PDA

View Full Version : Protestant Reformation



RogerW
Oct 8th 2007, 04:26 PM
On Oct 31th, 1517 Martin Luther in an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. This bold move began a movement later to be called the Protestant (Pro-test-tant) Reformation. The mainstream Protestant Churches generally trace their separation from the Roman Catholic Church to this pivotal moment in church history, yet sadly most Christians know little if anything about this period in the history of the church militant.

Therefore, I find this to be a good time of year to ask what does the Protestant Reformation mean to you? Who was involved, and how did the movement evolve in time?

Many Blessings,
RW

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 04:30 PM
On Oct 31th, 1517 Martin Luther in an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. This bold move began a movement later to be called the Protestant (Pro-test-tant) Reformation. The mainstream Protestant Churches generally trace their separation from the Roman Catholic Church to this pivotal moment in church history, yet sadly most Christians know little if anything about this period in the history of the church militant.

Therefore, I find this to be a good time of year to ask what does the Protestant Reformation mean to you? Who was involved, and how did the movement evolve in time?

Many Blessings,
RW

I recently watched the movie 'Luther'...I think it was from the 70's and it starred Stacey Keach. I learned so much from watching that movie, plus a greater appreciation for what Luther did. He was a troubled & tortured soul trying to please men & God through the RCC, but only when he understood true biblical grace did he come alive. As a result, God used him to turn this world upside down for Christ. I thank God for Martin Luther!!

jeffreys
Oct 8th 2007, 06:16 PM
As a result of studying church history for quite a few years, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that "a reformation of some sort" simply WAS going to happen.

The Roman Catholic Church - at that time & place in history - was so corrupt, so powerful and so unGodly, that something WAS going to happen. Luther was kind of a point man, but there was fever-pitch discontent and angst throughout the Church, and any one of the men such as Calvin, Hus, Zwingli, etc. could have been "Luther".

RogerW
Oct 8th 2007, 09:08 PM
As an anti-Semite, in typical German fashion, and as an authoritarian, again in typical German fashion, Martin Luther was ill suited to launch a movement on behalf of human freedom.

In my view the real founders of the Protestant Reformation are men like Hus and Wycliffe.

Absolute contributors, no argument here.

RogerW
Oct 8th 2007, 09:10 PM
As a result of studying church history for quite a few years, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that "a reformation of some sort" simply WAS going to happen.

The Roman Catholic Church - at that time & place in history - was so corrupt, so powerful and so unGodly, that something WAS going to happen. Luther was kind of a point man, but there was fever-pitch discontent and angst throughout the Church, and any one of the men such as Calvin, Hus, Zwingli, etc. could have been "Luther".

Yeah, the providence of God! His church had become abominable, and God interceded on her behalf as He has throughout history.

RogerW
Oct 8th 2007, 09:13 PM
I recently watched the movie 'Luther'...I think it was from the 70's and it starred Stacey Keach. I learned so much from watching that movie, plus a greater appreciation for what Luther did. He was a troubled & tortured soul trying to please men & God through the RCC, but only when he understood true biblical grace did he come alive. As a result, God used him to turn this world upside down for Christ. I thank God for Martin Luther!!

There is actually another, more modern Luther movie out that was really quite good. You might enquire it was released probably somewhere within the last decade? I too have become very fond of Luther.

SemperReformanda
Oct 8th 2007, 09:32 PM
As an anti-Semite, in typical German fashion, and as an authoritarian, again in typical German fashion, Martin Luther was ill suited to launch a movement on behalf of human freedom.

Luther's "anti-Semitism" is an anachronistic label put onto him by our post-WWII eyes. Agreed, he says some things that make us shudder, but Luther's disgust for those that crucified the Christ should be the same disgust that we have. If only we hated sin as much as Martin Luther (the sinner).

EDIT: In answer to the question, the Reformation means pretty much nothing to the church today. We've abandoned almost everything that the Reformers stood for, and in doing so made the Christian/Papist lines ever so blurry.

jeafl
Oct 8th 2007, 09:43 PM
Absolute contributors, no argument here.

Compared to what the Roman Catholic Church did to people like Wycliffe and Hus, Luther’s life was a dream. Any idea that Luther suffered for the sake of the Lord is a myth.

DSK
Oct 8th 2007, 10:58 PM
On Oct 31th, 1517 Martin Luther in an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. This bold move began a movement later to be called the Protestant (Pro-test-tant) Reformation. The mainstream Protestant Churches generally trace their separation from the Roman Catholic Church to this pivotal moment in church history, yet sadly most Christians know little if anything about this period in the history of the church militant.

Therefore, I find this to be a good time of year to ask what does the Protestant Reformation mean to you? Who was involved, and how did the movement evolve in time?

Many Blessings,
RW

The time was ripe for the period known as the Reformation. The Popish Church with all her abuses made the Reformation necessary. And the Reformation indeed began a good work. The sad part about the Reformation is that even to this day it remains only a partial Reformation. There has really been no real progress in the Reformation since the 17th century. In other words the Reformation remains incomplete. At the Snyod of Dort, a complete Reformation was stifled by narrow minded individuals, none of who could ever reach full agreement.

.

jeafl
Oct 9th 2007, 12:09 AM
The time was ripe for the period known as the Reformation. The Popish Church with all her abuses made the Reformation necesarry. And the Reformation indeed began a good work. The sad part about the Reformation is that even to this day it remains only a partial Reformation. There has really been no real progress in the Reformation since the 17th century. In other words the Reformation remains incomplete. At the Snyod of Dort, a complete Reformation was stifled by narrow minded individuals, none of who could ever reach full agreement.

.

What additional reforms do you see as being necessary?

The Parson
Oct 9th 2007, 12:36 AM
Lets put a big "whoa mule" on the direction this thread is heading. Either ya'll start talking reformation instead of talking who is anti semetic or not or the thread is going to be shut down. If you have a problem with this, don't voice it here. Please start a thread in Chat to the Moderators to my attention.

punk
Oct 9th 2007, 12:38 AM
To answer the OP:

The mainstream Protestant Reformation did nothing more than transfer churches from the control of the Pope and Rome to the control of the local monarchs.

It was as authoritarian as ever, it is just the loyalty, and money, was redirected to local powers.

Even today mainline Protestants blur the line between loyalty to the church and loyalty to the state, with (in the US at least) national flags appearing in churches, and the elevation of the 4th of July to practically a religious holiday.

The mainstream Protestant Reformation has little to recommend for itself.

The Radical Reformation (the Anabaptists and such), who were opposed vehemently by the mainstream Protestant leaders like Luther, had quite a bit to recommend themsleves.

It is telling that one of the few things the Roman Catholics and the Reformers could agree on was that the Radical Reformation needed to be violently rooted out.

It is probably also telling that they could also agree on their hatred for the Jews.

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 02:48 AM
EDIT: In answer to the question, the Reformation means pretty much nothing to the church today. We've abandoned almost everything that the Reformers stood for, and in doing so made the Christian/Papist lines ever so blurry.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean? Could you clarify a bit?

Thanks!

Steven3
Oct 9th 2007, 09:36 AM
While I'm not a great fan of Martin Luther he does at least deserve credit for trying - in the early years of his ministry - for trying to restore Bible teaching in "soul sleep" as it is miscalled. Ultimately however he had to go quiet on the subject as Bible teaching concerning the mortality of man was not consistent with the state-church he became involved in building.


. . . that he [the pope] is emperor of the world and king of heaven, and earthly god; that the soul is immortal, and all these endless monstrous fictions in the Roman rubbish heap of decretals."

"For just as a man who falls asleep and sleeps soundly until morning does not know what has happened to him when he wakes up, so we shall suddenly rise on the Last Day, and we shall know neither what death has been like or how we have come through it. We are to sleep until he comes and knocks on the grave and says, 'Dr. Martin, get up.' Then I will arise in a moment and will be eternally happy with him."

He initially used that discovery to criticise limbo, indulgences, prayer to saints, Mary, and so on, but later discovered how useful the immortality of the soul is in holding together a national rather than individual religion. No one who wants to be a popular religious leader is going to get far preaching that "the dead know nothing".
God bless
Steven

DSK
Oct 9th 2007, 12:26 PM
What additional reforms do you see as being necessary?

A great window of opportunity was available to those who took part in the reformation to come away from all the false teachings of the church of Rome. The Reformers, did come away from many of the errors of the Catholic Church, but still had need to continue developing correct Biblical doctrine. The developing of correct doctrine came to an end at the Synod of Dort, and today there is need to further develop correct doctrine and fully return to Biblical truth. The same underdeveloped midevel teachings that the 17th century Reformers embraced and taught are still being taught by the majority today. In other words the Reformers came a long distance, but they didn't Reform as far as they should have, and in my opinion it is having it's effects on the church today.

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 01:17 PM
While I'm not a great fan of Martin Luther he does at least deserve credit for trying - in the early years of his ministry - for trying to restore Bible teaching in "soul sleep" as it is miscalled. Ultimately however he had to go quiet on the subject as Bible teaching concerning the mortality of man was not consistent with the state-church he became involved in building.

That line about "church-state" caught my eye, and I think it is extremely important. Without understanding that the RCC had both religious and legal control over the populace, it's probably hard to understand why the Reformation would have even been necessary.

In the United States, if we know a church is teaching false doctrine, or doing unethical things, we can simply go to a different church. End of story. Not so in pre-Reformation days.

Thanks for bringing up a very good point!

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2007, 04:54 PM
...what does the Protestant Reformation mean to you? Who was involved, and how did the movement evolve in time?

Many Blessings,
RW

It meant more to me when I was still Lutheran. Alas, I am no more. But I still maintain an interest in studying the period. Asking why/how the Reformation happened will get you many different answers, and many of those will have some truth in them.

I look at Luther as a man in the right spot at the right time. More than anything, the invention of the printing press fueled his reforms. Many of the tracts and pamphlets Luther distributed promoting his cause were printed from these first presses. And, of course, the printing press started to place the Bible back in the hands of the common layperson, where its Truth could be more widely recognized and the errors of the RCC exposed.

Luther was a good man. Perhaps even great. But there were others who God raised up at that time, as well as beforehand to lay the groundwork for what Luther did. God clearly prepared the "soil".

RogerW
Oct 9th 2007, 05:31 PM
It meant more to me when I was still Lutheran. Alas, I am no more. But I still maintain an interest in studying the period. Asking why/how the Reformation happened will get you many different answers, and many of those will have some truth in them.

I look at Luther as a man in the right spot at the right time. More than anything, the invention of the printing press fueled his reforms. Many of the tracts and pamphlets Luther distributed promoting his cause were printed from these first presses. And, of course, the printing press started to place the Bible back in the hands of the common layperson, where its Truth could be more widely recognized and the errors of the RCC exposed.

Luther was a good man. Perhaps even great. But there were others who God raised up at that time, as well as beforehand to lay the groundwork for what Luther did. God clearly prepared the "soil".

Perhaps it would have been better to ask what beliefs and practices of the RCC was Luther attacking in his Theses? And what were the theological issues of the Reformation? It is also beneficial to know who paved the way for Luther's bold move against the RCC, and who followed?

Theological Issues of the Reformation
The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:

Sole authority of Scripture,
Justification by faith alone, and
Priesthood of the believer.[2] (http://www.theopedia.com/Reformation#_note-Doyler364f).Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) was one of the watchwords of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible (http://www.theopedia.com/Bible), is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. The teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith.

Sola Fide (by faith alone) was the other watchword of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that we are justified before God (and thus saved) by faith alone, not by anything we do, not by anything the church does for us, and not by faith plus anything else. It was also recognized by the early Reformers that Sola Fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of Sola Gratia, by grace alone. Hence the Reformers were calling the church back to the basic teaching of Scripture where the apostle Paul states that we are "saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God," Eph. 2:8.
The third great principle of the Reformation was the priesthood of all believers. The Scriptures teach that believers are a "holy priesthood," 1 Pet. 2:5. All believers are priests before God through our great high priest Jesus Christ. "There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Tim. 2:5. As believers, we all have direct access to God through Christ, there is no necessity for an earthly mediator. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox concept of the priesthood was seen as having no warrant in Scripture, viewed as a perversion and mis-application of the Old Testament Aaronic or Levitical priesthood which was clearly fulfilled in Christ and done away with by the New Testament (http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament).

As a result of these principles, the Reformers rejected the authority of the Pope, the merit of good works, indulgences, the mediation of Mary and the Saints, all but the two sacraments (http://www.theopedia.com/Sacraments) instituted by Christ (Baptism (http://www.theopedia.com/Baptism) and the Lord's Supper (http://www.theopedia.com/Lord%27s_Supper)), the doctrine of transubstantiation (http://www.theopedia.com/Transubstantiation), the mass (http://www.theopedia.com/Mass) as a sacrifice, purgatory (http://www.theopedia.com/Purgatory), prayers for the dead, confessions to a priest, the use of Latin in the services, and all the paraphernalia that expressed these ideas.

Even though the Roman Catholic (http://www.theopedia.com/Roman_Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox (http://www.theopedia.com/Eastern_Orthodox) churches fall within Orthodoxy (http://www.theopedia.com/Orthodox) as most would define it, much of their teaching beyond the basic tenets is regarded as erroneous by conservative Protestants. In fact, they would say much of it is clearly to be regarded as false teaching which has perverted the gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ. In general, evangelical (http://www.theopedia.com/Evangelicalism) Protestants see the Reformation as simply a call back to biblical Christianity.

From Theopedia An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

DSK
Oct 9th 2007, 05:32 PM
When people think about the Protestant Reformation, the most familar name that comes to mind is Martin Luther, or John Calvin however there were many import figures in the movement known as the Protestant Reformation. Below is a partial list of other importantant figures who helped shape what happened during the Reformation. The men below are only a few of the many men who helped shape the doctrine of the Reformation period, even though not one of them completely ever agreed with any of the others theologically.

Ulrich Zwingli
Philipp Melanchthon
Martin Bucer
Theodore Beza
James Arminius
Heinrich Bullinger
Girolamo Zanchi
Zacharias Ursinus
John Knox
John Cameron
Moise Amyraut

RogerW
Oct 9th 2007, 05:34 PM
When people think about the Protestant Reformation, the most familar name that comes to mind is Martin Luther, or John Calvin however there were many import figures in the movement known as the Protestant Reformation. Below is a partial list of other important figures who helped shape what happened during the Reformation. The men below are only a few of the many men who helped shape the doctrine of the Reformation period, even though not one of them completely agree with any of the others theologically.

Ulrich Zwingli
Philipp Melanchthon
Martin Bucer
Theodore Beza
James Arminius
Heinrich Bullinger
Girolamo Zanchi
Zacharias Ursinus
John Knox
John Cameron
Moise Amyraut

Yes, and here are two great men of faith who paved the way for Luther.

Precursors to the Reformation

John Wycliffe (http://www.theopedia.com/John_Wycliffe) (1330–84) attacked what he saw as corruptions within the church, including the sale of indulgences, pilgrimages, the excessive veneration of saints, and the low moral and intellectual standards of ordained priests.

Wycliffe also repudiated the doctrine of transubstantiation (http://www.theopedia.com/Transubstantiation), held that the Bible was the sole standard of Christian doctrine, and argued that the authority of the Pope was not grounded in Scripture. Some of Wycliffe's early followers translated the Bible into English, while later followers, known as Lollards, held that the Bible was the sole authority and that Christians were called upon to interpret the Bible for themselves. The Lollards also argued against clerical celibacy, transubstantiation, mandatory oral confession, pilgrimages, and indulgences.

John Huss (http://www.theopedia.com/John_Huss) (1369–1415) — A Bohemian priest, excommunicated in 1410, and burned at the stake for heresy in 1415. His death lead to the Hussite Wars in Bohemia. Huss followed Wycliffe's teachings closely, translating Wycliffe's Trialogus into Czechoslovakian, and modeling the first ten chapters of his own De Ecclesia after Wycliffe's writings. He believed in predestination, regarded the Bible as the ultimate religious authority, and argued that Christ, rather than any ecclesiastical official, is the true head of the church.

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2007, 07:13 PM
Perhaps it would have been better to ask what beliefs and practices of the RCC was Luther attacking in his Theses? And what were the theological issues of the Reformation? It is also beneficial to know who paved the way for Luther's bold move against the RCC, and who followed?

Theological Issues of the Reformation
The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:
Sole authority of Scripture,
Justification by faith alone, and
Priesthood of the believer.[2] (http://www.theopedia.com/Reformation#_note-Doyler364f)....

Luther's principle initial concern was indulgences (read the sale of forgiveness). In regards to the rest, Sola Scriptura and what exactly it meant to the Reformers continues to be debated to this day. Sola Fide, according to one expert on the Reformation I am currently reading, was a resurrection of Augustine's thought process.

It is also important to remember what Luther retained from the RCC, specifically two of the seven sacraments, infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. That Luther never went far enough in his theology is apparent. His confusion over the differences between Romans and James bears this out.

RogerW
Oct 9th 2007, 07:56 PM
Luther's principle initial concern was indulgences (read the sale of forgiveness). In regards to the rest, Sola Scriptura and what exactly it meant to the Reformers continues to be debated to this day. Sola Fide, according to one expert on the Reformation I am currently reading, was a resurrection of Augustine's thought process.

It is also important to remember what Luther retained from the RCC, specifically two of the seven sacraments, infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. That Luther never went far enough in his theology is apparent. His confusion over the differences between Romans and James bears this out.

It was not my intention to focus entirely on Martin Luther. Granted his bold move against the Papacy began something he could not have imagined. In truth Luther's intent was not to separate from the RCC, but rather he desired to reform her. I too have some problems with some of Luther's doctrine, specifically transubstantiation, but while Luther most assuredly did have a role in attempting to reform the church, without the many great men of faith who came before and after, who knows what the church even today might look like?

Granted neither Luther, or any of the other reformers had perfect understanding of all doctrine, and neither does any man today, still I find Luther's posting of his 95 Theses fasinating, and the theological issues of the Reformation which proceeded from this one act clearly to show the providence of God in overseeing His Church throughout human history.

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2007, 08:27 PM
...In truth Luther's intent was not to separate from the RCC, but rather he desired to reform her. I too have some problems with some of Luther's doctrine, specifically transubstantiation, but while Luther most assuredly did have a role in attempting to reform the church, without the many great men of faith who came before and after, who knows what the church even today might look like?

Granted neither Luther, or any of the other reformers had perfect understanding of all doctrine, and neither does any man today, still I find Luther's posting of his 95 Theses fasinating, and the theological issues of the Reformation which proceeded from this one act clearly to show the providence of God in overseeing His Church throughout human history.

You'll have to forgive me. My entire view of the Reformation has been unduly influenced by the fact that I was Lutheran for 24 years.

Having said that, there is nothing above from your previous post that I can't agree with, especially the part about Luther wanting to reform, not leave the RCC.

DSK
Oct 9th 2007, 08:59 PM
Luther's principle initial concern was indulgences (read the sale of forgiveness).

That is correct


In regards to the rest, Sola Scriptura and what exactly it meant to the Reformers continues to be debated to this day. Sola Fide, according to one expert on the Reformation I am currently reading, was a resurrection of Augustine's thought process.

Much of what is contained in Reformed teaching comes from John Calvin who systemized Augustine's theology. Augustine presented some teachings that were not taught in the Church prior to the 5th Century.


It is also important to remember what Luther retained from the RCC, specifically two of the seven sacraments, infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. That Luther never went far enough in his theology is apparent. His confusion over the differences between Romans and James bears this out.

Quite correct, even to this day the Reformation is incomplete. The Reformers appear to be quite happy with a incomplete Reformation

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2007, 09:34 PM
...Much of what is contained in Reformed teaching comes from John Calvin who systemized Augustine's theology. Augustine presented some teachings that were not taught in the Church prior to the 5th Century...

Your signature gives you away. :)

DSK
Oct 9th 2007, 09:39 PM
Your signature gives you away. :)

I plead ignorance here. What is my signature giving away about me?

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2007, 09:48 PM
I plead ignorance here. What is my signature giving away about me?

The quote...from Augustine ;)

DSK
Oct 9th 2007, 10:09 PM
The quote...from Augustine ;)

I know you were referring to that quote.
What I want to know is what does that quote give away about me?

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 01:57 PM
Quite correct, even to this day the Reformation is incomplete. The Reformers appear to be quite happy with a incomplete Reformation

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. Would you elaborate a bit?

What more needs to be reformed? What needs to be dropped, or changed?



Thanks! :)

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 05:06 PM
On Oct 31th, 1517 Martin Luther in an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. This bold move began a movement later to be called the Protestant (Pro-test-tant) Reformation. The mainstream Protestant Churches generally trace their separation from the Roman Catholic Church to this pivotal moment in church history, yet sadly most Christians know little if anything about this period in the history of the church militant.

Therefore, I find this to be a good time of year to ask what does the Protestant Reformation mean to you? Who was involved, and how did the movement evolve in time?

Many Blessings,
RWI'm studying Church history right now, and the Reformation specifically. Studying the Reformation, and the key players (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc) has given me insight into a greater understanding of the bible. Studying the origins of many heresies (Arian, Pelagian, Arminian etc) and the creeds and confessions that came from countering them, has likewise helped facilitate my understanding of Scripture.

One must know where we have been to prevent going there again. Many of todays cults (JW's for example) have already been dealt with in early creeds (Nicene).

Church history is a highly important study for any Christian (it's been coined the "third testament" by some)

This first link is a fantastic teaching series on the Reformation:

The History of the Reformation - Tom Browning (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/reformationhistory.html)

And two courses from Covenant Theological Seminary:

Ancient and Medieval Church History - David Calhoun (http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH310/CH310.asp)

Reformation and Modern Church History - David Calhoun (http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH320/CH320.asp)

I'm currently listening to this series. It is from the perspective of an Arminian (so I find some faults with some of his opinions and takes on history - plus he is the most opinionated of the three teachers here in that he explains why some of the heresies are wrong instead of simply teaching what the Church did about them) but it is good to get all angles:

2000 Years of Western Church History - Steve Gregg (http://dubroom.org/articles/036.htm)

Blessings

Theophilus
Oct 10th 2007, 05:14 PM
I'm studying Church history right now... Studying the origins of many heresies (Arian, Pelagian, Arminian etc) and the creeds and confessions that came from countering them...

As a Wesleyan, I expect a smile and a kiss when you couple Arminius and heresy. ;)

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 05:16 PM
As a Wesleyan, I expect a smile and a kiss when you couple Arminius and heresy. ;)At the time of Arminius, it was a heresy in that it was not orthodoxy.

I did not use that word as an insult, my dear Theophilus :)

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 05:17 PM
I'm not sure I'm following you on this. Would you elaborate a bit?

What more needs to be reformed? What needs to be dropped, or hanged?

Thanks! :)

Basically all I am stating is that the same old teachings which are still being taught today came out of the Reformation Period and the Synod of Dort and were then put under the acronym TULIP were an improvement over the teachings of Rome, but not a completed improvement, at least not in my opinion. I believe that the Reformers developed a system of theology which isn't 100% true, and which is foreign to Scripture in many areas. In my opinion there are teachings which many churches today still embrace which I don't see receiving full Biblical support, and I don't see them as being taught before the 5th Century, at least not until the time of Augustine.

Theophilus
Oct 10th 2007, 05:18 PM
At the time of Arminius, it was a heresy in that it was not orthodoxy.

I did not use that word as an insult, my dear Theophilus :)
:lol:
I know...just messin' with ya'.

(I got my smile, at least. ;))

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 05:23 PM
I'm studying Church history right now, and the Reformation specifically. Studying the Reformation, and the key players (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc) has given me insight into a greater understanding of the bible. Studying the origins of many heresies (Arian, Pelagian, Arminian etc) and the creeds and confessions that came from countering them, has likewise helped facilitate my understanding of Scripture.

I am not an Arminian, nor do I agree with everything Arminianism teaches. The fact that it was the Reformers (Calvinists) that gave Armianism the label of hersey, doesn't make it so.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 05:28 PM
John Huss (http://www.theopedia.com/John_Huss) (1369–1415) — A Bohemian priest, excommunicated in 1410, and burned at the stake for heresy in 1415. His death lead to the Hussite Wars in Bohemia. Huss followed Wycliffe's teachings closely, translating Wycliffe's Trialogus into Czechoslovakian, and modeling the first ten chapters of his own De Ecclesia after Wycliffe's writings. He believed in predestination, regarded the Bible as the ultimate religious authority, and argued that Christ, rather than any ecclesiastical official, is the true head of the church.

Interestingly, Huss made a proclamation at his execution (burned at the stake with Wycliffe manuscripts as kindling) where he stated:

“in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed".

Almost 100 years later Luther nailed up his 95 Theses and the printing press distributed the document all over Europe like nothing before.

http://www.bible-media.com/history/john-hus.php

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 05:46 PM
I am not an Arminian, nor do I agree with everything Arminianism teaches. The fact that it was the Reformers (Calvinists) that gave Armianism the label of hersey, doesn't make it so.It was most certainly a heresy in the true definition of the word:

Main Entry: her·e·sy http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?heresy01.wav=heresy'))
Pronunciation: 'her-&-sE, 'he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

The established teaching of the church was Augustinianism, Calvinism, Reformed theology in general.

Granted, Reformed theology was not as fine-tuned as it has become today, but Arminianism stemmed from a disagreement with Calvin and his Institutes (which Arminius held in high esteem), which were agreed upon as being biblical by a majority of Christians -- which is evident from the Synod of Dordt, which was a gathering of church "officials" from all over Europe.

Because it has now had a larger following (why, I will not get into here) does not mean that 400 years ago it was not heretical.

Mormonism has a large following, but it is heretical from the established teachings accepted by the Church.

And as alluded to above, Wycliffe, Huss and Luther were all considered heretics. Yet they were closer to the truth than the Church was at that time -- not to imply that Arminianism is true or false (I believe it is incorrect on many issues). I say that just to show how the word "heresy" is used.

Blessings

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 06:43 PM
Basically all I am stating is that the same old teachings which are still being taught today came out of the Reformation Period and the Synod of Dort and were then put under the acronym TULIP were an improvement over the teachings of Rome, but not a completed improvement, at least not in my opinion. I believe that the Reformers developed a system of theology which isn't 100% true, and which is foreign to Scripture in many areas. In my opinion there are teachings which many churches today still embrace which I don't see receiving full Biblical support, and I don't see them as being taught before the 5th Century, at least not until the time of Augustine.

Gotcha. Thanks!

It just kinda caught my eye when I saw that you had mentioned Calvin & Augustine, linking them in the same sentence. I don't think many people are aware of that connection.

I also wonder how many people are aware of Augustine's connection with Gnosticism and Manichaeism - and what were probably very, very questionable theological stances that Augustine took.


But I do wholly agree with you that the Reformers probably only reformed "things" to the point where it was comfortable for them.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 06:54 PM
Gotcha. Thanks!

It just kinda caught my eye when I saw that you had mentioned Calvin & Augustine, linking them in the same sentence. I don't think many people are aware of that connection.

Also of note is that Luther was a Augustinian monk.


I also wonder how many people are aware of Augustine's connection with Gnosticism and Manichaeism - and what were probably very, very questionable theological stances that Augustine took.

Its nice to look into but it cuts both ways. No matter which "father" you might bring up someone will claim that that "father" was influenced by some outside philosophies and ideas.

Not saying its not true (I think we all are influenced) or worth studying but its often a moot point and for the most part can't be substantiated IMO.


But I do wholly agree with you that the Reformers probably only reformed "things" to the point where it was comfortable for them.

Uh... I don't think inquisitions, threat of life, or excommunication were exactly comfortable experiences.

I'm just not so sure about that call but that could just be me :)

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 07:07 PM
Also of note is that Luther was a Augustinian monk.



Its nice to look into but it cuts both ways. No matter which "father" you might bring up someone will claim that that "father" was influenced by some outside philosophies and ideas.

Not saying its not true (I think we all are influenced) or worth studying but its often a moot point and for the most part can't be substantiated IMO.



Uh... I don't think inquisitions, threat of life, or excommunication were exactly comfortable experiences.

I'm just not so sure about that call but that could just be me :)

Hey - you bring up some great points.

As to your comments I bolded, I'm thinking of the fact that after their teachings became more the norm, some of these reformers turned from persecuted to persecutor.

John Calvin was certainly less than charitable toward Michael Servetus. And several Protestant groups virtually annihilated the Anabaptists - specifically, Zwingli & his followers.


The sad truth is that Christianity does not have a pure and pristine past!

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 07:20 PM
It was most certainly a heresy in the true definition of the word:

Main Entry: her·e·sy http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?heresy01.wav=heresy'))
Pronunciation: 'her-&-sE, 'he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

As I previously stated. In my opinion Armianism isn't 100% correct in it's doctrine, but neither is Calvinism, therefore both Arminianism and Calvinism by defintion could be labeled hersey. Just as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and other Reformers had Scriptural reasons for departing from Catholicism, the Remonstrants likewise had Scriptural reasons for separating from Calvinism. It's not as if Arminius wasn't familar with Calvinism, seeing how he once embraced Calvinism. It was because he did know the teachings of Calvinism and compared them with Scripture, and then sided with Scripture.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 07:20 PM
Hey - you bring up some great points.

Thanks :)


As to your comments I bolded, I'm thinking of the fact that after their teachings became more the norm, some of these reformers turned from persecuted to persecutor.

I think there is certainly some truth in that and I think there was one particular doctrine that was never reformed that brings about this type of attitude in Christians and that is the doctrine of eternal torment.

That may just be my own bias but a doctrine that says that God is going to torment certain people for eternity seems to bring out a justified persecution in some people's minds, both catholic and protestant.


John Calvin was certainly less than charitable toward Michael Servetus. And several Protestant groups virtually annihilated the Anabaptists - specifically, Zwingli & his followers.

The sad truth is that Christianity does not have a pure and pristine past!

It is without a doubt true and definitely something worth pondering and praying about and guarding ourselves against.

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 07:25 PM
I think there is certainly some truth in that and I think there was one particular doctrine that was never reformed that brings about this type of attitude in Christians and that is the doctrine of eternal torment.

That may just be my own bias but a doctrine that says that God is going to torment certain people for eternity seems to bring out a justified persecution in some people's minds, both catholic and protestant.

It is without a doubt true and definitely something worth pondering and praying about and guarding ourselves against.

You're right.

I also think that we can chalk some of it up to the old saying that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As the Roman Catholic Church evolved into the church/state monolithic entity it became, it has virtually absolute power and an absolute lack of accountability. Corruption was virtually inevitable.

This sort of thing happens all the time, and none of us are immune. That's one of the reasons I at least try to take a somewhat charitable approach to much of church history. They were, after all, people like you and me! ;)

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 07:27 PM
As I previously stated. In my opinion Armianism isn't 100% correct in it's doctrine, but neither is Calvinism, therefore both Arminianism and Calvinism by defintion could be labeled hersey. Just as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and other Reformers had Scriptural reasons for departing from Catholicism, the Remonstrants likewise had Scriptural reasons for separating from Calvinism. It's not as if Arminius wasn't familar with Calvinism, seeing how he once embraced Calvinism. It was because he did know the teachings of Calvinism and compared them with Scripture, and then sided with Scripture.
Calvinism has never been labeled heresy by the protestant church, whereas Arminianism has.

Enough about this. I do not believe you quite understand the real meaning of the word. It is not used as a derogatory term in any way. It is simply a statement of fact.

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 07:32 PM
Hey - you bring up some great points.

As to your comments I bolded, I'm thinking of the fact that after their teachings became more the norm, some of these reformers turned from persecuted to persecutor.

John Calvin was certainly less than charitable toward Michael Servetus. And several Protestant groups virtually annihilated the Anabaptists - specifically, Zwingli & his followers.


The sad truth is that Christianity does not have a pure and pristine past!This is true! Wonder why that is?

Possibly because it's full of sinners ;)

And as far as it goes, Calvin was a friend of Servetus and requested that the council (once he was persuaded, due to the era, that Servetus deserved execution) would behead him rather than burn him, seeing that it was more humane.

it is the largest ad hominem attack against the doctrines of Grace and could likewise be said about any denomination (there's a sinner in that denomination so there's something wrong with the denomination).

All doctrines should be compared with Scripture, and not their proponents. And in my years of study, I have yet to see any problems with Calvinism. I do, however, see Arminian doctrine (of which I was formerly a subscriber) as being swiss cheese ;)

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 07:40 PM
Gotcha. Thanks!

It just kinda caught my eye when I saw that you had mentioned Calvin & Augustine, linking them in the same sentence. I don't think many people are aware of that connection.

I also wonder how many people are aware of Augustine's connection with Gnosticism and Manichaeism - and what were probably very, very questionable theological stances that Augustine took.

Excellent points


But I do wholly agree with you that the Reformers probably only reformed "things" to the point where it was comfortable for them.

From my reading of the Reformation Period, the Reformers seldom agreed with each other. Luther had sharp disagreements with other Reformers such as Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. Reformers like Theodore Beza, and Bullinger disagreed. I could list many other Reformers who never agreed with each other, much like what we still see today among todays Refomed. Reformers disagreeing with each other was quite the norm. However as the Reformers continued to put together what they perceived as correct doctrine, they finally put aside all their differences and decided to form a concensus, in order to give the appearance of agreement where no no actual full agreement ever came to exist. The pity of Calvin's deterministic theology is that it muddied the water to such an extent, that it made full agreement quite impossible.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 07:47 PM
From my reading of the Reformation Period, the Reformers seldomed agreed with each other. Luther had sharp disagreements with other Reformers such as Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. Reformers like Theodore Beza, and Bullinger disagreed. I could list many other Reformers who never agreed with each other, much like what we still see today among todays Refomed. Reformers disagreeing with each other was quite the norm. However as the Reformers continued to put together what they perceived as correct doctrine, they finally put aside all their differences and decided to form a concensus, in order to give the appearance of agreement where no no actual full agreement ever came to exist. The pity of Calvin's deterministic theology is that it muddied the water to such an extent, that it made full agreement quite impossible.

That's the truth of the whole of the Church since its earliest beginnings.

A reading of the early fathers shows quite a bit of disagreement in doctrine. Even the 1st century had contention over doctrine (hence the need for the Jerusalem counsel).

It appears to have always been the case in Christianity.

That's why I believe the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer to be an accurate doctrine. Each man is responsible before God for his own convictions about what he believes the scriptures are revealing, knowing He will one day give account before the seat of Christ.

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 07:49 PM
Calvinism has never been labeled heresy by the protestant church, whereas Arminianism has.

Enough about this. I do not believe you quite understand the real meaning of the word. It is not used as a derogatory term in any way. It is simply a statement of fact.

Other than some minor points, what do you see as the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism?

It seems like the disagreement is more in "degrees" than in "substance."

jeffreys
Oct 10th 2007, 07:51 PM
From my reading of the Reformation Period, the Reformers seldomed agreed with each other. Luther had sharp disagreements with other Reformers such as Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. Reformers like Theodore Beza, and Bullinger disagreed. I could list many other Reformers who never agreed with each other, much like what we still see today among todays Refomed. Reformers disagreeing with each other was quite the norm. However as the Reformers continued to put together what they perceived as correct doctrine, they finally put aside all their differences and decided to form a concensus, in order to give the appearance of agreement where no no actual full agreement ever came to exist. The pity of Calvin's deterministic theology is that it muddied the water to such an extent, that it made full agreement quite impossible.

Healthy, yet robust, debate is a very good thing.

Unfortunately, most of us aren't very good at being able to go nose-to-nose in heated debate, yet walking away as friends at the end of the day.

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 07:55 PM
That's the truth of the whole of the Church since its earliest beginnings.

A reading of the early fathers shows quite a bit of disagreement in doctrine. Even the 1st century had contention over doctrine (hence the need for the Jerusalem counsel).

It appears to have always been the case in Christianity.

That's why I believe the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer to be an accurate doctrine. Each man is responsible before God for his own convictions about what he believes the scriptures are revealing, knowing He will one day give account before the seat of Christ.

I totally and absolutely agree with that. Good job in pointing that out.

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 07:58 PM
Other than some minor points, what do you see as the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism?

It seems like the disagreement is more in "degrees" than in "substance."
Wow.

There's a lot more difference than degrees.

Arminianism is synergistic, which means that man works with God in salvation.

Arminianism believes Christ's sacrifice was merely potential salvation, conditioned on the belief of the spiritually dead sinner who is at enmity with God and hates Him by their very nature.

Arminianism believes that men must sustain their salvation by adhering to their faith, and it is possible for one to lose their salvation, meaning that a once true believer would renounce his/her faith and be condemned.

Calvinism (and Scripture) denounces each of these points.

there is much much more to it, but that should get an interesting discussion started ;)

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 08:14 PM
Wow.

There's a lot more difference than degrees.

Arminianism is synergistic, which means that man works with God in salvation.

Arminianism believes Christ's sacrifice was merely potential salvation, conditioned on the belief of the spiritually dead sinner who is at enmity with God and hates Him by their very nature.

Arminianism believes that men must sustain their salvation by adhering to their faith, and it is possible for one to lose their salvation, meaning that a once true believer would renounce his/her faith and be condemned.

Calvinism (and Scripture) denounces each of these points.

there is much much more to it, but that should get an interesting discussion started ;)

Does Calvinism see any synergism in the acts of repenting and believing which God commands men to do? (Acts 16:30-31; 17:30)

.

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 08:27 PM
Does Calvinism see any synergism in the acts of repenting and believing which God commands men to do? (Acts 16:30-31; 17:30)

.Men are unable to do this apart from regeneration. The imperative aspect (command) is to drive us to Christ, as all Law does according to Galatians 3:24

I understand your position as a "post-regeneration synergist" and I would mainly agree with you.

But not all are regenerated, which is where I believe you veer off course.

Synergism, as described by Arminians, is universal. Where Calvinism would define it as definite and limited according to the good pleasure of God's will.

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 08:57 PM
Men are unable to do this apart from regeneration. The imperative aspect (command) is to drive us to Christ, as all Law does according to Galatians 3:24

I understand your position as a "post-regeneration synergist" and I would mainly agree with you.

But not all are regenerated, which is where I believe you veer off course.

Synergism, as described by Arminians, is universal. Where Calvinism would define it as definite and limited according to the good pleasure of God's will.

Yes you know my view, and I know that you view the acts of repenting and believing as being synergistic in nature, and that before than can happen a monergistic act we call regeneration must occur first. I just think we need to be careful and not say synergism doesn't come into play in a person becoming justified, since Scripture says it is by faith we are justified, not justified by regeneration. And if Calvinism denies any synergism then it can be found unScriptural.

humbled
Oct 10th 2007, 09:05 PM
Yes you know my view, and I know that you view the acts of repenting and believing as being synergistic in nature, and that before than can happen a monergistic act we call regeneration must occur first. I just think we need to be careful and not say synergism doesn't come into play in a person becoming justified, since Scripture says it is by faith we are justified, not justified by regeneration. And if Calvinism denies any synergism then it can be found unScriptural.Faith itself is likewise a gift from God.

It is EVIDENCE of regeneration.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 09:05 PM
Yes you know my view, and I know that you view the acts of repenting and believing as being synergistic in nature, and that before than can happen a monergistic act we call regeneration must occur first. I just think we need to be careful and not say synergism doesn't come into play in a person becoming justified, since Scripture says it is by faith we are justified, not justified by regeneration. And if Calvinism denies any synergism then it can be found unScriptural.

Where calvinism/reformed and arminianism/(post-regeneration synergism) differ is in the effect of regeneration.

Reformed believe that regeneration actually CHANGES the desire of a person to actually want to follow Christ and to love Him. The effect of regeneration will 100% of the time result in a person who places faith in Christ.

Arminian (post regen syns) believe that regeneration simply "frees" or "makes alive" the will of man so that man can then freely choose, with no gracious change to that will, whether to reject or accept Christ.

Something worth noting in the difference between the 2 positions.

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 09:26 PM
Where calvinism/reformed and arminianism/(post-regeneration synergism) differ is in the effect of regeneration.

Reformed believe that regeneration actually CHANGES the desire of a person to actually want to follow Christ and to love Him. The effect of regeneration will 100% of the time result in a person who places faith in Christ.

Arminian (post regen syns) believe that regeneration simply "frees" or "makes alive" the will of man so that man can then freely choose, with no gracious change to that will, whether to reject or accept Christ.

Something worth noting in the difference between the 2 positions.

My recent studies of Arminianism reveal to me your understanding of Arminianism is only partially correct.

The correct order of salvation in Arminian teaching is:
1. Prevenient grace (this is not regeneration)
2. Faith
3. Regeneration

Arminians believe than 100% of those regenerated are justified. Therefore it is incorrect to say that Arminians don't believe that regeneration changes all those who are regenerated. The real difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that in Calvinism regeneration precedes faith, whereas in Arminianism faith precedes regeneration.

.

Toolman
Oct 10th 2007, 09:41 PM
My recent studies of Arminianism reveal to me your understanding of Arminianism is only partially correct.

The correct order of salvation in Arminian teaching is:
1. Prevenient grace (this is not regeneration)
2. Faith
3. Regeneration

Arminians believe than 100% of those regenerated are justified. Therefore it is incorrect to say that Arminians don't believe that regeneration changes all those who are regenerated. The real difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that in Calvinism regeneration precedes faith, whereas in Arminianism faith precedes regeneration.

.

Depends on which arminian you would be talking to.

To a wesleyan they would use the term "regeneration" to denote those who have been given eternal life after faith. This would be regeneration to them.

To the traditional arminian "regeneration" would precede faith in that God must make the person born again before they could place faith in Christ. They would not equate regeneration with being granted eternal life (same as the post regen syns).

Both groups are basically saying the same thing though but using different words.

God does "something" to make a person's will come alive, the person can then freely choose to either accept or reject Christ, those who accept Christ are justified. At any point the person can change their mind and later reject Christ.

The philosophy is the same, only the semantics over words are different. As Shakespeare said "A rose by any other name".

I will grant that one difference I have seen you come to though is your position against pervenient grace.

Now that you have concluded that God only regenerates some people (and not all people) then that does put your position further away from wesleyan arminianism and pervenient grace and much closer to a reformed position.

DSK
Oct 10th 2007, 10:58 PM
To a wesleyan they would use the term "regeneration" to denote those who have been given eternal life after faith. This would be regeneration to them.

Which agrees with what I have been saying


To the traditional arminian "regeneration" would precede faith in that God must make the person born again before they could place faith in Christ.

You base that on one single quote from the 3rd article of the Remonstrants which you like to post, without considering what other statements Arminians made. Below are the words of the first Arminian, Jame Arminius himself. You can't fully understand Arminianism based on a single quote, anymore than I can gain a proper understanding of Calvinism based upon any single quote from them. Can there be any Arminian teaching more traditional that Arminius?

"All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capacity of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to Him who knocks at the door of the heart. -James Arminius - The Works of Arminius Volume II

Next a quote from Arminius on prevenient grace which to him was not regeneration.

"No man believes in Christ except him who has been previously disposed and prepared by preventing or preceding grace to receive eternal life." - James Arminius - The Works of Arminius Volume II


Both groups are basically saying the same thing though but using different words.

Your still seem unable able to grasp how Arminians viewed prevenient grace as completely different from regeneration. Arminians put the act of faith between the two which not only separated them chronologically, but by definition as being completely different.


God does "something" to make a person's will come alive, the person can then freely choose to either accept or reject Christ, those who accept Christ are justified.

And Arminians refer to that as prevenient grace


At any point the person can change their mind and later reject Christ.

True. Arminians believe a born again (regenerated) believer can completely and finally fall from the faith. In that respect I agree with Arminians


I will grant that one difference I have seen you come to though is your position against pervenient grace.

After doing some research, I now see that the way Arminians use the word prevenient grace is not the same way I use it. To me prevenient grace is regeneration. To Arminians prevenient grace precedes both faith and regeneration.


Now that you have concluded that God only regenerates some people (and not all people) then that does put your position further away from wesleyan arminianism and pervenient grace and much closer to a reformed position.

I don't believe I specifically and directly said I actually believe God truly regenerates all people. I do however recall me saying, I'm not sure, but I do believe God must give everyone some sort of illumination, whether natural or divine. And by illumination I wasn't necessarily referring to regeneration. It may be possible than you didn't fully understand something I previously said which led you to believe I sai that. But I call recall it.

Toolman
Oct 11th 2007, 03:00 AM
Which agrees with what I have been saying

There is evidence that Wesley took Arminius doctrine in different directions than what the Remonstrants did.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/21-25/22-06.htm


You base that on one single quote from the 3rd article of the Remonstrants which you like to post, without considering what other statements Arminians made.

That is incorrect. I will share evidence below from Arminius himself.


Below are the words of the first Arminian, Jame Arminius himself. You can't fully understand Arminianism based on a single quote, anymore than I can gain a proper understanding of Calvinism based upon any single quote from them. Can there be any Arminian teaching more traditional that Arminius?

"All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capacity of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to Him who knocks at the door of the heart. -James Arminius - The Works of Arminius Volume II

Ok, lets note here what Arminius says and more important what he DOES NOT say.

Arminius states that unregenerate man, of his own will, can resist the Spirit. Arminius DOES NOT say that an unregenerate man can understand or accept the Gospel of Christ.

Arminius makes himself clear on that point here:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be REGENERATED and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this REGENERATION or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace
http://www.imarc.cc/esecurity/arminius.html


Arminius is clear that regeneration is needed before man is capable of thinking, willing or doing anything which is good (the remonstrants point in article 3).

So, Arminius declares that unregenerate man resists the Spirit of God, and is without excuse, and MUST be regenerated before being able to think, will or do any good.

That is the traditional arminian position.

Arminius further states:

"The mind, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For 'the animal man has no perception of the things of the spirit of God' (1 Cor. 2:14) (Ibid.). Further, he writes: "Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind, and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil" (Ibid., p. 572). Commenting on John 8:36, Arminius wrote, "It follows that our will is not free from the first fall; that is, it is not free to good, unless it be made free by the Son through his spirit."

See James Arminus, Writings, Grand Rapids: Barker, 1956 reprint, 1:276-380



Next a quote from Arminius on prevenient grace which to him was not regeneration.

"No man believes in Christ except him who has been previously disposed and prepared by preventing or preceding grace to receive eternal life." - James Arminius - The Works of Arminius Volume II

I do not see any difference between Arminius' quote above and your statement here:

I believe it is possible that God gives all humans enough illumination, either by way of Divine or natural revelation that if men were to take advantage of what light they were shown, then even more light would be given them, where they could eventually grope around and find their way out of darkness and into His marvelous light.
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1332436&postcount=130


What is the difference between your position and Arminius? I can find no difference.


Your still seem unable able to grasp how Arminians viewed prevenient grace as completely different from regeneration. Arminians put the act of faith between the two which not only separated them chronologically, but by definition as being completely different.

Not according to the Remonstrants and Arminius. They stated clearly that regeneration must proceed any good a man could do, of which saving faith is included. That was their direct statement.


And Arminians refer to that as prevenient grace

And you refer to it as illumination or "light" which God gives to all men (otherwise He is unfair according to you). The words you use may be different but the concept is exactly the same.


True. Arminians believe a born again (regenerated) believer can completely and finally fall from the faith. In that respect I agree with Arminians

Noted. But I would also note that the Remonstrants and Arminius were inconclusive on this point:

"I never taught that a true believer can… fall away from the faith… yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such as kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding
Arminius Writings, I:254

5th Article of Remonstrants:
That those who are in*corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un*derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv*ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be*coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be*fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.


After doing some research, I now see that the way Arminians use the word prevenient grace is not the same way I use it. To me prevenient grace is regeneration. To Arminians prevenient grace precedes both faith and regeneration.

Some modern arminians see it that way and I would say their view is closer to pelagianism than traditional arminianism.


I don't believe I specifically and directly said I actually believe God truly regenerates all people. I do however recall me saying, I'm not sure, but I do believe God must give everyone some sort of illumination, whether natural or divine. And by illumination I wasn't necessarily referring to regeneration. It may be possible than you didn't fully understand something I previously said which led you to believe I said that. But I call recall it.

In the beginning of our dialogue you said you were not sure if God regenerated all men.

But you recentlly stated that you now hold that God only regenerates some men and not all:

If I were a universalist, I would say all men, because if universalism is true then "rebirth" could occur in this life or in the next. But seeing how I am not coming from a universalist perspective I would have to say some.
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1395720&postcount=51

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 05:16 AM
I'm rather dubious about seeing Hus and Wycliffe as predecessors of Luther, Calvin and co. As far as I know neither Wycliffe or Hus ever sanctioned acts of bloodshed. Wheras the fathers of Protestantism couldn't wait to spill blood - either Catholic or Non-conformist. A legacy Protestantism still carries.

If there are successors to Wycliffe in the Reformation it would be men like Sebastian Castellio (http://www.answers.com/topic/castalion-s-bastien), not men like Calvin.

Below - cover of Stefan Zweig's historical novella "Castellio against Calvin, or A conscience against Force."

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XX4GYYS2L._AA240_.jpg

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 09:58 AM
I'm rather dubious about seeing Hus and Wycliffe as predecessors of Luther, Calvin and co. As far as I know neither Wycliffe or Hus ever sanctioned acts of bloodshed. Wheras the fathers of Protestantism couldn't wait to spill blood - either Catholic or Non-conformist. A legacy Protestantism still carries.

If there are successors to Wycliffe in the Reformation it would be men like Sebastian Castellio (http://www.answers.com/topic/castalion-s-bastien), not men like Calvin.

Below - cover of Stefan Zweig's historical novella "Castellio against Calvin, or A conscience against Force."

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XX4GYYS2L._AA240_.jpg

I believe what follows will compliment what Steven posted:

The following is from Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church), Volume 8, "Protestant Intolerance," pages 700-800.

"The Reformers inherited the doctrine of persecution from their mother Church, and practiced it as far as they had the power. They fought intolerance with intolerance. They differed favorably from their opponents in the degree and extent, but not in the principle, of intolerance. They broke down the tyranny of popery, and thus opened the way for the development of religious freedom; but they denied to others the liberty which they exercised themselves. The Protestant governments in Germany and Switzerland excluded, within the limits of their jurisdiction, the Roman Catholics from all religious and civil rights, and took exclusive possession of their churches, convents, and other property. They banished, imprisoned, drowned, beheaded, hanged, and burned Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, Schwenkfeldians, and other dissenters."

"The burning of Servetus, in 1553, for his theological opinions, is a frightful blot upon the Reformation, and upon the man who sanctioned such an unchristian proceeding. True, the opinions of Servetus were fatally and fundamentally false, --he held the Arian heresy, which is simply blasphemy against the Son of God; but to burn him, or any one else, for false doctrine, was a flagrant sin against the spirit, genius, and principle of the gospel, the deplorable fruit of ignorance as to the essential difference between Judaism and Christianity." C.H.Mackintosh, Notes on the Book of Deuteronomy, Volume II, page 162 footnote.

Toolman
Oct 11th 2007, 01:59 PM
Go to any atheist website and you will hear the same accusations against God every day... that He sanctions acts of bloodshed (the killing of women and children by Israel) and that He burns people alive (for eternity) for false doctrine.

I'm not saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with what the reformers did (and taught) but we may want to observe what doctrines it is that may still need reform and what doctrines might cause men to justify bloodshed.

Lets just be careful how we tread here would be my only caution.

But that may just be me :)

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 02:13 PM
Through my study of church history, I have found that the reason for persecutions stems from the Inquisitions. Those forums were done because the Church and the State (the papacy and the empire) were united and had a common agenda. They were so tightly interwoven, that anyone who was not a "Christian" who adhered to what the "Church" taught was considered a traitor and unloyal to their country.

This was what caused many people to be persecuted for speaking out against what the institutional Church taught.

While I am not condoning any acts of persecution against heretics, I believe it helps to understand their origins. It seems to me that this "tradition" merely spilled over into the protestant realm. FWIW (not that many objectors pay much attention to this detail) Calvin was not the rabblerouser for the execution of Servetus. They were friends and he (Calvin) requested mercy be given by the council (the real executioners) when he was finally convinced (he doubted the necessity) that Servetus was a heretic, and since heretics were summarily executed, he fell into that category. It was not malicious and personal. It was tradition. It was expected. It was also very, very wrong.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 02:36 PM
And as far as it goes, Calvin was a friend of Servetus and requested that the council (once he was persuaded, due to the era, that Servetus deserved execution) would behead him rather than burn him, seeing that it was more humane.Why goodness! I had him all wrong then! He just wanted his head cut off... I can see the love in that! What a friend! ;)

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 02:41 PM
Go to any atheist website and you will hear the same accusations against God every day... that He sanctions acts of bloodshed (the killing of women and children by Israel)Out of curiosity... How do you deal with this... one can't deny what is in the Scripture. It's there for them to read and we have that reality. So make excuses for God? Pretend it isn't there? Say it doesn't really mean what it says? Come up with some lame excuse (and to an atheist it will be lame no matter what you say)? How do you deal with this reality?

Toolman
Oct 11th 2007, 02:53 PM
Out of curiosity... How do you deal with this... one can't deny what is in the Scripture. It's there for them to read and we have that reality. So make excuses for God? Pretend it isn't there? Say it doesn't really mean what it says? Come up with some lame excuse (and to an atheist it will be lame no matter what you say)? How do you deal with this reality?

I personally deal with it with a Law and Gospel hermaneutic as far as God's judgements and actions and show that God's judgements are always for the purpose of redemption. That man's sin and rebellion brings about dire consequences (God's wrath and judgement as well as "natural") but even in the midst of the sin of the world God's is working a plan of redemption for all people, though we deserve no such redemption.

Isaiah - 26:9 When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of
the world learn righteousness.

That is how I deal with it but not all evangelicals agree with me that God's judgements have a redemptive purpose but believe that His judgements are simply for punitive purposes.

This may be more for the apologetics forum but how do you deal with it?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 03:01 PM
Through my study of church history, I have found that the reason for persecutions stems from the Inquisitions. Those forums were done because the Church and the State (the papacy and the empire) were united and had a common agenda. They were so tightly interwoven, that anyone who was not a "Christian" who adhered to what the "Church" taught was considered a traitor and unloyal to their country.

This was what caused many people to be persecuted for speaking out against what the institutional Church taught.

While I am not condoning any acts of persecution against heretics, I believe it helps to understand their origins. It seems to me that this "tradition" merely spilled over into the protestant realm. FWIW (not that many objectors pay much attention to this detail) Calvin was not the rabblerouser for the execution of Servetus. They were friends and he (Calvin) requested mercy be given by the council (the real executioners) when he was finally convinced (he doubted the necessity) that Servetus was a heretic, and since heretics were summarily executed, he fell into that category. It was not malicious and personal. It was tradition. It was expected. It was also very, very wrong.Well one has to consider some other facts as well. John Calvin wielded a tremendous amount of both power and influence. Had he stood and condemned the act of killing the man because of Scripture... there is a good chance it may well not have happened.

I agree that it was how it was back in that day and it didn't stop then. If one studies the various movements one can see where Christian folk weren't so kind. Even in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Pentecostals were persecuted, homes burned, husbands killed, etc. Right here in the good old USA. Blacks were persecuted in the name of God, and hung in front of their families and children. That don't go back but sixty years or so in this country. The verbal persecution and physical persecution has gone on and on. Is it all Christians? No. In all of these times you will generally find that history shows Christian's that did everything they could against the violent acts that were taking place. A case can be made that it was the difference between "true" Christians and Christian's in name only.

But then has it stopped now... talking here in the US? No. Certainly the Pentecostal folk aren't dragging Calvinist to the nearest lynching post and Calvinist aren't having any Pentecostal roast... but it still happens. Happens in words. A little reality...

Matthew 5:21 ¶"You have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER´ and `Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.´
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,´ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, `You fool,´ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

I've heard a lot worse than "you fool" come out of most every camp. ;)

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 03:04 PM
Why goodness! I had him all wrong then! He just wanted his head cut off... I can see the love in that! What a friend! ;)
Considering that the alternative was burning at the stake, I would say so!

Great observation, Ken :cool:

And I never said we should condone it. Just that he requested a MERCIFUL execution, since the norm of the time was execution of heretics by established institutions. C'mon, they were just coming out from under the thumb of the papacy! They were sure to have some lingering problems.

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 03:06 PM
Hi Toolman :)
Go to any atheist website and you will hear the same accusations against God every day... that He sanctions acts of bloodshed (the killing of women and children by Israel) and that He burns people alive (for eternity) for false doctrine.Well the second of those is medieval myth, a byproduct of syncretism in European Christendom and ideas on the indestructability of the soul. In the Bible God "destroys" the soul when the time comes for Gehenna - the worms may die not, but as in Is66:24 (which is where Christ's "worm dieth not" in Mark9:45 comes from) the corpses the worms feed on certainly do. However, yes, the former is true, God did tell Joshua to commit genocide, even the Canaanite children. And God even was annoyed when the genocide wasn't complete enough. But there we go, God was cleansing the land for a nation-state, and Joshua was under the Old Covenant.

If Calvin, Zwingli and Luther had been OT Jews and done the things they did there wouldn't be a problem. Well, not as much of a problem. But they weren't, they were supposed to be Christians - and what's more they were claiming to be better than the RC church, wheras sometimes they were worse. When Christ said "you will know them by their fruits" that is fruits judged by NT standards, by the Law of Christ, not by the Law of Moses. So what Joshua did (which was following God's orders) isn't really relevant.

Hi Humbled :)

And I never said we should condone it. Just that he requested a MERCIFUL execution, since the norm of the time was execution of heretics by established institutions. C'mon, they were just coming out from under the thumb of the papacy! They were sure to have some lingering problems.A few miles north of where I live is Burton-on-Trent, birthplace of the a baptist elder by the name of Edward Wightman, the last man to be burnt by the Church of England, in Lichfield market place, a few miles to the west. This happened in 1612, the year after the KJV, so problems lingered for some time. (His sons emigrated to the US by the way where the family changed the name to Whitman, Walt Whitman was his descendant). The Church of England continued confiscation of property and imprisonment for Catholics - and even more so non-Conformists for about another 100 years (and in Scotland they kept on burning people - presumably since it's colder up there). Ironic that the CofE is now about the most tolerant Christian church there is. But all the same it took a long time for the Protestant legacy to be removed.

Anyway, my point was just that I don't think it serves Hus (who was a burnee not a burner) and Wycliffe to be described as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli's forbears.
God bless
Steven

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 03:09 PM
Well one has to consider some other facts as well. John Calvin wielded a tremendous amount of both power and influence. Had he stood and condemned the act of killing the man because of Scripture... there is a good chance it may well not have happened.

I agree that it was how it was back in that day and it didn't stop then. If one studies the various movements one can see where Christian folk weren't so kind. Even in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Pentecostals were persecuted, homes burned, husbands killed, etc. Right here in the good old USA. Blacks were persecuted in the name of God, and hung in front of their families and children. That don't go back but sixty years or so in this country. The verbal persecution and physical persecution has gone on and on. Is it all Christians? No. In all of these times you will generally find that history shows Christian's that did everything they could against the violent acts that were taking place. A case can be made that it was the difference between "true" Christians and Christian's in name only.
Did you mean to say that the "Christians" who were involved in persecutions were not TRUE Christians, but rather "name only" Christians? (implication - Calvin was not a true Christian)

I hope I misunderstand you, because I had thought you simply diagreed with the doctrine, but stayed away from the ad hominem.



But then has it stopped now... talking here in the US? No. Certainly the Pentecostal folk aren't dragging Calvinist to the nearest lynching post and Calvinist aren't having any Pentecostal roast... but it still happens. Happens in words. A little reality...

Matthew 5:21 ¶"You have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER´ and `Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.´
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,´ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, `You fool,´ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

I've heard a lot worse than "you fool" come out of most every camp. ;)Thank God that we're not under that Law, but rather Grace, right?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 03:10 PM
I personally deal with it with a Law and Gospel hermaneutic as far as God's judgements and actions and show that God's judgements are always for the purpose of redemption. That man's sin and rebellion brings about dire consequences (God's wrath and judgement as well as "natural") but even in the midst of the sin of the world God's is working a plan of redemption for all people, though we deserve no such redemption.

Isaiah - 26:9 When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of
the world learn righteousness.

That is how I deal with it but not all evangelicals agree with me that God's judgements have a redemptive purpose but believe that His judgements are simply for punitive purposes.

This may be more for the apologetics forum but how do you deal with it?Well I believe they have a redemptive purpose for whosoever... no doubt. I would go into pretty much you did without the emphasis on "all people" in the way you might. We already know where we would disagree on the finer point so I won't go into that.

But I don't excuse it certainly. God's God and God's just. Anything else is just me adding my opinion to what happened and ultimately my opinion don't mean much!

Personally, I don't argue that with them short that very comment. God is just... He is God. Smells like death to some sure... but life to others. :)

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 03:11 PM
Well the second of those is medieval myth, a byproduct of syncretism in European Christendom and ideas on the indestructability of the soul. In the Bible God "destroys" the soul when the time comes for Gehenna - the worms may die not, but as in Is66:24 (which is where Christ's "worm dieth not" in Mark9:45 comes from) the corpses the worms feed on certainly do.

However the former is true, God did tell Joshua to commit genocide, even the Canaanite children. And God even was annoyed when the genocide wasn't complete enough. But there we go, God was cleansing the land for a nation-state, and Joshua was under the Old Covenant.

If Calvin, Zwingli and Luther had been OT Jews and done the things they did there wouldn't be a problem. Well, not as much of a problem. But they weren't, they were supposed to be Christians - and what's more they were claiming to be better than the RC church, wheras sometimes they were worse.

When Christ said "you will know them by their fruits" that is fruits judged by NT standards, by the Law of Christ, not by the Law of Moses. So what Joshua did (which was following God's orders) isn't really relevant.
God bless
Steven
What is Zwingli accused of, other than iconoclasm?

And what in the world did Luther do that would be considered on the same scale as the execution of heretics?

And I would caution you on judging others according to the Law ... for in the manner you judge others, you too will be judged. A lesson I've recently learned myself.

blessings

Toolman
Oct 11th 2007, 03:15 PM
Well the second of those is medieval myth, a byproduct of syncretism in European Christendom and ideas on the indestructability of the soul. In the Bible God "destroys" the soul when the time comes for Gehenna - the worms may die not, but as in Is66:24 (which is where Christ's "worm dieth not" in Mark9:45 comes from) the corpses the worms feed on certainly do.

I don't disagree with your assessment of eternal torment but you still end up with God burning a person alive (which is why I put "for eternity" in parantheses knowing your position of annihilation).


However the former is true, God did tell Joshua to commit genocide, even the Canaanite children. And God even was annoyed when the genocide wasn't complete enough. But there we go, God was cleansing the land for a nation-state, and Joshua was under the Old Covenant.

If Calvin, Zwingli and Luther had been OT Jews and done the things they did there wouldn't be a problem. Well, not as much of a problem. But they weren't, they were supposed to be Christians - and what's more they were claiming to be better than the RC church, wheras sometimes they were worse.

When Christ said "you will know them by their fruits" that is fruits judged by NT standards, by the Law of Christ, not by the Law of Moses. So what Joshua did (which was following God's orders) isn't really relevant.
God bless
Steven

I agree with alot of what you are stating (as far as executing heretics, etc.), which falls in line with a Law/Gospel hermaneutic IMO.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 03:33 PM
Did you mean to say that the "Christians" who were involved in persecutions were not TRUE Christians, but rather "name only" Christians? (implication - Calvin was not a true Christian)

I hope I misunderstand you, because I had thought you simply diagreed with the doctrine, but stayed away from the ad hominem.Oh that ain't my call to make on Calvin. Even you guys are quick to say you can't judge them by what they say, write or do right? Many say the right thing and live a certain way but it is the end that counts. ;)

I notice you jumped on the Calvin issue but didn't even mention the folks that I was actually speaking of in that paragraph that you keyed on that last sentence. You are making my point about folks still hanging on all the words of the old dead guys as if they held all truth. Reality check... none of them did.



Thank God that we're not under that Law, but rather Grace, right? If one chooses to use grace as an excuse then I suppose they can rest in something like that. But I figure grace isn't an excuse but instead a teacher that teaches us to say no to ungodliness. Killing our "enemy" etc... I would hope it is repented of. If not then I am not so sure things are going to go as well as a person suspect once they leave this side of the nasty now and now. If you are killing physically or in word (what I was speaking of)... one need recognize it and stop. That is grace at work. That is likely a better way to look at it and approach it. ;)

Doctrinal difference is a reality. I wished everyone agreed with me then we'd all be right! ;) But that ain't a reality. I'll discuss and even debate the differences because I find it important... even vital in many cases. But I hope I never hate anyone with a view that differs from mine. I can refute their teaching and I can even despise what they teach. But when that turns into hate on the ones that are teaching it... the problem is mine and if they are wrong in what they teach... I am just as wrong in my own sin.

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 03:33 PM
Hi T:)
I don't disagree with your assessment of eternal torment but you still end up with God burning a person alive (which is why I put "for eternity" in parantheses knowing your position of annihilation).Ah yes I see you did, ;) thanks :D. Okay so God still burns people alive. You know for years I used to think the Luke verse about the rejected just standing there weeping as others entered the kingdom was a loophole that might make the Matthew Mark John fire not literal. I still cling to that hope on my wishy-washy days.


I agree with alot of what you are stating (as far as executing heretics, etc.), which falls in line with a Law/Gospel hermaneutic IMO.mmm :). I think to be honest this is my main reservation with the whole spirit of the Reformation - there was a lot of talk about doctrinal renewal, and fair enough some of the worst excesses of indulgences and so on did pass, and the Counter-Reformation forced the remaining RC church to clean up as well. But at what cost? Europe was soaked in red for nearly 100 years, and the Reformers managed to reinvent most of what they tore down.

Anyway, I suppose some good came out of it all eventually.
God bless
Steven

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 03:39 PM
Considering that the alternative was burning at the stake, I would say so!

Great observation, Ken :cool:

And I never said we should condone it. Just that he requested a MERCIFUL execution, since the norm of the time was execution of heretics by established institutions. C'mon, they were just coming out from under the thumb of the papacy! They were sure to have some lingering problems.But then think on it a sec. These are guys that many still follow religiously today and yet something as simple as grace and mercy... they really didn't understand. Yet their teaching on grace... it is still a prominent teaching this very day. I can say I understand God's grace until the cows come home but that nagging little parable of the unforgiving servant comes to mind... it ain't about understanding and accepting the mercy of the king... one has to walk in it as well. Doing that... I would suspect they are much more worthy to teach it and for others to follow.

Mind you... I agree that in that time... it was the thing done. I just don't figure the doer of those deeds really had that much a grasp on the grace they taught. And that isn't just Calvin either... that would be a long list of folks over the years I suspect. Even many today.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 03:52 PM
But then think on it a sec. These are guys that many still follow religiously today and yet something as simple as grace and mercy... they really didn't understand. Yet their teaching on grace... it is still a prominent teaching this very day. I can say I understand God's grace until the cows come home but that nagging little parable of the unforgiving servant comes to mind... it ain't about understanding and accepting the mercy of the king... one has to walk in it as well. Doing that... I would suspect they are much more worthy to teach it and for others to follow.

Mind you... I agree that in that time... it was the thing done. I just don't figure the doer of those deeds really had that much a grasp on the grace they taught. And that isn't just Calvin either... that would be a long list of folks over the years I suspect. Even many today.
1. None that I know follow Calvin. They agree with his interpretation of the bible (for the most part). Do you follow Arminius? Wesley? Didn't think so ;)

2. How in the world you turned this into a NOSAS issue, I'll never know. Two words ... FALSE CONVERSION. Two more words ... THANK FREEWILLERS . Yet two more words ... ARMINIANISM BREEDS THESE PEOPLE ... okay, that's four words. I was trying to keep a trend. Sue me :cool:

I will say, however, that if you are the one who must sustain your walk, then you are to be congratulated upon your completion.

Whereby no man may boast?

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 03:59 PM
I notice you jumped on the Calvin issue but didn't even mention the folks that I was actually speaking of in that paragraph that you keyed on that last sentence. You are making my point about folks still hanging on all the words of the old dead guys as if they held all truth. Reality check... none of them did. That was the topic of conversation. I didn't say Calvin was the holder of all truth ... did I? :hmm:


If one chooses to use grace as an excuse then I suppose they can rest in something like that. But I figure grace isn't an excuse but instead a teacher that teaches us to say no to ungodliness. Killing our "enemy" etc... I would hope it is repented of. If not then I am not so sure things are going to go as well as a person suspect once they leave this side of the nasty now and now. If you are killing physically or in word (what I was speaking of)... one need recognize it and stop. That is grace at work. That is likely a better way to look at it and approach it. ;)

Doctrinal difference is a reality. I wished everyone agreed with me then we'd all be right! ;) But that ain't a reality. I'll discuss and even debate the differences because I find it important... even vital in many cases. But I hope I never hate anyone with a view that differs from mine. I can refute their teaching and I can even despise what they teach. But when that turns into hate on the ones that are teaching it... the problem is mine and if they are wrong in what they teach... I am just as wrong in my own sin.Luther said the bible is separated into two parts, and two parts alone: Law and Gospel.

The Law is any (ANY) imperative. The Gospel is Christ and the promises of God to free us from His Law that we are ALL UNABLE to follow due to our fallen nature.

Case in point: Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.

Does this word (from the NT) convict you? Or free you? It convicts me. "But it's an imperative from Paul! It can't be Law!" you say? Why, then, are there times where you think to yourself (any without a seared conscience will) "I don't always do this. If I'm to do this to prove salvation, then I'm in real trouble!" What does conviction like this do?

It drives me to Christ. Just as Galatians 3:24 teaches us. It drives me to confess my sin and ask for mercy and the cleansing of the blood of Christ who bore my sins.

Thank God for Christ!

I have dozens of examples I would enjoy mulling over with you. I want to find out what your view of this is.

BTW, I am not antinomian.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 04:09 PM
1. None that I know follow Calvin. They agree with his interpretation of the bible (for the most part). Do you follow Arminius? Wesley? Didn't think so ;)Arminius certainly not although he and I may have been burned next to each other back in the day! ;)




2. How in the world you turned this into a NOSAS issue, I'll never know. Two words ... FALSE CONVERSION. Two more words ... THANK FREEWILLERS . Yet two more words ... ARMINIANISM BREEDS THESE PEOPLE ... okay, that's four words. I was trying to keep a trend. Sue me :cool:

I will say, however, that if you are the one who must sustain your walk, then you are to be congratulated upon your completion.

Whereby no man may boast?Oh you know there was no way that all this talk of Calvin and Arminius was going to take place without it popping up sooner or later did you? ;)

As to the servant being a false convert.... He was forgiven by the king was he not? If he is forgiven then how is it false?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 04:15 PM
That was the topic of conversation. I didn't say Calvin was the holder of all truth ... did I? :hmm:Actually it wasn't hence the different paragraph John! ;) As to Calvin being the holder of all truth... I suppose in many ways you do but then that happens. That wasn't my point though. Read it again and see if it makes sense.



Luther said the bible is separated into two parts, and two parts alone: Law and Gospel.

The Law is any (ANY) imperative. The Gospel is Christ and the promises of God to free us from His Law that we are ALL UNABLE to follow due to our fallen nature.

Case in point: Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.

Does this word (from the NT) convict you? Or free you? It convicts me. "But it's an imperative from Paul! It can't be Law!" you say? Why, then, are there times where you think to yourself (any without a seared conscience will) "I don't always do this. If I'm to do this to prove salvation, then I'm in real trouble!" What does conviction like this do?

It drives me to Christ. Just as Galatians 3:24 teaches us. It drives me to confess my sin and ask for mercy and the cleansing of the blood of Christ who bore my sins.

Thank God for Christ!

I have dozens of examples I would enjoy mulling over with you. I want to find out what your view of this is.

BTW, I am not antinomian.Doesn't it drive you to love your wife like Christ loved the church? Convicting cool... repenting cool... doing?

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 04:28 PM
Actually it wasn't hence the different paragraph John! ;) As to Calvin being the holder of all truth... I suppose in many ways you do but then that happens. That wasn't my point though. Read it again and see if it makes sense.Ok.

Not sure, since I've never actually read Calvin, how I could ever have been misunderstood as saying he's the holder of all truth. I do like TULIP tho. Which was, ironically, developed to counter the Arminian heresy well after his death.


Doesn't it drive you to love your wife like Christ loved the church? Convicting cool... repenting cool... doing?The bible never states that the Law was given to drive us to obedience. It says it was given to drive us to Christ.

Yes, of course, I strive to obey the Law. But I do it by God's GRACE out of LOVE for Him who saved me ... not in the hopes of getting a reward, as it seems you do.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 04:33 PM
As to the servant being a false convert.... He was forgiven by the king was he not? If he is forgiven then how is it false?
Would you please share the location of that passage again so I may read it? I can't remember where it's found.

Thanks

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 05:18 PM
Ok.

Not sure, since I've never actually read Calvin, how I could ever have been misunderstood as saying he's the holder of all truth. I do like TULIP tho. Which was, ironically, developed to counter the Arminian heresy well after his death.Okay... trying not to be legalistic here and drawing the distinction between Calvinism (the man) and Calvinism (the theology behind the man as developed to counter the Arminian stuff). ;) And also... that still wasn't my main point. Insert Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Augustine, etc. in that comment. :)


The bible never states that the Law was given to drive us to obedience. It says it was given to drive us to Christ.

Yes, of course, I strive to obey the Law. But I do it by God's GRACE out of LOVE for Him who saved me ... not in the hopes of getting a reward, as it seems you do.Oh come on now... that's just saying what I said wrapped up in all of the proper religious speak!!! Just say it... I am to be obedient to the Lord! It's okay... dare to be different! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 05:22 PM
Would you please share the location of that passage again so I may read it? I can't remember where it's found.

Thanks
Matthew 18:21 ¶Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
24 "And when he had begun to settle them, there was brought to him one who owed him ten thousand talents.
25 "But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
26 "The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself before him, saying, `Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.´
27 "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, `Pay back what you owe.´
29 "So his fellow slave fell down and began to entreat him, saying, `Have patience with me and I will repay you.´
30 "He was unwilling however, but went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 "So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me.
33 `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, even as I had mercy on you?´
34 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 06:11 PM
Okay... trying not to be legalistic here and drawing the distinction between Calvinism (the man) and Calvinism (the theology behind the man as developed to counter the Arminian stuff). ;) And also... that still wasn't my main point. Insert Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Augustine, etc. in that comment. :)Sorry Ken. Not tryin' to be difficult here :blush:


Oh come on now... that's just saying what I said wrapped up in all of the proper religious speak!!! Just say it... I am to be obedient to the Lord! It's okay... dare to be different! :lol:Au contraire monami!

You will say that unless one who has been genuinely purchased at Calvary, saved to be sure, and on the narrow path, unless this one obeys the Law, they will fall away from their purchased and secured salvation if they do not repent and eventually succeed in their striving to obey.

I say that those who were purchased at Calvary (and not in creation, cc 2 Pet 2:1) will in fact persevere and continually, through sanctification and the continuing work of God in that individuals life, get better as a matter of a regenerated and renewed life. They will sometimes fall, but will continually grow. There will, of course, be repentance and success ... but it is not the determining factor of salvation. Christ's work is the sole proprietor of our salvation and the sole thing in which we can boast.

I honestly do not understand how you don't see your view as being one of accomplishment on the part of man. I don't mean that as an insult, sir.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 06:17 PM
Matthew 18:21 ¶Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
24 "And when he had begun to settle them, there was brought to him one who owed him ten thousand talents.
25 "But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
26 "The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself before him, saying, `Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.´
27 "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, `Pay back what you owe.´
29 "So his fellow slave fell down and began to entreat him, saying, `Have patience with me and I will repay you.´
30 "He was unwilling however, but went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 "So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me.
33 `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, even as I had mercy on you?´
34 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."Thank you

I would focus on the servants repentance rather than the forgiveness given by the king.

You see, Jesus was speaking in parables, so He was speaking of an earthly king who does not see into the hearts of men. The man came in repentance (can you say 'altar call'?), so the king forgave him for his outward display of humility. Then to find out later (which God has no need to do, you will agree) that his repentance was not genuine, for he did not show mercy upon another in the same situation. He likely repented because he was caught, and not because he was sorry. Like those who regret the consequences of their sin, but not the offense given to God.

God in Heaven would know whether one's repentance is genuine or not, and would never forgive false repentance. There would never be this situation.

It is a warning against lip service. Do not merely SAY you are repentant over your sin. SHOW you are.

It is probably semantics here, and you may accuse me of dancing ... c'est la vie. It is the most consistent interpretation with the rest of Scripture, IMHO.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 06:19 PM
Sorry Ken. Not tryin' to be difficult here :blush:

Au contraire monami!

You will say that unless one who has been genuinely purchased at Calvary, saved to be sure, and on the narrow path, unless this one obeys the Law, they will fall away from their purchased and secured salvation if they do not repent and eventually succeed in their striving to obey. I have never nor will I ever preach they need to obey the Law. Goodness... you know better than that! Obedience to Christ... that's a different subject matter altogether! Naturally that includes the revelation given to Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and did I miss anyone?


I say that those who were purchased at Calvary (and not in creation, cc 2 Pet 2:1) will in fact persevere and continually, through sanctification and the continuing work of God in that individuals life, get better as a matter of a regenerated and renewed life. They will sometimes fall, but will continually grow. There will, of course, be repentance and success ... but it is not the determining factor of salvation. Christ's work is the sole proprietor of our salvation and the sole thing in which we can boast.

I honestly do not understand how you don't see your view as being one of accomplishment on the part of man. I don't mean that as an insult, sir.Purchased at creation? Not a clue what that means. Is that your way around the second Peter passage? Splain me Lucy!

Theophilus
Oct 11th 2007, 06:22 PM
Naturally that includes the revelation given to Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and did I miss anyone?
Yes...Barnabas, the author of Hebrews.

(I know it's probably Paul, but I've always pulled for Barnabas to be the author...;))

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 06:22 PM
I have never nor will I ever preach they need to obey the Law. Goodness... you know better than that! Obedience to Christ... that's a different subject matter altogether! Naturally that includes the revelation given to Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and did I miss anyone? And as I attempted to show, the NT has LAW in it as well. Law that convicts and drives us to Christ. "Husbands love your wives" is Law!

Obedience to Christ? How is that not "obedience to the Law"?


Purchased at creation? Not a clue what that means. Is that your way around the second Peter passage? Splain me Lucy!
http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 06:22 PM
Thank you

I would focus on the servants repentance rather than the forgiveness given by the king.

You see, Jesus was speaking in parables, so He was speaking of an earthly king who does not see into the hearts of men. The man came in repentance (can you say 'altar call'?), so the king forgave him for his outward display of humility. Then to find out later (which God has no need to do, you will agree) that his repentance was not genuine, for he did not show mercy upon another in the same situation. He likely repented because he was caught, and not because he was sorry. Like those who regret the consequences of their sin, but not the offense given to God.

God in Heaven would know whether one's repentance is genuine or not, and would never forgive false repentance. There would never be this situation.

It is a warning against lip service. Do not merely SAY you are repentant over your sin. SHOW you are.

It is probably semantics here, and you may accuse me of dancing ... c'est la vie. It is the most consistent interpretation with the rest of Scripture, IMHO.But then look at that last part of the passage? What is Jesus focusing on?

35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Is it not both the forgiveness of the king (God being represented by the king in this parable) and each of the disciples listening?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 06:33 PM
And as I attempted to show, the NT has LAW in it as well. Law that convicts and drives us to Christ. "Husbands love your wives" is Law!Wow... okay. So then you are free from all commands in Scripture because they are all LAW that Paul was speaking of when he said it ain't by the Law? That's a different look at it and one I strongly disagree with and is way to free in defining the "LAW" that Paul spoke of.



http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.htmlOkay read the article. Not a verse that I would use for the purpose of limited or unlimited atonement but one for NOSAS. But it was an awful lot of tap dancing to make it work with the writers theology... no doubt of that. ;)

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 06:34 PM
Yes...Barnabas, the author of Hebrews.

(I know it's probably Paul, but I've always pulled for Barnabas to be the author...;))
We can call him the unknown... so I left him out! :lol:

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 06:36 PM
But then look at that last part of the passage? What is Jesus focusing on?

35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Is it not both the forgiveness of the king (God being represented by the king in this parable) and each of the disciples listening?FROM YOUR HEART

Key phrase there. Sorta supports my point. This parable is about avoiding lip service. False repentance would surely be lip service, or to put it another way:

Isaiah 29:13-16
13 Then the Lord said,
"Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
14 Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed."
15 Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the LORD,
And whose deeds are done in a dark place,
And they say, "Who sees us?" or "Who knows us?"
16 You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker, "He did not make me";
Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 06:43 PM
Wow... okay. So then you are free from all commands in Scripture because they are all LAW that Paul was speaking of when he said it ain't by the Law? That's a different look at it and one I strongly disagree with and is way to free in defining the "LAW" that Paul spoke of.Now that is not at all what I said!

YES we are free from the commands in the sense that those who are IN CHRIST will not be held to that standard of living. That is what the gospel is, Ken.

NO we are not free in the sense that we do not need to live holy lives. We, of course, do. In fact, that is the evidence of a regenerated heart.

I am not promoting antinominanism (anti-law) here, which you either see me doing or are trying to make others think I am doing.

The Law (all of it) was not given for us to obey for a reward. The Law was given to show us our sin (Rom 3:20). You have the Law as a standard by which we must live to secure our salvation. That is not the gospel! That is ANTI GOSPEL, Ken! that it a false gospel! You should be very careful with this position, my friend. Paul was very unkind to people who promoted Christ + anything (circumcision -- adherence to the Law)

The Judaizers believed in Christ, but they also preached that one must be circumcised or they were not truly saved. You are teaching people to be circumcised (obey the Law) or they will not be saved. Paul had a real problem with this. He cursed those who promoted such a thing.


Okay read the article. Not a verse that I would use for the purpose of limited or unlimited atonement but one for NOSAS. But it was an awful lot of tap dancing to make it work with the writers theology... no doubt of that. ;)Of course you see it as dancing. Did you even consider any validity in the article? Perhaps you read it with a bias, since it disagrees with your strongly held view.

Good talkin' with ya again, Ken. You always keep me on my toes :cool:

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 06:46 PM
FROM YOUR HEART

Key phrase there. Sorta supports my point. This parable is about avoiding lip service. False repentance would surely be lip service, or to put it another way:

Isaiah 29:13-16
13 Then the Lord said,
"Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
14 Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed."
15 Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the LORD,
And whose deeds are done in a dark place,
And they say, "Who sees us?" or "Who knows us?"
16 You turn things around!
Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,
That what is made would say to its maker, "He did not make me";
Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

Let's try it again because "from the heart" is only part of that message that Jesus delivers to them.

35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

It is speaking of both God's forgiveness as well as the man's forgiveness... correct? And that is what this parable is driving at right... I mean with Jesus driving this point home at the end... one would have to ignore it outright to not see that clearly... right?

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 07:03 PM
Let's try it again because "from the heart" is only part of that message that Jesus delivers to them.

35 "So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

It is speaking of both God's forgiveness as well as the man's forgiveness... correct? And that is what this parable is driving at right... I mean with Jesus driving this point home at the end... one would have to ignore it outright to not see that clearly... right?
Suppose someone merely SAYS they forgive their brother, but they do not mean it deep down?

God won't forgive them, right?

One must perform the act of forgiveness, then?

One must perform it sincerely, then?

One must first be offended in order to be able to forgive, right?

What if someone never had a chance to forgive them?

What if they're never around anyone else (Robinson Crusoe) and are never offended?

[added question]What if someone forgets about a grudge they once had against someone?[/added question]

What is this parable really teaching?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 07:16 PM
Now that is not at all what I said!

YES we are free from the commands in the sense that those who are IN CHRIST will not be held to that standard of living. That is what the gospel is, Ken.

NO we are not free in the sense that we do not need to live holy lives. We, of course, do. In fact, that is the evidence of a regenerated heart.

I am not promoting antinominanism (anti-law) here, which you either see me doing or are trying to make others think I am doing.

The Law (all of it) was not given for us to obey for a reward. The Law was given to show us our sin (Rom 3:20). You have the Law as a standard by which we must live to secure our salvation. That is not the gospel! That is ANTI GOSPEL, Ken! that it a false gospel! You should be very careful with this position, my friend. Paul was very unkind to people who promoted Christ + anything (circumcision -- adherence to the Law)

The Judaizers believed in Christ, but they also preached that one must be circumcised or they were not truly saved. You are teaching people to be circumcised (obey the Law) or they will not be saved. Paul had a real problem with this. He cursed those who promoted such a thing.

Of course you see it as dancing. Did you even consider any validity in the article? Perhaps you read it with a bias, since it disagrees with your strongly held view.

Good talkin' with ya again, Ken. You always keep me on my toes :cool:THere is nothing to consider really. It was just adding stuff to a text that ain't in the text. That entire passage speaks clearly for itself so I don't suppose I need someone that is basically telling me that "I know it says this... but it really doesn't mean what it says but it means this instead." That is what the writer did there.

As to your claim of the Judaizer and the circumcision thing actually it was to be circumcised to be saved and obey the LAW OF MOSES. If Paul meant things such as say adultery... then he would be in a stink for enforcing what he did in 1 Corinthians 5 and the guy truly wouldn't have been accountable for doing the nasty with his pops wife!

So you want to toss around everything written as "do" and make it the "LAW" that Paul spoke of being free from then I stand on what I said earlier. YOu are way to free in your use of the word Law. That is not at all what Paul spoke of when speaking of our freedom from the Law.

As to the gospel... it certainly doesn't allow for one freedom to do contrary to the gospel. Paul makes that clear.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 07:40 PM
THere is nothing to consider really. It was just adding stuff to a text that ain't in the text. That entire passage speaks clearly for itself so I don't suppose I need someone that is basically telling me that "I know it says this... but it really doesn't mean what it says but it means this instead." That is what the writer did there.The thing about that passage, however, is redemption is not the subject at hand, yet you will impose that meaning on the text when the greek supports a different view (according to translators and not just "some guy writing an article"). Therefore, if the greek supports multiple interpretations, what causes you to force your own meaning into it? Indoctrination and preconceived ideas.


As to your claim of the Judaizer and the circumcision thing actually it was to be circumcised to be saved and obey the LAW OF MOSES. If Paul meant things such as say adultery... then he would be in a stink for enforcing what he did in 1 Corinthians 5 and the guy truly wouldn't have been accountable for doing the nasty with his pops wife!

So you want to toss around everything written as "do" and make it the "LAW" that Paul spoke of being free from then I stand on what I said earlier. YOu are way to free in your use of the word Law. That is not at all what Paul spoke of when speaking of our freedom from the Law. What is the Law of Moses in contrast with "don't sleep with your pops wife"?

How do you define Law, sir? The Ten Commandments? Just OT commands? If the definition of Law, according to Paul, is to bring one to the knowledge of where they fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:20), then how is "husbands love your wives as Christ..." NOT Law?




As to the gospel... it certainly doesn't allow for one freedom to do contrary to the gospel. Paul makes that clear.I don't understand this comment. The Gospel frees us from the guilt of the Law and the burden of adhering to it to curry favor with God. It is still God's moral standard and is to be adhered. In fact, God is in the business of converting His saints to be able to do just that. That's called sanctification. The actual ability to NOT fall short of the glory of God is called .... drum roll .... glorification. And that does not happen until after we die, which means what? That nobody will be perfect until the resurrection.

This means that we will all be guilty of breaking the Law (or of not obeying Christ) if we are indeed held to that standard, as you proclaim.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 07:43 PM
Suppose someone merely SAYS they forgive their brother, but they do not mean it deep down?

God won't forgive them, right?

One must perform the act of forgiveness, then?

One must perform it sincerely, then?

One must first be offended in order to be able to forgive, right?

What if someone never had a chance to forgive them?

What if they're never around anyone else (Robinson Crusoe) and are never offended?

[added question]What if someone forgets about a grudge they once had against someone?[/added question]

What is this parable really teaching?
If you don't forgive your brother from your heart... then God ain't going to forgive you. That is what the parable is teaching and it is really as simple as that. Not sure why we need to try and complicate it. An example is given in the parable... that's what it was for. Notice the words of Jesus... So shall my heavenly Father do to you IF.......... :)

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 07:50 PM
If you don't forgive your brother from your heart... then God ain't going to forgive you. That is what the parable is teaching and it is really as simple as that. Not sure why we need to try and complicate it. An example is given in the parable... that's what it was for. Notice the words of Jesus... So shall my heavenly Father do to you IF.......... :)So what is the ultimate teaching, then?

That one must forgive in order to be saved?

Or that one must have the heart to forgive?

Ahh ... now we're gettin' somewhere :)

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 08:54 PM
The thing about that passage, however, is redemption is not the subject at hand, yet you will impose that meaning on the text when the greek supports a different view (according to translators and not just "some guy writing an article"). Therefore, if the greek supports multiple interpretations, what causes you to force your own meaning into it? Indoctrination and preconceived ideas.[quote]The Greek doesn't at all support it. He is adding "at creation" and there is no such language in the text. That is adding so as to fit a doctrine. The text simply states that they deny the Master that bought them. Peter was speaking of Christ and his redeeming those who believe. It speaks of in the text itself. They forsake the right way having gone astray. Can't stray from somewhere that you have never been. So I am not reading anything into it all... nor am I adding something to it that isn't there.

[quote]

What is the Law of Moses in contrast with "don't sleep with your pops wife"? Don't follow you there.




How do you define Law, sir? The Ten Commandments? Just OT commands? If the definition of Law, according to Paul, is to bring one to the knowledge of where they fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:20), then how is "husbands love your wives as Christ..." NOT Law?Why would Paul tell them that they were free from the law and then yet tell them to follow the law if in fact Paul was just making "new law"?



I don't understand this comment. The Gospel frees us from the guilt of the Law and the burden of adhering to it to curry favor with God. It is still God's moral standard and is to be adhered. In fact, God is in the business of converting His saints to be able to do just that. That's called sanctification. The actual ability to NOT fall short of the glory of God is called .... drum roll .... glorification. And that does not happen until after we die, which means what? That nobody will be perfect until the resurrection.

This means that we will all be guilty of breaking the Law (or of not obeying Christ) if we are indeed held to that standard, as you proclaim.If something is contrary to the gospel... what does that mean to you?

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 08:56 PM
So what is the ultimate teaching, then?

That one must forgive in order to be saved?

Or that one must have the heart to forgive?

Ahh ... now we're gettin' somewhere :)that one must forgive from the heart or God will not forgive them. Both points are the point of the parable... the ultimate teaching if you prefer.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 09:13 PM
that one must forgive from the heart or God will not forgive them. Both points are the point of the parable... the ultimate teaching if you prefer.Do you agree that it is an issue of the heart and not an issue of the forgiveness?

What you teach here, Ken, is pure legalism and Law. You are teaching as the 'men of old' taught. Superficial doctrine. This goes much deeper than mere forgiveness, my friend.

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 09:35 PM
The Greek doesn't at all support it. He is adding "at creation" and there is no such language in the text. That is adding so as to fit a doctrine. The text simply states that they deny the Master that bought them. Peter was speaking of Christ and his redeeming those who believe. It speaks of in the text itself. They forsake the right way having gone astray. Can't stray from somewhere that you have never been. So I am not reading anything into it all... nor am I adding something to it that isn't there.Where? Where does Peter mention Christ?!?

Christ as Redeemer, that is. Who is adding something to fit the doctrine?

I stated that the greek word agorazo can mean quite simply "bought" as in a market, or from OWNERSHIP. There is no doubt that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, yet He does not redeem them. He is their MASTER because He BOUGHT them in the sense of ownership.

And how can you say one must be a part of Christianity to stray from it? One can learn about it, and teach something contrary, all the while never having been a part of it, Ken.


Don't follow you there.You said that my comment about the Judaizers was that Paul was condemning the teaching that Christians should follow the Law of Moses by being circumcised, yet he told people to not sleep with their mother-in-law. How is that NOT the same thing as the Law of Moses? IOW, Paul told them to obey the Law of Moses while at the very same time condemning others who did the same (if in fact, they did the same).

I believe Judaizers taught that one must observe the Law to curry favor ... or to remain saved if you will. I am telling you that the NT has the very same Law in it that the OT has. Nothing had changed. With this insight, does the practice that Paul strenuously condemned sound familiar?



Why would Paul tell them that they were free from the law and then yet tell them to follow the law if in fact Paul was just making "new law"?New law?

Is this sorta like saying that Jesus, in Matthew 5, taught a new law when He actually expounded the Law and corrected the erroneous interpretations by the men of old?


If something is contrary to the gospel... what does that mean to you?It means someone is teaching people that Christ did not secure the salvation of some, but rather that people should be sure to "stay in the faith" and "be obedient to Christ" but not "to the Law" in order to retain their own salvation. In short, I believe you are teaching something contrary to the Gospel, Ken. I say this in concern and fear, nothing more.

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 10:02 PM
Looks like 2 Pet 2:1 is being hashed over. Below are a few comments on that verse.

Here is 1 Pet 2:1 from two different translations.

King James Bible
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Weymouth New Testament
But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.

The word "Lord" despotes in this verse according to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary is said to be used in the following manner - "with reference to Christ"

Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."

I just thought those were interesting comments, which some of you would enjoy more than others.

Carry on

humbled
Oct 11th 2007, 10:09 PM
Looks like 2 Pet 2:1 is being hashed over. Below are a few comments on that verse.

Here is 1 Pet 2:1 from two different translations.

King James Bible
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Weymouth New Testament
But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.

The word "Lord" despotes in this verse according to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary is said to be used in the following manner - "with reference to Christ"

Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."

I just thought those were interesting comments, which some of you would enjoy more than others.

Carry onMillard Erickson is clearly reading into the text. There is no mention whatsoever that agorazo is meaning "redeemed" and I do disagree with the "Weymouth" interpretation.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

agorazo - (a) to buy as in a market-place, (b) figuratively, of Christ having bought men, making them his property at the price of His blood. Note that Vine sees redeem as too strong for agorazo and reserves that thought for its compound form, exagorazo.

And if despotes is here referring to Christ, it would be one of the few times that kurios is not used, whereas despotes would better be understood in reference to the Father.

Did you see the link to this very intersting article?

http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 11:13 PM
Did you see the link to this very intersting article?

http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html (http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html[/quote)

To be honest with you, I can't say as I have.

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 11:22 PM
Do you agree that it is an issue of the heart and not an issue of the forgiveness?

What you teach here, Ken, is pure legalism and Law. You are teaching as the 'men of old' taught. Superficial doctrine. This goes much deeper than mere forgiveness, my friend.Uh... are you even reading what I am saying? Forgive from the heart. Mentioned that every time John! Everything is from the heart and you've been around way to long to not know that I have said that humpteen times in this forum JUST as I have said several times since you and I have been discussing that passage. But you want to just focus on it being a "heart" thing but it is more than that. It is FORGIVING from the HEART. One is not separate from the other in this text. And simple fact what that passage says... If you don't (talking to Peter and the guys) then God ain't going to forgive you. Is that what it says or does it say anything different than what I present and have presented through our whole discussion? I don't care what you think it means... what does it actually say?

Toolman
Oct 11th 2007, 11:29 PM
Looks like 2 Pet 2:1 is being hashed over. Below are a few comments on that verse.

Here is 1 Pet 2:1 from two different translations.

King James Bible
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Weymouth New Testament
But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.

The word "Lord" despotes in this verse according to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary is said to be used in the following manner - "with reference to Christ"

Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."

I just thought those were interesting comments, which some of you would enjoy more than others.

Carry on

There is the consideration that since reconciliation is universal and the ransom paid by Christ is universal then everyone has been bought by Christ (Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6, Colossians 1:15-20).

The ransom theory of atonement was the most held view of atonement throughout the early church.

FWIW.

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 11:50 PM
There is the consideration that since reconciliation is universal and the ransom paid by Christ is universal then everyone has been bought by Christ (Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6, Colossians 1:15-20).

The ransom theory of atonement was the most held view of atonement throughout the early church.

FWIW.

Not looking for a long drawn out argument, I just what to make a comment, whether anyone agrees or not.

In my opinion reconciliation is not applied, nor a relationship established, until a person believes in the Lord Jesus. That is why Paul in 2 Cor 5 was pleading with individuals to become reconciled. The Godward side of the reconciliation has already been accomplished. The manward side in many instances still needs to be personally and individually dealt with.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). All that remains is man's decision: "be ye reconciled to God" (v. 20). As Meyer affirms (as we have earlier observed), "The reconciliation of all men took place objectively through Christ's death, although the subjective appropriation of it is conditioned by the faith of the individual. - page 130 - Elect In The Son - by Robert Shank

ProjectPeter
Oct 11th 2007, 11:55 PM
Where? Where does Peter mention Christ?!?

Christ as Redeemer, that is. Who is adding something to fit the doctrine?When else did Christ purchase them? Who is the Master who purchased them? Either Christ or Satan and if it was Satan and they were denying him for Christ... that would fall into the category of one of them there good things and I don't figure it would have been used negatively by Peter there eh?



I stated that the greek word agorazo can mean quite simply "bought" as in a market, or from OWNERSHIP. There is no doubt that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, yet He does not redeem them. He is their MASTER because He BOUGHT them in the sense of ownership.Like I said... let the context and text within the passage dictate what it is saying. It does that as you have addressed below and where I will respond to.



And how can you say one must be a part of Christianity to stray from it? One can learn about it, and teach something contrary, all the while never having been a part of it, Ken.If one learned of it but never entered in... they didn't stray from nothing. They just stayed where they are. If is not just "stray" mentioned there either. REad it again.

2 Peter 2:15 forsaking the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness,

They FORSOOK... the ABANDONED. You cannot abandon the right way without first being on the right way. I cannot abandon a ship if I never got on that ship. I cannot abandon my post without first being put on that post. I can not show up. I can refuse to get on it. But none of those is abandoning/forsaking the right way and you add to that "gone astray"... again the text makes it very clear for those who want to see it.


You said that my comment about the Judaizers was that Paul was condemning the teaching that Christians should follow the Law of Moses by being circumcised, yet he told people to not sleep with their mother-in-law. How is that NOT the same thing as the Law of Moses? IOW, Paul told them to obey the Law of Moses while at the very same time condemning others who did the same (if in fact, they did the same). [quote]Paul was making it clear that it wasn't about the Judaic Law. Circumcision.. Law of Moses... none of that saved you. Following the feast and Sabbaths and whatnot... none of that could nor ever did save a single person. Never did... never going to.

But freedom to sin? As Paul made clear... God forbid.

[quote]I believe Judaizers taught that one must observe the Law to curry favor ... or to remain saved if you will. I am telling you that the NT has the very same Law in it that the OT has. Nothing had changed. With this insight, does the practice that Paul strenuously condemned sound familiar?Oh no... you still cannot separate the fact that Paul speaks of the Law of Moses but is never speaking of sin. Romans 1 and 2 is a great start there.



New law?

Is this sorta like saying that Jesus, in Matthew 5, taught a new law when He actually expounded the Law and corrected the erroneous interpretations by the men of old?You are the one that is saying that Paul told them that they were free from the Law right? Yet on the other hand we know that Paul enforced the issue of sin in the church. You are the one trying to make it all "one and the same" and my point is and always has been... it ain't. ;)


It means someone is teaching people that Christ did not secure the salvation of some, but rather that people should be sure to "stay in the faith" and "be obedient to Christ" but not "to the Law" in order to retain their own salvation. In short, I believe you are teaching something contrary to the Gospel, Ken. I say this in concern and fear, nothing more.Oh yeah... naturally it is concern and fear... :rolleyes: Is sexual immorality contrary to the gospel? Murder? Lying? etc? Are these things contrary to the gospel?

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 02:05 AM
When else did Christ purchase them? Who is the Master who purchased them? Either Christ or Satan and if it was Satan and they were denying him for Christ... that would fall into the category of one of them there good things and I don't figure it would have been used negatively by Peter there eh?

Like I said... let the context and text within the passage dictate what it is saying. It does that as you have addressed below and where I will respond to.

If one learned of it but never entered in... they didn't stray from nothing. They just stayed where they are. If is not just "stray" mentioned there either. REad it again.

2 Peter 2:15 forsaking the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness,

They FORSOOK... the ABANDONED. You cannot abandon the right way without first being on the right way. I cannot abandon a ship if I never got on that ship. I cannot abandon my post without first being put on that post. I can not show up. I can refuse to get on it. But none of those is abandoning/forsaking the right way and you add to that "gone astray"... again the text makes it very clear for those who want to see it.

Paul was making it clear that it wasn't about the Judaic Law. Circumcision.. Law of Moses... none of that saved you. Following the feast and Sabbaths and whatnot... none of that could nor ever did save a single person. Never did... never going to.

But freedom to sin? As Paul made clear... God forbid.

Oh no... you still cannot separate the fact that Paul speaks of the Law of Moses but is never speaking of sin. Romans 1 and 2 is a great start there.
You are the one that is saying that Paul told them that they were free from the Law right? Yet on the other hand we know that Paul enforced the issue of sin in the church. You are the one trying to make it all "one and the same" and my point is and always has been... it ain't. ;)

Oh yeah... naturally it is concern and fear... :rolleyes: Is sexual immorality contrary to the gospel? Murder? Lying? etc? Are these things contrary to the gospel?After all this, I see that you neither understand my position nor the proper definition of the Gospel.

My position is not antinomian, as I have said countless times -- yet you continue to suggest that it is. This is, to say the least, frustrating. How else can I say it? Are you reading what I post? Or assuming?

The Gospel is not "now that I have set you straight, it is your responsibility not to stray -- or else". This is YOUR gospel, Ken. And there is nothing good about it.

The Gospel of Christ is "I have come that they might have LIFE." Where might is not "possibility", met by some conditions, but a statement of fact.

Christ came to SAVE His sheep. Not assist them in saving themselves. If you are not convicted by "husband love your wife as Christ loves His church" then either you don't understand what it means, or you are blind to your own inability. I am not suggesting that we are ALLOWED to sin, Ken. Listen very carefully. Paul indeed DOES command us to do this. GOD THROUGH PAUL, even! It IS REQUIRED of EVERYONE! ESPECIALLY Christians!

But I fail at this from time to time. As do you, if you are human. What then? Damnation? Do we need to be "re-saved"? No! For all who are washed in the blood, we must repent and ask God to grant us the grace to obey (as Augustine rightly observed).

What you say, Ken, does nothing but focus on YOU. On YOUR ability. On YOUR accomplishment. Sure, Christ did His part ... but now it's up to you. And if you don't do it ... you're in trouble.

The tough part about this conversation is that you don't seem to even WANT it to be all about God. You'll pay lip service to it and say you do, but in the end, you are focused on how well you perform. My friend, you are a slave to the Law. You are trying to please God through your works.

The Law is not just OT. If you fail at ONE point, you are guilty of ALL. What do you do if you forget to repent of some hidden sin? What about forgotten resentment? What if a brother has something against you and you fail to reconcile with him/her? (no implication here, man).

Your attempts to complete your race to achieve salvation is futile, for you will fail. Any attempt at "positive thinking" or whatever will merely blind you.

"Husbands love your wives" is as much the Law as "children obey your parents" which is quoted directly from the Ten. That should be apparent, seeing that Paul quotes them in the very same passage in the very same context. Paul ends that exhortation of Law with the gospel of the armor of God.

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%203&version=49):19-20)

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 02:46 AM
After all this, I see that you neither understand my position nor the proper definition of the Gospel.

My position is not antinomian, as I have said countless times -- yet you continue to suggest that it is. This is, to say the least, frustrating. How else can I say it? Are you reading what I post? Or assuming?

The Gospel is not "now that I have set you straight, it is your responsibility not to stray -- or else". This is YOUR gospel, Ken. And there is nothing good about it.

The Gospel of Christ is "I have come that they might have LIFE." Where might is not "possibility", met by some conditions, but a statement of fact.

Christ came to SAVE His sheep. Not assist them in saving themselves. If you are not convicted by "husband love your wife as Christ loves His church" then either you don't understand what it means, or you are blind to your own inability. I am not suggesting that we are ALLOWED to sin, Ken. Listen very carefully. Paul indeed DOES command us to do this. GOD THROUGH PAUL, even! It IS REQUIRED of EVERYONE! ESPECIALLY Christians!

But I fail at this from time to time. As do you, if you are human. What then? Damnation? Do we need to be "re-saved"? No! For all who are washed in the blood, we must repent and ask God to grant us the grace to obey (as Augustine rightly observed).

What you say, Ken, does nothing but focus on YOU. On YOUR ability. On YOUR accomplishment. Sure, Christ did His part ... but now it's up to you. And if you don't do it ... you're in trouble.

The tough part about this conversation is that you don't seem to even WANT it to be all about God. You'll pay lip service to it and say you do, but in the end, you are focused on how well you perform. My friend, you are a slave to the Law. You are trying to please God through your works.

The Law is not just OT. If you fail at ONE point, you are guilty of ALL. What do you do if you forget to repent of some hidden sin? What about forgotten resentment? What if a brother has something against you and you fail to reconcile with him/her? (no implication here, man).

Your attempts to complete your race to achieve salvation is futile, for you will fail. Any attempt at "positive thinking" or whatever will merely blind you.

"Husbands love your wives" is as much the Law as "children obey your parents" which is quoted directly from the Ten. That should be apparent, seeing that Paul quotes them in the very same passage in the very same context. Paul ends that exhortation of Law with the gospel of the armor of God.

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%203&version=49):19-20)What happens John, if you don;t repent? What happens if you just say you know... she's a pain in the tail and screw it! It ain't worth it no more. What happens then?

ravi4u2
Oct 12th 2007, 02:55 AM
"Husbands love your wives" is as much the Law as "children obey your parents" which is quoted directly from the Ten.This of course is untrue.

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 02:58 AM
What happens John, if you don;t repent? What happens if you just say you know... she's a pain in the tail and screw it! It ain't worth it no more. What happens then?No Christian would do that.

And ya know what? All those professing Christians who do are NOT true Christians!

One with the Spirit of Christ does not say "screw it". They say "Lord help me put up with this pain in the tail" and they get the help they need.

That's the evidence, sir. Repentance, faith, obedience ... all that stuff ... is evidence of a truly regenerated heart. And it is done out of LOVE ... and is not motivated by a desire be seen as "good enough".

I apologize for the abrupt tone of my last post.

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 03:10 AM
No Christian would do that.

And ya know what? All those professing Christians who do are NOT true Christians!

One with the Spirit of Christ does not say "screw it". They say "Lord help me put up with this pain in the tail" and they get the help they need.

That's the evidence, sir. Repentance, faith, obedience ... all that stuff ... is evidence of a truly regenerated heart. And it is done out of LOVE ... and is not motivated by a desire be seen as "good enough".

I apologize for the abrupt tone of my last post.
So then you judge them by their "works" and yet I'm a heretic for such? Strange how that works. And no sweat John... passion runs deep in this discussion and I love it. :)

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 03:11 AM
This of course is untrue.
You are correct... but then hey... you legalist you! :lol:

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 03:13 AM
This of course is untrue.Does that imperative convict you? Or encourage you?

ravi4u2
Oct 12th 2007, 03:18 AM
Does that imperative convict you? Or encourage you?I am neither convicted nor encouraged.

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 03:22 AM
So then you judge them by their "works" and yet I'm a heretic for such? Strange how that works. And no sweat John... passion runs deep in this discussion and I love it. :)You're right. Maybe I did jump the gun and go judging someone according to their performance. That was wrong.

Having said that, I doubt highly that any true Christian would intentionally disobey God just because she's a "pain in the tail".

Marital unfaithfulness, yes ... physical abuse ... yes, under certain circumstances (tho it is not laid out specifically in Scripture, I believe it can be reason enough)

If they did, I imagine repentance would shortly follow -- them being truly regenerated, that is.

Thank you for your forgiveness.

Blessings

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 03:26 AM
I am neither convicted nor encouraged.Perhaps you're not married ...

What about "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=59&chapter=5&verse=17&version=49&context=verse))

What about "Do everything without complaining or arguing" (Philippians 2:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=57&chapter=2&verse=14&version=31&context=verse))

ravi4u2
Oct 12th 2007, 03:30 AM
Perhaps you're not married ...

What about "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=59&chapter=5&verse=17&version=49&context=verse))

What about "Do everything without complaining or arguing" (Philippians 2:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=57&chapter=2&verse=14&version=31&context=verse))I am happily married for 16 years now. And I believe all that is in the 'being' and not in the 'doing'.

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 03:38 AM
I am happily married for 16 years now. And I believe all that is in the 'being' and not in the 'doing'.That's nice :)

Have you ever had an argument (Phil 2:14)? Ever had a moment where you didn't sacrifice yourself for your wife?

If you did, and are not convicted by those verses, then I'm afraid I am not the one who can help you.

If you do not think you have, then I am not the one who can help you.

Be blessed

ravi4u2
Oct 12th 2007, 03:42 AM
That's nice :)

Have you ever had an argument (Phil 2:14)? Ever had a moment where you didn't sacrifice yourself for your wife?

If you did, and are not convicted by those verses, then I'm afraid I am not the one who can help you.

If you do not think you have, then I am not the one who can help you.

Be blessedI don't get convicted by verses. Thanks for the offer of help but I already have a Helper.

brakelite
Oct 12th 2007, 11:14 AM
Sorry Ken. Not tryin' to be difficult here :blush:

Au contraire monami!

You will say that unless one who has been genuinely purchased at Calvary, saved to be sure, and on the narrow path, unless this one obeys the Law, they will fall away from their purchased and secured salvation if they do not repent and eventually succeed in their striving to obey.

I say that those who were purchased at Calvary (and not in creation, cc 2 Pet 2:1) will in fact persevere and continually, through sanctification and the continuing work of God in that individuals life, get better as a matter of a regenerated and renewed life. They will sometimes fall, but will continually grow. There will, of course, be repentance and success ... but it is not the determining factor of salvation. Christ's work is the sole proprietor of our salvation and the sole thing in which we can boast.

I honestly do not understand how you don't see your view as being one of accomplishment on the part of man. I don't mean that as an insult, sir.

Hi. Hope I am not intruding here; I have been very impressed with the insight and depth of intellect shown on this forum from all contributors. So my humble offering I hope will not lower the current standard of debate too much.
On the point of OSAS I would like to offer my opinion, such as it is. In 2 Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling awayfirst, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; it seems to me that to fall away from the truth or from Christ, means that you in fact had to be in a right position with Him first right? That is the whole tenor of the word apostacy. You were once in Christ, but you have fallen away and divorced yourself from Him. How can a divorce be enacted when their first was not a marriage? I cannot divorce myself from someone I've never been married to.
And that is the root of apostacy. Divorce. (Strongs 647 apostasion- fem of apostaia)

As to the OP. I see the reformation as a progressive revelation through a series of men of God who were each given light by the Holy Spirit on Biblical truth. Each later reformer saw a little more than the previous. Sadly, the churches that evolved from each were afraid that the papacy might re-inject error so each church built a wall around themselves by way of written creeds. This stifled further revelation and they stagnated and their descendants today are abandoning the truths that the reformers died for and creeping ever so closer back to the catholic church.
I agree with other posters that todays churches are in desperate need of reformation. The papacy was in such deep darkness in the middle ages that no individual would have been able to handle too much light all at once. So God in His wisdom took things slow, revealing certain things as man would accept them. God has not finished. He would have a church in the last days that have the Bible and the Bible only as the source of all doctrine and the basis of all reform.

In the book of Revelation only 2 characteristics does God give to describe His church. In contrast to those who accept the mark of the beast and /or worship the beast and his image iss the remnant church that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. Faith and obedience.

Which brings us back to the discussion with Project Peter and Humbled. I think your signature PP says much.

Jesus said "if you love Me, keep My commandments" And elsewhere He said "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of My Father"

There is only one way to salvation. Faith. But have you the faith to believe that God has the power to make of you a commandment keeping disciple? Or do you believe that the devil has more power to keep you in subjection to sin?

QUOTE I honestly do not understand how you don't see your view as being one of accomplishment on the part of man. I don't mean that as an insult, sir.

If we are to become the people of the church Christ is returning for, that is a commandment keeping people, that will not be an accomplishment of man. It is a vital and necessary accomplishment of God. We simply must day by day make ourselves available to Him. By faith, for the just shall live by faith.

Toolman
Oct 12th 2007, 12:33 PM
In my opinion reconciliation is not applied, nor a relationship established, until a person believes in the Lord Jesus. That is why Paul in 2 Cor 5 was pleading with individuals to become reconciled. The Godward side of the reconciliation has already been accomplished. The manward side in many instances still needs to be personally and individually dealt with.

Godward reconciliation is already an accomplished deed and therefore the ransom has already been paid by Christ for all. He has ALREADY purchased them (bought them as Peter states).

All things belong to Christ and all things will be subjected to His reign because the purchase and ransom has been paid.

So, when Peter says "the Lord that bought them" this does not neccessitate that he is declaring their salvation but simply referencing the ransom paid for them.

DSK
Oct 12th 2007, 12:45 PM
Godward reconciliation is already an accomplished deed and therefore the ransom has already been paid by Christ for all. He has ALREADY purchased them (bought them as Peter states).

All things belong to Christ and all things will be subjected to His reign because the purchase and ransom has been paid.

So, when Peter says "the Lord that bought them" this does not neccessitate that he is declaring their salvation but simply referencing the ransom paid for them.

The post you are replying to wasn't referring to anything Peter said. It was in reference to what Paul was saying to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 5

Toolman
Oct 12th 2007, 01:43 PM
The post you are replying to wasn't referring to anything Peter said. It was in reference to what Paul was saying to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 5

But if one follows the logical progression of the conversation the context being discussed was Peter's comment about the false prophets "bought" by the Lord, which you posted in post #106.

I actually agree to a good degree with the comments because the price and ransom that Christ paid for each individual is universal and results in Godward reconciliation, which I stated in post #110

So, when Peter says "False prophets denying the Lord that bought them" that does not neccessitate that these prophets had EVER placed initial faith in Christ but simply denotes that Christ's ransom is universal. That was my point to your original context regarding what Peter was stating.

As far as post #111 I don't find much disagreement. God has already reconciled every single individual to Himself. It is universal. Now, the man-ward side must be accomplished (within time). Man must turn and place faith in that reconciliation (Christ) to reap the benefits. We don't disagree there. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

We only disagree on whether God is able to actually accomplish what He desires regarding each individual and their reconciliation. I believe He is.

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 01:46 PM
You're right. Maybe I did jump the gun and go judging someone according to their performance. That was wrong.Oh I don't think it was wrong at all. It stands to biblical reason.


Having said that, I doubt highly that any true Christian would intentionally disobey God just because she's a "pain in the tail".

Marital unfaithfulness, yes ... physical abuse ... yes, under certain circumstances (tho it is not laid out specifically in Scripture, I believe it can be reason enough)

If they did, I imagine repentance would shortly follow -- them being truly regenerated, that is.

Thank you for your forgiveness.

BlessingsOne would certainly hope that is what followed sure enough!

DSK
Oct 12th 2007, 02:11 PM
But if one follows the logical progression of the conversation the context being discussed was Peter's comment about the false prophets "bought" by the Lord, which you posted in post #106.

I actually agree to a good degree with the comments because the price and ransom that Christ paid for each individual is universal and results in Godward reconciliation, which I stated in post #110

So, when Peter says "False prophets denying the Lord that bought them" that does not neccessitate that these prophets had EVER placed initial faith in Christ but simply denotes that Christ's ransom is universal. That was my point to your original context regarding what Peter was stating.

As far as post #111 I don't find much disagreement. God has already reconciled every single individual to Himself. It is universal. Now, the man-ward side must be accomplished (within time). Man must turn and place faith in that reconciliation (Christ) to reap the benefits. We don't disagree there. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

We only disagree on whether God is able to actually accomplish what He desires regarding each individual and their reconciliation. I believe He is.

Well then that brings us back to where we were in the "Receiving God's Grace In Vain" thread. We just can't stop reading at the end of 2 Cor chapter 5, because in 2 Cor 6:1 we find Paul once again pleading with the very same Corinthians "not to receive the grace of God in vain"

That ye receive not the grace of God in vain - The “grace of God” here means evidently the gracious offer of reconciliation and pardon. And , and be lost. It is offered freely and fully. It may be partaken of by all, and all may be saved. But it may also be slighted, and all the benefits of it will then be lost.” The sense is, that it was possible that this offer might be made to them, they might hear of a Saviour, be told of the plan of reconciliation and have the offers of mercy pressed on their attention and acceptance, and yet all be in vain. They might notwithstanding all this be lost, for simply to hear of the plan of salvation or the offers of mercy, will no more save a sinner than to hear of medicine will save the sick. It must be embraced and applied, or it will be in vain. (Barnes Notes)

Toolman
Oct 12th 2007, 02:22 PM
Well then that brings us back to where we were in the "Receiving God's Grace In Vain" thread. We just can't stop reading at the end of 2 Cor chapter 5, because in 2 Cor 6:1 we find Paul once again pleading with the very same Corinthians "not to receive the grace of God in vain"

No, actually we're not back there.

Where we are is discussing whether the false prophets in Peter had ever placed true saving faith in Christ.

My position is that just because Peter states that the Lord had "bought" them does not neccessitate that they had ever placed faith in Him.

That was my original and only point and had nothing to do with 2 Cor.

It is a commentary on Peter's statement about the false prophets.

Peter proclaiming that the prophets were "bought" is not a slam dunk that they ever had true faith in Christ.

That was my only point.

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 02:25 PM
Oh I don't think it was wrong at all. It stands to biblical reason.Matthew 7:1-5
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I would not want to be judged according to my performance -- and if I go judging others by theirs, then what does this passage teach me?

I will rest upon the finished performances of Jesus Christ :cool:

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 02:28 PM
Matthew 7:1-5
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I would not want to be judged according to my performance -- and if I go judging others by theirs, then what does this passage teach me?

I will rest upon the finished performances of Jesus Christ :cool:
If there's a log... take it out! No doubt of that because you'll be judged by your own standard. Once you do that... then you can clearly help with that speck in your brothers eye. That's the lesson. ;)

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 02:33 PM
If there's a log... take it out! No doubt of that because you'll be judged by your own standard. Once you do that... then you can clearly help with that speck in your brothers eye. That's the lesson. ;)

Cool :cool:

Once I am perfect, I will begin judging people.

Maybe that is why Christ is the only righteous judge.

DSK
Oct 12th 2007, 03:13 PM
No, actually we're not back there.

Where we are is discussing whether the false prophets in Peter had ever placed true saving faith in Christ.

My position is that just because Peter states that the Lord had "bought" them does not neccessitate that they had ever placed faith in Him.

That was my original and only point and had nothing to do with 2 Cor.

It is a commentary on Peter's statement about the false prophets.

Peter proclaiming that the prophets were "bought" is not a slam dunk that they ever had true faith in Christ.

That was my only point.

Have a nice day

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 03:18 PM
Cool :cool:

Once I am perfect, I will begin judging people.

Maybe that is why Christ is the only righteous judge.
But then again... we are told in several passages to judge righteously. Gotta put it together and figure it out. ;)

Toolman
Oct 12th 2007, 03:24 PM
Have a nice day

Its friday... so its almost a guarantee :D

You too!

humbled
Oct 12th 2007, 03:32 PM
But then again... we are told in several passages to judge righteously. Gotta put it together and figure it out. ;)Share those passages, please.

The one I think you may have in mind I would argue that it is not teaching us how we ARE to judge, but rather how we are NOT to judge:

John 7:19-24
19 "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"
20 The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?"
21 Jesus answered them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel.
22 "For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.
23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?
24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

It is my understanding that this passage is teaching men to NOT judge according to appearance. The comment "but judge with righteous judgment" does not automatically imply that one CAN.

This same mistake is made with all imperatives by many. A command does not imply ability. Ever. In fact, the command "do not judge according to appearance" does not imply ability. It will convict those who do judge that way (as the Holy Spirit convicts). Have you ever been convicted by that statement? IOW, have you ever judged according to appearance? Have you ever found yourself not being fit or able to judge righteously?

It is yet another Law ;)

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2007, 03:45 PM
Share those passages, please.

The one I think you may have in mind I would argue that it is not teaching us how we ARE to judge, but rather how we are NOT to judge:

John 7:19-24
19 "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"
20 The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?"
21 Jesus answered them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel.
22 "For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.
23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?
24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

It is my understanding that this passage is teaching men to NOT judge according to appearance. The comment "but judge with righteous judgment" does not automatically imply that one CAN.

This same mistake is made with all imperatives by many. A command does not imply ability. Ever. In fact, the command "do not judge according to appearance" does not imply ability. It will convict those who do judge that way (as the Holy Spirit convicts). Have you ever been convicted by that statement? IOW, have you ever judged according to appearance? Have you ever found yourself not being fit or able to judge righteously?

It is yet another Law ;)We've been down this road before. Again... here is how my simple mind works. If Jesus told us to do it and didn't imply that we could in fact do it... then His commands are in fact burdensome.

Take for example these things.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.
2 And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough ?
7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 ¶I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler -- not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church ?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Then he continues speaking about disputes between brothers.


1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life?

Then you have other things as well such as the Pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus. These are filled with many things that will require judgment made. There is a standard which they are to judge and that is something required of them to do. No real way around it.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 04:33 PM
Yep. Even in Matthew where it speaks of judging not. It says for us to get the log out of our eye, then we can see clearly to judge. What is the log? The bigger sin of not loving your brother while trying to deal with his speck. ;)