|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 5:36:35 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
rwe2156,
quote:
That's it?
Speaking of taunting?
-- "I will give you the desires of your heart."
The desire of my heart is that His will be done in heaven as it is on earth.
What could be wrong with that?
quote:
Have you ever interceded for someone in prayer not hoping your desire coincides with God's will, but that God's plans will change and he will intercede in that person's life?
You would assume that you know better than what God knows?
When the desires of my heart desire His will......that is faith.
That means I have trust in Him under all circumstances......even if Mr Jones is having a rotten life and hates God for it. Faith means exactly what it says it means. I desire to have faith in God even if my life on earth stinks.
If I am hungry or well fed.....clothed or naked.....healthy or sick.....rich or poor.....if I die from a long and miserable battle with cancer......I have faith that He is perfectly capable of taking care of the universe and His creation.
I have faith that He knows what He is doing and I am certain He does not need my council.
Dont you have faith in God that He knows what He is doing and is capable of figuring out what needs or does not need to be done? You shall give Him your council?
How do you pray like that?
"Dear Father in heaven.....I am not sure if you can really see what is going on here in Mr Smiths life.
I am here to let you know what I can see is going on in his life.
In the event you might have been too busy or had no desire of helping the guy or interceding for him.....let me assure you that you can stop what you are doing for a little while and help the guy at this time.
I am begging you to do what I think you need to do. Let me be your guide as I am sure you are aware I know exactly what Mr. Smith needs."
I only hope I am given the strength to survive severe adversity if God was to move me through severe adversity and I sure have not been through much adversity.
And if adversity is His will for me......I praise Him who is worthy of praise.
I trust He will not leave me nor forsake me.
Dont you suppose God already knows what is going on in everybodys life?
quote:
Do you believe God intersects in people's lives and performs miracles
that disrupt the inevitable course of events?
Sorry, but to me, like much of your theology, your answer reflects a fatalistic attitude.
Are the people that God has seen in hell going to change what He has seen, or are the same ones He has seen from long long ago going to be sent there?
Even if you look at things from your perspective on foreknowledge how are all those people that God has seen in hell going to change what He has already seen?
I believe that God works in us to do and will for His good pleasure......not mine.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.
We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
In accordance with His will.....not contrary to it.
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 8:10:05 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
Yes, He did. Do you consider John 8:24 to be a "parable", then? Is that your final answer here? If you do, then I disagree with you. If you realize that John 8:24 is not a parable, why can't you, in light of your own theology, explain WHY Jesus warned them and gave them the solution to their dilemma?
It does not matter which verses were or were not parables. What does that have to do with anything?
The point is He knew that people could not understand Him when He spoke in parables because He knew they were not given understanding........but He kept on speaking in parables!
Why did He do that when He knew they could not understand Him? To taunt?
quote:
John 8:24 isn't a parable, so your answer here is simply sidestepping the question of WHY did Jesus bother warning either the non-elect or elect.
He told them the truth. People will either be saved by the truth or die by it.
quote:
Not sure what you are asking. Why He spoke in parables? Because they weren't listening or paying attention to Him. iow, why bother giving truth to those who don't care, or don't pay attention?
See.....you cant even get that right!
9Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you.
But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'
Why would He teach those on the outside in parables even though He knows they will never be perceiving.......never understanding? Taunts?
You call that human ability? Never understanding. Never perceiving.
Never is quite a long time for those with the powerful free-will ability to understand and believe. 
I suppose if the secret of the kingdom of God would have been given to those on the outside they might have turned and been forgiven! But it wasnt. It was not given to them.
Why do you think Jesus said He did not pray for the world? He said He prayed for the ones that His Father had given Him. Those are the ones whose eyes and ears have been blessed to see and hear.
quote:
Since John 8:24 is a narrative and not a parable, none of this is relevant to my question as to WHY Jesus warned and gave the solution to either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect.
And parables or narratives of any kind that give no proof on human ability are also non relevant.
quote:
But John 8:24 isn't a parable, so these verses aren't applicable to my question of WHY Jesus warned them.
Cool.
Hey, did you hear the one about the demon possessed man that had so much free-will?
Jesus told him to run home and tell his family all about human ability and how important it is that men have such very strong free-wills.
"Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=5&version=31
I guess I must have been reading into the text. 
KJB
< Message edited by KingJamesBond -- 8/10/2008 8:58:11 PM >
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 8:28:01 PM
|
|
|
Eric B
Posts: 66
Joined: 11/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric B
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: EricB
But then the point stands that accountability, and the resulting judgment are a script. It's "written" into the story that people "should" respond but don't, yet are treated like they could have when they couldn't. You say a "script", generally it is called God's salvation plan. I prefer salvation plan; but, in any event, the results are the same. Yes, God planned or "scripted" His creation. Frankly, why would anyone assume that God wouldn't plan or "script" that which He created? Then, the whole concept of "accountability" loses it's meaning. It's all as it were, apart of a story.
God says to be holy as He is holy !
That is impossible without God !
How do the unregenerated do that ?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
God "scripted" the Crucifixion, we see this in both the OT and the NT. Yet, God still says the evildoers are accountable. How do you explain that? We see God “scripted” the exodus from Eygpt. Yet, God still held Pharoah accountable. How do you explain that? That does not say He "chose" the individual, and shut out ny chance of him being saved, because he happened to be the one God "needed" for that act. With enough wicked in the world, including people being hardened for persistant sin and refusal to repent, God would not have to preordain individuals to engage in the crucifixion or any other prophetic wicked act. And like Pharaoh, their "blinding" that Christ spoke of beforehand was in part to give them the courage to carry it out.
Like the discussion on parable. Now, on one hand, Calvinists are saying that man cannot come to God without being elect first, yet the way you are taking that passage, it's like the people would have come if He hadn't used parables, and then they would have "gotten it". No; remember one of those parables; the one who has not, even what he has shall be taken.
quote:
Do you think God has changed how He deals with man? I hope so. Wouldn't want to be still under the Law!
quote:
quote:
quote:
God created everything perfectly including Adam and Eve. Adam brought condemnation upon himself, and us, by sinning and man brings further condemnation upon himself with every sin he commits. Still, as you say, it definitely was God's plan to have Adam sin and put into action His salvation plan by which He is glorified through Christ.
And that's why the other side is accusing your view of making God the cause of sin I’m not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying it wasn’t God’s plan that Adam would sin? Scripture speaks of Christ as the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world and believers’ names being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. Please explain this if you don’t think it was God’s plan that Adam should sin? And, if all this is true, and it is, then how is God “not” the primary cause of sin? So now, you're saying He is the primary cause of sin? I though most [non-hyper] Calvinists denied that. But then again, accountability for man would have no meaning. It would be like stealing something, putting it in someone else's hand, and then declaring him "accountable". Or writing a play of film about someome who steals and is "accountable", but no one would ever say the actor with the item in his hand is a thief.
quote:
quote:
quote:
No, God is not the "potter" of only Israel. Paul makes this clear in verse 24 of Romans 9 "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
Still, the particular example being used is that of Israel. Yes, I agree; but, God is by no means limiting it to Israel only.
quote:
quote:
Jacob and Esau were individuals. The election was to the role of fathering the chosen nation. Jacob was individually chosen to that role. Still, they were representing the nations that would come from them. It is not about God personally hating the men, and this used to prove that He has a whole class of people He hates and thus refuses to offer salvation to. Yes, I agree they were representing the nations; but, still as individuals they were chosen. Esau represents the nations which God hates, those who are not elect and Jacob represents the elect that which God loves. They are, as you say, “representative” obviously God saves people in all nations. But, we still can’t get passed the fact that Jacob was individually elected and Esau was not. But you're jumping things from one thing to another. This passage has been used to prove that God hates individuals, and then scripts a sequence of events to justify burning them in Hell. The personal "election" of either Jacob or Esau is nowhere mentioned. Because; it's about the use of the nations springing forth from them to bring forth the Savior; not about personal salvation at that point. That's what that Savior would be for).
quote:
How does unconditional election and limited atonement depend upon God supposedly giving a "false faith"? I don't see the connection. Because that is to explain people "falling away"; who seemed genuilely saved at one point.
quote:
I don't see anything biblical about "invitations/altar calls". I have to wonder how he knows God has regenerated those who come forward.
If they're already producing works; (which are the signs of the regeneration). Washer and other Lordshiiers generally are critical of altar calls, but wthey still do believe in "evanglelizing"; so whatever they call it when they present the Gospel and the person responds; that's what is being referred to as "the evangelist's approach".
quote:
quote:
Well, people are deciding that most Christians today have no fruit. This is really a tangent, as I know all Calvinists do not go that far. And again, it is hard to go on actions, because we cannot see inside them, nor again can we see the future. They're probably deciding that because of the explosion of the carnal Christian doctrine. A doctrine gone so far astray of Scripture it teaches that if a man once "believed" it makes no difference if were to walk away from God even so far as to die an atheist - still he is saved.
Yea; but that does not give anyone the license to up the ante and demand a certain amount of works, else, you are not saved. We arn people about faking and examining themselves, and that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 8:46:37 PM
|
|
|
shemaromans
Posts: 970
Joined: 3/30/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you for reposting the information and your questions, FreeGrace, and thank you for bringing up this passage. I enjoyed spending time with it this afternoon. 
Please, please, please do not chop up my post and write twenty times "WHY haven't you answered the question?" I share my conclusion at the end of the post.
In the meantime, I tried to explain what I think about the scripture since you've said that you appreciate such commentary (hopefully I was successful).
John 8
I Am the Light of the World
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." 14Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." 19They [the Pharisees] said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." 20These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." 27They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. 28So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him." 30As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
Jesus is reminding them (“I told you…”) of the times that he did tell them about himself and his purpose on earth. They didn’t believe him or get it.
They immediately respond by asking who he is. They still don’t get it. He responds, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” So we see that he’s already told them in the past who he is and what the consequence will be for not believing in him.
******
Why did Jesus warn this group? I don’t see it as a warning. Instead, what Jesus is doing is reminding them about what he went around telling everyone during his ministry. To have eternal life, they must believe in him.
Let’s look again at the text before and after the verse:
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." He’s telling them what will happen. 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" They don’t understand what he’s saying. 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." He’s reminding them of what he’s already told them--that he’s God. 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Evidence that they still didn’t understand. Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. This sentence shows that Jesus really had been telling them all along. Another reminder. (I have no idea how he could be that patient!) 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."
Declare to the world.
That last bit shows me that Jesus repeated himself to the scribes, Pharisees, and the Jews in general on multiple occasions so that the external call of salvation—the gospel—would be made known to everyone. The Jews heard it, and the writers of the gospels recorded it for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
I still want to study this more, but for now, I see that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world.
If I've written clearly but you disagree, then I suspect the problem might be in that you consider Jesus' comment to be a warning and I do not.
I'll answer your other questions probably tomorrow of the next day. I'm sleepy!
_____________________________
But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. (2 Cor 2:14)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 9:15:56 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
shemaromans,
It was enjoyable to read that last post you made.
quote:
Declare to the world.
That last bit shows me that Jesus repeated himself to the scribes, Pharisees, and the Jews in general on multiple occasions so that the external call of salvation—the gospel—would be made known to everyone.
The Jews heard it, and the writers of the gospels recorded it for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
That part reminded me of Jews and Gentiles in two groups.
Ones that have heard an outward call.
Ones that have heard an outward call and had an inner calling.
It made me think of the same text again;
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.
Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him.
30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Sure does not preach much about humans and their wisdom or ability.
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 10:25:06 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 1510
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are you disagreeing with what these Scriptures are saying? I never said we "are the image of God", as you think. We are created in the image of God. Do you see the difference? It's fairly important to distinguish the difference.
Sure, I believe God made man in his image as scripture says. All I was pointing out is that image is marred by the fall. God no longer looks at us and says that we are "very good" but His testimony is that "there is none good no not one".
quote:
Once again, the reformed answer questions by simply quoting verses, thinking that answers the question, or maybe trumps the other poster's verses.
I believe that all of the word of God is important. That every scripture should be taken in context and viewed in light of other scriptures.
_____________________________
Micah 7:8(NASB)8 Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy.
Though I fall I will rise; Though I dwell in darkness, the LORD is a light for me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 10:38:39 PM
|
|
|
shemaromans
Posts: 970
Joined: 3/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
The desire of my heart is that His will be done in heaven as it is on earth.
...
When the desires of my heart desire His will......that is faith.
That means I have trust in Him under all circumstances......even if Mr Jones is having a rotten life and hates God for it. Faith means exactly what it says it means. I desire to have faith in God even if my life on earth stinks.
If I am hungry or well fed.....clothed or naked.....healthy or sick.....rich or poor.....if I die from a long and miserable battle with cancer......I have faith that He is perfectly capable of taking care of the universe and His creation.
I have faith that He knows what He is doing and I am certain He does not need my council.
...
I only hope I am given the strength to survive severe adversity if God was to move me through severe adversity and I sure have not been through much adversity.
And if adversity is His will for me......I praise Him who is worthy of praise.
I trust He will not leave me nor forsake me.
...
In accordance with His will.....not contrary to it.
Amen!
quote:
I believe that God works in us to do and will for His good pleasure......not mine.
Another amen!
Excellent focus, KJB.
Your post brought to mind the following verses from the first chapter of Ephesians:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
These verses remind me why we ought to praise God no matter what. Paul wrote this while he was in jail. Originally, it was one long sentence--one run-on full of praise to God--praise to God while being persecuted and in chains!!
God didn't just save us. He lavished us with his grace. And this, while we were dead in our sins and unable to please him.
Why should we ever be bitter? Why should we ever complain?
Wow.
Grace and peace.
_____________________________
But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. (2 Cor 2:14)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:53:18 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 257
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
KingJamesBond,
quote:
That part reminded me of Jews and Gentiles in two groups.
Ones that have heard an outward call.
Ones that have heard an outward call and had an inner calling.
It made me think of the same text again;
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.
Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him.
30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Sure does not preach much about humans and their wisdom or ability.
Excellent post. What makes it excellent is that it is scripturally-centered. The words of the Lord made it what it is and you need not expound it much. Scripture does explain itself.
BTW, it is interesting that the Lord said that he chose the foolish things to SHAME the wise. God's purpose might be not received by Pelagians but the proper response to that is not dismissal but ponder with great humility and gratitude that the Lord did not leave us to be shamed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:59:49 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 257
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
Shemaromans,
quote:
Thank you for reposting the information and your questions, FreeGrace, and thank you for bringing up this passage. I enjoyed spending time with it this afternoon.
Please, please, please do not chop up my post and write twenty times "WHY haven't you answered the question?" I share my conclusion at the end of the post.
In the meantime, I tried to explain what I think about the scripture since you've said that you appreciate such commentary (hopefully I was successful).
John 8
I Am the Light of the World
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." 14Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." 19They [the Pharisees] said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." 20These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." 27They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. 28So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him." 30As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
Jesus is reminding them (“I told you…”) of the times that he did tell them about himself and his purpose on earth. They didn’t believe him or get it.
They immediately respond by asking who he is. They still don’t get it. He responds, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” So we see that he’s already told them in the past who he is and what the consequence will be for not believing in him.
******
Why did Jesus warn this group? I don’t see it as a warning. Instead, what Jesus is doing is reminding them about what he went around telling everyone during his ministry. To have eternal life, they must believe in him.
Let’s look again at the text before and after the verse:
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." He’s telling them what will happen. 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" They don’t understand what he’s saying. 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." He’s reminding them of what he’s already told them--that he’s God. 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Evidence that they still didn’t understand. Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. This sentence shows that Jesus really had been telling them all along. Another reminder. (I have no idea how he could be that patient!) 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."
Declare to the world.
That last bit shows me that Jesus repeated himself to the scribes, Pharisees, and the Jews in general on multiple occasions so that the external call of salvation—the gospel—would be made known to everyone. The Jews heard it, and the writers of the gospels recorded it for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
I still want to study this more, but for now, I see that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world.
If I've written clearly but you disagree, then I suspect the problem might be in that you consider Jesus' comment to be a warning and I do not.
I'll answer your other questions probably tomorrow of the next day. I'm sleepy!
Great post. It can be summarized by John 1
1 In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 All things were made through him. Nothing that has been made was made without him.
4 Life was in him, and that life was the light for all people.
5 The light shines in the darkness. But the darkness has not understood it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 4:35:13 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
What I said is true.
You just gave the reasons why God is worthy.
God must have reasons to be worthy, and you gave them.
However, God is not holy and rightous just because He is God.
God must act and be holy and rightous. We don't get to decide if the actions of God are holy and righteous - He gets to decide - and He says they are. So when He destroyed every man, woman and child in the flood - He was acting holy and righteous. When he killed every Egyptian soldier in the Red Sea, He was acting holy and righteous. Where do you get the idea that you are permitted to judge the actions of God?...no, He judges you.
quote:
My whole point is that one must be proven worthy in order to be worthy.
It's hard to reply to you because it's impossible to believe that a Christian would speak this way about God. In what world do you think you are able to judge God?....to prove Him worthy?
quote:
quote:
quote:
My question is HOW IS HE WORTHY of worship.
It can't be just because He is God.
God need's to be worthy other than because He is God.Not true.
See above. This doesn't depend on the thoughts of men. It doesn't depend on whatever man may think. No, it doesn't. You are correct.
It all depends on the fact of proofe for the worthyness. No, Dio, you misunderstand. You do not think I am correct because I insist that man cannot judge God worthy. God does not prove Himself to us. God does many things in the OT that we would find hard to call holy and righteous; but, the very fact that it is God who does it makes it holy and righteous.
quote:
quote:
Christ is worthy of honor simply because of who He is - God.
No, Christ is worthy of honor simply because He has proven Himself to be by living a Holy life and fullfilling the whole will of God.
The Father is worthy of honor simply because He himself has done(proofe) graet and marvelous things. I agree God has done wondrous things and we praise Him for them. But, God is worthy of all praise and honor because He is God - not because you approve of what He has done.
Psalm 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
quote:
quote:
Of all the scripture which declares God is worthy, I think God sums it up rather handily when He says : "I AM THAT I AM".
Of all the scripture which declares God is worthy because it prooves the geart and marvelous things that God has done to be worthy.
All your telling me is that God is worthy because He has said so.
That is circular reasoning if you don't know. Are you actually saying that God's declaration He is worthy because He is God is NOT good enough for you? IOW, God has said something about himself and you refuse to accept it? BTW, it's not my "circular" reasoning - it is God's.
quote:
quote:
Having sin to continue in it's course would not glorify God as much as softening Pharaoh's to show how great He is. No, God is clear that He hardened Pharaoh's heart for His own glory.
No, God is clear that He hardened Pharaoh's heart out of judgment. And He used that for His own Glory.
Get it straight. So, what...now you're taking rude lessons from FG? I suggest YOU get it straight - such rudeness says a lot about you - not to mention your pov concerning Pharaoh is quite wrong.
quote:
quote:
Actually, that's not true. We find it is God who is first in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart(Exodus 14:4)
That is only the first time that God Told Moses that He will harden Pharaoh's heart. In fact, that's not true. Ex 14:4 is the verse in which God says it was for His glory. The first time God said He would hardened Pharoah's heart was very early on in Ex 4:21, 7:3,13,14. Some of the verses you quoted are incorrect, i.e., Ex 7:13.
quote:
quote:
God is never to "blame"; but, He is responsible.
Why do you contradict yourself in the same "breath? No, it is not a contradiction. Blame - in the sense of fault, censure or error - all of which God can never be said to be guilty. Responsible - in the sense of being a source or cause - which God claims to be.
quote:
quote:
God decrees and ordains as He did with Pharoah and the evildoers involved in the crucifixion. This doesn't change the fact that man follows his own inclinations and own desires to sin.
Do you not know that descree & Ordain are the same thing?
You say that Cond controls everything, then God controled man to follow the inclinations which God controled them to have.
"It's all God and nothing of man"!!!
Aside from the vocabulary lesson, you're wrong about everything else. Where did I say "It's all God and nothing of man"?...I didn't. I bolded and enlarged what I actually did say above, hopefully that will help you correct your misunderstanding.
quote:
quote:
Man is to blame because it is he who desires to commit the sin and, in fact, does commit it - God doesn't.
You just got done saying that God is responsible, which means that He is to blaime by definition.
Get your story straight. With any luck, by now you understand what I mean by the difference between man's blame and God's claim of responsibility ....although, I'm not holding out much hope.
quote:
quote:
Man acts without compulsion and in accordance with his own desires. How is it that God hardend Pharoah heart. was he compeled to by God or what?
One of you told me that Pharoah even changed his mind to let Israel go, but God hardend his heart against it.
How was that if Pharoah was not compeled by God? Compulsion in the sense Pharoah was not FORCED by God and it certainly WAS in accordance with the desire of Pharoah. He never wanted to let Israel go.
quote:
quote:
Though God ordains all events,
IOW, God makes all events come to pass. Generally, God doesn't "make" events come to pass, though, He certainly has in some cases. He can bring His will to pass even through the free will of sinful men - such as Pharoah and those who crucified Christ.
quote:
quote:
He does so with man's liberty in tact.
Liberty has no sense of control. Eather God controls every thing and man has liberty, or God does not control everything and man has liberty.
It can not be both, which is it? "Liberty has no sense of control" - where'd you get that from? There is no one so totally free as you suppose. By "liberty" is meant an intelligent person who acts with rational self-determination. Man is free to act within his nature. You say it cannot be both ways...well, God says it can. He determined the Crucifixion and Judas acted freely within his own desires and inclinations.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ain't that like saying a robot is guilty for doing what he is programed for? Nope, man is a rational being not a robot nor he man "programmed" by God to sin. Then God did not control anything to come to pass.
God did not harden Pharoah's heart, because that would be a "reprogramming" effect.
You have a very contradictory theology.
You think so only because you don't seem to make much effort to understand. It's not really difficult to recognize how God works through His revealing of specific events in Scripture. For example, God determined the Crucifixion - yet man through his own will and inclination committed the sin.
quote:
quote:
I'm telling you God does not change His mind. This is not possible if He is omniscient and He is.
Then what is our relaitionship with Him worth? I'm not able to answer what your relationship with God is worth to you. Please think this through. If God is omniscient, how can He change His mind? He knows all things. He knows all that He is going to do. For example, God knows He doesn't plan to save someone. You pray for that someone to be saved. If God now changes His mind and saves this person, this would mean what God first "knew" would be wrong. God cannot be both "wrong" and omniscient.
quote:
In short: Gods will is not to save, but only the elect. Since He saves the elect, obviously, it is His will to save.
quote:
Your triping on that you think God gets every thing He wants. God "gets" everything He determines - without fail for He is God. His will as it pertains to His commands to man is often not done.
quote:
In my POV, if they frely choose to reject, He is still a savior; deliverer, but they refuse. Christ is not the Savior and Deliverer for those He does not save or deliver.
quote:
No one is great by default, not even God. Is this really the result of the free will theology?....that man judges God as he would judge any man?
quote:
quote:
Because it is none of our business who God "hates". Were we not "hated" by God before He saved us? It is to our business who God hates. It is only your business if it is you God "hates".
quote:
quote:
It wouldn't. I guess that's why He doesn't inform us about who the elect are. He does, Israel are the elect. Does your need to disagree so override reason? We were speaking of elect individuals NOT the nation of Israel. And, in case you are not aware, the nation of Israel was not elected to salvation.
quote:
You know I'm not talking about "Being in harmony", but not praying "in harmony" with His will. Either way, you are not praying or being in harmony with God if you do not want His will to be done - but only yours.
quote:
quote:
That may be your perception; but, it is untrue. We do not know who the elect are and we are commanded to pray for others. We are also commanded to desire God's will be done above all things. If we do that, we will always be in harmony and agreement with God.
Not if we are praying for the Non elect. Apparently, out of the entire world Diolectic is the only way to whom God has revealed who the elect are....interesting ideas you have.
quote:
Your saying that if it is God's will for condemning a loved on, we should accept it. You don't know God's will for anyone even though you seem to think that you do. But, whatever God's decision is Christ teaches what the response of a child of God should be "Thy will be done"
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 5:36:58 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Are you ignorant of the Terms of Service, Carico? Specifically #6, How 'bout asking the same of yourself, FG. You know the one under #6 which says: "You will not engage in name-calling or personal attacks in the course of discussion or debate."
Please show me what post in which I have used "name calling". Carico's post was clear in suggesting that I wasn't saved. How does that NOT violate the TOS?
Well, I guess half a loaf's better than none...at least you admit to personal attacks...I guess you actually do read some of your posts.
Your comment here is strange indeed. First, you accuse me of using personal attacks. When I ask you to provide proof, and say what Carico did, you say that I "admit to personal attacks". Are you charging me with making personal attacks or not? Carico attacked my salvation quite clearly. Can you provide any proof that I have attacked anyone? No, you can't.
Do you really not get that saying things like "I suspect that is too difficult for you to grasp." and dozens of other equally offensive remarks are personal attacks?
There is absolutely no reason to be making personal remarks such as that and the many others you use. Why not just keep the discussion on the topic sans the offensive personal remarks?
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 5:38:55 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
kelman,
quote:
I'm so far behind on this thread; but, I'll try to take a look, thanks. I don't see anything biblical about "invitations/altar calls". I have to wonder how he knows God has regenerated those who come forward.
It reminds me of a pastor I heard about. He called people to an invitation to come forward to profess/confess their faith in Jesus Christ.
He made the point that any and all persons in the congregation that were unbelievers should confess that they are sinners that have offended God and that their only hope was turning to and trusting in Jesus Christ as their only hope and their Savior.
He added the following points that anyone having such a change and making such a declaration were being moved by God to do so and those not moved by God would not do so. I think it sounded like real truth. When people came forward or no person did......praise was to God.
It reminds me of this;
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking under the power and influence of the [Holy] Spirit of God can [ever] say, Jesus be cursed! And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. (Amplified) I think the operative word there is "really". There is so much false faith today in Christianity. We see so many making a profession in altar call settings and yet no lives have been changed....just lots of people joining up. Oh, well, guess you can tell I'm not a fan of altar calls especially when I see things like the Billy Graham displays.
quote:
By the way.....I dont think you are behind on the thread at all. It seems you are answering things that you have already answered over and over and over again. I think some people are behind in understanding answers. I'm chugging through; but it sure would go faster if we all didn't need to repeat ourselves so much.....lol
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 6:34:52 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1742
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
So, I agree, that God does not cause man to sin – He does not force man to sin – man does this of His own volition. Man is responsible for his own sin and is without excuse for his sin. But it is God who decreed that there would be sin. Truly a mystery.
You are being quite inconsistent here. You admit volition on the part of man. That is free will. Definition: act of the willing, exercise of the will. Yet, you RT pov denies free will. You are confused.
No, I am not confused, but you sure seem to be. My position does not deny that man is free to choose that which he desires. My position has always been that. Your lack of seeing this is evidence of not taking time to understand what I am saying.
Your definition of free will to be only "free to choose that which one desires", is NOT what the definition of free choice means. If one can only "freely choose" what one desires, then they aren't really facing a choice, now, are they? You need to think about the real meaning of free choice. The word "choice" demands options. Your definition of "choice" limits options to only what one desires. btw, where in Scripture do you find such a "definition" of free choice?
All men have the freedom of choice to choose whatever they want to choose. All of us consider the pros and cons in the choices we make and end choosing that which we desire. My definition does not limit the options, for all options a person is confronted with are available. But one thing is for sure, man only chooses that which he desires. Or to say it in other words, all men choose that which they want to choose. Jonathan Edwards, the great theologian of the 18th Century said it this way,
“It is that motive, which, as it stands in the view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the Will . . . By motive, I mean the whole of that which moves, excites, or invitees the mind to volition, whether that be one thing singly, or many things conjunctly. . . . the Will always is, as the greatest apparent good is.”
All men choose that which appears to be the greatest good for them. A person may even choose to hang himself because to his mind this choice appears to be the highest good and thus his desire. A genuine Christian who treasures Christ above all things and has the strong motive and desire to spread the news of the gospel to all will be willing to suffer and die for Christ sake and the gospel because that which appears to him to be the greatest apparent good overrides his motive for self preservation in this life. Those who do not see and understand the invisible things of the Spirit will consider such a person as a fool for not valuing bodily preservation in this life.
All men are free to make whatever choice the want, and each choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart which determines their desires and choices.
quote:
quote:
The purpose of Acts 10 is obviously not to show the cause of Cornelius’ actions and the cause of his belief. To use Cornelius to prove cause of belief and it not being found in the text is presumption gone to seed.
While that is not the "purpose", neveretheless, Acts DOES show that Cornelius believed the divine Truth that was being presented to him. Do you deny this?
Acts 10 does not address the cause of Cornelius’ believing.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The principle of "freedom of choice" is there, as you admit, which renders you inconsistent. The "concept" of that freedom of choice is seen in the life of Cornelius, which you reject.
I don’t reject that Cornelius has the freedom to choose that which he desires. What I reject is that the cause of Cornelius’ choosing is found in the text of Acts 10.
What did he "choose" in Acts 10? He chose to reverence God, he chose to pray continually, he chose to believe the angel, and he believed the gospel. Why don't you see who was doing the choosing?
Of course I see who was doing the choosing. The question is, what is the cause of his choosing? Acts 10 does not address this question.
quote:
quote:
I deny your “specific points” that you have imposed upon the passage. I say that you have imposed them upon the passage because they cannot be found “directly from the passage.”
They are most definitely seen from the passage. One must come to this passage with a presupposition that free will and man's ability to seek and believe do NOT exist to NOT see it.
Not a very convincing argument.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Paul is not saying that they didn’t honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor Him as who He is – God. All men have lesser views of God than He is in reality; the natural man belittles God. Fallen man may acknowledge the existence of God, but he does not honor God in a way that is due His glorious and holy name.
The error is in thinking that Paul was describing everyone in humanity. God created man to seek Him, and therefore, man HAS that ability to do so, as Cornelius clearly demonstated.
Your Cornelius mantra has nothing to do with my statement. Paul did not say in Romans 1 that those who deserve God’s wrath did not honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor God according to the attributes that creation shows Him to be.
The text concerning Cornelius does not show the cause of His believing, therefore cannot be used as proof of cause.
The text is very clear that Cornelius was doing these things. Your defense that the "cause" is not shown is as weak as the reformed pov that Acts 13:48 refers to God doing the "ordaining", when His Name is not even in the text. How come you can "get away" with such a defense, but you deny another pov the "same" argument?
iow, God isn't mentioned in Acts 13:48, yet all reformed understand the "ordaining" coming from God. You have no support for that, yet you grip tenaciously to that understanding even though God isn't mentioned as the "cause" of the ordaining. Y'all just claim it's "obvious" from the text.
Well, I'm claiming the same thing. It's obvious from the text that Cornelius was doing the causing and choosing.
First, I have not made any comments on Acts 13:48.
Second, if you think that God doing the ordaining in Acts 13:48 is a weak argument and you are doing the same in Acts 10 by saying that Cornelius is the cause of his believing, you in fact are saying your argument is weak, and to this assessment I heartily agree.
I personally do not agree with your assessment of Acts 13, nor do I see a similarity between Acts 13:48 and Acts 10. But the fact remains, with the logic you bring forward, you must consider your argument concerning Acts 10 as a weak argument.
From the text of Acts 10 it cannot be determined the cause, especially in light of passages found in 1 Cor 1-3 (especially chapter 2), 2 Cor 4, Rom 1-3, John 10:26, etc. It is because of passages such as these that the assumption Cornelius was the cause of his believing is untenable. Especially in the light that Acts 10 is not about cause whatsoever.
quote:
quote:
quote:
What do you think "being thankful" means?
I think it means being appreciative and grateful for who God is as He has revealed Himself in creation. Romans 1 does not speak of seeking God, but not being grateful for who God is.
How would someone express such gratitude? Why wouldn't seeking Him and praying continually to Him be such an expression?
The point is that none of this seeking is found in the text of Romans 1.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Giving thanks is the appropriate response to the glorious revelation of God made evident in creation.
Sure it does. Now, give me an example of how that is demonstrated in one's life. I've already given you the example of Cornelius. Now you tell me how that is demonstrated, if not by the life of Cornelius.
It is not demonstrated in anyone’s life, for none have honored Him or given thanks based upon the revelation of God seen in creation.
Yet, the text says that Cornelius was God fearing, which means reverence. So you are plain wrong. He honored God as an expression of his gratitude to God.
I never denied that Cornelius was God fearing, so your argument that I am "plain wrong" has no foundation. Acts 10 does not demonstrate the cause of Cornelius believing so therefore cannot be used as a proof or an example of any cause – one way or the other.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 7:19:15 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1742
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
The pinnacle of God’s law is to love Him with every fiber of your being. This is God’s ultimate command. All other commands are wrapped up in this one command to love God. Man does not do this. Why not? Is he able to do so? Yes, he is able in the sense that he has a will, but he chooses not to love God with all his heart, mind soul and strength
I don't recall any response on your part of 1 Kings 11:4. Do you have one? What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? David was, and Solomon was not. Explain that.
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
Why? He's dead. What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? Rather than ask a dead man, I'd rather read what the Bible says about man's ability to be completely devoted to God.
You missed my obvious point. Kind David committed adultery and had a man murdered. This is not the picture of one who loves God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So, man is unwilling to fulfill God’s purpose for man which is to love God with all of his being.
Your statement here contradicts RT and supports FW.
It in no way contradicts Reformed Theology. You show your lack of understanding here.
No, I think you don't understand the principle of being "unwilling". To be so demands the ability to be either willing or unwilling. iow, you cannot be "unwilling" if you cannot be "willing".
Every man has the faculties to be willing and unwilling. This is what makes man without excuse. All natural men have been unwilling – all have sinned.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The issue of being willing or unwilling is one of choice.
No, it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of the current disposition of the heart and mind which determines the will. One who is unwilling will not choose that which he is unwilling to do, unless he is willing to do it. In other words, a person only chooses that which he is willing to choose.
Then it simply is NO CHOICE, but you've agreed man HAS free choice. so, which is it? You are still being contradictory.
No contradiction at all. All people have a disposition of their heart and mind; they have preferences, likes and dislikes. From this disposition of heart and mind people make choices and are free to do so. All people base their choices on their preferences. People's preferences are based upon the disposition of their hearts and minds. So, your claim that this leaves people with NO CHOICE has not ground.
quote:
Please explain what "wholy devoted" means to you.
As far as the topic at hand goes, it does not mean loving God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength, for king David showed quite the opposite when he committed adultery and had a man murdered to cover up his sin.
Sin is the opposite of loving God.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
God makes man willing, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.
Yes, I know all about your theology of force.
I would say you belittle the power of God and uplift and exalt the supposed power of man.
I point out the weakness of your theology. I never belittle God. I've NEVER "uplifted and exalted the supposed power of man". In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that man is powerless to save himself, and MUST submit to the will of God and believe on His Son for salvation. How you guys twist that into "exalting man" is beyond me.
I did not say you belittled God, but that you "belittle the power of God." You complain and cry that "you guys" twist what you say, but in the same breath you misrepresent what others believe by saying it is a "theology of force" or "puppets" or however you choose to mischaracterize what is being said. Then you try to play innocent by saying "I point out the weakness of your theology." I guess others are pointing out the weakness of your theology.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 7:50:52 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Shemaromans,
quote:
These verses remind me why we ought to praise God no matter what.
Paul wrote this while he was in jail.
Originally, it was one long sentence--one run-on full of praise to God--praise to God while being persecuted and in chains!!
God didn't just save us. He lavished us with his grace.
And this, while we were dead in our sins and unable to please him.
Why should we ever be bitter? Why should we ever complain?
Amen!
A lot of praise going on there indeed!
While we were yet sinners He saved us.
In this is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins.
and;
He saved us, but not because of anything we had done to gain His approval. Instead, because of His mercy He saved us through the washing in which the Holy Spirit gives us new birth and renewal.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 8:30:15 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
These verses don't answer the WHY question.
Even if they weren't hearing, WHY did Jesus bother warning them?
You haven't even explained that! Can you?
You are trying to say that since He warned these people with truth it implies they have the ability to believe.
No, I am asking you WHY did Jesus even bother to warn them. You haven't answered that yet.
quote:
The original verse does not answer that.
Neither has your theology. Yet, the free will theology CAN answer it.
quote:
It is ONLY a statement of truth.
You are ignoring the very clear warning in the verse. ALL Scripture is truth. That doesn't answer the WHY question. Why can't your theology answer the WHY question?
quote:
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Why dont you take all of those words in that text and show us all EXACTLY where it says humans have the ability or inability to believe? You can mix the words up in any fashion you desire for all I care, but I would like to see you show us in that text where it speaks of human ability or inability.
Why can't you just apply your theology and answer the WHY question? I'm not asking you to see ability or not. I AM asking you WHY Jesus bothered warning either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect. Neither makes ANY sense in light of reformed theology. Can you shed any light on this?
quote:
Maybe if I shift all the letters around like some giant jig saw puzzle or a scrabble game I can get it to say "humans have the ability to believe by their free-will".......but I doubt even that.
FW theology has a very clear and easy answer as to WHY Jesus warned the group. What does reformed theology say as to WHY He warned them?
quote:
If a man quacks it will sound like a duck and if a man barks it will sound like a dog. (truth) It does not mean men are ducks or dogs and it certainly does not mean a mute man has the ability to do either.
This is completely irrelevatn to anything on this thread. Can you answer or not?
quote:
Here are other verses that can be used as support for the other verse;
43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46"Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." Why?
Jesus asks the people (the same people you say can understand) WHY they do not understand. He claims they cannot hear His word. Why dont you just stop right there and read no more.
Why don't you just try to face the question and apply your theology and provide an answer? These verses do not answer the qeustion.
quote:
You should be able to come to some imaginary conclusion as to why they cannot hear.
That's not the issue. The issue is WHY did Jesus warn the non-elect, who are "fitted to destruction" per Rom 9:22, or why did He warn the "pre-faith" elect, since they were "prepared beforehand for glory" per Rom 9:23? Why can't you answer these questions from your own theology?
quote:
Do what you usually do and apply more of your own thoughts to the text and imagine He said that to them because all the people He was speaking to had earmuffs on because it was so cold outside. Now we can conclude it was winter and they had earmuffs and that is why they could not hear.
I have asked how your theology answers the legitimate question raised by your own theology as to WHY Jesus warned them. I'm trying to understand your theology, and this verse raises these questions.
quote:
To speculate they could not hear because they were wearing earmuffs because it was winter is just that....speculation.
I'm not asking for speculation, just the reason WHY Jesus warned this group.
quote:
I forgot what you said;
quote:
You shouldn't, because simply providing a quote from a passage without comment does not answer specific questions.
Me, being the silly fool that I am should have never ever imagined I could have answered any of your questions with clear Scripture of Jesus explaining things.
Are you admitting that reformed theology simply cannot answer WHY Jesus warned these people?
Doesn't that give you some pause?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 8:40:04 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
quote:
The free will pov provides a very clear answer
LOL.....
Oh of course the free-will POV provides a very clear answer.
All you did is take a verse and made up answers from free-will fantasies in your head. I am sure these fantasies are all clear answers to you!
And your made up answers were: "secret motives" on the part of Jeus, or that John 8:24 was a parable. The answers provided by FW theology are clear and answer the WHY questions. None of your answers have done that. Yet you still see no problem with your theology.
quote:
It does not do you any good having a clear answer when it is the wrong answer.
OK, I'll bite. What is the right answer? You haven't given one yet. Until you respond and answer the WHY question, you simply don't have an answer.
quote:
You build mountains mountains of answers that are very clear and you do it by subjecting Scripture to the free-will POV instead of subjecting the free-will POV to truth found in Scripture.
Then just answer the WHY question and put this to rest, OK?
quote:
Too bad your free-will POV and your comments are totally opposed and ANTI to the very clear answers and comments that Jesus gives!
Uh, Jesus didn't answer my WHY questions. The questions were to you to answer, from your own theological perspective. You haven't done so yet. Can you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:00:03 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
Yes, He did. Do you consider John 8:24 to be a "parable", then? Is that your final answer here? If you do, then I disagree with you. If you realize that John 8:24 is not a parable, why can't you, in light of your own theology, explain WHY Jesus warned them and gave them the solution to their dilemma?
It does not matter which verses were or were not parables. What does that have to do with anything?
How about how to understand the text, for starters. Your answer here is a clear demonstration that reformed theology fails to properly interpret the Scriptures, since you see no difference between what is a parable and what isn't. You illustrate the lack of discernment from your theology.
quote:
The point is He knew that people could not understand Him when He spoke in parables because He knew they were not given understanding........but He kept on speaking in parables!
The point is, I've asked you a very legitimate question as to WHY Jesus warned a crowd in John 8:24, and you have repeatedly failed to address the WHY question.
quote:
Why did He do that when He knew they could not understand Him? To taunt?
From your own theology, that seems the ONLY viable answer. So, if you disagree that Jesus was taunting the poor ol' non-elect, please provide the reason He warned them, from your theological perspective.
As I understand your theology, I can't think of any other purpose than mean and cruel taunting of the non-elect by warning them, and even throwing in their faces the solution, of which they are incapable to applying in order to avoid the danger they were most certainly facing. Why can't your theology answer this question?
quote:
quote:
John 8:24 isn't a parable, so your answer here is simply sidestepping the question of WHY did Jesus bother warning either the non-elect or elect.
He told them the truth. People will either be saved by the truth or die by it.
Please explain HOW that can be applied to the "non-elect". As I've noted, from your theology the non-elect are "fitted to destruction". Since your pov is that they cannot believe because they were NOT chosen to, WHY did Jesus warn them? Why don't you have an answer for this? The warning by Jesus DEMANDS an answer from your own theology.
quote:
Why do you think Jesus said He did not pray for the world? He said He prayed for the ones that His Father had given Him. Those are the ones whose eyes and ears have been blessed to see and hear.
There is no reason at all to answer any of your questions until you either answer my WHY questions, or until you will admit that your theology is unable to answer the WHY questions that are demanded by John 8:24 in light of your own theology.
quote:
quote:
Since John 8:24 is a narrative and not a parable, none of this is relevant to my question as to WHY Jesus warned and gave the solution to either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect.
And parables or narratives of any kind that give no proof on human ability are also non relevant.
All you do is continue to dodge the question. Why can't your theology answer my WHY questions? You don't like the answers from free will theology. What is the answer from reformed theology? You haven't provided one yet.
quote:
quote:
But John 8:24 isn't a parable, so these verses aren't applicable to my question of WHY Jesus warned them.
Cool.
Hey, did you hear the one about the demon possessed man that had so much free-will?
I'm not here to play "dodge ball" with you. I am trying to understand your theology, and I see that John 8:24 poses a big problem. I am asking for answers to the WHY questions. Please stop playing games and either give me an answer as to WHY Jesus warned the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect, or just admit that your very own theology cannot do so.
quote:
Jesus told him to run home and tell his family all about human ability and how important it is that men have such very strong free-wills.
How does your sarcasm help your position any? I've asked you a very legitimate question that your theology created. Why can't your theology answer the question that it created?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:10:27 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
Thank you for reposting the information and your questions, FreeGrace, and thank you for bringing up this passage. I enjoyed spending time with it this afternoon.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it. Scripture is always enjoyable. Even the ones that bite us hard. 
quote:
Please, please, please do not chop up my post and write twenty times "WHY haven't you answered the question?" I share my conclusion at the end of the post.
Fair enough. I'll not "capture" the bulk of your post, and will comment at the end.
quote:
They immediately respond by asking who he is. They still don’t get it. He responds, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” So we see that he’s already told them in the past who he is and what the consequence will be for not believing in him. ]
However, from your own theology, considering that there are only the "elect" and non-elect", WHY would Jesus bother warning either group. I just cannot understand your theology and the fact that Jesus warned them.
quote:
Why did Jesus warn this group? I don’t see it as a warning. Instead, what Jesus is doing is reminding them about what he went around telling everyone during his ministry. To have eternal life, they must believe in him.
Even though you don't see it as a warning, it clearly IS one. However, even if you don't, the question remains, created by your theology. WHY would Jesus bother telling anyone the danger they were facing and providing the solution to the danger? Please answer this regarding the non-elect, and regarding the "pre-faith" elect.
Note, I respect your opinion that this isn't a warning. OK. Treat John 8:24 as you do. You still need to answer the question of WHY Jesus told them what He told them.
Do you agree that the non-elect are "fitted to destruction" (Rom 9:22)? If so, why bother even telling them the truth. For what purpose?
Do you agree that the elect are NEVER in danger of dying in their sins? Rom 9:23 says they "were prepared beforehand for glory". that doesn't sound like any danger ahead to me.
So, from your own theology, these questions remain, regardless of whether you see v.24 as a warning or a simple statement. Can you answer the WHY questions?
quote:
I still want to study this more, but for now, I see that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world.
But, WHY tell the non-elect they are dong to die in their sins? For what purpose?
Also, WHY tell the "pre-faith" elect they will die in their sins, unless they believe in Him, all the while knowing that the elect were "chosen from before the foundation of the world" to believe.
These questions are created by your reformed theology. Can your theology answer them?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:17:11 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Do you really not get that saying things like "I suspect that is too difficult for you to grasp." and dozens of other equally offensive remarks are personal attacks?
I suspect that you do not understand what a "personal attack" actually means. If I were to say to you, "you are stupid", that would be a persoanl attack. When I say "I suspect that is too difficult for you to grasp", I am expressing my suspicions about how much you can grasp. KJB has just noted that he sees no difference whether a text is a parable or not. So, that is an admission that he does not grasp the difference between parables and narratives. I think it is too difficult for him to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:29:52 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
All men have the freedom of choice to choose whatever they want to choose. All of us consider the pros and cons in the choices we make and end choosing that which we desire. My definition does not limit the options, for all options a person is confronted with are available. But one thing is for sure, man only chooses that which he desires.
Cornelius desired to know God. He reverenced Him and prayed continually, and God answered his prayers.
quote:
Or to say it in other words, all men choose that which they want to choose. Jonathan Edwards, the great theologian of the 18th Century said it this way,
Why bother quoting a fellow C camper? What's the point? How much credibility would you give any quote I might use from a writer of the free will pov? None.
quote:
All men are free to make whatever choice the want, and each choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart which determines their desires and choices.
Interesting. You seem to be the only reformist here who believes that. My impression from all the posts is that the non-elect were NOT chosen to believe, and thus cannot either understand or believe the gospel. iow, they WILL NOT ever have that choice. otoh, the elect were chosen to believe, and CANNOT reject the gospel. How is that a choice, either? You seem to contradict the bulk of reformed theology.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The purpose of Acts 10 is obviously not to show the cause of Cornelius’ actions and the cause of his belief. To use Cornelius to prove cause of belief and it not being found in the text is presumption gone to seed.
While that is not the "purpose", neveretheless, Acts DOES show that Cornelius believed the divine Truth that was being presented to him. Do you deny this?
Acts 10 does not address the cause of Cornelius’ believing.
Does Acts 13:48 address the "cause" of the Gentiles believing? It does say they were "tasso", which has a rather wide usage. But, since God isn't in the text, what support do you have for God being the "cause" in Acts 13:48? Do you see how silly your defense is in Acts 10 about "cause"?
Since you won't let go of your "cause obsession", there is no further point in discussing it. We're making no headway at all.
How about changing the subject? Can you provide an answer or at least a perspective of WHY Jesus woudl warn a group of non-elect, who weren't chosen to believe, but were "fitted to destruction"?
And, answer the question of WHY Jesus warned a group of "pre-faith" elect, since they "were prepared before hand for glory" per Rom 9:23?
Are any of the elect EVER in danger of dying in their sins? According to reformed theology, the answer is no. So, WHY did Jesus warn them?
quote:
quote:
The text is very clear that Cornelius was doing these things. Your defense that the "cause" is not shown is as weak as the reformed pov that Acts 13:48 refers to God doing the "ordaining", when His Name is not even in the text. How come you can "get away" with such a defense, but you deny another pov the "same" argument?
iow, God isn't mentioned in Acts 13:48, yet all reformed understand the "ordaining" coming from God. You have no support for that, yet you grip tenaciously to that understanding even though God isn't mentioned as the "cause" of the ordaining. Y'all just claim it's "obvious" from the text.
Well, I'm claiming the same thing. It's obvious from the text that Cornelius was doing the causing and choosing.
First, I have not made any comments on Acts 13:48.
Second, if you think that God doing the ordaining in Acts 13:48 is a weak argument and you are doing the same in Acts 10 by saying that Cornelius is the cause of his believing, you in fact are saying your argument is weak, and to this assessment I heartily agree.
OK, discussion on Acts 10 and Rom 1 is closed. Please answer my new questions regarding John 8:24 then.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:38:05 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
Why? He's dead. What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? Rather than ask a dead man, I'd rather read what the Bible says about man's ability to be completely devoted to God.
You missed my obvious point. Kind David committed adultery and had a man murdered. This is not the picture of one who loves God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
You missed my question. I know what David did. You didn't answer what "wholy devoted" means to you. From 1 Kings 11:4.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So, man is unwilling to fulfill God’s purpose for man which is to love God with all of his being.
Your statement here contradicts RT and supports FW.
It in no way contradicts Reformed Theology. You show your lack of understanding here.
No, I think you don't understand the principle of being "unwilling". To be so demands the ability to be either willing or unwilling. iow, you cannot be "unwilling" if you cannot be "willing".
Every man has the faculties to be willing and unwilling. This is what makes man without excuse. All natural men have been unwilling – all have sinned.
I disagree with you equating sinning with being unwilling.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The issue of being willing or unwilling is one of choice.
No, it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of the current disposition of the heart and mind which determines the will. One who is unwilling will not choose that which he is unwilling to do, unless he is willing to do it. In other words, a person only chooses that which he is willing to choose.
Then it simply is NO CHOICE, but you've agreed man HAS free choice. so, which is it? You are still being contradictory.
No contradiction at all. All people have a disposition of their heart and mind; they have preferences, likes and dislikes. From this disposition of heart and mind people make choices and are free to do so. All people base their choices on their preferences. People's preferences are based upon the disposition of their hearts and minds. So, your claim that this leaves people with NO CHOICE has not ground.
You continue to contradict yourself, yet don't see it. You agree man has FREE CHOICE but out of the other side of your mouth you say their "choice" is based on their preferences. So, that is no choice. You are saying man does only what his preferences dictate. Please explain HOW that is a choice, since you deny that man can choose other than his preferences.
quote:
quote:
Please explain what "wholy devoted" means to you.
As far as the topic at hand goes, it does not mean loving God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength, for king David showed quite the opposite when he committed adultery and had a man murdered to cover up his sin.
Sin is the opposite of loving God.
So, while David was sinning and being wholly devoted to the Lord, he was not lvoing the Lord. How can one be wholly devoted and not loving?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 10:37:44 AM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 24
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
This is quite the post on this topic, but I see that there are persistent merry-go-rounds on some items - sometimes without using scripture to back up what formed the opinion (either the Bible is the trusted, infallible, inerrant Word of God given for our instruction, edification, and guidance, or it is not) - and I thought I might add a couple of cents on a systematic perspective knowing that this will go on forever without resolution of the opinions.
To this end, R.C. Sproul’s book “What is Reformed Theology” might be of benefit for guiding dicussion - as well as the Westminster Large Catechism.
Ultimately, in the matter of choosing one's Christian denomination, we must side with the Reformer's mantra: “preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both” (- Rupertus Meldenius, circa 1627)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html
Since this boils down to the choice vs election debate (because if this is settled it makes other questions about other doctrinal statements a short commentary), let’s talk of how one “chooses” to be Christian, and here’s how I’ve learned to explain it:
The Bible clearly states that everyone begins spiritually dead. If we begin this way, I would like to know how a dead man gets up off of the coroner’s slab, walks over to the doctor, and says “I hear you have a cure and can bring me back to life. I want you to do that for me.”
Within the natural world, humans are spiritually separated in separate “circles” to the left and to the right, much like they will be at the end of time. These circles do not have open doors, there are no bridges from one circle to another, there is no way for a human in his or her own power to traverse from one to the other. There is nothing any human can do of him or herself that can change what circle they find themselves in, as will be seen shortly, and what circle they find themselves in is awakened within them through the preaching of the Word of God (Ro 10:14)
On the left are the “goats” (Mt 25:32-33) … those who are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-5). EVERYONE starts here, and called “natural man.” (1Cor 2:14, 15:44, 15:46; Ro 3:23; Ga 3:22; Eph 2:3).
Within the “Natural Man” circle, human beings are “spiritually dead” in their “old man” state (Ro 6:6; Gal 2:20, 5:24, 6:14; Eph 4:22; Col 3:5, 3:9-10) … being dead means you cannot do anything yourself – you can’t get up, you can’t walk, talk, think or believe, spiritually speaking (Mt 12:34).
Within the “Natural Man” circle, some grow worse and gravitate toward obviously evil activities. (Ro 1:28-32). Some learn to behave in polite society, and gravitate over to the “I’m a good person” side of the line (Mt 19:17-22) – but this does not mean that they are regenerated to everlasting life in Christ (you being evil, know how to give good gifts – Mt 7:11). Theologians call this civil virtue. It is not being saved.
Everyone who is in the “Natural Man” circle, has the freedom of will to do whatever is according to their nature … their natural man, unregenerate, spiritually dead nature. (Ro 1:26, 28-32; Eph 2:3). Understand that the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God, both end up being influential in a person’s decisions, those decisions being made in accordance with the person’s nature (Ex 4:21; De 2:30; Josh 11:20; 1Ki 22:22; Pr 16:9; Jn 12:40: Ro 1:21-32, 9:18; 1 Pe 2:8).
Everyone who remains to the left when it is time for the harvest are considered “Tares” and “dead branches” and “goats” and all found there will be sent to the fires of hell. (Mt 13:25-40, 25:41; Jn 15:6)
On the right are the “sheep” … those who are spiritually regenerated. Only those whom God picks up out of the left and places in the right (“translated” or “transferred” Col 1:13; Rom 8:28-30, 1:6-7, 9:11, 9:23-24; Acts 13:48; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:9-10, 3:11; 1Th 5:9; 2Th 2:13-:14) are found here, and undergo a process called “sanctification.”
Within this “Sanctification” circle, human beings are “spiritually regenerated” in their “new man/new creation” state. (1 Cor 6:11; 1Ti 4:5; He 2:11, 10:10; 2Ti 2:19; Php 1:6; 1Pe 5:10)
Within the “Sanctification” circle, some grow worse and backslide for a time (Mat 15:11-32; Lk 22:31-32), but never lose the gift of salvation given to them by God (Jn 6:37-40; Rom 8:15-17, 23; 2Co 1:22, 5:5; Gal 4:6; Php 1:6) through a faith in Christ that is also given to them, that not of their own (Ro 3:24-25; Eph 2:8-10).
Within the “Sanctification” circle, some learn to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and gravitate toward walking in “the way” / walking “in the Spirit” / “bearing much fruit” etc. that exhibits a life wholly submitted to Christ, such as could be found in the lives of Mother Theresa or Billy Graham. This is not to say they are super-beings or without sin (1Jn 1:8), rather they have learned to die to themselves daily (2 Cor 5:15; Ga 2:20).
Everyone who is in the “Sanctification” circle, has the freedom of will to do whatever is according to their nature … their regenerated, new creation, spiritually alive nature that is upheld, strengthened, guided, and motivated by the Holy Spirit to please God. (Ro 8:1, 4; Ga 5:16, 25; 2Pe 1:4). Understand that the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God, both end up being influential in a person’s decisions, those decisions being made in accordance with the person’s nature (Ro 8:28; 1Jn 4:19).
Everyone whom God places on the right (Col 1:13; Eph 1:4), at the time of the harvest are considered “wheat” and “olive branches” and “sheep” and all found there will be awarded an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. (Mt 13:25-40)
HOWEVER … notice two things:
First, that those in the “natural man” circle who have learned to be civilly virtuous may be difficult to differentiate at time from those in the “sanctification” circle. Likewise, those in the “sanctification” circle who are backslidden may be difficult to differentiate from those in the “natural man” circle (1Ki 18:21; Josh 24:15). It can be difficult to tell the difference.
For this reason, secondly, there is a comment about both Tares and Wheat being in the same field (Mt 13:25-40). Although natural man and regenerate man are in different “worlds” spiritually, physically they are in the same world, and can find each other in the same job environment, or even in the same church together. When wheat and tares are immature plants, it is very difficult to tell the difference. But when they are full grown and it is time for the harvest when they each bear their own fruit according to their nature (Mt 7:17-20; 12:33), THEN the tares will be cut down and the wheat will be harvested.
The reason Jesus says to wait to the end when HE does the harvest, not allowing other stalks of wheat to do the harvest, is because we humans do not know what is in another person’s heart. Only Christ can see what is in someone else’s heart (1Sa 16:7; 1Ki_8:39; 1Chr 28:9; 2Chr 16:9; Ps 7:9, 139:2; Pr 15:11, 16:2; Jer 11:20, 17:10, 20:12; Acts 1:24; Heb 4:13; Rev 2:23) and what His good and perfect timing is to pluck someone from the natural man circle and plant them in the sanctification circle – if at all. Therefore, we are admonished to bear with one another (Col 3:13; Rom 15:1-2; 2Co 6:6; Gal 6:2; Eph 4:2, 4:32), and realize that our ONLY job is to speak the Good News, allow the Holy Spirit to plant, water, and harvest, and God will sort people out in the end. This does not mean that we cannot admonish people for their bad behavior (1Cor 5:9-13; Ga 6:1), but what we cannot do is judge people in terms of whether or not they are going to heaven or hell. Only God knows that (Mt 7:21-23; Lk 23:39-43).
The Westminster Large Catechism has a plethora of scripture references to back up this line of thinking and do so in a much more comprehensive manner.
... so I "choose" election.
Blessings to all and remember:
“preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:01:13 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Welcome to the thread, theophile2!
Might I ask you why you "chose" to quote from RC Sproul's book, since he is obviously reformed? iow, how does his opinion help along any of these "merry-go-rounds" that you note?
However, that aside, may I ask you a very important question? In trying to understand reformed theology, I grasp that the theology categories all people as either the "elect" or the "non-elect". RT understands the "non-elect" as those "fitted to destruction" from Rom 9:22. Am I correct so far?
Also, RT understands the "elect" as those who "were prepared beforehand for glory", from Rom 9:23. Again, is that correct?
If so, I see a problem with John 8:24. "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
I see a very clear warning here of where that crowd was headed. "you shall die in your sins". I also see the solution to where they were headed in, "unless you believe that I am He".
Here is the problem that I see with this verse, in the light of reformed theology. Why would Jesus warn those who are "fitted for destruction"? For what purpose? I don't see any. Further, He even gives them the solution. But, reformed theology says the "non-elect" were NOT chosen for faith, so why would Jesus give them the solution to the problem for which they were "fitted"? They couldn't believe because they weren't chosen to.
On the other hand, why would Jesus warn any of the "pre-faith" elect, since they "were prepared beforehand for glory". In the case of the elect, can you even say they are in danger of "dying in their sins"? I think the reformed pov would have to say "absolutely not", for the elect "were chosen before the foundation of the world". So, why did Jesus warn the "pre-faith elect" since they were never in the danger that He was warning of?
Now, if you don't see any warning in John 8:24, that's OK. Even if He was just stating the truth, WHY bother to either the "non-elect" or the "pre-faith elect"?
If the crowd were only "non-elect", it seems to be only a mean and cruel taunt, since they were "fitted to destruction", those poor hapless, helpless, non-chosen.
If you disagree that Jesus would stoop so low as to resort to a mean, cruel taunt, can you give me any reason WHY He said what He said?
otoh, can you give me any reason why He said what He did to any "pre-faith elect", since they couldn't possibly "die in their sins", because they WERE chosen for faith.
I see no point, from the reformed perspective in what He said to either group. Do you have any opinion as to WHY He did? Thanks.
ps: From others of the reformed persuasion, I've been told that Jesus may have had "secret motives". That seems most far-fetched, since there was nothing that He said that was a secret, and does NOT answer the WHY.
I've also been told that Jesus spoke in parables. Yes, that's true, He did. But the context of John 8 is very clearly NOT a parable. But, even if it was, Jesus told His disciples, whom He chose, that the meanings of His parables were revealed to them. Since the reformed all consider themselves chosen as the disciples were, that would suggest that even if John 8 were a parable, the meaning should be clear to the chosen.
Yet, so far, none of the chosen (reformed) have been able to address or answer WHY Jesus said what He said to either the "non-elect" or any "pre-faith elect".
I am eager to see what answer you may have. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
