PDA

View Full Version : I now agree with the Augustinian View of Predestination/Election



Pages : [1] 2

John Zain
Jan 22nd 2012, 07:12 PM
So, I now agree with the current unpopular view of such great theologians as:
St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards.

The natural (unsaved) man
-- is born with a sin nature and is totally separated from God.
-- is at enmity with God, which means he is an enemy of God.
-- is owed absolutely nothing, nada, zero, etc. by the totally Holy God.
-- insists on following his fallen nature and naturally chooses this over following God.
-- considers the gospel to be foolishness:
“For the message of the cross (the gospel) is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved (through sanctification) it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18)
-- exercises his free will and miraculously all of a sudden chooses Jesus and his gospel ???

The free-will verses
“All”, “whoever”, “everyone who” believes … CAN be viewed as referring only to God’s elect.
In the OT, God proves that natural unsaved man cannot (or is not willing to) obey God, etc.
God chose His "special people" Israel to represent the human race, and they failed miserably.
[Go ahead and “choose this day to believe and follow God”. If you are able to do this, super.]
This is why He promised to institute His new/better covenant with His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior.
In the NT, those who believe have miraculously been given the necessary faith to believe.

Saving FAITH is a GIFT from God by His GRACE
Paul was privately trained by the Lord for 17 years (Gal. 1:18, 2:1) prior to starting his ministry.
“For by grace (undeserved favor) you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)
Natural sin-laden, rebellious, etc. man is simply NOT capable of coming up with his own saving faith.

God has the right to do whatever He desires (whether you like it or not)
In Romans 9:9-24 Paul explains:
-- God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born (i.e. before they had done any good or evil).
-- The choice did not depend on any of God’s foreknowledge (knowledge of the future).
-- The choice did not depend on the 2 twins: “not of works (anything they did) but of Him who calls”.
-- The choice was strictly: “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”.
-- God has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses.
-- Who is chosen does not depend on man who desires it, works for it, etc.
-- Who is chosen only depends on God who shows mercy to certain ones.
-- The analogy of the potter and the clay from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9-13.
-- God prepares vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor.
-- God prepares vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
-- God prepares vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory.
-- God called the Roman Christians to belong to this latter group.
It is critical that you understand what Paul is saying (and not saying) in these verses.

God knows peoples’ hearts and who He wants to have in Heaven
“the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chr. 28:9).
“I dwell in the high and holy place with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (Isaiah 57:15)
A repentant heart is necessary: “… unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3,5)
The poor (in various ways) are the most likely to have the right heart attitude:
“He (Father God) has anointed Me (Jesus) to preach the gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18)
“Has God not chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?” (James 2:5)

God predestines and chooses His elect
“God's elect ... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2)
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us” (Eph. 1:4-5)
“And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (in the gospel)” (Acts 13:48)

God’s guardian angels protect His people until they obtain salvation
“Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
those who will (in the future) inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14)

God does the choosing, not us
“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)
“No one can (has the ability to) come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you …” (John 15:16)

Man appears to have the freedom to choose
God’s plan of salvation: the sinless Messiah came to die on the cross for the sins of the elect,
and the elect must hear this gospel (good news), believe it, and believe-trust-obey- love Jesus.
The free-will verses encourage evangelists to take the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth.
The gospel must be presented to the elect before they can respond to it. And presenting it
to the non-elect ensures that they cannot claim at the Judgment that they never heard it.

The Augustinian view of predestination
Man is totally incapable of being saved on his own, but depends totally on God’s grace.
Man is not required to make any free-will choice to co-operate with God’s grace.
God’s choice of His elect has nothing at all to do with their choosing/believing the gospel.
All humans are destined to be separated from God, but God has chosen to grant mercy to some.

Note:
If you claim that God is not merciful enough (or, indeed, if you find any fault at all with God),
then you are committing blasphemy against Him. So, it's best not to judge God.

Watchman
Jan 22nd 2012, 07:30 PM
Note:
If you claim that God is not merciful enough (or, indeed, if you find any fault at all with God),
then you are committing blasphemy against Him. So, it's best not to judge God.
Disagreeing with fallible folks, though, hath naught to do with judging God. It really doesn't matter what Augustine, Calvin, Luther, uncle Freds, or Bozo the Clown believe. What matters is what one believes that the Holy Spirit has taught them.

W :)

BrckBrln
Jan 22nd 2012, 07:37 PM
Welcome to the dark side.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 22nd 2012, 09:42 PM
Howdy JZ,

You've discovered the marvelous sovereignty of God. The gentile truth of Proverbs 16:9. Thru man's lenses, he declares wisdom and choice and free will. But given the glasses of God through His word and Spirit's gentile leading, He sees God's hand, and Will and provision. Many men will pray for the salvation of a loved one, yet in the same breath will declare that God doesn't engage until that man reaches for God first. But you my friend have moved from that understanding to something better, and something more accountable.

God is big... really big, and not many men can reconcile the wisdom of God as you quoted within scriptures above -- that the mind of a man is within the hands of a Sovereign God, yet man is still accountable for sin. For is there any thought God does not know? Or any time that is of a surprise? Yet man will build buildings and roads and things... and before one stone is moved or laid, or one shovel of dirt moved, or one piece of metal formed... all are preplanned beforehand. Each started with a thought, each went to vision and plan, and each follows the plan as it has been made beforehand. If man, being sinful and imperfect, thinks and plans and does.... what about a God who is perfect? Can He not also preplan all that He desires before one word is spoken in His creation, that in His plan, give man his way to think, all the while be under His perfect will?


And some will argue with God though you me and maybe others, declaring us to be evil Calvinists, and ascribe to us false understandings that God makes a bunch of 'puppets' or 'robots', for they cannot yet see the wisdom with scriptures like Proverb 16, yet ignore many parts of God's control within their lives. We pray to know God's will so we see His glory in us, and not to be in His will and unknown to it.


Every man created and everyman to be created is destined according to the Will of God, yet we have the beauty to plan think and do, and call it our own.


So praise God for the wisdom you have seen, use it for His glory and not as a weapon, for it was never meant to divide -- but for self-humiliation, and encouragement, for there is now known that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, and that know we are in the hands of a holy a righteous God, that all things will work together for good to those who love Him.


For His glory....

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 22nd 2012, 09:43 PM
Welcome to the dark side.

Howdy BB,

The dark side of what? Not sure what you mean?

BrckBrln
Jan 23rd 2012, 01:18 AM
Howdy BB,

The dark side of what? Not sure what you mean?

It was a joke. :)

Butch5
Jan 23rd 2012, 01:22 AM
So, I now agree with the current unpopular view of such great theologians as:
St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards.

The natural (unsaved) man
-- is born with a sin nature and is totally separated from God.
-- is at enmity with God, which means he is an enemy of God.
-- is owed absolutely nothing, nada, zero, etc. by the totally Holy God.
-- insists on following his fallen nature and naturally chooses this over following God.
-- considers the gospel to be foolishness:
“For the message of the cross (the gospel) is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved (through sanctification) it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18)
-- exercises his free will and miraculously all of a sudden chooses Jesus and his gospel ???

The free-will verses
“All”, “whoever”, “everyone who” believes … CAN be viewed as referring only to God’s elect.
In the OT, God proves that natural unsaved man cannot (or is not willing to) obey God, etc.
God chose His "special people" Israel to represent the human race, and they failed miserably.
[Go ahead and “choose this day to believe and follow God”. If you are able to do this, super.]
This is why He promised to institute His new/better covenant with His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior.
In the NT, those who believe have miraculously been given the necessary faith to believe.

Saving FAITH is a GIFT from God by His GRACE
Paul was privately trained by the Lord for 17 years (Gal. 1:18, 2:1) prior to starting his ministry.
“For by grace (undeserved favor) you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)
Natural sin-laden, rebellious, etc. man is simply NOT capable of coming up with his own saving faith.

God has the right to do whatever He desires (whether you like it or not)
In Romans 9:9-24 Paul explains:
-- God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born (i.e. before they had done any good or evil).
-- The choice did not depend on any of God’s foreknowledge (knowledge of the future).
-- The choice did not depend on the 2 twins: “not of works (anything they did) but of Him who calls”.
-- The choice was strictly: “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”.
-- God has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses.
-- Who is chosen does not depend on man who desires it, works for it, etc.
-- Who is chosen only depends on God who shows mercy to certain ones.
-- The analogy of the potter and the clay from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9-13.
-- God prepares vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor.
-- God prepares vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
-- God prepares vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory.
-- God called the Roman Christians to belong to this latter group.
It is critical that you understand what Paul is saying (and not saying) in these verses.

God knows peoples’ hearts and who He wants to have in Heaven
“the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chr. 28:9).
“I dwell in the high and holy place with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (Isaiah 57:15)
A repentant heart is necessary: “… unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3,5)
The poor (in various ways) are the most likely to have the right heart attitude:
“He (Father God) has anointed Me (Jesus) to preach the gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18)
“Has God not chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?” (James 2:5)

God predestines and chooses His elect
“God's elect ... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2)
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us” (Eph. 1:4-5)
“And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (in the gospel)” (Acts 13:48)

God’s guardian angels protect His people until they obtain salvation
“Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
those who will (in the future) inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14)

God does the choosing, not us
“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)
“No one can (has the ability to) come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you …” (John 15:16)

Man appears to have the freedom to choose
God’s plan of salvation: the sinless Messiah came to die on the cross for the sins of the elect,
and the elect must hear this gospel (good news), believe it, and believe-trust-obey- love Jesus.
The free-will verses encourage evangelists to take the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth.
The gospel must be presented to the elect before they can respond to it. And presenting it
to the non-elect ensures that they cannot claim at the Judgment that they never heard it.

The Augustinian view of predestination
Man is totally incapable of being saved on his own, but depends totally on God’s grace.
Man is not required to make any free-will choice to co-operate with God’s grace.
God’s choice of His elect has nothing at all to do with their choosing/believing the gospel.
All humans are destined to be separated from God, but God has chosen to grant mercy to some.

Note:
If you claim that God is not merciful enough (or, indeed, if you find any fault at all with God),
then you are committing blasphemy against Him. So, it's best not to judge God.


I'm sory...........

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:01 AM
I'm sorry...........

.................... :rofl: :agree: :rofl:

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:21 AM
It was a joke. :)

That's what I thought what you meant....

But it's actually not the dark side, eh?

markedward
Jan 23rd 2012, 05:33 AM
If you claim that God is not merciful enough (or, indeed, if you find any fault at all with God),
then you are committing blasphemy against Him. So, it's best not to judge God.No one is committing 'blasphemy' against God if they believe that the 'Augustinian view of predestination election' makes God unmerciful. This is a massive cop-out used to guilt people who disagree with you into agreeing with you. (And, for some reason, in the 'predestination' debate, my experience is that I have only ever see Augustinian/Calvinists pull this off.)

Reynolds357
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:24 PM
So, I now agree with the current unpopular view of such great theologians as:
St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards.

The natural (unsaved) man
-- is born with a sin nature and is totally separated from God.
-- is at enmity with God, which means he is an enemy of God.
-- is owed absolutely nothing, nada, zero, etc. by the totally Holy God.
-- insists on following his fallen nature and naturally chooses this over following God.
-- considers the gospel to be foolishness:
“For the message of the cross (the gospel) is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved (through sanctification) it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18)
-- exercises his free will and miraculously all of a sudden chooses Jesus and his gospel ???

The free-will verses
“All”, “whoever”, “everyone who” believes … CAN be viewed as referring only to God’s elect.
In the OT, God proves that natural unsaved man cannot (or is not willing to) obey God, etc.
God chose His "special people" Israel to represent the human race, and they failed miserably.
[Go ahead and “choose this day to believe and follow God”. If you are able to do this, super.]
This is why He promised to institute His new/better covenant with His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior.
In the NT, those who believe have miraculously been given the necessary faith to believe.

Saving FAITH is a GIFT from God by His GRACE
Paul was privately trained by the Lord for 17 years (Gal. 1:18, 2:1) prior to starting his ministry.
“For by grace (undeserved favor) you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)
Natural sin-laden, rebellious, etc. man is simply NOT capable of coming up with his own saving faith.

God has the right to do whatever He desires (whether you like it or not)
In Romans 9:9-24 Paul explains:
-- God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born (i.e. before they had done any good or evil).
-- The choice did not depend on any of God’s foreknowledge (knowledge of the future).
-- The choice did not depend on the 2 twins: “not of works (anything they did) but of Him who calls”.
-- The choice was strictly: “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”.
-- God has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses.
-- Who is chosen does not depend on man who desires it, works for it, etc.
-- Who is chosen only depends on God who shows mercy to certain ones.
-- The analogy of the potter and the clay from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9-13.
-- God prepares vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor.
-- God prepares vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
-- God prepares vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory.
-- God called the Roman Christians to belong to this latter group.
It is critical that you understand what Paul is saying (and not saying) in these verses.

God knows peoples’ hearts and who He wants to have in Heaven
“the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chr. 28:9).
“I dwell in the high and holy place with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (Isaiah 57:15)
A repentant heart is necessary: “… unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3,5)
The poor (in various ways) are the most likely to have the right heart attitude:
“He (Father God) has anointed Me (Jesus) to preach the gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18)
“Has God not chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?” (James 2:5)

God predestines and chooses His elect
“God's elect ... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2)
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us” (Eph. 1:4-5)
“And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (in the gospel)” (Acts 13:48)

God’s guardian angels protect His people until they obtain salvation
“Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
those who will (in the future) inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14)

God does the choosing, not us
“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” (John 6:37)
“No one can (has the ability to) come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44)
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you …” (John 15:16)

Man appears to have the freedom to choose
God’s plan of salvation: the sinless Messiah came to die on the cross for the sins of the elect,
and the elect must hear this gospel (good news), believe it, and believe-trust-obey- love Jesus.
The free-will verses encourage evangelists to take the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth.
The gospel must be presented to the elect before they can respond to it. And presenting it
to the non-elect ensures that they cannot claim at the Judgment that they never heard it.

The Augustinian view of predestination
Man is totally incapable of being saved on his own, but depends totally on God’s grace.
Man is not required to make any free-will choice to co-operate with God’s grace.
God’s choice of His elect has nothing at all to do with their choosing/believing the gospel.
All humans are destined to be separated from God, but God has chosen to grant mercy to some.

Note:
If you claim that God is not merciful enough (or, indeed, if you find any fault at all with God),
then you are committing blasphemy against Him. So, it's best not to judge God.

This is one of those topics that is good to argue about, get mad about, split churches over, and divide believers.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe you should witness to everyone. Arminians believe that anyone can be saved and Calvinists do not believe that we know who "the elect" are and who they are not. Having that in mind, who really cares which doctrine is correct?
I do not know a pure Calvinist or a pure Arminian. EVERYONE I know holds elements of both doctorinal systems.

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 03:29 PM
Exactly, Reynolds! I've seen folks get fighting mad over this topic...which is why I simply laugh it off. The Calvinist pov is the most insecure one of which I've ever heard!

W :)

Butch5
Jan 23rd 2012, 07:58 PM
Atually, if there is an "ism" after your belief it's not Biblical.

BrckBrln
Jan 23rd 2012, 08:40 PM
Atually, if there is an "ism" after your belief it's not Biblical.

Which is why I don't follow Butchism.

markedward
Jan 23rd 2012, 08:43 PM
Atually, if there is an "ism" after your belief it's not Biblical.'-isms' are just one-word descriptors used to summarize 'I believe.......' sentences.

Reynolds357
Jan 23rd 2012, 08:45 PM
'-isms' are just one-word descriptors used to summarize 'I believe.......' sentences.

If you want to get right down to it, everything we discuss on here is in some way an "ism."

John Zain
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:29 PM
Disagreeing with fallible folks, though, hath naught to do with judging God.
I was referring to the very unpopular notion of God choosing some and not others.

John Zain
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:36 PM
This is one of those topics that is good to argue about, get mad about, split churches over, and divide believers.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe you should witness to everyone.
Arminians believe that anyone can be saved
and
Calvinists do not believe that we know who "the elect" are and who they are not.
Having that in mind, who really cares which doctrine is correct?
I do not know a pure Calvinist or a pure Arminian.
EVERYONE I know holds elements of both doctorinal systems.
This is extremely well said ... thank you.
Except that the true Augustinian position does not accept anything to do with the Arminian (free-will) position.
Those 5 scholars did not believe any of the free-will stuff.

John Zain
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:47 PM
The Calvinist pov is the most insecure one of which I've ever heard!
Great ... So my 2 questions are:

Why all of the predestination/election verses in Scripture?

If man gets to choose salvation, why would there be any opposing verses in Scripture?

Everyone would be happy ... just get out there and evangelize ... and see who chooses and who doesn't.

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:56 PM
Great ... So my 2 questions are:

Why all of the predestination/election verses in Scripture?

If man gets to choose salvation, why would there be any opposing verses in Scripture?

Everyone would be happy ... just get out there and evangelize ... and see who chooses and who doesn't.

The predestination and election passages must be rightly understood. I don't disagree that salvation is of God; however, we do have a role to play.

blessings,

W :)

John Zain
Jan 23rd 2012, 10:09 PM
As you probably surmise, I'm very comfortable with ...
God's total and absolute predestination and election (with man having absolutely nothing to do with the choice).

However, I also feel that man perhaps can/may choose to reject this election (at any point in time).
Or further, he can/may choose to walk away from it (after many years, for example).
But, then we must deal with Romans 8:28-30.
And that's why feelings, etc. are no good in these matters.

What sayest thou to this?

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 10:36 PM
And that's why feelings, etc. are no good in these matters.

What sayest thou to this?

Feelings are excellent servants and terrible masters.

W :)

Slug1
Jan 23rd 2012, 10:47 PM
Did someone say, "ism"? :rofl:

I agree with the Bible and not anyone's "view". We have a choice to believe in God, that is why we have Paul explaining to us about planting, watering and then God making the growth. If we didn't have a "choice" and our salvation was "predestined" then there would be no need to plant and water. God would just start the growth and heaven would be filled with people who had no choice. Anyway, after a person chooses to believe, then they have the choice to be obedient to His Word and also His will for them.

Slug1
Jan 23rd 2012, 10:48 PM
As you probably surmise, I'm very comfortable with ...
God's total and absolute predestination and election (with man having absolutely nothing to do with the choice).

However, I also feel that man perhaps can/may choose to reject this election (at any point in time).
Or further, he can/may choose to walk away from it (after many years, for example).
But, then we must deal with Romans 8:28-30.
And that's why feelings, etc. are no good in these matters.

What sayest thou to this?Seems the only thing to say to this post is... you don't know what you believe or feel, so latching onto what others "views" are, is the easiest thing for you to do.

This is the whole problem with views or doctrines of man, which is better known as... "ism's". Man is telling man what to believe through their interpretations of scriptures instead of the Holy Spirit illuminating what to believe according to the truths (doctrine(s)) of the scriptures.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 23rd 2012, 11:02 PM
I was referring to the very unpopular notion of God choosing some and not others.


I don't see God choosing anything --- He wills. Man, being created and not perfect, compares based on their learning; God being eternal and creator of all things... doesn't choose... He wills....

keyzer soze
Jan 23rd 2012, 11:32 PM
man i have a TON to say about this but i think it was God's sovereign plan that i not have 2 hands to type right now so i will merely set back and read. i will say that i am far to the side of God's sovereignty vs. our free-will, however i totally agree with reynolds that from our perspective it does not matter because we are called to serve God and spread the word regardless. i personally hold to the concept that from Earth we are to live like Armenians and give all we can for God. however, i feel that i am to have the faith of a Calvinist and that is to say that i give 100% of the credit to God and 0% to me including my faith.

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

I consider faith to fit into this verse thus I lean on God's sovereignty for everything.

Watchman
Jan 24th 2012, 12:47 AM
Did someone say, "ism"? :rofl:

At least nobody is promoting schismism! :saint:

W :)

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 02:56 AM
I was referring to the very unpopular notion of God choosing some and not others.


John, I don't think that's an unpopular notion. What's unpopular is the out of context usege that those theologians applied to it. If they had had proper understanding of the Scriptures the wouldn't have lead so many astray

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 03:01 AM
man i have a TON to say about this but i think it was God's sovereign plan that i not have 2 hands to type right now so i will merely set back and read. i will say that i am far to the side of God's sovereignty vs. our free-will, however i totally agree with reynolds that from our perspective it does not matter because we are called to serve God and spread the word regardless. i personally hold to the concept that from Earth we are to live like Armenians and give all we can for God. however, i feel that i am to have the faith of a Calvinist and that is to say that i give 100% of the credit to God and 0% to me including my faith.

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

I consider faith to fit into this verse thus I lean on God's sovereignty for everything.

I'd Like to congratulate you keyzer. You've stated what few Calvinists will admit to. In Calvinism one is not saved through faith, they were chosen before the foundation of the world and their salvation was assured before they were ever born. Therefore faith plays no role in their salvation. The problem is that this isn't what the Scriptures teach.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 03:04 AM
As you probably surmise, I'm very comfortable with ...
God's total and absolute predestination and election (with man having absolutely nothing to do with the choice).

However, I also feel that man perhaps can/may choose to reject this election (at any point in time).
Or further, he can/may choose to walk away from it (after many years, for example).
But, then we must deal with Romans 8:28-30.
And that's why feelings, etc. are no good in these matters.

What sayest thou to this?

You're contradicting yourself. According to the Calvinists definition of sovereignty man cannot chose to reject it. How are you comfortable with it when it's contradictory?

fewarechosen
Jan 24th 2012, 03:57 AM
Proverbs 16:4
The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom

the straight line is inbetween.

they try to teach things that only the Holy Spirit can. scripture is a stumbling block to those without it.

DDGresham1
Jan 24th 2012, 06:00 AM
We are saved by "faith through grace." Why do we have faith? Is it given from God as well? Hmm...

keyzer soze
Jan 24th 2012, 02:01 PM
I'd Like to congratulate you keyzer. You've stated what few Calvinists will admit to. In Calvinism one is not saved through faith, they were chosen before the foundation of the world and their salvation was assured before they were ever born. Therefore faith plays no role in their salvation. The problem is that this isn't what the Scriptures teach.

i believe that this is what the bible is saying. we are to believe/hope in what we can not see and trust God fully because he is sovereign and in control. its how i can trust that even when it seems like bad things are happening God is working everything for the good who love him.

but scripture also plainly shows that God wants US in his plan. i simply look to Moses and his role in miracles and realize that God wants us to trust him.
i think the battle in the wilderness where moses and aaron are on a hill overlooking the battle with moses holding his staff up as a good illustration as to what role we really play in life. when moses lowered his staff they began to lose but when he raised it they would win.... so moses is playing a part and appears to be in control but i dont think anyone could argue that God is working the miracle there.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 24th 2012, 02:22 PM
I'd Like to congratulate you keyzer. You've stated what few Calvinists will admit to. In Calvinism one is not saved through faith, they were chosen before the foundation of the world and their salvation was assured before they were ever born. Therefore faith plays no role in their salvation. The problem is that this isn't what the Scriptures teach.


I gotta throw the proverbial flag on this comment Butch... Misrepresenting Eternal security of the believer of other brothers of the faith... 15 yard penalty.... for every discourse we ever had as well as from Roger and others here over the years... have always declared the biblical truth that faith in Jesus is a prime ingredient of salvation. The other being repentance.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 03:32 PM
Which is why I don't follow Butchism.

There's actually no such denomination, that I am aware of. However, notice that Christianity doesn't have an "ism".

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 03:40 PM
I gotta throw the proverbial flag on this comment Butch... Misrepresenting Eternal security of the believer of other brothers of the faith... 15 yard penalty.... for every discourse we ever had as well as from Roger and others here over the years... have always declared the biblical truth that faith in Jesus is a prime ingredient of salvation. The other being repentance.

Hi RBG,

I agree totally, that's my point. Every Calvinist I've met says they are saved through faith. The problem is that the Calvinist's doctrines don't line up with his words.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 03:53 PM
i believe that this is what the bible is saying. we are to believe/hope in what we can not see and trust God fully because he is sovereign and in control. its how i can trust that even when it seems like bad things are happening God is working everything for the good who love him.

but scripture also plainly shows that God wants US in his plan. i simply look to Moses and his role in miracles and realize that God wants us to trust him.
i think the battle in the wilderness where moses and aaron are on a hill overlooking the battle with moses holding his staff up as a good illustration as to what role we really play in life. when moses lowered his staff they began to lose but when he raised it they would win.... so moses is playing a part and appears to be in control but i dont think anyone could argue that God is working the miracle there.

The problem is that under the Calvinits definition of Sovereignty Moses did nothing it was God who was raising and lowering Moses arms so theere was no faith or trust in God. God was simply pulling the strings on Moses" arms. You can't have God doing all things and not doing all things, it just doesn't work. I"ve spoken to many Calvinists and when the issue of God's sovereignty arises they go to Ephesians 1.

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Eph 1:1 KJV)

I don't even know how many times this passage has been quoted to me. The problem is you can't have it both ways, either God does everything or he doesn't. According to the Calvinist interpretation of this verse one can conclude that if one thing is done apart from God's will, then He is not sovereign. So, would mean that what you think you have as faith is not faith at all, it's God believe for you just as he raised and lowered Moses' arms. Or, we don't use the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty and we use the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty which clearly "Doesn't" mean to control every single minute aspect of everything. You see, the Scriptures themselves prove the Calvinists definition of sovereignty is incorrect because the Scriptures speak of both the lost and the elect not doing God's will.

John146
Jan 24th 2012, 05:16 PM
I gotta throw the proverbial flag on this comment Butch... Misrepresenting Eternal security of the believer of other brothers of the faith... 15 yard penalty.... for every discourse we ever had as well as from Roger and others here over the years... have always declared the biblical truth that faith in Jesus is a prime ingredient of salvation. The other being repentance.How can faith and repentance be forced? What kind of faith is it if God causes/forces someone to have faith? It's meaningless in that case.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Why would God be pleased with faith that He caused/forced someone to have? That's like being pleased with a puppet for moving its legs even though you are the one who moved its legs with strings.

John Zain
Jan 24th 2012, 05:35 PM
I would like to amend this section of the original post ...

The natural (unsaved) man
-- is born with a sin nature and is totally separated from God.
-- is at enmity with God, which means he is an enemy of God.
-- is owed absolutely nothing, nada, zero, etc. by the totally Holy God.
-- insists on following his fallen nature and naturally chooses this over following God.
-- has been blinded to spiritual truth by Satan (which God has allowed):
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
whose minds the god of this age (Satan) has blinded, who do not believe,
lest the light of the gospel … should shine on them.” (2 Cor.4:4)
-- naturally considers the gospel to be foolishness:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor.1:18)
-- exercises his free will and miraculously all of a sudden chooses Jesus and his gospel ???

John Zain
Jan 24th 2012, 05:43 PM
This is the whole problem with views or doctrines of man, which is better known as... "ism's".
Man is telling man what to believe through their interpretations of scriptures instead of the Holy Spirit
illuminating what to believe according to the truths (doctrine(s)) of the scriptures.
Sure, that's why I'm desiring that everyone might share their revelations with us on this subject.

John Zain
Jan 24th 2012, 05:49 PM
How can faith and repentance be forced? What kind of faith is it if God causes/forces someone to have faith?
It's meaningless in that case.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Why would God be pleased with faith that He caused/forced someone to have?
That's like being pleased with a puppet for moving its legs even though you are the one who moved its legs with strings.
Your points are always much appreciated.

But, what about the verses which indicate that:
-- man is incapable of choosing God on his own.
-- FAITH is strictly A GIFT from God to those who don't deserve it? That's what GRACE means, right?
These verses are indicating that it's ALL God's doing ... and man is not involved in the choosing.

Note:
I've previously given the reasons why free-will verses are in Scripture.
No one has given me the reasons why predestination/election verses are in Scripture.
Good luck.

Reynolds357
Jan 24th 2012, 05:58 PM
Your points are always much appreciated.

But, what about the verses which indicate that man is incapable of choosing God on his own.
What about the verses which indicate that FAITH is strictly A GIFT from God to those who don't deserve it?
That's what GRACE means, right?
These verses are indicating that it's ALL God's doing ... and man is not involved in the choosing.

Note:
I've previously given the reasons why free-will verses are in Scripture.
No one has given me the reasons why predestination/election verses are in Scripture.
Good luck.

Jacobus Arminius answered your concerns. I am sure you have read his position.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 24th 2012, 06:42 PM
How can faith and repentance be forced? What kind of faith is it if God causes/forces someone to have faith? It's meaningless in that case.

Who says it's forced? Were you forced? I certainly wasn't forced? Hey... anybody here on these boards were forced by God to be saved? The gift of study shows that we come to the cross on our knees, yet He also draws all who will come. No doctrine of man has saved a man, yet one's doctrines tests of what faith he is made of.




Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Why would God be pleased with faith that He caused/forced someone to have? That's like being pleased with a puppet for moving its legs even though you are the one who moved its legs with strings.

Ahha... The puppet word... :hug: It was only a matter of time. So to the board, anyone here God's Puppet?


It be an honor if I could submit my whole being and do what Jesus did - to do 100% of the Father's will.... Was Jesus a puppet then? Naw... Seriously Eric, I see your view of the sovereignty of God has been tainted over the years, for all men think plan and do, yet God directs their path. God is in control of all things, even you and your will. Yet you think, and write, and plan, and declare 'it is I, it's my will...' all while God let's us to do so. Yet biblical history is replete with examples whereas saved as well as unsaved men knew that they were in the hands of a sovereign God... God uses all men to forward His will. Some for honor, some for common.

So God doesn't chose, man does; God doesn't force, man does. God wills. He purposes. He directs.

You believe and call it your own; I believe and call it a miracle of faith, for once being blind to the truth of the Gospel, on that one day in August of 1971 He opened my eyes to see the Gospel again as I never saw it before. And from that day, in study, can look back and see it is what God purposed to do in my life.

To God be the Glory, great things He hath done!

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 06:53 PM
I would like to amend this section of the original post ...

The natural (unsaved) man
-- is born with a sin nature and is totally separated from God.
-- is at enmity with God, which means he is an enemy of God.
-- is owed absolutely nothing, nada, zero, etc. by the totally Holy God.
-- insists on following his fallen nature and naturally chooses this over following God.
-- has been blinded to spiritual truth by Satan (which God has allowed):
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
whose minds the god of this age (Satan) has blinded, who do not believe,
lest the light of the gospel … should shine on them.” (2 Cor.4:4)
-- naturally considers the gospel to be foolishness:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor.1:18)
-- exercises his free will and miraculously all of a sudden chooses Jesus and his gospel ???


John, if you understand those pasages in context you'll see they say something quite different than you think. You're proof-texting those passages. That's how Calvin and the rest got their doctrines, they didn't understand the Scriptures in context.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2012, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by John Zain

Your points are always much appreciated.

But, what about the verses which indicate that man is incapable of choosing God on his own.
What about the verses which indicate that FAITH is strictly A GIFT from God to those who don't deserve it?
That's what GRACE means, right?
These verses are indicating that it's ALL God's doing ... and man is not involved in the choosing.

Note:
I've previously given the reasons why free-will verses are in Scripture.
No one has given me the reasons why predestination/election verses are in Scripture.
Good luck.

I'd be happy to john but you've noe replied to my posts. If you understand the Bible as whole and just a collection of verses it becomes quite clear what the election verses mean. Post away.

TrustGzus
Jan 25th 2012, 01:19 AM
There's a slight side-subject going on here and frankly, I don't understand why people make this firm stance -- the stand against the suffix "ism".

Should I reject Trinitarianism?

Should I not have a viewpoint on the issues in this thread because I'd end being an adherent to Calvinism or Arminianism?

Can I not have an eschatology because I'd end up believing in either amillennialism, premillennialism or postmillennialism?

Should I reject baptism?

Is Christianity okay because it ends in "ity"? What if it had been called "Christianism"? Does the suffix matter? Just because something ends in "ism" doesn't make it all a pejorative or all I have to do is name a person's viewpoint Their-name-ism and it's over.

Watchman
Jan 25th 2012, 01:32 AM
I reject prooftext pokerism!

W:D

John Zain
Jan 25th 2012, 05:10 PM
If you understand the Bible as whole and just a collection of verses
it becomes quite clear what the election verses mean.
Since I don't know what the election verses mean, why don't you enlighten me.
Shall we start here? ...

For me, this is Paul's clearest message about HOW man is SAVED ...

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8-9

This is from the NKJV ... please check all of the other versions you wish.

Translation ...
The faith to believe is a gift from God, which is by God's grace (undeserved favor).

Actually, both grace and faith are a gift from God.

Was this undeserved gift given to you because you chose to believe in the gospel?

Butch5
Jan 25th 2012, 07:20 PM
John Zain---Since I don't know what the election verses mean, why don't you enlighten me.
Shall we start here? ...

For me, this is Paul's clearest message about HOW man is SAVED ...

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8-9

This is from the NKJV ... please check all of the other versions you wish.

Translation ...
The faith to believe is a gift from God, which is by God's grace (undeserved favor).

Actually, both grace and faith are a gift from God.

Was this undeserved gift given to you because you chose to believe in the gospel?


John,
I didn’t say you didn’t understand what the verses meant. I said if you understand the Bible as a whole the election verses become.
However, we can begin here. Look at Paul’s argument and the passage in context. In Ephesians Paul is making the point of unity, of bringing together both Jew and Gentile. He starts out praising God for His blessings on Israel. Then he goes on to tell the Gentiles who have come into the church that he is praying that God would open their understanding. The Jews thought themselves superior to the Gentiles because they were “God’s chosen People” and kept the Law of Moses. In chapter two he begins by telling them that they, both Jew and Gentile all walked according to the flesh, (the Jew was not better than the Gentile). He starts in verse 1,

KJV Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
(Eph 2:1-2 KJV)

He says and you n(Gentiles) were dead in trespasses and sins. Then in verse 2 he says the Jews also were in trespasses and sins.

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.(Eph 2:3 KJV)
The we also here is the Jews. So Paul makes the point that both the Jew and the Gentile were is trespasses and sins. Then he says, but God who loved us (both Jew and Gentile) quickened us together with Christ.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved (Eph 2:4-5 KJV)

He says, you are saved by Grace. Then in verse 8-9 he says you are saved by grace through faith and not of works, lest any man should boast. This boasting is just what the Jews were doing. We see the same thing with the Pharisees who boasted of keeping the Law (works). Well, the Jewish believers usually kept the Law (works) even though they Christians. Paul tells them that keeping the Law (works) is nothing to boast about as he goes on. In verse 10 Paul tells them that Christians were created for good works and then goes on to tell them why the Jews cannot boast of keeping the Law (works). The works that Jews were boasting about were the keeping of the Law. Paul goes one to explain that the Law has been abolished. In verses 11 and 12 Paul tells them (Gentiles) that they were called the uncircumcison by the circumcision (Jews) and that at that time they (Gentiles) were in the world and without God, they were outside of the covenants of Israel and outside of the promises and that they had no hope.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (Eph 2:11-12 KJV)

Then is verse 13 he says, now through Christ (not the Law of Moses) you (Gentiles) who were far off have been brought near.

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (Eph 2:13 KJV)

In verses 14-16 Paul explain how it was the through Christ the Gentiles were brought near. It was because Christ has abolished the commandments contained in ordinances (The Mosaic Law).

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: {thereby: or, in himself}
(Eph 2:14-16 KJV)

Then he says that Christ came to preach peace to both them that were far off (Gentiles) and those who were near (Jews).

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (Eph 2:17 KJV)

Then he tells the Gentile that they who were far off are no longer strangers and foreigners, but rather are not fellow citizen with the saints and the household of God.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (Eph 2:19 KJV)

So, the passage in context clearly is speaking of the Mosaic Law. If we take it out of context and randomly apply it to any works at all we misapply the passage and come to an erroneous and contradictory conclusion.

John146
Jan 25th 2012, 09:29 PM
Your points are always much appreciated.But never specifically addressed by you for some reason. I appreciate that you appreciate them but I wish you would specifically address them instead of just saying "but what about....".


But, what about the verses which indicate that:
-- man is incapable of choosing God on his own.There are no verses which teach that.


-- FAITH is strictly A GIFT from God to those who don't deserve it?Again, there are no verses which teach that, either.


That's what GRACE means, right?No. A gift can be graciously offered while requiring the ones to whom it is being offered to choose whether to accept or reject it.


These verses are indicating that it's ALL God's doing ... and man is not involved in the choosing.Which verses teach that?


Note:
I've previously given the reasons why free-will verses are in Scripture.Not good reasons, IMO.


No one has given me the reasons why predestination/election verses are in Scripture.
Good luck.God determined from the foundation of the world that the ones who would be His children are those who have faith. That doesn't mean He predestined or predetermined for them to have faith. Faith can't be forced. What kind of faith would that be? It would be meaningless and certainly not a faith that God could be pleased with, as this verse talks about:

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

John146
Jan 25th 2012, 09:41 PM
Who says it's forced?Your doctrine does because it says God causes people to believe and they have no choice to do otherwise. That's a case of forcing people to believe.


Were you forced?No.


I certainly wasn't forced?Weren't you? Does that mean it was possible for you to reject Christ? I believe it was, but you don't believe that.


Hey... anybody here on these boards were forced by God to be saved? The gift of study shows that we come to the cross on our knees, yet He also draws all who will come. No doctrine of man has saved a man, yet one's doctrines tests of what faith he is made of.Could you have chosen to not come to the cross on your knees? If not then how can you try to tell me that you are not basically forced to do so?


Ahha... The puppet word... :hug: It was only a matter of time. So to the board, anyone here God's Puppet? We all are according to your doctrine. I know you don't like the word "force" or "puppet" to be associated with your doctrine but they do accurately portray the Calvinist doctrine.


It be an honor if I could submit my whole being and do what Jesus did - to do 100% of the Father's will.... Was Jesus a puppet then? Naw...I believe Jesus had free will. He differentiated between His own will and the Father's will and chose to do the Father's will.

Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.


Seriously Eric, I see your view of the sovereignty of God has been tainted over the yearsNo, it has been clarified and made stronger over the years.


for all men think plan and do, yet God directs their path.He directs our paths but also requires us to choose whether to cooperate and follow His direction or not. Some do and some don't.


God is in control of all things, even you and your will. Yet you think, and write, and plan, and declare 'it is I, it's my will...' all while God let's us to do so. Yet biblical history is replete with examples whereas saved as well as unsaved men knew that they were in the hands of a sovereign God... God uses all men to forward His will. Some for honor, some for common.

So God doesn't chose, man does; God doesn't force, man does. God wills. He purposes. He directs.

You believe and call it your own; I believe and call it a miracle of faith, for once being blind to the truth of the Gospel, on that one day in August of 1971 He opened my eyes to see the Gospel again as I never saw it before. And from that day, in study, can look back and see it is what God purposed to do in my life.

To God be the Glory, great things He hath done!What God are you referring to? A God that cares about you and gave you faith but withholds it from your unbelieving neighbor? A God who doesn't love the world as John 3:16 says He does, but just loves some and hates the rest? Where does scripture teach that God is partial rather than impartial?

keyzer soze
Jan 25th 2012, 10:11 PM
What God are you referring to? A God that cares about you and gave you faith but withholds it from your unbelieving neighbor? A God who doesn't love the world as John 3:16 says He does, but just loves some and hates the rest? Where does scripture teach that God is partial rather than impartial?

POST #31

fifteen chars

John Zain
Jan 25th 2012, 10:34 PM
John, I didn’t say you didn’t understand what the verses meant.
I said if you understand the Bible as a whole the election verses become.
Something else that I don't understand ... your 2 sentences above.

Everyone uses verses such as John 3:16 (standing alone) all the time for all kinds of uses.

So, I'll use Ephesians 2:8-9 standing alone ... because it's simple and self-explanatory.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8-9

This letter was written only to the faithful saints in the church at Ephesus.

The beginning of Chapter 2 agrees with my post #39.
Paul says they were spiritually dead because of Satan, but God quickened them (made them spiritually alive).
Then they wouldn't see the gospel as "foolishness" any more.

In 2:8-9, Paul tells them HOW they came to be saved.
He says their FAITH was a gift from God, and it was only God's grace which caused this.
So, God's GRACE was a gift from God as well.
Everything's a gift from God, even the gifts you were born with. It's as simple as that.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 26th 2012, 12:23 AM
Your doctrine does because it says God causes people to believe and they have no choice to do otherwise. That's a case of forcing people to believe.

Oh my brother, no no no.... God doesn't cause, He purposes.... Why can't you see that your choice and His purpose be equal? No one forced you to believe in as much as no one forced you to reply to my last post.... But God in His sovereignty is still sovereign over both.




No.

Weren't you? Does that mean it was possible for you to reject Christ? I believe it was, but you don't believe that.

I wasn't saved until I was 14... But in learning and reading his word, I was saved before the foundation of the world... To God I was destined, to me I came unknowing, on my own, in my own strength, without doctrines.... and later find that He was the one working within me to believe.


Could you have chosen to not come to the cross on your knees? If not then how can you try to tell me that you are not basically forced to do so?

Here's the beauty of my testimony... it's my testimony. I chose Christ after hearing the Gospel again for the the first time, but this time was my spiritual birth day, whereas His Spirit changed my heart in faith. No forcing, no coercing, no puppetry.... HOWEVER... I now see not only my sin that was before God, but now see Him saving me, not me saving myself... He found me, He bought me, He redeemed me, for His good pleasure and to my well being.



We all are according to your doctrine. I know you don't like the word "force" or "puppet" to be associated with your doctrine but they do accurately portray the Calvinist doctrine.


Sorry, but that is being supplied by your understandings... No God sovereigntist that I know would declare we are God's puppets, only folks who are misinformed to the wonders of the omnipotence of Christ. God is in all things, cause all things, for by His word it is and becomes and is sustained. The bible is also a book of prophecy, for it declares the will of God before man and before it happens, because He is God, He is above all things... You plan and do and think, yet each is within the hand of God. No way around it.



I believe Jesus had free will. He differentiated between His own will and the Father's will and chose to do the Father's will.

Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.


I understand and agree, yet Jesus acknowledged that as a Man, He also is under God's will.




No, it has been clarified and made stronger over the years.

He directs our paths but also requires us to choose whether to cooperate and follow His direction or not. Some do and some don't.

What God are you referring to? A God that cares about you and gave you faith but withholds it from your unbelieving neighbor? A God who doesn't love the world as John 3:16 says He does, but just loves some and hates the rest? Where does scripture teach that God is partial rather than impartial?

God's will has no room for condition... A man's involvement will either be cognitive to the will of God or not... yet God's will is done.

If God loves all men as you are declaring, then why would he allow others to die in sin for not their choice of believing.... by your logic, it is equal to say that His love doesn't save those who do not choose. Your decry is not against me then, it's against God... for if God has no justice for those who do not believe in Christ, is He then unfair as to not love them as He loves the whole world? So be fair then Eric, If God loves the whole world, then all peoples everywhere are save by His love, even if they didn't choose to be.

But I say He does love all people, yet all people rejected Him. Thus He sent His only Son to tell them, yet we killed Him. Thus by His Spirit He saves those who will believe, and those who believe have been born of the Spirit. God's will is God's will, not man's interpretation as to what it should or would be....

And God is not withholding faith from my neighbor, for I testify to them as I do to you that God loves them... They have every opportunity to believe, and I have every opportunity to witness and live as God has called me to live. So I don't know when or if they will believe, I trust God for the saving, that's His job, not mine.... Mine is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You keep missing the point.... man is accountable.... God is Sovereign in all things.... Both can and do exist. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

God is sovereign in all things, for

Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps.

I didn't write it, God did... I just happen to be the mailman delivering the news to your door.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2012, 03:09 AM
Originally Posted by Butch5
John, I didn’t say you didn’t understand what the verses meant.
I said if you understand the Bible as a whole the election verses become.


Something else that I don't understand ... your 2 sentences above

It’s possible to understand what the individual verses mean but still not understand what is being said because they are not understood in the large context. The passage you quoted is a good example. Paul said, you have been saved by grace through faith and not of works. So, you understand that salvation is not of works. You understand the individual passages correctly. However, you then interpret them in a modern context and “NOT” the context in which they were written. By doing this you define works as something we do, however, in context of Paul’s letter it becomes clear that he is actually saying you are saved by grace through faith and not by works of the Mosaic Law. The context is Christ joining the Jew and the Gentile by abolishing the Mosaic Law and thus doing away with the keeping of the Law.
The same thing happens with the election verses.



Everyone uses verses such as John 3:16 (standing alone) all the time for all kinds of uses.

So, I'll use Ephesians 2:8-9 standing alone ... because it's simple and self-explanatory.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;
it is the gift of God, not of works (anything you do), lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8-9


John, just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s right. That’s like saying everyone jumps off the bridge so I’m going to do it. What they do is called proof-texting. It’s taking a passage out of the context in which it was written and giving it your own meaning. We can “NEVER” expect to find the truth of Scripture that way. Jesus and the apostles didn’t just sit down and write random statement. Ephesians 2:8 is part of a larger thought. Paul is writing an entire letter and builds on it throughout. He has a starting point and a conclusion and everything in between builds on that. Randomly snatching a sentence or two out of the larger though and saying see it says this is not only wrong but leads to erroneous conclusions.


This letter was written only to the faithful saints in the church at Ephesus.

The beginning of Chapter 2 agrees with my post #39.
Paul says they were spiritually dead because of Satan, but God quickened them (made them spiritually alive).
Then they wouldn't see the gospel as "foolishness" any more.

That’s not what he says, that’s been imposed on the Scriptures. If you have computer Bible software do a search for spiritual death. You won’t find a single verse of Scripture that says anyone is spiritually dead. Dead in trespasses and sins is a metaphor. Paul uses death as metaphor throughout his writings.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. {freed: Gr. justified}
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: (Rom 6:4-8 KJV)

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. (Rom 6:11-13 KJV)

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
(Rom 7:9-13 KJV)

Here Paul says he was alive and then dead and then alive again. Surely he wasn’t spiritually alive and then spiritually and then spiritually alive again? It’s a metaphor just like in Ephesians 2. Like I said do the computer search. If you don’t have any software you can download esword or The Word for free and search them. You won’t find anything that says man is spiritually dead.


In 2:8-9, Paul tells them HOW they came to be saved.
He says their FAITH was a gift from God, and it was only God's grace which caused this.
So, God's GRACE was a gift from God as well.
Everything's a gift from God, even the gifts you were born with. It's as simple as that.

John, you can’t just make statements and expect that to be that. The subject of Ephesians 2:8 is “saved,” it is the gift of God. By grace through faith explains how they were saved.
John, according to the Greek the gift is “This”. The Greek word for gift is in the neuter gender, the only other word in the sentence that is in the neuter gender is “This” they have to match. Grace and faith are in the feminine gender and saved is in the masculine gender. There are some that argue for it to be faith but I don’t think that argument is very strong. He starts out you have been saved, so that is the subject, it is the “this” is the gift of God.

John146
Jan 26th 2012, 07:51 PM
POST #31This verse was quoted in that post:

Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

I assume you probably interpret this as if it says God purposely creates some people to be wicked?

Here is the verse which follows that one:

5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

If Prov 16:4 was saying that God creates people to be wicked then why would they be an abomination to Him and why would they be punished? How does it make any sense for Him to punish people for being how He made them to be? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you behave the way God wants you to, that's called obedience. He doesn't punish obedient people, He punishes disobedient people. So, if you think that verse says that God purposely creates some people to be wicked then you are mistaken.

Here is the verse from the NIV: 4 The LORD works out everything to its proper end—even the wicked for a day of disaster.

I think this is a better translation and lines up much better with the rest of scripture. When read this way it's simply saying the same thing that Peter said here:

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This speaks of the day of disaster that God has appointed for the wicked. It doesn't mean He made the wicked in the first place, it means He will give the wicked their proper punishment in the end.

John146
Jan 26th 2012, 08:30 PM
Oh my brother, no no no....Yes yes yes.


God doesn't cause, He purposes....What is the difference?


Why can't you see that your choice and His purpose be equal?Because that isn't true. I can choose to accept or reject His purpose for me.


No one forced you to believe in as much as no one forced you to reply to my last post.... But God in His sovereignty is still sovereign over both.If I'm not forced to believe then it wasn't a guarantee that I would believe and was possible that I would never believe.


I wasn't saved until I was 14... But in learning and reading his word, I was saved before the foundation of the world... To God I was destined, to me I came unknowing, on my own, in my own strength, without doctrines.... and later find that He was the one working within me to believe.That's force. You had no choice but to believe because God made you believe. I don't believe scripture teaches such a thing at all.


Here's the beauty of my testimony... it's my testimony. I chose Christ after hearing the Gospel again for the the first time, but this time was my spiritual birth day, whereas His Spirit changed my heart in faith. No forcing, no coercing, no puppetry....If He changed your heart so that you would believe then that means He forced you to believe. Could you have decided not to believe at that point? If not then that would mean you were forced to believe whether you acknowledge it or not.


HOWEVER... I now see not only my sin that was before God, but now see Him saving me, not me saving myself... He found me, He bought me, He redeemed me, for His good pleasure and to my well being.So, why would He save you and not your unbelieving neighbor? Is he a respecter of persons?


Sorry, but that is being supplied by your understandings... No God sovereigntist that I know would declare we are God's puppetsBut that's what your doctrine teaches whether you acknowledge it or not. Your doctrine says that whether or not a person believes is entirely up to God so if a person believes they do because God pulled their strings so that they would believe. Your understanding of God's relation to man is no different than a puppet master's relation to his puppets.


only folks who are misinformed to the wonders of the omnipotence of Christ. God is in all things, cause all things, for by His word it is and becomes and is sustained. The bible is also a book of prophecy, for it declares the will of God before man and before it happens, because He is God, He is above all things... You plan and do and think, yet each is within the hand of God. No way around it. If that was true then that would mean every time a rape or murder occurs it was God's will for that to happen. And that is nonsense.


God's will has no room for condition... A man's involvement will either be cognitive to the will of God or not... yet God's will is done. You have to differentiate between God's will and His desires. His will can't be resisted, but His desires can. Here is an example where His desires were resisted:

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Clearly, it was His desire to "have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings" and yet He didn't do it because they were not willing. It was His will to allow them to have the freedom to choose to be willing to accept Christ or not and because of that it was possible for His desires to be thwarted.


If God loves all men as you are declaring, then why would he allow others to die in sin for not their choice of believing....Because He doesn't want to force anyone to believe. The following clearly shows that He does not want the wicked to die in their wickedness and would rather they turn from their wickedness:

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

According to your doctrine God wants the wicked to die in their wickedness and He has no desire for them to turn from their wicked ways. But that contradicts scripture.


by your logic, it is equal to say that His love doesn't save those who do not choose. Your decry is not against me then, it's against God...for if God has no justice for those who do not believe in Christ, is He then unfair as to not love them as He loves the whole world? So be fair then Eric, If God loves the whole world, then all peoples everywhere are save by His love, even if they didn't choose to be.You're not making any sense here at all. I don't see why God loving the whole world means the whole world should be saved. He did all He needed to do to make the way for salvation but He isn't going to force anyone to believe in His Son. He wants people to choose to believe willingly.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

In your doctrine people aren't required to willingly take/accept anything because God just gives it to them. So, your doctrine once again contradicts scripture.


But I say He does love all people, yet all people rejected Him.No, some accept Him and some reject Him.


And God is not withholding faith from my neighbor, for I testify to them as I do to you that God loves them... They have every opportunity to believe, and I have every opportunity to witness and live as God has called me to live. So I don't know when or if they will believe, I trust God for the saving, that's His job, not mine.... Mine is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If your unbelieving neighbor never believes until the day he dies then would you still say he had every opportunity to believe? I don't see how you could say that if whether or not he believes is entirely up to God.


You keep missing the point.... man is accountable.... God is Sovereign in all things.... Both can and do exist. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so.LOL. Who said I don't understand it? You certainly aren't the one to decide who does or doesn't understand things. How and why exactly is man accountable then? And what is man accountable for?


God is sovereign in all things, for

Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps.

I didn't write it, God did... I just happen to be the mailman delivering the news to your door.I don't need you to be my mailman. You are delivering junk mail as far as I'm concerned. What is your interpretation of that verse? It is not saying that God controls everything that man does. Look at what was written a bit earlier in the chapter:

Prov 16:3 Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

What if someone does not commit their works unto the Lord? Is He still going to direct that person's steps? No. In Romans 8:28 it says God works for the good for those who love Him. What if a person doesn't love God ? Is He going to work for their good? Not necessarily. You think that God always just controls everything without ever requiring any cooperation from man but that is not the case. He has plans for us but He wants us to willingly submit to His plans and He requires us to do that. I can willingly decide to do something for the Lord, but I don't want to just rely on myself to do it, I want Him to direct me in how to do it according to His will. And if I trust Him to do that, He will. But what if I don't? Will He still direct my steps? No. He's not a puppet master. He does not just pull our strings, He requires us to submit to Him willingly.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 26th 2012, 09:09 PM
Yes yes yes.

What is the difference?

Because that isn't true. I can choose to accept or reject His purpose for me.

If I'm not forced to believe then it wasn't a guarantee that I would believe and was possible that I would never believe.

That's force. You had no choice but to believe because God made you believe. I don't believe scripture teaches such a thing at all.

If He changed your heart so that you would believe then that means He forced you to believe. Could you have decided not to believe at that point? If not then that would mean you were forced to believe whether you acknowledge it or not.

So, why would He save you and not your unbelieving neighbor? Is he a respecter of persons?

But that's what your doctrine teaches whether you acknowledge it or not. Your doctrine says that whether or not a person believes is entirely up to God so if a person believes they do because God pulled their strings so that they would believe. Your understanding of God's relation to man is no different than a puppet master's relation to his puppets.

If that was true then that would mean every time a rape or murder occurs it was God's will for that to happen. And that is nonsense.

You have to differentiate between God's will and His desires. His will can't be resisted, but His desires can. Here is an example where His desires were resisted:

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Clearly, it was His desire to "have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings" and yet He didn't do it because they were not willing. It was His will to allow them to have the freedom to choose to be willing to accept Christ or not and because of that it was possible for His desires to be thwarted.

Because He doesn't want to force anyone to believe. The following clearly shows that He does not want the wicked to die in their wickedness and would rather they turn from their wickedness:

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

According to your doctrine God wants the wicked to die in their wickedness and He has no desire for them to turn from their wicked ways. But that contradicts scripture.

You're not making any sense here at all. I don't see why God loving the whole world means the whole world should be saved. He did all He needed to do to make the way for salvation but He isn't going to force anyone to believe in His Son. He wants people to choose to believe willingly.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

In your doctrine people aren't required to willingly take/accept anything because God just gives it to them. So, your doctrine once again contradicts scripture.

No, some accept Him and some reject Him.

If your unbelieving neighbor never believes until the day he dies then would you still say he had every opportunity to believe? I don't see how you could say that if whether or not he believes is entirely up to God.

LOL. Who said I don't understand it? You certainly aren't the one to decide who does or doesn't understand things. How and why exactly is man accountable then? And what is man accountable for?

I don't need you to be my mailman. You are delivering junk mail as far as I'm concerned. What is your interpretation of that verse? It is not saying that God controls everything that man does. Look at what was written a bit earlier in the chapter:

Prov 16:3 Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

What if someone does not commit their works unto the Lord? Is He still going to direct that person's steps? No. In Romans 8:28 it says God works for the good for those who love Him. What if a person doesn't love God ? Is He going to work for their good? Not necessarily. You think that God always just controls everything without ever requiring any cooperation from man but that is not the case. He has plans for us but He wants us to willingly submit to His plans and He requires us to do that. I can willingly decide to do something for the Lord, but I don't want to just rely on myself to do it, I want Him to direct me in how to do it according to His will. And if I trust Him to do that, He will. But what if I don't? Will He still direct my steps? No. He's not a puppet master. He does not just pull our strings, He requires us to submit to Him willingly.

One question in reply then... Is God sovereign over all things? By your answers you are emphatically stating, no He is not, but wanted to give you opportunity to correct my read.

John Zain
Jan 26th 2012, 09:25 PM
You won’t find anything that says man is spiritually dead.
Your problem is becoming abundantly clear.
E.G. you don't see that Scripture teaches EVERYWHERE that normal unsaved man is
"spiritually dead", which is my terminology for what Scripture clearly teaches.
Sorry, if you don't care for my terminology.

Gee, if you were God, no paraphrased Bibles would be allowed to be published.
E.G. The Living Bible has been of great benefit to many.
Benefit? Who cares about benefit?

John146
Jan 26th 2012, 10:02 PM
One question in reply then... Is God sovereign over all things? By your answers you are emphatically stating, no He is not, but wanted to give you opportunity to correct my read.Tell me what you mean by that exactly and then I will answer your question. There is more than one definition for the word "sovereign" so I need to know which definition you are using.

John146
Jan 26th 2012, 10:16 PM
Your problem is becoming abundantly clear.
E.G. you don't see that Scripture teaches EVERYWHERE that normal unsaved man is
"spiritually dead", which is my terminology for what Scripture clearly teaches.
Sorry, if you don't care for my terminology.

Gee, if you were God, no paraphrased Bibles would be allowed to be published.
E.G. The Living Bible has been of great benefit to many.
Benefit? Who cares about benefit?The terminology isn't all that important. The question is, what do you think it means for man to be what you call "spiritually dead" or what scripture describes as being dead in sins (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13)? In another sense sinners are spiritually sick rather than spiritually dead.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

John Zain
Jan 26th 2012, 11:12 PM
what do you think it means for man to be what you call "spiritually dead"
or what scripture describes as being dead in sins (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13)?
The whole of Scripture teaches that since the fall of man in the Garden,
man obtained(*) a sin nature and has passed this on generation after generation
(please refer to the threads on "original sin".)
Because of man's sin nature, he naturally sins.
And sin produces spiritual death (Romans 5), i.e. separation from God.

Because of this, God spent 1500 years proving that man cannot possibly satisfy His holiness,
and He did this through His specially chosen and coddled people, the tiny nation of Israel.

This is fundamental Christianity.

(*) passed on through man's sperm, which (I have to guess) God tainted
... that's why the immaculate conception was necessary

shepherdsword
Jan 26th 2012, 11:25 PM
I now agree with the Augustinian View of Predestination/Election

Sorry to see you fall into that deception. Augustine was a Manichaean for at least nine years before he entered the priesthood of the Roman Catholic church. Certain tenets of the sect were never purified from his theology and he was the originator of the predestination doctrine. It was never taught by the Apostles or the ECFs but some try to wrest Pauls words to make it appear so.

John Zain
Jan 26th 2012, 11:34 PM
Sorry to see you fall into that deception. Augustine was a Manichaean for at least nine years before he entered the priesthood of the Roman Catholic church. Certain tenets of the sect were never purified from his theology and he was the originator of the predestination doctrine. It was never taught by the Apostles or the ECFs but some try to wrest Pauls words to make it appear so.
Gee, lots of people have had lots of time to correct lots of people's erroneous theology.
Me, I've not read lots of people's theology. All I've read really is the word.
And The Holy Spirit in me has revealed lots of its' meanings.
Why anyone would spend much time studying the history of the church is quite beyond me.
Who needs anyone/anything other than the Holy Spirit for important spiritual information?

What do you understand the predestination/election verses to mean?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 26th 2012, 11:47 PM
Tell me what you mean by that exactly and then I will answer your question. There is more than one definition for the word "sovereign" so I need to know which definition you are using.

100% in all things and in all ways.

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 12:13 AM
Me, I've not read lots of people's theology. All I've read really is the word.
How then, would you have any idea what Augustine's view was?

W :hmm:

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 27th 2012, 01:28 AM
Me, I've not read lots of people's theology. All I've read really is the word.

How then, would you have any idea what Augustine's view was?

W :hmm:

Howdy W,

As I read JZ, I think he's saying he's read some, but not all..... so there might be a miss applied assumption that he hasn't read works from Augustine.... But none-the less, is he's read the bible and claims that his position is derived from the bible and not to another. FWIW.

keyzer soze
Jan 27th 2012, 02:05 AM
john146, what do you think the verse you referenced means? And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his.

if God has no control over those with free-will, what does this mean? what exactly is God working on doing? if God is not sovereign over everything how can i trust that verse?

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 02:36 AM
Howdy W,

As I read JZ, I think he's saying he's read some, but not all..... so there might be a miss applied assumption that he hasn't read works from Augustine.... But none-the less, is he's read the bible and claims that his position is derived from the bible and not to another. FWIW.
Hi Redeemed by Grace,

Actually, he's saying the Holy Spirit taught him that doctrine...and I strongly disagree with that; however, after many, many rodeos with this topic, it is one I'll stay on the periphery of...simply because I've yet to see anyone edified by debating it.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Butch5
Jan 27th 2012, 03:56 AM
Your problem is becoming abundantly clear.
E.G. you don't see that Scripture teaches EVERYWHERE that normal unsaved man is
"spiritually dead", which is my terminology for what Scripture clearly teaches.
Sorry, if you don't care for my terminology.

Gee, if you were God, no paraphrased Bibles would be allowed to be published.
E.G. The Living Bible has been of great benefit to many.
Benefit? Who cares about benefit?

John, Spiritual death in not your terminology, it's typical Christian speak. However, please show me where this is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Show me anything that teaches this, not something that you are imposing on the text. You see, this is what happens, a Christian is taught that people are spiritually dead, then he is shown passages such as Ephesians 2:1 and told that this means man is spiritually dead. Once the idea is implanted then the Scriptures are filtered through that idea. However, in reality, the Scriptures say no such thing. I've shown how Paul repeatedly uses death as metaphor. Ephesians 2:1 says nothing at all about a spirit and if you do that search I suggested you'll find that none of the other passages do either. Man being spiritually dead is just a Calvinistic teaching used to support erroneous doctrines. Please, I'm serious, please, show me where the Scriptures teach that man is spiritually dead.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 27th 2012, 04:24 AM
Hi Redeemed by Grace,

Actually, he's saying the Holy Spirit taught him that doctrine...and I strongly disagree with that; however, after many, many rodeos with this topic, it is one I'll stay on the periphery of...simply because I've yet to see anyone edified by debating it.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Howdy Back Watchman,

Well actually, there is a biblical basis for saying that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit the truth found within the word.... Paul's letters to the Corinthians makes a strong case for a believer having the Mind of Christ [the Word] being taught through the Spirit who indwells a believer.

The augment I saw you raise was not the doctrines he is declaring but that he hasn't studied much of other people's theology, for which you replied... "How then, would you have any idea what Augustine's view was?"

So my comment was to this short discourse between you re studying the doctrines of others than it was and not about the OP per se. The conclusion I draw is he has -- but not much... so unless he declares otherwise, I think the whole premise is that he has read Augustine's writings and is now offering his position.

But again... it might be a bit trite of me... so my apologies for stepping in, but I do thank you for your reply.

Blessings,

RbG

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 05:19 AM
As you probably surmise, I'm very comfortable with ...
God's total and absolute predestination and election (with man having absolutely nothing to do with the choice).

However, I also feel that man perhaps can/may choose to reject this election (at any point in time).
Or further, he can/may choose to walk away from it (after many years, for example).
But, then we must deal with Romans 8:28-30.
And that's why feelings, etc. are no good in these matters.

What sayest thou to this?

I don't really care which side of the fence you're on, because the Calvi/Armi debate is a monumental false dichotomy; but you certainly are straddling the barbed wire with this post.

You need a whole bottle of Aunt Jemima for this waffle. ROFLOL.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 05:43 AM
Man is neither "totally" depraved nor has "free" will.

A Calvinist needs to explain exactly how man's God-breathed spirit is depraved and then returns to God at physical death. And God's sovereign creation and operation of evil.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 05:49 AM
We are saved by "faith through grace." Why do we have faith? Is it given from God as well? Hmm...

Perhaps you meant to quote scripture and say, "by grace through faith". Faith cometh by hearing... Does God hear for us?

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 03:41 PM
One question in reply then... Is God sovereign over all things? By your answers you are emphatically stating, no He is not, but wanted to give you opportunity to correct my read.
Tell me what you mean by that exactly and then I will answer your question. There is more than one definition for the word "sovereign" so I need to know which definition you are using.100% in all things and in all ways.Can you be more specific? Are you saying you believe God controls everything that happens and/or that everything that happens is what He wants to happen? If so then I disagree.

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 03:45 PM
john146, what do you think the verse you referenced means? And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his.

if God has no control over those with free-will, what does this mean? what exactly is God working on doing? if God is not sovereign over everything how can i trust that verse?I think you must have missed the point I was making by referencing that verse. Does God just automatically work for people's good or are we required to love Him in order for Him to work for our good? What about those who don't love Him? Does it say He works for their good, too? Are we not responsible to love God? How does one love God except by willingly choosing to love Him? Love can't be forced.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 27th 2012, 04:42 PM
Can you be more specific? Are you saying you believe God controls everything that happens and/or that everything that happens is what He wants to happen? If so then I disagree.

I am stating that there is nothing, Nada, zip, that happens outside of God's will... Nothing takes Him by surprise, there is no Plan B. Every thought you have - He knows... And being timeless, He knows it before you think it. There is no place you could go and He not only be there, but knew why you went there... And yes... you being there is because of God's will then.

In all things and in always, God is sovereign. All that you are, all that you will be... is because of the sovereign will of God. You may have had a plan B in life, or even a Plan E, but to God, everything that is past happened as God has planned. Thy will be done, and it will be done.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 05:10 PM
So... God sovereignly willed every adulterous thought I've ever had.

Yippee!!!! I'm no longer responsible. I can become Antinomian. :-P

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 27th 2012, 06:02 PM
So... God sovereignly willed every adulterous thought I've ever had.

He didn't will as He much as He knows




Yippee!!!! I'm no longer responsible. I can become Antinomian. :-P

Says who? So you think God does not know your heart? Should He stop you? Really, your sarcasm affronts not me as much as it does a holy God. What in your past surprised God? The time you stole, the time you lied, cheated, eh? Do you think when you did.... it was only then than God knew? Yo Abemelech, PPS needs you to chime in about God stopping you from sinning...

Then name one thing that God is not sovereign to?

Butch5
Jan 27th 2012, 06:04 PM
I am stating that there is nothing, Nada, zip, that happens outside of God's will... Nothing takes Him by surprise, there is no Plan B. Every thought you have - He knows... And being timeless, He knows it before you think it. There is no place you could go and He not only be there, but knew why you went there... And yes... you being there is because of God's will then.

In all things and in always, God is sovereign. All that you are, all that you will be... is because of the sovereign will of God. You may have had a plan B in life, or even a Plan E, but to God, everything that is past happened as God has planned. Thy will be done, and it will be done.

Hi RBG,

What you've described here is not sovereignty. God knowing all things and not being taken by surprise is not sovereignty, it's omniscience. Just because God knows something doesn't mean he approves of or is the cause of it.

Also, you quoted Jesus words, thy will be done. He finished that by saying, on earth as it is in heaven. Are you suggesting that God's will is done on earth now as it is in heaven? Jesus' words imply that God's will was not being don on earth as it is in heaven, thus the need for the prayer. If you believe God's will is done on earth, how do you explain Jesus' words? The Scriptures make it clear that God's will is not always done on earth.

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 06:23 PM
I am stating that there is nothing, Nada, zip, that happens outside of God's will... Nothing takes Him by surprise, there is no Plan B. Every thought you have - He knows... And being timeless, He knows it before you think it. There is no place you could go and He not only be there, but knew why you went there... And yes... you being there is because of God's will then.

In all things and in always, God is sovereign. All that you are, all that you will be... is because of the sovereign will of God. You may have had a plan B in life, or even a Plan E, but to God, everything that is past happened as God has planned. Thy will be done, and it will be done.Thanks for clarifying your view. Unfortunately for you, it is not biblical. If I'm understanding you correctly then you would say that if a wicked person (unbeliever) never repents and then dies it was God's will/desire for that to happen. But scripture teaches otherwise.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

In your view God would take pleasure in the death of the wicked because their death would be His will. And, according to your view, it would not have been His desire for them to have turned from their wickedness before having died. But God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and He instead wants them to turn from their wickedness before it's too late. How do you reconcile a verse like this and other verses which teach that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.)?

In your view the wicked are merely doing what God planned for them to do so for what reason would their behavior grieve Him and make Him angry enough to destroy them (Gen 6:5-7) and eventually have them cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-15)? If they had no ability to be anything but wicked because that was God's will for them then why would God punish them? That does not make any sense.

And if God's will/desire is always done then how do you explain passages like this:

Matt 23:37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Here, Jesus clearly says what He wanted to do for the Jews but He didn't do it because they "would not". They were not willing. It wasn't because He wasn't willing, it was because they were not willing. So, how was God's will/desire done here? It wasn't. But you say it always is. Passages like this prove that to be false.

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 07:37 PM
Well actually, there is a biblical basis for saying that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit the truth found within the word.... Paul's letters to the Corinthians makes a strong case for a believer having the Mind of Christ [the Word] being taught through the Spirit who indwells a believer.
Absolutely, RbG! We are one spirit with the Lord, and we do have the mind of Christ...yet that doesn't preclude error. One should be very, very careful about saying, "the Holy Spirit taught me this." i personally know many folks who make this claim...and who are incorrect.

blessings,

W :)

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 07:41 PM
Spiritual death in not your terminology, it's typical Christian speak. However, please show me where this is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Show me anything that teaches this, not something that you are imposing on the text. You see, this is what happens, a Christian is taught that people are spiritually dead, then he is shown passages such as Ephesians 2:1 and told that this means man is spiritually dead. Once the idea is implanted then the Scriptures are filtered through that idea. However, in reality, the Scriptures say no such thing. I've shown how Paul repeatedly uses death as metaphor. Ephesians 2:1 says nothing at all about a spirit and if you do that search I suggested you'll find that none of the other passages do either.
While I disagree with much John Z has written, the spiritual death of which he speaks is true and real. Death is separation from life, and Jesus is the way, truth, and life. We are dead apart from Christ, yet we walk around and function physically, mentally, emotionally, and willfully. So spiritually dead must mean something entirely different. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Those who do not have the Holy Spirit resident within them are not His...they are separated from Life Himself; consequently, they are spiritually dead. Those who are alive are united with the Lord and are one spirit with Him.

blessings,

Watchman :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 07:45 PM
He didn't will as He much as He knows

But you said God wills everything. Knowing is the foreknowledge of omniscience, not sovereignty or exclusive volitional preterminant election.


Says who? So you think God does not know your heart? Should He stop you? Really, your sarcasm affronts not me as much as it does a holy God. What in your past surprised God? The time you stole, the time you lied, cheated, eh? Do you think when you did.... it was only then than God knew? Yo Abemelech, PPS needs you to chime in about God stopping you from sinning...

I should better remember you being averse to sarcasm, so my apologies. It was more for shock value to enable whomever to see the silliness that these doctrines inevitably lead to.

There's no avoiding God being the causal source of all evil and sin at some point of some degree of reformed theology. I was an Amyraldist (4-pointer) for many years and had to abandon it when I began understanding man's constitution.


Then name one thing that God is not sovereign to?

Wrong question, but nothing. Sovereignty isn't double-throw-down predestination. Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God.

I'm neither... Truly. Not just a reluctant Arminian in delusion of neutrality. I actually lean toward reformed.

To clarify... Man cannot initiate or effect his own salvation. Faith cometh by hearing. Does God hear for us?

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 07:46 PM
In your view the wicked are merely doing what God planned for them to do...
Does God's will = His planning? Is it possible that God willed that man would possess the freedom of choice and that He willed that those who accepted His choosing of them would live with Him eternally...and everyone who did not accept His choosing of them would be eternally annihilated? I do not believe God ever planned for someone to do wrong...yet I believe He gave them the freedom to do so, and to suffer the consequences. He may have assisted them, after their choice, by hardening their hearts...but that does not mean He planned for them to sin, does it?

W :)

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 07:52 PM
Faith cometh by hearing. Does God hear for us?
Faith comes from instruction, and instruction from the Word of Christ. No one comes to Christ unless they are drawn by our Father...who uses instruction to draw them. But that doesn't make it a slam dunk. We must choose to accept His drawing, His instruction...else we are unbelievers. Choose this day whom you shall serve.

W :)

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 27th 2012, 08:39 PM
But you said God wills everything.

No... I am stating that God is sovereign in all things... thus to man, all that happened yesterday happened under the sovereign will of God. I never stated that God made them sin at all, but He does use the sin of man within His will.... for all things happen for good to those who love Him.




Knowing is the foreknowledge of omniscience, not sovereignty or exclusive volitional preterminant election.

Er, did you read what you wrote... do you see what you are agreeing to. So you think man's future actions are outside of God's sovereignty. Did not God declare the future of the Messiah coming? Did He not declare how Jesus would be born, how He would be betrayed, and how He would die.... before those men were even created? [More than just foreknowledge, but is prophesy...] Did God not use those future sins of men yet created to accomplish His will... I'll give you a mulligan if you want to restate your thought here.




I should better remember you being averse to sarcasm, so my apologies. It was more for shock value to enable whomever to see the silliness that these doctrines inevitably lead to.

Sarcasm has it's place, but I've never seen it used between brothers in edification or correction and it was done well... Most times it comes across as condescending.



There's no avoiding God being the causal source of all evil and sin at some point of some degree of reformed theology. I was an Amyraldist (4-pointer) for many years and had to abandon it when I began understanding man's constitution.

As a God Sovereigntist, I see scriptures declaring that all things were made for Him, by Him and in Him, so as man thinks and plans and does, he still is under the will of God. God is not sin, does not sin.... but uses sin to accomplish His will.




Wrong question, but nothing. Sovereignty isn't double-throw-down predestination. Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God.


My experience would argue that Armenian theology limits God somewhere, for man's will trumps God's when it comes to having faith, as I have discussed here over the years. So tell me that God is Sovereign in all things in Arminian theology, without condition and I'd be shocked.



I'm neither... Truly. Not just a reluctant Arminian in delusion of neutrality. I actually lean toward reformed.

To clarify... Man cannot initiate or effect his own salvation. Faith cometh by hearing. Does God hear for us?

In part --- not the audio hearing, but the ability to hear [discern]. So I don't mean the audio controls but the logic controls, for His Spirit must first tune the channel of the heart to the station being broadcasted and when heard, it clicks now and makes sense... What I'm saying then either makes sense or it doesn't... Many hear the gospel week after week and nothing happens, not clicks, nothing changes... then one day they hear the Gospel again as it was like for the first time and .... BAM.... connection. That is the day God destined them to realize the Gospel into themselves. Nicodemus had the same problem at first, but Jesus gave him the process and showed him how God moves on hearts in faith.

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 08:43 PM
My experience would argue that Armenian theology limits God somewhere...
What place does God limiting Himself occupy? We know He voluntarily did so in the person of Jesus.

W :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 09:03 PM
Does God's will = His planning? Is it possible that God willed that man would possess the freedom of choice and that He willed that those who accepted His choosing of them would live with Him eternally...and everyone who did not accept His choosing of them would be eternally annihilated? I do not believe God ever planned for someone to do wrong...yet I believe He gave them the freedom to do so, and to suffer the consequences. He may have assisted them, after their choice, by hardening their hearts...but that does not mean He planned for them to sin, does it?

W :)

God monergistically pretermined salvation for mankind and synergistic response by individuals.

keyzer soze
Jan 27th 2012, 09:06 PM
What do you think Jesus meant when he said: In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Do you think that refers only to the apostles?
When do you think Jesus starts the "preparing"?
If God is not sovereign over salvation then Jesus can't do this on a personal level which by the way is how I believe it. I believe that verse above can be applied to ALL BELIEVERS and Jesus doesn't have to wait for history to play out, he knows who will be saved and who will be lost and he will not be surprised.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 09:29 PM
No... I am stating that God is sovereign in all things... thus to man, all that happened yesterday happened under the sovereign will of God. I never stated that God made them sin at all, but He does use the sin of man within His will.... for all things happen for good to those who love Him.




Er, did you read what you wrote... do you see what you are agreeing to. So you think man's future actions are outside of God's sovereignty. Did not God declare the future of the Messiah coming? Did He not declare how Jesus would be born, how He would be betrayed, and how He would die.... before those men were even created? [More than just foreknowledge, but is prophesy...] Did God not use those future sins of men yet created to accomplish His will... I'll give you a mulligan if you want to restate your thought here.




Sarcasm has it's place, but I've never seen it used between brothers in edification or correction and it was done well... Most times it comes across as condescending.



As a God Sovereigntist, I see scriptures declaring that all things were made for Him, by Him and in Him, so as man thinks and plans and does, he still is under the will of God. God is not sin, does not sin.... but uses sin to accomplish His will.





My experience would argue that Armenian theology limits God somewhere, for man's will trumps God's when it comes to having faith, as I have discussed here over the years. So tell me that God is Sovereign in all things in Arminian theology, without condition and I'd be shocked.



In part --- not the audio hearing, but the ability to hear [discern]. So I don't mean the audio controls but the logic controls, for His Spirit must first tune the channel of the heart to the station being broadcasted and when heard, it clicks now and makes sense... What I'm saying then either makes sense or it doesn't... Many hear the gospel week after week and nothing happens, not clicks, nothing changes... then one day they hear the Gospel again as it was like for the first time and .... BAM.... connection. That is the day God destined them to realize the Gospel into themselves. Nicodemus had the same problem at first, but Jesus gave him the process and showed him how God moves on hearts in faith.

I've recently come to a significant place in my life and walk. I don't accept the reformed position beyond a certain point, and I see the whole debate as a needless and false dichotomy.

I think this topic is more divisive than it can ever be edifying. I'd prefer to leave it at that unless others are promoting extreme Calvinism or Pelagianism. Be blessed. You have a heart after God.

Sojourner
Jan 27th 2012, 09:44 PM
I've recently come to a significant place in my life and walk. I don't accept the reformed position beyond a certain point, and I see the whole debate as a needless and false dichotomy.

I think this topic is more divisive than it can ever be edifying. I'd prefer to leave it at that unless others are promoting extreme Calvinism or Pelagianism. Be blessed. You have a heart after God.
Yep. Pursuit of this debate--and a number of others on the board, is like trying to find the corner in a round room: round and round and round you go. ;)

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 09:49 PM
Is it possible that God willed that man would possess the freedom of choice and that He willed that those who accepted His choosing of them would live with Him eternally...and everyone who did not accept His choosing of them would be eternally annihilated?Sure, except I don't believe in annihilation and believe instead that the wicked will suffer eternal torment. But we don't need to get into that topic here. I believe it was God's will or plan to allow man to choose whether or not to accept His plan of salvation which obviously involved sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). And it was His will to make it so that whoever chose to accept His offer of salvation would be saved and have eternal life while those who reject His offer will be punished (again, I don't wish to discuss the nature of their punishment in any kind of detail in this thread).


I do not believe God ever planned for someone to do wrong...yet I believe He gave them the freedom to do so, and to suffer the consequences.I agree.


He may have assisted them, after their choice, by hardening their hearts...but that does not mean He planned for them to sin, does it?No, it does not.

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 09:59 PM
My experience would argue that Armenian theology limits God somewhere, for man's will trumps God's when it comes to having faith, as I have discussed here over the years. So tell me that God is Sovereign in all things in Arminian theology, without condition and I'd be shocked.He is sovereign in Arminian theology, at least as I understand it. Man has the freedom to choose because God decided to make it that way. It was His sovereign choice to make man responsible to choose. And His creatures are only able to do what He allows. That shows His sovereignty as well. Just because He allows people to make bad choices, even against His desires, doesn't make Him any less sovereign.

divaD
Jan 27th 2012, 10:03 PM
And it was His will to make it so that whoever chose to accept His offer of salvation would be saved and have eternal life while those who reject His offer will be punished

But this only seems to explain ones post Christ's resurrection. What about Noah's time for instance? The one's that perished in the flood, how did they reject the salvation made by Jesus when they weren't even aware of whom Jesus was one way or the other? And what about folks since Jesus' time, the ones that never heard of Jesus period? The point is, how can someone reject something they're not even aware of to begin with? What do you think happens to folks like that?

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 10:03 PM
What do you think Jesus meant when he said: In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Do you think that refers only to the apostles?
When do you think Jesus starts the "preparing"?
If God is not sovereign over salvation then Jesus can't do this on a personal level which by the way is how I believe it. I believe that verse above can be applied to ALL BELIEVERS and Jesus doesn't have to wait for history to play out, he knows who will be saved and who will be lost and he will not be surprised.Foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. I don't know why some people can't understand that.

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 10:09 PM
But this only seems to explain ones post Christ's resurrection. What about Noah's time for instance? The one's that perished in the flood, how did they reject the salvation made by Jesus when they weren't even aware of whom Jesus was one way or the other? And what about folks since Jesus' time, the ones that never heard of Jesus period? The point is, how can someone reject something they're not even aware of to begin with? What do you think happens to folks like that?If you start a new thread I will discuss those issues with you. But I don't want to derail this thread with those issues. In this thread I'm particularly interested in discussing whether those who have heard of Jesus and are capable of hearing the gospel and responding to it have the freedom to choose to accept or reject it or if it's all up to God as to whether they believe or not.

keyzer soze
Jan 27th 2012, 10:13 PM
He is sovereign in Arminian theology, at least as I understand it. Man has the freedom to choose because God decided to make it that way. It was His sovereign choice to make man responsible to choose. And His creatures are only able to do what He allows. That shows His sovereignty as well. Just because He allows people to make bad choices, even against His desires, doesn't make Him any less sovereign.

I don't get this... so even though he chooses to not be sovereign you are saying he still is?!?!?!

So if I choose to sell my house to someone else do I still own it because I chose to do so? I don't believe God can choose to be less then sovereign and then claim to be sovereign. If I choose to cut my leg off I don't get to claim to have 2 legs any longer even though I could have by choice....

John146
Jan 27th 2012, 10:14 PM
I don't ge this... so even though he chooses to not be sovereign you are saying he still is?!?!?!I don't get what you're saying either. Define the word "sovereign" as you understand it and then we'll go from there because I'm thinking your definition of the word doesn't match mine.

Butch5
Jan 27th 2012, 10:43 PM
While I disagree with much John Z has written, the spiritual death of which he speaks is true and real. Death is separation from life, and Jesus is the way, truth, and life. We are dead apart from Christ, yet we walk around and function physically, mentally, emotionally, and willfully. So spiritually dead must mean something entirely different. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Those who do not have the Holy Spirit resident within them are not His...they are separated from Life Himself; consequently, they are spiritually dead. Those who are alive are united with the Lord and are one spirit with Him.

blessings,

Watchman :)

While I agree with what you said here for the most part, what you're described is not spiritual death. It is as Paul tells the Ephesians, you were without Christ and God in the world. There is nothing in Scripture that says a man is spiritually dead. The Scriptures speak of a mans spirit being alive not dead.

KJV Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

KJV Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

KJV 1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

It would seem that the spirit of a man is alive and active. Where in Scripture would we find all men's spirits dying? These statements are after the fall so it couldn't be that. Paul uses death as a metaphor.

Butch5
Jan 27th 2012, 10:45 PM
I don't get this... so even though he chooses to not be sovereign you are saying he still is?!?!?!

So if I choose to sell my house to someone else do I still own it because I chose to do so? I don't believe God can choose to be less then sovereign and then claim to be sovereign. If I choose to cut my leg off I don't get to claim to have 2 legs any longer even though I could have by choice....

Keyzer, are you married?

Butch5
Jan 27th 2012, 10:51 PM
What do you think Jesus meant when he said: In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

Do you think that refers only to the apostles?
When do you think Jesus starts the "preparing"?
If God is not sovereign over salvation then Jesus can't do this on a personal level which by the way is how I believe it. I believe that verse above can be applied to ALL BELIEVERS and Jesus doesn't have to wait for history to play out, he knows who will be saved and who will be lost and he will not be surprised.

How would the apostles have understood Jesus' words? What did He mean by my Father's house?

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (Joh 2:13-17 KJV)

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 28th 2012, 12:23 AM
He is sovereign in Arminian theology, at least as I understand it. Man has the freedom to choose because God decided to make it that way. It was His sovereign choice to make man responsible to choose. And His creatures are only able to do what He allows. That shows His sovereignty as well. Just because He allows people to make bad choices, even against His desires, doesn't make Him any less sovereign.

So God is under restriction then?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 28th 2012, 12:26 AM
Foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. I don't know why some people can't understand that.


Why not? Was not God's will predetermined before the world was created?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 28th 2012, 12:31 AM
I've recently come to a significant place in my life and walk. I don't accept the reformed position beyond a certain point, and I see the whole debate as a needless and false dichotomy.

I think this topic is more divisive than it can ever be edifying. I'd prefer to leave it at that unless others are promoting extreme Calvinism or Pelagianism. Be blessed. You have a heart after God.

I agree about the mean spirit that usually comes between 'Christians' who hold counter understandings here, and greatly respect your comments with love and grace. Paul however does tell Timothy that all scriptures are for teaching, admonishing reproof, correction and edification, so done correctly, iron sharpens iron , done incorrectly is sin, IMO... so my brother thanks for keeping the love, blessings to you.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 28th 2012, 01:12 AM
I agree about the mean spirit that usually comes between 'Christians' who hold counter understandings here, and greatly respect your comments with love and grace. Paul however does tell Timothy that all scriptures are for teaching, admonishing reproof, correction and edification, so done correctly, iron sharpens iron , done incorrectly is sin, IMO... so my brother thanks for keeping the love, blessings to you.

I struggle to abstain more in the area of Godhead doctrine. In the end, the world will not know I'm His disciple by ANY doctrine.

I doubt you're participating in a Calvi/Armi thread to gather information to change your understanding. Lobbing rhetoric bombs gets ugly. There's ample scripture for multiple views by interpretation. I reject both sides of this debate, but see more HyperCalvinism than Pelagianism overall, so I take issue with that extreme most often. You seem to have a "softer" Wesleyan-esque approach.

I'll also mention having observed your exemplary standard of discourse over a long period of time.

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 02:06 AM
Foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. I don't know why some people can't understand that.
This is a most insightful statement!

W :)

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 28th 2012, 01:14 PM
I struggle to abstain more in the area of Godhead doctrine. In the end, the world will not know I'm His disciple by ANY doctrine.

I doubt you're participating in a Calvi/Armi thread to gather information to change your understanding. Lobbing rhetoric bombs gets ugly. There's ample scripture for multiple views by interpretation. I reject both sides of this debate, but see more HyperCalvinism than Pelagianism overall, so I take issue with that extreme most often. You seem to have a "softer" Wesleyan-esque approach.

I'll also mention having observed your exemplary standard of discourse over a long period of time.

Howdy PPS,

Well you may not believe this, but when I first joined this Bible discussion board, there were many reformed folks here. At the early days, it was close to 50/50 is not a bit more and the discussion in general were more on topic than on the person's mother's army boots, if you get my drift. So back then, it was more brotherly and more kindred, for whatever side you stood on, at the end there was love for the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ. But the doctrinal position of this site gradually changed over the years, and I can give you my opinion as to why but that would solve anything nor be profitable, but I probably post not as I once did in study and teaching, but now probably to give the audience in general a second opinion, AKA as one crying out from the wilderness. LOL :)

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 01:28 PM
Well you may not believe this, but when I first joined this Bible discussion board, there were many reformed folks here. At the early days, it was close to 50/50 is not a bit more and the discussion in general were more on topic than on the person's mother's army boots, if you get my drift. So back then, it was more brotherly and more kindred, for whatever side you stood on, at the end there was love for the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ. But the doctrinal position of this site gradually changed over the years, and I can give you my opinion as to why but that would solve anything nor be profitable, but I probably post not as I once did in study and teaching, but now probably to give the audience in general a second opinion, AKA as one crying out from the wilderness. LOL :)
I experienced just the opposite on another site. It was much more cordial when I first joined than it became when a batch of reformers joined. They were fine until disagreed with, then the gloves came off. It pretty much ruined the board, even though several were shown the door. I don't think it is particular doctrinal positions that cause folks to be mean-spirited. It is something much deeper.

W :)

shepherdsword
Jan 28th 2012, 02:18 PM
Gee, lots of people have had lots of time to correct lots of people's erroneous theology.
Me, I've not read lots of people's theology. All I've read really is the word.
And The Holy Spirit in me has revealed lots of its' meanings.
Why anyone would spend much time studying the history of the church is quite beyond me.
Who needs anyone/anything other than the Holy Spirit for important spiritual information?

What do you understand the predestination/election verses to mean?

I see the predestination as applying to certain virtues and results that will happen and not specific people.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

What has been chosen and predestined in these verses is the end result,that we should be sons,holy and blameless before him in love and not that only certain individuals are "pretermined"



I see the election verses as apply to groups of people,such as the jews and gentiles and not to individuals. I derive these conclusions from context,grammar and syntax but it also comes from an understanding about God's testing of his free-will creations. And also,the sovereignty of God is not threatened by these conclusions,rather it is substantiated by his willingness to let each choose it's own destiny.
God wants all to love him freely of their own volition. He doesn't regulate us to love love him as a robot with no choice in the matter as the classic election suggests.

BoB/335
Jan 28th 2012, 04:50 PM
I see the predestination as applying to certain virtues and results that will happen and not specific people.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

What has been chosen and predestined in these verses is the end result,that we should be sons,holy and blameless before him in love and not that only certain individuals are "pretermined"



I see the election verses as apply to groups of people,such as the jews and gentiles and not to individuals. I derive these conclusions from context,grammar and syntax but it also comes from an understanding about God's testing of his free-will creations. And also,the sovereignty of God is not threatened by these conclusions,rather it is substantiated by his willingness to let each choose it's own destiny.
God wants all to love him freely of their own volition. He doesn't regulate us to love love him as a robot with no choice in the matter as the classic election suggests.

I joined on this board a couple of months ago. It wasn't long before I decided it wasn't for me because of threads like this. It's rare that any particular person's view will be changed by participating in this type of discussion.
I looked through this forum a couple of weeks ago only to see that my decision to no longer participate was a good one.
Guess I was bored this morning and just read through this entire thread. WOW!!!Is all I can say. All the same things have been said by the same people in a couple other threads that I was on back when I decided to no longer participate. You guys should see what this looks like. A single word description might be Un-Christian-like. (Is that a single word?)

btw I agree with the quoted post. Just saying..................

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 04:55 PM
While I disagree with much John Z has written, the spiritual death of which he speaks is true and real.
Death is separation from life, and Jesus is the way, truth, and life. We are dead apart from Christ ...
Some of which you disagree with me may just be caused by you're NOT carefully reading the words.
Note the word "some".

E.G. I said the Holy Spirit has taught me a lot of spiritual Truth (as He has all of us).
But, I didn't say that He taught me re: this topic of predestination/election.

This spiritual death (separation from God) problem of man is what Christianity is all about.
Dead in trespasses and sins, blind, deaf, etc. all are referring to this problem.
It's why Jesus shed His blood on the cross.
It's so man can get the Holy Spirit inside of him, be led by Him, be sanctified by Him, etc.

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 05:30 PM
In this thread I'm particularly interested in discussing whether those who have heard of Jesus
and are capable of hearing the gospel and responding to it have the freedom to choose to accept or reject it
or if it's all up to God as to whether they believe or not.
Your problem is that you don't believe Scripture when it reveals that ...
man is just not capable of choosing God and His "foolish" gospel
(unless he has the Holy Spirit inside of him).

But, Satan has the power to deceive him into choosing false gospels.
Because man historically has always been a spiritual idiot.

God chose His "chosen people" to be man's representatives.
Over 1500 years, He PROVED to everyone (through His Scriptures) that man's representatives failed miserably.

Then, He finally gave up on His specially chosen, favored, coddled people ... and proclaimed that:
-- He would NOT heal them of their spiritual problems
-- He would scatter them to the 4 corners of the earth
-- He would send His Messiah-Redeemer-Savior
-- He would institute His new and better covenant
-- He would gather His people back home again later

Enter the promised Messiah, new covenant, and Holy Spirit:
-- the 2nd Person or Manifestation (preferred) of the Triune Godhead came.
-- the 3rd Person or Manifestation (preferred) of the Triune Godhead came to replace the 2nd.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 28th 2012, 05:36 PM
This spiritual death (separation from God) problem of man is what Christianity is all about.
Dead in trespasses and sins, blind, deaf, etc. all are referring to this problem.
It's why Jesus shed His blood on the cross.
It's so man can get the Holy Spirit inside of him, be led by Him, be sanctified by Him, etc.


Exactly. Which is why we need an understanding of what happened in man's constitution at sin-onset instead of doctrines of men that lead us into error.

Tell us exactly... How is man's spirit (breathed by and returning to God) depraved?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 28th 2012, 10:15 PM
I experienced just the opposite on another site. It was much more cordial when I first joined than it became when a batch of reformers joined. They were fine until disagreed with, then the gloves came off. It pretty much ruined the board, even though several were shown the door. I don't think it is particular doctrinal positions that cause folks to be mean-spirited. It is something much deeper.

W :)


Couldn't agree with you more... For without Love... what good is having any doctrinal position. If the Spirit of God is within us, then love should flow, humility should be obvious, and grace in speech would be the earmark, irrespective of a doctrinal position... It was here at BF a few years back.... not sure if it came back... meaning in the majority, not the minority.... Jesus states that if you are His disciple -- you will...... bicker and debate? Argue and hate? Accuse and oppress? Naw..... but to Love one another.....

Lord, may I be found faithful to submit to you and show love more each day.... RbG

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 11:00 PM
Some of which you disagree with me may just be caused by you're NOT carefully reading the words.
Note the word "some".

E.G. I said the Holy Spirit has taught me a lot of spiritual Truth (as He has all of us).
But, I didn't say that He taught me re: this topic of predestination/election.

This spiritual death (separation from God) problem of man is what Christianity is all about.
Dead in trespasses and sins, blind, deaf, etc. all are referring to this problem.
It's why Jesus shed His blood on the cross.
It's so man can get the Holy Spirit inside of him, be led by Him, be sanctified by Him, etc.

Fair enough, John. So now I echo PPS's statement and question: ...we need an understanding of what happened in man's constitution at sin-onset instead of doctrines of men that lead us into error.

Tell us exactly... How is man's spirit (breathed by and returning to God) depraved?

blessings,

W :)

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 11:18 PM
... his willingness to let each choose it's own destiny. God wants all to love him freely of their own volition.
He doesn't regulate us to love him as a robot with no choice in the matter as the classic election suggests.I see "the classic election" as God choosing who He is going to form and mold (via sanctification)
into something worthwhile ... who will glorify Him and His miraculous work.

And this has nothing to do with the elect's loving, or not loving, God (prior to election).

Is it necessary to repeat this again? ... The natural sinful man wants nothing of God, etc.

The loving starts when the elect is born again and gets a revelation of everything,
especially of what God's love, grace, mercy, compassion, etc. has done for him.
Just sayin'.

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 11:28 PM
I see "the classic election" as God choosing who He is going to form and mold (via sanctification)
into something worthwhile ... who will glorify Him and His miraculous work.

And this has nothing to do with the elect's loving, or not loving, God (prior to election).

Is it necessary to repeat this again? ... The natural sinful man wants nothing of God, etc.

The loving starts when the elect is born again and gets a revelation of everything,
especially of what God's love, grace, mercy, compassion, etc. has done for him.
Just sayin'.
I can agree with everything above, until the last statement is reached. We do not automatically get a revelation of everything when we're reborn...that is a process wherein God dictates the timing. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him...but he must choose to submit to the drawing. I'd also disagree that the natural man wants nothing of God. The natural man wants to believe in a power greater than himself, hence all the idolatrous religions.


W :)

shepherdsword
Jan 28th 2012, 11:31 PM
I joined on this board a couple of months ago. It wasn't long before I decided it wasn't for me because of threads like this. It's rare that any particular person's view will be changed by participating in this type of discussion.
I looked through this forum a couple of weeks ago only to see that my decision to no longer participate was a good one.
Guess I was bored this morning and just read through this entire thread. WOW!!!Is all I can say. All the same things have been said by the same people in a couple other threads that I was on back when I decided to no longer participate. You guys should see what this looks like. A single word description might be Un-Christian-like. (Is that a single word?)

btw I agree with the quoted post. Just saying..................

Just saying..........what? That it is unchristianlike to answer a question and present your take on it? I don't see any thing unchristianlike in the post. Can you point it out? I mean if there is something I did wrong here I am willing to own up to it. I don't see anything offensive in John Zain's posts either. While I may not agree with him all he did was present his thoughts on the matter.That's pretty much what forums like this are for.





I see "the classic election" as God choosing who He is going to form and mold (via sanctification)
into something worthwhile ... who will glorify Him and His miraculous work.

And this has nothing to do with the elect's loving, or not loving, God (prior to election).

Is it necessary to repeat this again? ... The natural sinful man wants nothing of God, etc.

The loving starts when the elect is born again and gets a revelation of everything,
especially of what God's love, grace, mercy, compassion, etc. has done for him.
Just sayin'.

The sinful man can be convicted of sin and desire to change and will be empowered by God to do so. He can also decide not to change. The choice is entirely up to him.His resulting choice is not pre-ordained.

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 11:31 PM
It's rare that any particular person's view will be changed by participating in this type of discussion.
Perhaps coming to the truth about this business is important after all.

Many Christians get very upset, annoyed, frustrated, even to the point of hatred (I've seen it) when someone
they are witnessing to just will not, or cannot, believe in the simple gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.

What if you had the revelation that such people may just have not been predestined to be elected, called, etc.?

I have encountered 2 people so far whom I trust (one is my nephew) who told me
in all sincerity that they tried very hard to believe, but just could not do so.
What's up with this ... if predestination/election is not true?

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 11:50 PM
We do not automatically get a revelation of everything when we're reborn...
that is a process wherein God dictates the timing.
I'd also disagree that the natural man wants nothing of God.
The natural man wants to believe in a power greater than himself, hence all the idolatrous religions.
Yes, "everything" about what happened is quite a stretch.

But, evidently you haven't heard of the normal reaction that a person has
for the first few years after being born again from above.
It is called being on fire for God. This, normally subsides somewhat (or a lot) ... years later.

I agree with your statement in blue. I musta hadda brain cramp.
Now after realizing I'm not perfect after all, I've got a stomach ache also ... thanks to you.

John Zain
Jan 28th 2012, 11:55 PM
we need an understanding of
what happened in man's constitution at sin-onset instead of doctrines of men that lead us into error.
Tell us exactly... How is man's spirit (breathed by and returning to God) depraved?
Izvinehtay, nay razbeerum.
That's Bulgarian for ... Sorry, I don't understand.

WOW ... Would you please translate what you wrote into English? Gracias, amigo.
And I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Butch5
Jan 28th 2012, 11:59 PM
Perhaps coming to the truth about this business is important after all.

Many Christians get very upset, annoyed, frustrated, even to the point of hatred (I've seen it) when someone
they are witnessing to just will not, or cannot, believe in the simple gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.

What if you had the revelation that such people may just have not been predestined to be elected, called, etc.?

I have encountered 2 people so far whom I trust (one is my nephew) who told me
in all sincerity that they tried very hard to believe, but just could not do so.
What's up with this ... if predestination/election is not true?

John, that doesn't prove Calvinsitic election.

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 12:01 AM
Hi John,

I'll translate my understanding of PPS's question. What exactly happened to man's constitution of spirit, soul, body when Adam sinned?

W :)

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2012, 12:53 AM
Exactly. Which is why we need an understanding of what happened in man's constitution at sin-onset instead of doctrines of men that lead us into error.

Tell us exactly... How is man's spirit (breathed by and returning to God) depraved?

I would like to hear your own answer to this question. :)

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 01:18 AM
I already know PPS's answer, yet it seems to me that it is less than equitable to ask one to answer one's own question before those to whom it was posed answer.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 01:19 AM
I would like to hear your own answer to this question. :)

Total Depravity is the classic Calvinist tenet for the T in their TULIP acrostic. I oppose that, is my point. Man's spirit is NOT depraved. Man's soul is depraved. Therefore, man is not "totally" depraved. Man's spirit is what responds to God unto salvation. The mind-will-emotion soul faculties of man don't think-choose-feel us unto salvation. Our spirit, through its communion faculty, is stirred to respond through faith because of God's divine influence upon out heart (grace).

Faith is among the spiritual gifts, which are not soulical gifts. Salvific faith is not soulical, either. It extends to include faculties of the conjoined soul, but the initial response is via the spirit's communion faculty to the Holy Spirit.

Man's spirit is dead (thanatos - separated from communion with its original source environment). The Holy Spirit was partitioned and distributed at Pentecost to pierce to the dividing asunder of soul-spirit/body-soul; and re-establish internal communion by abiding in the Holy of Holies of this our temple not made with hands.

God's OWN Spirit, revivifying our spirit from within; then progressing outward to redeem our depraved soul, thus regenerating our whole man. This resurrection of our spirit is being born again... born of the Spirit... born from above.

(That's the Cliffnotes version.)

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2012, 01:28 AM
Total Depravity is the classic Calvinist tenet for the T in their TULIP acrostic. I oppose that, is my point. Man's spirit is NOT depraved. Man's soul is depraved. Therefore, man is not "totally" depraved. Man's spirit is what responds to God unto salvation. The mind-will-emotion soul faculties of man don't think-choose-feel us unto salvation. Our spirit, through its communion faculty, is stirred to respond through faith because of God's divine influence upon out heart (grace).

Faith is among the spiritual gifts, which are not soulical gifts. Salvific faith is not soulical, either. It extends to include faculties of the conjoined soul, but the initial response is via the spirit's communion faculty to the Holy Spirit.

Man's spirit is dead (thanatos - separated from communion with its original source environment). The Holy Spirit was partitioned and distributed at Pentecost to pierce to the dividing asunder of soul-spirit/body-soul; and re-establish internal communion by abiding in the Holy of Holies of this our temple not made with hands.

God's OWN Spirit, revivifying our spirit from within; then progressing outward to redeem our depraved soul, thus regenerating our whole man. This resurrection of our spirit is being born again... born of the Spirit... born from above.

(That's the Cliffnotes version.)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I see it similarly. Scripture speaks of death as separation. Back in the old days, someone could cut my phone line and we would say "the phone is dead". It just meant it was separated from the source. It didn't function properly. It didn't mean it could not function at all!

I also think man's spirit is functional towards the enemy when he is dead. IOW, his spirit is active, but is not connected to God. When the Lord quickens a man, his spirit then can respond to God.

Dead doesn't mean "absence of ability" as much as it means "separation from". When I die, my soul and spirit leave my body. I am "separated" from my body. But I am still very much alive and can function. So death, doesn't have to mean "no longer working at all". But it does mean, that a part is not working as it should. My body dies. It is no longer working. But it's not working because I was separated from it.

Many of us struggle with such things because our soul and spirit have not been separated by the Word. Therefor, it is hard to tell the difference between our soul and our spirit. This takes grace and faith and sanctification. It is something that the Word and word does in us.

Thanks for sharing that brother.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 01:44 AM
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I see it similarly. Scripture speaks of death as separation. Back in the old days, someone could cut my phone line and we would say "the phone is dead". It just meant it was separated from the source. It didn't function properly. It didn't mean it could not function at all!

I also think man's spirit is functional towards the enemy when he is dead. IOW, his spirit is active, but is not connected to God. When the Lord quickens a man, his spirit then can respond to God.

Dead doesn't mean "absence of ability" as much as it means "separation from". When I die, my soul and spirit leave my body. I am "separated" from my body. But I am still very much alive and can function. So death, doesn't have to mean "no longer working at all". But it does mean, that a part is not working as it should. My body dies. It is no longer working. But it's not working because I was separated from it.

Many of us struggle with such things because our soul and spirit have not been separated by the Word. Therefor, it is hard to tell the difference between our soul and our spirit. This takes grace and faith and sanctification. It is something that the Word and word does in us.

Thanks for sharing that brother.

This is why I consider the Calvi/Armi debate a false dichotomy. Each focuses on something to the exclusion of others without approaching it according to man's constitution.

Indeed, man cannot choose salvation by the will faculty of his soul. But man can and does respond to the divine influence of grace by faith through the latent separated spirit's communion faculty.

God monergistically determined the salvation of mankind, and no man can initiate nor effect his own salvation. God also determined each individual must synergistically respond unto salvation.

Man is neither "totally" depraved nor has "free" will. A depraved will is not free, and man's will (boulema) doesn't have inherent ability and accomplishment like God's will (thelema).

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2012, 02:12 AM
This is why I consider the Calvi/Armi debate a false dichotomy. Each focuses on something to the exclusion of others without approaching it according to man's constitution.

Indeed, man cannot choose salvation by the will faculty of his soul. But man can and does respond to the divine influence of grace by faith through the latent separated spirit's communion faculty.

God monergistically determined the salvation of mankind, and no man can initiate nor effect his own salvation. God also determined each individual must synergistically respond unto salvation.

Man is neither "totally" depraved nor has "free" will. A depraved will is not free, and man's will (boulema) doesn't have inherent ability and accomplishment like God's will (thelema).

In this, we are completely in agreement. I think each side of the argument has fallen into a ditch and refuses to see the other verses in the scriptures that speak about what is going on. I do not buy into "free will" as man's will is limited. But God also tells us that he loves everyone. We see in Romans 1 where God makes an "inner call" to a man. But that man suppresses the truth. That man is and was hopeless absent the call and working of God.

Jesus also spoke of the difference when he said "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". Our will is a soulish feature.

David, understanding this asked God to increase his will after his sin with Bathsheba. God had crushed his bones (soul) as chastisement. David's will to do right was greatly weakened. His spirit called out to God for help and God helped him. We are not saved by our own soulish will.

PS... Thanks again for the answer. You have given me some things to think about.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 02:37 AM
In this, we are completely in agreement. I think each side of the argument has fallen into a ditch and refuses to see the other verses in the scriptures that speak about what is going on. I do not buy into "free will" as man's will is limited. But God also tells us that he loves everyone. We see in Romans 1 where God makes an "inner call" to a man. But that man suppresses the truth. That man is and was hopeless absent the call and working of God.

Jesus also spoke of the difference when he said "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". Our will is a soulish feature.

David, understanding this asked God to increase his will after his sin with Bathsheba. God had crushed his bones (soul) as chastisement. David's will to do right was greatly weakened. His spirit called out to God for help and God helped him. We are not saved by our own soulish will.

PS... Thanks again for the answer. You have given me some things to think about.

Always a pleasure, my Brother. You have many valuable insights.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 29th 2012, 02:50 AM
This is why I consider the Calvi/Armi debate a false dichotomy. Each focuses on something to the exclusion of others without approaching it according to man's constitution.

Indeed, man cannot choose salvation by the will faculty of his soul. But man can and does respond to the divine influence of grace by faith through the latent separated spirit's communion faculty.

God monergistically determined the salvation of mankind, and no man can initiate nor effect his own salvation. God also determined each individual must synergistically respond unto salvation.

Man is neither "totally" depraved nor has "free" will. A depraved will is not free, and man's will (boulema) doesn't have inherent ability and accomplishment like God's will (thelema).


It may help to point to the Reformed position and not just a Calvinistic filter. One of the best overviews of the Reformed Position is with the Protestant Westminster Confession of faith, Tenet 6, quoted below:

Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 04:15 AM
It may help to point to the Reformed position and not just a Calvinistic filter. One of the best overviews of the Reformed Position is with the Protestant Westminster Confession of faith, Tenet 6, quoted below:

Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

Speaking of that, a better direction for a thread would be to outline the various degrees of Reformed Theology and their primary proponents; and to post all pertinent documents (such as the Westminster) and to somehow condense an outline of Calvin's Institutes and other significant writings from Luther, Wesley, and others. The Arminian side could post corresponding information from Jacobus and his cohorts.

I've never seen such an approach. I'll give some thought to doing it myself.

The same could be done on a variety of subjects, rather than endless bickering and posturing.

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 02:11 PM
The trick will be to do that in a short, concise manner...otherwise, it will become a treatise too long to discuss in this medium. :o :D

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 03:06 PM
The trick will be to do that in a short, concise manner...otherwise, it will become a treatise too long to discuss in this medium. :o :D

This could be a great medium to develop, compile, condense, and edit such info. Personally, I think that would be among the best and most effective uses for the forum fomat. Collaboration rather than conflict.

All reformed doctrine adherants do not necessarily agree. Same for non-reformed.

Anything would be better than CARM.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 03:12 PM
Hey RbG,

Off the top of your head, would you make a brief outline of what you think would be most pertinent to include? If it seems possible to keep it overview-ish, I'd make it a project. What do you think?

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 03:28 PM
This could be a great medium to develop, compile, condense, and edit such info. Personally, I think that would be among the best and most effective uses for the forum fomat. Collaboration rather than conflict.

All reformed doctrine adherants do not necessarily agree. Same for non-reformed.

Anything would be better than CARM.
Actually, I agree. I have a bad habit of seeing the end of a thing first...and the end of this little venture is potentially a mountain of literature! :D I love collaborative efforts. They help me understand the pov's of others and often they help me understand my own pov more clearly.

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 03:29 PM
Izvinehtay, nay razbeerum.
That's Bulgarian for ... Sorry, I don't understand.

WOW ... Would you please translate what you wrote into English? Gracias, amigo.
And I'll get back to you tomorrow.


Hi John,

I'll translate my understanding of PPS's question. What exactly happened to man's constitution of spirit, soul, body when Adam sinned?

W :)
I would still be interested to know your answer to this query, John.

Thanks,

W :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 04:04 PM
Actually, I agree. I have a bad habit of seeing the end of a thing first...and the end of this little venture is potentially a mountain of literature! :D I love collaborative efforts. They help me understand the pov's of others and often they help me understand my own pov more clearly.

I'm thinking bullet-points, paragraphs, proof-texts, and hyperlinks.

This would also be a great format for Eschatology views and several other areas. In my experience, most are modestly versed in their own view, comparatively aware of a few other options in part, and ignorant of the overall scope of entire areas of doctrine.

The trichotomous versus dichotomous constitution of man; Godhead models; YEC/OEC/TE. There's no limit to what we could collaborate together to outline. The process would be as fruitful as the result.

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2012, 09:25 PM
The search for truth should not be a solitary endeavor. There is safety is a multitude of council.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 03:11 PM
Hey RbG,

Off the top of your head, would you make a brief outline of what you think would be most pertinent to include? If it seems possible to keep it overview-ish, I'd make it a project. What do you think?

Howdy PPS,

I don't want to sound like a wet noodle, but I like the Westminster Confession's review of the scriptures a lot.

Pushed into it thou, the 1st doctrine we all must agree on is based on salvation's call.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Mark 1:14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

If we see this all the same, then we should be brother's and sister's in Christ... unless we add things, or we change things.

So with that stated... we all agree? Salvation is by the Grace of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ, His Son. Setting aside any nuances for the moment.... this should be the core doctrine.

John Zain
Jan 30th 2012, 04:03 PM
John, that doesn't prove Calvinsitic election.
El Butcheroooneo, I never said it did ... over and out.

John Zain
Jan 30th 2012, 04:11 PM
What exactly happened to man's constitution of spirit, soul, body when Adam sinned?I apologize for being late.
If you desire anything exactly re: spiritual Truth, I suggest you consult the Lord.

However, I may hazzard an opinion ...

The Lord tainted man's sperm so the sin nature would be passed down through the generations.
Wanna see duh many verses which reveal that ALL men have this sin nature?
Have I already explained that it could not have been through the blood because Mary had the sin nature?
I.E. Mary's blood was the same as yours.
Jesus was sinless only because His " "Father" " was none other than the Holy Spirit.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 05:05 PM
Howdy PPS,

I don't want to sound like a wet noodle, but I like the Westminster Confession's review of the scriptures a lot.

Pushed into it thou, the 1st doctrine we all must agree on is based on salvation's call.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Mark 1:14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

If we see this all the same, then we should be brother's and sister's in Christ... unless we add things, or we change things.

So with that stated... we all agree? Salvation is by the Grace of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ, His Son. Setting aside any nuances for the moment.... this should be the core doctrine.


And to play forward, another non-negotiable tenet for me is Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is the Son of man. Another tenet is that all men are sinful, thus having a need for a Savior.. And there are more, but refrain for now.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 06:17 PM
So God is under restriction then?What do you mean by that?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 06:20 PM
Why not? Was not God's will predetermined before the world was created?The prophets were told of things that would happen before they happened. So, they knew things that would happen before they actually happened. Does that mean the prophets caused those things to happen? Again, foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. Knowing what will happen beforehand does not necessarily mean you are the cause of that event or wanted that event to occur.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 06:27 PM
Your problem is that you don't believe ScriptureDon't tell me I don't believe scripture. I believe all of scripture. I may interpret it differently than you, but that's another story.


when it reveals that ...man is just not capable of choosing God and His "foolish" gospel
(unless he has the Holy Spirit inside of him).Where does scripture teach this?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 07:00 PM
The prophets were told of things that would happen before they happened. So, they knew things that would happen before they actually happened. Does that mean the prophets caused those things to happen? Again, foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. Knowing what will happen beforehand does not necessarily mean you are the cause of that event or wanted that event to occur.

Eric, the prophets wrote about what God was going to do, not what the prophets would cause anything they happen as you query... God being sovereign --- is sovereign over time, place and matter. So if you agree that prophecy is God's predestined, thus preordained plan [will] of a future event, then you have to see that God has sovereignty in all matters of life. His return, also as recorded in scriptures will happen as He declares, and may not necessarily be as we understand it today. God is not passive, He is active. Praise God!

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 07:02 PM
What do you mean by that?

It could mean that He can't do.... something within His nature and will to do, but can't. For example, does He restrict his day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute involvement with mankind?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 07:07 PM
Eric, the prophets wrote about what God was going to do, not what the prophets would cause anything they happen as you query...You missed the point. I'm saying that knowing something beforehand does not equate to predetermination. That includes God knowing things beforehand.


God being sovereign --- is sovereign over time, place and matter. So if you agree that prophecy is God's predestined, thus preordained plan [will] of a future event, then you have to see that God has sovereignty in all matters of life.That only shows that some things are preordained, not all things. It's not as if every single thing that happens is according to God's plan. That would mean every rape, murder, and other crime was preordained by God, which is nonsense.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 07:16 PM
It could mean that He can't do.... something within His nature and will to do, but can't. For example, does He restrict his day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute involvement with mankind?Nothing is impossible for God (Luke 1:37). So, if you're asking if I'm claiming that some things are impossible for Him then the answer is no. But what you don't seem to understand is the difference between His will and His desires. I believe it is His sovereign will to offer salvation to all people and it is His desire for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6). The fact that not all people are saved doesn't reflect an inability for God to get what He wants, it reflects that He has sovereignly given all people the freedom to choose whether or not to accept His offer.

God's will cannot be thwarted by man.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

But His desires can be thwarted by man.

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 07:52 PM
Nothing is impossible for God (Luke 1:37). So, if you're asking if I'm claiming that some things are impossible for Him then the answer is no.

Good, then we can use this as a basis of agreeing and now building.



But what you don't seem to understand is the difference between His will and His desires. I believe it is His sovereign will to offer salvation to all people and it is His desire for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6).

Hmm, I could nit-pick a word here and there but instead will say.. I too agree, an invitation to repent and believe is open to all men, and it is His desire that all men do so.





The fact that not all people are saved doesn't reflect an inability for God to get what He wants, it reflects that He has sovereignly given all people the freedom to choose whether or not to accept His offer.

First wrinkle I have within your reply... Has God sovereignly willed you [and others] to be saved before He created the world, or did God wait until Eric [and others] come to Him, and then He saves you? Or stated another way, could it not be within His will to save you before you saw the need to be saved, for again we agree that nothing is impossible for God, so it would not be impossible for Him to save you way before he created you and even the earth, right?

For among other statements that Paul wrote about predestination and determination, but to that about himself, a devout Jew who once killed Christians believing he was doing God's work, but now acknowledges that God -- who has set him apart even before when he was in his mother's womb and called Him through His grace, to then reveal His Son in Him, so that Paul might preach the gospel to the Gentiles... Again, God's will to save Saul, now Paul... and doing so physically on the day he was blinded on the road to Damascus, but as Paul declares in the Spirit of God, that it was always God's will to save Paul and commission [and enable] him to spread the Gospel to the gentiles, now all the while he was yet in his mother's womb.




God's will cannot be thwarted by man.

AMEN!!!!!!!





Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

But His desires can be thwarted by man.

Amen! I kindly submit for your consideration that your [and my] salvation, just as it was to the apostles and Paul and all who will believe, is within the will of God for us to believe. Now using myself to finish the example, God has willed for RbG to be save. That my day of coming to see Jesus as MY Savior was my coming, His plan fulfilled. For that one fateful nigh in August of 1971, I heard the Gospel one more time, but this time... BAAAAMMMMM. It clicked. And in my 40+ years since then, have seen Him guide my path in ways that I stand in awe of His grace, blessings and mercies.




Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Yep the openness of God to man to self-examine, yet as I declare, no man can nor want's to come without the 'interference' of God upon their heart... Now back to my question, does God restrict Himself based on what man does? I declare once again God's will is always done, and that He is sovereign over all things, including the will of man.

For His Glory...

John Zain
Jan 30th 2012, 09:40 PM
another non-negotiable tenet for me is Jesus is the Son of God
RbG, did we ever touch on this subject? If not, I'll start an interesting thread about it.
Waitin' fer yer Yay or Nay.

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 09:46 PM
That only shows that some things are preordained, not all things.

Is that even possible? Take the crucifixion for example. God ordained the crucifixion of Jesus. Wouldn't that also entail an ordaining of the various means leading to the crucifixion? Even further, wouldn't that also mean an ordaining of the means leading to the means leading to the end? Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say 'this is ordained' but 'this isn't'? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of one thing being ordained without all things being ordained.

John Zain
Jan 30th 2012, 09:55 PM
John Zain said:
man is just not capable of choosing God and His "foolish" gospel (unless he has the Holy Spirit inside of him).

Where does scripture teach this?
I'm not going to look up all of these verses for you, but you can:

-- all men have an inherited sin nature, which means they are spiritually dead (separated from God)
-- Satan has blinded the minds of all men so they cannot believe the gospel
-- all men do not (cannot) receive the things of the Spirit of God
-- the gospel is foolishness to all men who are perishing spiritually

BUT, now comes the good part:
-- through God's grace, some men receive the gift of faith so they are able to believe
-- with this faith comes belief ... the Holy Spirit has been placed inside of them
-- it pleased God through the foolishness of the gospel to save those who do believe
-- these have been predestined/elected/called to salvation ... all for God's glory

I could go on and on, but I have a question: Am I wasting my time?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:05 PM
Hmm, I could nit-pick a word here and there but instead will say.. I too agree, an invitation to repent and believe is open to all men, and it is His desire that all men do so.Why would He desire for all people to do so but purposely make it so that not all people can do so, as you believe?


First wrinkle I have within your reply... Has God sovereignly willed you [and others] to be saved before He created the world,No. He wants me to be saved but He will not force His will upon me to save me.


or did God wait until Eric [and others] come to Him, and then He saves you?We do not become saved in this realm of time and space until a point in time, so in terms of the ongoing reality that we have in the realm of time and space He does wait until a person puts their faith and trust in His Son and then saves them.


Or stated another way, could it not be within His will to save you before you saw the need to be saved, for again we agree that nothing is impossible for God, so it would not be impossible for Him to save you way before he created you and even the earth, right?It would not be possible for Him to have saved only some that way but not the rest because that would violate His character of being impartial. Since He is impartial, He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved. He did not choose who would be saved and who would not be saved before the foundation of the world with man having no choice in the matter. That is not what scripture teaches.


For among other statements that Paul wrote about predestination and determination, but to that about himself, a devout Jew who once killed Christians believing he was doing God's work, but now acknowledges that God -- who has set him apart even before when he was in his mother's womb and called Him through His grace, to then reveal His Son in Him, so that Paul might preach the gospel to the Gentiles... Again, God's will to save Saul, now Paul... and doing so physically on the day he was blinded on the road to Damascus, but as Paul declares in the Spirit of God, that it was always God's will to save Paul and commission [and enable] him to spread the Gospel to the gentiles, now all the while he was yet in his mother's womb. Are you saying you believe Paul had no choice but to believe in Christ? If so, I disagree. Faith and trust in Christ is not something that can be forced upon someone.


Amen! I kindly submit for your consideration that your [and my] salvation, just as it was to the apostles and Paul and all who will believe, is within the will of God for us to believe.It is His desire for all people to believe. But, as I pointed out, His desires can be thwarted by man. Not because of any weakness that God has, but because He gives people the freedom to willingly choose whether or not to put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.


Now using myself to finish the example, God has willed for RbG to be save. That my day of coming to see Jesus as MY Savior was my coming, His plan fulfilled. For that one fateful nigh in August of 1971, I heard the Gospel one more time, but this time... BAAAAMMMMM. It clicked. And in my 40+ years since then, have seen Him guide my path in ways that I stand in awe of His grace, blessings and mercies. Do you believe God is a partial God who planned for you to be saved but did not plan for your unbelieving neighbor to be saved? If so, why? Why would God be so loving towards you but so uncaring towards your unbelieving neighbor?


Yep the openness of God to man to self-examine, yet as I declare, no man can nor want's to come without the 'interference' of God upon their heart...Sure, but His 'interference' upon one's heart can be resisted.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.


Now back to my question, does God restrict Himself based on what man does?That's a bad choice of words. The word "restrict" tends to have a negative connotation. So, I will just put it like this. God wants people to repent and believe willingly and so He gives all people the freedom to choose whether or not to accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. How can repentance and faith be forced? They can't. But in your view God forces people to repent and believe because in your view they have no other choice but to do so.


I declare once again God's will is always done, and that He is sovereign over all things, including the will of man.Yes, God's will is always done and He is sovereign over all things (that includes things that He allows to occur even if they are against His desires), but what you don't understand is that it was God's will to give man the freedom to choose whether or not to repent and believe. Repentance and faith must be done willingly. Those are not things that can be forced. God wants people to accept His offer of salvation willingly rather than forcing it upon them.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice that eternal life is something that people must willingly take/accept. So, people have that responsibility and it's not automatic. But in your doctrine man's will and his desires mean nothing and have no effect on salvation. If that was true then salvation would not be something that man has to take/accept. But it is. The way to accept it is by way of willingly repenting of one's sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:16 PM
Is that even possible?Sure, why not? God preordained for His Son to die for the sins of the world. But He does not preordain the rape or murder of innocent people.


Take the crucifixion for example. God ordained the crucifixion of Jesus.Yep.


Wouldn't that also entail an ordaining of the various means leading to the crucifixion?Sure. So? Does that somehow mean everything that has ever happened was preordained? Of course not.


Even further, wouldn't that also mean an ordaining of the means leading to the means leading to the end? Where do you draw the line?I can't pinpoint where you draw the line, but I can say that it doesn't make sense for God to condemn people for rejecting Christ (John 3:18, 2 Thess 1:7-9) if He preordained for them to reject Christ.


At what point do you say 'this is ordained' but 'this isn't'?As far as events in scripture are concerned it's usually pretty easy to tell what was ordained and what wasn't. When God punished people for their wickedness you can be sure it wasn't ordained for them to rebel against Him the way they did. If it was ordained for them to rebel against Him then why punish them? They would have merely been doing what they were ordained to do. Why would that deserve punishment?


I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of one thing being ordained without all things being ordained.Why? Let's simplify this with one example. Let's say a little 2 year old girl is raped and murdered. Do you actually have a hard time determining whether or not that was ordained?

keyzer soze
Jan 30th 2012, 10:21 PM
Why? Let's simplify this with one example. Let's say a little 2 year old girl is raped and murdered. Do you actually have a hard time determining whether or not that was ordained?

you don't think God knew that was going to happen? do you really think God was thrown when Cain killed Abel? Was that the first time God learned what murder was?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 10:23 PM
Why would He desire for all people to do so but purposely make it so that not all people can do so, as you believe?

No. He wants me to be saved but He will not force His will upon me to save me.

We do not become saved in this realm of time and space until a point in time, so in terms of the ongoing reality that we have in the realm of time and space He does wait until a person puts their faith and trust in His Son and then saves them.

It would not be possible for Him to have saved only some that way but not the rest because that would violate His character of being impartial. Since He is impartial, He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved. He did not choose who would be saved and who would not be saved before the foundation of the world with man having no choice in the matter. That is not what scripture teaches.

Are you saying you believe Paul had no choice but to believe in Christ? If so, I disagree. Faith and trust in Christ is not something that can be forced upon someone.

It is His desire for all people to believe. But, as I pointed out, His desires can be thwarted by man. Not because of any weakness that God has, but because He gives people the freedom to willingly choose whether or not to put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe God is a partial God who planned for you to be saved but did not plan for your unbelieving neighbor to be saved? If so, why? Why would God be so loving towards you but so uncaring towards your unbelieving neighbor?

Sure, but His 'interference' upon one's heart can be resisted.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

That's a bad choice of words. The word "restrict" tends to have a negative connotation. So, I will just put it like this. God wants people to repent and believe willingly and so He gives all people the freedom to choose whether or not to accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. How can repentance and faith be forced? They can't. But in your view God forces people to repent and believe because in your view they have no other choice but to do so.

Yes, God's will is always done and He is sovereign over all things (that includes things that He allows to occur even if they are against His desires), but what you don't understand is that it was God's will to give man the freedom to choose whether or not to repent and believe. Repentance and faith must be done willingly. Those are not things that can be forced. God wants people to accept His offer of salvation willingly rather than forcing it upon them.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice that eternal life is something that people must willingly take/accept. So, people have that responsibility and it's not automatic. But in your doctrine man's will and his desires mean nothing and have no effect on salvation. If that was true then salvation would not be something that man has to take/accept. But it is. The way to accept it is by way of willingly repenting of one's sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


But what about God's will... God calls people all through out the bible... Why can't he call for you to be saved? why do you have to make the 1st move?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:23 PM
I'm not going to look up all of these verses for you, but you can:If you're going to make claims you should be able to back them up with scripture. You're not going to be very convincing, otherwise.


-- all men have an inherited sin nature, which means they are spiritually dead (separated from God)That does not mean they are incapable of recognizing their condition and responding with repentance.


-- Satan has blinded the minds of all men so they cannot believe the gospelBe careful about giving too much credit to Satan. If he can just blind people's minds at will then they could say "the devil made me do it" but you know better than that. The first person that Satan deceived was Eve. Was she completely powerless to resist his temptation or was it her choice to believe what he was saying instead of believing what God said and obeying His command?


-- all men do not (cannot) receive the things of the Spirit of GodThat is what Paul says in 1 Cor 2 but he was speaking of the deeper things of God and not saying that some cannot accept the gospel.


-- the gospel is foolishness to all men who are perishing spirituallyIt is foolishness to them because they choose to love the world and its ways rather than God and His ways.


BUT, now comes the good part:
-- through God's grace, some men receive the gift of faith so they are able to believeWhere does scripture teach this? Nowhere that I've seen.


-- it pleased God through the foolishness of the gospel to save those who do believeThose who willingly choose to believe.


-- these have been predestined/elected/called to salvation ... all for God's gloryIs election random and unconditional or is it conditional upon faith in Christ?


[FONT=Verdana]
I could go on and on, but I have a question: Am I wasting my time?That's up to you to decide.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:25 PM
But what about God's will... God calls people all through out the bible... Why can't he call for you to be saved? why do you have to make the 1st move?Where did I say I had to make the first move? I don't believe I ever said that. He calls and we are responsible to respond with repentance and faith. Many are called, but few are chosen (Matt 22:14). Why do you believe that is? Do you think He calls some who are unable to respond? If so I don't believe that makes any sense.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:28 PM
you don't think God knew that was going to happen?What difference does that make? Him knowing something beforehand doesn't mean it was His will for it to happen.


do you really think God was thrown when Cain killed Abel? Was that the first time God learned what murder was?I don't know what your point is here. For some inexplicable reason you seem to equate foreknowledge with predetermination. Why is that? Do you think God planned for Cain to kill Abel? If so why would He punish Cain for something He basically made Cain do? I don't believe that would make any sense.

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 10:31 PM
Sure, why not? God preordained for His Son to die for the sins of the world. But He does not preordain the rape or murder of innocent people.

Yep.

Sure. So? Does that somehow mean everything that has ever happened was preordained? Of course not.

I can't pinpoint where you draw the line, but I can say that it doesn't make sense for God to condemn people for rejecting Christ (John 3:18, 2 Thess 1:7-9) if He preordained for them to reject Christ.

As far as events in scripture are concerned it's usually pretty easy to tell what was ordained and what wasn't. When God punished people for their wickedness you can be sure it wasn't ordained for them to rebel against Him the way they did. If it was ordained for them to rebel against Him then why punish them? They would have merely been doing what they were ordained to do. Why would that deserve punishment?

Why? Let's simplify this with one example. Let's say a little 2 year old girl is raped and murdered. Do you actually have a hard time determining whether or not that was ordained?

I'm a little confused. We both agree God ordained the crucifixion of Jesus. That means God has also ordained the means leading up to the event. I think you agreed with this. But this means that those who actually crucified Christ were ordained by God to do so, yet they still are morally responsible and held accountable for their evil act, does it not? Your answer above seems to say no, God did not ordain the evil acts leading to the crucifixion. How is that possible?

My larger point, though, is this:

God ordains the crucifixion of Jesus

God ordains the means for this end

God ordains the means to the means for the end

And on and on and on. I'm thinking history is something of an unbreakable chain of events so that if you ordain one event that necessarily entails ordaining all the previous events. Maybe I'm wrong but I ask again, where is the line drawn?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 10:40 PM
Where did I say I had to make the first move? I don't believe I ever said that. He calls and we are responsible to respond with repentance and faith. Many are called, but few are chosen (Matt 22:14). Why do you believe that is? Do you think He calls some who are unable to respond? If so I don't believe that makes any sense.

Allow me to be bolder then... is your salvation the effect of God's will or yours?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:40 PM
I'm a little confused. We both agree God ordained the crucifixion of Jesus. That means God has also ordained the means leading up to the event. I think you agreed with this. But this means that those who actually crucified Christ were ordained by God to do so, yet they still are morally responsible and held accountable for their evil act, does it not?Jesus asked the Father to forgive them because they did not know what they were doing (Luke 23:34) so I don't believe they were held accountable for that act in particular. Now, if they did not accept Him as their Lord and Savior at any point after that then that was their choice and they are held responsible for that.


Your answer above seems to say no, God did not ordain the evil acts leading to the crucifixion.I don't know if He ordained every detail but I do believe He ordained for Christ to be killed for our sins. It's not as if He couldn't have done it another way than how it happened but that was the way that He ordained based on the circumstances of that time.


My larger point, though, is this:

God ordains the crucifixion of Jesus

God ordains the means for this end

God ordains the means to the means for the end

And on and on and on.Why "and on and on and on"? You're taking it further than it needs to go and I'm not sure why that is.


I'm thinking history is something of an unbreakable chain of events so that if you ordain one event that necessarily entails ordaining all the previous events. Maybe I'm wrong but I ask again, where is the line drawn?You asked that already and I answered your question. Can you tell me why my answer is not acceptable to you? I don't see why everything has to be ordained just because we know of a few things that were ordained. That leads to what I believe to be a ludicrous conclusion that God even ordains all the rapes, murders and so on that occur. Why would He purposely ordain for things to happen against His own commandments? I don't understand why you can't see how little sense that makes.

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 10:40 PM
It is His desire for all people to believe. But, as I pointed out, His desires can be thwarted by man. Not because of any weakness that God has, but because He gives people the freedom to willingly choose whether or not to put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

This is also something I'm confused on. You reject the idea of God desiring all to be saved while only effectually saving a few as self-evidently wrong. Yet, I think this same charge can be leveled against your system. You believe God desires all to be saved. The only reason this doesn't happen is because God's desire is thwarted by the will of man. It seems to me if God truly desired all to be saved he could make this happen even if it involved 'forcing' people against their will to be saved. It seems that you place human freedom above God's desire for all to be saved. That God doesn't make his desire actual because he respects human freedom more than his desire. So I think if that's the case in your system, the same charge you level against us can be used against you. Does God really, truly desire all to be saved when he willingly allows human freedom to frustrate his desire?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:41 PM
Allow me to be bolder then... is your salvation the effect of God's will or yours?It is the effect of God's desire for me and the desire of my heart.

keyzer soze
Jan 30th 2012, 10:42 PM
What difference does that make? Him knowing something beforehand doesn't mean it was His will for it to happen.

I don't know what your point is here. For some inexplicable reason you seem to equate foreknowledge with predetermination. Why is that? Do you think God planned for Cain to kill Abel? If so why would He punish Cain for something He basically made Cain do? I don't believe that would make any sense.

John146, try to see my point instead of getting all fired up for a second.

When did God learn that Cain would kill Abel? Did God know this BEFORE creation or did he learn it after? If God knew it before the first "cause" took place then ask yourself if he could have changed his plan? I get that God doesn't sin or cause sin, but what I am saying is that God ALLOWS for sin, knows it going to happen and knows that most will NOT be saved. God knows all outcomes of all circumstances BEFORE creation. So before man even has a heart to reject God, God knows that some will reject Him. Now stop and think about did God have the power to alter the plan and save different people? Could God have kept Abel alive or kept Cain from sinning? I think God could have but ELECTED not to.

So in the end God knew every outcome BEFORE the first cause... so before God puts anything in motion and sin will reek havoc, He knows it will be so but allowed it anyways. Now how you want to place blame for future events is one thing, but to say that anything happens outside of God's sovereign will is the same thing as saying God doesn't have a sovereign will. Now I agree that God tells us that the perfect MORAL WILL is that everyone repent and come to Him, but His sovereign will is NOT that because God's sovereign will will be done.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 30th 2012, 10:48 PM
It is the effect of God's desire for me and the desire of my heart.

So I take that to say it was only His desire, but ultimately it was your will.... God was kept waiting then until you came to Him?

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:48 PM
This is also something I'm confused on. You reject the idea of God desiring all to be saved while only effectually saving a few as self-evidently wrong. Yet, I think this same charge can be leveled against your system. You believe God desires all to be saved. The only reason this doesn't happen is because God's desire is thwarted by the will of man. It seems to me if God truly desired all to be saved he could make this happen even if it involved 'forcing' people against their will to be saved.But why would He want to do that? That would make Him a puppet master and us His puppets. How can a puppet master have a loving personal relationship with his puppets?


It seems that you place human freedom above God's desire for all to be saved.Not at all.


That God doesn't make his desire actual because he respects human freedom more than his desire.You're saying that, but that isn't what I'm saying I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion about my view. You clearly don't understand my view for whatever reason.


So I think if that's the case in your system, the same charge you level against us can be used against you. Does God really, truly desire all to be saved when he willingly allows human freedom to frustrate his desire?Yes. Why not? Do you have any children? If so I'm sure you desire that they obey you and follow what you teach them, right? What if they don't? Should you force them to do so? Or would you rather they willingly do so? If they never do so what does that say about your desire for them to obey you? It doesn't mean you didn't truly desire for them to obey you, right? They have to choose whether or not to obey you and follow what you teach them, right? And you have no problem with that being the case, correct? So, why would have a problem with that being the case between God and the people He creates?

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 10:54 PM
Jesus asked the Father to forgive them because they did not know what they were doing (Luke 23:34) so I don't believe they were held accountable for that act in particular. Now, if they did not accept Him as their Lord and Savior at any point after that then that was their choice and they are held responsible for that.

So in your view all the people responsible for having Jesus executed are not held accountable by God for that act?


I don't know if He ordained every detail but I do believe He ordained for Christ to be killed for our sins. It's not as if He couldn't have done it another way than how it happened but that was the way that He ordained based on the circumstances of that time.

This kind of makes my point. God could have ordained the crucifixion in a different way, which would entail an ordaining of different events leading up to the event. It's not enough to say simply that God ordained Christ to be killed for our sins and not address how exactly that would come to pass.


Why "and on and on and on"? You're taking it further than it needs to go and I'm not sure why that is.

Because I don't know where to stop. God ordains the crucifixion. Does that mean God also ordained the betrayal of Judas? Does that also mean God ordained the events in Judas' life that brought him to be in a position to betray Jesus? Does that also mean God ordained the events in Judas' parents life to eventually meet and marry and have a child? And on and on and on. You see? Where do I stop?


You asked that already and I answered your question. Can you tell me why my answer is not acceptable to you? I don't see why everything has to be ordained just because we know of a few things that were ordained. That leads to what I believe to be a ludicrous conclusion that God even ordains all the rapes, murders and so on that occur. Why would He purposely ordain for things to happen against His own commandments? I don't understand why you can't see how little sense that makes.

God ordaining the crucifixion is God ordaining something that goes against God's own commandment not to murder, is it not? I don't see why this is a problem.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 10:56 PM
So I take that to say it was only His desire, but ultimately it was your will....Define "will". It was His desire for me to be saved and it became my desire to be saved.


God was kept waiting then until you came to Him?Sure. Do you have a problem with that concept? He doesn't mind waiting. He is longsuffering.

Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Romans 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2 Peter 3: 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 11:00 PM
But why would He want to do that? That would make Him a puppet master and us His puppets. How can a puppet master have a loving personal relationship with his puppets?

So being a puppet is worse than ending up in hell for eternity? I would choose to be God's puppet.


Not at all.

You're saying that, but that isn't what I'm saying I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion about my view. You clearly don't understand my view for whatever reason.

It looks to me to be an inevitable conclusion to your view. God could make it so that all will be saved even if that involved God forcing his will on human subjects, correct? But God doesn't do this. Why? Because apparently he's not in the business of forcing people to believe, right? Hence, God's respect for human freedom is a higher priority for God than his desire for all to be saved. How is this not what you believe?


Yes. Why not? Do you have any children? If so I'm sure you desire that they obey you and follow what you teach them, right? What if they don't? Should you force them to do so? Or would you rather they willingly do so? If they never do so what does that say about your desire for them to obey you? It doesn't mean you didn't truly desire for them to obey you, right? They have to choose whether or not to obey you and follow what you teach them, right? And you have no problem with that being the case, correct? So, why would have a problem with that being the case between God and the people He creates?

But I don't have the power to change my kids (I don't have any) will. God does.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 11:19 PM
John146, try to see my point instead of getting all fired up for a second.I'm not fired up at all and I am trying to see your point. But you're not being very clear.


When did God learn that Cain would kill Abel? Did God know this BEFORE creation or did he learn it after? If God knew it before the first "cause" took place then ask yourself if he could have changed his plan? I get that God doesn't sin or cause sin, but what I am saying is that God ALLOWS for sin, knows it going to happen and knows that most will NOT be saved.Yes, He allows it and doesn't cause it.


God knows all outcomes of all circumstances BEFORE creation. So before man even has a heart to reject God, God knows that some will reject Him. Now stop and think about did God have the power to alter the plan and save different people? Could God have kept Abel alive or kept Cain from sinning? I think God could have but ELECTED not to.Right. So, why is that? I believe it's because He wanted man to freely choose his actions and particularly wanted man to freely choose who to serve and put his faith in.


So in the end God knew every outcome BEFORE the first cause... so before God puts anything in motion and sin will reek havoc, He knows it will be so but allowed it anyways. Sure.


Now how you want to place blame for future events is one thing, but to say that anything happens outside of God's sovereign will is the same thing as saying God doesn't have a sovereign will.Okay, now you lost me. Define "sovereign will".


Now I agree that God tells us that the perfect MORAL WILL is that everyone repent and come to Him, but His sovereign will is NOT that because God's sovereign will will be done.Again, you lost me. I don't know what you're trying to say here. I think it only makes sense that if He truly wants everyone to repent then that doesn't means He would make sure that everyone will repent by basically forcing everyone to do so, but I think it does mean He would at least give everyone the ability and the opportunity to repent.

John146
Jan 30th 2012, 11:25 PM
So being a puppet is worse than ending up in hell for eternity? I would choose to be God's puppet.Why are you acting as if those are the only choices? I think being a puppet is worse than having the opportunity to have a willing, loving relationship with God and being with Him for eternity by choice.


It looks to me to be an inevitable conclusion to your view. God could make it so that all will be saved even if that involved God forcing his will on human subjects, correct?He could, but why would He do that?


But God doesn't do this. Why? Because apparently he's not in the business of forcing people to believe, right?Obviously.


Hence, God's respect for human freedom is a higher priority for God than his desire for all to be saved. How is this not what you believe?Because it isn't. I don't know why you are trying to put a priority on things. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that He wants all people to be saved but also wants people to repent and believe willingly rather than forcing them to do so. It has nothing to do with Him prioritizing one of those things over the other, it has to do with His overall desire.


But I don't have the power to change my kids (I don't have any) will. God does.But why would God want to force them to obey you rather than wanting them to do so willingly?

keyzer soze
Jan 30th 2012, 11:34 PM
I guess in short I am comfortable saying that God's DESIRE for all men to come to Him is not equal to God's sovereign will.

Analogy: My DESIRE is to take a long vacation this year to a location that my wife and child really want to go to for 2 weeks. This is my true desire to please my wife and kid. However, my WILL may not follow my desire because for a bigger purpose for my family. My wife and kid might be pretty bummed that while I openly admit that my desire is to take them on this trip, and they might think we can afford it, I might think it is better for us to not go for reasons they simply can't understand.

This is the best way I can describe how I process God's desire not equaling his sovereign will. There must be a greater purpose as to why all men are not saved and that is hard for my brain to process at this time but I can trust that God knows best.

I know from the bible that God is sovereign meaning I know that God is in control and has a plan. I believe God allows sin in the world for reasons that will ultimately glorify Him and with sin comes a price, that price is that His desire for all to be in heaven will not come to be in His sovereign will. Therefore, I believe that allowing some/most to perish in hell must somehow be more important to God then fulfilling His desire to save all. Just as I might have financial or moral reasons to not fulfill my children's desire to take them on a vacation even though I truly desire to see their faces light up on said vacation.

Does that make any sense?

BrckBrln
Jan 30th 2012, 11:37 PM
He could, but why would He do that?

To save them from hell. It seems you think God thinks an eternity in hell is preferable than a forced relationship.


Because it isn't. I don't know why you are trying to put a priority on things. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that He wants all people to be saved but also wants people to repent and believe willingly rather than forcing them to do so. It has nothing to do with Him prioritizing one of those things over the other, it has to do with His overall desire.

It seems pretty simple to me.

God desires all to be saved
God desires people to willingly believe in him

Since these are two different desires one will naturally be above the other. If God truly desired all to be saved, if that was his all-consuming wish, he could make that happen. You have said you agree. But you say God desires also for people to willingly believe in him. Okay, it seems that's God's ultimate desire because it's reality that not all are saved. Hence, preserving human freedom is God's top priority, otherwise he would forcibly convert everybody.

divaD
Jan 31st 2012, 12:08 AM
So being a puppet is worse than ending up in hell for eternity? I would choose to be God's puppet.



.


The major thing I find wrong with this is, and this is speaking only in general, but why do you deserve to be God's puppet, while all those that do end up in hell, they didn't deserve that same luxury? What makes you better than them? Again, speaking in general, and not specifically meaning you in particular.

Something else I noticed that was interesting about what you said..and it was this..."I would choose to be God's puppet". Why would you have to choose to begin with? I thought God did all the choosing?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 12:18 AM
Define "will". It was His desire for me to be saved and it became my desire to be saved.

Let's be bold then... God wills your salvation... if indeed you believe as I hear you... Do not read this as I doubt your salvation, but the opposite, did God will that you'd be saved then?



Sure. Do you have a problem with that concept? He doesn't mind waiting. He is longsuffering.

Whether God waits or not is not my question to you... It's His sovereign will... Jesus saves is taken literally. You claim God is sovereign in all things, yet you are skirting around the question does God will folks to believe? The answer has to be yes. He is sovereign in all things and all ways.




Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Romans 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2 Peter 3: 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

All fine and agree. But the meat behind it is, is God's will too small that He is limited in what He can do when it comes to saving folks, or instead, does He purpose the salvation of those who believe?

We have already agreed that His will cannot be thwarted, but you still deny that He can't purpose the salvation of folks, thus you are limiting His will

BrckBrln
Jan 31st 2012, 12:27 AM
The major thing I find wrong with this is, and this is speaking only in general, but why do you deserve to be God's puppet, while all those that do end up in hell, they didn't deserve that same luxury? What makes you better than them? Again, speaking in general, and not specifically meaning you in particular.

The whole point of election is that I'm not any better than the person who isn't elected.


Something else I noticed that was interesting about what you said..and it was this..."I would choose to be God's puppet". Why would you have to choose to begin with? I thought God did all the choosing?

Understand that I was reasoning under the Arminian belief system.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 12:33 AM
The major thing I find wrong with this is, and this is speaking only in general, but why do you deserve to be God's puppet, while all those that do end up in hell, they didn't deserve that same luxury?

Hi David,

But what or who is deserving in salvation to begin with? If we have been bought with a price, are we not His bond-servants? God will's what God wills. And I speak as to someone who would appreciate meat




What makes you better than them? Again, speaking in general, and not specifically meaning you in particular.

No one submit an application, or has a certain pedigree, or does the 'right things'. As I've declared many years here a man's salvation is for God, of God, by God, in God, through God, because of God, least any man would boast. Jesus came into the world and the world knew him not, for all men are sinful and all do not seek after God. Thus God's sovereignty is bankable, dependable, commitable, reliable, firm, unwavering. determined.



Something else I noticed that was interesting about what you said..and it was this..."I would choose to be God's puppet". Why would you have to choose to begin with? I thought God did all the choosing?

It's the human awareness that never is lost. Man is accountable for the sin He does... Saying to be God's puppet to me interprets as to submit my whole life to him. It's the bacon of the pig at breakfast against the egg of the chicken, the Pig gives his whole life, the chicken just participates.

Every man comes to the cross the same, without doctrines, but by faith because of His grace.... any other way should be questioned... then afterwards, His Spirit opens eyes and ears wide as we sell everything we own for that pearl of Jesus... So saying we have choices doesn't go away, but it grows to understand that we didn't chose Jesus, He chose us.

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

keyzer soze
Jan 31st 2012, 12:53 AM
Perhaps a better example than my silly vacation example would be my friend who i just spoke to that has been on the rpad for work for a month away from hos family. It is safe to say that his desire is to be home with his family but his will is to work for the family even if it means sacraficing his desire. I believe the same can be said about God not mee
ti.g His own desire to save all.

divaD
Jan 31st 2012, 01:12 AM
If we have been bought with a price, are we not His bond-servants?

Hi RBG.

But why are we bought with a price to begin with, wouldn't that be the question? Why us, and not also those that would end up in hell? What is it about us that differs from them? If God did all this choosing before time began, then what did He base the choosing on at the time?





It's the human awareness that never is lost. Man is accountable for the sin He does... Saying to be God's puppet to me interprets as to submit my whole life to him. It's the bacon of the pig at breakfast against the egg of the chicken, the Pig gives his whole life, the chicken just participates.

Every man comes to the cross the same, without doctrines, but by faith because of His grace.... any other way should be questioned... then afterwards, His Spirit opens eyes and ears wide as we sell everything we own for that pearl of Jesus... So saying we have choices doesn't go away, but it grows to understand that we didn't chose Jesus, He chose us.

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

After reading this a cpl of times, I'm not certain that I disagree with you. I'm not certain what my stance is overall. I do believe we have free will. But let's say it was the will of some to stone Jesus to death on a few occasions, which was indeed true. Obviously God's will trumped their wills, since they never got their way. But that doesn't mean they never had free will to stone Jesus to death. They indeed tried but were unsuccessful. So does that mean that God wanted them to try and stone Jesus to death, or does it mean God's will for them to not be successful if and when they tried, it trumped their will to successfully stone Jesus?

Watchman
Jan 31st 2012, 01:26 AM
Hi John,

I'll translate my understanding of PPS's question. What exactly happened to man's constitution of spirit, soul, body when Adam sinned?

W :)


I apologize for being late.
If you desire anything exactly re: spiritual Truth, I suggest you consult the Lord.

However, I may hazzard an opinion ...

The Lord tainted man's sperm so the sin nature would be passed down through the generations.
Wanna see duh many verses which reveal that ALL men have this sin nature?
Have I already explained that it could not have been through the blood because Mary had the sin nature?
I.E. Mary's blood was the same as yours.
Jesus was sinless only because His " "Father" " was none other than the Holy Spirit.

Why use opinion? Your own statements have declared man spiritually dead, and nowhere in scripture do we find Greek words that can accurately be translated, sinful nature...regardless of what the NIV committee on translation says. What does spiritually dead mean to you? Being born a fleshly creature is one thing...being born of the Spirit is quite another. Flesh gives birth to flesh...Spirit gives birth to spirit. Adam was spiritually dead because his spirit was separated from God...ie, he was a natural, fleshly man who sired fleshly people. The Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual people, even if we are babies when we're reborn. The fleshly man is the man sans the Spirit of God dwelling in him. The spiritual man is God's son. Simple.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 02:42 AM
Hi RBG.

But why are we bought with a price to begin with, wouldn't that be the question? Why us, and not also those that would end up in hell? What is it about us that differs from them? If God did all this choosing before time began, then what did He base the choosing on at the time?

Hi David,


Yepper... that's what faith is all about... Jesus tell ol' Nicodemus that the wind blows wherever it wants to, so too is how the Holy Spirit works, however God wants it to be. I'm one that would say that God does not chose anything, He wills. Man chooses based on learned knowledge... God doesn't pick between an A or a B. Man being born has to be taught, thus his choice has environment and predispositional preference of his parents and peers that help influence behavior at a very early age and thus choice... God never learns, never changes, and is never like man. That is why Solomon declares to train up a child in the way he should go or better --- in the ways of God.... for that being the only truth helps the child to see clearly.


So I don't see God having a talent contest, or picked a man based on ethnics or statue or wealth or can do 20 freethrows in a row... I see that there are folks who when they hear the Gospel, will get it, understand it, be changed by it, and live it never to go back to self again, and then in time learn it was God who helped them see that it was His will for them all along. As to others... Pray for them, witness to them, love them, for that is your fair and reasonable service, for don't be a god to them and say God didn't chose you... so you can't believe, 'cause you weren't 'called'... But instead... trust that God will save all that you pray for and witness to... knowing that He is God and sovereign in all things... and that His will is done. Thank Him, worship Him, glorify Him... and ask Him to save all that you witness to, all that you pray knowing He can, trusting that His will will be done. To God be the glory, great things He has done!





After reading this a cpl of times, I'm not certain that I disagree with you. I'm not certain what my stance is overall. I do believe we have free will. But let's say it was the will of some to stone Jesus to death on a few occasions, which was indeed true. Obviously God's will trumped their wills, since they never got their way. But that doesn't mean they never had free will to stone Jesus to death. They indeed tried but were unsuccessful. So does that mean that God wanted them to try and stone Jesus to death, or does it mean God's will for them to not be successful if and when they tried, it trumped their will to successfully stone Jesus?

All things work together for good to those who love the Lord.... meaning everything is under God's divine will, and all that is good is for good and all that is sinful and evil is eventually for good. For all mankind. No.... For only those who love God.


God is and has to be [and of course..will be] sovereign in all things, even when we don't fully understand it... Some things just need to taken and believed and trusted with faith that God knows all things and does all things according to His will. As far as stoning of Jesus -- great example of God's will via man's. It shows us that they wanted to do evil things, yet it wasn't Jesus time, so for our benefit, God shows us that He controls the events, using the hearts and yes even influencing the hearts of men. Yet man is always, repeat always held accountable for the sin he does.

I submit that the day you came to saving faith in Jesus was the day that God's Spirit changed your heart to hear it correctly, to respond on your own [as you should], and walk in repentance and faith... But now I present to you for consideration that God was quietly involved in helping you see in that day.... For God planned that day to happen before the world was even created and not to mention even before you were actually born.... For His Spirit was at work within you so that you will believe and live. Thus you are born again. Praise God!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 31st 2012, 10:01 AM
I apologize for being late.
If you desire anything exactly re: spiritual Truth, I suggest you consult the Lord.

However, I may hazzard an opinion ...

The Lord tainted man's sperm so the sin nature would be passed down through the generations.

Really?! And you don't even realize how ridiculous that is to presume.


Wanna see duh many verses which reveal that ALL men have this sin nature?

And?


Have I already explained that it could not have been through the blood because Mary had the sin nature?
I.E. Mary's blood was the same as yours.

That's utterly ridiculous. Does that actually make sense to you?


Jesus was sinless only because His " "Father" " was none other than the Holy Spirit.


The Father is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father. You have confounded the "persons" of your Trinity. Come on. Seriously? The Holy Spirit is the Son's Father instead of the Father being His Father? That's one of the primary accusations of Modalists against Trinitarians.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 31st 2012, 10:17 AM
In all my years of dealing with this subject in various venues, I've never seen anyone else besides me provide a thorough exegetical overview and comparison of God's will (thelema) and man's will (boulema); yet Calvis and Armis rail on and on about the will of God or of man. The will is a soul faculty with functional parameters of operation.

It's like grace. I've encountered few who really know what grace is or does. The same is true for the differences between knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, wisdom, prudence, and understanding.

Don't get me started.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 31st 2012, 10:25 AM
Howdy PPS,

I don't want to sound like a wet noodle, but I like the Westminster Confession's review of the scriptures a lot.

Pushed into it thou, the 1st doctrine we all must agree on is based on salvation's call.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Mark 1:14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

If we see this all the same, then we should be brother's and sister's in Christ... unless we add things, or we change things.

So with that stated... we all agree? Salvation is by the Grace of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ, His Son. Setting aside any nuances for the moment.... this should be the core doctrine.

My intention was more about the mutual collaboration than even the result itself. I'd like to somehow steer some threads toward more mutuality. I thought such a project might be beneficial for all.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 12:24 PM
My intention was more about the mutual collaboration than even the result itself. I'd like to somehow steer some threads toward more mutuality. I thought such a project might be beneficial for all.

Ah... the desire for a group hug... I can dig it...! :)

Watchman
Jan 31st 2012, 12:36 PM
The will is a soul faculty with functional parameters of operation.
Yeppers!


Don't get me started.
Looks like we're a little late for that now, doesn't it?:lol:

Carry on, brothers and sisters!

W :)

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 12:38 PM
In all my years of dealing with this subject in various venues, I've never seen anyone else besides me provide a thorough exegetical overview and comparison of God's will (thelema) and man's will (boulema); yet Calvis and Armis rail on and on about the will of God or of man. The will is a soul faculty with functional parameters of operation.

It's like grace. I've encountered few who really know what grace is or does. The same is true for the differences between knowledge, knowledge, knowledge, wisdom, prudence, and understanding.

Don't get me started.


Howdy PPS,

That's your view filtered through your body/soul/spirit tricodomy of God's being. Personally, you and I have discussed the Soul/Spirit variances before whereas we differ - that my position of soul is a emphatic descriptor of completeness of body and spirit... ie 'my whole soul {being body and spirit} was troubled when they told me the news.' And yours is three separate attributes not only of man, but of God, giving God a 'soul' which is distinct from the Spirit of God.

As far as grace, I think it was with BrotherMark's thread that I offered the following definition... Grace is the Divine influence on the heart.

Now if you want biblical definition on knowledge and wisdom and understandings, I'd be happy to comply, but somehow I'm thinking your are being more rhetorical than inquisitive... :hug:

Watchman
Jan 31st 2012, 12:53 PM
...my position of soul is a emphatic descriptor of completeness of body and spirit... ie 'my whole soul {being body and spirit} was troubled when they told me the news.' And yours is three separate attributes not only of man, but of God, giving God a 'soul' which is distinct from the Spirit of God.
Hi RbG,

Psuche and nephesh both have more than one nuance of meaning in scripture. Both the Psalmist and Jeremiah make mention of the soul of the Lord...and the NT writers use it in several ways.

blessings,

W )

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 02:33 PM
Hi RbG,

Psuche and nephesh both have more than one nuance of meaning in scripture. Both the Psalmist and Jeremiah make mention of the soul of the Lord...and the NT writers use it in several ways.

blessings,

W )

Hi Watchman!

I understand the view, I just don't see it applicable to God having 'a soul'. God is Spirit [John 4:24]. And the Psalms and Jeremiah can be taken to mean emphasis of the fullness or completeness of God, not a physical descriptor. For an easy example, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord...' as in Mary's noted and famous phrase -- is a descriptor of grammar emphasizing her whole being. Not just the second part of Body, Soul, Spirit. So in meaning i take it to mean... 'All that I am magnifies the Lord...' So I guess I also differ in understanding with you my friend as well.

John Zain
Jan 31st 2012, 04:25 PM
The Father is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father. You have confounded the "persons" of your Trinity.
Come on. Seriously? The Holy Spirit is the Son's Father instead of the Father being His Father?
That's one of the primary accusations of Modalists against Trinitarians.
I guess I have to explain my words again ...

Mary obviously played the role of Jesus' mother ... the Holy Spirit obviously played the role of Jesus' father,
figuratively or otherwise ... actually, any wise you choose. Hint: Joseph played no part in it.
And, thought it might help you if there was no capital F. You're welcome.

If you reject this reasoning, you're just another guy who rejects Scripture.
But, it's okay, I'm used to it.

John Zain
Jan 31st 2012, 04:41 PM
The PPS,

Referring back to your post #186 ...

How'd yu like to pontificate on how man's nature changed from Adam TO post-Adam?
I.E. Man's nature changed from sinless Adam & Eve TO sinful everybody.

If you insist that man has no inherited sin nature (from Adam & Eve),
I'm just a-gonna haf to give you a long list of verses to read.

I'm in need of a real good hearty and healthy laugh today. Please don't disappoint me.

BrianW
Jan 31st 2012, 04:47 PM
This is to everyone. It's OK to disagree and discuss.

Let's keep this conversation going peaceably and without the insults please.

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 08:02 PM
I guess in short I am comfortable saying that God's DESIRE for all men to come to Him is not equal to God's sovereign will.

Analogy: My DESIRE is to take a long vacation this year to a location that my wife and child really want to go to for 2 weeks. This is my true desire to please my wife and kid. However, my WILL may not follow my desire because for a bigger purpose for my family. My wife and kid might be pretty bummed that while I openly admit that my desire is to take them on this trip, and they might think we can afford it, I might think it is better for us to not go for reasons they simply can't understand.

This is the best way I can describe how I process God's desire not equaling his sovereign will. There must be a greater purpose as to why all men are not saved and that is hard for my brain to process at this time but I can trust that God knows best.

I know from the bible that God is sovereign meaning I know that God is in control and has a plan. I believe God allows sin in the world for reasons that will ultimately glorify Him and with sin comes a price, that price is that His desire for all to be in heaven will not come to be in His sovereign will. Therefore, I believe that allowing some/most to perish in hell must somehow be more important to God then fulfilling His desire to save all. Just as I might have financial or moral reasons to not fulfill my children's desire to take them on a vacation even though I truly desire to see their faces light up on said vacation.

Does that make any sense?Sorry, but what you said doesn't make any sense to me. We know that God condemns people for not believing in His Son (John 3:18), right? So, the question I have for you is this. Does God condemn people for rejecting Christ despite them (supposedly) not having the ability to accept Him (according to Calvinist doctrine)? If so, then that would be like God condemning people for not being able to fly or not being able to run 100 mph. Is that the God we serve? A God who punishes people for not doing things that they (supposedly) aren't even capable of doing?

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 08:12 PM
To save them from hell.He sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world. He has done all the hard work. Why does He have to do everything for us? Why do we even have a conscience and a spirit and the ability to reason and so on if everything is all up to God, anyway?


It seems you think God thinks an eternity in hell is preferable than a forced relationship.It's not a better situation (what is worse than eternity in hell?), but it's preferable in the sense that God wants people to trust in Him willingly rather than forcing them to do so. How can a loving relationship be forced? Please explain that. I don't see how faith and love can be forced.


It seems pretty simple to me.

God desires all to be saved
God desires people to willingly believe in him

Since these are two different desires one will naturally be above the other.Why is that? Why can't the two desires be the same level of desire?


If God truly desired all to be saved, if that was his all-consuming wish,What do you mean "If"? Scripture clearly teaches that He wants all people to be saved.

1 Tim 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


he could make that happen. You have said you agree.Yeah, and he could turn everyone into frogs if He wanted to but that doesn't mean He will. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's God's desire to do it.


But you say God desires also for people to willingly believe in him.Yes, scripture is quite clear about that.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Okay, it seems that's God's ultimate desire because it's reality that not all are saved. Hence, preserving human freedom is God's top priority, otherwise he would forcibly convert everybody.I see no reason to try to rank God's desires like this. That makes no sense to me at all.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 08:19 PM
Sorry, but what you said doesn't make any sense to me. We know that God condemns people for not believing in His Son (John 3:18), right? So, the question I have for you is this. Does God condemn people for rejecting Christ despite them (supposedly) not having the ability to accept Him (according to Calvinist doctrine)? If so, then that would be like God condemning people for not being able to fly or not being able to run 100 mph. Is that the God we serve? A God who punishes people for not doing things that they (supposedly) aren't even capable of doing?

Do all people start out believing or are they all in unbelief? John 3:18 indicates that the natural state of man is unbelief. All men. Thus all men are condemned... All men who are born are also born condemned. The natural state is that all men are already condemned. So all are destined for judgement and hell.

So then, Jesus declares, unless you are born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Here back to God's sovereignty.... "do not be amazed that I said this to you...the wind blows where it wishes, so too is everyone who is born of the Spirit. Does God limit His will in submitting to Man's choice, or does God will some men to believe? All men are born judged already, yet does not God save some as part of His will?

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 08:35 PM
Let's be bold then... God wills your salvation... if indeed you believe as I hear you... Do not read this as I doubt your salvation, but the opposite, did God will that you'd be saved then?What do you mean exactly? Are you asking if God desired for me to be saved but allowed me to choose whether or not to accept His offer or are you asking whether God ordained for me to be saved with me having no choice in the matter?


Whether God waits or not is not my question to you... It's His sovereign will... Jesus saves is taken literally. You claim God is sovereign in all things, yet you are skirting around the question does God will folks to believe? The answer has to be yes. He is sovereign in all things and all ways.The answer has to be yes in your understanding of His sovereignty but I believe your understanding of His sovereignty is quite flawed. For some reason you seem to think the word sovereignty means that He controls everything and only He chooses how things will be while giving man no choice at all in the matter of salvation or anything else. But that is not what sovereignty means. To be sovereign means you are the ultimate authority over everyone and all things and everyone is required to answer to you. That fact does not guarantee that everyone actually will answer to you and bow to you during their lifetimes. If someone does not bow to Him because they freely choose not to do so does that at all take away from His sovereignty? No. Why would it? That doesn't change the fact that He has authority over them and doesn't change the fact that they will have to answer to Him on judgment day and bow before Him then.

Think of an earthly king. If some people of the king's country rise up against him does that make him any less of a king and give him any less authority and sovereignty? No. No matter what they do the king can use his authority to punish those who rebel against him so he remains in authority and none of his sovereignty is lost.


All fine and agree. But the meat behind it is, is God's will too small that He is limited in what He can do when it comes to saving folks, or instead, does He purpose the salvation of those who believe?This is a tactic that Calvinists often use in these kinds of debates, but it's a straw man argument. No one is making the argument that God is limited in what He can do. The issue we are discussing is what God's will is and what His desires are. He did a tremendous amount of work already "when it comes to saving folks". He sent His only Son to die for the sins of the whole world so that whoever in the whole world believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. Wow! What more could we expect Him to do than that? But if someone does not accept it and still rejects Christ that does not reflect a limitation in what God can do to save that person, it reflects that person's heart. If God determines everything and man has no freedom to choose then that would mean the reason that someone rejects Christ is not because they chose not to, but because God chose not to give them faith. That makes God responsible for their condemnation! But scripture does not teach that. Scripture teaches that each person is responsible for their own condemnation and the only way for that to be possible is if each person has the freedom to choose whether or not accept Christ.

2 Peter 2:1 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.

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Notice that when people reject the gospel they bring destruction upon themselves and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. This shows that the responsibility for them not believing is entirely their own rather than it being a case of them not having the ability to accept the gospel.


We have already agreed that His will cannot be thwarted, but you still deny that He can't purpose the salvation of folks, thus you are limiting His willAgain, this is a straw man argument. No one is limiting His will. The issue here is that you have a flawed understanding of His will, IMO. It's our understanding of His will that is at issue here and not that one of us is limiting His will while the other one is not.

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 09:01 PM
Do all people start out believing or are they all in unbelief?Neither. How can a baby either accept or reject Christ? But every person is born with a natural tendency to sin and the wages of sin is death so it's true that apart from faith in Christ a person's sin condemns them. But the story doesn't end there. What each person who hears the gospel is judged on is whether or not they put their faith in Christ. That is the choice that everyone must make.


John 3:18 indicates that the natural state of man is unbelief. All men. Thus all men are condemned... All men who are born are also born condemned. The natural state is that all men are already condemned. So all are destined for judgement and hell.That would be true if not for Christ dying for the sins of the whole world. Because He did that it's now the case that all men have the opportunity to be saved rather than all men being destined for judgment and hell.


So then, Jesus declares, unless you are born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Here back to God's sovereignty.... "do not be amazed that I said this to you...the wind blows where it wishes, so too is everyone who is born of the Spirit. Does God limit His will in submitting to Man's choice, or does God will some men to believe?It can't be a case of Him limiting His will by allowing man to choose if it is His will to allow man to choose. And I believe it is.


That is His will. All men are born judged already, yet does not God save some as part of His will?Where does scripture teach that God's will is for only some to be saved? No, His will is to offer salvation to all people and to give salvation to those who willingly accept His Son as their personal Lord and Savior.

BrckBrln
Jan 31st 2012, 09:19 PM
He sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world. He has done all the hard work. Why does He have to do everything for us? Why do we even have a conscience and a spirit and the ability to reason and so on if everything is all up to God, anyway?

If God's desire to keep all people out of hell is so great, then he would do everything for us. This is obvious. If God's great desire is that all be saved, and if he has the capability to bring this result about, and yet he doesn't, then it follows that that is not his highest priority.


It's not a better situation (what is worse than eternity in hell?), but it's preferable in the sense that God wants people to trust in Him willingly rather than forcing them to do so. How can a loving relationship be forced? Please explain that. I don't see how faith and love can be forced.

It's irrelevant that God would rather have people willingly put their trust in him rather than him forcing them to do so. If the latter keeps them out of hell, and if that's God's desire, then it follows that God should make it happen.


Why is that? Why can't the two desires be the same level of desire?

Because you criticize the Reformed for doing the same thing. They would say in some sense God desires all to be saved but in another sense he also only wills that some are to be saved. Why can't these two desires be on the same level?


Yeah, and he could turn everyone into frogs if He wanted to but that doesn't mean He will. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's God's desire to do it.

But you have said it's God's desire for all to be saved. It's perfectly possible for God to bring this result about, and it seems to be a desire of his, so why doesn't it happen?


I see no reason to try to rank God's desires like this. That makes no sense to me at all.

You affirm God desires all to be saved.
You also affirm God desires people to willingly trust him

These are two different desires with different results. If God truly desired all to be saved, he would make that happen. If God truly desired people to willingly trust him, he would make that possible. It's the latter that, in your view, is actually the case. This involves people ending up in hell, which goes against God's desire to not see this happen. The determining factor in all of this is human freedom. God respects human freedom more than his supposed desire to keep all from hell. If he didn't, he would stop people from going to hell by whatever means necessary. It's as simple as that.

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 31st 2012, 09:57 PM
What do you mean exactly? Are you asking if God desired for me to be saved but allowed me to choose whether or not to accept His offer or are you asking whether God ordained for me to be saved with me having no choice in the matter?


Closest yet... Let me rewrite it: original 'What do you mean exactly? Are you asking if God desired for me to be saved but allowed me to choose whether or not to accept His offer or are you asking whether God ordained for me to be saved with me having no choice in the matter?' Rewrite: 'God ordained for me to be saved with and it was my choice in the matter'.

God's will working with Eric's choice in deciding... Did you not choose? Yes. You state you are saved? Yes. God' will working within you by His Spirit.



The answer has to be yes in your understanding of His sovereignty but I believe your understanding of His sovereignty is quite flawed. For some reason you seem to think the word sovereignty means that He controls everything and only He chooses how things will be while giving man no choice at all in the matter of salvation or anything else.

If you declare that God works within man's choice, then you'd be characterizing my position better. He uses you even through your choices.




But that is not what sovereignty means. To be sovereign means you are the ultimate authority over everyone and all things and everyone is required to answer to you. That fact does not guarantee that everyone actually will answer to you and bow to you during their lifetimes.

God's ultimate definition when one day every knee will bow and every tongue confesses, for sure... but by being sovereign in all things also allows His grace and mercy to be also on display... within His will, as you have quoted - He is also long suffering, and allows sin to work together with righteousness according to achieve good. God, for in a heart beat -- can and has judged certain folks for their acts, as well as been exhibiting patience upon others and having some called into faith later on [like Paul]. So He's an active God, sovereign in all ways, even allowing sin to work it's path until its time has come.



If someone does not bow to Him because they freely choose not to do so does that at all take away from His sovereignty? No. Why would it? That doesn't change the fact that He has authority over them and doesn't change the fact that they will have to answer to Him on judgment day and bow before Him then.

Yes God has authority over all.



Think of an earthly king. If some people of the king's country rise up against him does that make him any less of a king and give him any less authority and sovereignty? No. No matter what they do the king can use his authority to punish those who rebel against him so he remains in authority and none of his sovereignty is lost.

Agreed... But go the next step... Think that King now is God, the maker of all men, knowing the heart of every man, and using each man's time on the earth for a unique purpose. Does an earthly king know your thoughts? Does he know what you will do tomorrow? Now think God as King. Does He know your thoughts? Does He know what you will do? There is no comparison. God knows everything, and His will is being done, an earthly king not even close. One day when Christ returns, His Sovereignty will look different than today, for in the future his rule will be like an iron rod.



This is a tactic that Calvinists often use in these kinds of debates, but it's a straw man argument. No one is making the argument that God is limited in what He can do. The issue we are discussing is what God's will is and what His desires are.

No it is not... I never bring to the table any tenet of Calvinism, never have quoted it; just the bible to you and the others, so don't hid behind to skirt of labels. The question you need to answer for your self and to do it honestly is to say does God limit his sovereignty to man's will? If God can be sovereign in all things, why can't He come into my heart and save me while I was yet a sinner? I submit the straw man argument is a colloquial statement folks use when they don't know how to relate to others. Let's eat some meat together and see that God's will is away done and that He wills folks to be saved, even when they say it was their own choice.




He did a tremendous amount of work already "when it comes to saving folks". He sent His only Son to die for the sins of the whole world so that whoever in the whole world believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. Wow! What more could we expect Him to do than that?


John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.



But if someone does not accept it and still rejects Christ that does not reflect a limitation in what God can do to save that person, it reflects that person's heart. If God determines everything and man has no freedom to choose then that would mean the reason that someone rejects Christ is not because they chose not to, but because God chose not to give them faith. That makes God responsible for their condemnation!

Have you not noticed that I have never taken away man's choice from your statements. Man is always held accountable by God.... And have you not read John 3:18 that all men are born condemned? Again all men have rejected Jesus and all who will be born are born condemned... What God has willed is to save, to save some. not all... for His glory and His purposes and will.



But scripture does not teach that. Scripture teaches that each person is responsible for their own condemnation and the only way for that to be possible is if each person has the freedom to choose whether or not accept Christ.

Each person will be accountable... No doubt.



2 Peter 2:1 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.

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Notice that when people reject the gospel they bring destruction upon themselves and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. This shows that the responsibility for them not believing is entirely their own rather than it being a case of them not having the ability to accept the gospel.


But to the Jew, also note that God has hardened their heart for their disobedience... so as a nation, they can't believe.... yet. God also works with man's ways and will and thoughts, and they are God's words -- not mine.



Again, this is a straw man argument. No one is limiting His will. The issue here is that you have a flawed understanding of His will, IMO. It's our understanding of His will that is at issue here and not that one of us is limiting His will while the other one is not.

I guess this is the season of political rhetoric so you can see only what you can see.... My offer to you and others -- is to put on different shoes and go beyond your stereotypes of what you have been taught -- that you misguidedly call Calvinism and look closer to the biblical text and see the Sovereignty of God and find rest, knowing that whatever happens, all things work together for good to those who love the Lord.

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 10:16 PM
If God's desire to keep all people out of hell is so great, then he would do everything for us.Why is that? Did He somehow not do enough by sending His Son as a sacrifice to die for the sins of the whole world? And by having the gospels created so that His message could go out into the whole world? Why does He need to do more than that? Why do those things not reflect how great His desire is for people to be saved? I don't see why He would have to do everything for us, including even repenting and believing, in order to show that He wants all people to be saved.


If God's great desire is that all be saved, and if he has the capability to bring this result about, and yet he doesn't, then it follows that that is not his highest priority.Wow. I think your perspective is way off base. Sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is His highest priority.


It's irrelevant that God would rather have people willingly put their trust in him rather than him forcing them to do so.No, it is not. How can you say it's irrelevant when there is ah huge difference between those two concepts?


If the latter keeps them out of hell, and if that's God's desire, then it follows that God should make it happen. Why is that? I definitely cannot follow your line of thinking at all.


Because you criticize the Reformed for doing the same thing. They would say in some sense God desires all to be saved but in another sense he also only wills that some are to be saved. Why can't these two desires be on the same level? Does Reformed teaching really teach that God desires all to be saved? That's not what I've seen.


But you have said it's God's desire for all to be saved. It's perfectly possible for God to bring this result about, and it seems to be a desire of his, so why doesn't it happen? Simple. Because He wants people to accept Christ willingly and gives them the freedom to make the choice to do so or not. Since it's a case of freedom of choice it only follows that there's no guarantee that everyone will make the same choice.


You affirm God desires all to be saved.
You also affirm God desires people to willingly trust him

These are two different desires with different results. If God truly desired all to be saved, he would make that happen.You keep saying this but that statement makes no sense if it is also His desire for people to willingly accept His requirements for salvation.


If God truly desired people to willingly trust him, he would make that possible.He did.


It's the latter that, in your view, is actually the case. This involves people ending up in hell, which goes against God's desire to not see this happen.Do you deny that people are able to thwart His desires? If so, read the following carefully:

Matt 23: 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


The determining factor in all of this is human freedom. God respects human freedom more than his supposed desire to keep all from hell.You keep saying this and it keeps making no sense to me at all. I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion.


If he didn't, he would stop people from going to hell by whatever means necessary. It's as simple as that.Why? You seem to be assuming that everyone time God wants something He makes sure He gets it. I have news for you. That is not what scripture teaches and I gave an example of His desires being thwarted above. He wants all people to be saved but also wants them to accept Christ willingly so the second desire makes it so that His first desire may not come to fruition since He does not force His desires upon people. He makes it plain as to what His requirements are and then makes people responsible to choose how to respond to His requirements. It only follows that He would punish people for choosing not to accept His requirements. It does not follow that He would punish people for not accepting His requirements if they didn't have the ability to do so in the first place.

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 10:20 PM
I guess this is the season of political rhetoric so you can see only what you can see.... My offer to you and others -- is to put on different shoes and go beyond your stereotypes of what you have been taughtI have not been taught any of what I have been sharing in this thread. I grew up going to a Reformed church so I was taught your doctrine. So, what you're saying here doesn't apply to me at all. I believe what I do because of my own study of scripture and not because of just blindly believing whatever I was taught. This is another misleading tactic that Calvinists like yourself try to use. You try to make it seem as though those who disagree with you are merely believing what they are taught and haven't actually taken the time to study the scriptures for themselves. But that is not the case.

John146
Jan 31st 2012, 10:40 PM
Closest yet... Let me rewrite it: original 'What do you mean exactly? Are you asking if God desired for me to be saved but allowed me to choose whether or not to accept His offer or are you asking whether God ordained for me to be saved with me having no choice in the matter?' Rewrite: 'God ordained for me to be saved with and it was my choice in the matter'.

God's will working with Eric's choice in deciding... Did you not choose? Yes. You state you are saved? Yes. God' will working within you by His Spirit.I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I do not believe that God made the choice for me, if that's what you're getting at.


If you declare that God works within man's choice, then you'd be characterizing my position better. He uses you even through your choices.I don't even know what that means. Can you elaborate on that?


God's ultimate definition when one day every knee will bow and every tongue confesses, for sure... but by being sovereign in all things also allows His grace and mercy to be also on display... within His will, as you have quoted - He is also long suffering, and allows sin to work together with righteousness according to achieve good. God, for in a heart beat -- can and has judged certain folks for their acts, as well as been exhibiting patience upon others and having some called into faith later on [like Paul]. So He's an active God, sovereign in all ways, even allowing sin to work it's path until its time has come.Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I would say He is long suffering because He wants all people to repent and gives them plenty of opportunities to repent. Is there any person in the world who He does not want to repent?


Agreed... But go the next step... Think that King now is God, the maker of all men, knowing the heart of every man, and using each man's time on the earth for a unique purpose. Does an earthly king know your thoughts? Does he know what you will do tomorrow? Now think God as King. Does He know your thoughts? Does He know what you will do? There is no comparison. God knows everything, and His will is being done, an earthly king not even close. One day when Christ returns, His Sovereignty will look different than today, for in the future his rule will be like an iron rod.I was not trying to say that an earthly king is on the same level as God. I was trying to make a point of what being sovereign actually means.


No it is not... I never bring to the table any tenet of Calvinism, never have quoted it; just the bible to you and the others, so don't hid behind to skirt of labels. The question you need to answer for your self and to do it honestly is to say does God limit his sovereignty to man's will?No, He does not. But, as I have pointed out several times now, my understanding of His sovereignty is different than yours so because of that it doesn't make any sense for you to ask me a question about His sovereignty. I'm going to answer according to my understanding of His sovereignty, not yours. But you are going to read my answer according to your understanding of His sovereignty rather than mine. Therefore, you aren't going to understand what I'm saying.


If God can be sovereign in all things, why can't He come into my heart and save me while I was yet a sinner? I submit the straw man argument is a colloquial statement folks use when they don't know how to relate to others. Let's eat some meat together and see that God's will is away done and that He wills folks to be saved, even when they say it was their own choice.You like to use the word "wills". I call it force. There's no difference. If the choice is entirely God's then that means He forces some to be saved since they have no other choice in the matter. But faith cannot be forced. Faith in Christ is the act of freely and willingly putting your trust in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. In your view faith is something forced upon some people and withheld from the rest. But that kind of "faith" can not result in a loving personal relationship.


Have you not noticed that I have never taken away man's choice from your statements.What kind of choice is it if whether or not a person has faith in Christ is entirely up to God? What choice are you referring to exactly?


Man is always held accountable by God.... And have you not read John 3:18 that all men are born condemned? Again all men have rejected JesusI didn't reject Jesus. I may not have accepted Him immediately but in order to be condemned requires repeatedly rejecting Him even until death. Don't you know that rejecting Jesus results in this:

2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

So, those of us who are saved did not reject Christ.


and all who will be born are born condemned... What God has willed is to save, to save some. not all... for His glory and His purposes and will.That is not taught anywhere in scripture. If you think it is then show me the scripture that says God has willed to save some but not all.


Each person will be accountable... No doubt.For what exactly?


But to the Jew, also note that God has hardened their heart for their disobedience... so as a nation, they can't believe.... yet.This is completely false. I'm sure you are referring to Romans 11. That passage says a remnant of them believed and the rest were in unbelief and therefore hardened and cut off. You are acting as if the nation was hardened. No, individual unbelievers were. But the story doesn't end there. Paul then said this about those who were cut off:

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

This is talking about the very ones who were cut off way back then. This says that those individuals "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in". So, even though they were cut off they had the opportunity to still believe in Christ and be grafted back in and many of them did, as recorded in the book of Acts. God gave them all over to unbelief back then so that He might have mercy on them all! But you say He only wants to have mercy on some! Your view contradicts this passage:

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

So, if they continued to be in unbelief it certainly wasn't God's desire for that to be the case because He was willing to have mercy upon them all on the condition of them putting their faith in Christ.

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 12:51 AM
Does God love all people? God is love. Does Love love? If we get this right, all else follows rightly, IMO.

BrckBrln
Feb 1st 2012, 01:41 AM
Why is that? Did He somehow not do enough by sending His Son as a sacrifice to die for the sins of the whole world? And by having the gospels created so that His message could go out into the whole world? Why does He need to do more than that? Why do those things not reflect how great His desire is for people to be saved? I don't see why He would have to do everything for us, including even repenting and believing, in order to show that He wants all people to be saved.

Because he has the ability to see that everybody gets saved. You agree with this. I am saying that since he has this ability, why doesn't he make it happen? The only answer is because he would rather have people willingly come to him. In other words, God values human freedom over any desire he has to see people not go to hell. This is inescapable in your view.


Wow. I think your perspective is way off base. Sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is His highest priority.

You criticized the Reformed view by saying how can we affirm that God desires all people to be saved when it's God who actually chooses who will be saved. I countered by saying that even on your view, God's desire for all to be saved is not a desire that God brings to pass, even though he very well could. It follows, then, that this desire is superseded by another desire of God's, one that sees people willingly put their trust in him. How is this not what you believe?


No, it is not. How can you say it's irrelevant when there is ah huge difference between those two concepts?

Because the contrast is not would God rather have people willingly come to him or would he rather force conversion on them. The contrast is between God stopping people from ending up in hell (his desire for all to be saved) and God accepting that people will end up in hell (his desire for people to willingly come to him). The first desire, God wanting all people to be saved, is, on your view, not something that God actuates, even though he could if he wanted to. This is because, apparently, he values more the second desire, which involves human freedom.


Why is that? I definitely cannot follow your line of thinking at all.

Because that is apparently the definition of desire implied in your criticism of the Reformed view of God's desire. That how can God truly desire all people to be saved if he only chooses some to be saved. You set this up as incompatible. It looks like we are using different definitions of desire. What does a desire of God mean to you? If it's not something that he must, if he can, actuate, then your criticism of the Reformed view is invalid. For we also would hold that God's desire for all to be saved is not something that he actuates, even though he could. The point being, we are both in the same boat.

God desires all to be saved.
God has the power to see that all are saved.
For whatever reason, this is not the case.

You and I would agree with these three propositions, only we would replace 'for whatever reason' with our respective reasons. Correct?


Why? You seem to be assuming that everyone time God wants something He makes sure He gets it. I have news for you. That is not what scripture teaches and I gave an example of His desires being thwarted above. He wants all people to be saved but also wants them to accept Christ willingly so the second desire makes it so that His first desire may not come to fruition since He does not force His desires upon people. He makes it plain as to what His requirements are and then makes people responsible to choose how to respond to His requirements. It only follows that He would punish people for choosing not to accept His requirements. It does not follow that He would punish people for not accepting His requirements if they didn't have the ability to do so in the first place.

This is exactly what I've been saying. But if one desire makes it so that the other one can't come to pass, it means that desire is a higher priority than the other one.

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 02:01 AM
This is exactly what I've been saying. But if one desire makes it so that the other one can't come to pass, it means that desire is a higher priority than the other one.

The difference is reformed thought has God's desire in conflict with his will.

In arminian thought (which I don't buy either btw), it's that God's desire is for all to be saved and that his will is that it be done by faith. Now, the conflict is between God and man. God is no longer has one desire in conflict with another. His will and desire are in line with one another. People go to hell against the desire of God because they rejected his purpose for their lives. They refuse his will.

In reformed thought, it is God who rejects his own desire to honor his will.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 1st 2012, 04:05 AM
The difference is reformed thought has God's desire in conflict with his will.

In arminian thought (which I don't buy either btw), it's that God's desire is for all to be saved and that his will is that it be done by faith. Now, the conflict is between God and man. God is no longer has one desire in conflict with another. His will and desire are in line with one another. People go to hell against the desire of God because they rejected his purpose for their lives. They refuse his will.

In reformed thought, it is God who rejects his own desire to honor his will.

Hi Mark...

I'd like to suggest it's not as cut and dry as you suggest. One needs to understand what is God's will and what strength or value God places on His will. Paul refers to God as the one "who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will [Ephesians 1:11] Not diving too deeply into the Greek, but the word translated as accomplishes... IE energeo, is a present participle and would be easily understood as continual activity, so to be more explicit in understanding, it might be better to say: 'who continually brings about everything in the universe according to the Counsel of His will.'

More specifically, all things were created by God's will, for Revelation 4:11 declares "for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created.

And sometimes it is in God's will that Christians will suffer, as we see within 1 Peter 3:17, "for it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong." And James encourages us to see all the events of our lives as subject to God's will, for remember "today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain"... for which James continues and says, "You do not know about tomorrow.... Instead you ought to say, 'if the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that.

And I'm sure folks of the Reformed understanding will attest to various aspects of God's will, that of God's necessary will and for the lack of a better term, God's free will. And then there is also His secret will, for which He has chose to hide [maybe for just a time], and also His revealed will, which as men, helps us to see the consistency of God's will along with the variances that seem to also be. But all in all God is sovereign in all things, whether we know what aspects of His will is engaged or not, for Jesus taught us through His disciples to acknowledge in prayer that God's will is being done.

Now God also has offered us His desire, so the question is how does His desire relate to His will. Are they the same thing? Are they different... Does one supersede the other? When scriptures declares that God desires that for all men to come to repentance and believe... Does that mean that God will's for all men to be saved?

If under Reformed, the textual understanding says that will and desire are not synonymous. Will is deterministic, a desire is hopeful opportunity. Under the reformed understanding of scriptures, as quoted above: [God] accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will, for which Revelation adds all things were created for Himself, and by His will they existed and were created.

To desire, well desire is not towards God Himself, for God's will is sovereign in all things... But we see Him having desire to His created, that of man.... that He declares to man through the life and experience of God in the flesh of Jesus Christ... and through the testimony of His Disciples, that they write and declare an appeal to all men everywhere to repent and believe. Thus God's will dictates His plan of purpose as God Himself; His desire is exclusively towards all of mankind who have rejected Him... it is His reaching through an open appeal for all to come. Thus both God's will and God's desire work in accordance to who they belong, and thus God's will is always done which is towards Himself, and God's desire is conveyed to fallen man to repent and believe.

Now to the Arminian understanding, you stated "In arminian thought (which I don't buy either btw), it's that God's desire is for all to be saved and that his will is that it be done by faith.", to one who is reformed [me], I see that this definition places God's desires on equal or greater terms with God's will. [Again, see above in why His will is not His desire]

We must know then if His desire is equal to His will -- that all men are to be saved, that His will then is thwarted, because we also know that there will be those who would reject Jesus Christ. And it not conditional in whether man rejects or God does not elect... if God's desire is >= His will, then God's will fails if not every man becomes saved. So a reformed position cannot equate desire = God's will, for God's will is always accomplished.


I know I set to as a reply to Brother Mark, but actually its more to the post in general... There is a ton more to say about the aspects of God's will, and I will be the first to admit that I am not that qualified to sort it all out... But I know for whom I believe and I am redeemed by His precious blood, for I once was lost, and now I am found. So this was a quick pass to those who are looking for a brief view to the difference between God's will and God's desire.

Good evening and His blessings my brothers!

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 04:30 AM
We must know then if His desire is equal to His will -- that all men are to be saved, that His will then is thwarted, because we also know that there will be those who would reject Jesus Christ. And it not conditional in whether man rejects or God does not elect... if God's desire is >= His will, then God's will fails if not every man becomes saved. So a reformed position cannot equate desire = God's will, for God's will is always accomplished.

I know his desire does not equal his will. My point was and is, that reformed theology states it is God's desire for all men to be saved but it is his will for some to go to hell and some to go to heaven. Thus, within God, there is a conflict between his desire and his will... according to reformed theology.

According to arminian theology, God willed for salvation to come by faith. He willed for the offer to be made to all men. He desired for them all to receive His offered gift. Thus, according to arminian theology, his desire and his will are not in conflict with one another.

Neither theology, as far as I know, consider God's will and desire to be the same.

One issue I have with reformed theology I mentioned earlier in this thread. God is love. He tells us that in 1 John. There are other things God tells us he is. For instance, He is holy. These are within God and part of What/Who He is. He gets angry but he is not anger. He doesn't fall in and out of love. He is love.

Does Love love? Or is Love limited? Does Love love all sinners or just some sinners?

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 1st 2012, 01:38 PM
I know his desire does not equal his will. My point was and is, that reformed theology states it is God's desire for all men to be saved but it is his will for some to go to hell and some to go to heaven. Thus, within God, there is a conflict between his desire and his will... according to reformed theology.

I sorta agree, but say it spans beyond reformed theology. With God there is no conflict, but with man... always... The point I made that I don't see recanted within your reply is that God's will is towards God, affecting man. God's desire is towards mankind, directed at man. Thus His desire is a call, His will is complete. All men as seen within Reformed Theology are born in sin, and all men are born in judgement... Sin demands judgement. Scripture declares that all men are sinful. Scripture also declares that the world does not seek after God.




According to arminian theology, God willed for salvation to come by faith. He willed for the offer to be made to all men. He desired for them all to receive His offered gift. Thus, according to arminian theology, his desire and his will are not in conflict with one another.

I understand. And to that, puts God's will for His elect as not His doing, but waiting for a sinful man to come to Him. In reformed theology, there also is not a conflict between God's will and God's desire as I have tried to explain. But to a reformed person, the Arminian theology view shows conflict to us in that it thwarts God's will to elect, thus as I have been sharing in other posts, puts God's sovereignty as sub-servant to man's choice in salvation. If true, then Israel choice God to be His people; that Mary told God that she would be willing to be considered for being Jesus' mother; from a reformed perspective.



Neither theology, as far as I know, consider God's will and desire to be the same.

I hear ya, but it seems that folks try to say that they are or give defense or example that they are to defend a position. The thinking I've heard over the years, well if God desires that all men to be saved, then that's His will then all will be saved to why would God create folks for the sole intent to send them to hell if they were never given a chance to believe.




One issue I have with reformed theology I mentioned earlier in this thread. God is love. He tells us that in 1 John. There are other things God tells us he is. For instance, He is holy. These are within God and part of What/Who He is. He gets angry but he is not anger. He doesn't fall in and out of love. He is love.

He is also holy. He is also righteous. He is also a jealous God. We look at godly things through an opaque filter of sin and lack to see all the pieces fit, so it's hard for us to understand why does god do the things he has declared, and why he does the things we don't fully understand. In a small way, we do things similar, where as if we build a home we have rooms for different purposes, thus some material and rooms are common, some are with better material and are set aside... but it's the builder who builds for His needs, not the home's. Thus within reformed theology, a man's salvation is not for man, per se, but for God. For a man being saved is a work of God because a man was created by God to serve and commune with God. As stated and will repeat again, a man's salvation is for God, by God, of God, in God, through God, because of God, least any man would boast, and it that we lose yet gain our life in Christ and are a new creation.



Does Love love? Or is Love limited? Does Love love all sinners or just some sinners?

God is long suffering for sure. Thus without His love - sin would be judged and executed in a heart beat. As disciples we are to exhibit His love in us to love one another for sure. And God does the same in many ways, also for sure. But God also is justice, thus the need for a Savior. He could have just loved, but declared that His Son had to die to save others He also loved. Sin demands judgement. So there will be a future time that God judges the sins of creation... those in Christ will be covered... Those without Christ Judged as damned. Is God still love. You bet.

Thanks Mark....

keyzer soze
Feb 1st 2012, 02:19 PM
This is a great thread. I appreciate you guys doing this. The sovereignty of God is the hardest thing to wrap a finite brain around for sure.

If possible I would like to see passages like John 3:16 thrown in there. While I don't want to see this go off into a limited vs. unlimited atonement thread, I would like to see how God's will vs. Desire fits in with what sins got paid for on the cross. I have heard people say that John 3:16 means that EVERY SIN was paid for at the cross. I have heard it said that only those who will ultimately be saved were paid for. If you are talking to an UNSAVED person can you tell them that Jesus already paid for their sins regardless if they come to faith?

Great job guys, this is a good read for me. I had something else to add but I forgot.... LOL

Butch5
Feb 1st 2012, 02:21 PM
All men as seen within Reformed Theology are born in sin, and all men are born in judgement... Sin demands judgement.

Hi GBR,

One problem is these three unfounded assumptions. If the premise is wrong why would you expect to draw a proper conclusion?

fewarechosen
Feb 1st 2012, 02:23 PM
hey keyzer

1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

an interesting thought, in scripture if Christ forgives and washes away our sins, why in this scripture is he saying to have charity and it shall cover a multitude of sins ?

if sins are washed away, why try to cover them ?

just a thought not pressing for an answer

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 1st 2012, 03:03 PM
Hi GBR,

One problem is these three unfounded assumptions. If the premise is wrong why would you expect to draw a proper conclusion?


Hi 5hctuB,

Fortunately for me, there is no if. :)

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 04:11 PM
I sorta agree, but say it spans beyond reformed theology. With God there is no conflict, but with man... always... The point I made that I don't see recanted within your reply is that God's will is towards God, affecting man. God's desire is towards mankind, directed at man.

His desire comes from within Him. His will comes from within Him. Regardless of where they are directed, reform theology has them in conflict with one another because they start and proceed from within God.

My personal opinion is his desire and will are almost identical in that desire springs from will, IMO. But I also acknowledge that there are things that God will see to it that happens and these things are not always what he ultimately desires. There are things that he purposes to accomplish and there are things he purposes that are not accomplished. Some people I suppose call the first will and the second desire.


I understand. And to that, puts God's will for His elect as not His doing, but waiting for a sinful man to come to Him.

I disagree. But I won't argue the point.


In reformed theology, there also is not a conflict between God's will and God's desire as I have tried to explain.

As I stated above, God's desire springs from His heart. His will also springs from His heart. These are not in agreement according to reformed theology if we hold to what scriptures say about his desire. From the heart of God, he desires for all men to be saved as stated in the scriptures. But reformers say he wills that some go to hell and they were created for that purpose. So his desire and will are at odds no matter how we try to dance around it, if we hold to reformed theology.


But to a reformed person, the Arminian theology view shows conflict to us in that it thwarts God's will to elect, thus as I have been sharing in other posts, puts God's sovereignty as sub-servant to man's choice in salvation.

I hear ya. And again I will not argue the point.


I hear ya, but it seems that folks try to say that they are or give defense or example that they are to defend a position. The thinking I've heard over the years, well if God desires that all men to be saved, then that's His will then all will be saved to why would God create folks for the sole intent to send them to hell if they were never given a chance to believe.

Well, that would be more along the lines of my thinking because even though arminian and reformed thinking make God's desire and will separate, I am not convinced they are. Jesus in the garden shows us that in the flesh, our desire and will are different. But is our spiritual desire ever in conflict with our spiritual will? I am not saying they are identical, because I don't believe they are. But in the spirit, are they in disagreement? I think they can be. But not in the way the reformed folks try to say they are or are not.


He is also holy. He is also righteous. He is also a jealous God. We look at godly things through an opaque filter of sin and lack to see all the pieces fit, so it's hard for us to understand why does god do the things he has declared, and why he does the things we don't fully understand.

If reformed theology would leave mystery where mystery should be left, I would be far more open to it.


In a small way, we do things similar, where as if we build a home we have rooms for different purposes, thus some material and rooms are common, some are with better material and are set aside... but it's the builder who builds for His needs, not the home's. Thus within reformed theology, a man's salvation is not for man, per se, but for God. For a man being saved is a work of God because a man was created by God to serve and commune with God. As stated and will repeat again, a man's salvation is for God, by God, of God, in God, through God, because of God, least any man would boast, and it that we lose yet gain our life in Christ and are a new creation.

God is long suffering for sure. Thus without His love - sin would be judged and executed in a heart beat. As disciples we are to exhibit His love in us to love one another for sure. And God does the same in many ways, also for sure. But God also is justice, thus the need for a Savior. He could have just loved, but declared that His Son had to die to save others He also loved. Sin demands judgement. So there will be a future time that God judges the sins of creation... those in Christ will be covered... Those without Christ Judged as damned. Is God still love. You bet.

Thanks Mark....

And that is a major problem, IMO, with reformed thinking. God is love. He loves you so much that He created you specifically to go to hell so He Himself could be glorified with no chance, no hope, no possibility of redemption for you, the created one.

My bible tells me that if we have love, we will provide and meet needs because of it.

1 John 3:17
17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
NASU

The scriptures state that if I see someone in need and do not help them even though I can, how does the love of God reside in me? If God loves, then he does and provides because that is what love is.

But in reformed theology, God does not provide a way out for the non-elect. He does nothing to help them and predestines them to hell for which they were actually created so he himself would obtain glory by their suffering. Is this Love?

Grace and peace,

Mark

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 04:13 PM
This is a great thread. I appreciate you guys doing this. The sovereignty of God is the hardest thing to wrap a finite brain around for sure.

If possible I would like to see passages like John 3:16 thrown in there. While I don't want to see this go off into a limited vs. unlimited atonement thread, I would like to see how God's will vs. Desire fits in with what sins got paid for on the cross. I have heard people say that John 3:16 means that EVERY SIN was paid for at the cross. I have heard it said that only those who will ultimately be saved were paid for. If you are talking to an UNSAVED person can you tell them that Jesus already paid for their sins regardless if they come to faith?

Great job guys, this is a good read for me. I had something else to add but I forgot.... LOL

How does John 3:16 fit and compare with this passage?

1 John 2:2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASU

Butch5
Feb 1st 2012, 04:24 PM
Hi 5hctuB,

Fortunately for me, there is no if. :)

There is no "if", that's my point. The premise is "not" Scritpural. This shows that the Refomed doctrines are being forced on the Scriptures.

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 04:29 PM
There is no "if", that's my point. The premise is "not" Scritpural. This shows that the Refomed doctrines are being forced on the Scriptures.

If the first principles are wrong, the entire logical conclusion is wrong. That is why the first principles must be correct. They are foundational! God is Love seems to be foundational first principle to me along with God is holy.

John Zain
Feb 1st 2012, 04:37 PM
Reformed theology states it is God's desire for all men to be saved
but it is his will for some to go to hell and some to go to heaven.
Thus, within God, there is a conflict between his desire and his will... according to reformed theology.

According to arminian theology, God willed for salvation to come by faith.
He willed for the offer to be made to all men. He desired for them all to receive His offered gift.
Thus, according to arminian theology, his desire and his will are not in conflict with one another.

Neither theology, as far as I know, consider God's will and desire to be the same.

One issue I have with reformed theology I mentioned earlier in this thread. God is love.
He tells us that in 1 John. There are other things God tells us he is. For instance, He is holy.
These are within God and part of What/Who He is. He gets angry but he is not anger.
He doesn't fall in and out of love. He is love.
Does Love love? Or is Love limited? Does Love love all sinners or just some sinners?
I like your reasoning.
However ... God is love, but He also is a God of laws, justice, righteousness, etc.
E.G. When God sets a law, such as: Sin results in spiritual death, He means it.
If He were to just forgive everyone, He would have to go against His law.
And ditto for forgiving some?

No, I see Him "seeing" (future) redeeming qualities (not deeds, good or evil) in some,
which He uses to grant forgiveness.
I.E. Is He really willing to pronounce "eternal separation for ALL humans"?

Years ago, a Calvinist warned me that there's a problem with the "all's.

In the OP, I gave some possible reasons for the arminian verses.
But, again I ask everyone ...
What could be God's purpose for the presestination/election verses, if arminianism is true?
To throw us off the track from thinking it's all about our free-will choices?

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 1st 2012, 05:44 PM
//


And that is a major problem, IMO, with reformed thinking. God is love. He loves you so much that He created you specifically to go to hell so He Himself could be glorified with no chance, no hope, no possibility of redemption for you, the created one.


Hi Mark... If a man refuses Christ, will he be sentenced to Hell? Then.... Does God know all things? If there then are folks going to hell by their choice, and God knows that they will be in Hell before they were born... isn't the outcome the same? God knew that folks will be born and will live and then die in their sins, and God did nothing to prevent 1) their birth and 2) their not choosing Him and live. Are you declaring that just because this man could have decided to believe and didn't it was OK for God to still have created him, even though God knew that this man would reject Him and die in his sins? Is not God's will strong enough to save this man then?




My bible tells me that if we have love, we will provide and meet needs because of it.

1 John 3:17
17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
NASU

Amen!



The scriptures state that if I see someone in need and do not help them even though I can, how does the love of God reside in me? If God loves, then he does and provides because that is what love is.

Amen!




But in reformed theology, God does not provide a way out for the non-elect. He does nothing to help them and predestines them to hell for which they were actually created so he himself would obtain glory by their suffering. Is this Love?



Grace and peace,

Mark


Mark, He sure does. The Gospel is open to all who will hear and believe. ALL. That is the way, the same as you and I... No one comes to the foot of the Cross stating let me in, I am of the elect. Naw, we all enter in through hearing and responding to the gospel. There is not one person God will reject if they repented and believed in Jesus... not one... so you have some false assumption then to say that the Reformed position doesn't preach Jesus to everyone, and that God only saves the elect. The invitation is wide open.

I declare I believed the Gospel that one summer day in 1971, some would even call it that I decided to believe. But in study - say that it was God who drew me to Himself, and opened my heart to believe.

And I'd say the same of you, even though you may say you are not of the elect, would argue that all who believe would be. God's grace was given to you even when you decided on your one.

John146
Feb 1st 2012, 05:46 PM
Because he has the ability to see that everybody gets saved. You agree with this. I am saying that since he has this ability, why doesn't he make it happen?I have answered this question several times already. Why do you keep asking it?


The only answer is because he would rather have people willingly come to him.Exactly. Why do you have a problem with that?


In other words, God values human freedom over any desire he has to see people not go to hell. This is inescapable in your view. [quote]Wrong. He values them both the same. He showed how much He desires to see people not go to hell by sending His Son to purposely sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. How does that not show how big God's desire is to save people from hell?

[quote]You criticized the Reformed view by saying how can we affirm that God desires all people to be saved when it's God who actually chooses who will be saved. I countered by saying that even on your view, God's desire for all to be saved is not a desire that God brings to pass, even though he very well could.But in my view He did something to make His desire possible by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world and graciously offering them salvation through faith in His Son while in your view He purposely made it so that His desire could not possibly come to fruition, which I believe makes no sense whatsoever.


It follows, then, that this desire is superseded by another desire of God's, one that sees people willingly put their trust in him. How is this not what you believe?Just because one desire makes it possible for the other desire to not come to fruition does not mean that desire supersedes the other. You are using faulty logic here.

Let me give you an example on a smaller scale to show how faulty your logic really is. I have two children. I, of course, want them to be obedient. But I don't want to force them to be obedient. I would rather allow them to choose whether to be obedient or not and if they're not then I punish them. So, there are two desires of mine that I mentioned here. The first desire is that I want both of my kids to be obedient. The second desire is that I want them to choose whether or not to be obedient rather than force them to be obedient with the condition that if they are disobedient they will be punished for it. Now, if they choose to disobey then does that mean my desire for them to have the ability to choose whether or not to obey was greater than my desire for them to obey? Clearly not, right? Yet you are trying to say that if God desires for all to be saved and for all to have the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in Christ and be saved then if not all do choose to believe in Christ and are saved that somehow means that His desire to give them the freedom to choose is greater than His desire for them to be saved. But that doesn't make any sense as I believe my analogy shows.


Because that is apparently the definition of desire implied in your criticism of the Reformed view of God's desire. That how can God truly desire all people to be saved if he only chooses some to be saved. You set this up as incompatible. It looks like we are using different definitions of desire. What does a desire of God mean to you? If it's not something that he must, if he can, actuate, then your criticism of the Reformed view is invalid. For we also would hold that God's desire for all to be saved is not something that he actuates, even though he could. The point being, we are both in the same boat. No, we are not in the same boat because as I explained earlier, in my view God at least did something to give everyone the opportunity to be saved where in your view He only saves some and doesn't even give the rest any opportunity to be saved. In my view God acts on His desire for all to be saved by making it possible for all to be saved while in your view He does not act on His desire for all to be saved at all, which I believe does not make any sense.


God desires all to be saved.
God has the power to see that all are saved.
For whatever reason, this is not the case. The reason is that some choose not to believe in Christ. Your doctrine turns something very simple into a complicated mystery.


This is exactly what I've been saying. But if one desire makes it so that the other one can't come to pass, it means that desire is a higher priority than the other one.No, it does not, as I have shown above.

John146
Feb 1st 2012, 06:31 PM
As I stated above, God's desire springs from His heart. His will also springs from His heart. These are not in agreement according to reformed theology if we hold to what scriptures say about his desire. From the heart of God, he desires for all men to be saved as stated in the scriptures. But reformers say he wills that some go to hell and they were created for that purpose. So his desire and will are at odds no matter how we try to dance around it, if we hold to reformed theology.Exactly. In Reformed theology His will contradicts His desire because in that theology, despite His desire for all to be saved, He did not will for all to be saved but only willed for some to be saved and didn't even create the opportunity for all to be saved. In my view His will does not contradict His desire because I believe He willfully acted on His desire for all people to be saved by sending His Son to die for the sins of the world so that all people have the opportunity to be saved with the condition that they must choose to answer God's call to salvation by repenting and putting their faith in Christ in order to be saved.


And that is a major problem, IMO, with reformed thinking. God is love. He loves you so much that He created you specifically to go to hell so He Himself could be glorified with no chance, no hope, no possibility of redemption for you, the created one.Right. That is not love, that is hate. There is no possibility of making an argument from the Reformed perspective that God loves those who end up in hell. No, in Reformed theology He hates those who are in hell. If He loved them then that would be a very strange way of showing it (purposely creating them so that they would end up in hell while having no opportunity of going to heaven).

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 06:43 PM
Right. That is not love, that is hate. There is no possibility of making an argument from the Reformed perspective that God loves those who end up in hell. No, in Reformed theology He hates those who are in hell. If He loved them then that would be a very strange way of showing it (purposely creating them so that they would end up in hell while having no opportunity of going to heaven).

I would not call it hate. One can love and hate at the same time just ask any married couple. :) Hate is an emotion. Love is far more than that. The opposite of love can be found in 1 Cor. 13.

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 06:52 PM
Hi Mark... If a man refuses Christ, will he be sentenced to Hell? Then.... Does God know all things? If there then are folks going to hell by their choice, and God knows that they will be in Hell before they were born... isn't the outcome the same?

Outcome is the same but motive (love) and offer are different.


God knew that folks will be born and will live and then die in their sins, and God did nothing to prevent 1) their birth and 2) their not choosing Him and live.

On the contrary! He did do something about their not choosing him. That's what verses like John 3:16-17 are all about.


Are you declaring that just because this man could have decided to believe and didn't it was OK for God to still have created him, even though God knew that this man would reject Him and die in his sins? Is not God's will strong enough to save this man then?

I am not speaking about God's will. I am speaking about God's love. Once we settle what is and is not love, then perhaps we can move on to his will.


Mark, He sure does. The Gospel is open to all who will hear and believe. ALL.

But see, scripture goes beyond that. It is offered to all, whether they believe or not. It is truly available to them. In reformed theology, it is not truely available to them even if offered. God didn't truly provide a way even though he could have. Love, according to the word, provides way for those in need.


That is the way, the same as you and I... No one comes to the foot of the Cross stating let me in, I am of the elect. Naw, we all enter in through hearing and responding to the gospel. There is not one person God will reject if they repented and believed in Jesus... not one... so you have some false assumption then to say that the Reformed position doesn't preach Jesus to everyone, and that God only saves the elect. The invitation is wide open.

But it's not genuine. Reformed theology says "If you will do something you cannot do, then I will save you. But in order for you to do this, I have to do something in you. Then after I do something in you, you will do this and I will save you. But to these other people, I will not do that something in you so you really have no way to accept it. I am not going to give you what you need even though you have a large need, I will ignore it."


I declare I believed the Gospel that one summer day in 1971, some would even call it that I decided to believe. But in study - say that it was God who drew me to Himself, and opened my heart to believe.

I have no problem with this.


And I'd say the same of you, even though you may say you are not of the elect, would argue that all who believe would be. God's grace was given to you even when you decided on your one.

I have no problem with this either.

My problem with reformed theology goes back to need. Does a lost man have a need for God to grant him faith? Does God provide for that need even though he has the ability to provide for it? If he does not provide, how can the Love of God be in Him?

John146
Feb 1st 2012, 07:08 PM
I would not call it hate. One can love and hate at the same time just ask any married couple. :) Hate is an emotion. Love is far more than that. The opposite of love can be found in 1 Cor. 13.What would you call God purposely creating a person with no possible destiny except for hell then?

Brother Mark
Feb 1st 2012, 07:15 PM
What would you call God purposely creating a person with no possible destiny except for hell then?

If He did so for His own glory and only for His own glory, then what is that? Does that fit with 1 Cor. 13 where scripture says "Love does not seek it's own"? If my only motive is myself, then what is that?

Plus we have plenty of scriptures that talk about God hating people. And plenty of scriptures that talk about God loving people. God is Love. He feels hate.

John146
Feb 1st 2012, 09:41 PM
If He did so for His own glory and only for His own glory, then what is that? Does that fit with 1 Cor. 13 where scripture says "Love does not seek it's own"? If my only motive is myself, then what is that?

Plus we have plenty of scriptures that talk about God hating people. And plenty of scriptures that talk about God loving people. God is Love. He feels hate.I'm not sure how this answers the question I asked.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:35 AM
This is a great thread. I appreciate you guys doing this. The sovereignty of God is the hardest thing to wrap a finite brain around for sure.

If possible I would like to see passages like John 3:16 thrown in there. While I don't want to see this go off into a limited vs. unlimited atonement thread, I would like to see how God's will vs. Desire fits in with what sins got paid for on the cross. I have heard people say that John 3:16 means that EVERY SIN was paid for at the cross. I have heard it said that only those who will ultimately be saved were paid for. If you are talking to an UNSAVED person can you tell them that Jesus already paid for their sins regardless if they come to faith?

Great job guys, this is a good read for me. I had something else to add but I forgot.... LOL

Hi Keyzer,

Do you see how this debate goes back and forth? The reason is that Reformed theology is not based on Biblical teaching but rather the ideas of a few men, who misunderstood the Scriptures. You see the basis for this theology comes from Augustine, who before becoming a Christian was a Manichean. He brought quite a few Gnostic ideas into the church. For instance, the heavenly destiny, Perseverance of the Saint, and more. These ideas were rejected by the church. However, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. He studied the doctrines of Augustine, which again had been rejected by the Church. Seeing some of the abuses in the Catholic church Luther presented his 95 thesis which again was rejected. Luther didn't set out to separate from the Catholic Church, only to reform it. However, when his thesis was reject it lead to what became known as the (Protest)ant Reformation. These guys wanted to reform the church, however, rather than returning the church to it's historical and Biblical foundation they simply introduced "their own" understand of the Scriptures, they "DIDN'T" go back to the historical teachings of the church, but rather imposed their doctrinal beliefs on the church. After Luther, Calvin had an even stronger influence and forced the church to accept his understanding of the Scriptures. He used the forces of government against those who refused to see things his way. Calvin claimed that God gave him his understanding of the Scriptures and claimed that he "Never" changed his opinion on what he believed. One has to wonder about such arrogance, to think that you completely understand the Scriptures. Luther likewise was arrogant enough to attempt to remove the book of James from the Scriptures. When the backlash was too great he went on to disparage it along with the book of Hebrews. It is easy to why he would do so when both of those books flatly contradicted his teachings. The Reformers also created a new model of the Atonement, one that had not been taught at any point in church history. That is what is known as the Penal model of the atonement. They took what was already a fairly new model, the Satisfaction model and changed it into what is now known as the Penal model of the Atonement. The Penal model is nothing more than a judicial application applied to Christ’s death. It is “NOT” what was originally taught or believed by Christians for the first 1400 years of Christianity. And it is the faulty basis for the Reformers theology. Take notice in this very thread, you see all of these references to sins being paid for (to God) and justice being demanded, man being guilty and required to make payment. All of this is based on a faulty understanding of the Atonement. That’s one reason why you hear those of the Reformed persuasion making arguments that are contradictory to the Scriptures, thus causing them to have to redefine the meanings of simple everyday words such as, all, world, sovereign, and the like. In order to defend this faulty premise they are required to redefine the Scriptures by taking them out of context and reinserting them into their theological construct. Ephesians 1, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9 and the like are examples of this. When these passages are understood in the context of the book in which they are written it becomes quite clear that they are not saying what is being expounded by the Reformed commentary.

Quite a few of the doctrines that were espoused by the Reformers and still accepted today were rejected as heresy by the early Christians. For instance, before the Reformation OSAS was never accepted in the Church, it was, however, rejected as heresy by the early Christians. Here is Origen refuting The Gnostics.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4
Origen
8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” (Cf. Romans 9:18) And certain of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost;

Here Origen refutes OSAS saying that certain men misuse these passages saying some are saved in a way in which they cannot be lost. This is the same thing
OSAS. This idea of OSAS was a Gnostic doctrine as early as the 200’s and was refuted as heresy. It was revived by the Reformers.
Another doctrine of the Reformation is man’s inability to believe the Gospel again this was not the teaching of the early Christians. Here is a quote from Justin Martyr.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Justin martyr
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Clement of Alexandria
“When I became a man,” again Paul says, “I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11) It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name “children” to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and “men” to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror.

Let me suggest you read Origen’s writing on ‘Free Will’. In it he refutes, OSAS, perseverance of the saints, irresistible grace, Total depravity, unconditional election and addresses passages used by Calvinists to support these doctrines. This is just one writer, similar statements can be found throughout their writings. Here is a link to Origen on Free Will.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.iv.iii.html

My advice to you and all those who have either bought into this teaching or are considering it is to honestly answer for yourself a few questions.

1. Is it possible that the entire church either lost or misunderstood the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, “immediately” after their death? Because the doctrines of Calvinism simply were not taught in the church.
2. If the doctrines of Calvinism were Biblical doctrines why did the early Christians go to such great lengths to refute them and accuse the Gnostics as heretics? The apostle John called Gnosticism the spirit of antichrist.
3. If the doctrines of Calvinism are Biblical, how is it that they went untaught in the church for 1400 years? Are we really to believe that God let the Gnostics who John calls antichrist have the true doctrines of God and the church was left with heresy?
4. Are we to believe that the doctrines of a man (Calvin) have lasted 500 years and yet the doctrines of Christ and the apostles were lost right after their deaths?
5. Why would we believe a doctrinal system that can only be traced back 500 years? We know Jesus lived 2000 years ago, how is it we have a 1500 year period of silence with this doctrine?

The questions could on but I think you get the point. The one who seeks will find.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:38 AM
If the first principles are wrong, the entire logical conclusion is wrong. That is why the first principles must be correct. They are foundational! God is Love seems to be foundational first principle to me along with God is holy.

Mark, if you believe these are foundational truths please show where they are taught.


All men as seen within Reformed Theology are born in sin, and all men are born in judgement... Sin demands judgement.

keyzer soze
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:53 AM
Mark, I get God is love. But here are some verses to think about. Note the "innocent" children in these verses.

Deu 3:3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

Deu 30: 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

keyzer soze
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:03 AM
1. Is it possible that the entire church either lost or misunderstood the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, “immediately” after their death? Because the doctrines of Calvinism simply were not taught in the church.
2. If the doctrines of Calvinism were Biblical doctrines why did the early Christians go to such great lengths to refute them and accuse the Gnostics as heretics? The apostle John called the Gnosticism the spirit of antichrist.
3. If the doctrines of Calvinism are Biblical, how is it that they went untaught in the church for 1400 years? Are we really to believe that God let the Gnostics who John calls antichrist have the true doctrines of God and the church was left with heresy?
4. Are we to believe that the doctrines of a man (Calvin) have lasted 500 years and yet the doctrines of Christ and the apostles were lost right after their deaths?
5. Why would be believe a doctrinal system that can only be traced back 500 years? We know Jesus lived 2000 years ago, how is it we have a 1500 year period of silence with this doctrine?

The questions could on but I think you get the point. The one who seeks will find.

I am not a church history scholar but I believe there were "Anabaptist" that date back long before Luther. I believe there was church persecution going on long before Luther. I don't know the dates, but I believe that the church had a major problem on its hands as soon as the common people got the bible in their hands and could read it for themselves.

As soon as the concept of church went from being about Christ in scripture to man's teachings having equal weight of God's writings, I think the "church" got it wrong.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:21 AM
I am not a church history scholar but I believe there were "Anabaptist" that date back long before Luther. I believe there was church persecution going on long before Luther. I don't know the dates, but I believe that the church had a major problem on its hands as soon as the common people got the bible in their hands and could read it for themselves.

As soon as the concept of church went from being about Christ in scripture to man's teachings having equal weight of God's writings, I think the "church" got it wrong.

Hi Keyzer,

I don't see how that addresses the questions. The early writers were not theologians they were apologists. They tell us how and what the church taught. For instance, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, and Papias are not giving us their interpretation of Scripture, they're saying John taught me this, Paul taught me this. They are handing down what was given to them by the apostles themselves. You can see the quotes that I've given teach the opposite of the Reformed doctrines, and I would urge you to read the link to Origen's writings on Free Will. While Origen wasn't taught directly by the apostles, one can easily confirm his statements with those of other writers to see that what he says is in accord with the rest of the teachings of the church. If you are serious about finding the truth and not just looking for a doctrine to believe you'll consider what I've posted and look at the evidence. What I gave you is just a very small sampling, I could post much more information from the early Christians. However, one thing I think you should take very seriously is that those who held these Gnostic doctrines OSAS, Heavenly destiny, total depravity etc. were called antichrist by the apostle John himself. do you believe the apostle John?

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:50 AM
I am not a church history scholar but I believe there were "Anabaptist" that date back long before Luther. I believe there was church persecution going on long before Luther. I don't know the dates, but I believe that the church had a major problem on its hands as soon as the common people got the bible in their hands and could read it for themselves.

As soon as the concept of church went from being about Christ in scripture to man's teachings having equal weight of God's writings, I think the "church" got it wrong.

Hi Keyzer,

Here's a Youtube video giving quotes from Calvin's writings that show what he really believed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwYkXELDXas&context=C306f2adADOEgsToPDskLDCyrgzGFYUCE7-mYoxGO7

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:20 AM
Mark, if you believe these are foundational truths please show where they are taught.

Hi Butch. I wasn't commenting on those principles in particular. I was just agreeing with you about the importance of first principles. I do think that "God is Holy" and "God is love" are first principles.

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:34 AM
Mark, I get God is love. But here are some verses to think about. Note the "innocent" children in these verses.

Deu 3:3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

Deu 30: 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

My point about love has to do with eternity. This life is but a vapor. God loved Jesus, yet allowed him to suffer. When God brings judgment to His people or to sinners, he will do so for a just reason. His justice does not outweigh his love or his mercy.

For instance, do you think those babies went to hell that he had wiped out? Did he allow them to be born and before they did evil in his sight, before they did good, that he sent them to hell even though he had them killed here on earth?

This life is short. What happens in this life matters little to what happens in the next life. Jesus suffered greatly and so we might as well. Doesn't reflect on whether God loves us or not. God destroyed Sodom and all the little ones in it, but that doesn't mean he didn't love them enough to save them. What it does mean, is when their rebellion went so far, he brought justice.

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:38 AM
However, one thing I think you should take very seriously is that those who held these Gnostic doctrines OSAS, Heavenly destiny, total depravity etc. were called antichrist by the apostle John himself. do you believe the apostle John?

Why do you call these gnostic beliefs?

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:10 PM
My point about love has to do with eternity. This life is but a vapor. God loved Jesus, yet allowed him to suffer. When God brings judgment to His people or to sinners, he will do so for a just reason. His justice does not outweigh his love or his mercy.

Hi Mark... To be a bit more accurate, God more than allowed Jesus to suffer, Isaiah 53 declares that the Lord was Please to crush Him, putting Him to grief... God had planned to have His only Son killed, for the sake of His offspring. Love manifests itself in many ways, and in that is also justice.




For instance, do you think those babies went to hell that he had wiped out? Did he allow them to be born and before they did evil in his sight, before they did good, that he sent them to hell even though he had them killed here on earth?

If we were in a court room, I can here the apposing attorney now... objection, speculation. We really don't know. We however trust in a sovereign God.





This life is short. What happens in this life matters little to what happens in the next life. Jesus suffered greatly and so we might as well. Doesn't reflect on whether God loves us or not. God destroyed Sodom and all the little ones in it, but that doesn't mean he didn't love them enough to save them. What it does mean, is when their rebellion went so far, he brought justice.

Again, we don't know what God does in situation here... we just have to trust and not judge or speculate what God has done.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:18 PM
Hi Keyzer,

I don't see how that addresses the questions. The early writers were not theologians they were apologists. They tell us how and what the church taught. For instance, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, and Papias are not giving us their interpretation of Scripture, they're saying John taught me this, Paul taught me this. They are handing down what was given to them by the apostles themselves. You can see the quotes that I've given teach the opposite of the Reformed doctrines, and I would urge you to read the link to Origen's writings on Free Will. While Origen wasn't taught directly by the apostles, one can easily confirm his statements with those of other writers to see that what he says is in accord with the rest of the teachings of the church. If you are serious about finding the truth and not just looking for a doctrine to believe you'll consider what I've posted and look at the evidence. What I gave you is just a very small sampling, I could post much more information from the early Christians. However, one thing I think you should take very seriously is that those who held these Gnostic doctrines OSAS, Heavenly destiny, total depravity etc. were called antichrist by the apostle John himself. do you believe the apostle John?

I object that you are insinuating that the reformed position is part Gnosticism, and that you are actively campaigning to separate the reformed position from mainstream Christianity here. In doing so, you have labeled and separated and not built and edified. This is your position and one that is not on built upon facts, thus you have declared that anyone with a reformed position is not part of the body of Christ, but called an antichrist... and I am personally offended.

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:50 PM
However, one thing I think you should take very seriously is that those who held these Gnostic doctrines OSAS, Heavenly destiny, total depravity etc. were called antichrist by the apostle John himself. do you believe the apostle John?

Did some research last night Butch. Interesting reading. However, one thing I would like to mention is that the Apostle John didn't call those doctrines anti-christ. He specifically called the doctrine of "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" anti-Christ.

Grace to you!

Mark

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:54 PM
Hi Mark... To be a bit more accurate, God more than allowed Jesus to suffer, Isaiah 53 declares that the Lord was Please to crush Him, putting Him to grief... God had planned to have His only Son killed, for the sake of His offspring. Love manifests itself in many ways, and in that is also justice.




If we were in a court room, I can here the apposing attorney now... objection, speculation. We really don't know. We however trust in a sovereign God.

Again, we don't know what God does in situation here... we just have to trust and not judge or speculate what God has done.

But to reformed thinking, Love creates for the sole purpose of sending to hell for His own glorification. This version of love is in conflict with "I desire mercy" and other such statements.

Reform theology has a major hole in it when it comes to love and what love motivates to do. God tells us that love will motivate us to meet needs. But reformed theology says God, who is love, is not motivated enough to save those who are damned for hell, even though he can.

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 01:55 PM
I object that you are insinuating that the reformed position is part Gnosticism, and that you are actively campaigning to separate the reformed position from mainstream Christianity here. In doing so, you have labeled and separated and not built and edified. This is your position and one that is not on built upon facts, thus you have declared that anyone with a reformed position is not part of the body of Christ, but called an antichrist... and I am personally offended.

I agree with you on the anti-christ part. But you might want to do some research about gnosticism and Augustine and the early church in order to refute Butch.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:02 PM
I agree with you on the anti-christ part. But you might want to do some research about gnosticism and Augustine and the early church in order to refute Butch.


Origen is one who I would agree has a lot of crazy ideas, but to blanket declare that the reformed position is Gnostic, is off base.

And so we all see what is meant by Gnosticism.

The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that valued the revealed knowledge of God and of the origin and end of the human race as a means to attain redemption for the spiritual element in humans and that distinguished the Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/gnosticism#ixzz1lEVTwowb

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:03 PM
But to reformed thinking, Love creates for the sole purpose of sending to hell for His own glorification. This version of love is in conflict with "I desire mercy" and other such statements.

Reform theology has a major hole in it when it comes to love and what love motivates to do. God tells us that love will motivate us to meet needs. But reformed theology says God, who is love, is not motivated enough to save those who are damned for hell, even though he can.

Hi Mark,

I'm heading out the door for some appointments... but quickly, were do you sit as it relates to God's wrath?

Brother Mark
Feb 2nd 2012, 02:11 PM
Origen is one who I would agree has a lot of crazy ideas, but to blanket declare that the reformed position is Gnostic, is off base.

And so we all see what is meant by Gnosticism.

The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that valued the revealed knowledge of God and of the origin and end of the human race as a means to attain redemption for the spiritual element in humans and that distinguished the Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/gnosticism#ixzz1lEVTwowb

From what I am reading, Gnostics also believed in total depravity of man. Augustine, when he first converted, believed in "free will" of man. But he converted from Gnosticism in the Manichaeism sect. Later, he came full circle back to depravity as taught to him by the Gnostics when debating Palagius.

Calvin stated, concerning the early church fathers this statement:

“As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”31 He said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will”32 and “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”33 He also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”34 It is a fact that cannot be denied even by those who most ardently oppose the doctrine of free will, that the doctrine of free will and not that of inability was held by all of the Early Church.

31. John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume One, Published by Calvin Translation Society, 1845 Edition, p. 308)
32. John Calvin (An Equal Check to Pharsaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 202, Published by Carlton & Porter)
33. John Calvin (A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical by Walter Arthur Copinger, Published by James Nisbet, 1889 Edition, p. 320)
34. John Calvin (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 60, Published by Truth in Heart)

The direct quote came from this link

http://openairoutreach.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/did-augustine-corrupt-the-church-with-gnostic-doctrine/

Calvin himself admitted that none of the early fathers believed in total depravity as currently taught by Calvinist. So far, it appears to me that the doctrine originated with the Gnostics and was brought into the church by Augustine.

keyzer soze
Feb 2nd 2012, 03:42 PM
This is confusing stuff but great discussion. Unfortunately I have been totally strapped for time and other than reading THIS THREAD, I really haven't had any other internet time at all. I will continue to follow this discussion.

Butch, are you Catholic? Regardless, how does total free-will work with the Pope/Bishops being infallible. Does a Pope have free-will in interpreting scripture or does God not allow that much free-will that a Pope could get something doctrinal wrong? Could a Pope lose his salvation while being a Pope and go off the deepend or is he protected by God?

I was born and raised Catholic and I have always wondered this but Catholics I know don't like to talk about such doctrines of infallibility.

John Zain
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:31 PM
1. Is it possible that the entire church either lost or misunderstood the teachings of Jesus and the apostles,
“immediately” after their death? Because the doctrines of Calvinism simply were not taught in the church.
2. If the doctrines of Calvinism were Biblical doctrines why did the early Christians go to such great lengths
to refute them and accuse the Gnostics as heretics? The apostle John called Gnosticism the spirit of antichrist.
3. If the doctrines of Calvinism are Biblical, how is it that they went untaught in the church for 1400 years?
Are we really to believe that God let the Gnostics who John calls antichrist have the true doctrines of God
and the church was left with heresy?
4. Are we to believe that the doctrines of a man (Calvin) have lasted 500 years and yet the doctrines of Christ
and the apostles were lost right after their deaths?
5. Why would we believe a doctrinal system that can only be traced back 500 years?
We know Jesus lived 2000 years ago, how is it we have a 1500 year period of silence with this doctrine?
While I'm not 100% sold on unconditional predestination/election ...

Historically, it has been ALL about:
-- THE DOCTRINES OF MEN overriding the teaching of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
-- power-hungry and greedy men taking advantage of people who are ignorant of Scripture.

It should not be too difficult to see that the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church
have been (and are) AGAINST any kind of unconditional election doctrine.

To keep their incredible power going ... these churches have needed salvation to be by fear, works, tithes, etc.

Also, let's not forget that Scripture promises more of the Holy Spirit's knowledge, power, etc. in the last days.

'Tis foolish to trust the churches who controlled everybody for 1500 years.
How many of these church leaders were born-again?
How many had the baptism with the Holy Spirit? (I'll answer this one: zero.)

More on the power of the RC church ...
I would even be wary of historical details, quotes, etc. of historical church leaders;
they could easily have been altered by the church to slant everything their way.
(Hey, next thing I'm gonna hear is that I'm paranoid. Okay, go for it.)

Here's a related story for you ... testified personally to me:
A man who was a monk in a Bulgarian monastery for 6 years (in the 1980's) had a tremendous experience:
he became born-again, and baptized with the Holy Spirit.
His eyes were opened (no kidding!) ... and realized that his fellow monks were NOT born-again (as he now was).

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:52 PM
Did some research last night Butch. Interesting reading. However, one thing I would like to mention is that the Apostle John didn't call those doctrines anti-christ. He specifically called the doctrine of "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" anti-Christ.

Grace to you!

Mark

It's funny you should mention that. I was thinking about that post and thought that same thing. You are correct, I should have stated that differently. The main error with Gnosticism was it's rejection that Jesus' the man was the Christ come in the flesh. It is these who John calls antichrist. However, it was also these same men who were espousing these other doctrines, OSAS, total dravity, etc that John called antichrist. So, while John may not have directly addressed these doctrines I think they do still fall under his condemnation.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2012, 05:04 PM
While I'm not 100% sold on unconditional predestination/election ...

Historically, it has been ALL about:
-- THE DOCTRINES OF MEN overriding the teaching of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
-- power-hungry and greedy men taking advantage of people who are ignorant of Scripture.

It should not be too difficult to see that the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church
have been (and are) AGAINST any kind of unconditional election doctrine.

To keep their incredible power going ... these churches have needed salvation to be by fear, works, tithes, etc.

Also, let's not forget that Scripture promises more of the Holy Spirit's knowledge, power, etc. in the last days.

'Tis foolish to trust the churches who controlled everybody for 1500 years.
How many of these church leaders were born-again?
How many had the baptism with the Holy Spirit? (I'll answer this one: zero.)

Here's a story for you ... related personally to me:
A man who was a monk in a Bulgarian monastery for 6 years (in the 1980's) had a tremendous experience:
he became born-again, and baptized with the Holy Spirit.
His eyes were opened (no kidding!) ... and realized that his fellow monks were NOT born-again (as he now was).

At the same time John we can't reject those who were personally taught by the apostles themselves. When we see doctrines taught all over the region and in complete uniformity very shortly after the apostle deaths it is very probable that it is apostolic doctrine. I mean if John Calvin's doctrines have survived for 500 years How can we not expect at least the same for the teachings of Christ? The Calvinist teaching of predestination/election does not show up in the Church until Augustine. If we accept the Calvinist teaching as that of Jesus then we need to explain how it was immediately lost. I mean how it was totally lost by those Christians taught directly by the apostles. I just don't see how it could be lost with someone like Clement who was Paul's traveling companion, who's name Paul said was written in the book of life. Are we really to expect such a man as teaching heresy after Paul died? I just can't find anyway to reconcile that. Since we see that Calvin's teaching of predestination/election was being espoused by the Gnostics and refuted by the earliest Christian and even Paul and John themselves, it seems much more likely that it is Augustine and Calvin who are wrong