh..Tims sister er something...yeah, her!
<SpideyGeek> X - Nah, she's a total lamer... is Tim Staples's
niece or something
<OS_Xtypes> from thecalvinist.com's front page: Greetings!
To dispel all notions to the contrary, a Calvinist believes God is a stuffed
tiger and plays with a little boy...
<johnMark> LOL
<StJohnCalv> Sanctification is synergistic
<--------There, I have redeemed my spelling error.
<johnMark> petercalvinist.com?
* OS_Xtypes
only owns three URLs.
<CalvinDude> OS_Xtypes--whoa! When did you become Dave Hunt?
* JoelYrick
notes that Santification must also be synergistic too
<OS_Xtypes> ROFL
<SpideyGeek> lol
* StJohnCalv
slaps JoelYrick around a bit with a large trout
<johnMark> StJohn, those who are justified will be
sanctified which I think is different than that the RCC teaches
--- You are now known as DaveHunt
<DaveHunt> right now.
<DaveHunt> :)
<Romanist> johnmark-well we make the mistake of combining
justification and sanctification so its hard to answer that question. but
a justified person would be bearing fruit obviously i think we both agree
--- You are now known as OS_X
<OS_X> much
better.
<SpideyGeek> Kewl, CD!!
<JoelYrick> <StJohnCalv> Santification is
synergistic.
<Romanist> heh
<StJohnCalv> [23:16] <JoelYrick> SJC, we agree on
active reprobation, could we also agree on active sanctification- I'm aware
that could be completely non-sequitar, but I don't know
<StJohnCalv> JoelYrick, two can play at this game.
<johnMark> Romanist, we just had a discussion on
this on carm on the cat board
<archjak1> johnmark - Who?
<SpideyGeek> <wonky> Signs was about as scary as big
giant not scary at all thing
<johnMark> arch, several people :)
<JoelYrick> SJC, it got the answer out of you!
<JoelYrick> you gotta admit that!
<Romanist> cool john-ill have to check it out-i
usually just visit greg k's board for my theological debates heh
<OS_X>
They've even got Charles Hodge's systematic
* JoelYrick
wonders how long he can wait on SJC's bluff, then deletes the SJC pop-up
<pquick> Romanist: start reading a book (if you like recommendations) -- The God
Who Justifies, by Dr. James White. It's
very informative, thorough, scholarly, but not overly "technical"
-- it will tell you what the Protestant Reformed position is on Justification
<Romanist> pquick-yes i wasnt looking for somebody
to post 10 pgs from a systematic theology book on this-i was just wondering if
you guys consider sanctification synergistic
<Romanist> joel-nope this has been my nick for years
<OS_X> Romanist
- in addition to that, I'd also recommend R.C. Sproul's books - Faith Alone:
The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, Gettign the GOspel Right and Willing
to Believe. Between those four, you'll get a very good balanced view of the
protestant viewpoint.
<Romanist> thanks for the recs
<OS_X> ~nas
Phil. 2:12-13
<Gutenberg> Phil. 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not
as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your
salvation with fear and trembling; (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Phil. 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to
work for [His] good pleasure. (NASB)
<johnMark> arch and roman, here is the discussion
http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=107&topic_id=68500
<JoelYrick> LOL OS!
<pquick> ~kjv Eph 4:30
<Gutenberg> Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye
are sealed unto the day of redemption. (KJV)
<OS_X> Roman
- Phil. 2:12-13 is the Reformed
Protestant viewpoint on sanctification (in a nutshell).
<pquick> I think this would pertain to
Sanctification
<johnMark> OS, are you saying the RP uses scripture
to build doctrine?
<johnMark> :)
<OS_X> We
do actively work, but we realize that it is God Himself who works in us both to
will (to give us the very ability to do His will) and to do (the strength to
actually carry it out).
<OS_X> ~nas
Eph. 2:10
<Gutenberg> Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
(NASB)
<Romanist> right os
<OS_X> The
good works were 'prepared beforehand' for us. They are not nor cannot be
meritorious.
<johnMark> and we don't "work" as a duty
to fulfill to God
<OS_X>
Exactly.
<OS_X>
~nas Matt. 22:37-40
<Gutenberg> Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD
YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
(NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 22:38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.
(NASB)
<pquick> we can't please God thru
meritorious works -- Jesus work is sufficient
<Gutenberg> Matthew 22:39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR
NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law
and the Prophets." (NASB)
<johnMark> like bringing your wife flowers because
you love her and not because it's your duty :)
<johnMark> that's a little dig from Piper
* pquick
johnMark doesn't bring meeee floowwers anyyyymore....
<OS_X> Justification
and sanctification are SEPARATE in one aspect. They describe two different dealings with God in relation to
the elect.
<johnMark> lol
<johnMark> OS, yep
<OS_X> ~nas
Rom. 3:28
<Gutenberg> Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart
from works of the Law. (NASB)
<johnMark> Romanist, do you know who Dave Armstrong
is?
<Romanist> yes os im aware of the distinction. the
reason im asking this question is because ive been thinking a lot on
sanctification and the elect bearing fruit-i mean how do you guys bear fruit
and glorify god on a daily basis? ive been having a lot of insecurity about how
the elect bear fruit and whether im deluding myself. i mean dont you guys ever
think you should be doing more in your sanctification after you examine
yourselves? i mean i pray,study,
do
<OS_X> But
sanctification and justification are inseparably linked.
<Romanist> yes os-the golden chain of redemption
<OS_X> After
all, it was Calvin who made the wonderful statement that is oft quoted -
"Though we are saved by faith alone, it is not a faith that IS
alone."
<OS_X> God
doesn't save anyone He doesn't sanctify.
<Romanist> did you guys get that whole post
<johnMark> Romanist, that sounds like you get to a
point where you think you will try and pay God back for your indebtedness
<OS_X> Got
it Romanist. that's actually a good sign.
<johnMark> Romanist, here is a good debate for you
to read through when you have time http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=149&topic_id=110&mesg_id=110&page=
<Romanist> os yes ive heard that if youre even
asking that question thats a good sign but i dont put much stock in that. dont
you ever experience similar things. i see lives of past christians that are
remarkable. so im often filled with doubt. the gate is narrow. and then i think
of those at the last judgment who will say didnt i do these mighty works in
your name and will be met with i never knew you. so i feel like im in a
catch-22
<OS_X> Romanist
- what is the basis of your salvation ?
<johnMark> OS, good question
<OS_X> That's
what your real dilema comes down to.
<johnMark> find your joy, love, life in Christ Jesus
<OS_X> Before
we got flooded, that's what I was typing.
<OS_X> My
assurance comes from the fact that Christ is faithful to me and will not leave
me nor forsake me.
<OS_X> My
assurance of my salvation comes from the fact that He who began a good work in
me WILL complete it.
<OS_X> ~nas
phil. 1:6
<Gutenberg> Phil. 1:6 [For I am] confident of this very thing, that He who
began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (NASB)
<OS_X> my
assurance comes from the fact that no one (and no one includes myself) can
snatch me out of His hand.
<OS_X> ~nas
John 10:27-29
<Gutenberg> John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow Me; (NASB)
<Gutenberg> John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never
perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> John 10:29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater
than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. (NASB)
<Romanist> christ of course. btw dont think of
me in rc terms please when answering these questions if possible. right os_x,
but peter also says to examine yourselves to look for signs of bearing fruit
and that your election is sure. so when you examine yourself and (in my case at
least) think you could be doing SO much more to glorify god, does not that give
you pause?
<OS_X> It
does.
<Romanist> that is my dilemma
<OS_X> But
then I look back (again) at the ground and root of my salvation.
<johnMark> Romanist, here is a quote I made up which
kinda sums it up for me, The
question is not, "Am I good enough to be a Christian?" but, "Am
I good enough not to be?"
<OS_X> I
realize that 'sinless perfectionism' is impossible in this life.
<OS_X> We
are what we are by God's grace alone.
<-- cowpoet has quit ()
<OS_X> I
look @ Paul struggling in Romans 7 - PAUL!!!
<OS_X> Still,
I am commanded by God to press forward every day and die to myself.
<OS_X> So
I do - as best as I can.
<OS_X> I
already know I won't be perfect with it and being my own worst critic, I can
ALWAYS be doing more.
<johnMark> as Spurgeon said, "Do something, do
something, do something"
<Romanist> yes precisely. paul gives some comfort.
but christ's warnings-the gate is narrow, if you are lukewarm i will spew you
from my mouth, i never knew you etc weigh heavily on my conscience
<OS_X> But
I believe God allows us at times to fall back into some sin to humble us and
remember that no matter how 'good' we try to be after professing faith, we
still fall as short of perfection as a man trying to jump to california from a
pier in Hawaii.
<OS_X>
Romanist - was David lukewarm ?
<OS_X> Remember
David was a man after God's own heart. Yet David was an adulterer, murderer and
stayed in unconfessed sin for over about a year.
--> tiredofNJ (~diaeresis@67.84.151.20) has joined #prosapologian
<-- Romanist has quit (Ping timeout for Romanist[AC89EE0D.ipt.aol.com])
<RocketMan> I have always wondered about that
<OS_X> AOL
got romanist. LOL
<OS_X> Is
Romanist really a Romanist ?
<skyman`> yes
--> Romanist (e@172.137.238.13) has joined #prosapologian
<OS_X> Welcome
back.
<Romanist> sorry got disconnected
<OS_X> It's
AOL. We know. :)
<Romanist> what was the last part of the convo
before i got disconnected
<OS_X> Romanist
- was David lukewarm ?
<OS_X> Remember
David was a man after God's own heart. Yet David was an adulterer, murderer and
stayed in unconfessed sin for over about a year.
<Romanist> yes this is true
<OS_X> But
David's considered a hero of the faith (Heb. 11:32).
<JoelYrick> nas 1Ti 1:15
<JoelYrick> ~nas 1Ti 1:15
--> MicahSlays (~klockheed@adsl-66-218-55-85.dslextreme.com) has joined #prosapologian
<Gutenberg> 1 Tim. 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full
acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I
am foremost [of all]. (NASB)
<SpideyGeek> Micah!
--- CStar
gives channel operator status to MicahSlays
<OS_X> I'm
sure that David's lusting problems didn't begin with Bathsheba. They never do.
<MicahSlays> SpideyGeek!
<JoelYrick> ~kjv 1Ti 1:15
<Gutenberg> 1 Tim. 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all
acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I
am chief. (KJV)
<OS_X> But
David's *heart* eventually showed itself in his actions - he truly repented
(Ps. 51) of what he had done.
<OS_X>
The fruit of David's 'new heart' given to him by God showed that he
was a believer. Not a perfect one, but a believer.
<OS_X>
David's issue wasn't 'did I do enough to stay saved' - but rather 'because
I am saved, this is what I need to do'.
<OS_X> Take
a look at the Matt. 7:24 passage you quoted earlier.
<OS_X>
~nas Matt. 7:24
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine
and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the
rock. (NASB)
<OS_X> oops.
<OS_X>
~nas Matt. 7:23
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew
you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB)
<Romanist> yes os_x. BECAUSE i am saved, this
is what i need to do. so if you DONT do it....
<johnMark> Romanist, he is not saying that I need to
do this to be saved...he is already saved
<OS_X> Matter
of fact, 7:21-23
<MicahSlays> would you folks say that the Church during the
middle ages was by and large a good organization?
<OS_X> ~nas
Romans 7:21-23
<Romanist> os-yes but were they AWARE they were
practicing lawlessness or had they deluded themselves?
<johnMark> nah
<Gutenberg> Romans 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me,
the one who wants to do good. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Romans 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner
man, (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Romans 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body,
waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of
sin which is in my members. (NASB)
<OS_X> Oops.
<OS_X> although
this actually does pertain to our convo....
<MicahSlays> ~nas mat 7:21-23
<OS_X> ~nas
Matt. 7:21-23
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven [will enter]. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,
did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your
name perform many miracles?' (NASB)
<OS_X> Thanks
Micah. LOL
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew
you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB)
<Romanist> johnmark-yes i know-but if you dont do
it-its a sign you werent saved
<Gutenberg> Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven [will enter]. (NASB)
<SpideyGeek> Micah - Um, no I wouldn't...
<CalvinDude> http://www.se34.net/ is now updated with
a quick flash movie I made, in which you can hear me play a quick guitar riff
too :-)
<OS_X> IMO,
Jesus wasn't giving a COMMAND here, but a statement of what the elect will do
and what the non-elect will do.
<SpideyGeek> His exchange with Rond was getting nasty...
<OS_X> The
non-elect will base their salvation on their works (i.e.- Lord, didn't we do
this in your name ?)
--> Bradford (VanTil@ACC15F16.ipt.aol.com) has joined #prosapologian
<MicahSlays> nor would I, SpideyGeek, TGE would have us
believe that the accesses of the Roman church in that time and thereafter were
simply "exceptions" rather than the "rule"
<OS_X> Jesus's
statement doesn' t say 'I used to know you, but you fell away or didn't do
enough so I don't know you anymore'.
<OS_X> Jesus
says I '*NEVER* knew you.
<SpideyGeek> Awesome, CD!
<SpideyGeek> Micah - Yeah, give the RCC back the power it
had in the Middle Ages and see what happens...
<OS_X> The
greek word GINOSKO (know) denotes intimate fellowship and experiential knowing
vs a 'surface knowledge' knowing (usually termed by the greek word OIDA).
--> buzz (~djgere777@ip68-98-94-50.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined #Prosapologian
<SpideyGeek> Hiya, Bradford!
<CalvinDude> Spidey--yeah, I've gots to do lotsa work
on it to make it REALLY cool, but for a quick "this site will eventually
work" page, it's pretty sweet :-)
<buzz> Evenin'
--> Unafraid (Unafraid@64.6.5.132.outfitters.com) has joined #prosapologian
<SpideyGeek> CD - Indeed! Better than animated gifs of guys
doing construction work. ;-)
<OS_X> Jesus
says He *NEVER* 'GINOSKO'ed these folks who claimed to follow Him.
<CalvinDude> SpideyGeek--*ROFL* Those are SOOOOOO 1998!
<OS_X> further,
He charged them with following LAWLESSNESS.
<SpideyGeek> LOL, yup ;-)
<StJohnCalv> [23:58] <StJohnCalv> Psalm 119
<StJohnCalv> [23:58] <StJohnCalv> A heart truly
regenerated speaking about the true nature of the Law.
<SpideyGeek> StJ - :-D
<SpideyGeek> buzzzzzzzzzzzzz :-)
<SpideyGeek> Howdy, Unafraid :-)
<CalvinDude> I'm so glad I got Macromedia Directory
7...
<OS_X> God
sanctifies those whom He elects, calls and justifies. Bottom line.
<Unafraid> hello
<OS_X> ~nas
1John 2:19
<Gutenberg> 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not [really] of
us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but [they
went out], so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (NASB)
<JoelYrick> Howdy Unafraid, what are you doing on this fine day? =)
<OS_X> The
non-elect will NOT continue in the Christian walk. They WILL fall away.
<OS_X> The
elect WILL - *WITHOUT FAIL* continue.
<Unafraid> obviously i am talking on the net
joel lol
<OS_X> We
are given the 'warning passages'
as a natural or regular means of informing us of what we need to do.
<JoelYrick> its a pop-up that no one ever
answers
<johnMark> anyone read The Spider Letter by Jon
Edwards?
<OS_X> But
we are also given the above examples to show that the non-elect will not do
these things.
<OS_X> Got
all that Romanist ?
<-- Stephanos has quit (Ping timeout for
Stephanos[dsl081-229-186.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net])
<Unafraid> well i answered
<OS_X> It's
a bit all over the map, but when connected together, they all come back to
Romans 8:29-30.
<JoelYrick> ~nas Romans 8:29-30
<Gutenberg> Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to
become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn
among many brethren; (NASB)
<Romanist> os right
<Gutenberg> Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and
these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also
glorified. (NASB)
<OS_X> A
'human' illustration is this - God tells you YOU WILL LIVE TO 80 YEARS OF AGE.
SO HAVE I DECREED AND IT WILL BE DONE. God also tells you YOU MUST EAT TO KEEP
LIVING. WEAKNESS WILL COME IF/WHEN YOU DO NOT EAT.
--> anon_329 (~samnj@67.85.171.250) has joined #prosapologian
--- anon_329 is now known as samnj
<OS_X> God
ordains the ends and the means for all of these things to happen.
<Romanist> ~nas Mat. 25:26-30
<Gutenberg> Matthew 25:26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You
wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I
scattered no [seed]. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 25:27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and
on my arrival I would have received my [money] back with interest. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 25:28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it
to the one who has the ten talents.' (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 25:29 "For to everyone who has, [more] shall be given,
and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he
does have shall be taken away. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> Matthew 25:30 "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer
darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NASB)
<OS_X> So
examine yourself.
<-- CalvinDude has quit ()
<OS_X> Are
you out investing the talents that He has left you with ?
<Romanist> not to nearly the fullest possible extent
i could be. that is the problem
<OS_X> and
again, it comes back to this - what is the ground/basis of your being declared
just before God ?
<-- anon_328 has quit (Ping timeout for anon_328[67.85.165.116])
<OS_X> The
unprofitable servant won't be worried about this stuff.
<OS_X> Take
a look at his attitude in v. 26 and 27.
<johnMark> I picked up a book called , "A
Jonathan Edwards Reader" today
<JoelYrick> Adios todos =)
--- JoelYrick is now known as JoelGone
<OS_X> I
still believe it comes back to this - what is the ground/basis of your being
declared just before God ?
* OS_X
slaps JoelYrick out of the room
<OS_X> :)
--> anon_328 (~samnj@67.85.165.116) has joined #prosapologian
<RocketMan> the finished work of Christ
<OS_X> the
finished work of Christ ALONE ?
<OS_X> or
are you relying on your works to 'keep you saved' ?
<OS_X> This
is the key issue.
--- anon_328 is now known as sam
<RocketMan> the first
<RocketMan> I'm not Catholic
<Romanist> os shouldnt true disciples of christ
suffer and sacrifice? i see evangelists being imprisoned overseas or selling
all their stuff to set up clinics or schools or whatnot. that is sacrifice.
giving a meal to a homeless guy every once in a while isnt. yes struggling with
sin can be viewed as suffering i suppose
<-- samnj has quit (Ping timeout for samnj[67.85.171.250])
<OS_X> That
understandable, but *the issue* is still this - what is the ground/basis of
your being declared just before God ?
<Romanist> os-relying on christ but also realizing a
good tree will bear fruit and to examine myself daily
<OS_X> So are you relying on your works to 'keep
you saved' ?
<Romanist> i am relying on them to see if my
election is sure
<OS_X> what
does that mean ?
<MicahSlays> I was right about recons...
<buzz> Hi
Micah
<MicahSlays> grrr
<MicahSlays> hello buzz
--> Hobster (hcnewton@sdn-ap-026castocP0434.dialsprint.net) has joined #prosapologian
--- Gutenberg removes ban on
*!*@*interbusiness.it
<Romanist> ~nas 2Cor 13:5
<Gutenberg> 2 Cor. 13:5 Test yourselves [to see] if you are in the faith;
examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus
Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test? (NASB)
<Romanist> ~nas 2Pet 1:10
<Gutenberg> 2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make
certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these
things, you will never stumble; (NASB)
<mon-lurx> That is directed to the church body
(2 Cor 13:5)
<tiredofNJ> Eh. He makes good points, Micah, like they always do, but the
problem is what's actually being said ... you can point out fault after fault
after fault of the modern church, and even quote Athanasius, but neither even
begins to establish that the pre-Reformation RC church was an ideal.
<OS_X> How
do you examine yourself ? What's the examination process ?
<OS_X> ~nas
1john 5:10-13
<Gutenberg> 1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the
testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar,
because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His
Son. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> 1 John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us
eternal life, and this life is in His Son. (NASB)
* mon-lurx
is sick and tired of hearing that passage (by Protestants and Catholics alike)
being misused.
<Gutenberg> 1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have
the Son of God does not have the life. (NASB)
<Gutenberg> 1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the
name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. (NASB)
<MicahSlays> tired - surely, but that's not the point
<tiredofNJ> Heya, Hobster.
<mon-lurx> :)
<MicahSlays> tired - to claim that the excesses of the 12-15
century 'church
--> wolfie (~swwolf@adsl-66-218-55-85.dslextreme.com) has joined #prosapologian
<MicahSlays> were the 'exception' is flabbergasting
<OS_X> Actually,
the 2 Peter 1:10 passage is a good backup to the 'human' illustration I posted
earlier.
<OS_X> A
'human' illustration is this - God tells you YOU WILL LIVE TO 80 YEARS OF AGE.
SO HAVE I DECREED AND IT WILL BE DONE. God also tells you YOU MUST EAT TO KEEP
LIVING. WEAKNESS WILL COME IF/WHEN YOU DO NOT EAT.
<RocketMan> mon, if you are tired, go to bed!
<Hobster> hiya tired
<mon-lurx> lol Rocket
<OS_X> God
ordains the ends and the means for all of these things to happen.
<mon-lurx> Prolly need to
<mon-lurx> Hey, wolfie!
<Romanist> os-i examine myself to see if my actions
are inline with scripture's commands and warnings
<tiredofNJ> Micah: *shrug* For reasons I don't
get they're trying to attack the Reformation. I agree with you.
Rome is no Christianity at all.
<Romanist> os i can understand that
<MicahSlays> tired - *shrug back* let
<MicahSlays> tired - *shrug back* let's conquer the world
for christ, grab an AK and I'll meet you at the pool-hall
<OS_X> Well
and fine. So when you see yourself
falling short of it, you doubt your salvation. The reason for this is because you are still relying on your
works as the ground of your salvation.
<RocketMan> mon, if you spell like that, you do need to go
to bed!
<mon-lurx> heh
<mon-lurx> <slurred speech>
<mon-lurx> lol
<RocketMan> :)
<OS_X> Or
at least *part* of the foundation of your salvation.
* MicahSlays
checks mon's drink
* OS_X
could really use a Smirnoff Ice right now.
<Romanist> i am relying on my works as evidence of
my salvation
<mon-lurx> Who came up with "prolly"
anyway?
<tiredofNJ> Maybe the early church did believe
in that ... personally I think it was more a concern about preaching the gospel
for all nations, if their motivations were correct, and wealth and influence,
as they all too often were corrupted ...
<MicahSlays> mon - me
<mon-lurx> LOL
<mon-lurx> :)
<OS_X> Okay
Romanist, how many good works is enough to 'keep' you saved ?
* mon-lurx
looks at Micah, the trend setter
<tiredofNJ> But either way, they're wrong. The NT church is not Israel with a
properly functioning engine, it's a bunch of screwups, like Israel, trusting in
God for mercy, like Israel, and looking forward to *His* establishment of His
kingdom, like Israel.
<Theophorus> ~nas Hos 6:7
* MicahSlays
does the channel dance
<Gutenberg> Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There
they have dealt treacherously against Me. (NASB)
<MicahSlays> tired - PRAISE GOD! YOU'RE A SCREWUP!
<tiredofNJ> But we don't pave the way. We're brought to life, follow our Lord,
look for His coming, and point others to Him. And that's it, really.
--> DrOakafk (~ortho@cpe-24-221-125-165.az.sprintbbd.net) has joined #ProsApologian
--- CStar
gives channel operator status to DrOakafk
<OS_X> By
the way Romanist - consider the statement just made by Tired - But either way,
they're wrong. The NT church is
not Israel with a properly functioning engine, it's a bunch of screwups, like
Israel, trusting in God for mercy, like Israel, and looking forward to *His*
establishment of His kingdom, like Israel.
<Romanist> obviously there is no number. but the
elect should grow in holiness, sacrifice, suffer, and glorify god
<SpideyGeek> Doc!
* MicahSlays
says in his DJ voice: "Lady's and Gentlemen... DRO!
<OS_X> But
Romanist - if there is no number, then how can you have the assurance mentioned
in 1 John 5 :10-13 ?
<SpideyGeek> w00t!
<DrOakafk> Howdy.
--- DrOakafk is now known as DrOakley
<DrOakley> Seems with the proper video drivers
in place your system will actually go into stand-by. :-)
<SpideyGeek> lol
<DrOakley> mIRC doesn't like that,
however. :-)
<OS_X> you
see, what you have done (hi doc) is used your works as a guage for whether or
not you are saved, but out of the other side of your keyboard, you've said that
you don't believe there's any definitive number of works which can truly
demonstrate that you are a believer.
<DrOakley> I was just listening to the debate
between Matatics and Svendsen, and was getting angry while lifting (which is
sorta good in a way).
<buzz> Evenin
Doc
<DrOakley> Evening Brother Buzz.
<OS_X> At
the risk of committing a logical fallacy, I belive it *MUST* of necessity be
one or the other.
<OS_X> Either
your works in concert with your faith is the ground of your justification or NO
amount of works can absolutely be a determining factor in whether or not you
are one of the elect.
<-- Unafraid has quit ()
<OS_X> And
if the first be true, then Paul is a liar in the book of Galatians and @ Romans
3:27- all of chapter 4.
<StJohnCalv> Theophorus, would you say that Hosea is
speaking of the Covenant of Works?
<OS_X> And
if the second be true, then the only legit means of *determinatively knowing*
[grin] that you are one of the elect is that your assurance of salvation rest
not on YOUR fruit, but on Christ's finished work on the Cross ALONE.
--- wonky is now known as wonkzzZZ
<OS_X> Nite
Wonkers.
<SpideyGeek> Niters, wonkified one :-)
<Theophorus> Yes.
<MicahSlays> drO:
http://reachingforchrist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5305#5305
<Theophorus> Law is defined by "Do this and live"
or in simpler terms "Do this and get that."
--- Theophorus :Nickname is already in
use.
* DrOakley
shakes Theo's hand and accidentally crushes it, having just finished another
healthy round of arm tri-sets...."So sorry."
<kletois> Theo!
<Theophorus> Therefore it was a Covenant of Law.
<Theophorus> LOL
>Theophorus< Hey Theo - u think I framed that argument up
good enough ?
<Theophorus> Yeah.
* Theophorus
informs DrO that he was mistakenly shaking the blade of his new folder.
<DrOakley> Heh.
<Romanist> os so how do you examine yourself
<RocketMan> mirros
<kletois> my mom wanted to know who the hunk
was in the picture (I was at www.straitgate.com/aom)
<RocketMan> mirrors
<Theophorus> lol
--> Biblicist (Gobbler@ip68-104-251-171.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined #prosapologian
--- CStar
gives channel operator status to Biblicist
<Theophorus> There goes the neighborhood.
<SpideyGeek> Gobb!!
<buzz> Hiya
Gobb
<Biblicist> SPidey!, buzz!
<Biblicist> Theo, you took the neighborhood a
while ago.
<SpideyGeek> lol
<DrOakley> Thanks for that link, Micah. I thought TGE had stopped posting.
<DrOakley> :-/
<Biblicist> link?
--- RustyOut is now known as Rusty
--- Received a CTCP Sound freedom.wav
from Rusty
<StJohnCalv> ~kjv hos 6:7
<Gutenberg> Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there
have they dealt treacherously against me. (KJV)
<OS_X> Let's
see.
<SpideyGeek> Doc - I administered a warning to him and
jmgainor... jm shot himself in the foot with a subsequent post, and I informed
them that the next time either of them acted up, it was the boot.
<DrOakley> It would be relatively easy to
write that script that kicks Rusty as soon as the text "is now known as
Rusty" appears on the screen.
<mon-lurx> LOL
<Romanist> and os you dont think 2cor 13:5 applies
to individual believers?
<OS_X> I
look at my heart like scripture commands me to. Is there an awareness of my sin,
true remosre for it and a desire to turn from whatever I have screwed up in ?
<Rusty> lol
<Romanist> hmm ok
<SpideyGeek> Was one of those "can't kick one and not
the other" Catch-22's. A couple of people are trying to press him for
clarification though... hopefully something good comes of it.
<Rusty> hi
guys, how is everyone?
<SpideyGeek> Rusty!
<Romanist> but os that only seems half the
examination
<OS_X> 2
Cor. 13:5, IMO, applies to the church body in general. Paul was speaking to
wheat and tares both in the visible church. He probably realized 'HEY some of
these folk AIN'T saved!' So they needed to examine themselves.
<DrOakley> It amazes....and saddens....me to
see him referring to the expansion of Rome as the triumph of Christ's kingdom.
<OS_X> Not
done with the examination yet. :)
<Romanist> cool heh
<SpideyGeek> Ditto :-(
<Romanist> i agree with your first part anyhow heh
--> david (david@bb220-255-27-117.singnet.com.sg) has joined #prosapologian
<Theophorus> [21:28] <Biblicist> Theo, you took the
neighborhood a while ago.
<---I'm struggling to not let that go to my head.
--> THX` (~courgette@client-53-p1-sms.winn.adsl.virgin.net) has joined #prosapologian
<david> hi
guys
<david> so,
I missed DL....
<david> by
4 hours
<david> :-(
<SpideyGeek> david!
<SpideyGeek> :-(
<david> hey
SG
<david> I
was going to call in
<david> if
you guys put it at a more sensible time then you'll get a phone call from me...
<david> IDD
is way cheap out here
<THX`> out
where?
<DrOakley> Had a lot of calls today.
<Rusty> well,
i'm out again =). hope everyone's night goes well. God bless
<DrOakley> I was surprised.
<DrOakley> Rusty!
<OS_X> You
know, I never really looked in detail at the 'examination' process in my life.
I simply broke it into three areas
- what do I believe about God, what do I believe about me and my sin and
what will I do in response to it all.
<DrOakley> You come in, play that silly wav,
and leave???
<david> Singapore
* DrOakley
taps his foot.
<Rusty> DrO!
<THX`> singapore
huh?
<Rusty> ...alright,
I'll stay for a minute
<THX`> nice.
<david> yeah
<Rusty> =)
<david> not
bad
<DrOakley> lol
<david> damn
hot
<OS_X> The
answers are found in scripture, Romanist.
<david> every
day