Are Redeemed People Lost? [Archive]

GoBahnsen

October 18th 2004, 04:29 PM

Ormly

October 18th 2004, 04:46 PM

I'm not sure where this thread will go,

When you going to Hawaii?

Ormly

October 18th 2004, 05:24 PM

I'm not sure where this thread will go, but I thought I would fire it off and see. I was listening to an old cassette tape today by a man (Marv Rosenthal) who I used to really like. Preaches with conviction and fire in his belly. But alas...I fear Marv is an Arminian of some variety.

With my new set of Reformed ears (looking kind of like a jack rabbit's), I heard Marv say that Jesus redeemed everyone, paid the price, took their judgment, died in their place and set them free. Free, but they don't have to serve Him, if they want to, they will have to choose to be a bond slave.

I thought, wow...that's interesting. All of humanity is free to go! Redeemed by Christ, but if they want to serve Christ it's got be voluntary. Marv went on to say that Christ was the propitiation for all humanity and that it wasn't an "appeasing of God's wrath", because God is not a wrathful Deity, but rather it was a making of "satisfaction". So God's holiness was satisfied and now He could extend mercy to all humanity, according to Rosenthal.

I was thinking to myself, what a Theological mess Arminians get involved in when they do not understand that God is not saving everyone, nor has He ever planned to. When they fail to understand particular redemption and get caught trying to mesh a universal Atonement that has many "redeemed, set free" people going to hell because they failed to sign up with their faith ticket or something like that I guess?

Because....Marv, if they are set free and their sins are paid for, why are they still going to hell? Much better to understand that Christ laid down His life for His sheep, whom He calls out by name and they follow Him. The voice of strangers they will not follow (John 10).

So, are redeemed people lost? In one sense I suppose that could be considered true. There are multitudes (sheep from another fold, Jesus said (John 10:16) still in this world for whom Christ purchased, that He says "He must bring them also". There are elect sinners in this world, whom God has Foreknown and predestined(Rom 8), and them He will call out by name and save them.What confusion you are in.... Marv is right and I never heard of the guy. He isn't basing man's redemption on works but on the sacrifice/blood of Jesus. --- all men have had the price of their sins paid for "you were bought with a price" - How come you can't see that? Why not read him again more carefully? God didn't pick and choose in this who He would redeem - it's a blanket redemption sacrifice - don't believe it to your destruction Oh man who thinks his righteousness is good enough. [not you GB, lest I get an e-mail]There! I've placed righteousness and man's unsufficiency in righteousness where it belongs. Many there be who won't receive that "good news" to their destruction.
God's sovreignity resides in His love, His Character; what He provides for man that man can make determinations not based on what He demands but what He desires of man. Joshua said: "choose you this day whom you willl serve..." God chooses because He foresees those who will choose Him. In this is His pleasure when He chooses. He foresees and is made glad. So choose Him Oh foolish man that He may choose you.

In this I violate NOTHING of the scriptures. If you think otherwise, the oneness is on you to prove where I have. No, you just don't get it, Gb. You can't seem to differentiate between God's sovereignty and His Grace; His Love.

GoBahnsen

October 18th 2004, 05:57 PM

What confusion you are in.... Marv is right and I never heard of the guy. He isn't basing man's redemption on works but on the sacrifice/blood of Jesus. --- all men have had the price of their sins paid for "you were bought with a price" - How come you can't see that? This is for the benefit of other readers, since I know Orm won't get it: If all men have had their sins paid for, why will many of them pay for them too, in hell? And in fact they can never pay for them there (in hell), because it is an infinite debt, so they remain in hell forever. Odd for people to be judged for their sin if Christ indeed took their judgment on the cross. But we know Christ died for those and only those who believe. Whom God has foreknown, predestined, called, justified and will glorify(Rom 8)

Why not read him again more carefully? God didn't pick and choose in this who He would redeem Yes He has. The Bible refers to them as His elect, which non Reformed views either deny or confuse.

- it's a blanket redemption sacrifice - don't believe it to your destruction There went the Protestant Reformation.

Oh man who thinks his righteousness is good enough. [not you GB, lest I get an e-mail] Yes, you better not include me or any Calvinist, because we affirm more than most that we need an alien righteousness, even the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by faith. Just like Abraham got it.

There! I've placed righteousness and man's unsufficiency in righteousness where it belongs. Many there be who won't receive that "good news" to their destruction.
God's sovreignity resides in His love, His Character; what He provides for man that man can make determinations not based on what He demands but what He desires of man. Joshua said: "choose you this day whom you willl serve..." God chooses because He foresees those who will choose Him. In this is His pleasure when He chooses. He foresees and is made glad. So choose Him Oh foolish man that He may choose you.

In this I violate NOTHING of the scriptures. If you think otherwise, the oneness is on you to prove where I have.
Rant, rant, rant

Ormly

October 18th 2004, 07:45 PM

This is for the benefit of other readers, since I know Orm won't get it:Oh but I will, flatfoot.

If all men have had their sins paid for, why will many of them pay for them too, in hell?
How did you ever get to be a moderator since you don't read so well.Read my post for the first time.

And in fact they can never pay for them there (in hell), because it is an infinite debt, so they remain in hell forever.Infinite debt you say? How about they were plain wicked; without righteousness worthy of redemption!!!??? Why don't you pick up a Bible sometime and read for once in your life! Either that or say nothing.

Odd for people to be judged for their sin if Christ indeed took their judgment on the cross.You just don't understand what being justified by faith and peace with God means. Listen carefully --- they, in hell, before Christ, are there because they had no faith; --- didn't want any. Therefore they were not righteous but the unrighteous/wicked -- to their destruction. Get it!!?? They rejected God's grace!! Get that also!?

But we know Christ died for those and only those who believe. Whom God has foreknown, predestined, called, justified and will glorify(Rom 8)Nonsense! Rejection is the issue.
Yes He has. The Bible refers to them as His elect, which non Reformed views either deny or confuse.More nonsense! The elect are simply those who love God with the whole heart. They have learned Him. In these alone can be found God's choosing of those who will minisiter unto Him. Of course in this you nothing of.
There went the Protestant Reformation.Phewee -- sidetracking at best.
Yes, you better not include me or any Calvinist, because we affirm more than most that we need an alien righteousness, even the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by faith. Just like Abraham got it.Your error condemns you to the outskirts of the court. You require no help from me or anyone who knows what the issues are.
Rant, rant, rantCall it what you will ---truth will prevail.

GoBahnsen

October 19th 2004, 05:09 AM

How did you ever get to be a moderator since you don't read so well.Read my post for the first time.

The owners and admins look for normal people with common sense. You won't need to worry about them seeking you out. That's just the facts ma'am. I don't make the rules.

Trout

October 19th 2004, 10:50 AM

Ormly:
Marv is right and I never heard of the guy. He isn't basing man's redemption on works but on the sacrifice/blood of Jesus. --- all men have had the price of their sins paid for "you were bought with a price" - How come you can't see that? Why not read him again more carefully?

:lmbo: Ormly is always accusing us of not reading his posts carefully enough, and then he spouts off with a zinger like that. . ."read him again". . .Ormly you don't read cassette tapes you listen to them. :lol2:

:rofl: Ormly wants GB to read a cassette. . .:laugh:. . .Ormly wants us to read his posts more carefully. . .:hehe:. . .Ormly, you read with two of the holes on the front of your head, not with the two holes on the side of your head. . .:oooo:. . .make sure you read carefully before you open the big hole on the front of your head. :jack:

You should know that too Orm, you sound like a tape, always restating your old worn out defeated argument from anger and ignorance, I wish we could find your fast forward button, I'd like to see if there's a song on your album worth listening to, the one we keep hearing over and over and over again doesn't have a good beat, and there's no chance of being able to dance to it.

I can just see poor Ormly trying to stick his little Gideon New Testament in the tape player. . .:yes:

Ormly

October 19th 2004, 11:32 AM

:lmbo: Ormly is always accusing us of not reading his posts carefully enough, and then he spouts off with a zinger like that. . ."read him again". . .Ormly you don't read cassette tapes you listen to them. :lol2:

:rofl: Ormly wants GB to read a cassette. . .:laugh:. . .Ormly wants us to read his posts more carefully. . .:hehe:. . .Ormly, you read with two of the holes on the front of your head, not with the two holes on the side of your head. . .:oooo:. . .make sure you read carefully before you open the big hole on the front of your head. :jack:

You should know that too Orm, you sound like a tape, always restating your old worn out defeated argument from anger and ignorance, I wish we could find your fast forward button, I'd like to see if there's a song on your album worth listening to, the one we keep hearing over and over and over again doesn't have a good beat, and there's no chance of being able to dance to it.

I can just see poor Ormly trying to stick his little Gideon New Testament in the tape player. . .:yes:
you know trout, I have never complained to the moderators for any reason pertaining to the poor taste, insults and/or outright silliness of others who disagree with my point of view like you and GB. This one of yours is quite comical and especially needs to stand as it does to be etched into the minds of those here the adolescent mentality of its author. If academia and spiritual enterprise is a goal for you on this forum, you miss the mark on both endeavors. Me thinks you need to humbly walk back to the sandbox and allow God, in His mercy, to chisel alittle more on you. Through much suffering Jesus learned obedience. Don't you presume to think you don't require some 'chisel' work?

Calvinist4Him

October 19th 2004, 11:43 AM

Universalism = theology improper

learning

October 19th 2004, 12:06 PM

What about the scripture that says 'He is not willing that any should perish' ?

What about the Armenian John Wesley and the Calvinist (sorry forget his name, but I knew there was one) who shook hands and called each other 'Brother' ?

Instead of arguing over 'who's saved' (and only God knows that, right?) why not just DO some of the things that Jesus said to do, you know, like 'feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be kind to stangers, visit those in prison (See IDOP- Internation Day of the Persecuted Christians) and visit the sick?

Xavier

October 19th 2004, 12:09 PM

What about the Armenian John Wesley and the Calvinist (sorry forget his name, but I knew there was one) who shook hands and called each other 'Brother' ?

Arminian... Welsey wasn't an armenian. He was English... :wink:

Wesley and George Whitefield maybe?

GoBahnsen

October 19th 2004, 12:14 PM

shhhh....everyone be quiet, I'm trying to read my tape. I've found if you pull the tape out of the cassette and stare at it long enough you can see letters; and even little chickens and bears come out after a few hours of intense concentration on the shiny brown material.

I told you I didn't know where this thread was going. So let me repeat myself a little. How do certain non Reformed people, who otherwise seem perfectly normal, say that Jesus has actually redeemed all of humanity and set them free?

So they are free but just don't know it in many cases? I'm just a dumb ol Calvinist who still thinks Jesus died for believers. I still think John 3:16 is a verse that declares, among other great truths, that whosoever believes shall not perish.

rhutchin

October 19th 2004, 12:34 PM

What about the scripture that says 'He is not willing that any should perish' ?

This verse (2 Peter 3:9) reads--

The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Assuming that you take "any" to mean everyone, can you explain why it is that God must be patient toward believers? Can you link the two ideas together (God is patient toward believers and God does not want any to perish) to explain what you think Peter is saying in this verse?

Ormly

October 19th 2004, 02:33 PM

This verse (2 Peter 3:9) reads--

The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Assuming that you take "any" to mean everyone, can you explain why it is that God must be patient toward believers? Can you link the two ideas together (God is patient toward believers and God does not want any to perish) to explain what you think Peter is saying in this verse?
Do believers know it all? Have it all? Are all believers disciples? Are all believers automatically made perfect or is there in the those whose loyalties to God are not divided a working out of their salvation unto perfection in Him that should be continually in progress that a loving God will have patience because of the mistakes they will make in the process of becoming? <gulp for air>

themuzicman

October 19th 2004, 03:03 PM

This verse (2 Peter 3:9) reads--

The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Assuming that you take "any" to mean everyone, can you explain why it is that God must be patient toward believers? Can you link the two ideas together (God is patient toward believers and God does not want any to perish) to explain what you think Peter is saying in this verse?

He is patient because God could call for judgment at any time, and those who are believers would be saved, and those who are not wouldn't, but God is patient towards them, because he wants others to come to Him, as well, and is giving them time.

Michael

themuzicman

October 19th 2004, 03:05 PM

(But I disagree with Marv's assertion that God isn't a God of wrath. Marv needs to go read his bible. There are multiple mentions of the "coming wrath", and it is clearly from God.)

GoBahnsen

October 19th 2004, 03:20 PM

What about the scripture that says 'He is not willing that any should perish' ?

What about the Armenian John Wesley and the Calvinist (sorry forget his name, but I knew there was one) who shook hands and called each other 'Brother' ?
Other's are dealing with these questions, so I'll be brief. In the context of the verse it must read "any of us". God is not willing that His elect should perish, so He is patient in bringing in the final judgment. He will, Peter assures those in His day, God isn't slack concerning His promises, but sometimes it looks that way. No, rather He is being patient ... and gathering His elect from the four corners of the world. Not willing that they should perish. Praise God, because we deserve just that, perishing in our sins.

Instead of arguing over 'who's saved' (and only God knows that, right?) why not just DO some of the things that Jesus said to do, you know, like 'feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be kind to stangers, visit those in prison (See IDOP- Internation Day of the Persecuted Christians) and visit the sick?I'm glad you bring this up. Christianity is both a life of possessing sound doctrine and living it out. To do one without the other is to be out of balance and often dangerously so.

We need to fill our minds with God's truth daily. Mediate upon it. And as we do this, we need to do those things you mention as well. Live it out in the power of God's Spirit.

If we think that we're just supposed to get enough truth and then when we've done that, go out and live it. We will most certainly fail. For man shall not live by bread alone, but be every word that proceeds from God's mouth.

So often men are weak in sound doctrine, trying to pastor others and often finding themselves in bed with the very person who they sought to minister to. I think this is often a result of bad Theology and a lack of living according to knowledge.

I'm sometimes very turned off by the Theology of those who say "let's just go out and love everyone". They often say things dangerously close to work's righteousness or universalism. Not caring for sound doctrine, they are so many times tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, making shipwreck of their weak and groundless faith.

So Christianity is both/and... we do not do well to emphasize works to the neglect of doctrine. And the reverse holds true as well. For out of the heart flow the issues of life. If the heart is not nourished by truth, it produces bad fruit that does not remain. The heathen love their own, sound doctrine will lead us to love our enemies. Yes, even to worship God in spirit and in truth, for God seeks such worshippers.

smaller

October 19th 2004, 04:32 PM

Other's are dealing with these questions, so I'll be brief. In the context of the verse it must read "any of us".

Nice try on the re-write. We should only pray for the elect as well, and not all men.

The problem is whenever Calvinists or Arminians contextualize their positions ACROSS THE BOARD as they should these "contexual" alterations become complete absurdity.

Your presentation that God is not willing that any (elect) should perish is a contradiction on your own doctrine anyway since the "elect" cannot perish or fail to come to repentence. God's Will for them is SET, as it is to burn the balance forever.

God is not willing that His elect should perish, so He is patient in bringing in the final judgment. He will, Peter assures those in His day, God isn't slack concerning His promises, but sometimes it looks that way. No, rather He is being patient ... and gathering His elect from the four corners of the world. Not willing that they should perish.

The "Elect" cannot perish. It is impossible in your view. So why attempt to re-write this???

Praise God, because we deserve just that, perishing in our sins.

Jesus did not and does not count sins against men (same chapter as above) and if your context fails for "all men" which it must in order for the Truth to be run over, then your context fails for limited atonement as well.

I'm glad you bring this up. Christianity is both a life of possessing sound doctrine and living it out. To do one without the other is to be out of balance and often dangerously so.

So many of you Calvinists (of whatever tulip count) fail to recognize that all peoples lives are used in judgment, EVEN YOUR OWN. Sin indwelling you and evil present with you will be judged and set aside, JUST AS IT IS IN THE UNBELIEVER.

The only difference is you are commanded to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS. Of course you would like to re-write this to love only your elect neighbors and your elect brothers, and well, the enemies you are commanded to love only get the LOVE NEWS that they are going to be burned alive forever.

We need to fill our minds with God's truth daily.

The door of your mind is welded shut and sealed into the judgment of others.

Mediate upon it.

Why bother? You are the "elect." You can afford to live in the eternal damnation of others. What do you care? You can't change anything. You have no power.

And as we do this, we need to do those things you mention as well. Live it out in the power of God's Spirit.

We have already examined the fruit of your love and found it applicable to about 1% of the worlds population if they happen to be the "elect."

If we think that we're just supposed to get enough truth and then when we've done that, go out and live it. We will most certainly fail. For man shall not live by bread alone, but be every word that proceeds from God's mouth.

No, that should be only the elect will live by every word that comes from God's Mouth. lol

MAN SHALL LIVE by God's Word. You missed out on the first challenge by the devil and eliminated nearly ALL.

So often men are weak in sound doctrine, trying to pastor others and often finding themselves in bed with the very person who they sought to minister to. I think this is often a result of bad Theology and a lack of living according to knowledge.

Why would the elect need anything? They're SET for life.

I'm sometimes very turned off by the Theology of those who say "let's just go out and love everyone".

God forbid that we would actually do as we are commanded to do.

Has it ever occured to you that it is possible to love people even if they are sinners?

They often say things dangerously close to work's righteousness or universalism. Not caring for sound doctrine, they are so many times tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, making shipwreck of their weak and groundless faith.

According to you love is not possible unless you have complete doctrine AND are the "elect." Your Gate to Heaven get's tighter every day.

So Christianity is both/and... we do not do well to emphasize works to the neglect of doctrine. And the reverse holds true as well. For out of the heart flow the issues of life. If the heart is not nourished by truth, it produces bad fruit that does not remain. The heathen love their own, sound doctrine will lead us to love our enemies. Yes, even to worship God in spirit and in truth, for God seeks such worshippers.

Love to your enemies? Why bother? God made them so He could simply burn them forever in torture. You should do as your God does to them, lest you be found better than your God. That could be a disaster.

GoBahnsen

October 19th 2004, 05:01 PM

[QUOTE]
Nice try on the re-write. We should only pray for the elect as well, and not all men.
It's not a re-write, it's attempting to understand the intent of the text. Certainly you don't use a woodend literalism at all times do you? Was the whole world following Jesus at one point. That's mentioned in the Bible. The eye witness's of that day once proclaimed "the whole world has gone after Him". Now we don't have to re-write that text to understand that they did not mean that in the literal sense of each person living.

We have already examined the fruit of your love and found it applicable to about 1% of the worlds population if they happen to be the "elect."
The strawman that seems to never die. When will you non Calvinists drop this worn out caricature? The Bible clearly states in Revelation, that the redeemed are a vast multitude. Using hyperbolic language that they, the elect, cannot be counted they are so numerous. So where do you come up with your "1%" slander? Stop misrepresenting Calvinism please. At least come up with new errors instead of repeating the same old nonsense.

No, that should be only the elect will live by every word that comes from God's Mouth. lol
Yeah, lol smaller. Have good one:lol: .

Why would the elect need anything? They're SET for life.
Praise God that He has indeed given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness.

Has it ever occured to you that it is possible to love people even if they are sinners?
What kind of absurd interrogation is this?

According to you love is not possible unless you have complete doctrine AND are the "elect." Your Gate to Heaven get's tighter every day.
Nonsense

Love to your enemies? Why bother? God made them so He could simply burn them forever in torture. You should do as your God does to them, lest you be found better than your God. That could be a disaster.
You should learn to guard your foolish speech.

smaller

October 20th 2004, 01:03 AM

It's not a re-write, it's attempting to understand the intent of the text.

Excuse me. I should have qualified it as an "attempted" re-write...;)

Certainly you don't use a woodend literalism at all times do you?

Only when it suits my positions...;)

Was the whole world following Jesus at one point.

Depends on which world you are speaking of. Do you physically see the world of satan and demons? No. But the fact remains that their world was addressed BY JESUS, as well as the world we "see."

That's mentioned in the Bible. The eye witness's of that day once proclaimed "the whole world has gone after Him". Now we don't have to re-write that text to understand that they did not mean that in the literal sense of each person living.

Uh, who might that wooden literalist really be if the invisible is not taken into account in the dissections???

The strawman that seems to never die.

I simply write what I see as the positions you present. Why would you take offense at what you really believe.

I can make it worse you know.

For example when a Calvinist preaches the Gospel they should fully disclose their Truth, so as to be IN TRUTH. So when the temporarily blinded elect are being sought they should be told that all who are not the temporarily blinded elect will be tortured forever in fire and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

I'm sure the elect will respond quicker if the "real" Truth were employed eh?

When will you non Calvinists drop this worn out caricature? The Bible clearly states in Revelation, that the redeemed are a vast multitude. Using hyperbolic language that they, the elect, cannot be counted they are so numerous. So where do you come up with your "1%" slander?

Via a simple count of your numbers vs. the world. Perhaps you can revise the figure to .99973% by discounting the ones who think they are saved but actually fall away. But of course that fallout percentage is an insider only number.

Stop misrepresenting Calvinism please. At least come up with new errors instead of repeating the same old nonsense.

Specific counter positions are usually employed when specific criticism is given. "The ELECT men shall live by every word of God" eh?

Praise God that He has indeed given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness.

Given that there are such a large number of people elected to burn forever in fire I do find it somewhat unusual that at least one of them were not identified by name in the scriptures, you know, as an example of the legitimacy of the position.

What kind of absurd interrogation is this?

The fact that God simply tolerates those about to be tortured to extract patience from the elect, but in fact you are commanded to be Perfect as the "elect" and since God intends to torture them YOU are commanded to be LIKE GOD.

There is no avoiding the God of Torture if you are commanded to be PERFECT eh?

You cannot kill, but hey, maybe that's why? You should learn advanced torture techniques like your Father in preparation for "heaven."

Oh, sorry. There's that worse truth reflection of what I see from Calvinists coming out again.

Nonsense
You should learn to guard your foolish speech.

They are your positions, not mine. I can certainly understand why the "elect" should not seek to defend such things. They don't have to.

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 02:00 AM

I simply write what I see as the positions you present. Why would you take offense at what you really believe.

I can make it worse you know.

For example when a Calvinist preaches the Gospel they should fully disclose their Truth, so as to be IN TRUTH. So when the temporarily blinded elect are being sought they should be told that all who are not the temporarily blinded elect will be tortured forever in fire and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

I'm sure the elect will respond quicker if the "real" Truth were employed eh?

The elect always respond to the truth and a voice like your's they will not follow. Maybe Jesus should have been more careful with His words lest He offend folks. Nevertheless, we are to use discretion with our speech. Jesus once told His own disciples that He desired to tell them many things that they were not yet able to bear.

Mat 5:22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye shall cause thee to sin, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 10:28 And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Berean Todd

October 20th 2004, 05:27 AM

Given that there are such a large number of people elected to burn forever in fire I do find it somewhat unusual that at least one of them were not identified by name in the scriptures, you know, as an example of the legitimacy of the position.

You make it out that God is being unfair or even heinous to these "innocent" people who had done no wrong. The problem with that is we aren't innocent. To use a good explanation of this poor argument of yours, follow me here for a moment. Draw one big circle and label it "Justice." Now draw another circle and label it "Non-Justice." Now take the circle called "Non-Justice" and draw a vertical line disecting it in half. Now, on the right half of the non-justice circle, write "Unjust." Now on the left side of the non-justice circle write "grace."

Now none of us are innocent, no not one. So we all are receiving Justice by being punished for our violation of God's law. Now some of those formerly bound for Justice have been elected by God to receive His grace. Not because we are more meritorious, but because of His own choosing.

Now, where is God being unjust there? Why do you claim that if He chooses to extend grace to some, that He must extend it to all? We don't merrit it, if we did it wouldn't be grace. Grace is UNdeserved favor. God is not unjust, we are unclean, and that He has extended grace to any of us is not required, but I will praise Him eternally that He has done so.

rhutchin

October 20th 2004, 08:34 AM

rhutchin

This verse (2 Peter 3:9) reads--

The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Assuming that you take "any" to mean everyone, can you explain why it is that God must be patient toward believers? Can you link the two ideas together (God is patient toward believers and God does not want any to perish) to explain what you think Peter is saying in this verse?

themuzicman
He is patient because God could call for judgment at any time, and those who are believers would be saved, and those who are not wouldn't, but God is patient towards them, because he wants others to come to Him, as well, and is giving them time.

I do not disagree with what you say, only with its application as an explanation for this verse. You do not explain why it is necessary for God to be patient with believers in order to gain the salvation of unbelievers.

It is true that God is patient and God could call for judgment at any time. Consequently, Peter could have written that God has delayed judgment because He is being patient with unbelievers not wanting any to perish. Peter did not write that.

Peter could have said that God has delayed judgment because He is being patient with those whom He had already saved not wanting any whom He had still planned to save to perish. That is how some (including myself) would read it. That is a legitimate rendering of the verse.

However, the issue is to tie God’s patience toward believers with the salvation of unbelievers. Why is it necessary that God be patient with believers in order to gain the salvation of unbelievers? In what way could patience toward believers affect the salvation of unbelievers? There seems to be no logic that can make the verse say this. If Peter had left out the phrase, “toward you,” this verse would be a piece of cake. However, Peter wrote “toward you,” and in doing that, he established a clear antecedent for the “any” that follows.

If “any” does not refer back to “toward you,” then it must refer back to something prior to this verse. However, there is nothing prior to v9 that allows a person to expand the meaning of “any” beyond that encompassed by the preceding “you.” In context, 1 Peter is written directly to believers. It does not have anything to do with unbelievers and v3.9 does not deviate from that context.

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 09:12 AM

I do not disagree with what you say, only with its application as an explanation for this verse. You do not explain why it is necessary for God to be patient with believers in order to gain the salvation of unbelievers.

It is true that God is patient and God could call for judgment at any time. Consequently, Peter could have written that God has delayed judgment because He is being patient with unbelievers not wanting any to perish. Peter did not write that.

Peter could have said that God has delayed judgment because He is being patient with those whom He had already saved not wanting any whom He had still planned to save to perish. That is how some (including myself) would read it. That is a legitimate rendering of the verse.

However, the issue is to tie God’s patience toward believers with the salvation of unbelievers. Why is it necessary that God be patient with believers in order to gain the salvation of unbelievers? In what way could patience toward believers affect the salvation of unbelievers? There seems to be no logic that can make the verse say this. If Peter had left out the phrase, “toward you,” this verse would be a piece of cake. However, Peter wrote “toward you,” and in doing that, he established a clear antecedent for the “any” that follows.

If “any” does not refer back to “toward you,” then it must refer back to something prior to this verse. However, there is nothing prior to v9 that allows a person to expand the meaning of “any” beyond that encompassed by the preceding “you.” In context, 1 Peter is written directly to believers. It does not have anything to do with unbelievers and v3.9 does not deviate from that context.
If you are truly puzzled, as any Calvinist should be, may I suggest you begin to look beyond the issue of salvation and on toward what God is desiring-requiring in-of His people who are regenerated-born again of Him.

Trout

October 20th 2004, 10:37 AM

If you are truly puzzled, as any Calvinist should be, may I suggest you begin to look beyond the issue of salvation and on toward what God is desiring-requiring in-of His people who are regenerated-born again of Him.

Ormly,

You aren't adding to the discussion, you are just making insulting comments. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't criticize things you know nothing about. Why don't you just follow along for a while, you might learn something.

smaller

October 20th 2004, 12:09 PM

You make it out that God is being unfair or even heinous to these "innocent" people who had done no wrong.

And you make out that God's Love is completely ineffective for nearly anything. (a common malaise)

The problem with that is we aren't innocent.

Mankind has never had sins counted against them.

You and most on the other hand continue to blame, and condemn your fellow, mankind for sin, which is ALSO IN YOU, and you deem your fellowman whom you are TO LOVE into eternal torture.

The eternal torture (or annihilation) of people is a very twisted mindset in my humble opinion. But hey, what do I know? I am merely another subjective voice seeing what I see in God's Word and I do not see as you see and I can JUSTIFY COMPLETELY God's Love for all which SHALL BE THE TESTIMONY OF GOD IN JESUS CHRIST that will be made in "due time."

To use a good explanation of this poor argument of yours, follow me here for a moment. Draw one big circle and label it "Justice."

Now open your online concordance and go to the Apostle James' statement that MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUSTICE and draw a BIGGER CIRCLE.

Now draw another circle and label it "Non-Justice."

B. Todd. You have followed my writings long enough now to know and understand that I do not discount or throw away a SINGLE DAMNATION SCRIPTURE. They are ALL meant for the devil and his messengers who happen to dwell in the flesh of mankind.

But God, in His Wisdom has cleverly blended them WITHIN US so that we may learn HOW TO LOVE in the midst of DARKNESS

and THEY will be eternally set aside when God is finished using them. You of course are nearly TOTALLY BLIND to this OTHER WORLD, even though this invisible world is spoken of from beginning to end in The Word.

Even Jerusalem is called spiritual SODOM and EGYPT.

All the DAMNATION texts are written to the "nations" that you are not allowed to see because you are RULED by the damnation of others. The very world that will be destroyed controls EVEN YOU, and this by God's Plan.

Now take the circle called "Non-Justice" and draw a vertical line disecting it in half. Now, on the right half of the non-justice circle, write "Unjust." Now on the left side of the non-justice circle write "grace."

All I see with you and with most so called christians is an overwhelming desire to justify themselves and condemn the other slaves. This is prima fascia evidence of what controls you, no matter how many "circles" you draw to justify the eternal torture of your neighbors.

Now none of us are innocent, no not one.

Then you have very little respect for the WORK of Jesus Christ. He dripped forgiveness of His Blood onto your temple, your body. All men have been sprinkled in this way.

So we all are receiving Justice by being punished for our violation of God's law. Now some of those formerly bound for Justice have been elected by God to receive His grace. Not because we are more meritorious, but because of His own choosing.

Now, where is God being unjust there? Why do you claim that if He chooses to extend grace to some, that He must extend it to all?

Uh, that would be based upon the HUNDREDS of scriptures that speak of the overwhelming Glory of God that will be upon ALL people. You know, those pesky little scriptures that say that Jesus is The Saviour of The World, and that God so loved the world, and that all things have been given to The Son and that The Son will draw all men and none will be cast out, etc etc etc.

Why is it that it takes a 6 year college degree to discount The Word of God in these matters???

We don't merrit it, if we did it wouldn't be grace. Grace is UNdeserved favor. God is not unjust, we are unclean, and that He has extended grace to any of us is not required, but I will praise Him eternally that He has done so.

God IS Love. You say it is not required for God to extend GRACE?

You think it was all just a big crap shoot?

Everything God does is PERFECT including the USE of evil in sin for an eventual BETTER PURPOSE.

I am willing to believe God in these matters and in all things.

The Judgment is LOVE.

Berean Todd

October 20th 2004, 12:15 PM

And you make out that God's Love is completely ineffective for nearly anything. (a common malaise)Wrong, it's completely effective for those whom He has chosen. Love is a choice. God destroyed almost the whole earth in the time of Noah, burned whole cities (Sodom and Gomorah), and sent His people Israel to wipe out the wicked inhabitants of the promised land. Yet you think he is a giant pink bunny who only shows grace always.

Grace is a choice. Love is a choice. The Bible is clear that God has chosen a people unto Himself. You ignore it, and that's your perogative.

smaller

October 20th 2004, 12:20 PM

The elect always respond to the truth and a voice like your's they will not follow.

Uh, I am not the one who condemns nearly all people to be tortured in fire. Perhaps you think that only Christians LOVE. You are mistaken.

If you think that even though the Gentiles love their own, that there is not a reward for LOVE. Read the bottom of my posts.

A "Christian" however is called to a HIGHER AND GREATER form of love. A love that is commanded to love even our enemies because we understand they are slaves of darkness, just as we were (supposedly.)

Maybe Jesus should have been more careful with His words lest He offend folks. Nevertheless, we are to use discretion with our speech. Jesus once told His own disciples that He desired to tell them many things that they were not yet able to bear.

I know many "wealthy" people, and they are among the most arrogant and self righteous.

Christians are the "wealthiest" of ALL, yet most stink with arrogance.

Mat 5:22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

You have read enough of my posts by now to KNOW that I believe in every eternal damnation scripture.

What I say is that you could use a dose of your own medicine to OTHERS to snap you out of your darkness.

Jezz

October 20th 2004, 01:00 PM

You make it out that God is being unfair or even heinous to these "innocent" people who had done no wrong. The problem with that is we aren't innocent. To use a good explanation of this poor argument of yours, follow me here for a moment. Draw one big circle and label it "Justice." Now draw another circle and label it "Non-Justice." Now take the circle called "Non-Justice" and draw a vertical line disecting it in half. Now, on the right half of the non-justice circle, write "Unjust." Now on the left side of the non-justice circle write "grace."

Now none of us are innocent, no not one. So we all are receiving Justice by being punished for our violation of God's law. Now some of those formerly bound for Justice have been elected by God to receive His grace. Not because we are more meritorious, but because of His own choosing.

Now, where is God being unjust there? Why do you claim that if He chooses to extend grace to some, that He must extend it to all? We don't merrit it, if we did it wouldn't be grace. Grace is UNdeserved favor. God is not unjust, we are unclean, and that He has extended grace to any of us is not required, but I will praise Him eternally that He has done so.
The problem with this argument:

Sure, grace is undeserved favour. God does not owe any of us salvation as a reward for good works. But then why does God give grace to anyone? He doesn't have to. We don't merit it. So why does He? The only reason that He does is because 1. He wants to, and 2. He can.

This is when the problem arises:

1. God is all-loving - therefore, He loves all of us - not just the "elect". Which means that He wants to save all of us.
2. God is all-powerful - which means that He can save all of us. It is well within His infinite power to save us.

The problem with the attitudes that I have seen in this thread (I'll loosely call it "Calvinism", but wish to note that I use the term loosely, in case someone has not represented Calvinism properly) is that it denies one or both of these attributes of God. If God deliberately doesn't choose certain people for salvation, then either He doesn't love those whom He chooses not to save (thus violating 1), or He doesn't have the power to save them (thus violating 2). This is the quandry that Calvinism leads to.

The missing ingredient is, of course, the free will of the individual. God requires only one thing of an individual for their salvation - their cooperation. And God will never override the free will from the individual - not because He can't, but because to do so would be the equivalent of spiritually killing that person (for if a person's decisions are not their own, then they are not a person). And that is why not all people are saved. It is not because God is whimsical and has arbitrarily chosen a certain few for salvation over the others. Nor is it because He doesn't have the power to save all. It is because those whom He does not save don't want to be saved.

In point of fact, God actually does save everyone. Remember, that "salvation" means to be saved from something - and the ultimate enemy to be saved from is death. In the final analysis, God saves everyone from death - all are raised and reunited to immortal bodies. He does this because He loves all of us and wants us to experience that love for eternity, and He achieves it through Christ's work on the cross.

Of course, not everyone will appreciate God's love. If you show kindness to an evil person, it is like heaping burning coals on their head (Proverbs 25:21-22). People who have spent their lives self-centered and self-loving hate it when they see selfless love, because it shames them with their inadequacy. How much more so when that love is the absolutely selfless love of God Himself! They will want to flee from the light that reveals all evil thoughts and desires and hide in darkness so that their evil deeds may not be known... but they will be unable... It will be an endless torment. Yet God will not stop loving them. After all, God cannot cease being Who He is - and He is love.

rhutchin

October 20th 2004, 01:01 PM

If you are truly puzzled, as any Calvinist should be, may I suggest you begin to look beyond the issue of salvation and on toward what God is desiring-requiring in-of His people who are regenerated-born again of Him.

You have a unique writing style that I find difficult to understand. Given that, I do not understand what your comment has to do with our understanding of 1 Peter 3:9.

Jezz

October 20th 2004, 01:26 PM

I was thinking to myself, what a Theological mess Arminians get involved in when they do not understand that God is not saving everyone, nor has He ever planned to. When they fail to understand particular redemption and get caught trying to mesh a universal Atonement that has many "redeemed, set free" people going to hell because they failed to sign up with their faith ticket or something like that I guess?

Because....Marv, if they are set free and their sins are paid for, why are they still going to hell? Much better to understand that Christ laid down His life for His sheep, whom He calls out by name and they follow Him. The voice of strangers they will not follow (John 10).
There is no contradiction here, GB.

Christ has indeed redeemed all people. Why then are some still damned? (NB: I do not use the phrase "go to hell", because it is neo-Platonic and non-Biblical.)

The reason is quite simple. One only needs to consider the slavery analogy (the word "redemption" was a technical term which meant to buy the freedom of a slave). Suppose I pay the redemption price for a person, so that they are no longer a slave to their master (ie, our sinful self). Because they are now free, they are free to come with me to live in my house. However, because they are free, they are also free to continue to serve their old master. At this point, if the free person continues to serve their tyrannical master, then they only have themselves to blame.

Similarly, there is no contradiction between the idea of universal atonement and the idea that perhaps not all will escape damnation. Christ's atonement (which was not just His death, but also His entire incarnation) does indeed redeem all mankind - nay, the whole kosmos even. But because we are still left with free will, we are free to reject this freedom that we have in Christ.

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 04:40 PM

Ormly,

You aren't adding to the discussion, you are just making insulting comments. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't criticize things you know nothing about. Why don't you just follow along for a while, you might learn something.Where is the insult? Where do I need understanding? I've added plenty. You just can't, or don't want to, recognize the challenge. That's too bad.

smaller

October 20th 2004, 04:45 PM

There is no contradiction here, GB.

Christ has indeed redeemed all people. Why then are some still damned? (NB: I do not use the phrase "go to hell", because it is neo-Platonic and non-Biblical.)

The reason is quite simple. One only needs to consider the slavery analogy (the word "redemption" was a technical term which meant to buy the freedom of a slave). Suppose I pay the redemption price for a person, so that they are no longer a slave to their master (ie, our sinful self). Because they are now free, they are free to come with me to live in my house. However, because they are free, they are also free to continue to serve their old master. At this point, if the free person continues to serve their tyrannical master, then they only have themselves to blame.

Similarly, there is no contradiction between the idea of universal atonement and the idea that perhaps not all will escape damnation. Christ's atonement (which was not just His death, but also His entire incarnation) does indeed redeem all mankind - nay, the whole kosmos even. But because we are still left with free will, we are free to reject this freedom that we have in Christ.

A True Redeemer does not leave redemption to the chance that someone walks out of the prison door. NONE leave that prison in the flesh as ALL have sin and SIN is of the devil, therefore NONE are free in the flesh.

If someone does not SEE they remain blinded by the enemy. It is the enemy who will pay the price for continuing to keep and beat the slaves. Jesus will UTTERLY DESTROY that captor.

We, as believers are commanded to have our light SHINE FROM THE DARKNESS that exists also in US.

God IS Love. Those who are His are THE SAME.

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 04:49 PM

You have a unique writing style that I find difficult to understand. Given that, I do not understand what your comment has to do with our understanding of 1 Peter 3:9.
This is what I was referring to:

I do not disagree with what you say, only with its application as an explanation for this verse. You do not explain why it is necessary for God to be patient with believers in order to gain the salvation of unbelievers.

I was not specifically reffering to the verse.

Orm

smaller

October 20th 2004, 04:52 PM

Wrong, it's completely effective for those whom He has chosen. Love is a choice. God destroyed almost the whole earth in the time of Noah, burned whole cities (Sodom and Gomorah), and sent His people Israel to wipe out the wicked inhabitants of the promised land. Yet you think he is a giant pink bunny who only shows grace always.
[QUOTE]
Grace is a choice.

LOL with that one B. Todd. You are not the activator or the continuation of Grace.

Grace is a ONE WAY STREET. A never ending flow of LIFE from The Throne.

No MAN stops Him.

Paul was STUCK DOWN on his way to MURDER. He thought he was doing God's Will, but we see his will was CAPTIVE until a GREATER LIGHT overtook him. This had nothing to do with Paul or Saul, and everything to do with GOD through Jesus Christ ALONE.

Love is a choice.

God IS LOVE. Does this make GOD a "choice?" lol This is what is programmed into your head and you serve your PROGRAMMING and are blinded by your own programmers. These separations that men build to justify themselves and condemn other men are only doctrines of demons that men serve everyday.

The Bible is clear that God has chosen a people unto Himself. You ignore it, and that's your perogative.

I see the difference only between a blinded slave and a blinded slave who sees IN PART and acknowledges God in Jesus Christ. This in NO WAY gives you the authority to even breathe eternal condemnation to ANOTHER SLAVE.

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 05:04 PM

LOL with that one B. Todd. You are not the activator or the continuation of Grace.

Grace is a ONE WAY STREET. A never ending flow of LIFE from The Throne.

No MAN stops Him.

Paul was STUCK DOWN on his way to MURDER. He thought he was doing God's Will, but we see his will was CAPTIVE until a GREATER LIGHT overtook him. This had nothing to do with Paul or Saul, and everything to do with GOD through Jesus Christ ALONE.

God IS LOVE. Does this make GOD a "choice?" lol This is what is programmed into your head and you serve your PROGRAMMING and are blinded by your own programmers. These separations that men build to justify themselves and condemn other men are only doctrines of demons that men serve everyday.

I see the difference only between a blinded slave and a blinded slave who sees IN PART and acknowledges God in Jesus Christ. This in NO WAY gives you the authority to even breathe eternal condemnation to ANOTHER SLAVE.
What cult are you anyway? You may wish to classify yourself as a denomination and I'll give you that out of generousity since many today are. I'm just curious. That's all --- no further interest.

smaller

October 20th 2004, 05:09 PM

What cult are you anyway? You may wish to classify yourself as a denomination and I'll give you that out of generousity since many today are. I'm just curious. That's all --- no further interest.

That nefarious cult called The Love of God in Jesus Christ to ALL that you continually seek to KILL.

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 05:28 PM

That nefarious cult called The Love of God in Jesus Christ to ALL that you continually seek to KILL. Ah, Legion, you speak volumes.
Thank you.

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 05:51 PM

[QUOTE]There is no contradiction here, GB. Howdy Jezz, it's an honor to dialogue with one of staff superiors.

Christ has indeed redeemed all people. Why then are some still damned? (NB: I do not use the phrase "go to hell", because it is neo-Platonic and non-Biblical.)

The reason is quite simple. One only needs to consider the slavery analogy (the word "redemption" was a technical term which meant to buy the freedom of a slave). Suppose I pay the redemption price for a person, so that they are no longer a slave to their master (ie, our sinful self). Because they are now free, they are free to come with me to live in my house. However, because they are free, they are also free to continue to serve their old master. At this point, if the free person continues to serve their tyrannical master, then they only have themselves to blame.
Very interesting theory, but I have to disagree for the moment. You say, like Marv, that they are free, the unregenerate. I don't look at it that way. I don't see a man free until the Son has set him free by bringing him the Gospel and granting him repentance and faith. Adopting him into the Beloved and making him a son of God.

Many people today are in bondage, they are in no wise free. Except to sin, but not free to follow after true righteousness. But this goes back to our presuppositional difference in the nature of fallen man. I see him dead in sin, you what? Sick? This colors your Theology as you well know. And mine colors mine:teeth: .

Similarly, there is no contradiction between the idea of universal atonement and the idea that perhaps not all will escape damnation. Christ's atonement (which was not just His death, but also His entire incarnation) does indeed redeem all mankind - nay, the whole kosmos even. But because we are still left with free will, we are free to reject this freedom that we have in Christ. That last sentence was quite distrurbing to my Reformed ears. You almost speak as if all are "in Christ". I don't think you're saying that, but you're teetering that way. Your belief in man's goodness and ability to use his free will rightly is unbiblical in my estimation. Jesus said the flesh profits a little, right? Oh wait...NOTHING. It profits nothing. Yet you have a man "in the flesh", seeking and finding Christ through his good sense. That flesh of his profited him greatly it appears, as it sought and cooperated with Christ unto a joint venture salvation. Marvelous indeed.

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 06:12 PM

The problem with this argument:

Sure, grace is undeserved favour. God does not owe any of us salvation as a reward for good works. But then why does God give grace to anyone? He doesn't have to. We don't merit it. So why does He? The only reason that He does is because 1. He wants to, and 2. He can.

This is when the problem arises:

1. God is all-loving - therefore, He loves all of us - not just the "elect". Which means that He wants to save all of us.
2. God is all-powerful - which means that He can save all of us. It is well within His infinite power to save us.

Responding now to your post to Todd: Your #1 is quite stacked and loaded. A real Arminian burger with all the fixens. Does God is love = God does not hate? You say He loves us all, but the Bible says otherwise.

It says God "hates evil doers". It says He's angry with them all day. It says He particularly hated Esau. Just because God is love does not follow that your theory must be true. He does hate, albeit perfectly and with no unrighteousness involved.

Furthermore God could have executed justice on us all. Would that = God is not love? So what of this love? Is it not God's to bestow? What of His righteous contempt for evil, is it unloving of God to hate those that exalt themselves above Him? What kind of logic are you employing in your one -two punch?

The problem with the attitudes that I have seen in this thread (I'll loosely call it "Calvinism", but wish to note that I use the term loosely, in case someone has not represented Calvinism properly) is that it denies one or both of these attributes of God. If God deliberately doesn't choose certain people for salvation, then either He doesn't love those whom He chooses not to save (thus violating 1), or He doesn't have the power to save them (thus violating 2). This is the quandry that Calvinism leads to.
Yes, I agree, God is violating your #1.

The missing ingredient is, of course, the free will of the individual. You mean to say the free to sin will, right?

God requires only one thing of an individual for their salvation - their cooperation. Yes, but how is He going to get that from a dead person, who according to Scripture, in their flesh cannot please God? Cooperating with grace must please God right? How can those who are in the flesh stop being that and please God?

We (Calvies) say through Holy Spirit regeneration. By God making them a new creation. So that it becomes true of John 1:13, that they are not born of the flesh or of the freewill of man, but of God.

And God will never override the free will from the individual - not because He can't, but because to do so would be the equivalent of spiritually killing that person (for if a person's decisions are not their own, then they are not a person). Another Jezzism?

And that is why not all people are saved. It is not because God is whimsical and has arbitrarily chosen a certain few for salvation over the others. Nor is it because He doesn't have the power to save all. It is because those whom He does not save don't want to be saved.
Well I agree they don't want to be saved, but then neither would I if God hadn't opened up my stupid blind eyes.

In point of fact, God actually does save everyone. Remember, that "salvation" means to be saved from something - and the ultimate enemy to be saved from is death. In the final analysis, God saves everyone from death - all are raised and reunited to immortal bodies. He does this because He loves all of us and wants us to experience that love for eternity, and He achieves it through Christ's work on the cross.
Sorry Jezz, but you are over the top here. They are not saved from death, they are given the second death. Hardly salvation. It is a dreadful thing for the wicked to be raised unto judgment. There is no salvation there.

Of course, not everyone will appreciate God's love. If you show kindness to an evil person, it is like heaping burning coals on their head (Proverbs 25:21-22). People who have spent their lives self-centered and self-loving hate it when they see selfless love, because it shames them with their inadequacy. How much more so when that love is the absolutely selfless love of God Himself! They will want to flee from the light that reveals all evil thoughts and desires and hide in darkness so that their evil deeds may not be known... but they will be unable... It will be an endless torment. Yet God will not stop loving them. After all, God cannot cease being Who He is - and He is love.Well I guess it's a good thing that you appreciated God's love. I myself had no regard for it until God decided otherwise. I was like the rest of lost humanity, until grace made the difference, not my "appreciation".

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 06:22 PM

Sure, grace is undeserved favour. God does not owe any of us salvation as a reward for good works. But then why does God give grace to anyone? He doesn't have to. We don't merit it. So why does He? The only reason that He does is because 1. He wants to, and 2. He can.Wrong understanding here. God gives grace because He takes responsibilty for sin. Not because He can, but He must. His actions we are being observed for reasons we aren't privy to. Simple as that. He created us and now gives us a way out of the dilemma that Adam caused because He loves what He created for Himself. There must be a reconcilation that satisfies His justice. In this He is limited by His own Character which His Justice plays a great part.

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 06:52 PM

Wrong understanding here. God gives grace because He takes responsibilty for sin. Not because He can, but He must. His actions we are being observed for reasons we aren't privy to. Simple as that. He created us and now gives us a way out of the dilemma that Adam caused because He loves what He created for Himself. There must be a reconcilation that satisfies His justice. In this He is limited by His own Character which His Justice plays a great part.Orm, I want you know that I consider you to be a believer, but I sometimes wonder if it is Christianity you believe. God gives grace because He takes responsibility for sin? :duh: Funny, I thought we were supposed to be doing that. I thought God took responsibility for righteousness, grace and mercy. The things He is guilty of.

"His actions we are being observed for reasons we aren't privy to." Careful Orm, you sound like those terrible Calvinists who plead mystery, mystery.

Trout

October 20th 2004, 06:56 PM

Where is the insult? Where do I need understanding? I've added plenty. You just can't, or don't want to, recognize the challenge. That's too bad.

Do you feel like you have a good understanding of Calvinism?

Would you consider yourself to be an Arminian?

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 07:05 PM

Do you feel like you have a good understanding of Calvinism?

Would you consider yourself to be an Arminian?I want to do an impersonation of Orm (the highest form of flattery). Here goes:

"You wouldn't know Calvinism if it came up and bit your leg off. Arminians have their problems too, they refuse to see the light. It's willful and that's the sad part, and the Calvinists are in a worse boat. You should learn how to read. Your ignorant questions reveal your lack of integrity. Go learn from God and see me after you understand His ways."

What do you think trout. Think I might make it on Leno?

Ormly

October 20th 2004, 10:22 PM

I want to do an impersonation of Orm (the highest form of flattery). Here goes:

"You wouldn't know Calvinism if it came up and bit your leg off. Arminians have their problems too, they refuse to see the light. It's willful and that's the sad part, and the Calvinists are in a worse boat. You should learn how to read. Your ignorant questions reveal your lack of integrity. Go learn from God and see me after you understand His ways."

What do you think trout. Think I might make it on Leno?I think you have a complex. Perhaps a chocolate chip cookie might help. Kids like them for all sorts of miladys. Perhaps one is in order for you. --give one a go and report back in the morning.

GoBahnsen

October 20th 2004, 10:58 PM

I think you have a complex. Perhaps a chocolate chip cookie might help. Kids like them for all sorts of miladys. Perhaps one is in order for you. --give one a go and report back in the morning. Whoa...new material Orm, thanks man. How's this for an Orm response to Orm?:

The only complex is you. Try doing a little research, it might clear your head out. Kids are in a rumple one way in a direction of beings outside of those which the Father knows. Go and study, it will come to you if you give it a chance. If you were serious about learning I might be able to help you. You need to read the Bible and understand what Paul was saying. I can't help you if you refuse to think.:ahem:

rhutchin

October 21st 2004, 08:24 AM

The problem with this argument:

Sure, grace is undeserved favour. God does not owe any of us salvation as a reward for good works. But then why does God give grace to anyone? He doesn't have to. We don't merit it. So why does He? The only reason that He does is because 1. He wants to, and 2. He can.

This is when the problem arises:

1. God is all-loving - therefore, He loves all of us - not just the "elect". Which means that He wants to save all of us.
2. God is all-powerful - which means that He can save all of us. It is well within His infinite power to save us.

The problem with the attitudes that I have seen in this thread (I'll loosely call it "Calvinism", but wish to note that I use the term loosely, in case someone has not represented Calvinism properly) is that it denies one or both of these attributes of God. If God deliberately doesn't choose certain people for salvation, then either He doesn't love those whom He chooses not to save (thus violating 1), or He doesn't have the power to save them (thus violating 2). This is the quandry that Calvinism leads to.

The missing ingredient is, of course, the free will of the individual. God requires only one thing of an individual for their salvation - their cooperation. And God will never override the free will from the individual - not because He can't, but because to do so would be the equivalent of spiritually killing that person (for if a person's decisions are not their own, then they are not a person). And that is why not all people are saved. It is not because God is whimsical and has arbitrarily chosen a certain few for salvation over the others. Nor is it because He doesn't have the power to save all. It is because those whom He does not save don't want to be saved.

In point of fact, God actually does save everyone. Remember, that "salvation" means to be saved from something - and the ultimate enemy to be saved from is death. In the final analysis, God saves everyone from death - all are raised and reunited to immortal bodies. He does this because He loves all of us and wants us to experience that love for eternity, and He achieves it through Christ's work on the cross.

Of course, not everyone will appreciate God's love. If you show kindness to an evil person, it is like heaping burning coals on their head (Proverbs 25:21-22). People who have spent their lives self-centered and self-loving hate it when they see selfless love, because it shames them with their inadequacy. How much more so when that love is the absolutely selfless love of God Himself! They will want to flee from the light that reveals all evil thoughts and desires and hide in darkness so that their evil deeds may not be known... but they will be unable... It will be an endless torment. Yet God will not stop loving them. After all, God cannot cease being Who He is - and He is love.

I am not sure that you understand fully what Calvinism says.

You state, “And that is why not all people are saved.” What I think you mean (but am not sure) is that people can freely choose to reject the salvation that is available to them. If that is so, then you basically agree with Calvinism. Calvinism just goes further and says that ALL people freely reject salvation. I think you would say (again not certain of this) that only some people reject salvation. The question you leave unanswered is why some reject and some do not. What differentiates the one from the other? Calvinism offers a clear answer to this. As far as I know, no other theological system does so and I tend to doubt that you can.

Ormly

October 21st 2004, 09:33 AM

Do you feel like you have a good understanding of Calvinism?

Would you consider yourself to be an Arminian?Yes and no. I can embrace some of all of it, OVT included, but I can't embrace all of any of it. I believe there is truth to be found in all of the doctrines and interpretations but truth must lead to the connecting of the dots. Though not in complete agreement so far Tercel comes closest to my why way of thinking but I'm waiting for other shoe to drop as I do in all these forums when I read someone close to my persuasion. But everyone else ends with: "Well, it's a mystery" which is totally weak and lacking for anyone proclaiming a gospel of strength and hope.:smile:

smaller

October 21st 2004, 11:47 AM

Ah, Legion, you speak volumes.
Thank you.

Here's your sign, and thanks for mine.

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

I have marked your "controller" with The Word, and now "it" struggles with me.

The fact is Ormly, that even in YOU there is a child of God seeking to Love that has been trapped by the eternal judgment of other people. Perhaps God will grant you an escape from that enemy, or that enemy will be judged in your body in preparation for eternal punishment.

Either way serves God, and I am OK with that because I know you will go free of "it" in the end.

Jezz

October 21st 2004, 02:07 PM

Howdy Jezz, it's an honor to dialogue with one of staff superiors.
The honour is mutual. :smile:

Very interesting theory, but I have to disagree for the moment. You say, like Marv, that they are free, the unregenerate. I don't look at it that way. I don't see a man free until the Son has set him free by bringing him the Gospel and granting him repentance and faith. Adopting him into the Beloved and making him a son of God.
It is not merely an "interesting theory" - it is what the early Church (apart from Augustine) taught, and it's what Orthodox Christians (and interestingly, Orthodox Jews as well for that matter) teach today. It's called "synergism" - a word usually translated in the NT as "fellow-worker".

Many people today are in bondage, they are in no wise free. Except to sin, but not free to follow after true righteousness. But this goes back to our presuppositional difference in the nature of fallen man. I see him dead in sin, you what? Sick? This colors your Theology as you well know. And mine colors mine:teeth: .
Yes, I see them as "sick". This colours my theology to bring it in line with the Bible - for example, in Christ's statement:

31 Jesus answered and said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The image of Jesus as the great physician is one that is prominent throughout the Biblical (note all the healing miracles) and elaborated in the Patristic writings.

That last sentence was quite distrurbing to my Reformed ears. You almost speak as if all are "in Christ". I don't think you're saying that, but you're teetering that way.
I can see how you got that out of what I wrote. But that's not what I meant.

What I meant was, we have the freedom of will to be joined with Christ, and be freed from sin thereby.

Your belief in man's goodness and ability to use his free will rightly is unbiblical in my estimation.
With due respect, I don't care much about your estimation. :teeth: You're just a theological schmuck like me. We are nobodies in the theological world.

When I want an opinion on a medical subject, I do not go to a discussion forum to hear the opinion of a couple of laymen who have read a couple of medical textbooks. I go to a qualified doctor (maybe a specialist) and ask them. You don't want to be messing around with such important matters. If you think you are a qualified surgeon after reading a couple of books, then you're not taking medicine seriously enough.

How much more important are spiritual matters than physical matters? How much more, therefore, will I restrict my theological education to those who have historically been held up and proven to be the "spiritual specialists" (ie, the Church Fathers)?

Jesus said the flesh profits a little, right? Oh wait...NOTHING. It profits nothing. Yet you have a man "in the flesh", seeking and finding Christ through his good sense. That flesh of his profited him greatly it appears, as it sought and cooperated with Christ unto a joint venture salvation. Marvelous indeed.
You're attacking a strawman. I freely admit (as the Bible says) that noone can come to the Father, unless the Father draw him. A person who seeks Christ "in the flesh" through their own good sense will not find Christ.

Yet Christ also told us that to him who asks, it will be given, and to him who seeks, they will find, and to he who knocks, it will be opened.

People seek and find God because they do not seek according to their own wisdom, but by God's Wisdom - and Christ Himself is God's Wisdom incarnate. God reveals His Wisdom to all people through His Holy Spirit (read Proverbs). Some people heed the Father's call - others reject it. Those who reject it damn themselves. But it is not God's fault, as God does not show favouritism - He calls all people, as He must (because He wills all people to be saved).

To me, I think that the whole concept of the "unregenerate nature" is an excuse that people cook up so that they can feel like they weren't responsible for their sin prior to their "regeneration".

Responding now to your post to Todd: Your #1 is quite stacked and loaded. A real Arminian burger with all the fixens.
What's an "Arminian"? I have only a vague idea of who Arminus was and what he taught. It doesn't matter what he taught though. The concept of synergism is one that was taught by all the Church Fathers (except Augustine), and it is thoroughly Biblical. That is why you'll find verses that say we are saved by grace and not of our own works on the one hand, and yet you'll find verses where we are instructed to work for salvation.

Does God is love = God does not hate?
Yes. If God can hate, and God is love, then it follows that love can hate. We might as well claim that black can be white, and up can be down, and good can be evil, and Arminians can be Calvinists while we're at it...

You say He loves us all, but the Bible says otherwise.
We'll see.

It says God "hates evil doers".
Semitic thought and language did not have comparatives. Comparisons were thus expressed using extreme language. To "hate" means "to love less" - not literally to "hate" in the sense that we understand it. Unless you think that Jesus literally told us that unless we hate our own relatives we are not worthy of him.

Check out this article (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html) for more details.

It says He's angry with them all day.
Anger is not the same thing as hatred. Any truly loving parent will tell you that.

It says He particularly hated Esau. Just because God is love does not follow that your theory must be true. He does hate, albeit perfectly and with no unrighteousness involved.
See above.

Furthermore God could have executed justice on us all. Would that = God is not love?
No. God does execute justice on us all. He cannot but do otherwise. Note that the word for "righteousness" is the same as the word for "justice" in Greek.

So what of this love? Is it not God's to bestow?
Sure, it's God's to bestow. But if one bestows it arbitrarily, then it's not unconditional love.

What of His righteous contempt for evil, is it unloving of God to hate those that exalt themselves above Him? What kind of logic are you employing in your one -two punch?
I do not consider it unloving of God to "hate" those who exalt themselves above Him. God loves them, too. But this love is often perceived as hate by those to whom it is directed.

Consider how a loving parent reacts to an insolent child. Love demands that the insolent be "hated" for their insolence - rebuked, and perhaps even punished. Why? Not because the parent literally hates the child, but for the child's own good. Ultimately, it is the parent's love for their child that drives such action. But an ungrateful child will not recognise their parent's love in such an action, and perceive it as hate.

God's love is the same. If we perceive His love as hate, it is our perception that is distorted - not His love. Ultimately, how we respond to God's love in such circumstances (repentance or rejection) is up to us, and God cannot be blamed if we reject Him. It is not because He didn't call us, but because we didn't respond to His call.

Calvinism (as you are describing it, at least) makes God responsible for a person's damnation, through His inaction.

Yes, but how is He going to get that from a dead person, who according to Scripture, in their flesh cannot please God?
But in your view, people cannot please God either - and yet they will be saved.

Cooperating with grace must please God right?
When sinners repent, there is no greater rejoicing in heaven. Scripture itself says this.

How can those who are in the flesh stop being that and please God?
How can anyone please God?

Look at it this way:

If someone who can't swim is drowing in the sea and Fred throws them a life preserver and drag them back to shore, then Fred has saved them. There is no way anyone could claim that the drowning person saved themselves, or was responsible for their own salvation. Yet Fred couldn't have done it if the person was uncooperative (ie, if they didn't hold on to the life preserver).

In this analogy, Fred is God, the life preserver is the Holy Spirit, and the person drowning is the sinner. Their decision to hang on/not hang on is their free will decision to accept the Holy Spirit's guidance.

I claim that because God is all-loving, He wants to throw everyone a life preserver, and that because He is omnipotent He has enough life preservers to go round. Thus, he throws everyone a life preserver - and the reason that some people aren't saved is not because God didn't want to save them, but because they didn't hang on.

You claim that God has enough life preservers for everyone, but arbitrarily chooses only a few of them to throw life preservers to.

Anyway, back to your original claim (which caused me to weigh into this thread). I did not intend to get into a full-blown debate against Calvinism at this time, I only intended to refute this point:

"if they are set free and their sins are paid for, why are they still going to hell?"

You are alleging a logical contradiction here. I showed in my first response (by continuing the slavery analogy) that there is no contradiction here at all. If I redeem a person from slavery, I set them free and their "sins" are paid for - they no longer have to work as a slave. But they still might, and if they do they will "go to hell".

So do you acknowledge that your original contradiction isn't actually a contradiction? If not, why not?

And God will never override the free will from the individual - not because He can't, but because to do so would be the equivalent of spiritually killing that person (for if a person's decisions are not their own, then they are not a person).

Another Jezzism?
:smile: Hardly... If a person cannot do anything of their own free will, then they're not a person - they're a puppet.

GoBahnsen

October 21st 2004, 03:31 PM

The honour is mutual. :smile:

It is not merely an "interesting theory" - it is what the early Church (apart from Augustine) taught, and it's what Orthodox Christians (and interestingly, Orthodox Jews as well for that matter) teach today. It's called "synergism" - a word usually translated in the NT as "fellow-worker".
Before I begin I wanted to thank you for a well written post. It is a pleasure to dialogue with those who do just that...dialogue. Too much ranting goes on here at Tweb and I suppose I myself get dragged into it at times as well and start barking with the rest of the dogs. So thanks for being civil. Now to answer your objections and assertions, but I'm going to take it in small sections so as not to create a monster post.

It may well be what many of the Church fathers taught, but I want to go back further than they and go with Paul and Jesus Himself. The early Church fathers were not perfect and as the Church grew up she became more clear and hammered out confessions, that have endured the test of time. Calvinists don't throw out the whole of synergism in the Christian life. We very much see it taught as it relates to sanctification.

Yes, I see them as "sick". This colours my theology to bring it in line with the Bible - for example, in Christ's statement:

31 Jesus answered and said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The image of Jesus as the great physician is one that is prominent throughout the Biblical (note all the healing miracles) and elaborated in the Patristic writings.
You know what I see, I see the Bible seemingly teaching Arminian or semi Pelagian thought on the surface, but I see Calvinism as I break through the surface and start my diving decent into the depths of the Word. I consider much of Calvinistic theory as the meat of the Word. And I realize that sounds arrogant, but I don't intend it to be at all.

It's just that there is a milk understanding and then that gets filled out over time. Or it doesn't... and men remain babes in understanding. So in malice be children, but in understanding be men. Practically all new believers are Arminian by default setting. It resonates with their former understanding. The Bible is a book(s) that sets about to wrench that out of us. It goes against natural thought. And if any of us get anywhere with it, it is most assuredly by grace, so don't think for a moment that I fancy myself to be more clever than others. If Calvinism is correct or more correct, it is seen with eyes given by the Spirit. If it is false or full of error, then Calvin's and Augustine's contribution was more a work of the flesh.

Yes sinners are sick. A sickness that has resulted in spiritual death. Unregenerate man is separated from God, not only by his sin, but his very nature cannot commune with God. He isn't in need of revamping, he is in need of a new creation, a new birth. Of union with Christ. This is the work of God's Spirit and initially it is monergistic (John 1:13, also: Jam 1:18 Of his own will He hath begotten us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.)

I can see how you got that out of what I wrote. But that's not what I meant.

What I meant was, we have the freedom of will to be joined with Christ, and be freed from sin thereby.

Yes, I know your premise and I'll skip it for now.

With due respect, I don't care much about your estimation. :teeth: You're just a theological schmuck like me. We are nobodies in the theological world.
Amen :cheers: Just remember I'm a Calvinist and I think men are bigger schmucks than you do. A sick schmuck in the hand is worth two dead ones in the bush:hehe: .

When I want an opinion on a medical subject, I do not go to a discussion forum to hear the opinion of a couple of laymen who have read a couple of medical textbooks. I go to a qualified doctor (maybe a specialist) and ask them. You don't want to be messing around with such important matters. If you think you are a qualified surgeon after reading a couple of books, then you're not taking medicine seriously enough.

How much more important are spiritual matters than physical matters? How much more, therefore, will I restrict my theological education to those who have historically been held up and proven to be the "spiritual specialists" (ie, the Church Fathers)?
My doctors preceed yours. You're appealing to the ones who have read the book, I'm wanting to appeal to the Authors. But your point is well taken and I do consider my opinions of little value. Yet we do learn from one another still. Sometimes it's just learning what to avoid. I'm not thinking that I'm instructing you, merely sharing is all. Take it for what it's worth...not much.

It is not merely an "interesting theory" - it is what the early Church (apart from Augustine) taught, and it's what Orthodox Christians (and interestingly, Orthodox Jews as well for that matter) teach today. It's called "synergism" - a word usually translated in the NT as "fellow-worker".
You know what's more interesting? Paul broke from the Orthodox Jews.

rhutchin

October 22nd 2004, 08:43 AM

How can anyone please God?

Look at it this way:

If someone who can't swim is drowing in the sea and Fred throws them a life preserver and drag them back to shore, then Fred has saved them. There is no way anyone could claim that the drowning person saved themselves, or was responsible for their own salvation. Yet Fred couldn't have done it if the person was uncooperative (ie, if they didn't hold on to the life preserver).

In this analogy, Fred is God, the life preserver is the Holy Spirit, and the person drowning is the sinner. Their decision to hang on/not hang on is their free will decision to accept the Holy Spirit's guidance.

I claim that because God is all-loving, He wants to throw everyone a life preserver, and that because He is omnipotent He has enough life preservers to go round. Thus, he throws everyone a life preserver - and the reason that some people aren't saved is not because God didn't want to save them, but because they didn't hang on.

You claim that God has enough life preservers for everyone, but arbitrarily chooses only a few of them to throw life preservers to.

Anyway, back to your original claim (which caused me to weigh into this thread). I did not intend to get into a full-blown debate against Calvinism at this time, I only intended to refute this point:

"if they are set free and their sins are paid for, why are they still going to hell?"

You are alleging a logical contradiction here. I showed in my first response (by continuing the slavery analogy) that there is no contradiction here at all. If I redeem a person from slavery, I set them free and their "sins" are paid for - they no longer have to work as a slave. But they still might, and if they do they will "go to hell".

So do you acknowledge that your original contradiction isn't actually a contradiction? If not, why not?

Let me correct your misunderstanding of Calvinism as expressed in your example.

Under both Calvinism and Arminianism, God is omnipotent and God throws a life preserver to each person. The great mystery is why some people grab hold of the life preserver and some do not. Both are drowning and both have the incentive to save themselves. How is it that one grabs the life preserver and one does not? The Arminian cannot explain why one grabs the life preserver and one does not; the Calvinist can and does.

As to the contradiction, GB is on target. If it is true that God has redeemed everyone then on what basis can God later condemn some to hell? People can only be condemned to hell because of their sin. Absent sin, God has no complaint against a person. If all have been redeemed, then their sin can no longer be charged to them. In your explanation above, you refer to one who has been redeemed but who willfully chooses to go back into slavery (to sin presumably). However, if God is able to condemn that person for his sin, then it must be true that God never redeemed that person from his sin in the first place.

Ormly

October 22nd 2004, 09:44 AM

Let me correct your misunderstanding of Calvinism as expressed in your example.

Under both Calvinism and Arminianism, God is omnipotent and God throws a life preserver to each person. The great mystery is why some people grab hold of the life preserver and some do not. Both are drowning and both have the incentive to save themselves. How is it that one grabs the life preserver and one does not? The Arminian cannot explain why one grabs the life preserver and one does not; the Calvinist can and does.

As to the contradiction, GB is on target. If it is true that God has redeemed everyone then on what basis can God later condemn some to hell? People can only be condemned to hell because of their sin. Absent sin, God has no complaint against a person. If all have been redeemed, then their sin can no longer be charged to them. In your explanation above, you refer to one who has been redeemed but who willfully chooses to go back into slavery (to sin presumably). However, if God is able to condemn that person for his sin, then it must be true that God never redeemed that person from his sin in the first place.This is a totally wrong premise and understanding of God's love, purpose for man in redemption and His provision for man that he have understanding. God throws no one a life preserver. God reveals Himself. It is in the revealing of Himself that He looks for a response from man. That's called conversion. When He sees the conversion He heals. Want proof?

Trout

October 22nd 2004, 11:50 AM

Look at it this way:

If someone who can't swim is drowing in the sea and Fred throws them a life preserver and drag them back to shore, then Fred has saved them. There is no way anyone could claim that the drowning person saved themselves, or was responsible for their own salvation. Yet Fred couldn't have done it if the person was uncooperative (ie, if they didn't hold on to the life preserver).

The Calvinist doesn't believe man is very sick or drowning the Calvinist believes the unregenerate to be dead, throwing a life preserver out to a dead man so that he might lay hold of it and be brought to safety will accomplish nothing.

If (As the Bible seems to say) we are truly dead in our unregenerate state, it is completely the work of God that breathes life into our being. We can't grab the life preserver, or open our mouths to accept the medicine.

And you 'did he make alive,' when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, (ASV)

Christ didn't come to make bad people, good people, Christ came to make dead people live.

Ormly

October 22nd 2004, 12:03 PM

The Calvinist doesn't believe man is very sick or drowning the Calvinist believes the unregenerate to be dead, throwing a life preserver out to a dead man so that he might lay hold of it and be brought to safety will accomplish nothing.

If (As the Bible seems to say) we are truly dead in our unregenerate state, it is completely the work of God that breathes life into our being. We can't grab the life preserver, or open our mouths to accept the medicine.

And you 'did he make alive,' when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, (ASV)
You are either mis-interpretating what Ravi is saying or Ravi isn't seeing the issue any better than you are. I choose to believe the former.:smile:

rhutchin

October 22nd 2004, 01:27 PM

This is a totally wrong premise and understanding of God's love, purpose for man in redemption and His provision for man that he have understanding. God throws no one a life preserver. God reveals Himself. It is in the revealing of Himself that He looks for a response from man. That's called conversion. When He sees the conversion He heals. Want proof?

The life preserver was an example (a good one, I think). I was able to understand the point Jezz sought to make even if you could not. To help you understand it, think of the "life preserver" as "God revealing himself" and "one grabbing the life preserver" akin to "a response from man."

rhutchin

October 22nd 2004, 01:31 PM

You are either mis-interpretating what Ravi is saying or Ravi isn't seeing the issue any better than you are. I choose to believe the former.:smile:

You first have to be able to understand the drowning man example which you said you did not.

Trout's point is that the life preserver is thrown to a body floating face down in the water. The question he has posed relates to the ability of a dead man to grab the life preserver.

For your understanding, it is like God revealing himself to a dead man. How can the dead man respond?

Ormly

October 22nd 2004, 01:48 PM

You first have to be able to understand the drowning man example which you said you did not.

Trout's point is that the life preserver is thrown to a body floating face down in the water. The question he has posed relates to the ability of a dead man to grab the life preserver.

For your understanding, it is like God revealing himself to a dead man. How can the dead man respond?
Very simple -- get a better understanding of what dead is interpreted to mean in this. In other words ---use another word, cause it doesn't fit. Natural man is not dead. Natural can be converted. When he sees or hears what he likes or needs that's what he will respond to. That's how faith begins to be generated in him. You do know that, correct? Faith comes by how?? :ahem:

Berean Todd

October 22nd 2004, 02:31 PM

That's how faith begins to be generated in him. You do know that, correct? Faith comes by how?? :ahem:
Well according to Ephesians 2:8-9 faith is a gift from God. Now if that faith we are saved by is a gift, then it does not come from within us. It originates with God, not us. He gives it to us, a free gift.

Trout

October 22nd 2004, 03:02 PM

Very simple -- get a better understanding of what dead is interpreted to mean in this. In other words ---use another word,

Paul used the word dead, do you think Paul, in the Bible, should have used a different word?

Ormly, you'd better read that tape again.

Ormly

October 22nd 2004, 03:07 PM

Well according to Ephesians 2:8-9 faith is a gift from God. Now if that faith we are saved by is a gift, then it does not come from within us. It originates with God, not us. He gives it to us, a free gift.Yur are being purposefully obstuse. You know the verse and won't quote it. I'll do it for you; perhaps trout will look over your shoulder and learn something before he coaches you somemore. But then how can the blind lead the blind? Oh well. :

Romans 10:17 (KJV)
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Grace is the gift so lets quit with the mis-quoting. Grace is given to all men to profit withal that faith MIGHT be generated in them unto a saving faith. Your dishonesty isn't appreciated.

themuzicman

October 22nd 2004, 03:12 PM

rhutchin

October 22nd 2004, 03:15 PM

Very simple -- get a better understanding of what dead is interpreted to mean in this. In other words ---use another word, cause it doesn't fit. Natural man is not dead. Natural can be converted. When he sees or hears what he likes or needs that's what he will respond to. That's how faith begins to be generated in him. You do know that, correct? Faith comes by how?? :ahem:

The issue, then, is what Ephesians means when it contrasts being made alive and being dead. What do the terms, "dead" and "alive" mean in the contest of Ehesians 2? Are you able to explain what you think they mean?

Ormly

October 22nd 2004, 03:31 PM

The issue, then, is what Ephesians means when it contrasts being made alive and being dead. What do the terms, "dead" and "alive" mean in the contest of Ehesians 2? Are you able to explain what you think they mean?Sure, it pertains to the new birth that is supposed to be within you; being made alive in Christ; being quicken by His Spirit unto a becoming a son of God yourself.

Want more??

For you: Show from the OT where anyone was made alive in God.!! and yet, by your Calvinist definition, all were dead.

Berean Todd

October 22nd 2004, 05:06 PM

(It is a violation of greek grammar to make this assertion.)

Michael
Please explain then, because while I am just begining my studies it is my understanding that the gift replies exactly to the faith in that verse. If you assert otherwise, please support it.

rhutchin

October 22nd 2004, 08:46 PM

rhutchin
The issue, then, is what Ephesians means when it contrasts being made alive and being dead. What do the terms, "dead" and "alive" mean in the contest of Ehesians 2? Are you able to explain what you think they mean?

ormly
Sure, it pertains to the new birth that is supposed to be within you; being made alive in Christ; being quicken by His Spirit unto a becoming a son of God yourself.

Want more??

For you: Show from the OT where anyone was made alive in God.!! and yet, by your Calvinist definition, all were dead.

I agree with you that to be made alive refers to the new birth (salvation). So Eph 2:1 can be read, "And you hath [God saved], who were dead in trespasses and sins;..."

That would seem to mean that those who are dead are unsaved. I can go along with that. The unsaved are the dead. The saved are alive.

Is it your contention is that no one in the OT was saved?

GoBahnsen

October 22nd 2004, 09:54 PM

I agree with you that to be made alive refers to the new birth (salvation). So Eph 2:1 can be read, "And you hath [God saved], who were dead in trespasses and sins;..."

That would seem to mean that those who are dead are unsaved. I can go along with that. The unsaved are the dead. The saved are alive.

Is it your contention is that no one in the OT was saved?I realize you're talking to Orm, but I thought i might interject the idea of those that were in Abraham's bosom, waiting for deliverance. They died in faith, but were made to wait until Christ came and led captivity out. I think that plays in to how we understand the OT saints and salvation in the NT sense.

GoBahnsen

October 23rd 2004, 01:30 AM

[QUOTE]
You're attacking a strawman. I freely admit (as the Bible says) that noone can come to the Father, unless the Father draw him. A person who seeks Christ "in the flesh" through their own good sense will not find Christ.

Yet Christ also told us that to him who asks, it will be given, and to him who seeks, they will find, and to he who knocks, it will be opened.

People seek and find God because they do not seek according to their own wisdom, but by God's Wisdom - and Christ Himself is God's Wisdom incarnate. God reveals His Wisdom to all people through His Holy Spirit (read Proverbs). Some people heed the Father's call - others reject it. Those who reject it damn themselves. But it is not God's fault, as God does not show favouritism - He calls all people, as He must (because He wills all people to be saved).

These expressions of yours, if true, render election meaningless. God hasn't elected anyone, He has elected everyone. Or if any are elect it is because they elected themselves. God merely knows about things. People are the shakers and movers. God is a reporter. He reports that which He saw take place. In your scheme God is ever "trying", but man holds the keys.

To me, I think that the whole concept of the "unregenerate nature" is an excuse that people cook up so that they can feel like they weren't responsible for their sin prior to their "regeneration".
I don't care what you think Jezz. If I want to know what someone thinks I'll go to the experts...just kidding :hehe: . So, you're Pelagian?

Jezz

October 23rd 2004, 03:02 AM

Before I begin I wanted to thank you for a well written post. It is a pleasure to dialogue with those who do just that...dialogue. Too much ranting goes on here at Tweb and I suppose I myself get dragged into it at times as well and start barking with the rest of the dogs. So thanks for being civil.
Heh, the feeling is mutual. I usually am civil (though I am typically verbose). Though if people start trying to shame me with insults, I'll often step up to the plate. :wink:

Now to answer your objections and assertions, but I'm going to take it in small sections so as not to create a monster post.
Fair enough.

It may well be what many of the Church fathers taught, but I want to go back further than they and go with Paul and Jesus Himself.
I've addressed this below.

The early Church fathers were not perfect and as the Church grew up she became more clear and hammered out confessions, that have endured the test of time.
This is true. The Church became more clear - but she never went back and contradicted herself. This is the reason I reject Calvinism - it contradicts the teaching of the Church.

Calvinists don't throw out the whole of synergism in the Christian life. We very much see it taught as it relates to sanctification.
Yes. But the Orthodox don't teach such sharp distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification as the Reformers did. For the Orthodox, they are all part of the one process - theosis (deification). God became man so that men might become gods.

You know what I see, I see the Bible seemingly teaching Arminian or semi Pelagian thought on the surface, but I see Calvinism as I break through the surface and start my diving decent into the depths of the Word. I consider much of Calvinistic theory as the meat of the Word. And I realize that sounds arrogant, but I don't intend it to be at all.
I know you don't intend to be arrogant - that's just what you believe. Most people who are arrogant don't intend to be (j/k).

Everyone thinks that their own understanding of Scripture is the meat, so you're not special in that regard. It was this realisation that led me to believe I had to submit to the understanding of the Church, rather than try and understand it myself. I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit really does work to guide His Church, as the Bible itself testifies, then it is in the majority opinion of the Church that the Holy Spirit's testimony is to be found.

As for being "Arminian on the surface, Calvinistic as you get deeper"... well, it's amazing what people find in the Bible as they "dig deeper":

-Some see a story about resurrection on the surface, but an allegory as they dig deeper (liberals).
-Earl Doherty sees a story about a real historical human being on the surface, but n myth as he digs deeper.
-Some see a history of God's people on the surface, but when you analyse it with computers you find that it is really a book containing hidden codes, and the story is just a front.
-Some see a history of God's people up to the beginning of the conquest when they read the Torah, but as they dig deeper they find it was a work of fiction written by at least four authors over a period of centuries.

:smile:

It's just that there is a milk understanding and then that gets filled out over time. Or it doesn't... and men remain babes in understanding. So in malice be children, but in understanding be men.
I certainly agree with this. I just happen to think that Calvinists move from milk to curdled milk, rather than milk to meat.

Practically all new believers are Arminian by default setting. It resonates with their former understanding.
That should tell you something. If you place any weight in the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer, then this is testimony that you shouldn't ignore. See above.

The Bible is a book(s) that sets about to wrench that out of us. It goes against natural thought.
This is a circular argument, as it assumes that the Bible doesn't actually teach synergism.

In my opinion (and the opinion of the majority of Christianity from now until the present), a Calvinistic understanding of the Bible does not wrench us out of a false understanding. It wrenches us from the Holy Spirit's testimony. Again, see above.

And if any of us get anywhere with it, it is most assuredly by grace, so don't think for a moment that I fancy myself to be more clever than others. If Calvinism is correct or more correct, it is seen with eyes given by the Spirit. If it is false or full of error, then Calvin's and Augustine's contribution was more a work of the flesh.
It is the latter. :smile: Interesting thing: Calvin didn't speak Greek as his native language, and Augustine didn't even speak Greek. Would you trust the interpretation of a non-native speaker over an Athanasius or a Basil or a Gregory or a Clement - people who all spoke Greek as their native language? :smile:

Yes sinners are sick. A sickness that has resulted in spiritual death. Unregenerate man is separated from God, not only by his sin, but his very nature cannot commune with God. He isn't in need of revamping, he is in need of a new creation, a new birth. Of union with Christ. This is the work of God's Spirit and initially it is monergistic (John 1:13, also: Jam 1:18 Of his own will He hath begotten us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.)
For someone who complains about Arminians prooftexting... well, 'nuff said... :smile:

John 1:13 "... children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

Given that "human decision" is paired with "husband's will", and "born of natural descent", what do you think it refers to? Don't you see a pattern there? All three refer to the choice, action and will of a human father and mother to procreate and produce offspring by natural means. John is here speaking of the difference between physical parenthood and spiritual parenthood (being adopted sons of God).

This verse is also wrenched horribly from its context. A mere one verse prior, it says:

John 1:12 "Yet to all who have received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..."

This is a clearly synergistic teaching. There are three clauses: in the first, the people "have received" him, in the second, the people "believed in his name", and in the third, he gives them the right to become people of God. The people act (receiving, believing), and the Word acts (giving them the right to become children of God). Both God and man act together. This is synergism.

Note also that in verse 9, it calls the Word "The true light that gives light to every man..." (emphasis added).

As for James 1:18 - it doesn't contradict John 1:13.

Amen :cheers: Just remember I'm a Calvinist and I think men are bigger schmucks than you do. A sick schmuck in the hand is worth two dead ones in the bush:hehe:.
I don't think we disagree too much on how much people are schmucks - where we disagree is how well God overcomes our schmuckiness (collectively - not individually). I seem to think that God is better physician than you do, though. :smile:

My doctors preceed yours. You're appealing to the ones who have read the book, I'm wanting to appeal to the Authors. But your point is well taken and I do consider my opinions of little value. Yet we do learn from one another still. Sometimes it's just learning what to avoid. I'm not thinking that I'm instructing you, merely sharing is all. Take it for what it's worth...not much.
No, your doctors do not preceed mine. This is a common argument that is used against me (and the Orthodox as well), but it isn't true. I use exactly the same doctors that you do - the difference is that I don't rely on my own interpretation, or Calvin's, or any of his theological successors - I rely on the interpretation of the Fathers. Given that they were about 1600-1700 years closer to the time than we are (and even 1200 years closer than Calvin), much closer to the place than we are, and much closer to the culture than we are (notably, the language) - it is plain common sense to acknowledge that they are better placed to interpret the Bible than we are.

You know what's more interesting? Paul broke from the Orthodox Jews.
No - "Orthodox Jews" split from the Church. (I use "Orthodox Jews" in quot