New Calvinistic song

It's a good thing that a balanced reading of the bible will yield both calvanistic and arminian interpretations of salvation.

I've been reading a lot of DL Moody recently, and he was very much an Arminian, during one of his sermons he talked about people's doubts that they cannot accept Christ because they are not pre-destined. His answer to that was, paraphrased 'Jesus stands at the door and knocks, if you open the door He will have a meal with you... do not tell me that Christ is not knocking at the door of your heart, *knocking his hand on the podium as if a door* if you have heard this sound, you have heard His knocking, to refuse Him entry is the primary selfish act that will deny you your salvation.'

Compliments,

In response to John 6:65 I counter with 2 Peter 3:9 [i]The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, [b]not willing that any should perish[/b], but that all should come to repentance[/i].

God has by this verse predestined everyone, it is our own free will to deny this relationship.

The bible can be read and understood to be correct by either a Calvanist or a Arminian, but in doing so, both parties deny clearly contradictory verses.

In regard to the trinity, the decision was made during the early ecumenical councels to adopt an approach of 'mystery.' I.E. no ammount of human speculation or formulation can fully understand all the workings of God with regards to his persons.

The same balanced approach needs to be taken in regard to predestination, we could quote verses to eachother all day supporting one party over another, but the truth of the matter is that these verses are all in the bible -so how should they be read? They should be read in light of eachother, and the conclusion is: we just can't know.

And if we just can't know, how should we respond? We shouldn't separate ourselves by parties in regards to a doctrine that we cannot be sure of. I think it was AW Tozer that said 'I'd rather be an Arminian than a dead Calvanist' and Paul Washer said something to the effect of 'If I was going to start a church and had to decide between 10 Arminians and 100 Calvanists, I would choose the 10 Arminians.' I also heard someone once say that 'In the closet when I am on my face before God, I am a Calvanist because I cannot deny the omnipotence of God, but when I am preaching the Gospel I am an Arminian, because that is the way that Jesus introduced Himself to man.'

AW Tozer in his book 'Knowledge of the Holy' works in one of the chapters to reconcile Calvanism with Arminianism in an illustration. We are all traveling on a boat in one direction, towards God, and our decision to stay on that boat or jump off into the water is our own free will, Arminianism.

When the bible apparently contradicts itself there is usually more to the story than 'these verses are right and these verses are wrong.' I challenge anyone who is a Arminian to read the bible as a Calvanist, and anyone who is a Calvanist to read the bible as an Arminian. Without knowledge of both sides of the the coin of salvation we are unprepared for what the world may bring at us.

Calvanistic churches tend to die slow painful deaths because they do not have strong evangelical principles to keep them growing. Arminian churches flirt with heresy because they often put too much within man's power in regards to his salvation and sanctification... there is a balance in between.

Apostle Paul wrote Romans, so he must have been an Calvanist, but he was also a great missionary taking the word to all manner of people, so he must have been an Arminian. Whatever you're looking to find you will find... if you look at Paul through the lenses of an Arminian you will see an Arminian zealous missionary, if you look at him through the eyes of a Calvanist you will see a staunch Calvanist. But we would be denying Paul his true identity, which is somewhere in between.

We need to stop reading our bibles with party glasses on.

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? Actually, this is very good - if you have a sense of humor. The point is very well taken. I love it!

ginnyrose

PS: Writing any more songs, or poetry? Give us more - and be sure to include satire or sarcasm! (Remember God used these approaches to challenge people - can be found in Isaiah.)

HI everyone.

Ginnyrose,

"Remember God used these approaches to challenge people - can be found in Isaiah"

[i]...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.[/i]

by iansmith on 2007/12/27 9:20:50

We need to stop reading our bibles with party glasses on.

i like the quote (can't remember it that great) that says something like:

pray like a calvinist and preach like an arminian.

we would do well to be balanced in this issue.

phil

Ok, so here's an Arminian song-

And now, the end is here
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I'll say it clear
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain
I've lived a life that's full
I traveled each and ev'ry highway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way

Regrets, I've had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way

I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say, not in a shy way,
"Oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way"

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!

While I'm here, allow me to ask you all a question. When the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, was it against their "free will"?

I mean they probably wanted to continue living and harming the Israelites right? But their will was never allowed to decide their fate, and God never checked with them to make sure He could drown them first.

How about the Pharisees? Didn't they want Jesus to remain dead? Did God run it by them first and get their permission to raise Christ?

No? How dare He inflict His will upon them!!

Seriously, I am shocked by the lack of any Biblical exegesis used to disprove Calvinism, and no simply quoting 2 Peter 3:9 does not clear up anything. Anyone can take a verse out of context and make it say anything. This verse in its context is written to "the elect", and Peter is letting them know, that none of the elect shall perish, but will come to repentance.

To make is mean that God wills for every human that has ever lived to come to repentance is not the logical or Scriptural conclusion. If so, then we see God as a deranged fool who though he wanted Pharaoh to come to repentance then goes on to say, "I created you for this very purpose."(Which was not salvation)

We also have Judas Iscariot who Jesus said was "the son of perdition", and that he(Judas) was fulfilling Scripture by being just that.

Seems God does what He wants with whom He wants, when He wants. Why? Because all things are created by Him, for Him, and for His glory, He is God, we are not.

Why is it none of you can keep from adding your log to the fire.

So long as you do don't claim you're burning something for the Lord.

I don't know why you want so much to be known as a Calvinist?

Sister I could care less about being known as a Calvinist.

What upsets me is the condescending, and oft times humiliating way in which men who hold to Reformed, Lutheran, or Calvinist ideas are treated here.

It's as if only those who agree with Finney and Wesley are allowed to say anything, and anyone speaking to the contrary are shunned or poo-pooed into thinking they are the "heretics", when in truth, 500 or so years ago the men that are so heralded by many here would have been branded as heretics.

There is no common ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, nor does Scripture teach this. Sadly we all use the same terms with different meanings. For example when I speak of grace, I mean God's regenerating, and sustaining work in a person's heart.

The Arminian has more of a Roman Catholic view of grace, that being something a person must cooperate with in order for it be effective.

When we speak of justification, we speak of two different ideas. I say justification is a once for all declaration of innocence which is made real by faith. Whereas the Arminian would say justification is only as good as the person's sanctification. Again this is more inline with Roman Catholic doctrine than Scripture.

The blatant disregard for serious exegesis(taking out from the text), and the heralding of isogesis(reading into, or putting into the text) is absolutely mind boggling.

Maybe it's time I go, I don't know. I have and do enjoy many of the brethren here. But I see a very dangerous trend developing here that was common in the times of Luther and Calvin.

The idea that no one needs to be taught, and that God can speak to individuals, and they can be the sole interpreter of what is being said without any regard for Biblical truth, or being consistent with the Bible's teaching is dangerous. Sadly I in the past followed such ways, and have realized that it led me to more rebellion than anything else. I became one who "got it", while others did not.

People filled my ears with garbage about me being a prophet, and blah, blah, blah....

And I failed miserably at everything my hand touched. All praise to Him who caused this failure, for had He not, I surely would have been lost because I was trusting in my works, and not His work alone.

He has saved me! Not because I am good, or because I made a decision for Him. But because He fore-loved me while I was yet a sinner. All I brought to the equation was my sin, and damnation.

Blessings and grace to you.

I prefer this Calvinistic song by Cowper...

"There is a fountain filled with blood"

There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.

The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.
Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;
And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.

Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.

E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.

Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lies silent in the grave, lies silent in the grave;
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.

Lord, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be,
For me a blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!
’Tis strung and tuned for endless years, and formed by power divine,
To sound in God the Father’s ears no other name but Thine.

I prefer this Calvinistic song by Cowper...

"There is a fountain filled with blood"

ps can we please just call it a christian's song? do we have to put a label on it? oh, i hope not.

thanks again mike,
phil

Roaringlamb,

[b]This got my sympathy[/b]: 'What upsets me is the condescending, and oft times humiliating way in which men who hold to Reformed, Lutheran, or Calvinist ideas are treated here.'

[b]Then this lost it[/b]: 'The Arminian has more of a Roman Catholic view of grace, that being something a person must cooperate with in order for it be effective.'

Paul Washer said that in his prayer he was a Calvinist and in his preaching he was an Arminian, I have to agree that I feel the same way. I'm not going to deny either one, but there is a balance to both. You're so quick to plead for sympathy, then rashly you trash talk the other party.

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' I think that's a primary teaching of our Lord. If you want the respect of others, give them more respect, maybe more than they deserve. [b]Until you can show respect to others, don't complain that you don't recieve any[/b].

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, I think that's a primary teaching of our Lord. If you want the respect of others, give them more respect, maybe more than they deserve. Until you can do that, don't complain.

Brother Ian, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it would be a lie to call it any thing other than a duck.

The truth is the truth, Arminians as well as Roman Catholics subscribe to Prevenient grace which must be cooperated with in order for a man to begin his salvation. Then, he must be sanctified in order to be justified.

Sad, but we have lost alot of ground in the last 500 years, and in the wrong direction.

Grace and peace to you

I was raised Catholic and have been involved in both Arminian and Reformed Evangelical communities as a protestant... from what I know of my 'faith' as a child and what is practiced in the Arminian branch of the protestant church, there are no such similarities as you have described.

You are slandering hundreds of thousands of Christians with your words.

You talk about everyone interpretting the scripture as they see fit, well what are you doing? Who made you the expert that we should all turn to? Who made you the Holy Spirit?

You are too bold, you are out of line.

You are too bold, you are out of line.

Brother can you tell me then the difference between the idea of grace in the Catholic and Arminian views?

Both start with man alive ans able to do all that God has commanded, and he only needs some help to get on the path, but man must keep himself there. I don't think I have misrepresented anything here have I?

I think I'm beginning to understand something about those who settle on calling themselves 'Calvinists'... It seems they are people who have a large measure of natural ability, - go-getters, doers, never-say-diers, triers and try againers - and by the time God has separated them from their efforts,

Yes but this is everyone of us. We think we can do what God requires, we are not poor in Spirit but rather haughty and proud. we want to be our own gods, our own rulers.

It is in His great mercy that God then out of the rebellious race of man chooses out people for Himself, and changes them to see their great and moment by moment need of Him.

Roaring,

Do you actually know what Arminians believe, or do you just repeat what you've heard?

Can I save or sanctify myself? No, it's only by the Blood of Jesus! Why do I follow the commands of God, why do I obey, because I love my savior!

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

There is an action on the part of all parties involved in this verse. 'If a man love me.' Jesus first loved me, but I must reciprocate my love for him... how? Through obedience to his words. And both Jesus and the Father will love me, and they will live with me. Action on behalf of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.

But somewhere in the mixed up jumble there is an action on behalf of man. I just cannot see any other way for that verse to make sense.

Brother Ian,

here are two Canons from the Council of Trent. Of course the Roman Catholic Church still regards this as their standard of doctrine, so that is why I post it.

[i]Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.

Canon XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life— if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema.[/i]

In their estimation, grace is something that must be increased in order to earn justification. the way to increase grace is to do works, or cooperate with grace. In the end, a man is th one who determines if he will be justified or not.

The Arminians are not much different than this. Consider this rejection of the Arminian teachings from the Canons of Dort-

[i]IX

We reject those who teach that grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede--in the order of causality--the effective influence of the will;that is to say,that God does not effectively help man's will to come to conversion before man's will itself motivates and determines itself.

For the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians, on the basis of the words of the apostle: It does not depend on man's willing or running but on God's mercy (Rom. 9:16); also: Who makes you different from anyone else? and What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7); likewise: It is God who works in you to will and act according to his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).[/i]

They are similar, because they have a similar root- the denial of man being dead in sin, and capable of doing what God requires in his natural state.

It's funny because I could have come on here, and continued the mud flinging upon Calvinists and no one would have cared.

Why is that? Why are there no admonitions against the one who started the thread, but rather "atta boys", and a seeming acceptance of the put down?

This thread reminds me of the discussions between the Pharisees and the Saducees...

I believe it was old Vance Havner who said,"why don't we just be Christians".

Any time we start hyperventilating over the doctrines of ANY man we get our attention drawn away from Christ. Labels or advocations to certain doctrines is not what is going to get us to heaven, but obedience to Christ. Otherwise there is a whole lot of folk that would be considered terribly ignorant and "roared" away into hell that do not know the difference between
Arminian and Calvinism but have certainly fallen in love with Christ enough hear HIS voice.

Peace,

Clint

I ate at Taco Bell last night.

Wait a minute, you're trying to define modern Arminians by what was written against them by Calvinists 388 years ago. Certainly you must maintain that there might have been a bias on behalf of the Synod of Dort.

Define an Arminian by how he defines himself, not by how a Calvanistic group defined them hundreds of years ago.

I was saved by grace through faith, upon accepting Christ I was filled with the Holy Spirit, any good works that have been done on my behalf are fruits of the Spirits work within me.

That is why they are called 'fruits of the Spirit.' Fruits do not grow without a tree.

Without being grafted onto the true vine I cannot bear any good fruit. In John 15 it says that apart from Jesus I can do nothing.

But there are also verses, as the ones that have been listed that show that there is an element of choice on my behalf as to whether or not I accept God's free gift of Grace. That is the difference between an Arminian and a Calvanist, I chose to accept His grace, or God chose that I should choose to accept His grace.

Miccah,

I just had tacos from a taco-truck here in Seattle with some of my coworkers, 4 tacos and a drink for $5 even. Such a great deal. They put a slice of avacado on each taco.

It was a little cold today, since the only seating is at picnic tables, and its snowing.

And I thank him for food in Louisiana too! :-)

LittleGift,

The most contentious arguement between Arminians and Calvinists is about the nature of predestination.

There's a t-shirt that you can buy online that I think explains it pretty well. On the front it says 'Arminianism: I Chose this T-shirt' and on the back it says 'Calvanism: This T-shirt Chose me.' I hate to simplify it that much, but since some of you folks don't know, it might make more sense to break it down to its most basics.

Arminians believe in the free will of man to make a decision for salvation. Ultimately without free will, we would all be robots incapable of love, simple cogs in a galactic machine -whether or not we are saved is purely the will of God. There are many verses that support man's free will to believe and follow God in the bible.

Calvanists believe that God is Almighty, something that Arminians believe also, but Calvinists take it the next step and say, 'since God is all knowing, He has always known who would accept him and who wouldn't. And since he is allpowerful, His picked those that would accept him and those would reject him, because nothing can be outside of the will of God.' Most Arminians would find fault with this because it would mean that some people are destined to go to Hell from birth, that there was never hope for their souls. This goes in complete opposition with many bible verses, although there are plenty of bible verses that do support God's allpowerfulness etc.

So do we choose or does He choose...

Revelation 3:20 [b] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if [u]any man[/u] hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me[/b].

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

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, [u]that whosoever believeth in him should not perish[/u], but have everlasting life.

Any man, any, whosoever... doesn't sound like God picks favorites.

There's a t-shirt that you can buy online that I think explains it pretty well. On the front it says 'Arminianism: I Chose this T-shirt' and on the back it says 'Calvanism: This T-shirt Chose me.'

that made me laugh

Wait a minute, you're trying to define modern Arminians by what was written against them by Calvinists 388 years ago. Certainly you must maintain that there might have been a bias on behalf of the Synod of Dort.

This is what has defined Arminian thought for the last few hundred years, and is the first time they put forth their beliefs, so why not start at the source?

And no there was no bias, the Synod was held at the request of the Arminians as an avenue to put forth their ideas. Many hours, and many months later, all of their ideas were found contrary to Scripture, and declared as heresy.

But there are also verses, as the ones that have been listed that show that there is an element of choice on my behalf as to whether or not I accept God's free gift of Grace. That is the difference between an Arminian and a Calvanist, I chose to accept His grace, or God chose that I should choose to accept His grace.

Even the remotest urge to seek God comes from Him working in us. Left to our own devices, we would rather sin and hide from the light. That is why God saves men in spite of themselves by changing their hearts.

For instance, I can tell my cat, "if you open the food container, you may eat."

My cat cannot open it as it is an airtight container, and he would need thumbs to do so. But the truth of the matter is that if he could open it, he could eat.

Because I love him, I open it and scoop out food for him, because he cannot do it himself.

Another example would be if a man desired to carry a baby. No matter how much his will sought after it, he is by nature unable to perform that which he desires. Of course if his nature were changed(not by surgery ;-) )he could do it.

God calls us to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but man cannot do that on his own, because it is contrary to the nature of man to do so.

Compliments,

If you go back and read earlier verses I have been argueing for balance since the beginning. I would say that I'm 50/50 on the Arminian/Calvanistic thing, both models work, and each one works better in some settings than others. All scripture is profitable, we just need to know what setting to use it in.

I do not dismiss the verse you have brought up, and I think I said earlier that it is a mystery how appartently contradictory verses work together. I'm just saying that RoaringLamb's accusations that Arminians are simply re-packaged catholics is wrong, misguided and uninformed. He's the one who picked the side, I was happy walking the narrow road between the sides.

Roaring,

BTW:

[i]Episcopius was chosen as the spokesman of the thirteen representatives of the Remonstrants before the synod; [b]but he was refused a hearing when he would not submit to the Synod's order of discussion[/b] -- which was for him to first present scriptural arguments for the Remonstrants' opinions. At the end of the Synod's sittings in 1619, Episcopius and the other twelve Arminian representatives were deprived of their offices and expelled from the country.[/i]

Doesn't sound like the Arminians were given a fair chance at the Synod of Dort... their appearance there was merely for show. They were not given a chance to defend themselves, which is why it was so easy for them to be labled as heretics, which you have already so aptly pointed out.

And no there was no bias, the Synod was held at the request of the Arminians as an avenue to put forth their ideas. Many hours, and many months later, all of their ideas were found contrary to Scripture, and declared as heresy. -Roaringlamb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

History is written by the winners huh...

History is written by the winners huh...

If you want to let wikipedia be the source for your Church History that is fine by me, but it would probably be better to find some more credible resources.

I mean there are some who say Luther died of syphilis, and simply propagate the lie so that people will remain enslaved to the Roman Church.

The fact of the Synod of Dordt is that the Remonstrants were put forth by the Arminians, who were in the minority as they were resurrecting Pelagianism. One must understand that in the minds of many in the Synod, this was a "here we go again" situation, so they saw it as it was.

The simple fact that the Synod lasted seven months and held 154 formal sessions in which both Episcopius and the other leader Johannes Bogerman were asked to leave as they were using various tactics to delay, and divide the Synod.

But in the end, we must settle upon which view lines up with Scripture, and represents God as He truly is, and man as he truly is.

See ya in Geneva ;-)

Again... that retreat is a choice which is made in the face of the full knowledge of God's existence. Faith is not a work.

The retreat is the default reaction of our natural birth. We like Adam and Eve would rather hide and accuse others than admit to our sin.

We cannot even understand that we have sinned against God until a new nature is instilled within us.

Faith is a result of the new birth and not the cause of it. Repentance also is a fruit of the new birth and not what ushers it in. I believe this is where you and I will have the most separation(maybe not, who knows :) )

So men will not come to the light because they are blind, and don't even want their eyes opened. That is why it is so amazing that God gives us all He requires, and Christ has perfectly fulfilled the Law and its demands for us as well.

Men are condemned because they will not come, but they also cannot come unless God gives them the ability to come. Whosoever will may come, but only those whom God enables will come.

The Biblical description of men is that they are dead, blind, deaf, slaves to Satan, enemies of God. They cannot change this as they are this by birth. Thus they must be re-born and receive a new nature, they must have their eyes opened, their ears opened, the chains removed etc. But only God can do that.

I think that this was a horrible thing for the pastor to say that they deserved to die. It is true that we all deserve hell. The true tragedy is that those in Africa who die everyday without the knowledge of Christ and his loving sacrifice to mankind. They will be going to hell, but how much more accountable are we for not taking the time to love them and tell them of Christ's sacrifice? That is what we should be remembering.

Calvinism, taken to its logical conclusion, would say that the cat cannot even eat of its own volition, so you will have to eat the food for him!.

That would be a misrepresentation of Calvinism though. To be more precise and true to Calvinism, I would change my cat's nature and enable him to feed himself.

Sister, it is funny because I am the last person to want the name Calvinist thrust upon me, and rather I would rather be called a Biblical Christian. But, I have put myself into this discussion as one, and for the continuation and ease of marking the parties involved, I will use the nick name.

Christ is our life, and He alone moment by moment sustains us and works in us that which is pleasing to our Father in Heaven.

Hi everyone.

Katy-Did,

It may be small consolation but I wanted to say I'm sorry that happened to you, what the pastor said and how it felt.

Chris

To be more precise and true to Calvinism, I would change my cat's nature and enable him to feed himself.

Well said.

Christ didn't actively choose for me. I was chosen in Him before the foundation of the world to receive a new nature, without which I would never have wanted anything besides my sin and self-righteousness. This new nature is like that of a newborn babe, which hungers after the milk of it's mother. The new nature I received, in that same moment freed me to hunger and thirst after righteousness by faith.

All who are set free are free indeed!

Compliments wrote:

He was once saved, no doubt about that.

Brother, what do you do with 1 John 2:19?

"They went out from us, but they [b]were not of us[/b]; for if they had been of us, they would [b]no doubt[/b] have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be [b]made manifest[/b] that [b]they were not all of us[/b]."

I do not deny that your JW friend may have at one time experienced the external workings and strivings of the Holy Spirit, to the extent of making him aware of the truth of the gospel in Christ, but I can be almost certain that he did not receive adoption into the family of God, or else he would continue in the light. May God grant mercy to his soul.

[u][b]Hebrews 6:4-6[/b][/u]

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

I am wondering because I do not know. How does Calvanism work with this verse? The writer says that it is impossible to renew once again after accepting, then falling away (paraphrase).

How can one fall away if they are predestined to be saved?

Brother,
This will be long, and I apologize for copying and pasting but I believe that this from A.W. Pink shades much light upon this text.

The whole of his Commentary on Hebrews may be found here-
[url=http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews.htm]An Expostion of Hebrews[/url]

[i]"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened" etc. (verse 4). Here the apostle continues the digression which he began at Hebrews 5:11. The parenthesis has two divisions: the first, Hebrews 5:11-14 is reprehensible; the second, Hebrews 6:1-20 is hortatory. In chapter 6 he exhorts the Hebrews unto two duties: to progress in the Christian course (verses 1-11); to persevere therein (verses 12-20). The first exhortation is proposed in verses 1,2 and qualified in verse 3. The motive to obedience is drawn from the danger of apostasy (verses 4-6). The opening "For" of verse 4 intimates the close connection of our present passage with that which immediately precedes. It draws a conclusion from what the apostle had been saying in Hebrews 5:11-14. It amplifies the "if" in verse 3. It points a most solemn warning against their continuance in their present sloth. It draws a terrible contrast from the possibility of verse 3. "The apostle regards the retrogression of the Hebrews with dismay. He sees in it the danger of an entire, confirmed, wilful, and irrecoverable apostasy from the truth. He beholds them on the brink of a precipice, and he therefore lifts up his voice, and with vehement yet loving earnestness he warns them against so fearful an evil" (Adolph Saphir).

Three things claim our careful attention in coming closer to our passage: the persons here spoken of, the sin they commit, the doom pronounced upon them. In considering the persons spoken of it is of first importance to note that the apostle does not say, "us who were once enlightened", nor even "you", instead, he says "those". In sharp contrast from them, he says to the Hebrews, "Beloved, we are persuaded better things of you".

"Afterwards, when the apostle comes to declare his hope and persuasion concerning these Hebrews that they were not such as those whom he had before described, nor such as would fall away unto perdition, he doth it upon three grounds whereon they were differenced from them as: 1. That they had such things as did ‘accompany salvation’; that is, such as salvation is inseparable from. None of these things therefore had he ascribed unto those whom he describeth in this place (verses 4-6); for if he had so done, they would not have been unto him an argument and evidence of a contrary end, that these should not fall away and perish as well as those. Wherefore he ascribes nothing to these here in the text that doth peculiarly ‘accompany salvation’. 2. He describes them by their duties of obedience and fruits of faith. This was their ‘work and labor of love’ towards the name of God, verse 10. And hereby, also, doth he differentiate them from those in the text, concerning whom he supposeth that they may perish eternally, which these fruits of saving faith and sincere love cannot do. 3. He adds, that, in the preservation of those there mentioned, the faithfulness of God was concerned: ‘God is not unrighteous to forget’. For they were such he intended as were interested in the covenant of grace, with respect whereunto alone there is any engagement on the faithfulness or righteousness of God to preserve men from apostasy and ruin; and there is so with an equal respect unto all who are so taken into the covenant. But of those in the text he supposeth no such thing; and thereupon doth not intimate that either the righteousness or faithfulness of God was anyway engaged for their preservation, but rather the contrary" (Dr. John Owen).

It is scarcely accurate to designate as "mere professors" those described in verses 4,5. They were a class who had enjoyed great privileges, beyond any such as now accompany the preaching of the Gospel. Those here portrayed are said to have had five advantages, which is in contrast from the six things enumerated in verses 1, 2, which things belong to man in the flesh, under Judaism. Five is the number of grace, and the blessings here mentioned pertain to the Christian dispensation. Yet were they not true Christians. This is evident from what is not said. Observe, they were not spoken of as God’s elect, as those for whom Christ died, as those who were born of the Spirit. They are not said to be justified, forgiven, accepted in the Beloved. Nor is anything said of their faith, love, or obedience. Yet these are the very things which distinguish a real child of God. First, they had been "enlightened". The Sun of righteousness had shone with healing in His wings, and, as Matthew 4:16 says, "The people which sat in darkness saw great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up". Unlike the heathen, whom Christ, in the days of His flesh, visited not, those who came under the sound of His voice were wondrously and gloriously illumined.

The Greek word for "enlightened" here signifies "to give light or knowledge by teaching". It is so rendered by the Septuagint in Judges 13:8, 2 Kings 12:2, 17:27. The apostle Paul uses it for "to make manifest", or "bring to light" in 1 Corinthians 4:5, 2 Timothy 1:10. Satan blinds the minds of those who believe not, lest "the light of the gospel should shine unto them" (2 Cor. 4:4), that is, give the knowledge of it. Thus, "enlightened" here means to be instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, so as to have a clear apprehension of it. In the parallel passage in Hebrews 10:26 the same people are said to have "received the knowledge of the truth", cf. also 2 Peter 2:20, 21. It is, however, only a natural knowledge of spiritual things, such as is acquired by outward hearing or reading; just as one may be enlightened by taking up the special study of one of the sciences. It falls far short of that spiritual enlightenment which transforms (2 Cor. 3:18). An illustration of a unregenerate person being "enlightened", as here, is found in the case of Balaam; Numbers 24:4.

Second, they had "tasted" of the heavenly gift. To "taste" is to have a personal experience of, in contrast from mere report. "Tasting does not include eating, much less digesting and turning into nourishment what is so tasted; for its nature being only thereby discerned it may be refused, yea, though we like its relish and savor, on some other consideration. The persons here described, then, are those who have to a certain degree understood and relished the revelation of mercy; like the stony-ground hearers they have received the Word with a transcient joy" (John Owen). The "tasting" is in contrast from the "eating" of John 6:50-56.

Opinion is divided as to whether the "heavenly gift" refers to the Lord Jesus or the person of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is not possible for us to be dogmatic on the point. Really, the difference is without a distinction, for the Spirit is here to glorify Christ, as He came from the Father by Christ as His ascension "Gift" to His people. If the reference be to the Lord Jesus, John 3:16, 4:10, etc., would be pertinent references: if to the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38, 8:20, 10:45, 11:17. Personally, we rather incline to the latter. This Divine Gift is here said to be "heavenly" because from Heaven, and leading to Heaven, in contrast from Judaism—cf. Acts 2:2, 1 Peter 1:12. Of this "Gift" these apostates had "tasted", or had an experience of: compare Matthew 27:34 where "tasting" is opposed to actual drinking. Those here in view had had an acquaintance with the Gospel, as to gain such a measure of its blessedness as to greatly aggravate their sin and doom. An illustration of this is found in Matthew 13:20, 21.

Third, they were "made partakers of the Holy Spirit". First, it should be pointed out that the Greek word for "partakers" here is a different one from that used in Colossians 1:12 and 2 Peter 1:4, where real Christians are in view. The word here simply means "companions", referring to what is external rather than internal. It is to be observed that this item is placed in the center of the five, and this because it describes the animating principle of the other four, which are all effects. These apostates had never been "born of the Spirit" (John 3:6), still less were their bodies His "temples" (1 Cor. 6:19). Nor do we believe this verse teaches that the Holy Spirit had, at any time, wrought within them, otherwise Philippians 1:6 would be contravened. It means that they had shared in the benefit of His supernatural operations and manifestations: "The place was shaken" (Acts 4:31) illustrates. We quote below from Dr. J. Brown:

"It is highly probable that the inspired writer refers primarily to the miraculous gifts and operations of the Holy Spirit by which the primitive dispensation of Christianity was administered. These gifts were by no means confined to those who were ‘transformed by the renewing of their minds’. The words of our Lord in Matthew 7:22, 23 and of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1, 2 seem to intimate, that the possession of these unrenewed men was not very uncommon in that age; at any rate they plainly show that their possession and an unregenerate state were by no means incompatible".

Fourth, "And have tasted the good Word of God". "I understand by this expression the promise of God respecting the Messiah, the sum and substance of all. It deserves notice that this promise is by way of eminence termed by Jeremiah ‘that good word’ (Jer. 33:14). To ‘taste’, then, this ‘good Word of God’, is to experience that God has been faithful to His promise—to enjoy, so far as an unconverted man can enjoy the blessings and advantages which flow from that promise being fulfilled. To ‘taste the good Word of God’, seems, just to enjoy the advantages of the new dispensation" (Dr. J. Brown). Further confirmation that the apostle is here referring to that which these apostates had witnessed of the fulfillment of God’s promise is obtained by comparing Jeremiah 29:10, "After seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place".

Observe how studiously the apostle still keeps to the word "taste", the better to enable us to identify them. They could not say with Jeremiah, "Thy words were found and I did eat them" (Jer. 15:16). "It is as though he said, I speak not of those who have received nourishment; but of such as have so far tasted it, as that they ought to have desired it as ‘sincere milk’ and grown thereby" (Dr. John Owen). A solemn example of one who merely "tasted" the good Word of God is found in Mark 6:20: "for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly".

Fifth, "And the powers of the world to come," or "age to come." The reference here is to the new dispensation which was to be ushered in by Israel’s Messiah according to Old Testament predictions. It corresponds with "these last days" of Hebrews 1:2, and is in contrast from the "time past" or Mosaic economy. Their Messiah was none other than the "mighty God" (Isa. 9), and wondrous and glorious, stupendous and unique, were His miraculous works. These "powers" of the new Age are mentioned in Hebrews 2:4, to our comments on which we would refer the reader. Of these mighty "powers" these apostates had "tasted", or had an experience of. They had been personal witnesses of the miracles of Christ, and also of the wonders that followed His ascension, when such glorious manifestations of the Spirit were given. Thus they were "without excuse". Convincing and conclusive evidence had been set before them, but there had been no answering faith in their hearts. A solemn example of this is found in John 11:47, 48.

"If they shall fall away". The Greek word here is very strong and emphatic, even stronger than the one used in Matthew 7:27, where it is said of the house built on the sand, "and great was the fall thereof". It is a complete falling away, a total abandonment of Christianity which is here in view. It is a wilful turning of the back on God’s revealed truth, an utter repudiation of the Gospel. It is making "shipwreck of the faith" (1 Tim. 1:19). This terrible sin is not committed by a mere nominal professor, for he has nothing really to fall away from, save an empty name. The class here described are such as had had their minds enlightened, their consciences stirred, their affections moved to a considerable degree, and yet who were never brought from death unto life. Nor is it backsliding Christians who are in view. It is not simply "fall into sin", this or that sin. The greatest "sin" which a regenerated man can possibly commit is the personal denial of Christ: Peter was guilty of this, yet was he "renewed again unto repentance". It is the total renunciation of all the distinguishing truths and principles of Christianity, and this not secretly, but openly, which constitutes apostasy.

"If they shall fall away". "This is scarcely a fair translation. It has been said that the apostle did not here assert that such persons did or do ‘fall away’; but that if they did—a supposition which, however, could never be realized—then the consequence would be they could not be ‘renewed again unto repentance’. The words literally rendered are, ‘And have fallen away’, or, ‘yet have fallen’. The apostle obviously intimates that such persons might, and that such persons did, ‘fall away’. By ‘falling away’, we are plainly to understand what is commonly called apostasy. This does not consist in an occasional falling into actual sin, however gross and aggravated; nor in the renunciation of some of the principles of Christianity, even though those should be of considerable importance; but in an open, total, determined renunciation of all the constituent principles of Christianity, and a return to a false religion, such as that of unbelieving Jews or heathens, or to open infidelity and open godlessness" (Dr. J. Brown).

"It is impossible . . . if they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance". Four questions here call for answer. What is meant by "renewed unto repentance"? What is signified by "renewed again unto repentance"? Why is such an experience "impossible"? To whom is this "impossible"? Repentance signifies a change of mind: Matthew 21:29, Romans 11:29 establish this. It is more than a mental act, the conscience also being active, leading to contrition and self-condemnation (Job 42:6). In the unregenerate, it is simply the workings of nature; in the children of God it is wrought by the Holy Spirit. The latter is evangelical, being one of the things which "accompany salvation". The former is not so, being the "sorrow of the world", which "worketh death" (2 Cor. 7:10). This kind of "repentance" or remorse receives most solemn exemplification in the case of Judas: Matthew 27:3, 5. Such was the repentance of these apostates. The Greek verb for "renew" here occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Probably "restore" had been better, for the same word is used in the Sept., for a Hebrews verb meaning to renew in the sense of restore: Psalm 103:5; 104:30; Lamentations 5:21. Josephus applies it to the renovation of the Temple!

But what is meant by "renewing unto repentance"? "To be ‘renewed’ is a figurative expression for denoting a change, a great change, and a change for the better. To be ‘renewed’ so as to change a person’s mind is expressive of an important and advantageous alteration of opinion, and character and service. And such an alteration the persons referred to had undergone at a former period. They were once in a state of ignorance respecting the doctrines and evidences of Christianity, and they had been ‘enlightened’. They had once known not of the excellency and beauty of Christian truth, and they had been made to ‘taste of the heavenly gift’. They once misunderstood the prophecies respecting the Messiah, and were unaware of their fulfillment, and, of course, were strangers to that energetic influence which the New Testament revelation puts forth; and they had been made to see that that ‘good word’ was fulfilled, and had been made partakers of the external privileges and been subjected to the peculiar energies of the new order of things. Their view, and feelings, and circumstances, were materially changed. How great the difference between an ignorant, bigoted Jew, and the person described in the preceding passage! He had become as it were a different man. He had not, indeed, become, in the sense of the apostle, a ‘new creature’, His mind had not been so changed as unfeignedly to believe ‘the truth as it is in Jesus’; but still, a great and so far as it went, a thorough change had taken place" (Dr. J. Brown).

Now it is impossible to "renew again unto repentance" those who have totally abandoned the Christian revelation. Some things are "impossible" with respect unto the nature of God, as that He cannot lie, or pardon sin without satisfaction to His justice. Other things which are possible to God’s nature are rendered "impossible" by His decrees or purpose: see 1 Samuel 15:28, 29. Still other things are "possible" or "impossible" with respect to the rule or order of all things God has appointed. For example, there cannot be faith apart from hearing the Word (Rom. 10:13-17). "When in things of duty God hath neither expressed command thereon, nor appointed means for the performance of them, they are to be looked upon then as impossible [as, for instance, there is no salvation apart from repentance, Luke 13:3. (A.W.P.)]; and then, with respect unto us, they are so absolutely, and so to be esteemed. And this is the ‘impossibility’ here principally intended. It is a thing that God hath neither commanded us to endeavor, nor appointed means to attain it, nor promise to assist us in it. It is therefore that which we have no reason to look after, attempt, or expect, as being not possible by any law, rule, or constitution of God.

"The apostle instructs us no further in the nature of future events but as our own duty is concerned in them. It is not for us either to look or hope, or pray for, or endeavor the restoration of such persons unto repentance. God gives a law unto us in these things, not unto Himself. It may be possible with God, for aught we know, if there be not a contradiction in it unto any of the holy properties of His nature; only He will not have us to expect any such thing from Him, nor hath He appointed any means for us to endeavor it. What He shall do we ought trustfully to accept; but our own duty toward such persons is absolutely at an end. And indeed, they put themselves wholly out of our reach" (Dr. John Owen).

It needs to be carefully observed that in the whole of this passage from Hebrews 5:11 onwards the apostle is speaking of his own ministry. In God’s hands, His servants are instruments by which He works and through whom He accomplishes His evangelical purpose. Thus Paul could properly say "I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). And again, "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. 4:19). So the servants of God had, through the preaching of the Gospel, "renewed unto repentance" those spoken of in Hebrews 6:4. But they had apostatised; they had totally repudiated the Gospel. It was therefore "impossible" for the servants of God to "renew them again unto repentance", for the all-sufficient reason that they had no other message to proclaim to them. They had no other Gospel in reserve, no further motives to present. Christ crucified had been set before them. Him they now denounced as an Imposter. There was "none other name" whereby they could be saved. Their public renunciation of Christ rendered their case hopeless so far as God’s servants were concerned. "Let them alone" (Matthew 15:19) was now their orders: compare Jude 22. Whether or not it was possible for God, consistently with His holiness, to shame them, our passage does not decide.

"Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh" (verse 6). This is brought in to show the aggravation of their awful crime and the impossibility of their being renewed again unto repentance. By renouncing their Christian profession they declared Christ to be an Imposter. Thus they were irreclaimable. To attempt any further reasoning with them, would only be casting pearls before swine. With this verse should be carefully compared the parallel passage in Hebrews 10:26-29. These apostates had "received the knowledge of the truth", though not a saving knowledge of it. Afterward they sinned "wilfully": there was a deliberate and open disavowal of the truth. The nature of their particular sin is termed a "treading under foot the Son of God (something which no real Christian ever does) and counting (esteeming) the blood of the covenant an unholy thing", that is, looking upon the One who hung on the Cross as a common malefactor. For such there "remaineth no more sacrifice for sins". Their case is hopeless so far as man is concerned; and the writer believes, such are abandoned by God also.

"Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame". "They thus identify themselves with His crucifiers—they entertained and avowed sentiments which were He on earth and in their power, would induce them to crucify Him. They exposed Him to infamy, made a public example of Him. They did more to dishonor Jesus Christ than His murderers did. They never professed to acknowledge His divine mission; but these apostates had made such a profession—they had made a kind of trial of Christianity, and, after trial, had rejected it" (Dr. J. Brown).

Such a warning was needed and well calculated to stir up the slothful Hebrews. Under the Old Testament economy, by means of types and prophecies, they had obtained glimmerings of truth as to Christ, called "the word of the beginning of Christ". Under those shadows and glimmerings they had been reared, not knowing their full import till they had been blessed with the full light of the Gospel, here called "perfection". The danger to which they were exposed was that of receding from the ground where Christianity placed them, and relaxing to Judaism. To do so meant to re-enter that House which Christ had left "desolate" (Matthew 23:38), and would be to join forces with His murderers, and thus "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh", and by their apostasy "put Him to an open (public) shame". We may add that the Greek word here for "crucify" is a stronger one than is generally used: it means to "crucify up". Attention is thus directed to the erection of the cross on which the Savior was held up to public scorn.

Taking the passage as a whole, it needs to be remembered that all who had professed to receive the Gospel were not born of God: the parable of the Sower shows that. Intelligence might be informed, conscience searched, natural affections stirred, and yet there be "no root" in them. All is not gold that glitters. There has always been a "mixt multitude" (Ex. 12:38) who accompany the people of God. Moreover, there is in the real Christian the old heart, which is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked", and therefore is he in constant need of faithful warning. Such, God has given in every dispensation: Genesis 2:17; Leviticus 26:15, 16; Matthew 3:8; Romans 11:21; 1 Corinthians 10:12.

Finally, let it be said that while Scripture speaks plainly and positively of the perseverance of the saints, yet it is a perseverance of saints, not unregenerate professors. Divine preservation is not only in a safe state, but also in a holy course of disposition and conduct. We are "kept by the power of God through faith". We are kept by the Spirit working in us a spirit of entire dependency, renouncing our own wisdom and strength. The only place from which we cannot fall is one down in the dust. It is there the Lord brings His own people, weaning them from all confidence in the flesh, and giving them to experience that it is when they are weak they are strong. Such, and such only, are saved and safe forever.[/i]

To my sister, LittleGift, and all who will discuss these things for edification and love of the truth...

Great hymn, eh? I love it, too.

You have to put into perspective that Cowper was thoroughly "Calvinist", or as he might put it, a 'believer in free grace', which affected his writing significantly.

[b]"And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains."[/b]

Cowper saw the divine act of regeneration as one of irresistible power. God's grace sweeps upon the soul turning beast into man, freeing him not only to choose Christ, but from that which would prevent his from choosing Christ. The man is then willing to lay hands upon the Lamb for forgiveness. In this sense the sinner does not plunge himself, but is rather plunged beneath the flood of Christ's healing fountain.

[b]"Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more."[/b]

Again, Cowper was writing from his view of the atonement. The death of Jesus made a real and effective atonement for all of God's chosen people, purchasing by a real ransom all that would be reclaimed throughout the age to come. This is the doctrine sometimes called "limited atonement", but better phrased, "effective redemption." It is the belief that like the pascal lamb which was slain once a year for the sins of Israel alone, so Christ was once offered for the sins of many, even so many as will believe in Him.

Again, who are those who were ransomed? Those who will believe. But who believes? Only those who come. Who comes? No man comes to Christ, except the Father draws him, and Christ shall raise him up again on the last day. [John 6:44] All who come were called AND justified AND glorified, so far as the sovereign decree of God is concerned. These are not things that may happen if a man fulfills certain conditions, but will without doubt happen. God's sovereign act is our only hope of fulfilling the means appointed to the end.

Romans 8:29-30
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover [b]whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified[/b]."

[b]"Lord, I believe Thou hast prepared, unworthy though I be, For me a blood bought free reward, a golden harp for me!"[/b]

Once again, Cowper sees salvation as a gift purchased on the cross for a people chosen according to grace in Christ. The gift was bought by Christ's blood. It is freely given, that is, it is given to whom God has chosen to give it too, without regard for their person.

My dear sister, and all others reading, I do not hold to these doctrines out of thirst for contention. How can I receive a spirit of strife from the things which give me peace? These doctrines assure me that God is indeed God. His will is free, and ours is ever contingent. The only free will is one not bound in time or finitude.

I see these doctrines on every page of scripture, and you will say the same of yours.

These are not light issues. If that were so, we must call many of our heroes fools for drawing lines on these points. We do better to listen, pray, and bear one another with goodwill.

May His grace be upon you, as I too desperately need it.

Your brother, Mike:.

Thank you for the link Roaringlamb, I will look it over tonight when I have more time.

Katy-did wrote:

So we need to be very careful about these verses. You either are saved or you are not, and that evidence will show.

Thanks for replying. As always, I appreciate your passion.

I agree 100% that one is either saved or not, no question. But what is this verse about then? What do you feel it is about? Again, I do not know how this would relate to Calvanism, thus the questions.

I wish to be careful when speaking and studying scripture, but scripture is hard to contradict, and this scripture seems pretty straight forward to me. I take it as a warning to those on the fence of flesh and spirit, like all of us.

Brother Mike,
Cowper is one of my favorite hymn writers(along with Augustus Toplady). He also suffered from horrible depression which is probably why he could pen such wondrous words.

Here are a couple of my favorites-

1.O for a closer walk with God,
A calm and heavenly frame;
A light to shine upon the road –
That leads me to the Lamb!

2.What peaceful hours I once enjoyed!
How sweet their memory still!
But they have left an aching void –
The world can never fill.

3.Return, O Holy Dove, return
Sweet messenger of rest;
I hate the sins that made thee mourn,
And drove Thee from my breast.

4.The dearest idol I have known,
What e’re that idol be,
Help me to tear it from Thy Throne,
And worship only Thee.

5.So shall my walk be close with God,
Calm and serene my frame;
So purer light shall mark the road –
That leads me to the lamb.
-William Cowper

Light shining out of Darkness

God moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs,
And works his sov'reign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fasts,
Unfolding ev'ry hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flow'r.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain.

hi, for the most part these over simplified points sound like two children on each side of a door looking up at a sign argueing if its an entrance or an exit. its a doorway. jimp

Hi Jeannete,

I saw something mentioned about God's justice a bit back. It seems to be something that comes up in these discussions.

In my own meditations on this subject, two things which I've thought upon are these:

what it is that man lost from the garden

and what we became liable to [b]as a result[/b].

Take care for now,

Chris

Hi again Jeannette and thank you for the response :-)

I hope it will be alright if I do not respond directly to the things you suggested, at least not right away. The reason is I had something specific in mind and was hoping to look at that in particular.

I was thinking of all of this in regards to our asking how can God hold us accountable to do things that we cannot perform, and this be just.

So I was thinking of these things in that context.

What do you think, is there anything that we may have lost that would have made us accountable to do things we cannot render or attain?

Let me know what you think,

Chris

This thread is truly amazing!!

It demonstrates the utter futility and foolishness to which people can go to defend a "position" rather than to merely take what the Word of God says and be done with it.

Why all this conjecture about what was lost? Instead of simply taking what God said they lost?

Instead you have come to an impossible "position" here: Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"what it is that man lost from the garden?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His free will and right of choice; the freedom to choose to trust and obey God, and walk with Him. Except he didn't lose it, he gave it away!

---------------------------------------

And now we have Moses, Joshua, Elijah and all the prophets calling men to choose to trust and obey God and they "lost this in the Garden"... So they were calling for impossibilites?

What an awful accusation against the Holy and Righteous God who commanded these men to call men to a choice that was impossible to make!

Why not just take what God says period rather than all these pulling scripture from here there and everywhere to defend what?!!

This thread like so many more,(like dear Annie [HeReigns] said in another thread regarding the things that will divide folks on this site) that goes on and on ad infinitum between free will and predestination is one of those arguments, and I do mean arguments, that will never be settled in this life, so what my dear folks is the point? It does not unite, it does not edify, it only DIVIDES.

If you are one of the ELECT, then thank God. If you can make choices, CHOOSE you this day to serve the LORD Jesus Christ with all your soul, body, mind and strength...

Job 6:25 - 26 (KJV) 25How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove? 26Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind?

For those seeking to be saved, or to be encouraged or to find fellowship, or who are desperately seeking to find God, will they find it in endless discussions of this sort?

God bless all of you and each of you...

As I said in an earlier post, quoting the late Vance Havner, "let's just be Christians".

We can, and I certainly include myself in the number, "yes but..." till it doesn't matter anymore, because the cry of midnight will have gone out, and it is all over.:-o

In and for the Love of Christ and His Church,

Clint

Edit:

Sorry after posting this that I did... sounds far too preachy... I know that there is plenty of good humor and plenty of openess in this thread... my response, I suppose, is just that over and over again in thread after thread for all these months of reading them before I ever posted the first time... this one has been stated and restated... It would be a tragedy to take any of the idiosyncrasies of some of these great men of God in the past that accomplished being used of God to bring souls into the kingdom and throw away thier labor because it does not all fit into our mould... and I beleive that has already been stated :-) Surely hope no one tries to pigeonhole me because I don't agree on every point of thier doctrine... He is able to make His servant stand... He is able to keep that which I have committed unto HIm... He is able to complete that which is started...

Hi brother Clint,

I don't normally like these discussions either but I think there could be something fruitfull in the question that Jeanette and I were looking at. I don't want to promote conjecture either, or promote debate, or defend either of these sides.

But I do think there is something profitable for us in this question, by itself.

Thanks,

Chris

Dorcas, just in case you missed this also, am thinking of this question of what was lost in the context of why God might require things of us that we cannot render.

Anything else come to mind?

To everyone:

Thank you for an engaging and good-spirited thread on such a difficult and important subject. For those who do not see the importance, I can only say that I once did not either. Let us continue to speak in love, this thread has been useful to me and I thank you all.

[b]Compliments wrote:[/b]

When Calvinist sin, do they still believe that they are saved no matter what?

Well, I am a so-called Calvinist, and while I cannot speak for all of us, I will tell you my view on this subject.

Whenever I sin, I am certain that all of God's elect shall persevere in faith by His grace until the end. Whenever I sin, I am confident that He who began the work in His elect shall finish it in one-hundred percent of them. Whenever I sin, I know that none of His children are ever lost, if first they were brought to salvation in Him.

What none of this knowledge can do is assure me that I am personally a part of the elect.

This is the difference between the doctrines of perseverance and assurance. While I am certain that all of the elect will be saved, I must derive my confidence of personal involvement through another means, namely through continuance in faith which works through love.

So long as my faith in Christ continues to act as a conduit of grace, through which sanctification flows; so long as I continue to measurably love the Lord and kick against temptations in general, I *sense* my involvement in His kingdom.

Ultimately, I believe one may only take confidence in one thing... that he has trusted himself to the mercy of God in Christ, and not in works. If after doing this, he continues to strive after holiness, then he may be encouraged that he seeks what is already his.

Have you considered the words, "slave of righteousness"? It occurred to me, suddenly and powerfully, to ask myself, "why do you keep coming back to the Lord, after so many failures and embarrassing faults? Why do you keep reading your bible and praying, when at times you hit a brick wall of doubt and ignorance? Why do you keep looking for ways to improve your obedience, when for a season you look for ease in vain things and find none? Because YOU'RE A SLAVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Good morning all,

In case anyone else is considering this question also, to narrow the consideration, I'm looking at Genesis chapter 3 and verse 7. This may be compared with chapter 2 verse 25.

"As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so [i]is[/i] a man that wandereth from his place."

- Proverbs chapter 27 verse 8(KJV)

Think this is appropriate also.

I think there is a huge misconception by Arminians on this thread that Calvinist ascribe to the doctrine of saying the "sinner's prayer" is a ticket to heaven. This is not what the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints teaches. Rather, Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, He will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. 1 Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." In other words when God changes a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, cannot be revoked. It is a deposit of an incorruptible seed that cannot be taken away. Romans 11:29, says, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” If the promises of God cannot be revoked, then perseverance is a biblical and logical necessity. “I am surely convinced that neither angels, nor powers, nor principalities, nor death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to come…will separate us from the love by which the Lord embraces us in Christ” [Romans 8:38-39].

Here is what one Pastor actually experienced, in regards to [b]brainwashing[/b].

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=582&commentView=itemComments]Communist brainwashing techniques (Video) by Richard Wurmbrand[/url]

Hi Jeannette :)

Am going out for a few hours but wanted to check in here...

You mentioned innocent trust.

Am thinking something close to that.

What is it that they now saw that they didn't before...

Am considering Genesis 3:22 also.

Thanks for sharing thus far,

Chris

Hi Jeannette,

In regards to our question before:

I think we lost our innocence, our eyes were opened, [b]and we became [u]like[/u] God[/b], to know good and evil.

This is [b]not[/b] how God made us at first.

I think once our eyes were opened, we became liable to live as God, without the divine nature.

Imagine calling a man that is a farmer to be an astronaut, without any training or equipment. In and of himself, he just doesn't have [b]the right stuff[/b].

That's why I think it is possible that God could require of us things which we could not render. We stepped out of our domain, [b]where He put us to begin with[/b], and into His, so to speak.

It would seem that our whole human history has proven how inadaquate we were.

Here are some scriptures that I draw this from, and like I said at the beginning, these are only my impressions from meditating on the subject:

Gen 2:25, 3:7-10,22, Rev 3:18, Prov 27:8, Acts 17:28-29, John 10:34, Psalm 82:6, 2Peter 1:3-4

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

EDIT: would add Genesis 1:27 to the verse list above.

I was still thinking about all of this this morning and thought about this book I bought for my wife that has all of these pictures from outer-space along with descriptions.

This Cosmos that we live in is supposed to be so incredibly vast that it is probably beyond all our comprehension! Astoundingly vast!

David said the Heavens declare the glory of God and also that He has set His glory above them.

Paul said we have all sinned, and fallen short of God's glory.

But still, how can we grasp this?

John writes of the Lord Jesus

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

- John chapter 1 verse 14(KJV)

And in Hebrews it says He is the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person(Heb 1:3).

John says they beheld Him and His glory, and He [b]was full[/b] of grace and truth.

Good morning Dorcas. It is morning here :)

Again...

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..."

If you have time, take a look at some of those verses I mentioned in the list also.

The Lord Jesus said He could do nothing of Himself. And He said of us that we could do nothing without Him.

He is the glory of God.

What do you think?

Hi everyone.

Katy-Did,

"Genesis 3:22&23 does not say that Adam and Eve became LIKE God..."

You're right. I think I may even have used it without consideration, thinking it was interchangable with the expression "one of us". Or even confusing it with what the adversary had said. Thank you for the correction.

I looked at Strong's and it says the word translated 'as one' is

H259
אחד
'echâd
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

We were already made in His image.

I think the point remains the same.

Which by they way, what does this have to do with total depravity?

Who said anything about that?

Hi Dorcas,

I mentioned what the Lord Jesus said about Himself and us in regards to what you said here

"I would disagree that God has asked things of man which man is unable to render."

I think His life demonstrates what God required.

Also, about this

"...had you embedded the assumption that before the fall Adam and Eve would have been able to render to God that that you implied they could not render afterrwards?"

No, not at all. It's just the opposite. It seems that nearly all of the requirements for man came [b]after[/b]. Which is what I think this change in us left us exposed to.

Does this all make sense?

Thanks :-)

Hi Dorcas,

What law are we talking about here?

"That's the amazing thing I'd not realised till recently, is that even if a person broke the law in itself it was the way to keep fellowship with God."

Any of the laws that required the death penalty?

Ezekiel said the soul that sins would die.

What do you mean?

Dorcas, I think we need to draw a distinction here between provisons God made for man to continue with Him, and what was required for life.

See Leviticus 18:5 and Galatians 3:10.

Sorry for the multiple posts, but my thoughts are trailing along....

What I'm looking for is what would gain man the right to the tree of life again.

Dorcas,

"Do you mean you don't think the law provided for life?"

Well, consider Galatians 3:21 for instance.

By life here I'm thinking of everlasting life. Which it seems to me we lost access to from the garden.

Thanks for sharing thus far Dorcas,

Chris

Hi Katy-Did,

I'm not sure about all of those things, but thank you still.

Dorcas,

I want to say again I'm only offering my own understanding here.

"The question is, was that Jesus speaking prophetically, or, were they actually alive in heaven already, because of their faith?"

I think it was lost, and now God would give it to whoever He would choose to, as a gift(Romans 6:23).

So regarding Abraham, Paul writes

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

and...

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

And also he says

"So then [i]it is[/i] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

What do you think?

Hi Dorcas,

I don't know really.

Chris