Once more into the breach on justification [Archive]

View Full Version : Once more into the breach on justification

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 12:50 AM

Let me start by saying that this post is open to all, but is specifically addressed to Ormly, who has dodged points on other threads, only to come back and claim the reverse. While this is concerning the same rehashed Augustinian vs Arminian topics that are so prevelent of late, I really see the issue as being one of justification, and what the basis for it is.

Yes, both sides to see and admit that the price was paid by Christ. But the questions range from who it was for, to what is the basis for receiving it, to do we come on our own.

More than that though, Orm seems to assert that we can live perfectly righteous lives apart from Christ, and if it just weren't for that silly imputed sin of Adam thing, then there would be no need for Christ at all. So, let us get down to business then.

I. Who will choose?

If the Arminian position is correct, we would assume that there would be some basis for it in Scripture. Well, then Ormly, you have a tough time it would seem quantifying some scriptures.

A. John 6:37However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them ... 44For people can't come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them from the dead

Jesus clearly makes the case in this passage that the Father draws men to Christ.

B. 1 Cor 1:22God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. 24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. 25This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength.

Now here again, verses 24-25 in particular seem to make a tough argument. The Gospel is called foolishness to men, both Jew and Gentile, yet to the "called" Christ is power. Paul doesn't just touch on this once, but again in the next chapter we read:

1 Cor 2:14But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means. 15We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can't understand us at all. 16How could they? For,
"Who can know what the Lord is thinking?
Who can give him counsel?"
But we can understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ

Now we are told that only those with the Spirit can understand these truths, but we do not receive the Spirit until we have been saved, so how can we ever understand or respond to the Gospel without the Spirit first working in us?? This is borne out elsewhere as well when we read:

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

Here the very faith itself is called the Gift of God, which it clearly must be since we all are fallen, none turn to God (as the Bible elsewhere says), and as we have seen can not even understand the Gospel lest the Spirit is in us.

I will leave this part of my post at this for now, though Orm, feel free to respond to any of the many other scriptures I have thrown at you related to this in other threads, which remain unaddressed by you.

II. Righteousness apart from Christ

Orm again, as stated previously, wants to make the case that there are pefectly righteous people apart from Christ. In fact, in the thread "are the heathen lost?" he posted this in post #27:

You assume much without sound reasoning.

#1. The preaching of Christ is NOT for salvation but for discipleship. "Go and make disciples" were His words. If a native never hears of Christ but lives a righteous life by his convictions that there is God, and dies, he dies justified because of his faith.
Of course the problem here is Acts 4 which says that "there is no other name in heaven or on earth by which man must be saved." So, if there is no other name, and these people are clearly worshipping another god by another name, with a different personality, how can that person be saved Orm? Either the Bible is fallable, or your understanding of it is off clerly. Later in post #30 he went on to say:

Nonsense. Jesus didn't come to save the righteous, did He? They were already justified by faith, also correct? So all the righteous needed was for Jesus to shed His blood that they be set free of the sin stain of Adam, correct? If not, please point out my error.
Yet the Bible tells us over and over that none are righteous, no not one. You can try to work gymnastics with that all that you want, but you can't get past the multiple passages, both OT and NT, which point out man's wickedness.

Moreover, on the salvation outside of Christ point, you have this which you have not dealt with.

John 3:13 For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again. 14And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, 15so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life.
Now this seems pretty clear there to me. I know you know enough of your Bible Orm to know the background of the OT story to which Christ was referring to, and here He says that He is that bronze snake, He is the one we must turn to, and only Him. He said it elsewhere when He said that "none come to the Father but through Him," or elsewhere where He called Himself "the Door to the sheepfold" and said that all others were "robbers" who tried to sneak in. Back in John 3, Christ Himself went on to say:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. 18 There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God

Again Orm, the Bible sure seems to be much more exclusivistic than you do.

In conclusion Orm, in addition to the above Scriptures which I would still love for you to respond to, let me ask you this. Centuries from now when you are sitting in heaven, and others are not, what is the difference between you and they? Let us consider.

1. Orm's View - in this view, Christ paid for the sins of you both; you do feel that He paid the cost for you, and that only by faith through grace have you received it. We are ok there. But what is the difference in you and Him? What separates you and Him. According to you Christ died for both of you. He wanted both of you in heaven. But you are there and this other is not. The only difference is your choice. There is no other answer. You choose. God may have paid it in your paradigm, but the dividing line is your choice.

2. Augustinian view - Christ paid the sins for those whom He would call. His will has not been thwarted for all He desired have come to Him, because the Father has called them, and the Spirit has drawn them. The difference between myself and the one not elect is not because I made a choice, not because I found some extra measure of wisdom or whatever inside of myself. The dividing line in this paradigm is God's choice.

That is the issue. Is it God or is it man? Look again to John 6 and see for yourself - none come lest the Father draws them.

Trout

October 26th 2004, 01:09 AM

:popcorn:

seer

October 26th 2004, 07:46 AM

That is the issue. Is it God or is it man? Look again to John 6 and see for yourself - none come lest the Father draws them.

A couple of points.

1. You assume that the drawing of God is irresistable:

Hosea 11:3-5

"Yet it was I who taught E'phraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one, who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me."

Here God drew (drag alone with force in the Hebrew) the generation that came out of Egypt. Yet they refused to return to God. His love for them is clearly stated.

2. Or: Does God just flip a coin and choose? Not according to John Six.

Something happens before one comes to Christ:

John 6:45

"It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me."

Robertson's word Picture:

Taught of God (didaktoi teou).
A free quotation from Isaiah 54:13 with this phrase in the LXX. There is here the ablative case teou with the passive verbal adjective didaktoi (Robertson, Grammar, p. 516). In 1 Thessalonians 4:9 we have the compound verbal teodidaktoi. The same use of didaktov with the ablative occurs in 1 Corinthians 2:13.

And hath learned (kai matwn).
Second aorist active participle of mantanw. It is not enough to hear God's voice. He must heed it and learn it and do it. This is a voluntary response. This one inevitably comes to Christ.

One must respond to God teachings. Those that do, then come to Christ.

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 07:54 AM

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 08:32 AM

2. Or: Does God just flip a coin and choose?
Just because He elects us, and not on any meritorious nature, does not mean that it is arbitrary at all. Those He chooses He chooses for a reason.

Something happens before one comes to Christ:

John 6:45

"It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me."
Yes, just as Romans says as well, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That is the method that God uses to draw us, it doesn't mean that because of that He does not draw.

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 08:38 AM

Gee Orm, what a surprise, you still refuse to respond to any Scripture or points. I will not respond to your questions until you try to give some kind of explanation of the Scriptures and points above; those are not even half of the ones you dodged in the last thread.

Oh, don't even bother responding I know your response allready "well if you would read the scriptures you would know how they fit, but since you don't know I won't tell you ..." blah, blah, blah. If you can't respond to the clear teaching of Scripture, then stop spouting your sillyness.

Edit: For the record though:

Well, my young man, I think this can end right here since, from your own words above, Christ would have needed to come to Earth and redeem Adam regardless of him transgressing and receiving into himself "that silly imputed sin".

In case it didn't come across well, the "that silly imputed sin" thing was spoken tongue in cheek, but the point was that NONE are righteous even without it, and we needed Christ's atonement for our own unrighteousness and not merely that which we have imputed from Adam.

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 08:54 AM

You got problems -- a serious problems, son. The big one is your character. -- you better deal with it.

spiritmech

October 26th 2004, 08:56 AM

:popcorn:

Interesting stuff, Berean. Keep it up.

spiritmech

October 26th 2004, 08:59 AM

You got problems -- a serious problems, son. The big one is your character. -- you better deal with it.

From where I'm sitting, Todd has been attacking your arguments, not your character. I'm not exactly sure how this comment was warranted.

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 09:39 AM

From where I'm sitting, Todd has been attacking your arguments, not your character. I'm not exactly sure how this comment was warranted.
Really? When one lives in denial and mis-represents the words of others and scripture --- I'd say there is problem within the character. Indeed, my commment is warranted.

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 09:53 AM

You got problems -- a serious problems, son. The big one is your character. -- you better deal with it.
First off Orm, I am not your son, I am a grown father of 3 and a pastor. Secondly, I would be happy to have a reasoned debate with you. The problem is you refuse to have one, but then follow me to other threads posting comments towards me like this:

Out of curiousity, based on what you can accurately and honestly remember, I'd like you to take apart my theology i.e., where it is you 'demand' that I'm wrong about the issues. Think you are up that challenge of truthfulness?
This was posted in the legalism thread, at a point where I was not responding to you, nor mentioning you, and where you still have not said that you disagree with my point that the gentlemen's brand of legalism is misguided. So why are you hounding me sir?

Not only that, but when I do try to engage you with Scriptures for reasoned debate I get responses like this:

:ahem: Well since you give the same answer that reveals your lack of understanding of the scriptures you'll just have to be content with my ignoring your out of place scripture references. In other words they don't fit the scene of history and God's provision for those who have loved and served Him before Jesus went to the cross. Sorry.
Notice how you neatly sidestep responding to any scripture brought up. merely a statement that they are being taken out of context by those holding the Augustinian view, without so much as an attemped rebutal or explanation of how. Dismiss the scriptures out of hand. When that's not enough, you can go to other threads and throw ad homs at me and other Augustinians like this:

I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad.And when I responded in return to that ridiculousness, you came back again with:

I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read.
Clearly making a direct ad hom attack on me. Yet still you have not responded to Scripture. So, let's do this. I hold no personal grudges against you, and while I think you to be misguided, you are at least a brother in Christ. So, let's let by gones be by gones, and try to direct the thread back to my original post. I made several points, used several scriptures, please deal with that if you can, and let's see if we can make some progress here. If I am in error, by all means show me.

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ormly:
"You got problems -- a serious problems, son. The big one is your character. -- you better deal with it."

First off Orm, I am not your son, I am a grown father of 3 and a pastor. Secondly, I would be happy to have a reasoned debate with you. The problem is you refuse to have one, but then follow me to other threads posting comments towards me like this:

Originally Posted by Ormly:

"Out of curiousity, based on what you can accurately and honestly remember, I'd like you to take apart my theology i.e., where it is you 'demand' that I'm wrong about the issues. Think you are up that challenge of truthfulness?"

This was posted in the legalism thread, at a point where I was not responding to you, nor mentioning you, and where you still have not said that you disagree with my point that the gentlemen's brand of legalism is misguided. So why are you hounding me sir? Why don’t answer that inquiry sir? You have demanded that my theology is wrong in every thread we've engaged in so following you to one is a just continuation of any other one..Not only that, but when I do try to engage you with Scriptures for reasoned debate I get responses like this: Quote:

Originally Posted by Ormly

"Well since you give the same answer that reveals your lack of understanding of the scriptures you'll just have to be content with my ignoring your out of place scripture references. In other words they don't fit the scene of history and God's provision for those who have loved and served Him before Jesus went to the cross. Sorry."

Notice how you neatly sidestep responding to any scripture brought up. merely a statement that they are being taken out of context by those holding the Augustinian view, without so much as an attemped rebutal or explanation of how. Dismiss the scriptures out of hand. I sidestepped it because of its lack of relevance and it was a repeat answer that didn’t work the first time.. What you most often respond with is ripped from context. You can’t seem to make distinctions when timeframes must be considered. OT, NT – They’re both the same to you. In your last post you wrote Jesus would have been needed regardless of Adam’s transgression. If tongue in cheek or no, it still reads as something you believe and defend and you defending it comes as no surprise based on how you view other issues namely man's capability to be righteous on his own out of fear of God.When that's not enough, you can go to other threads and throw ad homs at me and other Augustinians like this:

Originally Posted by Ormly:

"I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad."

And when I responded in return to that ridiculousness, you came back again with:

Originally Posted by Ormly:

"I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read." Clearly making a direct ad hom attack on me.Isn’t ridiculous at all. That’s been my experience. Still is. And where is it clearly directed at you? What words would indicate that?
Yet still you have not responded to Scripture.When you give some that pertain to the discussion at hand and not some mis-applied verse from rote used against a mis-representation of my words, I’ll gladly respond. As a very simple example, If I asked you the question: Why do you love God? You would no doubt respond: Because He first loved me. That’s says nothing in any meaningful conversation. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts you can’t answer that question without pondering it for a good time before answering it and even then I'd wager you'd make it read as if I asked different question. Based on my present experience with you, I'd be right.
So, let's do this. I hold no personal grudges against you, and while I think you to be misguided, you are at least a brother in Christ. So, let's let by gones be by gones, and try to direct the thread back to my original post. I made several points, used several scriptures, please deal with that if you can, and let's see if we can make some progress here. I base my opinion about you as you do with me, by what we read. Words means something.
If I am in error, by all means show me.I’ve been trying and I've also been trying to get you to show me, from "untainted" scripture, that is . Funny thing, I violate nothing of your theological persuasion while you violate all of mine. But that’s the way of 5 point Calvinism. Accept it or burn at the stake. Christian to Christian, I don't understand that way.

If you wish to start from scratch, I'd be happy to but in keep mind scratch means scratch --- No Calvinistic baggage.

Trout

October 26th 2004, 11:25 AM

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 11:49 AM

Todd,

This is an excellent thread,

I've had the exact same experience with Ormly, he refuses to engage in intelligent debate, rather he simply spews ad-homs in every direction.

I'd like to see him answer the points you brought up in your OP, but I don't think he will, he knows once he starts down that road he's going to start looking bad.

But maybe he will, you've documented your case thoroughly, clearly the ball is in his court.
I don't own a court and you can keep your ball. The court in this is the kingdom of God. You need to comprehend that -- but I don't hold out much hope for you 5 pointers who's "tulip" has become a "Venus fly trap".

Raptor

October 26th 2004, 12:12 PM

:popcorn:

spiritmech

October 26th 2004, 12:19 PM

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 12:44 PM

I sidestepped it because of its lack of relevance
Yet you have not made one single argumentation to that effect; oh you have thrown canned "this is how it is" answers, but you have not once shown how any of my scriptures are being mis-applied by myself or other Augustinians.

What you most often respond with is ripped from context.
If that is so, kindly show it to be. My OP in this thread may not be the greatest post of all time, but it was laid out, with several points and many scriptures. To date you have not responded to one single point.

You can’t seem to make distinctions when timeframes must be considered. OT, NT – They’re both the same to you. In your last post you wrote Jesus would have been needed regardless of Adam’s transgression.
No I did not say that Jesus would be needed regardless of Adam's transgression, gain some reading comprehension please. I said that Christ's sacrifice would have been needed regardless of the imputation of Adam's sin, for we all are guilty before God of our very own sin.

You claim that we can live perfectly righteous lives in and of ourselves and therefore the only need for Christ's sacrifice is to clense us of Adam's original sin. The problem is that is completely unbiblical. There is no grounds for that at all. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that none are righteous, no not one, and that all we have gone astray[b] - on and on, the testimony of the Bible is that none are righteous. None.

...man's capability to be righteous on his own out of fear of God.Isn’t ridiculous at all. That’s been my experience. Still is.
And thus we find the crux of the problem. Experience is a demonstrably inneffective measure of truth. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans (from whom I take my screen name) for the fact that they measured everything in light of Scripture, seeking God's Word for Him to reveal the truth to them. Your "experience" may make you "feel" this way, but it is against the clear teachings of Scripture, which is why you repeatedly refuse to respond to scripture. Your arguments don't stand up to it.

As a very simple example, If I asked you the question: Why do you love God? You would no doubt respond: Because He first loved me.
What other answer is there? Because I want to escape hell? No that is a benefit of the relationship I have with the Father through Christ. Because I want to be rid of worldly troubles? No, we are not promised that here, but I am comforted by God in those troubles. Because He makes me joyful? No that is a fruit of my relationship with Him. I love Him because He loved me. If you can give a better answer go right ahead, but consider Paul who said:

Gal 1:15 But God, [b]who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the gentiles.

Notice 2 things. Paul claims that He was set apart to this from His mothers womb, long before He made any "choice" to follow God. Moreover, that God was pleased "to reveal His Son in me", something that clearly was not done to the high priest who heard Christ, other pharisees who saw the events of those times, Pilate, or any number of others.

Yes God loved me before I could ever love Him. As David said, He knitted me in my mother's womb, He knew the numbers of my days before my birth, and like Paul I have been set apart by Him to proclaim the Gospel. Yes I love Him because He first loved me. What other answer could I give?

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 12:45 PM

I'll have to check out the other threads for decent non-Calvinist arguments. Ormly isn't doing non-TULIPpers any favors in this one. I'm currently a Calvinist, but I'm open-minded and I haven't really come across much material from the other side, so I can be swayed.

Nice job, Todd.
You mean you haven't found anything in my posts you are sure of to be either right or wrong and are afraid to voice your opinion. Why are you a Calvinist? You can always claim "it's a mystery" if you don't have the answer.

spiritmech

October 26th 2004, 01:44 PM

Wow. You sure gathered a lot from what I didn't say, Ormly. You haven't made any arguments at all. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. I'm not afraid to voice my opinion. I'm a Calvinist because it's what I'm most familiar with, and what I grew up on. I will readily admit that.

If I see some good arguments from non-Calvinists, which I'm sure there are good arguments, from Sheepdog, Muzicman, and others, I'll take those into account and reassess my position.

I haven't claimed that it's a mystery. In my opinion, if anything is a mystery, it is that probably both Calvinism and Arminianism are true. If I come across an argument that requires me to eliminate Calvinism, I'll do so at that point in time. Thus far, you haven't provided anything of substance. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Take care,
Steve

Trout

October 26th 2004, 01:57 PM

I don't own a court and you can keep your ball. The court in this is the kingdom of God. You need to comprehend that -- but I don't hold out much hope for you 5 pointers who's "tulip" has become a "Venus fly trap".

The saying, "The Ball is in Your Court" is an idiom, it means that it's your turn, or, the responsibility for action is now yours. By using that particular idiom, I was trying nicely to tell you that Todd's post now requires you to respond.

:popcorn:

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 02:00 PM

Let me start by saying that this post is open to all, but is specifically addressed to Ormly, who has dodged points on other threads, only to come back and claim the reverse. While this is concerning the same rehashed Augustinian vs Arminian topics that are so prevelent of late, I really see the issue as being one of justification, and what the basis for it is.

Yes, both sides to see and admit that the price was paid by Christ. But the questions range from who it was for, to what is the basis for receiving it, to do we come on our own.

More than that though, Orm seems to assert that we can live perfectly righteous lives apart from Christ, and if it just weren't for that silly imputed sin of Adam thing, then there would be no need for Christ at all. So, let us get down to business then.

I. Who will choose?

If the Arminian position is correct, we would assume that there would be some basis for it in Scripture. Well, then Ormly, you have a tough time it would seem quantifying some scriptures.

A. John 6:37However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them ... 44For people can't come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them from the dead

Jesus clearly makes the case in this passage that the Father draws men to Christ.Yes?

B. 1 Cor 1:22God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. 24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. 25This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength.

And?

Now here again, verses 24-25 in particular seem to make a tough argument. The Gospel is called foolishness to men, both Jew and Gentile, yet to the "called" Christ is power. Paul doesn't just touch on this once, but again in the next chapter we read:{/quote]

Whoa horse! All men? Or just unspiritual man? And how about those you are remembering from the OT who WERE RIGHTEOUS but never had a chance to hear the gospel?

[quote]1 Cor 2:14But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means. 15We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can't understand us at all. 16How could they? For,
"Who can know what the Lord is thinking?
Who can give him counsel?"
But we can understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ

Now we are told that only those with the Spirit can understand these truths, but we do not receive the Spirit until we have been saved, so how can we ever understand or respond to the Gospel without the Spirit first working in us??Those born again, yes? But is born again and salvation one in the same? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't think so.

This is borne out elsewhere as well when we read:

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

Here the very faith itself is called the Gift of God, which it clearly must be since we all are fallen, none turn to God (as the Bible elsewhere says), and as we have seen can not even understand the Gospel lest the Spirit is in us.No it isn't! GRACE is the gift! BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED - through YOUR FAITH. "YOUR FAITH HAS MADE YOU WHOLE". Remember that one by Jesus? Need references? He said it many times.

II. Righteousness apart from Christ

Orm again, as stated previously, wants to make the case that there are pefectly righteous people apart from Christ. In fact, in the thread "are the heathen lost?" he posted this in post #27:That's a lie!. I never said that. Perfectly righteous would be those who had the sin of Adam removed from them as well as all there sins blotted out. I've only pointed that to out til I'm sick in my gut. You never respond to those postings, choosing to ignore.

Of course the problem here is Acts 4 which says that "there is no other name in heaven or on earth by which man must be saved." So, if there is no other name, and these people are clearly worshipping another god by another name, with a different personality, how can that person be saved Orm? Either the Bible is fallable, or your understanding of it is off clerly. Yet the Bible tells us over and over that none are righteous, no not one. You can try to work gymnastics with that all that you want, but you can't get past the multiple passages, both OT and NT, which point out man's wickednessSorry, you make no sense because you can't keep timeframes in focus. Doesn't the OT and the NT also point out with multiple passages the righteous in them? Enoch never heard of Jesus. Simeon and Anna were righteous also. Comment on them and all the other righteous in the Ot and NT. What about them? Again I've asked you and the others to do that.-- none have commented though you have stated, to which I agreed, that they went to Paradise. So you now find yourself between a rock and hard place. Were they righteous or weren't they? If so then I suspect you'll quit with the worn out mis-quoted verse used in such a careless way about none being righteous.

Moreover, on the salvation outside of Christ point, you have this which you have not dealt with.

John 3:13 For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again. 14And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, 15so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life.
Now this seems pretty clear there to me. I know you know enough of your Bible Orm to know the background of the OT story to which Christ was referring to, and here He says that He is that bronze snake, He is the one we must turn to, and only Him. He said it elsewhere when He said that "none come to the Father but through Him," or elsewhere where He called Himself "the Door to the sheepfold" and said that all others were "robbers" who tried to sneak in. Back in John 3, Christ Himself went on to say:You clearly haven't read a word I've written.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. 18 There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God

Again Orm, the Bible sure seems to be much more exclusivistic than you do.Ditto my last remark

In conclusion Orm, in addition to the above Scriptures which I would still love for you to respond to, let me ask you this. Centuries from now when you are sitting in heaven, and others are not, what is the difference between you and they? Let us consider.

1. Orm's View - in this view, Christ paid for the sins of you both; you do feel that He paid the cost for you, and that only by faith through grace have you received it.We are ok thereNo we aren't ok! Per your scripture ref: By grace I've been saved through faith. See the difference or are you still not convinced that is how it reads? Your verse, not mine. Review it.

But what is the difference in you and Him? What separates you and Him. According to you Christ died for both of you. He wanted both of you in heaven. But you are there and this other is not. The only difference is your choice.That's right. Grace was given to us both. I chose rightly, he didn't.

There is no other answer. You choose. God may have paid it in your paradigm, but the dividing line is your choice.You're batting a 1000 on that.

2. Augustinian view - Christ paid the sins for those whom He would call. His will has not been thwarted for all He desired have come to Him, because the Father has called them, and the Spirit has drawn them. The difference between myself and the one not elect is not because I made a choice, not because I found some extra measure of wisdom or whatever inside of myself. The dividing line in this paradigm is God's choice.Who is Augustine? What book of the Bible did he write that I should give heed to? He was responsible for the inquistion to boot! If he would have gotten the scriptures pertaining to the love of God right there would have no inquistion where millions got slaughtered. Ever read the accounts? Seems you all give your allegiance to him and Calvin before anyone else. Pretty plain to see that it is the case and it's something of an absurdity!

That is the issue. Is it God or is it man? Look again to John 6 and see for yourself - none come lest the Father draws them.No, get your faith by Grace straightened out. That should work for your understanding when filling in the blanks.

Berean Todd

October 26th 2004, 02:48 PM

how about those you are remembering from the OT who WERE RIGHTEOUS but never had a chance to hear the gospel?
They knew of God's covenant with them, and the had faith that God would provide a way. David was called a man after God's own heart, but what did he say about himself? Did he consider himself righteous? Well, surely he called himself righteous in comparison to his enemies at times, but what of this passage then?

Psalm 32:1 How blessed is he whose transfression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! 2 How blessed is the man to whomthe Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit! 3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away, through my groaning all day long. 4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me ... 5 I acknowledged my sin to You and my iniquity I did not hide; I said 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord'; And you forgave the guilt of my sin.

You claim that if not for original sin we could all be righteous. David makes the same claim as Paul, none are righteous, we all must turn to God in faith. How were the OT saints saved? By placing their faith in God. The had faith that God would make a way, and through Christ He did. But it is an imputed righteousness, a foreign righteousness, not one from within themselves as you seem to claim.

Those born again, yes? But is born again and salvation one in the same? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't think so.
On what grounds, and please clarify this. That is potentially a pretty big statement there, but at the same time, you left it rather vague.

No it isn't! GRACE is the gift! BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED - through YOUR FAITH. "YOUR FAITH HAS MADE YOU WHOLE". Remember that one by Jesus? Need references? He said it many times.
Actually with further study I would say that neither of us was entirely right. The word "this" which begins the clause "this not of yourselves" is a neuter word, whereas both grace and faith in the previous clause are feminine, so the ending cluse "it is the gift of God" seems to refer to salvation itself.

But then that again seems to back up the Augustinian view as well. Salvation is a gift. From God. You still claim the dividing point to be your choice, this passage still seems to say it is God's gift. Now either you are a universalist, and all are saved. Or the gift is only to those whom He has given it (the elect), or else you have no consistensy in your beliefs at all.

That's a lie!. I never said that. Perfectly righteous would be those who had the sin of Adam removed from them as well as all there sins blotted out.
Ok, if you don't care for the term perfectly righteous excuse me, but you still claim that other than the stain of Adam they can otherwise be righteous before God. That the sacrifice of Christ is needed only to cleanse of the stain of Adam. Again that is unbiblical. All have sinned. All have fallen short.
I've only pointed that to out til I'm sick in my gut. You never respond to those postings, choosing to ignore.

Doesn't the OT and the NT also point out with multiple passages the righteous in them?
You can't pick and choose which scriptures to believe, you have to be able to systematize your theology, and to judge the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. The righteousness of anyone is only an imputed righteousness, from Christ, by faith, through grace.

That's right. Grace was given to us both. I chose rightly, he didn't.
So you are not trusting in Christ, you are trusting in your choice of Christ, you are trusting in what you have done in choosing Him. Yes you believe He paid your price (apparently at least, you have yet to deny that one), but you think that your salvation is by YOUR choice. That's wrong.

Who is Augustine? ... He was responsible for the inquistion to boot!
Really, he was alive that late huh? Or are you misapplying responsibility for the deeds of others to him because of his teachings? Because if so, then we ought to throw out Darwin, because he was then responsible for the Nazi holocaust. Now while I wouldn't mind throwing out Darwin, it is nonetheless disingenuous to lay blame for the holocaust at his feet, just as it is to lay blame for the inquisition at Augustine's.

Ormly

October 26th 2004, 05:09 PM

Berean Todd --------

Originally Posted by Ormly
How about those you are not remembering from the OT who WERE RIGHTEOUS but never had a chance to hear the gospel?

They knew of God's covenant with them, and the had faith that God would provide a way.Provide a way for what?? Did all the righteous live with a covenant? How about those righteous of the gentiles? Be specific. What was their hope, yet they did?David was called a man after God's own heart, but what did he say about himself? Did he consider himself righteous? Well, surely he called himself righteous in comparison to his enemies at times, but what of this passage then?

Psalm 32:1 How blessed is he whose transfression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! 2 How blessed is the man to whomthe Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit! 3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away, through my groaning all day long. 4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me ... 5 I acknowledged my sin to You and my iniquity I did not hide; I said 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord'; And you forgave the guilt of my sin David makes the same claim as Paul, none are righteous,Who is unrighteous but his enemies in what he is speaking? And does his acknowledgement of himself negate the fact that there were those who were truly righteous? What about Paradise? Did it exist for the righteous or didn’t it? By his words you use wasn’t forgiveness available to the common man that he be forgiven and made righteous? If not, what’s he speaking when saying "blessed is he who.." How is anyone blessed in the OT if not first finding favor with God -- Hmm? You claim that if not for original sin we could all be righteous. Can you deny we wouldn’t be? Based on what? we all must turn to God in faith. How were the OT saints saved? By placing their faith in God. The had faith that God would make a way, and through Christ He did. What do you mean, make a way? Unto what? But it is an imputed righteousness, a foreign righteousness, not one from within themselves as you seem to claim. Imputed? Foreign? Why would it ever be imputed by God when God is looking for love and allegiance, to be freely given Him? In the OT that was never the case. So that doesn’t make sense. The thing He did do was impute His grace that man be found without excuse in his ability to choose. Few did, relative to the gift. However, If no sin by Adam then why the need for grace and forgiveness at all? No sin, no need. No fallen nature. No need to make a choice. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?[i]Those born again, yes? But is born again and salvation one in the same? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't think so.

On what grounds, and please clarify this. That is potentially a pretty big statement there, but at the same time, you left it rather vague.It is a big statement because reformed has made it so. But its simple. The OT saints weren’t born again. They were justified by faith in God. Later Jesus came, died on a cross and peace with God was made complete [Rom.5.1]thus freeing the prisoners from Paradise who died in THEIR righteousness. That was the first resurrection. That's part of the plan of redemption.
No it isn't! GRACE is the gift! BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED - through YOUR FAITH. "YOUR FAITH HAS MADE YOU WHOLE". Remember that one by Jesus? Need references? He said it many times.

Actually with further study I would say that neither of us was entirely right. The word "this" which begins the clause "this not of yourselves" is a neuter word, whereas both grace and faith in the previous clause are feminine, so the ending cluse "it is the gift of God" seems to refer to salvation itself.Taken in context or out of context with the rest of scripture, I’m correct. Grace is the gift. Always was. No twisting here because the twist won’t fit the rest of scripture referring to Grace and faith. Remember the woman with the issue and all the blind who were healed. I asked you if you needed scripture ref.s I now ask again. Do you need them? Or do you just prefer to remain stubborn?
But then that again seems to back up the Augustinian view as well. Salvation is a gift. From God. You still claim the dividing point to be your choice, this passage still seems to say it is God's gift. Now either you are a universalist, and all are saved. Or the gift is only to those whom He has given it (the elect), or else you have no consistensy in your beliefs at all.It is God’s gift of GRACE and I must receive it or lose out. The train is leaving pretty soon and I better make up my mind! He gives that gift to all. All must choose. Where’s the difficulty here? Total Depravity? Forget it! Predestination, never! Limited atenement? Won't fit. Unconditional election? Total error when seen in th elight of God's love.Ok, if you don't care for the term perfectly righteous excuse me, but you still claim that other than the stain of Adam they can otherwise be righteous before God.I don’t object to the term – I just didn’t use it. That’s my only point. I want to be quoted accurately and you should desire that, too. That the sacrifice of Christ is needed only to cleanse of the stain of Adam. Again that is unbiblical. All have sinned. All have fallen short.The sacrifice of Christ is needed only to cleanse the stain of Adam from man that man may now come directly into the presence of a Holy God when he dies. No more paradise as an inbetween stop. --- His sacrifice did make access to the throne by man but for other VERY important reasons and concerns that reveal the priviledge of this generation but we are not addressing now.

So, all have sinned. All have the sin of Adam on them. You really don’t want to dispute that, right? Now suppose Adam never sinned – now where do you go in your thinking? Why Jesus at all, if Adam never sinned? If Adam didn’t sin where did sin, as you seem to be alluding to as a needless reason for man sinning, enter that man who now needs forgiveness and redemption?

I ask you: If Adam isn't the issue for our being born in sin how is it we are tainted by a transgression we aren't responsible for and for which we have no righteousness to cleanse?
You can't pick and choose which scriptures to believe, you have to be able to systematize your theology, and to judge the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. The righteousness of anyone is only an imputed righteousness, from Christ, by faith, through grace.Then please explain, for umpteenth time, the righteousness of those who had faith in God without the knowledge of Jesus? OT, NT, any kind of T. Please explain Enoch, Simeon, Anna, etc. Where was Jesus? Where did their righteousness come from but themselves, by their faith in God; by a Grace given them that they might havea faith to believe unto a righteousness. . Grace always came first.
[i]That's right. Grace was given to us both. I chose rightly, he didn't.

So you are not trusting in Christ, you are trusting in your choice of Christ, you are trusting in what you have done in choosing Him. Jesus said: "Come unto me". I did! That’s a choice I made. Did I choose wrong? Please tell me and let me know of my error in choosing Him!! Like the woman with the issue, I found out about Him and sought Him out. He healed me. I’m made whole once again. Where did the woman with the issue and blind men Jesus healed get their faith? Jesus said they brought it with them. Are you now saying I should have waited for Him to choose me? I might have died, then what? The word says: "Now is the day of salvation. Now is the acceptable time" [sic] Choose! Joshua said Choose. Jesus said Choose. God said CHOOSE! Need references?Yes you believe He paid your price (apparently at least, you have yet to deny that one), but you think that your salvation is by YOUR choice. That's wrong.Why should I believe He didn’t pay the price? I haven't denied anything except what you are trying to make me say. Again, My salvation is gift of God that I must acknowledge He has given it to me. I didn't earn it. He freely gave it to me. I took it. And there is more beyond salvation He has given me. All from the choice I made because He gave me His grace enabling me to choose, as a free agent. He gives me the Grace to choose Him that the love I give Him, is freely given, that He responds to! How else can it be love in both directions? Answer that, please. Don’t ignore it or all this will end.Who is Augustine? ... He was responsible for the inquisition to boot!

Really, he was alive that late huh? Or are you misapplying responsibility for the deeds of others to him because of his teachings? Yes! Deeds are deeds. Don't be naive. Who are you following but Augustine, correct? Calvin. too? --- at this late date, huh? go figger.Because if so, then we ought to throw out Darwin, because he was then responsible for the Nazi holocaust.True. Darwinism is also a lie and he was responsible because Hitler was greatly influenced by him. Hitler was a convert to him. That doesn’t let Hitler off the hook, but the teacher isn’t either.
Now while I wouldn't mind throwing out Darwin, it is nonetheless disingenuous to lay blame for the holocaust at his feet, just as it is to lay blame for the inquisition at Augustine's.People need to pay attention to what they allow themselves to be converted to. Some people are poison since they appeal only to the self in us. And too bad we don’t have more Apostle Paul’s who can spot the "Simon magicians"converting to them for self aggrandizement and put them in their place.

seer

October 26th 2004, 06:12 PM

Yes, just as Romans says as well, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That is the method that God uses to draw us, it doesn't mean that because of that He does not draw.

Correct, my point is the assumption that God's drawing is not irresistible. It is.

BTW - Augustine believed that we were justified by both faith and works. See his teaching on "Fee Will.".