Ubenedictus:
you don't need to agree with all his ideologies, the OSAS theology alone qualifies you to be a calvinist.

OSAS happens to be a a popular theology the Calvinist group are known for does not mean they don't have other principles that form their movement and belief system. Do you know that?

Ubenedictus:
i have written it already, it follows my first post on justification.

I am still yet to see where you proved God's call isn't enough to make us qualified for eternal salvation?

shdemidemi:


I am still yet to see where you proved God's call isn't enough to make us qualified for eternal salvation?

that reminds me, doesn't scripture say many are called few are chosen? The call doesn't grant automatic salvation to anyone, there is a response to the call, then there is faith, after that comes baptism and justification, sanctification and then glorification.

If the call qualified everyone to eternal salvation, all who are called will be saved.

Ubenedictus:

i'll even push it futher!

Scriptures also associates justification with baptism, when peter was asked what do we do to be saved, scriptures record.

Act 2:38 "repent and be baptised all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the holy spirit"
in 1 cor 6: 11 st paul says "you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of Jesus christ and the spirit of our God.

Act 22:16, paul have a even deeper teaching in Rm 6:3-11, he shows that baptism associates us with Christ death, we die in him and we are raised to new life. That i believe is the way justification is effected.

*smiles*

and lastly

we can lose justification, most of the passage have already been quoted,


Galatians 5:19-20: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are (these): fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings,
drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


I forewarn those on the thread as paul did, those who willingly commit sins as those listed above should know they won't inherit eternal life. They will by their own disobedience reject God's gift.

Ubenedictus:


that reminds me, doesn't scripture say many are called few are chosen? The call doesn't grant automatic salvation to anyone, there is a response to the call, then there is faith, after that comes baptism and justification, sanctification and then glorification.

If the call qualified everyone to eternal salvation, all who are called will be saved.

Romans 8

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified..


See how God did the work from foreknowledge to glorification of the Saint according to this passage. No part of this process was played by man's ability but God's.

I await the part of scripture that gives you the idea that one can actually refuse God in the day of His power.

Ubenedictus:


and lastly

we can lose justification, most of the passage have already been quoted,


Galatians 5:19-20: "Now the [size=22pt]works of the flesh[/size] are manifest, which are (these): fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings,
drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


I forewarn those on the thread as paul did, those who willingly commit sins as those listed above should know they won't inherit eternal life. They will by their own disobedience reject God's gift.

Are you of the flesh or of the spirit?

italo:
The subject is truly bigger than people like you who laugh in ignorace because you do not know that the noun "sickler" is not from a verb "sick." It is from the word "sickle" as in "sickle cell."
A person who sins is a sinner. Come up with another ignorant defence.

I couldn't help interjecting abeg no vex

sick is not a verb
it as an adjective

a verb signifies action, eg the boy JUMPS
while an adjective signifies an attribute eg the man is SICK or the dress is RED

Sick is only a verb in UK pidgin (informal English). it is then used like this:
he sicked (i.e. vomitted) in the pub


make all of una suffery dey misyarn oooo

esere826:

I couldn't help interjecting abeg no vex

sick is not a verb
it as an adjective

a verb signifies action, eg the boy JUMPS
while an adjective signifies an attribute eg the man is SICK or the dress is RED

Sick is only a verb in UK pidgin (informal English). it is then used like this:
he sicked (i.e. vomitted) in the pub


make all of una suffery dey misyarn oooo

I didn't say "sick" was a verb. I said "sickler" is not from a verb "sick" implying that that was what Goshen360 thought when he likened it to 'sin - sinner,' 'sing - singer,' 'believe - believer.'

Think before you type. Think well.

@italo

Are you a sinner?

Shdemidemi,
Do you sin?

shdemidemi:
@italo

Are you a sinner?

vooks:
Shdemidemi,
Do you sin?

Yes

Shdemidemi,
Between Paul and Peter, who preached Repentance?

What do you do AFTER realising you have sinned?

shdemidemi:


Yes

vooks:
What do you do AFTER realising you have sinned?

I ask for forgiveness of the sins I am aware of and even those that I am not conscious about.

vooks:
Shdemidemi,
Between Paul and Peter, who preached Repentance?

The crux of Peter's message is repentance while that of Paul is 'belief'.

Aren't your sins ALREADY forgiven...Past,present and future?

shdemidemi:


I ask for forgiveness of the sins I am aware of and even those that I am not conscious about.

Did Paul preach repentance?

shdemidemi:


The crux of Peter's message is repentance while that of Paul is 'belief'.

vooks:

Did Paul preach repentance?

Paul taught that the Understanding of The gospel leads one to repentance. It is not in us to repent from the outside, it takes an inward transformation by the gospel to reveal an outward revelation of repentance. Inside-out change.

You are not clear in your response.
According to Paul, KNOWLEDGE leads to REPENTANCE, right?

So did he teach repentance, or did anybody else teach a different formula?

shdemidemi:


Paul taught that the Understanding of The gospel leads one to repentance. It is not in us to repent from the outside, it takes an inward transformation by the gospel to reveal an outward revelation of repentance. Inside-out change.

vooks:
You are not clear in your response.
According to Paul, KNOWLEDGE leads to REPENTANCE, right?

So did he teach repentance?

Pay attention...

Peter preached repentance which comes as a result of remorse. Paul preached it as a subsequent change which comes after one is filled with the Word of God(doctrine/gospel). The change come as a result of the Word.

Peter: Remorse~~~>Repentance
Paul: Word of God~~~>Repentance

What is the difference between these two? Any scriptural basis?

Can one repent if they are not remorseful, if they bear zero regret for the subject of their repentance?

shdemidemi:


Pay attention...

Peter preached repentance which comes as a result of remorse. Paul preached it as a subsequent change which comes after one is filled with the Word of God(doctrine/gospel). The change come as a result of the Word.

vooks:

Peter: Remorse~~~>Repentance
Paul: Word of God~~~>Repentance

What is the difference between these two? Any scriptural basis?

Can one repent if they are not remorseful, if they bear zero regret for the subject of their repentance?

Peter's call for repentance is primarily based on my act of sin i.e lies, steal, jealousy .....

Paul's call for repentance is for the sin imputed in us through Adam which causes us to carry out the act.... When the issue is addressed from the source, it reflects the acts of sin.

Peter's repentance is for SIN whereas Paul's repentance. Is for the Cause of SIN?

What's the difference between these?

And how comes NONE of Paul's preaching records him addressing Cause of SIN?

Once again, why do you ask for forgiveness of your sins yet your past,present and future sins are. Forgiven?

shdemidemi:



Peter's call for repentance is primarily based on my act of sin i.e lies, steal, jealousy .....

Paul's call for repentance is for the sin imputed in us through Adam which causes us to carry out the act.... When the issue is addressed from the source, it reflects the acts of sin.

vooks:
Peter's repentance is for SIN whereas Paul's repentance. Is for the Cause of SIN?

What's the difference between these?

One deals with sin from the source through God's imputation of righteousness.

The other addresses sin from man's ability to abhor sin in other to stay on the right side of God.

So, Paul was least concerned with abhoring sin seeing God imputed righteousness?

shdemidemi:


One deals with sin from the source through God's imputation of righteousness.

The other addresses sin from man's ability to abhor sin in other to stay on the right side of God.

vooks:
So, Paul was least concerned with abhoring sin seeing God imputed righteousness?

Do you understand imputation of God's righteousness and the understanding of His goodness through His Word(doctrine) leads to repentance?

Romans 2:4
Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

Did Paul teach abhorrence of sin?

You already admitted that Peter did. We need to examine the much touted 'difference' between Paul and Peter

shdemidemi:


Do you understand imputation of God's righteousness and the understanding of His goodness through His Word(doctrine) leads to repentance?

Romans 2:4
Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

vooks:

Did Paul teach abhorrence of sin?
You already admitted that Peter did

Paul did in Romans 12-13. However it is impossible for one to abhor sin or practice what is righteous by God's standard without the imputation of righteousness. Death to self must occur before one dares to abhore the act of sin else it will be done in simulation and self-righteousness.

Brilliant!
Paul and Peter preached repentance and they both preached abhorring sin.
Thank you sir

A few words from Paul's preaching on repentance;

Acts 17:30-31 New King James Version (NKJV)

30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Acts 20:21 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:20 New King James Version (NKJV)
20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance


I wonder whether this word REPENT so freely used by Paul and Peter meant different things.

The last scripture is interesting; we have Paul preaching WORK! Just like John the Baptist. Glory to God! And isn't this what James was talking about?


The other thing worthy noting is REPENTANCE. What do we mean by REPENTANCE? Any idea bro?

shdemidemi:



Paul did in Romans 12-13. However it is impossible for one to abhor sin or practice what is righteous by God's standard without the imputation of righteousness. Death to self must occur before one dares to abhore the act of sin.

Look at Acts 20:21 and contrast them to this post

shdemidemi:


The crux of Peter's message is repentance while that of Paul is 'belief'.

Paul taught BOTH repentance and belief/faith

shdemidemi:
@italo

Are you a sinner?

Yes.

vooks:
Brilliant!
Paul and Peter preached repentance and they both preached abhorring sin.
Thank you sir

Who said they didn't?

vooks:

A few words from Paul's preaching on repentance;

Acts 17:30-31 New King James Version (NKJV)

30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Acts 20:21 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:20 New King James Version (NKJV)
20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance


I wonder whether this word REPENT so freely used by Paul and Peter meant different things.

The last scripture is interesting; we have Paul preaching WORK! Just like John the Baptist. Glory to God! And isn't this what James was talking about?


The other thing worthy noting is REPENTANCE. What do we mean by REPENTANCE? Any idea bro?


Look at Acts 20:21 and contrast them to this post


Paul taught BOTH repentance and belief/faith

You keep running from pillar to post like a colt and a novice about this issue of Paul.

The book of Act of Apostle isn't a doctrinal book but a time when history was unfolding and it was progressive. Your style of seeing the entire book like one big story book you can randomly pick statements that appeal to you from is gateway to error. Paul did not know all he knew the first day he got converted, yet he preached at that time. He was away for three years before after which he came back to present the message of Grace to all.

shdemidemi:


Who said they didn't?


You keep running from pillar to post like a colt and a novice about this issue of Paul.

The book of Act of Apostle isn't a doctrinal book but a time when history was unfolding and it was progressive. Your style of seeing the entire book like one big story book you can randomly pick statements that appeal to you from is gateway to error. Paul did not know all he knew the first day he got converted, yet he preached at that time. He was away for three years before after which he came back to present the message of Grace to all.

So Paul was ignorant of what he was saying in Acts?