Calvinsm vs Arminianism RESOLVED AT LAST

[Evangelist]

The following information/revelation has cost me one board membership on the "Rapture News" message board, and has likely been a contributing factor in getting myself unplugged from the very board that the following links go to.

http://derekwebb.com/phpBB2/viewtop...251353ae021c541 (http://derekwebb.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14807&sid=a5cc90353065b9a08251353ae021c541)

http://derekwebb.com/phpBB2/viewtop...251353ae021c541 (http://derekwebb.com/phpBB2/viewtop...251353ae021c541)


Is it that heretical for the world to find out just how Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism can all be reckoned together into one perspective, which I simply call the "Unified View"? I thought this would be great news that everybody would be interested in!

Guess not.:eek:

Maybe there is room here in the "unorthodox theology" dept of T-web, to discuss such a concept. Here's hoping.:smile:

Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

BTW, due to my heavy work schedule, I can usually only respond to posts once a day. I am sure to read your responses if any, and will respond ASAP.:smile:

Please do not argue via weblink. If you wish to reference outside articles please quote the relevant parts along with the link, up to a 2 paragraph max per link.

[Bernie]

I'd be interested to hear about your unified view. It can't possibly be correct, as Rational Esotericism--of which I am sole adherent and chief spokesperson--is the only system of belief able to reconcile these warring sisters of soteriology. Still, I'd be interested to see how close to truth you are, Evangelist.

cheers.

[Evangelist]

Thanks for your interest Bernie. Let me sketch out for you now what the "Unified View" is all about. I share this from the point of view of a strict Biblical literalist. I arrived at this view via the YEC teaching of Ken Ham. Having been converted to a view of a Biblical literalist, I have since become very "Open theist" in my thinking. As a matter of fact, I believed I had discovered the basic tenents of Open Theism myself, until one day somebody informed me that there were others too, who had already seen what I thought I had discovered for the very first time. I have distanced myself lately from the Open Theists however, because of their views that prophecy can fail. My new "Unified view" is an honest attempt to fit all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle that I have seen, together into one harmonious whole. I believe that this has been achieved.

About two months ago now, I had something of a personal revelation. In one moment of time I suddenly realized that the 144,000 believers spoken about in Revelation (12,000 from each tribe of Israel), meant that God indeed must act at times in the manner that Calvinists insist that He acts all the time. That being, God basically barging into certain human lives and saving them whether they be willing or not. Having realized that God allows Himself such priviledge in the book of Revelation, I immediately took a second look at Romans 9. I conceeded at once the Divine right to override the normal salvation process where God does not force men to such a degree that they are unable to resist. All at once I began to realize that all the pieces of the Biblical puzzle could really fit together in harmony.

The key idea then, in what I have called the "Unified View", is to recognize that God has a freedom in the degree of duresss that He puts a soul under in order to effect a conversion. This allows for Arminians and Calvinists to bring their unique perspective on the mechanics of Salvation, together with the real-time interactive drama that Open Theists have seen so clearly, into one seamless package. The beauty of the "Unified View" is that not a single passage of Scripture need be denied or explained away, and the merits of the Calvinist, Arminian and Open perspectives can be magnified together, while their respective weakness and contradictions can be erased and forgotton.

In the "Unified View", the "whosoever will" approach that is so well understood by the Arminians, remains the common means by which men come to Salvation in Christ. However, allowance is made for conversion's a la "Apostle Paul style", when God has a particular person picked out for one reason or another in moving His plans forward in this world. God is not beholden to any fixed rule of Calvinism or Arminianism in the matter of conversion of souls, and is free to exercise His Sovereignty as best suits His timing and purposes.

How is that for starters?:wink:

Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Evangelist:
I too am interested in discussing your theory with you, because it is my opinion that both Calvin and Arminius, based their theories on a false premis, and attempting to resolve their differences just diverts attention from what the bible story says.
What do you think?

[Evangelist]

Hello Evangelist:
I too am interested in discussing your theory with you, because it is my opinion that both Calvin and Arminius, based their theories on a false premis, and attempting to resolve their differences just diverts attention from what the bible story says.
What do you think?

If God wanted to clear up the debate before this time, I am sure He could easily have done so. Here now are some possible "benefits of the debate", and also some plausible "needs be for the debate"; which God has chosen to leave unresolved for so long. Unresolved until right now of course!:wink:

Possible "benefits of the debate"

1) It makes real believers study the Bible more in order to get to the bottom of the dilemma. Non-Christians in my experience, have little knowledge of this debate, and I do not see how it seriously hinders their entrance into the faith. The debate can be beneficial for new believers as they seek to get their grounding in what the Bible really teaches. Controversy sells newspapers, and sometimes it causes Bibles to be read with more diligence too!

2) Since the rich generally generally prefer to see the world in a pre-determined light, and the poor are more inclined to see a non-determined future where hope still remains for each and every soul; I can see God winking in heaven as the Calvinists minister to the wealthy, and the Arminians minister to the poor. That way everybody gets the gospel!:teeth: Witness Spurgeon and Wesley. Spurgeon for the rich and Wesley for the poor!

3) God holds men strictly to the principle of faith. (especially when mans understanding is still wanting for answers)

4) God gets more glory for being able to keep the answer to this very simple puzzle a mystery:wink: , untill He in His good time, saw fit to reveal the answer just before the close of the "day of grace".


........and now for some plausible "needs be for the debate".

1) It was convenient to have the doctrine of extreem Calvinism around, with which to keep the most embittered, self-righteous believers; closeted away to themselves. Solve the debate, the divide narrows, and the difficult believers now mingle more freely with the goodnatured believers; and the testimony of Christ suffers for it.:ahem:

2) It was convenient to have a great puzzle which divided the churches, to remain in place untill the time of the "great tribulation". At that time the newly solved puzzle could serve as a means by which the false church of Babylon could be brought together as one, as the Bible has predicted.:ahem:

3) It was a necessary legal result of men fancying the teachings and opinions of great leaders in the church, over and above the plain words of the Holy Writ. The great puzzle as I now understand it to be solved, could not have been solved but for the careful childlike attention and devotion to the plain words of the Bible, all theological frameworks notwithstanding!:wink:


Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
So you think that the truth of the bible story boils down to one, or both, of these 2 theories, neither of which has been proven satisfactorily to the adherents to the other.
Did you ever think that this great puzzle might simply be a red herring to keep us diverted from the real story, of the bible, which hides in plain sight right before our eyes?
Anything God wants to do, I am sure the He could do easily, but "what God could do if He wanted", is usually appealed to in theological debate, as the last resort of one who has no scriptural backing for the point he is trying to make.
I think that Calvinism vs Arminianism can be resolved by letting the greater context of scripture expose them both...LOL

Jeremiah 31:31-34, records God's definition of the new everlasting covenant He will make with **both houses** of Israel, because they broke the everlasting(old) covenant. "Both houses" indicates that the new covenant will not be made until the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is resurrected from the dead.
God had promised Abraham that his seed would inherit the promised land **forever**, and God had promised David and Solomon, that He would establish the Davidic kingdom **forever**, but God knew that even after the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is resurrected from the dead, it will again break the old covenant and backslide from God's favour.
In order for God to fulfill His everlasting promises to Abraham, David, and Solomon, resurrected Israel must keep the law forever, so God will, by His grace, write His laws forever on resurrected Israel's hearts and minds, so that Israel will do by nature the things contained in the law, thus fulfilling the everlasting(old) covenant forever. This will give resurrected Israel everlasting salvation by God's grace, and God's everlasting promises to Abraham, David, and Solomon, will be fulfilled.
So...Covenant Israel, which has not existed since the death of Solomon, is predestined to be saved forever(by the new covenant made by God's grace), so "Once saved always saved"!
However, although Israel's salvation is predestined because of God's everlasting promises to Abraham, David, and Solomon, and once it is saved it will be saved forever...resurrected Israel will be made up of "whosoever will" become "Israelites in spirit" before the resurrection, and that is up to the individual.
One becomes an "Israelite in spirit" by accepting the gospel of the kingdom into his heart(salvation in spirit), but if he changes his mind before the kingdom is resurrected, he can cease to be an Israelite in spirit, and lose his "salvation in spirit", and he will not share in the everlasting salvation that the new covenant will bring to the resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel.
What do you think?

[Evangelist]

Dear Provoker;

Allow me to provoke you somewhat.:wink:

I decline for the moment to disentangle the final paragraph of your post, although you do have a few truthful concepts woven throughout your unfocused, ill-worded treatise. Simplify your ideas, write more clearly, and then I will engage more fully with the content of your posts.

Take a look at the following statements in your opening paragraph.

Statement #1)
"So you think that the truth of the bible story boils down to one, or both, of these 2 theories, neither of which has been proven satisfactorily to the adherents to the other.:duh: "

No I do not think such a thing, and since we both acknowledge that an actual debate does exist, then it goes without saying that "neither view has been proven to the satisfaction of the other".:huh: That's why we call it a debate.:wink:

Statement #2)
"Did you ever think that this great puzzle might simply be a red herring to keep us diverted from the real story, of the bible, which hides in plain sight:doh: right before our eyes?"

Once again, I see that you at least acknowledge my opening premise that a great puzzle does indeed exist. We are in full agreement on this. I have already stated that the puzzle exists for at least 7 reasons dilineated in my previous post, but I would not see fit to add "red herring" to that list.

Since I grant that God has allowed the puzzle to remain unsolved, I would then have to put God in the place of placing a deliberate deception in front of us in order to as you put it "divert us from the real story of the Bible".:lolo:

Also, making a statement like "hiding in plain sight" is just your body's way of telling your mind to slow down, and do a "logic-check" first, before you give your fingers permission to progress to doing actual keystrokes on your computer. I know where you are coming from here brother, but please, for the sake of the dignity of the thread, I want to see better from you in the future.:bonk:

I see from your second paragraph, that you allow for "eternal life" to become instead "temporary life", if there be a personal falling away. I cannot join with you here. Sorry.

I see that you do allow for the restoration of a literal nation of Israel. This is good but somewhat off topic.

I make the case for 144,000 literal Israelite souls in the book of Revelation. What do you think of this? How does this specific number get arrived at if personal salvation, be strictly a matter of "being up to the individual", as I think you are saying?

That really is the focus that I would like to adhere to on this thread. Individual salvation, does the Bible speak of God saving men and women against their will in some cases, or does it not? I argue that it does indeed!

Regards

Paul

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
Yours is a typical "ad hom" criticism Paul..."Ill written and I would like to see better"...LOL
I suggest that the only way we can adhere to a certain focus in this thread, is to recognize that while we can, and do, interpret scripture in the context of man-made divisions of scripture, our conclusions must still fit within the context of undivided scripture.
It may save some time, typing, and bandwidth, if we acknowledge our personal differences regarding the story told by "undivided" scripture first.

I see one story which runs with continuity, through scripture, and that is; "The rise, the fall, and the coming resurrection of, the Davidic kingdom of Israel".
Whether or not God saves people against there will, will be a more interesting discussion if we first agree on what "saved" means...don't you think?

[Bernie]

Hello Paul,

Thanks for your willingness to dialog. Like you, I only have limited time to post these days, so have copied/pasted your and Provoker's correspondence for reading later tonight, will likely respond tomorrow.

Your statement that you are a strict literalist makes this even more interesting to me, by the way. I came from a pretty literalist background to that of rational esotericist re my own spiritual experiences. This has the making for some spirited discussion, huh?

[Evangelist]

Hello Paul:
Yours is a typical "ad hom" criticism Paul..."Ill written and I would like to see better"...LOL
I suggest that the only way we can adhere to a certain focus in this thread, is to recognize that while we can, and do, interpret scripture in the context of man-made divisions of scripture, our conclusions must still fit within the context of undivided scripture.
It may save some time, typing, and bandwidth, if we acknowledge our personal differences regarding the story told by "undivided" scripture first.

I see one story which runs with continuity, through scripture, and that is; "The rise, the fall, and the coming resurrection of, the Davidic kingdom of Israel".
Whether or not God saves people against there will, will be a more interesting discussion if we first agree on what "saved" means...don't you think?

I'm not sure what planet your theology hails from, but I think that conserving "bandwith" and "keystrokes" is a good route to follow in our discussion. I think Bernie and I may be able to have this discussion in a more efficient manner. Thanks just the same.:eek:

I may entertain your thoughts re "a Davidic Kingdom" at some other time, on some other thread.

Cheers

Paul

[Bernie]

Hello Evangelist,

Got through a couple of passes on yours and Provoker's posts, thought I'd pop back in to note a couple of things.

Your comments on the possible pursuits of rich and poor were interesting...new slant on popular Biblical terms.

Question: what do you mean exactly when you say "God holds men strictly to the principle of faith"? Please elaborate. What exactly do you see as the 'principle of faith'?

"It was convenient to have the doctrine of extreem Calvinism around, with which to keep the most embittered, self-righteous believers; closeted away to themselves. Solve the debate, the divide narrows, and the difficult believers now mingle more freely with the goodnatured believers; and the testimony of Christ suffers for it."

Whom do you consider to be "difficult", and whom "goodnatured"? Is this a division you see between Calvinist (C) and Arminian (A)?

I agree with you that Scripture teaches that God is sovereign in salvation. I also see that Scripture allows man some leeway in choosing his or her salvation.

Having said this, I want to put one thought forward here for careful consideration by you and all who choose to participate in this thread, that is that the mystery of salvation has not come completely to light until Scripture is reconciled with reason. I don't say that it must pass some human standard of reason [although our standards are all we've got to judge with], but that when God's truths are fully known, they always, without fail, possess the quality of intrinsic logicality. Would you agree?

"The key idea then, in what I have called the "Unified View", is to recognize that God has a freedom in the degree of duresss that He puts a soul under in order to effect a conversion. This allows for Arminians and Calvinists to bring their unique perspective on the mechanics of Salvation, together with the real-time interactive drama that Open Theists have seen so clearly, into one seamless package. The beauty of the "Unified View" is that not a single passage of Scripture need be denied or explained away, and the merits of the Calvinist, Arminian and Open perspectives can be magnified together, while their respective weakness and contradictions can be erased and forgotton."

First, can we leave open theism out of the picture, or is this view necessary to your 'unified view'? I tend to find it a distraction and irrelevant (in my own soteriology) to the pursuit at hand....to discover whether the unified view truly joins Calvinist and Arminian doctrine together.

Actually, I recall the pastor of a church I attended years ago (Church of Christ) at a Bible study suggesting the same thing you are, that God appears to appoint some and not others. I don't see where this 'having one's cake and eating it too' adequately dissolves the 400 year war between sovereign grace and free will.

When you say, "The beauty of the "Unified View" is that not a single passage of Scripture need be denied or explained away...", what you're accomplishing (assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct) is a systematic unification of a literal reading of Scripture. But are all the logical problems accounted for?

How is perfect justice served by "forcing" some to be saved and not others? The very notion of needing to be "forced"--assuming that God, in keeping with the perfection of His attributes of love and mercy is good and righteous to compell overpoweringly-- suggests that to be saved [Provoker is correct to suggest that definitions of "saved" are necesary] is a good end, not merely for those who are forced, or those who choose, but for literally all human beings. Initially, anyway, I don't see that saying some are compelled and others not properly satisfies the differences between C and A. But maybe things will become more clear as we progress.

Your thoughts?

[Evangelist]

Bernie wrote:
Question: what do you mean exactly when you say "God holds men strictly to the principle of faith"? Please elaborate. What exactly do you see as the 'principle of faith'?

I mean that if all of the unanswered questions in the Bible somehow got answered in full, (the C vs A debate prominent amonst them) then men would tend to rely less on faith and more upon logic and reason in their relationship with God. That would not be a good thing, because God has determined that "faith" would be the door of access into the blessings of heaven, not logic and reason.

Faith exercised in spite of reason and logic, is most precious to God! A 100 year old man who takes God at his Word, considering not the deadness of his own body, or the deadness of his wife Sarah's womb, is a prime example of this principle. It is an honourable thing then for a man to trust in God, even when he has outstanding questions about things he has read in the Bible IMO.

Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Bernie wrote:
Whom do you consider to be "difficult", and whom "goodnatured"? Is this a division you see between Calvinist (C) and Arminian (A)?

Very generally here:wink: , C = "more difficult" and A = "more goodnatured".
The worst of "C" described in the following passage, where I detect that the act of "separating themselves" is firstly a natural fallout from the doctrine they hold, and secondly a Providential closeting of such persons away from the rest of Christendom, for the greater good! (I was raised in exclusive brethrenism, and have seen firsthand the dark underside of Calvinist-inspired seperatism)





12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit



.



Bernie wrote:

Having said this, I want to put one thought forward here for careful consideration by you and all who choose to participate in this thread, that is that the mystery of salvation has not come completely to light until Scripture is reconciled with reason. I don't say that it must pass some human standard of reason [although our standards are all we've got to judge with], but that when God's truths are fully known, they always, without fail, possess the quality of intrinsic logicality. Would you agree?



Yes, I would tend to agree here.



Bernie wrote:

First, can we leave open theism out of the picture, or is this view necessary to your 'unified view'? I tend to find it a distraction and irrelevant (in my own soteriology) to the pursuit at hand....to discover whether the unified view truly joins Calvinist and Arminian doctrine together.




If we remove the Open Theist perspective, then we must fall back upon the notion of a non-linear event timeline for God, and many many passages within the Bible must then be thrown out of the literalist "Unified View", and simply disregarded as "anthropomorphic". The whole point of the "Unified View" was to eliminate the need for "anthropormorphic/anthropathic dismissal" alltogether. It should stay in, but we could also discuss it without the "OT" perspective if you would rather. The "Unified View" should hold up in either case, as far as I am currently aware.



Bernie wrote:When you say, "The beauty of the "Unified View" is that not a single passage of Scripture need be denied or explained away...", what you're accomplishing (assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct) is a systematic unification of a literal reading of Scripture. But are all the logical problems accounted for?

If "OT" gets to stay, then my answer is yes!

Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Bernie wrote:

How is perfect justice served by "forcing" some to be saved and not others? The very notion of needing to be "forced"--assuming that God, in keeping with the perfection of His attributes of love and mercy is good and righteous to compell overpoweringly-- suggests that to be saved [Provoker is correct to suggest that definitions of "saved" are necesary] is a good end, not merely for those who are forced, or those who choose, but for literally all human beings. Initially, anyway, I don't see that saying some are compelled and others not properly satisfies the differences between C and A. But maybe things will become more clear as we progress.


Forcing some to be saved against their will is a matter of fulfilling longstanding promises made to Abraham in particular. It is also a matter of picking out certain favoured individuals to be messengers to the "whosoevers" of this world. A good God most certainly will intervene in this way in the affairs of men, in order to achieve the hgreter good.

God is not willing that any should perish, but He will not go to such extreems as giving people "one week in a literal hell for example", and then "one week in the literal heaven", and then asking them to make a choice. Where is faith to be exercised in such a scenario. I'm sure that all would choose heaven after such an experience, but their motives for such a choice would be anything but pure.

God looks for and insists upon faith, in the souls of those who would come to Him for blessing. Adam looked over the evidence presented by his wife in the garden, and chose to disbelieve God's solemn warning. Paradise was lost through unbelief then when all was perfect and good. Paradise can only be regained then in a world that is very imperfect and positively wicked, through that very same door. The door of Faith!

Perfect justice would be fully served by damming all to hell. Mercy however gives God the right to intervene in a special, if even in a "forced manner" with some souls in particular, or with one nation in particular (Israel); in order that many many of the rightfully dammed, be saved from their just fate. Such is the point being stressed in Romans 9.

Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
When you are done agreeing on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, come to my planet and learn some basic bible theology...LOL

I'm not sure what planet your theology hails from, but I think that conserving "bandwith" and "keystrokes" is a good route to follow in our discussion. I think Bernie and I may be able to have this discussion in a more efficient manner. Thanks just the same.:eek:

I may entertain your thoughts re "a Davidic Kingdom" at some other time, on some other thread.

Cheers

Paul

[Bernie]

Hello Evangelist,

"If we remove the Open Theist perspective, then we must fall back upon the notion of a non-linear event timeline for God, and many many passages within the Bible must then be thrown out of the literalist "Unified View", and simply disregarded as "anthropomorphic".

How so? What do you mean when you say some verses would be dismissed as anthropomorphic? I don't get this statement.

"I mean that if all of the unanswered questions in the Bible somehow got answered in full, (the C vs A debate prominent amonst them) then men would tend to rely less on faith and more upon logic and reason in their relationship with God. That would not be a good thing, because God has determined that "faith" would be the door of access into the blessings of heaven, not logic and reason."

??? You seem to be suggesting that the quest for reason is a bad or detrimental thing, which I can't agree with. I don't think acquiring rational (and thus, true) answers to the mysteries of faith defeat its purpose. I understand and agree that faith serves God's purpose and that it necessarily precedes reason, but hope you don't mean you think we should stop striving to answer all those unanswered questions.

You say that if OT is allowed to remain in your view, all answers are logically answered, but I'm not understanding how. The problem is compounded for me when you note that we must hold God to OT non-linearity, which I consider a false assumption to begin with. Even then, there is nothing in Scripture I'm aware of which even hints, much less states directly, that some are compelled and others not. In short, thus far, I'm only able to see that you've stepped in between the arguing C and A and said, "Okay, then, some folks are compelled and some not....there, this solves the problem!"

What remains as far as I can see is that all stays the same: there is still a considerable and reasonable amount of Scripture which supports either view, and the points of contention that existed before[/] you divided the loot, soteriologically speaking, still remains. Compulsion is at odds with freedom, on a very base level. How do you see the unified view as having solved this?

Both C and the A are willing to accept a measure of illogic in their respective positions. This isn't a bad thing as long as one recognizes that one's soteriology is a belief system which attempts to interpret the whole of Scripture in the best and most accurate manner possible. The honest C/A thus recognizes that not all his/her personal theology satisfies all logical requirements.

Problem is, many--probably most--don't think this way at all. Most are willing to dogmatically accept as truth [i]even those individual beliefs in their system which violate logic and reason.

For example, most Calvinists are quite content to ignore that the election/predestination of some and not others violates the notion of God's perfect justice. Forests have been felled to provide paper for the volumes which have been written on attempts to solve this, but when the dust clears, the violation still stands. Arminians see but fail to observe the many obvious discrepancies in the Bible which deal the idea of free will many heavy blows....yet they shrug them off. We are, underneath it all, a very stubborn and stiff-necked people, aren't we?

These are the kinds of things I don't see anyone able to resolve. I'm unable to see the unified view do any better so far. But let's walk this path a bit, who knows I might learn something yet.

"Forcing some to be saved against their will is a matter of fulfilling longstanding promises made to Abraham in particular."

This sounds similar to an idea Provoker provided above, which I hope to respond to in a bit.

"It [forcing some to be saved] is also a matter of picking out certain favoured individuals to be messengers to the "whosoevers" of this world. A good God most certainly will intervene in this way in the affairs of men, in order to achieve the hgreter good."

But this appears to leave God scrambling, working desperately to fulfill promises He seems to have trouble keeping by forcing salvation on some and letting the others work it out themselves. (OT at work?) Also, the notion of serving "the greater good" is consistent with contingent beings and a fallen nature. The perfection of God necessarily places Him above having to work within the constraints of a "common or greater good". Perfection is altogether Good, without ratio, isn't it?

"God is not willing that any should perish..."

If this is true, then none will, as Scripture states, "For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?" (Isa 14:27), and, "Even from eternity I am He; And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?" (Isa 43:13). As a self-proclaimed literalist, you should immediately see the truth in this, yes?

"Perfect justice would be fully served by damming all to hell."

Can't fault your logic on this one, Evangelist. However, when we begin dividing individuals into saved and damned, the notion of perfect justice goes to hell in a handbasket, so to speak.

Am enjoying our dialog thus far, Paul.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Hey there, Provoker,

In rereading your post today, I came to appreciate the fact that you're not afraid to recognize the legitimacy of the ethereal and abstract....in reference to replacing the literal Israel with spiritual Israel in true spiritualizing fashion. (I'm an esotericist mysef, so I can hang with this)

Interesting notion, but the problem in this view for me lies in what appears to be an unsettling callousness on God's part in all this, promising one thing and delivering another. I don't think this is in the spirit of Paul's distinction between those grafted into the vine and others without. By transferring God's promise from one particular group to another, you paint a vindictive God who violates His own promise, turning His back on and allowing to perish millions who took Him at His word.

I'm curious: what is the false premise you see C and A basing their theologies on?

Peace.....and if you find it, send some my way.

[Provoker]

Hello Bernie:
The Israelites who had the spirit of the nation/kingdom of Israel, in their hearts while the nation/kingdom existed, are the same "former Israelites" who remained Israelites in spirit(spiritual Israel) after the nation/kingdom fell.
"You can take the Israelite out of Israel, but you can't take Israel out of the Israelite"...LOL
Those nominal Israelites who had so little interest, in the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, that they divided and destroyed the nation/kingdom, did it because they did not have the spirit of the nation/kingdom in their hearts, so you see that there was no replacing one people with another.
The two enemy nations resulting from the fall of Israel, remained enemies(did not love God and love one another) till their respective destructions, so the nation of Israel was never resurrected/repentent, and God remained legally obliged, by the terms of His own everlasting(old) covenant, to turn His face away from Israel until Israel repented(is resurrected).
Ever since the proclaiming of the "only definitive messianic prophecy", that "a baby would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David", the goal of "true" Jews(as defined by Paul), has been to build a body of "true" Jews, who will watch and wait for the messiah to come and resurrect the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel.
The universal religion of the Roman empire, created doctrines specificly to cover this up, because a belief in literal kingdom resurrection created a threat to the national security of the empire, and these false doctrines represent the false premise on which Calvin and Arminius based their doctrines.
All Christian theology is inextricably tied to "the gospel of the kingdom", and that is why a discussion of the kingdom is necessary to understand the problems with the doctrines of Calvin and Arminius.

I find peace in the knowledge that I am honestly seeking the truth of the bible, and am not just blindly accepting the preconceived doctrines of people who lived when the earth was flat...LOL



Hey there, Provoker,

In rereading your post today, I came to appreciate the fact that you're not afraid to recognize the legitimacy of the ethereal and abstract....in reference to replacing the literal Israel with spiritual Israel in true spiritualizing fashion. (I'm an esotericist mysef, so I can hang with this)

Interesting notion, but the problem in this view for me lies in what appears to be an unsettling callousness on God's part in all this, promising one thing and delivering another. I don't think this is in the spirit of Paul's distinction between those grafted into the vine and others without. By transferring God's promise from one particular group to another, you paint a vindictive God who violates His own promise, turning His back on and allowing to perish millions who took Him at His word.

I'm curious: what is the false premise you see C and A basing their theologies on?

Peace.....and if you find it, send some my way.

[Evangelist]

Bernie wrote:
You say that if OT is allowed to remain in your view, all answers are logically answered, but I'm not understanding how. The problem is compounded for me when you note that we must hold God to OT non-linearity, which I consider a false assumption to begin with. Even then, there is nothing in Scripture I'm aware of which even hints, much less states directly, that some are compelled and others not. In short, thus far, I'm only able to see that you've stepped in between the arguing C and A and said, "Okay, then, some folks are compelled and some not....there, this solves the problem!"


You have seen correctly Bernie. It's just that simple really. You miss my point however, that all are compelled to a certain degree, but that some are compelled to such an extent that we could say they were forced.

You seem to understand the OT perspective well enough to reject it, and hence I find your plea of ignorance re: my complaint of "Anthropomorphic denial", somewhat insinscere. Then again you speak of "holding God to OT non-linearity". Surely you meant "holding God to OT linearity". Yes?

I maintain that the Bible holds God to linearity as the OT's have clearly seen. This is no false assumption. This is what the Bible teaches. The false assumption lies with your outright rejection of each and every passage that points out that God works with a linear event timeline, just like we do. That's where the cry arises of "Anthropomorphism, mere anthropomorphism".:ale: Yes?

Given the content of your last post, I can see now that the "Unified View" will only work with its OT component. It is hopeless to point out to persons like yourself how that God could "not be willing that any should perish", and still have people perish in the end. You allow only for God's will in your understanding of the universe, and seem to make no practical concessions to the notion that man might just have a will that could contribute to the tapestry of world history as well.

Given this Calvinistic bent of yours, I can see how you will always struggle with issues of God's Justice and God's logic. Untill you make meaningful place for man's will in the great drama of human history, you will always have such struggles IMO.

My advice would be to dive into the Arminian view first, then move over to the Open View, and then when you have tasted what is wanting in those perspectives, come back and meet your Calvinism halfway. At that point you will have arrived where I have at the "Unified View", where God's will, man's will, and the interaction between the two can be sensibly comprehended in a logical, Biblically grounded manner. :teeth:

Calvinism still pins you to the wall of illogical fatalism IMO. Break that chain with God's help and things will improve.

Cheers

Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Note to Bernie and Provoker:

This is the point where this thread could get very, very interesting.:wink:

Pay very, very close attention to the following instructions. Others may join in here if they wish. We will all learn something about ourselves that we may not have ever known before this time.

At the very end of this post, I am going to pose a question to you all. Here now is the kicker. In order for this to work, you must first read the question carefully and then TAKE A VERY DEEP BREATH:stunned: ; and begin at once to type in your answer. You must stop typing when you have to take a fresh breath of air. Then you must immediately hit the SUBMIT REPLY button thereby ending your post. Got it?

Please reread the paragraph above, very very slowly to make sure that you fully understand the rules of this exercise. You must fully understand the rules before reading the question I am about to type in at the end of this post. It will only work well if you do it exactly as I have described above. I'll explain later, I promise.:teeth:

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
here goes, ready?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Imagine that you are going to meet God within the next 60 seconds.:noid:
God is going to ask you why He should let you into His heaven.:uhoh:
TAKE YOUR DEEP BREATH NOW, AND TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER!
HURRY!!!!!!!!!!!!:stunned:

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
Your assumption that I could even answer such a question, reminds me of another question; Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!


Note to Bernie and Provoker:

This is the point where this thread could get very, very interesting.:wink:

Pay very, very close attention to the following instructions. Others may join in here if they wish. We will all learn something about ourselves that we may not have ever known before this time.

At the very end of this post, I am going to pose a question to you all. Here now is the kicker. In order for this to work, you must first read the question carefully and then TAKE A VERY DEEP BREATH:stunned: ; and begin at once to type in your answer. You must stop typing when you have to take a fresh breath of air. Then you must immediately hit the SUBMIT REPLY button thereby ending your post. Got it?

Please reread the paragraph above, very very slowly to make sure that you fully understand the rules of this exercise. You must fully understand the rules before reading the question I am about to type in at the end of this post. It will only work well if you do it exactly as I have described above. I'll explain later, I promise.:teeth:

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
here goes, ready?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Imagine that you are going to meet God within the next 60 seconds.:noid:
God is going to ask you why He should let you into His heaven.:uhoh:
TAKE YOUR DEEP BREATH NOW, AND TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER!
HURRY!!!!!!!!!!!!:stunned:

[Evangelist]

Note to Bernie and to Provoker;

I did not ask the question because I assumed that you would be able to answer it. I asked the question because I feared that you both are not presently ready to meet God.

Here I am trying to persuade you that the Calvinist/Arminian debate can be logically resolved, while the real need is for you both to find true peace with your Maker. I have done you both a great disservice. Allow me to make ammends.

First I wish to say a few words to Bernie.

Bernie, from what you have posted here on this thread, I suspect that the following things might be true of you.

1) You are not ready to meet God right now.

2) You are looking for acceptance from God through your church. Your church is Calvinistic in outlook, and puts great stock in being doctrinally correct, holding the creed, baptism etc.

3) You want to have real peace with God, but you do not. You suspect that God as depicted by your church and creed, could in actuality be some hideous monster that you are not sure you want to get close to anyway.

4) You struggle with the logical inconsistencies that your creed presents to your mind, but since you are trusting in the salvific merits of that very creed, you dare not question it. You wonder if peace could be attained if all the logical problems could be sorted out. I personally have been a disappointment to you in this regard.

If these things are not true of you Bernie, then I suspect that they might be true of somebody else who may chance upon this thread. Here now is my advice to just such a soul.

You must rise above the paralysis of personal inaction that Calvinism has poisoned your mind with. You are not to wait upon God to save you, but you are to lay hold of the bars of the prison house of despair that you find yourself in, and you must make yourself heard to God! You must shake those bars, and shake those bars with all your might, crying out to God in the desperate need of your soul; and you must not cease until God Himself comes to your cell, and hears for Himself the wretched tale of your personal confession of sin, followed by your plea for salvation. At which point He will most assuredly call for a key, and see that your prison door is opened, and you will be free at last. Such is the advice of your internet friend, "Evangelist".

And now just a few words for Provoker.

I hope you were listening as I spoke to Bernie, for you my friend are Bernie's cellmate. Your condition is in fact much worse than Bernie's. I suspect that the teachings which you have been raised under, have been most heinous in the eyes of He who holds the key to your cell as well. Consider well my friend, The Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Begotton Son of God. If you fail to recognize Him as such, you will never be set free. Such is the advice of your internet friend, "Evangelist".

Blessings to you both and to any others reading this thread.

Paul M. Blackmore "Evangelist"





Isaiah 55

6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

[Bernie]

Hello Evangelist,

"You struggle with the logical inconsistencies that your creed presents to your mind, but since you are trusting in the salvific merits of that very creed, you dare not question it. You wonder if peace could be attained if all the logical problems could be sorted out. I personally have been a disappointment to you in this regard.

If these things are not true of you Bernie, then I suspect that they might be true of somebody else who may chance upon this thread. Here now is my advice to just such a soul."

I have one question: what specifically do you dislike about my "creed"?

[Bernie]

Evangelist, please disregard the question in my last thread. I was going to test the waters a bit with you, but have been reading your posts here and on other boards I could find to determine your metal, and have decided that to continue to dialog with you would be fruitless.

When I saw you blast Provoker in your second post in this thread for no good reason, I knew you instantly. I've seen you and tried to debate with you dozens of times on various boards. You were wearing different faces and going by different names, of course; your spirit inhabits thousands of minds within Christianity and without.

I was only being honest with you when I told you I have problems with OT. I also suspected this would bring out the real you, as it certainly did. You might consider starting your own theology board, gathering around you people enamoured of your wisdom, who are willing to grovel and hang on every word. Seems you're looking for 'yes' men. I think you might be happier in this scenario.

The fact remains that you can try to form a zealously literal reading of the Scriptures around open theist teachings, or whatver view you wish, but in the final analysis, if you aren't able to satisfy at least the reasonable logical deficiencies, such as those raised by both C and A against against one anothers' doctrines, then you are no closer to solving the mystery of salvation than they are. In fact, your unified theory fails completely to accomplish this. To suggest that the case is solved by simply announcing that God compels some--or compels some more than others--to be saved, is simplistic, intellectually dishonest and not only fails to solve the logical deficiencies raised by the orthodox doctrines, but adds more to it.

Given what I now see in this and other threads you've posted in, I see no valid reason to respond to your posts in the future.


Provoker,

I intend to start a new thread on this subject, would like to continue our dialog there if you're willing. Perhaps we can form a reasonably gracious, edifying debate.

[Evangelist]

Evangelist, please disregard the question in my last thread. I was going to test the waters a bit with you, but have been reading your posts here and on other boards I could find to determine your metal, and have decided that to continue to dialog with you would be fruitless.

When I saw you blast Provoker in your second post in this thread for no good reason, I knew you instantly. I've seen you and tried to debate with you dozens of times on various boards. You were wearing different faces and going by different names, of course; your spirit inhabits thousands of minds within Christianity and without.

I was only being honest with you when I told you I have problems with OT. I also suspected this would bring out the real you, as it certainly did. You might consider starting your own theology board, gathering around you people enamoured of your wisdom, who are willing to grovel and hang on every word. Seems you're looking for 'yes' men. I think you might be happier in this scenario.

The fact remains that you can try to form a zealously literal reading of the Scriptures around open theist teachings, or whatver view you wish, but in the final analysis, if you aren't able to satisfy at least the reasonable logical deficiencies, such as those raised by both C and A against against one anothers' doctrines, then you are no closer to solving the mystery of salvation than they are. In fact, your unified theory fails completely to accomplish this. To suggest that the case is solved by simply announcing that God compels some--or compels some more than others--to be saved, is simplistic, intellectually dishonest and not only fails to solve the logical deficiencies raised by the orthodox doctrines, but adds more to it.

Given what I now see in this and other threads you've posted in, I see no valid reason to respond to your posts in the future.


Provoker,

I intend to start a new thread on this subject, would like to continue our dialog there if you're willing. Perhaps we can form a reasonably gracious, edifying debate.

Dear Bernie;

I read your post with great interest, and with a very open ear. I credit you on this thread with the following.

Through your interaction with me in this very thread, I have come to the conclusion that I have been working from the wrong perspective altogether. I have been trying to sort everything out logically, so that I and others might be able to win many souls to Christ with clearer insight and better answers than what have yet been offered to this world. I see now that that approach is just wrong. I repent.

Wrong as well has been my approach of treating every on-line debate/interaction, as a wrestling match of ideas and Biblical prowess. Souls cannot be won in such a manner so I simply cease and desist. I have also been spoken to many times about my manners employed in these debates/interactions, and the complaints have always been the same. I am overbearing, brutal, and even vindictive on occasion. I now accept this verdict. I hereby cease and desist.

For the record, I pray by the will of God to limit all future interactions to matters leaning more to the heart and less to the mind. I abandon logic as a tool for bringing men to Christ. I seek from here on in to display more of the love of Christ, and less of the proud arrogant man that I now confess myself to have become on so very many occasions.:uhoh:

Even in the matter of "OT". I hereby cease and desist from my vehement assertions that the great "I AM" must at all times be limited as we are, to seeing events unfold as they happen. I continue to suppose that such is the case and I think the plainest Scriptures demonstrate this to be the case, but it is no longer is an issue with me. I am at peace with my God, and I need not have every great question answered to my personal logical satisfaction of mind anymore.

I rest my case. I rest in Christ. I need no other solace.

May God help you Bernie find true peace with God. I rather doubt that Provoker will be the one to direct you into finding that peace, but what do I know? God is over all. God can use Balaam's mule, so He an use any one of us if He really wants to. Yes?:wink:

Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore


P.S. BTW Bernie, I have never debated using any other name on internet discussion boards other than my own. I don't ever remember debating with you before. I've never debated a "Bernie". Only here on T-Web do I go by "Evangelist". Everywhere else I am simply Paul Blackmore or Paul M. Blackmore.

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
I will consider your concern for my eternal well being, as a sign of friendship, but there is no place in a theological discussion, for evangelism. You came to this board, not to discuss, but to convert, and that was dishonest.
I truly believe that your beliefs are not scriptural, and can be proved so with scripture, so I suggest that you continue to discuss with us, at least showing the same respect for our opinions, as you would for your boss' opinion that his wife is beautiful, and his children smart...LOL


Note to Bernie and to Provoker;

I did not ask the question because I assumed that you would be able to answer it. I asked the question because I feared that you both are not presently ready to meet God.

Here I am trying to persuade you that the Calvinist/Arminian debate can be logically resolved, while the real need is for you both to find true peace with your Maker. I have done you both a great disservice. Allow me to make ammends.

First I wish to say a few words to Bernie.

Bernie, from what you have posted here on this thread, I suspect that the following things might be true of you.

1) You are not ready to meet God right now.

2) You are looking for acceptance from God through your church. Your church is Calvinistic in outlook, and puts great stock in being doctrinally correct, holding the creed, baptism etc.

3) You want to have real peace with God, but you do not. You suspect that God as depicted by your church and creed, could in actuality be some hideous monster that you are not sure you want to get close to anyway.

4) You struggle with the logical inconsistencies that your creed presents to your mind, but since you are trusting in the salvific merits of that very creed, you dare not question it. You wonder if peace could be attained if all the logical problems could be sorted out. I personally have been a disappointment to you in this regard.

If these things are not true of you Bernie, then I suspect that they might be true of somebody else who may chance upon this thread. Here now is my advice to just such a soul.

You must rise above the paralysis of personal inaction that Calvinism has poisoned your mind with. You are not to wait upon God to save you, but you are to lay hold of the bars of the prison house of despair that you find yourself in, and you must make yourself heard to God! You must shake those bars, and shake those bars with all your might, crying out to God in the desperate need of your soul; and you must not cease until God Himself comes to your cell, and hears for Himself the wretched tale of your personal confession of sin, followed by your plea for salvation. At which point He will most assuredly call for a key, and see that your prison door is opened, and you will be free at last. Such is the advice of your internet friend, "Evangelist".

And now just a few words for Provoker.

I hope you were listening as I spoke to Bernie, for you my friend are Bernie's cellmate. Your condition is in fact much worse than Bernie's. I suspect that the teachings which you have been raised under, have been most heinous in the eyes of He who holds the key to your cell as well. Consider well my friend, The Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Begotton Son of God. If you fail to recognize Him as such, you will never be set free. Such is the advice of your internet friend, "Evangelist".

Blessings to you both and to any others reading this thread.

Paul M. Blackmore "Evangelist"





Isaiah 55

6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

[Provoker]

Hello Bernie:
That is exactly what I am here for...gracious, edifying "discussion"...LOL



Provoker,

I intend to start a new thread on this subject, would like to continue our dialog there if you're willing. Perhaps we can form a reasonably gracious, edifying debate.

[Evangelist]

Provoker wrote:
Hello Paul:
I will consider your concern for my eternal well being, as a sign of friendship, but there is no place in a theological discussion, for evangelism. You came to this board, not to discuss, but to convert, and that was dishonest.
I truly believe that your beliefs are not scriptural, and can be proved so with scripture, so I suggest that you continue to discuss with us, at least showing the same respect for our opinions, as you would for your boss' opinion that his wife is beautiful, and his children smart...LOL

You would forbid me to evangelize on a "THEOLOGY webboard" of all places!

You charge me with dishonesty in this matter, even though my webboard name is EVANGELIST!

You would also have me respect your opinions, when you are clearly at odds with the gospel message I bring here.

I will have none of it. I rebuke you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I chose not to engage you in discussion from the beginning of this thread, because I suspected that you are really a servant of the other side, an opposer of the true gospel, and a genuine enemy of the faith. You have confirmed my initial diagnosis by your own words. Enough said.

Galatians 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
While the man who has faith will naturally speak of the things he believes by faith, as true, the very fact that he believes "by faith", and not "by knowledge", means that he cannot, and does not, "Know" that what he believes is true. Consider the thousands of doctrinally disagreeing sects of Christianity; all have faith that their doctrines are correct, but the very fact that each believes something different, means that having faith does not necessarily mean that what one believes is true.
One can honestly believe an established creed/statement of faith, but when he **commits** to a creed, or a statement of faith, he essentially closes his mind, and no longer has **the spirit of truth** which is a commitment to seek the truth of God.
I cannot, and will not, positively state that what I believe **by faith** is true, and because of that, I cannot, in good conscience, simply reject out of hand, those who challenge my position. When I can no longer honestly defend my position with scripture, I will change my position to one which I can honestly defend with scripture, and that is actually my goal in choosing to discuss my opinions with bible scholars who disagree with me...which is all that I have come across so far...LOL
If I came to this board to advance a theological position which I hold **by faith**, I would not be here to "discuss" theology, but to "teach" theology, and when one will not discuss with those who challenge his position, he is neither a debater, nor an evangelist, regardless of what his "board name" is.
To "believe by faith", is basicly the same as to "have an opinion", and I am always happy to share my "beliefs by faith" and their scriptural evidence, with anyone...you included...LOL
Incidently, while one may choose who you will discuss with; when he makes statements on a public discussion board, he should feel an obligation to discuss with whoever responds to his statement.




Provoker wrote:


You would forbid me to evangelize on a "THEOLOGY webboard" of all places!

You charge me with dishonesty in this matter, even though my webboard name is EVANGELIST!

You would also have me respect your opinions, when you are clearly at odds with the gospel message I bring here.

I will have none of it. I rebuke you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I chose not to engage you in discussion from the beginning of this thread, because I suspected that you are really a servant of the other side, an opposer of the true gospel, and a genuine enemy of the faith. You have confirmed my initial diagnosis by your own words. Enough said.

Galatians 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Hello Paul:
While the man who has faith will naturally speak of the things he believes by faith, as true, the very fact that he believes "by faith", and not "by knowledge", means that he cannot, and does not, "Know" that what he believes is true. Consider the thousands of doctrinally disagreeing sects of Christianity; all have faith that their doctrines are correct, but the very fact that each believes something different, means that having faith does not necessarily mean that what one believes is true.
One can honestly believe an established creed/statement of faith, but when he **commits** to a creed, or a statement of faith, he essentially closes his mind, and no longer has **the spirit of truth** which is a commitment to seek the truth of God.
I cannot, and will not, positively state that what I believe **by faith** is true, and because of that, I cannot, in good conscience, simply reject out of hand, those who challenge my position. When I can no longer honestly defend my position with scripture, I will change my position to one which I can honestly defend with scripture, and that is actually my goal in choosing to discuss my opinions with bible scholars who disagree with me...which is all that I have come across so far...LOL
If I came to this board to advance a theological position which I hold **by faith**, I would not be here to "discuss" theology, but to "teach" theology, and when one will not discuss with those who challenge his position, he is neither a debater, nor an evangelist, regardless of what his "board name" is.
To "believe by faith", is basicly the same as to "have an opinion", and I am always happy to share my "beliefs by faith" and their scriptural evidence, with anyone...you included...LOL
Incidently, while one may choose who you will discuss with; when he makes statements on a public discussion board, he should feel an obligation to discuss with whoever responds to his statement.

For the record Provoker;

I started this thread to discuss what I believe to be resolution of the long running Calvinist/Arminian debate. I was seeking interaction from other believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, not from persons like yourself who are unable to give an answer of the hope that lies within them.

You at once offered a diversion to an entirely different topic, that being your notions about "kingdom theology". I did not start this thread to discuss such things. Go start another thread on that topic, and discuss it to your hearts content with whoever engages you. I will not be one of them, at least not for the present.

You say you have the Spirit of truth, when others do not; and yet you admit that you cannot give an answer as to why God should let you into heaven if you were summoned to meet Him in the next 60 seconds. How can you say that you have the Spirit of truth when that very Spirit speaks of the Believers ability to know for sure that they have eternal life? Witness the following passages.

Romans 8 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

1 John 5 13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=3&verse=15&version=9&context=verse)
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I am not uncertain about why God should let me into His heaven should I be called to meet Him in the next 60 seconds, because my only claim to glory is simply "the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanseth me from all sin". You have no such certainty, or else you would have been glad to answer the question I posed some several posts back. You have the spirit of uncertainty IMO. You do not have the Spirit of Truth.

I am a self-described "fisher of men", and the "Unified view" which I have proposed was merely a tool in my tackle box so to speak, which I thought might be useful to that end. If you have honest questions, I do indeed have honest answers. But first, I need to hear your answer as to what you would say to God if indeed you had to meet Him in the next 48 hours.

Give me now in 30 words or less, what your claim to heaven really is. Bernie, you can join in as well if you like. Take a couple of days to respond if you need to, but please give some kind of an answer. As persons professing faith in God, surely you can come up with something.


Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
With all due respect Paul, we who are qualified to post on this board, are not restricted by your unstated whims or desires. If you, claiming first to have come here to evangelize, and convert people, and now claiming to have come here looking for discussion with Christians, are not prepared to defend your stated postion against a challenge which extends outside your comfort zone, then you should not make public statements on a public board.
While you seem to have the bible all divided up into well fenced compartments, I see the bible as one continuous story from cover to cover, and "the kingdom", is an essential part of the doctrines of both Calvin and Arminius, and it is my opinion that they both had it wrong.
I am prepared to show you, from your own bible, why I believe Calvin and Arminius were wrong about the kingdom, and why an attempt to unify their doctrines would only compound the error.
When one makes a statement on a public discussion board, he should accept his responsibility to respond to any honest challenge, without whining, or inventing reasons to run away.
If you ever decide that you would like to find out how the uncloistered read the bible, I will still be happy to discuss any bible subject with you...LOL




For the record Provoker;

I started this thread to discuss what I believe to be resolution of the long running Calvinist/Arminian debate. I was seeking interaction from other believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, not from persons like yourself who are unable to give an answer of the hope that lies within them.

You at once offered a diversion to an entirely different topic, that being your notions about "kingdom theology". I did not start this thread to discuss such things. Go start another thread on that topic, and discuss it to your hearts content with whoever engages you. I will not be one of them, at least not for the present.

You say you have the Spirit of truth, when others do not; and yet you admit that you cannot give an answer as to why God should let you into heaven if you were summoned to meet Him in the next 60 seconds. How can you say that you have the Spirit of truth when that very Spirit speaks of the Believers ability to know for sure that they have eternal life? Witness the following passages.

Romans 8 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

1 John 5 13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=3&verse=15&version=9&context=verse)
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I am not uncertain about why God should let me into His heaven should I be called to meet Him in the next 60 seconds, because my only claim to glory is simply "the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanseth me from all sin". You have no such certainty, or else you would have been glad to answer the question I posed some several posts back. You have the spirit of uncertainty IMO. You do not have the Spirit of Truth.

I am a self-described "fisher of men", and the "Unified view" which I have proposed was merely a tool in my tackle box so to speak, which I thought might be useful to that end. If you have honest questions, I do indeed have honest answers. But first, I need to hear your answer as to what you would say to God if indeed you had to meet Him in the next 48 hours.

Give me now in 30 words or less, what your claim to heaven really is. Bernie, you can join in as well if you like. Take a couple of days to respond if you need to, but please give some kind of an answer. As persons professing faith in God, surely you can come up with something.


Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Stop and think about what you are saying here Provoker. You have admitted that you cannot give an answer as to why God should let you into His heaven should you be called to meet him in the next 60 seconds or even 48 hours; and yet you tell me that you can set me straight about what the Bible is really all about! There's just no gentle way to tell you that you cannot think logically. Why do you bother to post here at all?

You are not ready to meet God Provoker. You cannot answer the most basic question about how a man is to get into heaven. You are destitute of logic. You have no answers for yourself, and therefore you have no answers for anyone else either. I will not respond to anymore of your posts unless you first give an answer to the question I have posed to you twice over now.

Here now for the third and final time, "If you were summoned to meet God today, what would you present to Him as your personal claim of access into His heaven?"

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Stop and think about what you are saying here Provoker. You have admitted that you cannot give an answer as to why God should let you into His heaven should you be called to meet him in the next 60 seconds or even 48 hours; and yet you tell me that you can set me straight about what the Bible is really all about! There's just no gentle way to tell you that you cannot think logically. Why do you bother to post here at all?

You are not ready to meet God Provoker. You cannot answer the most basic question about how a man is to get into heaven. You are destitute of logic. You have no answers for yourself, and therefore you have no answers for anyone else either. I will not respond to anymore of your posts unless you first give an answer to the question I have posed to you twice over now.

Here now for the third and final time, "If you were summoned to meet God today, what would you present to Him as your personal claim of access into His heaven?"

Paul M. Blackmore
Hello Paul:
OK, I'll play your little game...LOL
The way your question is worded suggests that you have a completely different interpretation of what heaven is, and how one gets into heaven, than I do, and your insistance that I answer, means that I must expound on the bible context from which I get my opinion...sorry...LOL
If God is a spirit, and if God is omnipresent, then He does not reside in one specific location called heaven, unless heaven is everywhere. We are told in scripture, that spirits, including God, reside in hearts and minds, and so we can establish that heaven must be a metaphore for hearts and minds. Not individual hearts and minds however, but heaven would appear to be the spiritual place which exists only in the hearts and minds of all the people worldwide, who share the same spirit of Israel, of the messiah, of the kingdom, etc, in their hearts and minds. In other words, "heaven" may be a metaphore for the combined hearts and minds of those who share the same spirit.
When the messiah appears, he will have metaphoricly come down from where he previously resided in spirit...the hearts and minds of those messianic people who watched and waited for him. When the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is finally resurrected according to prophecy, it will have metaphoricly come down from where it resided in in spirit, as "the kingdom" of heaven(the kingdom of hearts and minds).
Jerusalem, made new by the fact that is again in the hands of covenant Israel, will metaphoricly come down from where it has existed in spirit(hearts and minds/heaven). The conquering christ will make his **triumphal entry into Jerusalem**(metaphoricaly consumating the marriage between the annointed Davidic saviour and his metaphorical bride), the resurrection of the covenant, Davidic kingdom of Israel will be complete, and all the spiritual things which only resided in hearts and minds(heaven) will have metaphoricly come down to earth.
So Paul, I hope that you can see why it is not a simple thing for me to respond to your question, which appears to be based completely on a preconceived interpretation of heaven, which I happen to disagree with. Discussion is necessary to discover what and why another believes, so that one does not Judge another by his failure to answer questions which are only valid questions in his own doctrinal circles.
When someone, who was known for his devotion to the gospel of the kingdom, dies, his spirit(fond memories of him) enters the hearts and minds of those of like spirit, thus he metaphoricly went to heaven.
There are "verses" which say that when one dies, he will never have a part in anything which takes place under the sun again, and also that one's reward is in the memory of those who survive him, but since I do not subscribe to the use of single verses to prove doctrine, I will leave leave them to you to find, and/or interpret.



literal fulfillment of something which was specificly watched and waited for by all those who share the same spirit. In other words, since all those, who have the spirit of
God, are watching and waiting for the kingdom to be resurrected, the spirit of the kingdom is in heaven(the kingdom of heaven), and when the kingdom is literally resurrected, it will, metaphoricly, have come down from heaven.

[Evangelist]

Hebrews 9:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&verse=27&version=9&context=verse)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Matthew 12:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=36&version=9&context=verse)
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Romans 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

I find it horrificly ironic, that you should base your whole thesis of denial of the literal meaning of plainly written Bible verses, on the doctrine of "Divine Omnipresence". As a Biblical literalist, I cannot use the term "Divine Omnipresence" any more than I can use the term "Divine Omnicience", because neither one are true in the absolute sense of the word. How ironic that you should use these man-made, non-Biblical terms to metaphorize at will, every passage and verse in God's Word which does not harmonize with the lie you have been taught. This is astounding, absolutely astounding to me!

I suppose one could say that you have bet your very soul against the flames of a literal hell, or the joys of a literal place called heaven as the case may be, because you believe that Divine Omnipresence is actually true.

Having placed such a bet, let me ask you this. Can you defend the teaching of Divine Omnicience from the Bible?:whistle: You've bet your very soul that it is true, yes? Do you just assume that Divine Omnicience is fact, or can you prove it from Scripture? Does the Spirit of God indwell the heart of the demon possessed for example?

I await your answer.:twitch:

Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hello Paul:
Relax Paul, this is just discussion...LOL
If your were to go back and re-read my post, you would find that I refered to God's "omnipresence" with an "IF", and I did not say that I believed in God's omnipresence. I was simply making an arguement which would be understood by an orthodox believer. It is my fault for assuming that you would be a believer in God's omnipresence:-)
I don't gamble anything on my current scriptural opinions, because I keep an open mind, and a commitment to seeking the truth of scripture. Those who have committed themselves to a creed, or a statement of faith, are the gamblers, because they have closed their minds, and stifled the spirit of truth.
My hypothesis is based on the consecutive order of scripturally recorded historical events, as they relate to the text which connects these events to each other, and to the continuous story that the consecutive order of events reveals, and as it all relates to the implied beliefs of the bible characters.
In other words, theology based on context, but without using the big academic words...LOL
Would you like me to post a different arguement leading to the same conclusion? Scripture is full of evidence.


Hebrews 9:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&verse=27&version=9&context=verse)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Matthew 12:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=36&version=9&context=verse)
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Romans 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

I find it horrificly ironic, that you should base your whole thesis of denial of the literal meaning of plainly written Bible verses, on the doctrine of "Divine Omnipresence". As a Biblical literalist, I cannot use the term "Divine Omnipresence" any more than I can use the term "Divine Omnicience", because neither one are true in the absolute sense of the word. How ironic that you should use these man-made, non-Biblical terms to metaphorize at will, every passage and verse in God's Word which does not harmonize with the lie you have been taught. This is astounding, absolutely astounding to me!

I suppose one could say that you have bet your very soul against the flames of a literal hell, or the joys of a literal place called heaven as the case may be, because you believe that Divine Omnipresence is actually true.

Having placed such a bet, let me ask you this. Can you defend the teaching of Divine Omnicience from the Bible?:whistle: You've bet your very soul that it is true, yes? Do you just assume that Divine Omnicience is fact, or can you prove it from Scripture? Does the Spirit of God indwell the heart of the demon possessed for example?

I await your answer.:twitch:

Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Provoker wrote:
but heaven would appear to be the spiritual place which exists only in the hearts and minds of all the people worldwide


Hebrews 9


8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:



You have it completely backwards Provoker. Everything connected to the Old Covenant was merely a figure of the the true! The Old Testament worship, the tabernacle, the furniture, the sacrifices, were all patterned after the real thing which is in heaven. Yes heaven, that place where God dwells!

How can you relax and take it easy, when you have bet your soul against the reality of heaven, against the reality of hell, and against the boatloads of Scripture that testify to the existence of these places? The very foundation that you claim to have for rejecting such things "the Old Covenent etc.", is clearly shown in the whole of the book of Hebrews to be merely a foreshadowing and a prefiguring of the great heavenly realities that have now come to light in Christ.

You mind is not open at all. You metaphorize at will and deny at will. How can you say your mind is open? You claim Divine Omnipresence as the justification for this metaphorization of yours, and then you turn around and say that you don't believe in Divine Omnipresence.:lolo:

How say you now, given the Biblical evidence from the book of Hebrews, that your "Old Covenant" was the thing that was only symbolic, and merely a copy, or a figure of the true things which are in heaven?

:uhoh:


Paul M. Blackmore

[Provoker]

Hell Paul:
I have been trying to tell you Paul, that I do not consider selected individual verses, and/or passages, as scripture, in the strict sense of the word. The great majority of scripture is narrative, and therefore individual verses are not intended to stand alone, but are intended to be understood according to what their part is in the grand scheme which the story reveals.
Everything you have offered me has been selected single verses, or passages, lifted from the greater context of all the scripture, and quoted as if each told a whole story, and you don't seem to be at all aware of the continuously flowing, extremely logical, complete bible story, which contradicts your single verse based preconceptions.
You must remember, that because of a conflict in composition rules, neither Hebrew, nor Greek, can be translated word for word, into each other, or into English, and translators must first interpret scripture, before they can paraphrase the meaning into the new language. There is little doubt that the translators interpreted the meaning of the originals, according to their own doctrinal beliefs, or the doctrinal beliefs of their employers. The other thing which must be remembered is, that virtually every bible word which refers to any "religous" event, function, ritual, etc, etc, has not actually been translated, but simply "transliterated", which as you know, does nothing to convey meaning, but simply allows an Anglophone to more or less pronounce the unknown foreign words.
The "church" has redefined these untranslated words, to make them fit into preconceived church dogma, and that is why an honest bible scholar must lean very heavily on the real meaning of transliterated words, and the greater context of the complete continuous bible story, to understand the nuances of the text.
The point is, that our English bibles have been interpretively paraphrased, and only partially translated.
It is not as simple as simply quoting a verse and saying; "now you have the proof".

=====================Original message======================
Provoker wrote:



Hebrews 9


8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:



You have it completely backwards Provoker. Everything connected to the Old Covenant was merely a figure of the the true! The Old Testament worship, the tabernacle, the furniture, the sacrifices, were all patterned after the real thing which is in heaven. Yes heaven, that place where God dwells!

How can you relax and take it easy, when you have bet your soul against the reality of heaven, against the reality of hell, and against the boatloads of Scripture that testify to the existence of these places? The very foundation that you claim to have for rejecting such things "the Old Covenent etc.", is clearly shown in the whole of the book of Hebrews to be merely a foreshadowing and a prefiguring of the great heavenly realities that have now come to light in Christ.

You mind is not open at all. You metaphorize at will and deny at will. How can you say your mind is open? You claim Divine Omnipresence as the justification for this metaphorization of yours, and then you turn around and say that you don't believe in Divine Omnipresence.:lolo:

How say you now, given the Biblical evidence from the book of Hebrews, that your "Old Covenant" was the thing that was only symbolic, and merely a copy, or a figure of the true things which are in heaven?

:uhoh:


Paul M. Blackmore

[Evangelist]

Note to Provoker:

Your last post bears witness to the bald fact that you haven't got a single shred of Biblical evidence to back up your claim that heaven and hell are not real places.

You have not got a verse, a passage, a chapter, a book, an Old Testament, a New Testament, or a Bible to back you up here. Your position is soundly, Biblically, and therefore authoritatively defeated!:bonk:

You have bet your soul on a position that you have no logical or Biblical reason to believe in. Surely your mouth will be stopped when you at last face the God of heaven and earth, and are confronted with the reality of an eternal existence that you chose to deny during your lifetime.:nc:

If you will not accept proof from the Bible re: the gross falsehood of your position, there is no hope for you whatsoever. Heaven and Hell are real my friend, and you had best retune your spiritual antennae to deal with this fact. Bail out of the cult that has taught you the current beliefs that you hold, and turn to Christ and His shed blood for the remission of your sins.

Luke 16:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&verse=23&version=9&context=verse)
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Titus 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=63&chapter=1&verse=11&version=9&context=verse)
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not,

[Provoker]

Note to Provoker:

Your last post bears witness to the bald fact that you haven't got a single shred of Biblical evidence to back up your claim that heaven and hell are not real places.

You have not got a verse, a passage, a chapter, a book, an Old Testament, a New Testament, or a Bible to back you up here. Your position is soundly, Biblically, and therefore authoritatively defeated!:bonk:

You have bet your soul on a position that you have no logical or Biblical reason to believe in. Surely your mouth will be stopped when you at last face the God of heaven and earth, and are confronted with the reality of an eternal existence that you chose to deny during your lifetime.:nc:

If you will not accept proof from the Bible re: the gross falsehood of your position, there is no hope for you whatsoever. Heaven and Hell are real my friend, and you had best retune your spiritual antennae to deal with this fact. Bail out of the cult that has taught you the current beliefs that you hold, and turn to Christ and His shed blood for the remission of your sins.

Luke 16:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&verse=23&version=9&context=verse)
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Titus 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=63&chapter=1&verse=11&version=9&context=verse)
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not,
Hello Evangelist:
Presumably, we are not here to preach, teach, or judge, but to discuss "unorthodox theology". Simply dismissing my opinions out of hand, is not theological discussion...LOL
If you would rebut my opinions with an arguement based in bible context, we could have a nice discussion of "unorthodox theology".
Let me suggest to you, that when a book, written by several different authors, at several different times and places, contains a story which maintains continuity throughout, that book will never be understood if the story is not recognized and considered.
When one reads a story, he follows the text from the beginning to the conclusion. When he retells the story, he relates the events in chronological order, so that the listener can see exactly how the progression of events leads to the conclusion.
When I offer my opinion on a particular biblical event, I simply relate the order of biblical events chronologicly, showing how the position of the event in question, contributes to the natural progression of the story.
I must say that it completely boggles my mind, that someone who bases his beliefs on the bible, is so completely shocked by my simple, logical, honest, method of interpreting scripture...LOL