<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.

<johnMark> the whole of the law and prophets is fulfilled in the two greatest commands :)

<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