Hell: did Jesus die for those burning..?

Hi everyone,Would you say Jesus Christ's redeeming work saves *in and of itself*? By that I mean people only go to heaven because of Christ's completely satisfactory death and perfect law-keeping alone. That is, the difference between salvation and damnation is the work of Christ alone. Therefore, if you accept this then the work of Christ ensures salvation for all whom Christ represented.What do you think?Atonement means reconcilation, right?But if people for whom Christ died go to hell then his atoning blood didn't achieve reconciliation !! Furthermore, do you agree that propitation means to appease ?Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Finally, to redeem means to pay the price for a possession so as to rescue.Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !Afterall, people don't go to hell whose sins are forgiven? OK? Otherwise Jesus and them are both being punished. That's double punishment !! That's evil (Prov 17:15).Indeed, Jesus saves His people (only) from their sins (Mt 1:21)! Comments?

Hi anti-paradoxIf it is 'particular redemption' you are referring to we chatted a little on the topic in a thread called Propitiation and the red heifer and a little in the thread called atonementThat is not intended to close down any discussion but simply to say we may have already made a start.

Not to over simplify all this, but it seems to me that the reccouring theme soteriologically is the presence or non-presence of the Holy Spirit in a persons life. Can we say that when the Holy Spirit departs the ashes metaphorically dry up and cease to have their effect on sin? This is caused by doing 'despite' unto the Spirit of Grace and in its finality is trodding under foot the blood of Christ as though it was dust (were ashes). I am also reminded of the thread in which the concept of looking eye to eye (as it were) with God was dealt with. The conscience of a Sinner is such that they cannot look eye to eye. The relationship is faulty. The blood cleanses the conscience of those who desire to have the relationship restored. Those who have no desire to retain God in their knowledge would not accept the cleansing if offered. They don't want to walk with God. Sure God has sought reconciliation; but Jesus said it clearly, "Yet they would not that He should rule over them." This is the key as to why people are cast into Hell and really nothing more. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)BTW. The Red Heifer teaching is excellent if you have missed it. God Bless,-Robert

RobertW: Can we say that when the Holy Spirit departs the ashes metaphorically dry up and cease to have their effect on sin? Robert, are you saying that that what begins in the Spirit can be thwarted by the flesh? Wow.Joh 10:28 And I give eternal life to them, and they shall not perish to the age, never! And not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand. RobertW: The blood cleanses the conscience of those who desire to have the relationship restored.Rob, are you saying that some people dead in their sins can seek after God? Incredible.Rom 3:11 there is not one seeking God.RobertW: Sure God has sought reconciliation...Reconciliation is past tense, Rob. His people's sins were imputed to Christ at the cross!Rom 5:10 For if while being enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life; RobertW: "Yet they would not that He should rule over them." This is the key as to why people are cast into Hell and really nothing more.Rob, are you saying that God doesn't determine eternity? Amazing.Rom 9:18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens.

Hey anti, you seem to be stating the case for reformed theology? I put a question mark at the end of that sentence because, really I’m asking if in fact you are of the reformed view a.k.a. Calvinism. Thank you and God Bless!

Anyone not wanting to wade through the red heifer in our thread here can find it extracted into a pdf by Gary Sims on his mybiblebase.com site as The Red Heifer

---Sermonindex: Scripture clearly shows that Christ died for ALL. Sermonindex, are you saying that some *blood-bought* people burn eternally? John 10:14,28 I lay down My life for the sheep … and I give eternal life to them, and they shall not perish to the age, never! ---Sermonindex: Also Scripture states that God desires ALL to be saved. Sermonindex, are you stating that a husband should desire harlots in the same manner as he loves his wife?Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf...Why must a husband love all the harlots? He must love the harlots because his motto is God's motto (Eph5:25). If "God" desires ALL, husbands must say: “Honey, I want you to know I love ALL the women in the world." ---Sermonindex: If God determined Eternity and choose who He wanted to spend Eternity with Him then that would be ridicilous plainly put. Wow. There it is. Think about what sermonindex just said. Sermonindex believes that God is powerless. For Sermonindex, the eternal "God" does not determine eternity.On the other hand, the Bible says that God has not only determined eternity but:Eph 1:11 ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his own will.But to Sermonindex, that’s “ridiculous plainly put”. For Sermonindex “God” does not determine. “God” does not choose. Sermonindex says the eternal God does not determine eternity.

Beloved,Initial arguments in this thread are not leading towards Reform theology, they were leading towards the reverse UNIVERSALISM This is a deadly trend that is even now trying to invade the Church! Robert, are you saying that that what begins in the Spirit can be thwarted by the flesh? Wow. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;. (Hebrews 3:7-13)Rob, are you saying that some people dead in their sins can seek after God? IncredibleYour point of reference is all wrong. The Holy Spirit is constantly striving with man on this earth and sinful men are resisting. This was the message of Stephen in Acts 7. People cannot "always resist the Holy Ghost" unless He is "always striving." The Children of Israel resisted what God was constantly trying to do in drawing the near to God. Example: Perhaps you have resisted the Spirit of God. Perhaps you are in the habit of resisting the Spirit. You resist conviction. In preaching, when something has been said that reached your case, your heart has risen up against it and resisted. Many are willing to hear plain and searching preaching so long as they can apply it all to others; a misanthropic spirit makes them take a satisfaction in hearing others searched and rebuked; but if the truth touch them, they directly cry out that it is personal and abusive. Is this your case? (C.G.F.) "If thou seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart and all thy soul." (Deuteronomy 4:29) Reconciliation is past tense, Rob. His people's sins were imputed to Christ at the cross! Friend, you are making arguments from the perspective of eternity; we live in real time. in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, 'Be ye reconciled to God;' (II Corinthians 5:20)Rob, are you saying that God doesn't determine eternity? Amazing.To follow out the reasoning you propose here would be to indict God as the Father of lies. As Leonard Ravinhill said, "Were 1000 babies foreordained by God to go down the John last night?" That's Calvin 1000 times over. Universalism is another refuge of lies. This system varies in some of its minor points, but in one great leading feature it remains ever the same--it always denies the justice of endless punishment. However much the advocates of Universalism may differ from each other in the less important points, they all agree that all men will ultimately be saved; that sin does not deserve an endless punishment; and that it would therefore be unjust in God to inflict it. (C.G.F. O.E. 1848).

Therefore, if you accept this then the work of Christ ensures salvation for all whom Christ represented.For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17)And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."If Christ came as a representative for the whole world, then the outworking of the original post is UNIVERSALISM.

If Christ came as a representative for the whole world, then the outworking of the original post is UNIVERSALISM.Hi RobertI can see why you are wanting to guard against universalism, but if Christ's death was not representative and substitionary for the whole race are you not heading for particular redemption/limited atonement?

but if Christ's death was not representative and substitionary for the whole race are you not heading for particular redemption/limited atonement?Hi Bro. Ron,I certainly do not believe in limited atonement. My comments are based on the outworking of the rest of the original post.What do you think?Atonement means reconcilation, right?But if people for whom Christ died go to hell then his atoning blood didn't achieve reconciliation !! Furthermore, do you agree that propitation means to appease ?Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Finally, to redeem means to pay the price for a possession so as to rescue.Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !Afterall, people don't go to hell whose sins are forgiven? OK? Otherwise Jesus and them are both being punished. That's double punishment !! That's evil (Prov 17:15).Indeed, Jesus saves His people (only) from their sins (Mt 1:21)! Key in on this one quote:Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Now look at this quote:Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !If I am missing something here I certainly apologize openly and candidly! It looks to me like what is being said that if Christ died for all then all are saved. I'll listen to any help I can get to change that thought. It was my initial thought yesterday when you broke in, but I just went on with it because the subject was becoming very edifying. Then the challenges to what are quite basic evangelical points. (oh why did I say that :-? )God Bless,-Robert

I brought this question from the other thread so we could continue here at Bro. Greg's request. Please help me to understand your thinking here, In your opinion, would it be accurate to say; though the blood of Christ is necessary for forgiveness in God's economy, it is applied to those who never heard the Gospel and even to those who reject Christ?I agree with and second Bro. Ron's question as the two threads certainly seem to infer this.

If I am missing something here I certainly apologize openly and candidly! It looks to me like what is being said that if Christ died for all then all are saved.Hi RobertDon’t be too quick with your apologies. ;-) Let’s see where we are going. There’s a kind of connection between 5 point Calvinism (FPC) and Universalism here. (oh, they’re going to love me for that!) in that the FPC believes that the salvation of the redeemed is inevitable ; the Universalist says the same. They only differ on ‘who are the redeemed?’ Granted this is fairly major difference. The FPF says the ‘redeemed’ are those who were unconditionally elected, whereas the Universalist says the ‘redeemed’ is everybody.The puritan John Murray wrote a book entitles ‘redemption accomplished and applied’. I love the title. It makes the point that redemption has to be applied for the sinner to benefit even though it was earned outright in the Atonement. The FPF would generally say that the ‘application’ takes place in regeneration. As you know FPFs see regeneration as an inward, invisible, sovereign work of God’s Spirit which ultimately manifests in repentance and conversion. So for the FPF regeneration is not the response of God to repentance and faith but rather their cause. Even so they see that the accomplished redemption must be applied. I am less that 20% FPF so I hope fully paid up members will put me right as necessary; they are not usually shy. ;-) From my perspective, the redemptive work of the cross had the whole race in view. However the ‘redemption accomplished’ only becomes of benefit when applied, as Murray’s title suggests. This was my point with the Red Heifer posts. This remarkable ceremony produced a reserve of ‘instant’ cleansing, so that the addition of water (the Spirit) ‘applied’ the cleansing made fully available through the Sin Offering. I think we must say that Christ was the representative of the entire human race, again from a non FPF position, in a similar way that Adam was the representative of the entire race. Isaiah tells us All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:6 KJV) I’m not supposed to approve of the Message but frequently I find that the paraphrase has exactly captures a sense which has eluded the more ‘accurate’ translations; We're all like sheep who've wandered off and gotten lost. We've all done our own thing, gone our own way. And GOD has piled all our sins, everything we've done wrong, on him. (Isa 53:6 MSG) The verb means to ‘meet together’. God caused all our sins to ‘meet together’ on Him. It is vivid picture; all sins… past, present, future… gathered together and laid upon the world’s sin-bearer. all sins, all mine, all yours, all his, all everyone’s!However, as with the Red Heifer the ‘sinner’ is only benefited when the ‘finished/accomplished’ work is specifically applied. Oswald Chambers has been accused of Universalism because he constantly stresses the 'redemption accomplished' but I don't believe it. The ashes of the Red Heifer could be kept indefinitely, in principle, but only when the re-constituted Sin Offering was applied by sprinkling was the process of cleansing for the contaminated person activated.

This remarkable ceremony produced a reserve of ‘instant’ cleansing, so that the addition of water (the Spirit) ‘applied’ the cleansing made fully available through the Sin Offering.Bro Ron,I have to admit, when I looked at the Red Heifer post I was amazed at how God has used you to put a piece in the puzzle (as it were) in this great mystery. I believe God revealed that to you by His Spirit and that is quite different than doing normal exegesis. I was very excited almost like I had been privy to some scientific breakthrough or something.The reason for the excitement is that it fills the gap of the role of the Holy Spirit. I always knew that the issue soteriologically was mans response to the Holy Spirit. I just couldn't put it all together. Why? I was missing the Red Heifer! To think I have spent so much time in Hebrews and missed that. Praise God anyhow!Oh that Calvin and Luther could have heard this! That makes everyone rethink their soteriology; at least in terms of propitiation, etc..The Holy Spirit is striving with man to cooperate with Him in making appropriation of the atonement. When man resists this gift, He is committing his/her greatest sin. It all makes sense now. why there would be no forgiveness for blaspheming the Holy Spirit and all that. If a person quenches and resists and grieves the Holy Spirit away, how will the blood be appropriated? They are getting it with both barrels so to speak; cause for one they can't be drawn to repentance and for two the atonement can't be appropriated in their lives. Excerpt From "The Conviction We Need":Charles Finney comments on this in his message titled, ‘The Spirit Ceasing To Strive.’ Here he writes, “It should always be understood that whenever the Spirit can really be said to "strive" with an individual, that individual must be resisting. But what is intended by his striving? This striving, then, I would observe, is not a physical striving, but a moral influence, persuading, reasoning and convincing.” Moreover, Finney describes the great danger for those who continually resist. He continues, “One word more. When the Spirit strives men are in great danger of putting off submission day after day till at length the Spirit leaves them. They try to think about religion, but do not come to the point. Ah! They do not know the infinite danger they are in of being left amidst all this palavering (idle chattering). Ah! "While thy servant was busy here and there, behold the Spirit was gone." They must wait till they have done this thing or that thing, and thus they go on; day after day the Spirit strives with them till at length he takes his flight. You should reflect that every moment you are resisting, you are in infinite danger of his leaving you. "My Spirit shall not always strive." (Genesis 6:3) God Bless,-Robert

I beleive this is part of the mystery of our faith, will be revealed in time, and that His peace indeed passeth understanding...

---Philogos:It is vivid picture; all sins… past, present, future… gathered together and laid upon the world’s sin-bearer. all sins, all mine, all yours, all his, all everyone’s!It is a vivid picture; all sins .. past, present, future… And for Philogos what does all this bloody-death accomplish *in and of itself*? Nothing. For Philogos, “God” did no more for those going to heaven that to hell. Philogos denies the gospel in Col 1:20:Col 1:20 and through Him making peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things to Himself; For Philogos ALL things represented at the cross were not reconciled. Philogos says reconciling “Jesus” cannot reconcile ALL things represented.

Also, Philogos, are you saying that Jesus will not intercede forever for all those He shed blood for?Heb 7:22,25, 27 forever living to intercede on their behalf. For He did this once for all, offering up Himself.

Hey Anti-paradox. Instead of asking all these questions, why don't you just say what you came here to say? I understand straight talk much better than all these word games. What is it you want others to agree with you on? Sincerely, Dian.

RobertW:The Holy Spirit is striving with man to cooperate with Him in making appropriation of the atonement.Rob, are you denying that every single person lead by the Spirit of Truth is a son of God?Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Was God striving with Israel, when he commanded to Isaiah:Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him. Rob, are you denying Isaiah 6:10?If you believe "God" strives with every single person without any exceptions you certainly are.

Anti,I must say that you are quite accomplished at setting up and knocking down straw men. Oh that you would give some clear answers to the questions posed with the same effort.Ron

Philogos, I understand the gospel.My friend put the gospel well:Read Joh_19:28-30. It is finished! There is no work for the sinner to do for salvation! To say that there is still work for the sinner to do for salvation would be to say, "It is not finished" and to call the blessed Lord Jesus a liar. But we who are Christ's people, Christ's sheep, Christ's church - those who have been given by God the Father to God the Son, for whom Jesus led a perfect life and died on the cross - we know that it is finished. We have a Sabbath rest, as Hebrews 4 says, because God has caused us to rest from our works and to trust in Jesus Christ ALONE for ALL of our salvation. To God ALONE be the glory.

Quote: ---Philogos:It is vivid picture; all sins… past, present, future… gathered together and laid upon the world’s sin-bearer. all sins, all mine, all yours, all his, all everyone’s! It is a vivid picture; all sins .. past, present, future… And for Philogos what does all this bloody-death accomplish *in and of itself*?[/b]It accomplished a torn veil through which men may come; a new and living way. In your version the veil is removed; this is not the bible’s revelation. This hymn of Charles Wesley captures the truth beautifully’Tis finished! The Messiah dies,Cut off for sins, but not His own:Accomplished is the sacrifice,The great redeeming work is done.’Tis finished! all the debt is paid;Justice divine is satisfied;The grand and full atonement made;God for a guilty world hath died.The veil is rent in Christ alone;The living way to heaven is seen;The middle wall is broken down,And all mankind may enter in.The types and figures are fulfilled;Exacted is the legal pain;The precious promises are sealed;The spotless Lamb of God is slain.The reign of sin and death is o’er,And all may live from sin set free;Satan hath lost his mortal power;’Tis swallowed up in victory.Saved from the legal curse I am,My Savior hangs on yonder tree:See there the meek, expiring Lamb!’Tis finished! He expires for me.Accepted in the Well-beloved,And clothed in righteousness divine,I see the bar to heaven removed;And all Thy merits, Lord, are mine.Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;All grace is now to sinners given;And lo, I plead the atoning blood,And in Thy right I claim Thy heaven!Only ‘in Christ’ is the veil torn and only through Him may the ‘world’ enter in. This hymn expresses, beautfully, the finished work of Christ and the human reponse necessary.Incidentally, your version dehumanizes our race in removing all possibility of moral choice. If the whole thing is automatic and requires no response why are men required to repent and believe?

We have a Sabbath rest, as Hebrews 4 says, because God has caused us to rest from our works and to trust in Jesus Christ ALONE for ALL of our salvation.We have a Sabbath rest, that we are required 'to enter into.' For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. (Heb 4:10-11 NASB)The whole chapter of Heb 4 is a reminder of a people who had everything laid out for them in a land that God gave to them as their possession but which they forfeited for 40 years because of their unbelief.This passage does not say that all have entered in, it says 'we' that is the writer and those to whom he wrote. Indeed there 'remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God' but entering is their responisibility.

Philogos denies the gospel in Col 1:20:Col 1:20 and through Him making peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things to Himself;For Philogos ALL things represented at the cross were not reconciled. Philogos says reconciling “Jesus” cannot reconcile ALL things represented.How far does your universalism take you? Do you believe that Satan has been reconciled too?

Is it just me or does it seem like as soon as many of us log out all these posts show up with none here to take them on immediately? Is that a strategy, because they could have been answered while we all waited yesterday afternoon.For I know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29)For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4 ASV)The level of deception is very deep at this point. The mind gets fixed on a lie and then the heart starts spreading it.But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (II Timothy 3:13)How far does your universalism take you?But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

Mr. ParadoxGoing back throughout this thread the disturbing element is in making assumptions and putting words into others mouths.If this is an agenda you have as opposed to actually asking questions that you want to discuss or have answers for, then you have come to the wrong place.Has it occurred to you that though you know none of us you feel free to make critical comments and pass judgment on members of this site?We are primarily a patient and loving bunch. We also disagree often on matters that are secondary. This is not one of them. If you are espousing Universalism why not state it plainly as was asked earlier? And if you cannot refrain from using this forum to only push your own ideas without regard to others here, have no intention of dialog and discussion, then there is no reason to continue.I would ask that you consider your heart in these matters, consider the members of this site and consider these words:Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Anti_Paradox,An olive branch...Afterwords went to praying and a couple of things came up.Misunderstandings.It happens, and often in this type of setting.Part of the problem is 'no prior history'.We know next to nothing about you brother, no introduction, no other threads that you have responded to unrelated to this particular topic.Have you listened to any of the sermons here?This happens from time to time, where someone will come in with strong views about something or the other without really getting a 'feel' for the site and it's forum. Perhaps it was overlooked but this is not your typical setting. This is a family and a kinship knitted together by the Lord.Not that anyone needs defending but at some point it needs to be stated that there is a tolerance level and conduct is of primary concern here.So maybe you could help us all by giving some background and answering some of these and others questions that have been asked.In an otherwise semi-related parallel the other thing that came up was how much I dislike having to deal with these disturbing types of issues. It is always a grievous process. The thought that came to me was how much we grieve the Holy Spirit when, if I could put this with some reverence, we 'force His hand'. Had not really stopped to consider that much before. How much more it grieves Him...On human terms, similar to the father giving a spanking and stating "this is going to hurt me much more than it's going to hurt you"Don't get me wrong, this doesn't all apply here to this posting, just a thought...

Good points Bro. Mike.

I was going to post some thoughts on Calvinism, with some minor corrections to Philologos's comments (they were very close, though), but it seems that the fellow on the soapbox is espousing Universalism rather than Reformed theology.There's some merit to the idea that Calvinism is a step closer (than Arminianism) to Universalism, but looked at another way it could also be said that Arminianism is closer:Calvinists affirm the efficacy of the atonement.Arminians affirm the universality of the atonement.Universalists (or at least some of them) affirm both.So both of the first two groups believe "parts" of Universalism, I don't know which is closer. This is somewhat neither here nor there, however, as the mere fact that one's theology can be added to in such a way as to produce rank heresy doesn't necessarily say much about one's theology.

Thanks MikeFor there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1Co 11:19 NASB)

Hi KeithCalvinists affirm the efficacy of the atonement.Arminians affirm the universality of the atonement.Universalists (or at least some of them) affirm both.Beautifully crafted!Would it be correct to say that Calvinists affirm the inevitable efficacy of the atonement? and that Arminians affirm the universality of the atonement but not its inevitability.and would it be correct to say that Universalists (some of them) also affirm the inevitable efficacy of the atonement?

Universalists affirm the inevitable (and unconditional) universal efficacy of the atonement. That makes them more than the sum of Calvinism and Arminianism; it make them Calvinism+ Arminianism + Inevitability. God Bless,-Robert

Universalists affirm the inevitable (and unconditional) universal efficacy of the atonement. That makes them more than the sum of Calvinism and Arminianism; it make them Calvinism+ Arminianism + Inevitability.But don't FPFs also affirm inevitability in 'irresistable grace'? In your language wouldn't FPCs affirm the inevitable and unconditional efficacy of the atonement for those unconditionally elected?(If anyone has just happened onto this bit of the website and is a little baffled by these careful words, I assure you it isn't usually like this :-D )

But don't FPFs also affirm inevitability in 'irresistable grace'? In your language wouldn't FPCs affirm the inevitable and unconditional efficacy of the atonement for those unconditionally elected?Brother I'm getting brain fatigue. I'll have to shut down and restart to answer that. :-?******************But don't FPFs also affirm inevitability in 'irresistable grace'? YesIn your language wouldn't FPCs affirm the inevitable and unconditional efficacy of the atonement for those unconditionally elected?Yes

Jn 6:48-58 Jesus here sets forth the possibility that men could reject him and die being eternally lost while the offer was constantly there for them.Look at who he addressed this to and the broad range of people it applies to. It is finished was a saying the High Priest said after the Lamb offered as a sin offering for the nation was accomplished and that saying was yet another fulfillment of prophesy about Jesus and was uttered by the true HIGH PRIEST--- Jesus Christ. But that didn't negate the fact of participation. How many Isrealites would have lived if Blood hadn't been placed over the door posts and lintels at the passover? I've always wondered how many egyptians placed blood of a lamb over thiers just as a precaution and were spared?

I agree somewhat that someone has an axe gridding here because anti seems to be shooting accusations instaed of reasoning aguements logically and prayerfully. But to say that he's a wolf or deciever or evil? I would just say he wrestling over matters of the law with which he's not very learned, that's all.

It is finished was a saying the High Priest said after the Lamb offered as a sin offering for the nation was accomplished and that saying was yet another fulfillment of prophesy about Jesus and was uttered by the true HIGH PRIEST--- Jesus Christ. I've never heard this before. Can you tell me where you got the info?I've always wondered how many egyptians placed blood of a lamb over thiers just as a precaution and were spared?None, unless1. they were members of the 'church of Israel' Ex 12:3.2. were actually eating the lamb on the inside Ex 12:4.73. had quaranteened their lamb for the correct period Ex 12:64. had synchronised its slaying with all the other lambs Ex 12:65. and were circumcised Ex 12:43,44One aspect of the passover which is often missed is that the blood on the doorposts and lintels was a sign that the family inside were eating the Lamb. It was not just an outward ritual but an inward feast. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Joh 6:51 KJV)

Dohzman: Jn 6:48-58 Jesus here sets forth the possibility that men could reject him and die being eternally lost while the offer was constantly there for them.Dohzman, are you saying some that Christ provides His flesh and blood for will die eternally?Joh 6:54 The one partaking of My flesh and drinking of My blood has **everlasting life**, Dohzman, does Christ think His people will be "eternally lost"?Joh 6:54 and I will raise him up at the last day.anti_universalismpro_christianity

But to say that he's a wolf or deciever or evil? I would just say he wrestling over matters of the law with which he's not very learned, that's all.Hi Dozman,I also gave some reflection to this since this thread has started. It is a good time to deal with this. Strifes About Words To No ProfitBy Robert Wurtz IIThere are times when genuine questions arise concerning the Gospel. There are times when people genuinely want to know, "men what must we do?" There are other times when the enemy will send people to either knowingly deceive people or unknowingly deceive. When questions are brought out in such a manor as to minister questions rather than edify the hearers; action has to be taken immediately. Men's minds are easily riddled. Focus on what I just wrote; minister questions. Secular Philosophy teachers try to riddle the minds of Christains all the time, to try and overthrow their faith. I am dealing right now with a case where a sister in the Lord is being pounded in a secular college with all sorts of "ministering questions." To the casual listener they do not see the tell tale signs of this; but an apologist sees them straitway. I am not saying I am an apologist, but I have focused many years of studies in this one area. False religion is the enemies most prized weapon. Universalism is cultic false religion. Consider these passages: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing. But doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputations of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness. From such withdraw thyself. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (falsely so called). Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (I Tim. 6:3-5,20,21)When you call yourself "Anti-paradox" you are not using words of ignorance; you are describing your intentions. Depending on the sense, it is like taking a doctrinal position and calling it "indesputable." moreover, when you leave no information about yourself and come in cloaked? Why did he not just call himself "The Riddler?" There would have been no real difference. Shall we sit by while young Christians who have no clue of what is being said are deceived and riddled? Shall we allow the enemy an occasion to "sift the saints at Sermonindex like wheat?" We are not ignorant of the Devils devices. Riddling the MindAnd the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (Luke 22:31) "Desired" in the Greek is exaiteomai which means to demand (for trial, torture, punishment, etc.), and it is used only 1 time in the New Testament. "Sift" in the Greek is siniazo and it is only used once. It's root is sinion (a sieve); (fig) to riddle. The literal is, "to try by inward agitation to try one's faith to the verge of overthrow." So what does all of this mean? I believe that Satan sifted (riddled) Peter by taking advantage of some eschatological misunderstandings of Peter. How could the Messiah be dead? He is supposed to sit on the throne of David! (Etc. etc.). Jesus prayed for him and said when he was "converted" strengthen his brethren. Satan is still ministering questions about obscure understandings of wonderful passages of scripture to riddle minds. Some things are hard to be understood, which some rest upon unto their own destruction. As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. (II Peter 3) We, as believers, welcome any honest questions. We have to be cautious and if necessary error on the side of caution when false doctrine is being presented. We simply cannot allow a person to come in and minister questions to the people to riddle their minds. The sheep may be able to handle this, but the lambs cannot. That is who the enemy is after, the little lambs. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. God Bless,-Robert

anti_universalismpro_christianityAnti-paradox,Are you are making a case for:1) Eternal Security 2) Universalism3) The Unconditional Salvation of the JewsYour "stick and move" questioning is making a lot of unnecessary waves. We can discuss these issues no problem, but tthere has to be a different method than this if we are to make any headway.

Thanks Robert,This is very well said and it does appear Anti-has no intention other than to espouse his own questions and agenda, vague as he has chosen to present himself.We have asked genuinely and with much patience to consider others thoughts here but to no avail. No answers other than a quick quip and another cut and run.Anti-Paradox, you have overstayed your welcome, refused to consider others thoughts or answer the many questions being asked of you while you continue on this little charade of yours. We have allowed for the possibility of misunderstanding but by your actions you have shown you are more interested in yourself and your opinions than in bringing anything edifying or even a willingness to engage in a discussion.If it is a platform you are seeking to espouse your ideas without challenge I suggest you start your own website. This is not a place for opinion without rebuttal.Does it not seem odd to you that by conducting yourself in this manner you only leave us to make assumptions about your motives? Or is that your intention, to be this 'mysterious' questioner of questions? Our Lord certainly challenged many by answering certain questions with real questions that cut to the true meaning and motives of the heart. If this is what you are attempting to mirror, you are failing miserably.Again I ask you to consider your heart, consider the members of this site or consider this a warning and a rebuke.As Robert stated:When you call yourself "Anti-paradox" you are not using words of ignorance; you are describing your intentions. When you leave no information about yourself and come in cloaked? Why did he not just call himself "The Riddler?" There would have been no real difference. Shall we sit by while young Christians who have no clue of what is being said are deceived and riddled? Shall we allow the enemy an occasion to "sift the saints at Sermonindex like wheat?" We are not ignorant of the Devils devices.Indeed, I don't think you know just who you think you are dealing with here. There are some seasoned saints amongst us and that is not boasting, you are getting nowhere with all this.Cease and desist in your conduct or you will be removed.

Philologos[2004/12/2 18:10]: Your version dehumanizes our race in removing all possibility of moral choice. If the whole thing is automatic and requires no response why are men required to repent and believe? To answer your question, no, the gospel does not "dehumanize our race".Yes, all men are commanded to repent and believe the gospel [Act 17:30 Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now strictly commands all men everywhere to repent, ]. Yes, the Bible makes clear, men, whether reprobate or elect are commanded to believe the truth. Indeed, God doesn't command people to believe lies. [Exo 20:16 You shall not testify a witness of falsehood against your neighbor.]But the gifts of repentance and belief do not cause salvation, they are an *effect*. Unless you deny Eph 2:8:Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Eph 2:8 is saying that a dead sinner cannot make a "moral choice". That would be "of yourselves", NOT a gift of God and NOT a fruit of God. "Moral choice" means YOU. Eph 2:8 means GOD. Eph 2: 8 denies chance, choice, luck, free-will, fortune, response and accident.QUESTION FOR PHILOGOSPhilogos, I'm wondering if you think God owes you salvation for what you consider your "choice" and "response". Philogos what *caused* your salvation? You or God?anti_unconditional_salvation_of_reprobate_jewspro_unconditional_salvation_of_elect_jews

QUESTION FOR PHILOGOSPhilogos, I'm wondering if you think God owes you salvation for what you consider your "choice" and "response".Philogos what *caused* your salvation? For any who have been around these threads my views are pretty well known. Stick around a while. Listen from time to time. We were given two ears and one mouth; perhaps that was a hint at how we should proportion their use. ;-)

Eph 2: 8 denies chance, choice, luck, free-will, fortune, response and accident.I categorically refute this statement as false when it clumps 'chance', 'luck', and 'fortune' with choice, free-will, and response. The same sovereign God who has revealed Himself to be motivated primarily by His love, has the power and ability to allow man to exercise the choice to respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Yes, all men are commanded to repent and believe the gospel [Act 17:30 Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now strictly commands all men everywhere to repent, ]. Yes, the Bible makes clear, men, whether reprobate or elect are commanded to believe the truth. Indeed, God doesn't command people to believe lies. [Exo 20:16 You shall not testify a witness of falsehood against your neighbor.]Would God command a man to do something without providing him with the grace to respond rightly? When Jesus wept over Jerusalem were those false tears? Was that a mere 'put on'? Nay verily! What was he weeping for? Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those that are sent unto her, how often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37 Darby) He was weeping because "they would not?" Would not what? Be gathered under his 'wings'.

Philogos, where is the "moral choice" in Ezekial 11:19?Ezekial 11:19 And I [not you] shall give to them one heart, and I [not you] will put a new spirit within you. And I [not you] will remove the stony heart out of their flesh, and I [not you] will give them a heart of flesh,

Philogos, where is the "moral choice" in Ezekial 11:19?I love Ezekiel and his prophecies of regeneration. But you must not confuse God's part with man's. To make sure we are talking the same language please explain to me what the underlined word means in each of these verses means...That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Gen 6:2 KJV)Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. (Gen 13:11 KJV)The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (Deu 7:7 KJV)But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. (Deu 16:6 KJV)Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deu 17:15 KJV)I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deu 30:19 KJV)And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Jos 24:15 KJV)Joshua was commanded to 'choose'; his choice was not made for him. God's command is His enabling. When He says 'choose' you can 'choose', in fact, you must. Incidentally, just to save you the time, the same word is used in each of these quotations. Whatever it was God did, it was this same act that he demanded through Joshua.

Joshua was commanded to 'choose'; his choice was not made for him. God's command is His enabling. When He says 'choose' you can 'choose', in fact, you must.I think there is a passage from Luke that illustrates this point Ron has made;And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. (Luke 6:6-10)The man with the withered hand was commanded by Jesus first to stand up, he had to make a choice, a difficult choice because standing meant he was siding with Jesus whom the Pharisees were against and it also meant bringing attention to himself and his crippled hand, no small thing in those days.Once he stands though, Jesus issues another command to stetch forth his withered hand, and this command, this word, brings with it the power to accomplish what is commanded and the man is healed. Praise God!In Christ,Ron

Once he stands though, Jesus issues another command to stetch forth his withered hand, and this command, this word, brings with it the power to accomplish what is commanded and the man is healed. Praise God!Thanks RonI had not seen it illustrated in these verses.

anti_paradox,Just so this is by itself, not lost in the jumble, and clear: what are you getting at? What are you trying to convince us of, specifically? You say you're not a universalist, nor someone who thinks all ethnic Jews are necessarily saved (that was what I got out of those two lines), and you haven't responded to queries concerning your Calvinicity.Are you a Calvinist? Or does your position not easily succumb to any of the labels we've attempted to apply to it? I'm not necessarily looking for a one-word or one-line (or even one-paragraph) answer, just something clear and directly to the point.I'm asking because it's much easier to respond to someone when I understand where they're coming from, and it's much easier to understand an argument when I understand which conclusion is being reached.If you don't wish to answer this question, please mention the fact that you don't wish to answer it, so I'll know that you did in fact read it (previous enqueries seem to have been lost in the shuffle).Thank you,-Keith

RobertW: Would God command a man to do something without providing him with the grace to respond rightly?2Th 2:11 God will send to them a working of error, NO GRACEfor them to believe the lie, NO GRACE2Th 2:12 that all may be judged, JUDGMENT

anti_paradox,Also, as you have just now provided another example, your discussion style is, as an Englishman might put it, mildly antagonistic.Personally, I think I can still engage in fruitful dialogue despite that, but it may cause serious complications with others around here whom could otherwise make very significant contributions.If you wish to attack our positions (and, it may be construed, our positions and us ourselves) with all the gusto appropriate to a hand-to-hand fight to the death, I won't object (others might). But if you pursue that course, please be prepared for the veritable certainty that your respondants will be defending themselves, and a defensive person is not always (indeed, quite infrequently) a fruitful discussion partner.So, we can go at it with the swords and polearms, or we can try to understand one another, (hopefully) reach a better understanding of the issue at hand, and just maybe one or more of us will change our minds about something.

RobertW's quote: Would God command a man to do something without providing him with the grace to respond rightly?anti_paradox 2004/12/4 0:50 response:2Th 2:11 God will send to them a working of error,NO GRACEfor them to believe the lie,NO GRACE2Th 2:12 that all may be judged,JUDGMENTThe question you have not asked is 'who is 'they'?'Answer: ...them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2Th 2:10 KJV) I'll fine tune the tenses for youthem that are in process of perishing because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be savedIn other words, your verses are speaking of the judgement upon those who chose not to receive the love of the truth. They are in process of perishing because of their choice. The judgement you quoted is the final consequence of their wrong choice. There are two main verbs for 'receive' in Greek.lamban0 is more active; it has the sense of reaching out and taking. It might be translated 'take'.dechomai (which is the one used here) is more passive and has the sense of someone having placed something into an open hand. It might be translated 'accept'.In this present context, the judgement that you quoted was the consequence of those who chose to keep their hand closed and would not receive what was offered. These have not only passively 'not received' they have actively rejected what God has offered in refusing to accept His offered gift.Here's a little tip from John Wycliffe (1324-1384) to help you in your studies...[font=Georgia]It Shall Greatly Helpe Ye To Understande Scripture If Thou Mark...Not only what is Spoken or Wryttenbut of Whomand to Whomwith what Wordsat what TimeWhereto what Intentwith what Circumstancesconsidering what Goeth Beforeand what Followeth.[/font]btw I am still waiting for your explanation of Moses and Joshua commanding the people to choose.

Philogos: Joshua was commanded to 'choose'; his choice was not made for him...When He says 'choose' you can 'choose'.Philogos does man's choosing ULTIMATELY determine, ULTIMATELY decide, ULTIMATELY cause the future?No, the Bible equates human choices as DERIVED from, RESULTING from, CAUSED by God alone.Let's read Deut 30:19-20:Deut 30:19-20 choose life, that you may live, you and your seed, to love Jehovah your God.Philogos: by your reasoning because God commands them to "choose life", an Israelite could ULTIMATELY determine the future of his family.Philogos, does man determine the future?Is history uncertain, undetermined, accidental, and out-of-control?No, read back to verse 6:Deut 30:6 And Jehovah your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Jehovah your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Can man circumcise his own totally darkened heart? No!And Who causes the dead sinner to "choose life"? Jehovah!1 Jehovah circumcises the heart, so that2 A man will love Jehovah, so that3 You may livePhilogos, do you see that man only follows God because he first regenerates the heart? Do you see that choosing life and loving Jehovah are FRUITS of the gospel?Deu 9:5 It is NOT for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you go to possess their land [Your choice did NOT save you]. But Jehovah your God is dispossessing them ... in order to establish the Word which Jehovah has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.[Instead, God's Promise saves]Philogos, I asked you earlier, who ULTIMATELY determined/caused/decided your "salvation" ?For if man ULTIMATELY determines, then God is REACTING.If God is reacting then his promises are not sure and certain.The gospel is God's promise to save His people based on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ.But if God reacts, His promises are not sure and certain... and the gospel would not be sure and certain.Is the gospel up to man? Is God unsure and certain?No, Rom 8:30 says the gospel IS sure and certain because God does NOT react to man's free wil:Rom 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 1 Prestination 2 Calling 3 Justification 4 Glorification

No, Rom 8:30 says the gospel IS sure and certain because God does NOT react to man's free wil:Rom 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.1 Prestination2 Calling3 Justification4 GlorificationWhen are you going to start reading the bible and not just proof texts? The verse before yours says And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 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. (Rom 8:28-29 KJV) If you read these verses you will discover that before your number 1, there are two previous stagesa. callingb. foreknowledgethe list should read1. Calling2. Foreknowledge3. Predestination4. Justification5. GlorificationIf man has no contribution to make in his response to God's will he can have neither virtue nor sin.

For if man ULTIMATELY determines, then God is REACTING.Anti Paradox,Have you discovered the end of your reasoning? Have you tested the finality of your theology? Your questions are hemming you into a dangerous theological corner. You must invariably make God both the author of sin and the father of lies. You have confused God with Satan. Better would it be to say that the passages that deal with election make no sense at all than to say it makes a sense such as this . Any theology that makes God the author of sin or man the author of salvation must be rejected. Understand that God desires that all come to repentance. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)This has been proven by grace abounding much more where sin did abound. Hear Paul to Titus; For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,.... 'All' means everyone without exception. This grace is offered by the Spirit of Grace that is striving with all men to lead them to the throne of grace. Hardness is the result of resisting the Holy Spirit or quenching the Spirit, but the decision rests on the individual. God cordially invites sinners to repentance through the various sources of light afford them. If men respond rightly to that light, God will give more light. If the light that is in them be continually resisted God shall take away the light that they do have. He will give them over to do those things which are not convenient. Man simply says, "God, just cut me loose." Cut me loose to sin uninhibited, with no grief of conscience or conviction of the Spirit. Woe unto any that would reach such wretchedness.

Anti-Paradox,Apparently and decidedly you are choosing to ignore the large part of the problem here.Your quote:Philogos, I asked you earlier...And we have asked you 'earlier' as well, no less than a half dozen times questions that you do not have the charity to answer. Are you above everyone else here?You came here with a posting entitled: "Hell: did Jesus die for those burning..?"And asked for comments. You have posited your opinions and have asked questions often by setting up straw men as was illustrated earlier by stating words not said by members here but by assumptions that you yourself have drawn from their responses.So you decide which questions are to be asked and which questions you will choose to respond to. That is unacceptable here. This is not your pulpit to decide or to dictate how you may conduct yourself. A review of the guidelines established here is in order: Community Rules, #7 and #10 are where you are pushing it and why you have been formerly warned. It is your conduct that is rude and arrogant and we have been more than patient, allowed for misunderstandings and I actually wonder if I had not been to harsh earlier. I have no desire to tear you down, would love for you to continue here and apologize again if I have misread you and your intentions. But that is the problem. You refuse to answer any questions from myself or from many others here leaving us only to make assumptions of your motivation.As to the topic at hand just what is it you have set out to accomplish? Thus far you have primarily only caused confusion and been in an argumentative state throughout. Is it beyond you to consider others more than yourself? Think this applies very well not only to the topicitself but to the problem as well:2Ti 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.Some commentary; 2Ti 2:14 - That they strive not about words (mē logomachein). "Word apparently coined by Paul from logomachia (1Ti_6:4 which see), a back formation in that case. A mere war of words displeases Paul. (Tit_3:9). Useful (chrēsimon). Late and rare word from chraomai, here only in N.T. To the subverting (epi katastrophēi). Old word (from katastrephō, to turn down or over), here only in N.T. (except 2Pe_2:6 in some MSS., not in Westcott and Hort).” Because of the overthrow” (result epi, not aim), useless for this reason. Such war of words merely upsets the hearers."Robertsons Word PicturesWe give a pretty wide latitude here to discussing issues, topics, scripture and even our own personal experience on matters of faith and Christianity as a whole. There are members and contributers from all walks of life at different stages of experience and longevity in the faith. And from all over the world no less. One of the astounding factors is that we are primarily unified in the sense of: Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.We may differ in some doctrinal issues and have come from all kinds of different 'denominations' but that I have seen for the most part is a peculiar blending of, as opposed to a dividing force. Not taking that to extremes, am referring to Bible believing historical Christianity.So it comes down to this;Are you willing to share and partake, give and take? Be of some help in making disciples, listen, learn and grow like the rest of us?Challenges are welcome if they are toward that end but not without response and consideration to everyone else here.It is your choice. Either respond in kind or I see no reason why we should respond to you and suggest you take it elsewhere. This is the second warning.

If man has no contribution to make in his response to God's will he can have neither virtue nor sin.Amen. And the whole of the Great Commission would be a mockery. Why should a man need good news if he is incapable of responding to it? And why would the Judge of all the Earth send his servants a pack of lies in their satchel as false witnesses of the Cross? Sometimes men attempt to exalt God by a twisted emphasis of His sovereignty that makes the God of Love into a God of arbitrary damnation. Let God alone and let His own works praise Him in the gates if the praise must be construed to mar His character and the motivating characteristic of His personality (love). What glory does God receive when such teachings cause His enemies to blaspheme His name? God is sovereign enough and powerful enough to create a world in which men and women can choose if they shall have Him rule over them or not. Is there anything to hard for God?

If you read these verses you will discover that before your number 1, there are two previous stagesForeknowledge, I affirm does not cause an event to happen regardless of whether the event is sure to take place. This is the mystery of God's Omniscience. The foreknowledge is of what the free decision to either submit or resist the Holy Ghost will be. The foreknowledge exercises no power to decree that future event, it merely is aware of it. If there is revealed foreknowledge (for example Prophecy), God cannot be blamed as the cause of certain events simply because He knows of them and has revealed them to us. To many this concept is simply not possible. To them it is a contradiction; why? I have no idea. There must be some underlying presupposition in place in their logic that causes them to stumble over this. Maybe someone else could shed some light on it.

This is my favourite quotation on foreknowledge:"God's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God."Christopher Wordsworth Revelation Intro. p 154

Mike has just posted this quotation from A W Tozer in the devotional forum"WHERE THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE there can be neither sin nor righteousness, because it is of the nature of both that they be voluntary.However good an act may be, it is not good if it is imposed from without. The act of imposition destroys the moral content of the act and renders it null and void!Sin is the voluntary commission of an act known to be contrary to the will of God. Where there is no moral knowledge or where there is no voluntary choice, the act is not sinful; it cannot be, for sin is the transgression of the law and transgression must be voluntary."

The act of imposition destroys the moral content of the act and renders it null and void!Hi Bro. Ron,This is true. The finality of where Anti-paradox was heading lead inevitably to God being the author and finisher of all things; both righteous and unrighteous. The greatest error in this type of thinking in my opinion is that it makes a mockery of the Cross. For if God is the author and cause of sin then Christ would have deserved to die on the cross. This is not a non-essential issue that we can agree to disagree over or merely false doctrine; it is blasphemy! God Bless,-Robert

My regrets that our visitor seems disinclined to truly engage in this discussion (as opposed to simply stating and re-stating his position). It would seem he is a Calvinist, or a hyper-Calvinist. It may be the case that I'm being too quick to label him (his position may defy the common labels,), but I'm not exactly getting much help from the other side.In any case, there's a question on which I wish to take a stand: did God actually choose to have things turn out the way they will turn out? Note that the question is not whether He knew that things would turn out the way they will, though that is an obvious pre-condition for Him to have chosen it.I went the opening rounds of this some months ago, but did not pursue it, now I would like to do so:First, I understand and confess that I am operating under Western philosophical and logical conventions and thought patterns. It's not exactly like I can just switch them off. Those presuppositions may (likely) need to be challenged if the result is inconsistent with Scripture, but first please evaluate the logical consistency (or lack thereof) of this argument:1. God, pre-creation (I understand that great difficulty exists in using temporal terms here, please point out any areas where this causes problems), had an essentially infinite number of choices. He could either create, or not create. The "essentially infinite" part is in the myriad of myriad different ways in which God could have created (if the terms "Molinism" or "middle-knowledge" come to mind at this point, you're on the right track).2. God was not restricted in His options except by the fact that He "cannot deny Himself" and "cannot lie" (or similar Scriptural restrictions, please bring up any you see as relevant), and so there are no contradictions like someone going to both Heaven and Hell for Eternity. Any objections to my affirmation of God's more or less unlimited latitude in these choices?3. For each available option, God knew, exhaustively, every single little tiny thing that would happen as a result of creating in that manner (or not creating). Any objections to my affirmation of God's exhaustive foreknowledge of all possibilities?4. Futhermore, since God knew what would happen by choosing a particular option, He would know if anything that would happen was unacceptable, and simply choose another (possibly extremely similar) option that differed only in that it would produce a different result in that particular respect. Any objections to this implication?5. Since God, if He truly wanted to, could have added, removed, or altered any result He found desireable, undesireable, or in need of modification, He did in fact choose to have things happen the way they will. In other words: by not choosing any of the other options, He chose this one, with all its attendant results.(And, for the astute Mr. Bailey, you don't have to count the number of "knowledge" type words in there, as you properly pointed out last time, my focus is on the "choice" type words)For example (a very limited example, I know), take two theoretical creation plans A and B that would result in worlds extremely similar to this one, with two people named Fred and Sally; in A Fred would go to Heaven (say, under an Arminian soteriology involving libertarian free-will choices on behalf of Fred, or even a flat-out works-based one, doesn't really matter for the sake of this argument), and Sally would go to Hell; in B Sally would go to Heaven, and Fred would go to Hell. If you like, you could add C where both go to Heaven, and D where both go to Hell. If God chooses A, is God not choosing that Fred go to Heaven and Sally go to Hell? Vice versa with B.Now that most of you are ready to lynch me :-) Please consider these words recently posted elsewhere by Douglas Wilson (a thorough Calvinist) :"By virtue of creation, mankind was given given a true and natural liberty with regard to all issues of good and evil. Adam, when he fell, was not coerced or dragged into that sin. The decree which God had given concerning the fall of man did not "force" Adam to sin, and neither had God implanted within Adam any program of internal coercion. Now how can a non-coercive decree be a sovereign decree? The answer to the question resides in the fact that the "causal agent" in the sovereign decrees does not inhabit the same "universe" as the thing caused. If it did, then the causation on the one hand displaces responsibility on the other. In other words, God is to the universe what Shakespeare is to Macbeth, and not what Lady Macbeth is to Macbeth. Put another way, God's relation to the universe is unlike every causal situation in the world that we know. Consequently, it is a category mistake of the first order to try to compare the two different kinds of causation."To clarify my own position and what I'm getting at: I find Calvinism lacking as a system because, although it takes presuppositions I mostly (or perhaps fully) agree with and follows them mostly (perhaps fully) logically, some of its conclusions are unscriptural (I'm thinking of limited atonement here, and 1 John 2:2). Nonetheless, I find it impossible to logically escape the conclusion that God chose exactly what would happen, before any of it happened. Just because the argument is logically sound (please let me know if there are any objections on that ground) does not make it true, that depends on the truth of the premise(s). That means, more or less, that if the conclusion is unbiblical, one or more of the premises is false.The tricky part here is that many of these premises (presuppositions) are pretty buried in centuries of Western (for me) thought tradition. And it is not sufficient, to me, to say "well, the problem is somewhere in my presuppositions" and leave it at that. If God so willed, that's ok, but except/until God makes that clear to me, I'd like to figure out where that problem is (and, of course, I'd first like to establish to the possible degree of certainty that there is/is not a Scriptural problem with the above conclusion).

KeithI am really excited at the prospect of talking these over here. So often these things are discussed from behind the barracades and you never get to see the other person's eyes. I feel from your posting that there is a real chance here of talking over a cup of coffee, and actually enjoying the experience rather than trying to beat the enemy into the ground. Thanks for taking this slant.I suspect, that because some of us who have thought about these things often, some will want to rush into the fray but if I can remind myself and fellow-posters that this is not really a private conversation and is conducted here specifically so that others can listen and contribute. That means we may need to be bit recursive.Having said the above, what are your feelings about infralapsarianism and the like? :-? Is this the kind of territory that we are exploring?

Hi Bro. Keith,God was not restricted in His options except by the fact that He "cannot deny Himself" and "cannot lie" (or similar Scriptural restrictions, please bring up any you see as relevant),Any decision that God makes must be in harmony with His revealed personality. We cannot superimpose a personality on God that is out of step with the full counsel of His character. This absolutely must be understood or any discussion of election will surely jump the rails. This is where secular philosophers are mistaken. And invariably they turn the tables and make God into what we know as Lucifer.Since God, if He truly wanted to, could have added, removed, or altered any result He found desireable, undesireable, or in need of modification, He did in fact choose to have things happen the way they will.I would object to this premise on the grounds that it superimposes on God the actions that man may take if he were omnipotent and omniscient. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts not our thoughts. Moreover, we have moved into the realm of philosophy to which we are warned in scripture that we may be spoiled with vain deceit after the rudements of the world caused by the pride of a fleshly mind. Furthermore we are now making an examination of God's decision making faculties that will back us into the same corner as before charging God with being the author of sin and the Father of Lies. And I thouroughly reject any teaching that makes the Gospel the good news of man's damnation. Surely someone in the old days would have had enough spiritual discernment to know that this is of the Devil and gives no glory to God whatsoever. Now that most of you are ready to lynch meNo lynchings or burnings at the stake. No banishments or confiscations. No imprisonments. No beheadings. :-) Those who have held strong Calvinistic positions in the past centuries have surely done so. Michael Severetus was killed by Calvin at Geneva and Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded in Binnenhof in the Hague at the age of 72 years (See John L. Motley). One account I read in 1994 said that Calvin was so beaten down by his own theological conclusions that he despaired at the end even of life and looked well older than his actual age. He simply could not come to terms with what his doctrines were leading him. :-? BTW Arminius was also of the Reform persuasion. It is a misnomer to pit him totally against Calvin to a high degree because of the many times he quoted Calvin and Augustine in his works. On the topic of Romans 7, though his position was condemned, it was in agreement with Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Clement, and a host of others. It was in step with Institutes 2.7.9, 2.7.10, 4.20.1, etc., and Augustines Epistle to Romans (To Simplicanianus). It was later in his life that Augustine wrote some retractions to these views. Anyway, the positions are not as far off as is often supposed. Anytime you (anyone that is) start thinking that God saves one and damn another you are in danger of persecuting those who you feel are damned (reprobated). Soon any treatment is justifiable to the "wretched reprobates." Let us keep this in mind as we attend to matters in which many of the founders have greatly erred from the Love of God which accompanies the Spirit filled believer.My official position is that I oppose supralapsarian double unconditional election. God Bless,-Robert

My official position is that I oppose supralapsarian double unconditional election. Hi Robertthis makes a great slogan if you should ever want to run for election. ;-) I have this mental picture of all your supporters chanting it. (yes, I do have a peculiar sense of humour)

This makes a great slogan if you should ever want to run for electionI try not to make it a habit of defining myself by what I am not, but in this case I think I have to. To add a little clarification I want to also state that God cannot be made to be the author of sin, nor can we suggest that it was God's will that man sins or that Adam and Eve sinned. To do this is to charge God with wickedness. it would place God in violation of Romans 1:32; Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Brother Robert, And this would be called penal atonement if my terminology is correct? I believe that's the term you described above.We're on the same page but the terminology is difficult for a lay person. I recognize the terms but I doubt I could pronounce most of the words at this point.

We're on the same page but the terminology is difficult for a lay person. I recognize the terms but I doubt I could pronounce most of the words at this point.I'm sorry brother. I can't hardly pronounce them either without getting tongue tied. :-? I really had no intentions of entering these types of discussions here at SI, I wanted to focus on revival and Jewish Roots. These things are almost dead in the water in our generation and don't edify much; yet there is some good in it all. It helps us sharpen up for ministry in the public especially. Evangelism is greatly aided to certain folk by having a grasp of some of these issues. You will cross their paths from time to time. God directs the steps of the righteous into the pathway of those who are seriously seeking Him. God Bless,-Robert

I'm not upset Brother Robert, not in the least.I've been reexamining my own beliefs in the light of scripture. It's been a harrowing experience and this is part of the ground being plowed.I appreciate both your comments and those of Brother Ron and they have been immensely helpful to me.

Hi all,My official position is that I oppose supralapsarian double unconditional election. Hey this is a line from Mary poppins not a slogan,or am i thinking of supa-cala-fagelistic- exbe alli- dousious.Anyway, on aserious note please remember there are us mere un-learned folk wishing to learn more,the way you guys are handleing the current situation is great respect to you Mike Ron Robert keith and Greg. :-)

supa-cala-fagelistic- exbe alli- dousiousHi Delboy,What I meant by supralapsarian double unconditional election is that God did not create or desire for sin to exist in Heaven or Earth. Moreover, I do not believe that God predestines men and women to heaven or hell apart from any decision on their part. This confirms the good news of Jesus Christ as genuine good news and not a construct of pretense and lies. The sticking point is in the very definition of God and what it means to be God. A coworker once said to me something like this, "If it happens it must be God's will or God would not be God." I countered by demonstrating that an omnipotent God was able to create a world in which finite man could exercise free will. That generally leads to a long discussion on the "problem of evil." God Bless,-Robert

Hi to all Mary Poppins-es,I am to blame for introducing the word infralapsarianism and Robert introduced the alternative. On my part it was a joke but with a serious intention.Keith (please correct me if I am wrong) was saying not that God directly caused sin and intended its consequences (that would be supralapsarianism) but created conditions that knowingly allowed it (infralapsarianism). Keith, acknowledging that we are struggling with human words to understand how things are as they are, was suggesting that the views are pretty close. Calvinist explain these in terms of the Decrees; in a sense decisions that were made in the Godhead before creation. (before anyone protests, they don't imagine a council having convened but its more like God's axioms in the creation of mankind.) The question then is was it one of God's axioms that man would sin? or in Calvinist-speak 'was it in the Decrees or not?'One of problems is that our race's fall was secondary and came through the agency of another race. The Bible however only gives 'need-to-know' data on the other race's fall. We have a couple of prophecies in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 which seem to be giving us a little information; enough for our needs.Keith mentioned that he was uncomfortable with the L of TULIP in the Calvinistic explanation. For new readersTotal DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)Irresistable GracePerserverance of the saints.Folks who hold to all these points I called Five Point Calvinists (FPCs) In some ways Calvinism is very logical in that the whole scheme of things is very well integrated. I'm not going to go through the whole list, that's been done before in these threads, but Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption means that atonement and consequently redemption has only been provided for the Unconditionally Elect who will find grace Irresistable. Keith may be a Four Point Calvinist; I am a 'one point and slippling' Calvinist.This is the area of this discussion. Please read Keith's post again and with this mini-introduction lets see where we are up to so far.Keith, there is nothing more frustrating that having someone else explain your theology so please correct any of the above.

Thanks guys, Ron, which part of the TULIP is slipping ?.... :-)

which part of the TULIP is slippingHi Delboy,I can't speak for Bro. Ron, but for me I would have to answer that point by point. So far, we have looked at the U and deemed "unconditional double election" to be completly in conflict with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it, in its finality accuses God of being what He is damning sinners to Hell for. The usual retort to this is, "God can do what He wants because He is God." That sounds pious, but again is a pagan concept of God, in that, it asserts that God will act contrary to His revealed personality and inconsistent with His revealed will. The 'nuclear button' that finally gets pushed is Romans 9:20, Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God. Again, this sounds pious, but I counter this with asking, "if Paul asked this question in this context, what would he ask a person who made God to become the Fathers of Lies?" L or "limited atonement" is generally not debated these days by most. But we need only cite I John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Darby) again, most of these things are rooted in pagan philosophy and not God's Word. This is why you will read pages after pages of arguments with no scripture cited. It would be a good time to also remind all that, based upon my resources, noone can be cited before Augustine other than the Jews who believed in Unconditional Election. P was dealt with in passing as it was once known as "perseverance" but now has come to mean "preservation." Those who held this doctrine believe that God has ordained the elect to eternal life and there is no possibility of them falling from grace. The new spin on this states that whosoever has accepted Christ as Savior is guaranteed to make Heaven, as their sins are forgiven, past, present and future. There is much disagreement with this, as some affirm that Christ must be Lord (Lordship salvation) in order to be genuinely 'saved' while others affirm a simple faith in Christ with no obedience necessary. That leaves us with the T for "Total Depravity" and the I for "Irresistable Grace." Depravity has been discussed in threads concerning Original Sin. I would like here to build upon Bro. Ron's Red Heifer tractate to demonstrate that the agent of Grace is the Holy Spirit and we know that the Holy Spirit is resistable. You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You do always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do you... (Acts 7:51). Moreover, in Genesis 6 God said that His Spirit would not always "strive" with man. Hebrews warns us not to do "despite" unto the Spirit of Grace. Why? Because He is the Divine agent of grace and the agent of appropriation for the blood of Christ. (See the beginning of this thread for info on Red Heifer). He can be resisted, defied, and disregarded. Some would say that there are times when God's grace is "unresistable" and I would concur in part. There are times when the grace of God appears unto a man or woman by the agency of the Holy Spirit and that grace is suffecient to arrest their will and they respond rightly to God's leading. However, if their heart had been contrary they would have resisted that dealing though the measure of faith and grace dealt to the sinner were identical. I'll stop for comments...God Bless,-Robert

Thanks guys, Ron, which part of the TULIP is slipping ?.... T, the rest have already sunk.

I'll stop for comments...T, the rest have already sunk.Well, I guess that says it.

Lord, guide us, put Thine words in our mouths, Thine truth in our minds...>Bro. Ron:>Thanks for taking this slant.I'm happy to, these questions are very important to me, and I've been wanting to discuss them with people who come up with different answers and can really articulate how they came to those answers.>Having said the above, what are your feelings about infralapsarianism and the like? Is this the kind of territory that we are exploring?I'm not sure the supra/infra distinction is central to the argument I presented, because even if the fall was not technically part of the decrees, God would have known it was going to happen if He chose this particular path, and thus chose that it would happen by not choosing any other path. What the argument leads to is not Calvinism, per se, but rather Theistic Determinism, regardless of whether God determined to use a Calvinistic, Arminian, or Pelagian (or whatever) method of saving people. I'm not sure I'd call myself a determinist (mostly due to connotations associated with the idea), but logic seems to lead inexorably in that path, given classical theology.One of the points I'm wanting to get at here is "If not determinism, then what?" If something happens, and God did not previously determine that it would happen, then why did it happen? What caused it, if not God? An answer along the lines of "free moral agent(s) caused it" is not really satisfactory to me, because God has/had the "final say" in whether or not those moral agents would actually exercise their God-given freedom in such a way, and in granting that freedom and allowing the relevant circumstances to be as they were, God "set the process in motion" for that thing to happen. Unless there were some other decision maker involved that did not derive its existence and freedom from God, but I don't think anyone here would suggest such a thing.Even if some form of "Open Theism" were true, where (as many open theists formulate, I understand) God intentionally chose to limit his foreknowledge of free moral actions, He still made that choice and thus accepted the consequences of that choice when He was under no compulsion to do so (because nothing can compel God except God Himself, whether directly by His character or indirectly through a covenant promise He makes or something like that). Even if He doesn't know what will happen (as hard as it is for me to understand how that could possibly be), He still would have understood the risk and would be accepting any or all of the possible outcomes.On the note of "nothing can compel God except God Himself":>Bro. Robert:>Any decision that God makes must be in harmony with His revealed personality.Of course, that's what I was getting at in terms of "restrictions". But it occured to me, who placed the restriction of His personality upon Him? He did, of course (I'm not saying there was ever a time that He was not so bound, since temporal terms are kind of meaningless in this context). Since He chose to accept those restrictions, He accepted the consequences of accepting those restrictions. Furthermore, since these are aspects of His character and personality, He would never desire to violate them since (correct me if I'm wrong) His desires are simply the outworking of His character and personality. Thus, any consequences of His personality (i.e., perhaps, His character demanding that He allow the fall to occur so that His wrath and mercy might be exhibited to His creation) and the result of His desires, not contrary to them.To re-phrase again: if God didn't want it to happen, why did it happen?>Michael Severetus was killed by Calvin at GenevaYes, he was. It may be that there is no real defense of Calvin's character here (it's not quite open and shut, though), but on this issue I'm not really following Calvin, or Calvinism, but rather Western/"Classical Theology" presuppositions to their logical (in my view) ends. I'm not saying the results are true, that is to be tested by Scripture, but I hold that the results are logical, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.>Arminius was also of the Reform persuasionYep. Reading the initial Arminian Remonstrance leaves one (or at least me) with the impression that it's a rather Reformed-leaning position. James Arminius, at least in the questions section of vol.1 of his works, believed a form of Perseverance of the Saints. Wesley, perhaps most famous among Arminians, said that "Calvinism is within a hair's breadth of the truth" (I'm paraphrasing slightly, perhaps). Charles Finney, it is interesting to note, was an ordained Presbyterian and believed Unconditional Election, Reprobation, and the Perseverance of the Saints (though with his own modifications, I'm sure), and yet managed to not really believe Total Depravity, putting him more in the Pelagian camp than the Augistinian-Calvinist camp (and rather at odds with the Confession he had affirmed).But, again, this particular argument is not so much for Reformed Theology, because it still must be reckoned with in every Christian Theism I know of. Open Theists get a bit farther away from it than most, but they still have to say (correct me if I'm wrong) that God freely chose to enter into the risk of starting something He couldn't see the particulars or end of, thus making the choice a step or so more indirect.>Anytime you (anyone that is) start thinking that God saves one and damn another you are in danger of persecuting those who you feel are damned (reprobated). Soon any treatment is justifiable to the "wretched reprobates." I suppose I see the danger, but I could not conceive of "persecuting" anyone even if I were a flat-out determinist and I knew for certain that they were going to Hell, if anything I would feel pity for them. In either case, I do not believe (nor do any of the Calvinists I know of) that we as humans can reliably discern God's decrees of election or reprobation.>My official position is that I oppose supralapsarian double unconditional election.Then I suppose that you would oppose the implication of the above, which is that everything that happens was at some point chosen to happen by God. Or, as the Westminster divines rendered it, God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Once again, I'm not stating this as true, merely as logical (and, as you pointed out, we run into danger in philosophy). But I re-phrase again: If an event occured without God's foreordination, then how did it occur? Was He unable to prevent it? Did He not know it was coming? These questions aren't fully rhetorical, but it's difficult to imagine answers other than that He saw it coming, was able to prevent it, and freely chose to not prevent it.Many take such ideas to necessarily imply that God is morally responsible for the results, or that God delights in the results, etc. I can easily see why such conclusions are reached, but I do not see them as necessarily the case. Is an author morally responsible for the actions of the characters in the stories he writes? Is a potter responsible to make all his pots glorious vessels for noble use, never to be destroyed? Again, not fully rhetorical, but I would appreciate explanations of any affirmative answers, and of course I expect objections to the implicit analogies.If it is a crime to choose to create a universe that would (at some point) have sin in it, while knowing of that resulting sin beforehand, then is there any way at all that the God of the Bible can be exonerated of that charge? I contend that such a creation is not a crime.>Bro. Ron:>Keith mentioned that he was uncomfortable with the L of TULIP in the Calvinistic explanation. For new readers>Total Depravity>Unconditional Election>Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)>Irresistable Grace>Perserverance of the saints.The TULIP is a good summary of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt (the Calvinist response to the 5 articles of the Arminian Remonstrance), and somewhat helpful in defining Calvinism, but I find the 5 "solas" a better summary of Reformed Theology as a whole. Not that I'm Reformed, so I can't speak for them. Personally, if it matters, I believe the T, U, and I, but find the L unscriptural and there are Scriptures that make me unsure of whether we should affirm the P (which was the Arminian position in the Remonstrance, that they simply weren't sure enough to teach it, rather than that they were sure that Conditional Security was true). This makes for a theology with a lot of unresolved tension, but I'll get into that some other time.I have to go shortly, otherwise I would respond to more, but I'll close with: the "determinism" argument isn't necessary tied to Calvinism and its particulars, as I've discussed, but I think we'd be better served by moving on to the Calvinism topic. I've asked one of my Calvinist friends to join us in our discussion here, partly because I think we need at least one genuine Calvinist to really conduct this discussion well, we'll see if he has the time.Grace and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ,-Keith

If it is a crime to choose to create a universe that would (at some point) have sin in it, while knowing of that resulting sin beforehand, then is there any way at all that the God of the Bible can be exonerated of that charge? If we must pass beyond the teachings of scripture to try and imagine a scenerio where these things would be possible based upon the restrictions placed upon a 'logical' view of God I would have to appeal to the fact that all of our experience in this cosmos is His creation, including time. if God didn't want it to happen, why did it happen?Let me split the horns of your options if I may. We have reduced our options to saying that either 1) God "ordained" sin or 2) He "willed" sin to exist. I will offer the option I believe as closely as possible fits what happened in the form of a scriptural analogy. He knew man would sin and permitted it to happen but it was NOT His will. Just as it is not God's will that any perish, but ALL come to repentance. If it is not God's will that they perish and they do, then how can this be? To follow out the logical conclusions of scripture at times can lead a person to say, "let us do evil that good may come." (who's damnation is just) God does not revoke the free moral agency that He gave man even though He GREATLY desires for man to be saved- He will not REVOKE that 'license.' He may lay a million roadblocks to Hell in the street, but He will not revoke the "right to drive." Some things are not to be taken to their logical conclusions because we don't know all the variables. We are playing with 3 deminsions of space and a deminsion of time. God is unlimited in His possibilities and cannot be made subject to the laws of His creation. Was it not Calvin that said it is impossible to know any more about God than He has chosen to reveal to us? If, as Bro. Ron frequently points out that things are on a "need to know" basis, we must not take our speculations too seriously. We are trying to answer quantum algebra equations with 1st grade math. We can no more understand God with what variables we know than a man could understand quantum mechanics using Newton's laws. We are at the 'macro' level trying to understand 'micro' issues. We simply can't know for sure. If we knew it all as well as we had liked we had not needed faith. God Bless,-Robert

RobertW wrote:If we must pass beyond the teachings of scripture to try and imagine a scenerio where these things would be possible based upon the restrictions placed upon a 'logical' view of GodI'm not trying to imagine a scenario with that particular question, we're living within that scenario: God created a universe, and now there's sin in it. Did God know that sin would happen? (I won't assume you would answer yes, but I would) Did God have to let that sin occur? (in other words, was there something He wanted to happen that even He could not make happen without allowing sin?) If He didn't have to let it happen, yet knowingly did, would that fit your definition of "author of sin"?Or would any of those questions in there net the answer "We don't know"? Such is quite valid, but it would leave us at something of an impasse (quite understandable, considering the topic).I would have to appeal to the fact that all of our experience in this cosmos is His creation, including time.Meaning that we wouldn't know enough to make the charge? I wasn't really saying any of us could make that charge, or any other, against God, I was asking whether or not God would be guilty if that kind of choice was a crime. Not that anyone can accuse God of wrongdoing in any event.

if God didn't want it to happen, why did it happen?He knew man would sin and permitted it to happen but it was NOT His will.

Hi GuysHave you ever come across AmyraldianismSorry, Delboy!There is a paper by a Theological Student with some interesting tables here. Sometimes these kind of things can be helpful in clarifying our own thinking. I

Hi Bro. Keith,Did God know that sin would happen?Yes. Did God have to let that sin occur?Hmmm. I have thought through this before. If man had chosen to love God verified by complete obedience love could have existed in sinless perfection throughout the ages. Yet, certain parameters and variables have to be in place in order to allow the real possibility of not loving God. Satan provided the alternate option (sin). This invariably leads to a discussion of the origin of sin itself. We will have to save that for another post. If He didn't have to let it happen, yet knowingly did, would that fit your definition of "author of sin"?No. It would not. If Satan is the Father of lies God cannot be charged with Satan's actions anymore than you or I could be charged for someone else. Or would any of those questions in there net the answer "We don't know"? Such is quite valid, but it would leave us at something of an impasse (quite understandable, considering the topic).We know enough to safely trust in Him. Meaning that we wouldn't know enough to make the charge? I wasn't really saying any of us could make that charge, or any other, against God, I was asking whether or not God would be guilty if that kind of choice was a crime. Not that anyone can accuse God of wrongdoing in any event.Meaning we don't know enough nor do we have the mental capacity to process the wonder of God. We don't possess enough hard drive, RAM, or processor speed. ;-) Then why did He permit it? Was He compelled to by some outside force? (of course not) Was He compelled to do so by His character? If so, then it was consistent with His desires (which are dictated by His character, no?), and in what sense could something be consistent with His desires and not His will?The same way that spanking a child should never by our 'will' but it is for a purpose. This is an imperfect illustration, but we can apprehend these things enough to satisfy our questions and come back when we have more understanding. Then why did He permit it? Was He compelled to by some outside force? (of course not) Was He compelled to do so by His character? If so, then it was consistent with His desires (which are dictated by His character, no?), and in what sense could something be consistent with His desires and not His will?Because it is the price of genuine love; and it indeed is a high one, the highest price of all. hould we expect the Scriptural refutation of determinism (or, at least, the logical extent of the argument I've been presenting, whether or not that fits the normal definition of "determinism") to be similarly clear? I'm asking because I see this headed in the direction of "we don't know how, we can't know how, but that conclusion incorrect and we can't expect any kind of clear reason as to why it's incorrect;" I won't reject that idea out of hand, but is that where we're headed in this discussion?I would answer by saying that we can know enough to apprehand and not fully comprehend. (see similar arguments above) We can know enough to safely trust in Him, but we will not know everything here by any means and will likely marvel at His wonder for all eternity. :-) It still wouldn't have happened if He really wanted to stop it.But to stop it would revoke our free will and therefor void the authenticity of real love for God. As a Christian, I've already subordinated logic to Scripture in any case, but there is something of a problem in that it's not exactly possible to interpret Scripture with "no presuppositions" or without some use of logic.Again, this is a good idea because we are trying to run MS Windows on a TRS-80 machine. In BASIC cannot comprehend DOS, etc. "The 'mind of God' is the rug under which theologians sweep their dirt."I would despair if I served a God i could explain! If not, is your appeal to our lack of knowledge a valid defense of "some things happen without God choosing that they happen"? (or is that not what you're defending?) If such responses are valid, then how would you reply to the double predestinarian that uses one?By making what we don't know subservient to what we DO know and not the other way around. I could quote more, but this post is already a few miles long...Ah we have arrived at these passages. I pondered them last night even again. I have a response, but will not give it now. I will get back to it today Lord willing.

From Bro. Ron:Have you ever come across AmyraldianismThank you for pointing us at those tables. I'd already seen a version of the S/I/A/A one, but not the other tables. The paper is a helpful summary of the distinctions between those systems.I suppose Amyraldism is closer to my position than either Calvinism or Arminianism, because it affirms the basic predestinarian view that I hold, yet also accounts (or at least tries to account) for those passages (1 John 2:2, again, I could go to others) that certainly seem to prohibit the usual formulation of "limited atonement". The remaining difficulty would be that I'm basically a Remonstrant Arminian when it comes to "Perseverance of the Saints", which is to say that there are passages (James 5:19-20, Galatians 5:19-21, etc, I can dig through the old OSAS thread for the long list I tended to quote on that topic) that make me sufficiently unsure of the "P" that I can't affirm it as true.To clarify, I am not "personally" uncomfortable with Limited Atonement or Perseverance of the Saints, it wouldn't bother me emotionally or anything like that if they were true, and they certainly do follow from a logical approach starting from the standard Reformed presuppositions (most or all of which I agree with). In short, they appear adequate to me in every attribute except that of being Scriptural :-)One thing that the paper reminds me of: it refers to a "Divine" monergistic sotieriology as giving all the glory to God, and a synergistic sotieriology as giving part of the glory to God and part of the glory to man. Do you agree with that? (I'm guessing no) In either case, it's that kind of thing that I was getting at when I said that it may be better to think of Reformed Theology in terms of the five "solas" ("Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gratia", "Sola Fide", "Solus Christus", "Soli Deo Gloria", if I remember correctly) rather than the five "points" from Dordt. The formative principle, Sola Scriptura, reveals to us that salvation is by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone, and thus that ALL the glory belongs to God, not merely part. The question, then, is whether or not a synergistic sotierology (for anyone just jumping in, that more or less means, in this context, "plan of salvation") would give God all the glory. The response I'm prone to (even as a monergist) is that the glory belongs entirely to God even if salvation were works-based, because "all good and perfect gifts come from God" and without such gifts the man would not be able to perform those works. But the Apostle Paul didn't seem to agree with that, but I'll get into those passages another time (probably next time).From Bro. Robert:Satan provided the alternate option (sin). This invariably leads to a discussion of the origin of sin itself. We will have to save that for another post.That is getting at a very important part of this discussion: if God is not the origin of evil (of which sin is a manifestation), then where did it come from? I think it is a matter of recognizing that "good" and "evil" are not ontologically equal, and their relation is perhaps most analagous to "light" and "darkness", and that evil is essentially the "absence of good" or, perhaps, "absence of God"; I'd say more specifically that evil is the result of a free moral agent choosing autonomy instead of theonomy: choosing to obey one's own desires (the "way that appears straight before man") rather than God's commands. It is because of this that I believe it can be said that Adam "sinned" even before he had the "knowledge of good and evil", it was simply a matter of Adam choosing to do what was right in his eyes, rather than obey the command of God. Satan, on the other hand, may have had the knowledge of good and evil before he fell (which might, perhaps, explain why no reconcilliation has been offered him that we know of, but this is speculation upon speculation). In any case, this topic deserves a far more thorough treatment than I can give it right now. Suffice it to say as far as our discussion goes that God knew the evil would come to pass as a result of certain actions of His (i.e. creating free moral agents, angels and men, in the circumstances which He also created), and yet He still took those actions.We know enough to safely trust in Him.Amen, that is not at all in dispute here. Even if it came to this: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him..." (Job 13:15a, the context is interesting there, though)Meaning we don't know enough nor do we have the mental capacity to process the wonder of God. We don't possess enough hard drive, RAM, or processor speed.Quite true. Essentially my question is, whether or not He hard-coded it or whether He used a tremendous amount of indirection and compiled it with/without optimizations, didn't He write all the code? Or even if He wrote routines to generate code generators (i.e. free moral agents) which in turn generated their own code (i.e. free moral actions), was He not fully aware of what the results would be when He wrote the initial stuff? (If you didn't understand that last paragraph, it's because I was using a fairly involved Computer Science analogy)I would respond to the rest of your post, Brother Robert, but I need to get going.Thanks again.His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven,-Keith

Hi Ron Seroiusly, don't apologise,I'm drinking this all in,even if its a sip at a time :-) I do want to comment bro Rob thanks for your imputnow taking second sip !! ;-)

I’ve not added much to this stage of the debate; partly because Keith answers most of his own questions in the way that I would have. I find myself listening and half-thinking of my response, only to find you get there before me. Keith wrote…To clarify, I am not "personally" uncomfortable with Limited Atonement or Perseverance of the Saints, it wouldn't bother me emotionally or anything like that if they were true, and they certainly do follow from a logical approach starting from the standard Reformed presuppositions (most or all of which I agree with). In short, they appear adequate to me in every attribute except that of being Scriptural Yes, it’s a pity that! I think we have all been there. We develop a thrilling theory only to find that the book seems to ignore it. Keith wrote… One thing that the paper reminds me of: it refers to a "Divine" monergistic sotieriology as giving all the glory to God, and a synergistic sotieriology as giving part of the glory to God and part of the glory to man. Do you agree with that? (I'm guessing no) In either case, it's that kind of thing that I was getting at when I said that it may be better to think of Reformed Theology in terms of the five "solas" ("Sola Scriptura", "Sola Gratia", "Sola Fide", "Solus Christus", "Soli Deo Gloria", if I remember correctly) rather than the five "points" from Dordt. The formative principle, Sola Scriptura, reveals to us that salvation is by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone, and thus that ALL the glory belongs to God, not merely part. The question, then, is whether or not a synergistic sotierology (for anyone just jumping in, that more or less means, in this context, "plan of salvation") would give God all the glory. The response I'm prone to (even as a monergist) is that the glory belongs entirely to God even if salvation were works-based, because "all good and perfect gifts come from God" and without such gifts the man would not be able to perform those works. But the Apostle Paul didn't seem to agree with that, but I'll get into those passages another time (probably next time). I like your Five Solas which means most Calvinists would think them too loose. If they let me in, they have failed. The only alternative would be Sola Mio; isn't that an musical item?‘Synergy’ is a great word and thoroughly biblical; it is used, together with its noun, quite frequently in scripture Mar 16:20; Rom 8:28; Rom 16:3; Rom 16:9; Rom 16:21; 1Co 3:9; 1Co 16:16; 2Co 1:24; 2Co 6:1; 2Co 8:23; Phi 2:25; Phi 4:3; Col 4:11; 1Th 3:2; Phm 1:1; Phm 1:24; Jam 2:22; 3Jo 1:8;One reference is particularly interesting; And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28 NASB) This actually says that it is God who does the synergising! God causes synergy. In fact, I think that God demands synergy and makes it possible and because it is possible He demands it... and if we refuse to cooperate we incure sin.I have a favourite scripture that I turn to again and again in this issue. It comes from the provision of David for the building of the Temple. Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for things to be made of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and the brass for things of brass, the iron for things of iron, and wood for things of wood; onyx stones, and stones to be set, glistering stones, and of divers colours, and all manner of precious stones, and marble stones in abundance. Moreover, because I have set my affection to the house of my God, I have of mine own proper good, of gold and silver, which I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house, Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal: (1Ch 29:2-4 KJV)From this we see the energy and determination that David put into this project. However David, like Paul, was very aware of the source of the energy and commitment. Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. (1Ch 29:11-14 KJV)This is total ‘sole deo’.But it this insight that grips me… O LORD our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own. I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. (1Ch 29:16-17 KJV)David is conscious of his own efforts, conscious that God has sourced the whole thing, and yet also conscious that God is ‘trying the heart’. The word means to test, to assay. In other words David says ‘I know you have given all this into my hand to see what I will do with it’.I believe that faith is God’s gift, but I see that with gifts it is required that a man be a good steward, and that the man will be held to account for his stewardship. I’ve just done a little Christmas meditation on John 1, but have deliberately omitted the ‘human response’ section. I want to get back to that and work through its implications for the ‘receiving Christ’ school of preaching.One of the things that sometimes irks me is that the Calvinist control the agenda, apparently. I read another article on the web about Amyraldism; the writer simplified things neatly… there are, he said, no such things as Amyraldists or 4 point Calvinists, just confused Arminians. There, that’s easy to grasp isn’t it? ;-) I always have to start this discussion by saying ‘I don’t believe…’ which is not where I like to start my discussions. Predestination, for example, are we sure that its target is personal salvation? For many years I thought that my thoughts that ‘predestination has more to do with service than salvation’ were original, until I discovered Tozer, Campbell Morgan and Oswald Chambers saying the same thing.I have to say that even thought the Calvinist says he does not mean literal decrees, the whole concept of God pre-ordering the pattern of salvation is very strange to me. I struggle to see the point as to why we should try so hard to analyse how God has thought only to say, but of course, God doesn’t think processes like this. It’s like hunting some fabled beast. It behaves like this and this and this, but of course it doesn’t really exist. Perhaps I have no imagination. I am tempted to cry ‘mind your own business; what has this got to do with you?’ Isn’t this really a kind of arrogance? The article I quoted had a nice line; Much confusion exists over the terms foreknowledge, predestination, election, and reprobation. These terms are theologically sequential. They are not chronologically sequential, nor are they synonymous. It sounds good until you ask ‘what does it mean?’ Sequence has to do with time; otherwise why all the fuss about the order of the decrees. Sequence means coming after or before. What is a theological sequence? The article goes on to state; Foreknowledge means that God knew beforehand (i.e., had intimate, personal relations with [e.g., Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Psa 1:6; Amos 3:2]) certain individuals (Rom 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet 1:1-2). Its basis is not explicitly clear in Scripture though it is clear that its basis is not mans foreseen choice or works (Rom 9:11, 16). It does not refer to an educated guess (like a medical prognosis) or prescience (foreseen faith). God foreknew people themselves not their faith (Rom 8:29-30) Foreknowledge is the basis for predestination and election (1 Pet 1:1-2; cf. Eph 1:4-5). God knew people, not their faith? What can this mean? What did he know about people? Was there something He did not know about people? The word ‘foreknowledge’ used in these verses; Act 26:5; Rom 8:29; Rom 11:2; 1Pe 1:20; 2Pe 3:17; I think reading these verses shows that it is exactly the ‘behaviour’ of people that is ‘foreknown’.Anyway, that’s my own little rant. Now I’ll wait…(I’m enjoying this, not the contest, the comradeship. :-D

Perhaps I have no imagination. I am tempted to cry ‘mind your own business; what has this got to do with you?’ Isn’t this really a kind of arrogance? This speaks well to the feelings I get when I investigate these topics. I have the feeling I get when I step into someone's bedroom. There is a feeling of not belonging, even though you are there by innocent invitation. I can't help but feeling, "You don't belong in here- not get out of here!"******************"Apprehending When We don't Comprehend"(Enguage Thinking Cap)I have a neat analogy I have not shared yet that I learned a long time ago from some apologists I studied who were physicists. I hope I can articulate this as I really need to do it by demonstration.1) Imagine a linear line drawn on a sheet of paper sitting on a desk.2) Imagine two stick figures have been drawn of equal size; side by side on the same sheet (all of these items are drawn in parallel).3) Imagine two identical childrens dolls standing upright at the end of the paper. The line (we will call the line 'he') "looks over" and sees what appears to be a line just like itself. From the lines perspective, there is only 1 linear line beside him because after all, 'he' is a 'line' and he has a one dimensional and limited perspective. The stick figures try and try and try to tell the 'line' that there are two of them (stick figures) and even explain the shape of themselves as containing area, but it is to no avail, because the line simply cannot comprehend a two dimensional world.Now, the stick figure looks to the left and sees the line and comprehends it; then it looks to the right and sees the doll and thinks it sees a two dimensional object like itself. It sees only what it is capable of "comprehending" and that is two dimensions. The dolls try to explain that they have an added dimension that gives them volume, but it is of no consequence because the stick figures are only capable of understanding 2 dimensions. The dolls (for the sake of argument) can comprehend both the line (1 dimension) and the stickfigures (2 dimensions) as well as themselves (3 dimensions). We now come to another law that states no two objects can occupy the same space. What is the answer to this problem? Add a dimension of time. Now the two objects can occupy the same space, but not at the same time. This simple example shows us how we may not understand certain things about God, but we can apprehend them, or in other words, we can recognize how they can be true though we cannot visualize that truth. We are the doll's who understand the line and the stick figures but cannot understand beyond that. We see the ignorance of the line towards the stick men and see our own ignorance of things greater than we. God Bless,-Robert

‘Synergy’ is a great word and thoroughly biblical; it is used, together with its noun, quite frequently in scripture Mar 16:20; Rom 8:28; Rom 16:3; Rom 16:9; Rom 16:21; 1Co 3:9; 1Co 16:16; 2Co 1:24; 2Co 6:1; 2Co 8:23; Phi 2:25; Phi 4:3; Col 4:11; 1Th 3:2; Phm 1:1; Phm 1:24; Jam 2:22; 3Jo 1:8;One reference is particularly interesting; And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28 NASB) This actually says that it is God who does the synergising! God causes synergy. In fact, I think that God demands synergy and makes it possible and because it is possible He demands it... and if we refuse to cooperate we incure sinThanks Bro. Ron. I wondered if we would delve (dive) into this synergy stuff. :-? You give a great answer here. I'll remember it well. I despair to discuss the topic with some who even suggest that repentance is 'works' and that after a certain place in acts, repentance is no longer mentioned as a requirement of salvation. Some kind of dispensationalism I think. This type of theology comes out of a certain Theological Seminary in our town. They even have a radio station. It used to be fairly edifying, but now it is called, "positive Christian radio." :-( The official position on the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is that the topic is "not up for discussion." I also appreciate the philostorgos (brotherly kindness) this thread has yielded. I appreciate Bro. Keith's questions and have gleaned from his views also. To God be the glory!

I'm into finals week now here at UGA, so not as much time to post, but here goes:from Bro. Robert:

"The 'mind of God' is the rug under which theologians sweep their dirt."I would despair if I served a God i could explain!

Hi KeithWelcome back. "to those who love God"; who loves God? Do any non-Christians? Certainly not (would any of you say otherwise?). The Calvinist would likely (at least, I get this impression) affirm that God and the Christian work synergistically in Sanctification, but that Justification (where God is dealing with a non-Christian) is purely a monergistic matter. They would also be likely to ask a rhetorical question like "is the sinner dead in his sins, or merely sick?" Whereupon we might discover just how far from the "T" our beloved brother Ron has slid :-) I’m rock solid on this bit. I don’t know anyone who preaches ‘dead in sins’ more insistently than me! It is the whole thrust of ‘ye must be born again’. I am solid on ‘original sin’; my slippage with ‘T’ is on the ‘original guilt’. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion. "to those who love God"; who loves God? Do any non-Christians? Certainly not (would any of you say otherwise?)...Further, what does the passage say further about "those who love God"; they are "those who are called according to His purpose." Where did that calling originate? (God, I imagine, will be the unanimous answer) Who was called? (here many will say, "everyone," or do you?) Do some refuse this call?The phrase ‘to those who love God’ is a construction of the present participle preceded by the definite article. I have frequently referred to this construction but it refers to a state rather than an event. ‘the believing ones’ according to John 3:16 will not perish. Not precisely ‘those who have believed’ but those who are believing, i.e. ‘believers’. Our Romans verse is referring to ‘God-lovers’. No ‘continuing’ sinner is a God-lover. In fact, the whole world, by first birth is under Paul’s indictment; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God etc.Consequently we may interpret our Romans verse to be saying that none are called who are not God-lovers, but as none are God-lovers by first birth, none are called until they are new-born. Only God-lovers are called; ‘the called’ is a statement about the ‘God-lovers’. This fits the flow of the verse too, for the called (who are also described as presdestinated) are ‘called according to purpose’. The God-lovers have a ‘call’ upon their lives because they were called ‘with a view to…’ To what? to be “conformed to the image of His Son.” I think another phrase for that is ‘glorified’, and I am glad to see that you spotted the uniformity of tenses here. Most folks instinctively put this in the future but the flow is consistent; every verb in Romans 8:30 is in the Aorist. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:30 NASB)Predestination, in these verses, is to ‘conformity to Christ’s image’. Who are the predestined or called? The God-lovers. How does a man become a God-lover? and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Rom 5:5 NASB) It is the abiding and overflowing presence of the Spirit that makes men ‘God-lovers’ and such are predestined to be ‘conformed to the image of His Son’. Am I right in thinking that ‘the predestined’, is not a biblical phrase? Neither is ‘predestination’. Predestinate is verb not a noun. It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.BTW just for us foreigners what is UGA?

Hi Bro. Ron and Bro. Keith, I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion.Neither did C. Finney. To him it was a legal contradiction; like sentencing someone to death for another man's crime. It's a mute point though because all have sinned. It only comes to play when we think of the guilt of infants- and in that case I know of no one who would suggest that they are doomed to Hell. Of coarse, there are lots of ways around this problem also. I have always loved this Wesley quote (I will also put in the main context):If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Therefore, though "He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth," that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercyHere again we read another similar account:If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved?" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. 3:9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) "The power of the Lord is present to heal" them, but they will not be healed. "They reject the counsel," the merciful counsel, "of God against themselves," as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37.)This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary, the devil, "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men" Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the 'fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but 'the smoke of their torment,' because it is God's good pleasure, 'ascendeth up for ever and ever. This is an argument I have yet to hear answered reasonably. Again, no doctrine can make God to be the author of sin or the Father of Lies. No doctrine can make God into Satan. No doctrine can make the Gospel the "good news of mans damnation." Better would it be to say that the passages in question make no sense at all than to say they make a sense such as we find in Unconditional Election. Bro. Keith is right when he says that the finality of these things leads to a "Platonic God" and it is one of the reasons why I have emphasized the destruction of Hellenization in the Jewish Roots thread.God Bless,-Robert

You guy's are just an outstanding example of conduct and grace here. From how this thread started to where it is now, well done brothers.Liked the 'bedroom' analogy and will stay outside peeping through the key hole, eavesdropping. This topic has and will likely be one that I never fully 'get', still under the impression I am not supposed to... ;-) seems it could be summed up in "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) But there is still much to be gleaned from all of this so I will leave it at that.Was curious though about this from Robert:I despair to discuss the topic with some who even suggest that repentance is 'works' and that after a certain place in acts, repentance is no longer mentioned as a requirement of salvation. Some kind of dispensationalism I think. This type of theology comes out of a certain Theological Seminary in our town. They even have a radio station. It used to be fairly edifying, but now it is called, "positive Christian radio." The official position on the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is that the topic is "not up for discussion." Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins? They make it sound like it's almost blasphemy to do so. Can't recall the name of the program, but come across it occasionally on another station that varies in reception out here. Whenever I hear them it leaves me going, huh? :-? ....Well, go figure. Just as I am writing this a name came to mind, Bob George and a quick search...People to People MinistriesIs this who you were alluding to?Sorry for the digression here, perhaps this could be moved to another posting.

Hi Bro Mike,Praise God. Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins? They make it sound like it's almost blasphemy to do so. Can't recall the name of the program, but come across it occasionally on another station that varies in reception out here. Whenever I hear them it leaves me going, huh? ....Well, go figure. Just as I am writing this a name came to mind, Bob George and a quick search...People to People MinistriesIs this who you were alluding to?Actually it is Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary. The have a policy that they will not graduate a student that does not believe in eternal security or that believes in any of the 'sign gifts' (especially speaking in tongues). I am not sure about "People to People." Not to despair though, we have several other bible colleges seminaries in Missouri also that do not hold those positions. I don't mind if people believe it so much as they make it mandatory to affirm that statement of faith at Calvary for graduation. :-( God Bless,-Robert

Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins?I have a cousin who attends(or attended) there that would bring me arguments from his instructors that stated that repentance is not necessary for salvation after a certain passage in the book of Acts. They invariably fall into what we could call the "No Lordship" camp. For example, although John Macarthur is a Calvinist and believes in eternal security, he also believes in Lordship salvation. He has a couple books on this; "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According To the Apostles." He has some handy charts in there that show the beliefs of the "Lordship" and "No-Lordship" camps. Lordship believes that TRUE Christians have Christ as Lord in a real way and is verifiable. No Lordship believes that Jesus can be the "Savior" and not our "Lord" and we can still go to Heaven. it is a liberal theology dressed up as Calvinism in my opinion. Calvin would have never agreed to that. God Bless,-Robert

From Bro. Robert: Satan provided the alternate option (sin). This invariably leads to a discussion of the origin of sin itself. We will have to save that for another post.From Keith: That is getting at a very important part of this discussion: if God is not the origin of evil (of which sin is a manifestation), then where did it come from? I think it is a matter of recognizing that "good" and "evil" are not ontologically equal, and their relation is perhaps most analagous to "light" and "darkness", and that evil is essentially the "absence of good" or, perhaps, "absence of God"; I'd say more specifically that evil is the result of a free moral agent choosing autonomy instead of theonomy: choosing to obey one's own desires (the "way that appears straight before man") rather than God's commands. It is because of this that I believe it can be said that Adam "sinned" even before he had the "knowledge of good and evil", it was simply a matter of Adam choosing to do what was right in his eyes, rather than obey the command of God. Satan, on the other hand, may have had the knowledge of good and evil before he fell (which might, perhaps, explain why no reconcilliation has been offered him that we know of, but this is speculation upon speculation). In any case, this topic deserves a far more thorough treatment than I can give it right now. Suffice it to say as far as our discussion goes that God knew the evil would come to pass as a result of certain actions of His (i.e. creating free moral agents, angels and men, in the circumstances which He also created), and yet He still took those actions.Keith,You say that ‘sin’ is a manifestation of evil. I’m not sure that it isn’t the other way around, namely that evil is a manifestation of sin. I agree that evil has to be more than that absence of good. I’m sure that Adam sinned ‘before’ he had the ‘knowledge of good and evil’; that knowledge was not sin. The sin was its acquisition through a forbidden route.I have often said that we know so little of the real origin of evil. What theologians usually call ‘original sin’ is actually the ‘secondary sin’ and its consequences. Sin, and I think this is a vital Bible truth, did not ‘originate’ with Adam; it ‘entered through Adam.’ True ‘original sin’ is a mystery, i.e. a hidden secret, and we only have the tiniest glimpses of what happened.I still regard Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as the most important of these glimpses, even though modern evangelical scholarship tends to discount their testimony. Although we speak often of Satanic Rebellion I’m not sure that such is the Bible’s way of expression. I’m not sure the Rebellion ever happened!!! But most certainly the intention was there. The accusation brought against ‘Lucifer’ in Isaiah 14:13 is For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Isa 14:13 KJV) The phrase ‘in thine heart’ is usually indicative of thought or intention rather than its execution. I am not sure that it ever got beyond the ‘I will’ stage; the judgement of God was immediate and Satan and his angels (who presumably had the same thoughts) were cast out. So we have a Satanic Ejection rather than a Satanic Rebellion. In this sense the Original Sin was the intention 'I will'; 'not thy will be mine be done'.If we trace this to one earlier stage we can pick up some things from Ezekiel; again if we are prepared to accept this testimony. Ezekiel 28 records Satan’s self-consciousness, and again put the action on the inside Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (Eze 28:17 KJV) How could this have happened? That a creature in the presence of God should become aware of his own glory? In earthly language, he must have turned his eyes away, but this is beyond what we are told even in ‘glimpses’. This passage designates Satan as ‘the anointed cherub that covereth’. This word ‘anointed’ is only used here but most translations seem happy to go with ‘anointed’. The indication is that he is the chief of the cherubim. His precious-stone covering is identical to that of Israel’s High Priest but not so comprehensive. He was in Eden, the Garden of God. (I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative) Could he have functioned in some way which was analogous to priesthood? Other fascinating details are that By the host of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trade, you have defiled your holy places. So I brought a fire from your midst and it shall devour you, and I will give you for ashes on the earth in the sight of all who see you. (Eze 28:18 LITV) The CEV here refers to ‘your places of worship’ which is along the lines I am thinking. Israel’s High Priest was responsible for the Sanctuary (Holy Place); is this another analogous link?There is another comment here that has often attracted my attention. His sentence is …therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. (Eze 28:18b KJV) Satan’s judgement fire comes from within him! Is this God allowing a destructive process to have its way. In that sense, ‘not preventing’ the consequence of Satan’s arrogance? So that Satan effectively ‘self-destructs’?But, in the end, this is not our story; it is the angels’ story and we only see the tiny intersection of theirs and ours. I think this is as close as we can get to the ‘Original Sin’ and we just do not have the data to say much. The significance of Adam’s sin is that is brought this very sin into our human arena. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12 KJV) Did Adam’s sin mirror Satan’s? I wouldn’t be surprised, seeing its Origin. As to the ‘creation of evil’… I don’t believe that Satan can create anything, but I do believe he is a vandal with the power to kill and destroy. It seems to be that every ‘sin’ is a distortion of a virtue as a result of the centre of gravity having been completely changed. Man, like his mentor, has become self-conscious and self-centred. He will share his destiny too, unless God rescues him.

Hi Bro Ron,We won't worry about modern scholarship. ;-) The passages you site are fair game. I actually did a study of this a few years ago and found that one of the Hebrew texts actually leave out three of the stones:1. Gem # 7 Jacinth stone meaning "The Name of God" (Jehovah or Yahweh), 2. Gem #8 Agate- stone meaning "To restore to life, to return to God" (REPENTANCE) 3. Gem #9 amethyst stone meaning "To join closely" (UNITY). As I recall he had them all and lost the 3. (I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative) Thanks for sharing them. :-) Satan’s judgement fire comes from within him! Is this God allowing a destructive process to have its way.Could it be that the fire cones about because of the sin (dross) that has appeared in him and he is now somehow their is 'fuel' for the fire of consumption?As to the ‘creation of evil’… I don’t believe that Satan can create anything, but I do believe he is a vandal with the power to kill and destroy. It seems to be that every ‘sin’ is a distortion of a virtue as a result of the centre of gravity having been completely changed. Yes. Satan cannot create from nothing, He simply twists or 'distorts' what he has got. This, as I understand it, is the concept of "wickedness" it means to 'twist.' Like wicker furniture is wet wood that has been twisted (?). The enemy twists things that already exist. Hence, we see in that how he then can blame God for what sin and iniquity exists. But, God did not create the things as it is- He created it and Satan twisted it. God Bless,-Robert

Hi Robertmy Quote: (I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative)RobertW quote: Thanks for sharing themI didn't!The passages you site are fair game. I actually did a study of this a few years ago and found that one of the Hebrew texts actually leave out three of the stones:You mean a text referring to the Levitical High Priest? That's interesting. I wonder why?

I didn't! :-o I thought you expanded on it in the next paragraphs. That really makes me wonder though. Would you mind sharing them? ;-) You mean a text referring to the Levitical High Priest? That's interesting. I wonder why?Ezekiel 28:13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.This passage sites just 9 of the 12 stones. Yet, I read where one manuscript, perhaps the LXX has all 12 listed. I believe this version was translated from the Masoratic Text.

Hi Svineklev,1.) The Red Heifer (though termed a chatta't in Numbers 19) is not really a sin offering. The ashes, mixed with water are used for purification of those ceremonially unclean from having come in contact with a dead person (stumbling over a grave, being in the house when someone dies, etc.) I don't think it can be applied in the way it was in this forum...that's not what Hebrews is saying.for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13, 14 YLT) The writer to the Hebrews in this passage is making a comparison to the defilement of the body to the defilement of the conscience. "IF" the blood and ashes purged "much more" does the blood of Christ purge. The Hebrew word for "sin" in Numbers 19:9 is Chatta'ah and it is translated as "sin" in the AV 182 times and 118 as "sin offering." Other translations are in agreement with this also.If the Holy Spirit is not present in a persons life there is none to appropriate the sacrificial offering of Christ, just as if there was no living water. If the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Grace) is grieved away there is no way sins can be forgiven. The Spirit of Grace indeed can and is resisted and if the Spirit of Grace is resistable then the grace that comes with Him is resisted also. This is the key to understanding why the "I" is false. God Bless,-Robert

Hi Svineklev,(BTW, Calvinists aren’t the slightest little bit against freedom of the will. Our argument has to do with the ABILITY of the will. We all are free to leap tall buildings at a single bound, but only Clark is up to the task….)As you will well know, but for the sake of those who may not, Augustine had a favorite saying in dealing with Pelagius, "Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." (Pelagius was a man who lived contemporary with Augustine and essentially believed that man was at liberty to keep the commandments of God). Augustine seems to indicate in this statement that man cannot keep the commandments of Christ unless God gives the ability to do it. The key to understanding these things is Titus 2:11-13 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; . The key is "hath appeared unto ALL men." At the end of the day those who consider themselves Calvinists, in my experience, are trying to set about to appropriate ALL glory unto God for salvation. Certainly all glory belongs to God alone. The problem arises when things begin to be attributed to God that are no glory to Him whatsoever. For example; sit two 3 year old boys down at a table and give the first one 5 cupcakes and the second one 1 cupcake. What will happen? The one who received the 1 cupcake will complain or make some attempt to get the same amount. Why? Because he is born with a sense of justice and knows to some degree the basic concept of fair and unfair even at 3 years old. This sense of justice is God given and it is to a large degree trustworthy. You and I had not understood logic had we not a sense of justice. Now, aside from all the passages that deal with God's grace appearing to ALL and that if Christ were lifted up ALL men would be drawn unto Him, there is at the most basic level of justice the fact that God will distribute His grace to whosoever will. Notice that the issue is not whosoever "I will to will" , but "whoseoever will." God say's choose ye this day whom ye shall serve. If Jesus wept over Jerusalem do you actually believe that He prefers being glorified in their damnation? This is why Armenians have a hard time with TULIP. Jesus wept. The angels do NOT rejoice over souls being damned to an everlasting Hell, they rejoice over REPENTANCE. Is God glorified by a doctrine that sets the majority of mankind in a state of unconditional reprobation as though God saught man's damnation rather than his salvation? Again, this makes God into Satan. God does not command the impossible and then selectivly administer grace to a few to enable them to keep the commandment. Should he plead that men had been hardly treated by the Law-giver, either in their creation, or by His providential arrangements, or by suffering them to be so tempted -- or if, in any wise, he brings forward a plea that reflects upon the Law-giver, in creation, or in the administration of His government, the Law-giver can not listen to his plea, and forgive the sinner, without condemning Himself. In that case, instead of insisting that the sinner should repent, virtually the Law-giver would be called upon Himself to repent. (C.G.F Christ Our Advocate)Moreover, the receipt of grace (so called "unmerited" favor and provision) is also conditional. It is explained in this passage; God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble. Humility is a condition for receiving the grace. This is a whole different topic, but I will make note of it here. God Bless,-Robert

From Bro. Ron:I’m rock solid on this bit. I don’t know anyone who preaches ‘dead in sins’ more insistently than me! It is the whole thrust of ‘ye must be born again’. I am solid on ‘original sin’; my slippage with ‘T’ is on the ‘original guilt’. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion.You're no more slipping on Total Depravity than I am (though it may be contended that I am), as I also do not believe in 'original guilt', largely due to Ezekiel 18 (which KingJimmy was so kind as to bring up in a previous discussion on that issue). The soul that sins, it shall die. I could understand, given our present day over-emphasis on individualism (and thus general lack of ability to see federal headship in the Biblical view of the human race), that Adam's guilt is ours, but I don't think that is the case. The point is somewhat moot, as we inherit Adam's depravity, which (in every case I know of, and as is seemingly confirmed in Romans) leads to every single one of his descendants (except the second Adam) committing sin(s) of their own. Nonetheless, I maintain that the inherited depravity is "total" in that we are "dead" in sin and completely disinclined to obey God (though we remain free to do so, if we wanted to) apart from His regenerating us. Part of the question here is: is that regenerating grace (we could also call it justifying grace, if they happen at the same time as I maintain) given solely by God (i.e. monergistically)? Or is it synergistic? Note that here I am not talking about post-conversion sanctification, but about the death-to-life, born-again, old-creation-to-new thing. The synergistic answer, if given, would likely be given in the form of "prevenient grace" as my friend mentioned earlier. That explanation (favored by Wesley, for any onlookers who may not know), is essentially God working "from both ends" (though Wesley maybe would not like that phrase) in that He provides "prevenient" (preceeding, or "before") grace to the unregenerate person to enable them to respond to His offer of salvation (the grace from the other "end"). If the person accepts, they are regenerated. Please let me know if I've mis-stated the theory. In any case, while this is certainly synergistic, I don't see how it gets away from at least some of the accusations leveled at the standard Calvinistic monergistic regeneration idea: in giving the "prevenient" grace, God already knows if the unregenerate person will respond, and presumably could apply more or less (though I find it odd to apply quantity terms to grace, it doesn't seem wrong to me, God is generous to who He will be generous to, and has mercy on whom He will have mercy) if He wanted a different outcome. So He's still determining whether or not the person is actually regenerated, no?In any case, I was just anticipating a possible answer, let me know if I guessed right :)Our Romans verse is referring to ‘God-lovers’. No ‘continuing’ sinner is a God-lover.Amen.Only God-lovers are called; ‘the called’ is a statement about the ‘God-lovers’....Predestination, in these verses, is to ‘conformity to Christ’s image’.Certainly predestination is to such conformity (i.e. sanctification), but to clarify: are you saying that the predestination is not to justification (and/or regeneration, but I'm still thinking of those two as simultaneous and essentially indivisible)? The passage indicates that the person is "foreknown," "predestined," "called," "justified," and "glorified." Why would a God-lover need to be justified (assuming, as I think we all do here, that none of the unjustified truly love God)? Or would you say (just a guess) that these are not necessarily in chronological order?It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.And how does someone become a God-lover, again? :-)BTW just for us foreigners what is UGA?The University of Georgia, the present academic institution at which I am enslav- err, enrolled :-)From Bro. Robert's Wesley quote:God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight.So you do believe that God "orders" all those things? Do you believe that He ordains (or orders, is there a difference?) whatsoever comes to pass? Nevermind the set of rules by which it was done, for the moment, but was it done?This is an argument I have yet to hear answered reasonably. Again, no doctrine can make God to be the author of sin or the Father of Lies. No doctrine can make God into Satan.What, exactly, qualifies as making God "the author of sin" or "Father of Lies"?From Brother Ron:You say that ‘sin’ is a manifestation of evil. I’m not sure that it isn’t the other way around, namely that evil is a manifestation of sin.I suppose we could get into some pretty fine-grained definitions here, which is of course (I think) where we need to be, if we're to really understand each other. I think it would be clearer if I said that "sins" are a manifestation of evil, but it could also be said that "sins" are a manifestation of "sin". What I was doing was describing "evil" as an "orientation", namely the orientation "away" from God, wherein the evil being is predisposed (perhaps completely) towards autonomy and against theonomy. What I'm calling "evil" may be what you call "sin", if by that you mean something along the lines of "sin nature".I have often said that we know so little of the real origin of evil.So true, and I have long puzzled over this. Honestly, when I hear the statement "God is not the author of sin" I feel like saying something along the lines of "If not you, then who? Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?" (that's a childhood game, at least here in the states, that involves going from accused to accused asking who actually stole the often fictional cookies). Is God a sinner? Of course not. Did God create sin, albeit indirectly? Well, if not Him, then who? Is Dualism true? If it was God, is there a problem with that?The phrase ‘in thine heart’ is usually indicative of thought or intention rather than its execution. I am not sure that it ever got beyond the ‘I will’ stage;I agree, it does seem there wasn't any kind of open "rebellion" or mounting of arms or some such all-too-carnal-sounding event in Heaven. "Rebellion", essentially, begins "in the heart" of the rebel, it's just usually the case that the king doesn't notice it until there's an army on the other hill flying strange colors. In God's case, He knew of the "rebellion" immediately (and, indeed, He knew it would happen beforehand, but Satan was not morally responsible for a choice he had not yet made, right?), so the whole business could have been dealt with rather promptly.Interesting thoughts on Satan being in a judgment, or even priestly, capacity. I'd be far more inclined to the former than the latter (though the irony would be intense in that case), since that name means "accuser" (or so I recall being told), and it may be that he went on doing his previous work after the fall, just twisting it to his own goals which were at that point different from God's goals.The problem arises when things begin to be attributed to God that are no glory to Him whatsoever. For example; sit two 3 year old boys down at a table and give the first one 5 cupcakes and the second one 1 cupcake. What will happen? The one who received the 1 cupcake will complain or make some attempt to get the same amount. Why? Because he is born with a sense of justice and knows to some degree the basic concept of fair and unfair even at 3 years old.Matthew 20 (NASB)9 "When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. 10 "When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 "When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' 13 "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'Is there a difference if the master was paying in cupcakes? If he had given 2 cupcakes to the people that had only worked 1 hour, but still only 1 cupcake to the rest? It seems his only obligation was to give what was "fair" (apparently a denarius to the people who worked all day, and something less than that for those that worked less), and that only because he had stated that he would do so in exchange for the labor. If he felt like giving extra to any and/or all of them, in any proportions whatsoever, there could be no complaint of injustice, right?Of course, in your example, the 3 year old would object, but if the cupcakes were gifts (i.e. not deserved, or if they only deserved 1 each), then the objection would be unfounded. Right? On the other hand, if both deserved 3 cupcakes, that would be a different matter, as obligations must be met. But what obligations does God have to us? Only what He has promised to do, and He certainly didn't have to make those promises to begin with.

It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.And how does someone become a God-lover, again?

RonB wrote: It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.Keith wrote: And how does someone become a God-lover, again?By having the love of God poured out in his heart by the Holy Spirit being given to them.I have a little notion about Colossians. It is an invaluable epislte for many reasons, but I think there is one reason that may have escaped the commentators. Paul makes several assertions relating to the Colossian saints whom he had never met. How could he do this? He had enough information from Epaphras to know that they had known 'the grace of God in truth' ie in reality. This is not a doctrine but a personal experience that the Colossians saints had had. There are other key facets of their experience which Epaphras had related, one which is their 'love in the Spirit'. These are 'God-lovers'.Knowing that certain facts were true of them Paul can adduce other facts ie their circumcision in Christ. These 'other facts' cannot simply be adduced to all who have 'decided for Christ' but can be adduced of people like those described in Colosse by Epaphras.So if we find out what Paul knew about the Colossians we discover the basis on which he made these statement. Conversely, if there are folks who do not have the initial experience of the Colossians we should be wary in adducing other things to them that Paul mentions here. Follow my reasoning?IN other words find out all that Epaphras told Paul about the Colossians and you have a working model for first century Christian experience.

Part of the question here is: is that regenerating grace (we could also call it justifying grace, if they happen at the same time as I maintain) given solely by God (i.e. monergistically)? Or is it synergistic? Note that here I am not talking about post-conversion sanctification, but about the death-to-life, born-again, old-creation-to-new thing.My own understanding is that regenerating grace may be clearly distinguished, though not separated, from justifying grace. Two things may 'happen at the same time' without being synonymous. Synchronicity is not the same as synonymous.

Keith wrote: Certainly predestination is to such conformity (i.e. sanctification), but to clarify: are you saying that the predestination is not to justification (and/or regeneration, but I'm still thinking of those two as simultaneous and essentially indivisible)? The passage indicates that the person is "foreknown," "predestined," "called," "justified," and "glorified." Why would a God-lover need to be justified (assuming, as I think we all do here, that none of the unjustified truly love God)? Or would you say (just a guess) that these are not necessarily in chronological order?I am leaning towards that statement, that predestination is not of the sinner to justification but of the justified to conformity to the image of the Son. In that case God’s perfect will would have been for all men to fulfil the original purpose; let us make man in our image and likeness. Peter’s injunction would fit this scenario; Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2Pe 1:10 KJV) I think too of many OT references to the covenant ‘being established’; I see the same idea there.I would see the chronological section of Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom 8:30 KJV) as beginning from ‘called’, hence… called, justified, glorified, would be the chronological order. The predestined are those He foreknew, those described in the earlier verse as ‘the God-lovers’. I am always cautious about straight line theology; the ancient pattern was recursive, and repetitive. By the time we get to verse 30 we have a well established group in mind that can now be called ‘them’. Hence… them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.I am in broad agreement with Wesley’s comments on these verses;Rom 8:29 - Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated conformable to the image of his Son - Here the apostle declares who those are whom he foreknew and predestinated to glory; namely, those who are conformable to the image of his Son. This is the mark of those who are foreknown and will be glorified, 2Ti_2:19. Phi_3:10, Phi_3:21.Rom 8:30 - Them he - In due time. Called - By his gospel and his Spirit. And whom he called - When obedient to the heavenly calling, Act_26:19. He also justified - Forgave and accepted. And whom he justified - Provided they "continued in his goodness," Rom_11:22, he in the end glorified - St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Rom_11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us step by step toward heaven. He glorified - He speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith. Indeed grace, as it is glory begun, is both an earnest and a foretaste of eternal glory.

Hi Bro Keith,Of course, in your example, the 3 year old would object, but if the cupcakes were gifts (i.e. not deserved, or if they only deserved 1 each), then the objection would be unfounded. Right? On the other hand, if both deserved 3 cupcakes, that would be a different matter, as obligations must be met. But what obligations does God have to us? Only what He has promised to do, and He certainly didn't have to make those promises to begin withGod has promised to pour His Spirit out upon all flesh. He is said that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men unto Him. We are told that the grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared unto all men. We are also told that God has given to all the measure of faith. So on and so forth. It is ALL of God's grace; but His grace is unto all. That is all I am saying. God does not withhold His grace for the purpose of unconditionally damning a soul because He is not willing that any perish but all come to repentance. If a person is bent on resisting the Holy Spirit and is to be "cut off without remedy" God may exalt that person in society for the purpose of making them an example, as He did with Pharoah (for this cause have I raised thee up, etc.). What, exactly, qualifies as making God "the author of sin" or "Father of Lies"?God was not sins creator. God created the 'raw substance' that Satan used to twist into sin. In other words, God created free moral agency, and the capacity to choose contrary to God's will, but He did not create sin itself, nor does He compel His moral agents to sin. This is summed up in one verse God cannot be tempted with sin neither tempteth He any man. The synergistic answer, if given, would likely be given in the form of "prevenient grace" as my friend mentioned earlier. That explanation (favored by Wesley, for any onlookers who may not know), is essentially God working "from both ends" (though Wesley maybe would not like that phrase) in that He provides "prevenient" (preceeding, or "before") grace to the unregenerate person to enable them to respond to His offer of salvation (the grace from the other "end").Again, it is always God's grace working; and the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men. Pelagius would disagree, but he was clearly wrong (Eph 2:8). So you do believe that God "orders" all those things? Do you believe that He ordains (or orders, is there a difference?) whatsoever comes to pass? Nevermind the set of rules by which it was done, for the moment, but was it done?I believe that God works all things together for good to those that love Him and are called according to His purpose. Moreover, I believe He works all things after the counsel of His own will and for His own good pleasure. And that will, as revealed in the New Testament, is to bring ALL to obedience to the faith. He is a God that would have all men to be saved, who would gather them under His wings, yet many would not. In the lost He is genuinely grieved and has wept real tears that have dropped upon real soil as proof of it. They are the most valuable tears stored in the vials of Heaven, for they testify throughout all eternity that God really loved us whilst we were yet sinners. God Bless,-Robert

RobertW writes: Even though John Foxe defends Calvin in this matter there is a sentence we read worth noting and it is the one in which I wish to affix our attention; It cannot, however, be denied, that in this instance, Calvin acted contrary to the benignant spirit of the Gospel. It is better to drop a tear over the inconsistency of human nature, and to bewail those infirmities which cannot be justified. He declared he acted conscientiously, and publicly justified the act. To this I must ask, how could this be? I am open to any answer that will make it make sense. We have nearly crucified preachers in America for laying with harlots and here is a person who appears by most accounts to be responsible for burning a man to death.RobertYou will know that I have very few sympathies with Calvin and his reign over the Kingdom of God in Geneva. I am by instinct non-conformist; you may have noticed.;-) In the Summer I visited friends in Switzerland and made a specific personal pilgrimage to Geneva to see Michael Servetus’ ‘expiatory monument’. You don’t get to see many ‘expiatory monuments’. You will be asking, what? Propitiation points to the offended party, expiation points to the offence. So ‘God is propitiated’ and ‘sin expiated’. The reverse side of the monument has a French inscription which can be translated; “"Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903."This is an instructive inscription. It ‘condemns the error’ but adds the phrase ‘which was of his age’. I think we must be careful to condemn the ‘error’ but not the man. To condemn the man would mean we were able to judge his heart and thoughts and motives. This is a prerogative that God has reserved to Himself; it is pity that Calvin and his associates did not understand this.Calvin’s mistake was to try to set up the Kingdom of God in Geneva. He did this by banishing all who would not give allegiance to his understanding of the truths of the Reformation. The idea was to create the Kingdom by separation. Within the kingdom, God’s law would be established. Those outside the kingdom were not the church’s (or Calvin’s) responsibility but were the responsibility of the civil authority. We must understand that their world was falling in on their heads. Governments and kingdoms which had long been under the sway of Rome were now trying to find out how they should behave now that they were ‘free’. In England, Henry VIII’s follies were part of the same struggle. The ‘old’ was vanishing, what would replace it.They had only known ‘State Religion’ and had no concept of State that was not governed by Religion. Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon, Calvin were all the same in this. They had no blue-print and no leisure to work on one, kingdoms were rising and falling; they had to do something. I sometimes wonder how much pain has been caused down the centuries because ‘something must be done about it’!So what did they do? They turned to the Bible for help. It doesn’t take long to realise that you’re not going to get much help from the New Testament with its total indifference to territorial states. But they discovered a perfect example in Israel; God’s own kingdom people. How was the integrity of Israel to be maintained and God’s blessing guaranteed? By the ‘cutting off’ the blasphemer, and the sorcerer! It was ‘tailor-made’ for their needs. They each tweaked it in their own way, but each was simply applying the ‘truths’ of the Bible.Luther did not create a kingdom of God exclusion-zone as Calvin did, and theoretically believed that a man might believe what he chose. However, Luther believed that the civil authority ‘bore the sword’ so in his application of these principles blasphemers were not ‘put to death by the church’ but handed over to the civil authorities as ‘disturbers of the peace’. The result was the same but Luther’s logic had taken a different route.Calvin was working on the principle of necessary amputation of diseased limbs to prevent the death of the patient. His patient was his Kingdom of God in Geneva; Michael Servetus was a diseased limb. As I said I have little sympathy with Calvin and his views. The succession of reformers in Geneva was Farel, Calvin, Beza and Knox, and in my estimation each one was worse than the last. However, they were men ‘of their age’. We must leave them to stand before God to answer for their own deeds done in the body.The New World, of course, was colonised by people like Servetus; not in their particular doctrines but in their understanding that State and Church must be kept separate. Watching from this side of the water, I am often concerned at the power of the ‘church’ and its influence on the ‘state’. The ‘church’ surely is to be the world’s conscience not its legislator. The tenacity with which some would want ‘non-conformers’ to God’s word to be removed from society may be our 20th century equivalent of Calvin’s territorial kingdom of God.As regards his theology, well that’s another matter. And, not living in Geneva in the 16th century, we can criticise it to our heart’s content.

Hi Bro. Ron,We must leave them to stand before God to answer for their own deeds done in the body.Your point is quite moving and well said. That would have been quite an experience to see that monument. The situation was truly and thoroughly removed from anything I could ever know here in Kansas City. It was a different age. When I think of Calvin I think of some accounts I have read about how he looked so old when he died. The weight of his beliefs had to have been quite heavy. yet, Only God really knows what was going through their minds and it is not for me to judge. My real concern is that of the influence of the Holy Spirit and the natural outworkings of the FPC doctrines. Were they birthed by the Holy Spirit or were they natural deductions of mans reasonings? I then must ask, is their evidence of the Holy Spirit present in the lives of these men? Do they walk according to the tradition delivered to them? Do they walk in love? These men must give an account to God for their deeds as we all will. Yet, we must wrestle with teachings that have filtered down to our days. Am I looking to destroy credibility? Could be. I hope not. God forbid! Personally I don't see unconditional reprobation as a doctrine birthed in a heart of God's great love. I don't see the weeping for the lost souls. I don't see an urgency to spread the Gospel. I know there are exceptions to this such as George Whitfield, Dr. D. James Kennedy and others. I actually took evangelism explosion as a college class. I know many Calvinists love the Lord and preach repentance. But the doctrine, its the doctrine that I cannot accept. God Bless,-Robert

But the doctrine, its the doctrine that I cannot accept. Robert100% agreement here. But as much as we are able we have to keep making a distinction between a man and his doctrine.

RonB wrote; The phrase ‘in thine heart’ is usually indicative of thought or intention rather than its execution. I am not sure that it ever got beyond the ‘I will’ stage;Keith wrote: I agree, it does seem there wasn't any kind of open "rebellion" or mounting of arms or some such all-too-carnal-sounding event in Heaven. "Rebellion", essentially, begins "in the heart" of the rebel, it's just usually the case that the king doesn't notice it until there's an army on the other hill flying strange colors. In God's case, He knew of the "rebellion" immediately (and, indeed, He knew it would happen beforehand, but Satan was not morally responsible for a choice he had not yet made, right?), so the whole business could have been dealt with rather promptly. Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? This is one of the Bible’s earliest questions. Abraham expresses his feeling that God’s behaviour must be righteous. He also expresses the feeling that God’s righteous behaviour might be expected to make some kind of sense to his creatures. There is a basic expectation here of ‘rightful expectations’. Surely this is a gift of God. Any man who says of any action of any other man, “it is wrong”, has admitted the moral dimension.I see that Paul too is anxious to see that God’s reputation is not maligned. It will not satisfy Paul that God justifies, God must also be Just. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:26 KJV) Justice, as the old saying goes, must be just and must be seen to be just.I have no doubt that God permitted Satan to sin. To say that God is thereby, in some sense, the author of sin doesn’t make sense to me. I might as well say that as God is the source of all life He is responsible for this next press of a typewriter key. God empowers, and His empowering is the real thing and not just theatre. He put a power into the hands of Satan, the power to choose this or that. To predetermine the choice is to cancel the concept of putting power into the hands of another. This is what, in management speak, they sometimes call ‘blameability’ as distinct from ‘responsibility’. If you give power without authority you have blameability. If you give power and the genuine authority to use that power you have true delegation. God gave to Satan the true authority to use the powers that God had given. Satan’s first recorded words, chronologically, can be found in Isaiah 14:13. They are ‘I will’; this is the hallmark of a being conscious of himself and his own identity. In his conscious of himself as a unique identity he clearly recognises himself to be separate from all other ‘selves’. It is also the consciousness that the being has power to choose. Behind this choice must lie the power to imagine, to postulate this course of action or another. The consideration of different possible courses of action is not sin. The existence of ‘others’ makes the possibility of their being ‘other’ courses of action with ‘other’ objectives. My choice is not morally better than your choice per se. It is when I cease to regard the ‘other’ as God that the possibility of sin arises. I can choose to set my choice against what I know to be God’s choice. The possibility is not sin. I don’t think even the thinking about is necessarily sin. To contemplate the fact that God has created me with the power of independent choice is a cause for worship. No finite God would have dared do such a thing. It is when a knowingly choose my course of action against God’s that sin was born. Are angels holy or only innocent? Innocence is no virtue, but holiness is. There can be no holiness without genuine power to choose, nor sin without genuine power to choose. If all this was scripted beforehand I begin to feel as though I am watching theatre. The whole feel of that passage of scripture is that Satan was making his choices. That’s the feel of Genesis 3 too. There is nothing that God cannot know and nothing that God cannot do; omniscience and omnipotence. So the events that we read must have been, at least, permitted. However when God resolves to do something in a certain way, He ties His own hands, so to speak. Let me illustrate. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (Zec 9:9 KJV) from the moment that God had declared this He was honour bound to fulfil it; He had tied His own hands. The effect of this is seen in, what is to me, one of the most extraordinary verses in the book; And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. (Mar 11:3 KJV)The Lord hath need!!! Only because He had determined to do is this way. When God has determined to do things is certain way He cannot arbitrarily ‘change the rules’ when things get tough. Praise to the Holiest in the height,And in the depth be praise;In all His words most wonderful,Most sure in all His ways.O loving wisdom of our God!When all was sin and shame,A second Adam to the fightAnd to the rescue came.O wisest love! that flesh and blood,Which did in Adam fail,Should strive afresh against the foe,Should strive and should prevail.And that a higher gift than graceShould flesh and blood refine,God’s Presence and His very Self,And Essence all divine.O generous love! that He, Who smote,In Man for man the foe,The double agony in ManFor man should undergo.And in the garden secretly,And on the Cross on high,Should teach His brethren, and inspireTo suffer and to die.Praise to the Holiest in the height,And in the depth be praise;In all His words most wonderful,Most sure in all His ways.Adam and Christ; these were choices, free choices.

But as much as we are able we have to keep making a distinction between a man and his doctrine.Yes. I will definately be more careful. I appreciate the admonishion. :-) I need more of those. God Bless,-Robert

To contemplate the fact that God has created me with the power of independent choice is a cause for worship. No finite God would have dared do such a thingThe Lord hath need!!! Only because He had determined to do is this way. When God has determined to do things is certain way He cannot arbitrarily ‘change the rules’ when things get tough. That makes the Pentecostal shout in me come out! GLORY to God!

As usual, you've produced more than I can respond to right at the moment (got to think about it more), but I came across a quote from a conversation between a Calvinist and a person seeking answers (Douglas Wilson, before he was Reformed, in fact) that is very interesting in light of Ron's earlier comments on Romans 8:28 and thereabouts:(It's from a book, but this is part of a publicly available preview: http://www.canonpress.org/pages/html%20pgs/easy/elect.html )"What about Romans 8?" "That passage does tell us the object of God's foreknowledge. The object of His foreknowledge is not history, or choices, seen apart from His sovereign government. The object of His foreknowledge here is persons. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined." "I agree that is what is says. But what does foreknowledge mean then?" "The Greek word here in Romans is proginosko. The prefix pro means before, while the word ginosko has two meanings; one means to know, while the other means to approve. One of the meanings of this compound verb is to approve beforehand. Now if you put that understanding into the Romans 8 passage, how does it read?" "For whom he approved beforehand, He also predestined to be conformed. . ." I broke off. "I see! Predestination here is not to `becoming a Christian,' but to `becoming Christ-like' at the resurrection." Martin smiled. "Exactly. Those on whom God set His electing love, He predestined to a final conformity to the image of Christ. And Paul follows this wonderful chain of redemption right to the end in verse 30." I looked at the passage again. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Predestination here is not to `becoming a Christian,' but to `becoming Christ-like' at the resurrection."Martin smiled. "Exactly. Those on whom God set His electing love, He predestined to a final conformity to the image of Christ. And Paul follows this wonderful chain of redemption right to the end in verse 30."I looked at the passage again. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.I like this, it's gone into my notebook. I have just done an 'article' on Receiving Christ and mentioned there the use of ginOskO in JOhn 1:10 making much this point about ginOskO being used in the sense of 'recognise', I never thought of linking it through with proginOskO. er which side were you on again? :-D

The side of trying to figure out what to make of this Book :-)Just to make sure I didn't miscommunicate: That quote was from a Calvinist, my point in bringing it up was to show that there is wide agreement to your interpretation of the "predestination" in Romans 8:28 being unto sanctification rather than regeneration and/or justification.

Another quote from Wilson, I find his writing often quite helpful and often quite humorous (and often at the same time):"It is easy for modern Christians to think of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli standing around a cauldron at the beginning of some reformational Macbeth, coming up with the doctrines of predestination and depravity. The lightening flashes, the murky brew belches a loathsome smell, and one can readily tell by the pricking of his thumbs that it is time to try to find another church" (Angels in the Architecture, p. 73)No particular driving point behind bringing up, except that I found it amusing, and perhaps that it describes a phenomena I think is rather widespread: the out-of-hand (without examination) rejection of the "Doctrines of Grace". Thankfully, I've found that here it's more often a rejection after a detailed examination.

I am sure many like me are reading the steady progress of this informative and lively ;-) thread.Kieth i have just begun to read the snippit from the bookyou posted thanksRobert, I loved the cupcake illustration thanks and the ever slipping TULIPwithout wantring to distract you guys from the current progression, would you like to comment further on your views on the TULIP of Calvin? :-)

Hi Delboy,My views really can't be placed into a framework. I am probably best described as Dutch Reformed, but I was raised in a type of Oberlin Theology. Oberlin soteriology (the study of salvation) comes from C.G Finney and is very very strict. I have seen people go insane for fear of their salvation. I have an article on it here called Why I Teach Balance. Dutch Reform is basically Arminianism, but I must be quick to point out that I believe all of salvation is God's grace, but that His grace is over all. That means I do not believe that man is so depraved (the "T" of tulip) that he cannot respond to God's grace when it appears unto him/her. Moreover, the finality of "T" is that man is not accountable for man's actions- God is. If man is wired in such a way as not to be able to respond to grace he has a good argument at the White Throne Judgment. This is not the case. The "U" is unconditional election. I hold to the belief that the emphasis of Paul and the Apostles for bringing up election or predestination is to show the Gentiles that they were not an 'afterthought' of God. They were not 'plan B' in case the Jews rejected Christ. It was God's plan to save the Gentiles from eternity in Christ. The context of the New Testament was different from now, but we must understand that the Jews believed they were 'chosen' or elected by virtue of birth right. This, he demonstrates thoroughly, was not the case. The just shall live by faith.The "L" is limited atonement. I do not believe this at all. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. it only adds to the guilt of a sinner to trod under foot the blood of Christ, etc.The "I" is irristable grace. This means that God comes with irristable force to turn a sinner to salvation. I believe the Spirit of Grace can and is resisted by man as He is the agent of God's grace. The "P" as it was formerly known is "perseverance of the Saints". It now means in modern Eternal Security circles " unconditional preservation." There are too many passages in Scripture that warn us against apostacy to ascribe to this. Do a study of the Greek word adokimos and you will find it to be quite sobering. I do believe that men do not easily fall from grace. God is able to make them stand, etc. The sons always return to the Father's house in my opinion. There may be some anomalies to this; but I works good enough for me. I DO NOT walk around in fear of being lost. Many of my family has done so (so it seemed) as they were quite Oberlin in their beliefs. I know God loves me and desires to save me from sin. I do not teach fear, I teach examination of onesself to see if they are in the faith. LOVE is the only lasting thing that will carry you in your Christian walk. But as I often say, when the love of God runs out and you feel your love for God slipping, the fear of God had better kick in. I hope that helps. God Bless,-Robert

Thanks Robert :-) there's plenty to read about.

Dutch Reform is basically Arminianism,This may be true doctrinally, but denominationally 'Dutch Reformed' (the denomination that Andrew Murray served in; Murray was Scot serving in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa) is/was strongly committed to Covenant Theology.How do these fit together, Robert? Would Andrew Murray have thought of himself as an Arminian?

I was browsing through some creeds and happened on the The Lausanne Covenant. Knowing that people like John Stott was/is a very high profile participant in these things I wondered how they had addressed ‘hell’. The fact is there is no mention of ‘hell’ in the covenant, but I have found a reference to ‘eternal separation’. Note; not ‘eternal punishment’. The phrase ‘eternal separation’ is not inconsistent with annihilationism.3. THE UNIQUENESS AND UNIVERSALITY OF CHRIST We affirm that there is only one Saviour and only one gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. We recognise that everyone has some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. But we deny that this can save, for people suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. We also reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies. Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as the only ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. To proclaim Jesus as "the Saviour of the world" is not to affirm that all people are either automatically or ultimately saved, still less to affirm that all religions offer salvation in Christ. Rather it is to proclaim God's love for a world of sinners and to invite everyone to respond to him as Saviour and Lord in the wholehearted personal commitment of repentance and faith. Jesus Christ has been exalted above every other name; we long for the day when every knee shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess him Lord. The Lausanne Covenant is a declaration agreed upon by more than 2,300 evangelicals during the 1974 International Congress to be more intentional about world evangelization. Since then, the Covenant has challenged churches and Christian organizations to work together to make Jesus Christ known throughout the world.

Murray was Scot serving in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa) is/was strongly committed to Covenant Theology.How do these fit together, Robert? Would Andrew Murray have thought of himself as an Arminian?Hi Bro. Ron,Hmmm, I am not familiar enough with his writings to answer that. Personally, I do not believe in dispensationalism as it is frequently taught, but I have trouble with some of the aspects of covenant theology as well. I think it exposes the problem of trying to define ourselves in terms of standard (mainstream) theologies. There are anomalies in them that keep me borrowing from one and another to put together a tapestry that seems most biblical. It leaves some loose ends, but I don't mind. I guess I need to take my own advise here. :-? God Bless,-Robert

To respond to RobertW--Many beliefs have commingled with or been derived from the Reformed /Presbyterian branch of the church, including Finneyitism and Dispensationalism, but these all diverge from actual Reformed doctrine. The Dutch Reformed (in the U. S., groups such as the Reformed Church in America, the Christian Reformed Church, and the United Reformed Church) are officially Calvinistic in theology.Let me reply briefly to your understandings of TULIP:First you say: "That means I do not believe that man is so depraved (the "T" of tulip) that he cannot respond to God's grace when it appears unto him/her...."Calvinists would say something quite similar, he can indeed respond to God's grace when it appears. We just say that this happens through the agency of the Spirit. We are drawn; we are regenerated; we are justified. It is the work of the Spirit and not of our own gentle will or intellectual brilliance. We do not believe the earthly man is "wired" in such a way as to be unable to respond, but that he is dead to Spiritual things and must be regenerated before he can respond.On "U" you say: "The 'U' is unconditional election. I hold to the belief that the emphasis of Paul and the Apostles for bringing up election or predestination is to show the Gentiles that they were not an 'afterthought' of God...."I could possibly go along with you as regards Ephesians 1 (looking ahead to 2:11) but Romans 8 has no such context.On "L" you say: "The 'L' is limited atonement. I do not believe this at all. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. It only adds to the guilt of a sinner to trod under foot the blood of Christ, etc...."Calvinists also say that, at least in one sense, Christ died for the whole world (as in John 3:16). He died for every nation, for Gentile and Jew, i.e., the whole world. The Bible never says he died for each and every individual. Both Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 9:28 say that Christ died for the sins of MANY. on "I" you say:"The ' I ' is grace. This means that God comes with irresistible force to turn a sinner to salvation. I believe the Spirit of Grace can and is resisted by man as He is the agent of God's grace...."This is NOT what Irresistible Grace means. There is no coercion involved. And yes, the non-elect can resist the impact of General Revelation on their lives. The elect can likewise resist the guidance of the Spirit for a time. But a true sheep cannot NOT come when his shepherd calls. It knows his voice and instinctively responds. And that selfsame shepherd will come looking for it if it gets lost.On "P" you say:"The 'P' as it was formerly known is "perseverance of the Saints". It now means in modern Eternal Security circles " unconditional preservation." There are too many passages in Scripture that warn us against apostasy to ascribe to this…."Perseverance includes preservation, but many in "Eternal Security circles" (Dispensationalists, by and large, including most Southern Baptists) forget the responsibility of the believer to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Php. 2:12) and yet remember verse 13: "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." The believer IS responsible to PERSEVERE in avoiding apostasy (and thus the reprimands). But we believe it is a command much like that of a protective parent who scolds his child not to play in the street, never intending to let the toddler sufficiently out of his sight or grasp so as to encounter any real risk from passing motorists.No Scripture can be successfully interpreted to adjudge a genuine believer to have fallen from the faith (including Hebrews 6). And those who appear to be genuine--but in the final analysis fall away--are spoken of.TULIP does not answer all questions. It was never intended to. (It was a response to the Remonstrants and took their ordering.) It holds much more in tension than Arminians usually see; it allows for mystery. It is not intended to take away from the notion of the Freedom of the Will, but to establish the absolute Sovereignty of God.Humble yourself (and myself) in the sight of the LORD...and He will lift you (and me) up.--EricPS: I've been meaning to mention Keith's remark that TULIP is not the best way to distinguish Calvinism, but that instead the five solas are. Nice try. Certainly, TULIP is in no way adequate to describe the intricacies of Reformed Theology. But the solas are Protestant distinctives and not the exclusive domain of Calvinism. Do you actually know of any Evangelicals who don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide? Sola Gratia? Solus Christus? (Even Catholics fully agree to the last two, and have much less disagreement with the first two than is often recognized). That leaves Soli Deo Gloria. And whereas we may differ on the interpretation of this Latin phrase, few Christians are going to say they don't want all glory to go to God.

Just a few questions that come to mind, more for the sake of precise understanding than debate:"That means I do not believe that man is so depraved (the "T" of tulip) that he cannot respond to God's grace when it appears unto him/her...."Calvinists would say something quite similar, he can indeed respond to God's grace when it appears. We just say that this happens through the agency of the Spirit.Upon whom does the Spirit work in such a way? Everyone? If not everyone, are the rest simply not recipients of God's grace? Or are they recipients of what is sometimes called "common grace" as opposed to salvific grace (or at least grace that enables him to respond)?It is the work of the Spirit and not of our own gentle will or intellectual brilliance.Laying aside connotations of gentleness or brilliance, is the unregenerate's will or intellect involved in this stage at all?We do not believe the earthly man is "wired" in such a way as to be unable to respond, but that he is dead to Spiritual things and must be regenerated before he can respond.I think I understand the semantic difference, but it could appear slim, so: is the man "dead to Spiritual things" able to respond? If unable, as I think you might say, do you mean that the inability is present but not simply "wired" in to the man? In other words, regeneration is not a complete overturning of what it means to be human, but instead of what it means to be totally depraved? Or is the totally depraved man "able" to respond if he wanted to, but simply in such a state that he would never (apart from regeneration) want to respond?"The 'L' is limited atonement. I do not believe this at all. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. It only adds to the guilt of a sinner to trod under foot the blood of Christ, etc...."Calvinists also say that, at least in one sense, Christ died for the whole world (as in John 3:16). He died for every nation, for Gentile and Jew, i.e., the whole world. The Bible never says he died for each and every individual. Both Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 9:28 say that Christ died for the sins of MANY.I think the real area of disagreement here is not whether the atonement is "limited", but in which way it is limited (as I recall you pointed out to me earlier). Either the atonement is limited in scope as the Calvinist would say, or the atonement is limited in efficacy as the Arminian (and others, probably) would say. The only ones that really believe in an unlimited atonement are the Universalists, as we have discussed. Actually, the term "scope" may be insufficient, as the Calvinist would likely affirm that the scope is universal in a sense, but that it really only includes the elect, and that the universality simply means that one does not have to be of a specific ethnicity/nationality/etc to be among the elect. Is my understanding pretty close?This is NOT what Irresistible Grace means. There is no coercion involved. And yes, the non-elect can resist the impact of General Revelation on their lives.Can they not resist it? Could we say that they cannot resist resisting? Irresistible resistance? :-) The elect can likewise resist the guidance of the Spirit for a time.But they always eventually cease resistance? What causes them to stop resisting? Or are you talking about the regenerate elect during sanctification, or the unregenerate elect before justification?Perseverance includes preservation, but many in "Eternal Security circles" (Dispensationalists, by and large, including most Southern Baptists) forget the responsibility of the believer to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Php. 2:12) and yet remember verse 13: "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."I would agree with this assessment: There may be antinomians who call themselves Calvinists, but believing in the Perseverance of the Saints does not at all imply antinomianism; if anyone calls Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Finney antinomian, I think I might laugh too hard to be able to respond.The believer IS responsible to PERSEVERE in avoiding apostasy (and thus the reprimands).Can a believer commit apostasy? If so, what exactly does that mean, and can it entail falling either fully or finally? If not, in what sense need he worry about avoiding it? I would expect that to be answered by something along the lines of "he cannot know whether he is actually regenerate", and I think this gets at the real disagreement (at least part of it); to reuse a structure from earlier:Arminians (and other groups) affirm that regeneration is knowable.Calvinists affirm that regeneration is permanent."Eternal Securists", meaning the antinomians, affirm both.It may be possible to believe both and not personally slip into the errors commonly called "antinomianism", but I think it would be very difficult indeed to teach such doctrine and not produce a slew of people who do thus err.But we believe it is a command much like that of a protective parent who scolds his child not to play in the street, never intending to let the toddler sufficiently out of his sight or grasp so as to encounter any real risk from passing motorists.No Scripture can be successfully interpreted to adjudge a genuine believer to have fallen from the faith (including Hebrews 6). And those who appear to be genuine--but in the final analysis fall away--are spoken of.King David is the one scriptural example that stands most directly between me and Perseverance of the Saints. I take 1 John 3:15 to say that being a "murderer" is incompatible with having eternal life, and I've not been convinced otherwise by several attempts. I also believe that committing (or, in this case, ordering) a murder of a fellow covenant member, and not repenting for about nine months, qualifies one as being a "murderer", although I'm interested in hearing arguments to the contrary. Further, I believe David was regenerate before Bathsheba came on stage, although perhaps someone will say David wasn't really regenerate, or that regeneration was something different back then. Thus, I believe David transitioned from being regenerate to being a murderer and thus not having "eternal life abiding in him", though he did later come back (and, I suppose it could be said, was re-regenerated). "Once elect, always elect" is fine to me, it's "once regenerate (saved), always regenerate" that I cannot state with certainty. These conclusions cause tricky and undesirable (to me) complications in my theology, but (as I've seen it said) I'd rather be uncomfortable with my theology and comfortable with my Bible than comfortable with my theology and uncomfortable with my Bible.There's also James 5:19-20, and there's a thread elsewhere in this forum where I fought this particular battle a few times, so I can recycle some ammo if need be, but I don't want to overly focus the discussion on this one part quite yet.I've been meaning to mention Keith's remark that TULIP is not the best way to distinguish Calvinism, but that instead the five solas are. Nice try.I was just repackaging an observation from our friend that ranges from a 4.3 to a 4.9-point Calvinist.Certainly, TULIP is in no way adequate to describe the intricacies of Reformed Theology. But the solas are Protestant distinctives and not the exclusive domain of Calvinism.Perhaps I was incorrect to speak in terms of definition, I don't think he intended the focus on the five solas to define Calvinism so much as defend it, or rather to show the problems with non-Calvinist positions. Do you actually know of any Evangelicals who don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura?If Sola Scriptura is an Evangelical watershed, then obviously not (by definition), but I've run across professing believers (indeed, with convincing lives) who are more than slightly shaky on Scripture. The point isn't really about those who conciously deny Sola Scriptura, however, or any of the other 4. The point is that it may be possible to demonstrate that a sotierology (or other doctrine) is inconsistent with these basic reformational truths. For instance, the insistence that synergistic regeneration/justification gives at least some small part of the glory to man ("If he had been justified by works, he would have whereof to glory..."), and thus that such a theory of regeneration/justification is not consistent with Soli Deo Gloria.few Christians are going to say they don't want all glory to go to God.But is their theology consistent with that?

Laying aside connotations of gentleness or brilliance, is the unregenerate's will or intellect involved in this stage at all?Hi KeithThis may also be a recycling of past comments but as Eric is newly with us I would like his comments on my comments.One my objections to this kind of debate is that so often Calvinism sets the agenda. Well, I reject Calvinism. I have not the slightest interest in whether I am a one point Calvinist or not. I reject the language of the decrees. I reject Calvinisms confessions and catechisms. I reject its whole scheme from beginning to end. I will not start there. What does the Bible say?In a earlier I raised the question of The Will. It seems to be the battleground for Calvinism and Arminianism. It is bound, is it free? I have a much more fundamentable question. Does it exist?There is a common presumption in this frequent discussion that human beings have a faculty of the soul called the will, but do we? Rather than jump into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate half-baked lets enquire into revelation. As I recall Finney regarded the will as 'self-evident'. Well, not to me it isn't. So laying aside all speculation, from where, biblically, do we derive the concept of the will. Its ability or non-ability are of limited significance if it doesn't exist.Now, just to make my question more clear. I know that God's will is spoken of, but as a decision/decree rather than a divine faculty. Christ said 'Not my will, but thine be done', but again we could substitute the word decision/decree and would not need a faculty called The Will.We shall no doubt get into theleO and boulomai but let me hear where you get your doctrine of the will from.

I'll go first with the stuff that comes immediately to mind, and perhaps (if the question isn't resolved) later give it a more concerted try:Phillipians 2:13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.My usual understanding of this is that God is giving grace unto us both to want to do, and the providence to actually be able to accomplish what He wants us to do. I imagine you have something clever in mind to turn my understanding on its head, but I've grown used to that.Another kind of argument, which I find somewhat more convincing than choosing (albeit reasonably, I think) to read the above text in something like the way I do: because there are beings that sin, they must have the ability to choose something other than obedience to God. In more detail: some beings sin, and we know that God does not sin, and that He does not force beings to sin in the "come down there, pick you up, throw you on the grass, and hold you accountable for being on the grass" sense because (presumably) that would make Him morally responsible, so the only way a being could sin is to have a different "will" (or preference, or desire, etc) than God. Meaning that said will is not forcibly bound to God's will, "not forcibly bound" being another term for "free". It's essentially reverse argument from the problem of evil: if there were no "free will", God would have to be the author of sin, as no one else could go against His will (the ability to do so would be "free will").I might not be making sense, having been awake a bit longer than usual.In any case, Nave's had a few verses that seem at least somewhat relevant:Deuteronomy 30:19-2019I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:20That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Joshua 24:15And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.Joshua 24:18And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.1 Kings 18:21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

My usual understanding of this is that God is giving grace unto us both to want to do, and the providence to actually be able to accomplish what He wants us to do. I imagine you have something clever in mind to turn my understanding on its head, but I've grown used to that.As though I would! If my thinking is a little lateral its just that I don't have any fixed points that I have to steer around. I reject Calvinism, root and branch, as a system, but I am prepared to listen to Calvinists who want to give a reason for the hope that is in them.Wesley's comment, though it sounds a little patronising is much the way I think. Wesley had come to know many believers in predestination whose "real Christian experience" could not be denied, and adding that this fact stared him in the face and was clear proof that predestination "is only an opinion, not subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, but compatible with a love for Christ and a genuine work of grace. Yea, many hold it at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus."No, this is my whole point. You have switched from the concept of The Will, which would be a noun, and a faculty, to a verb which is the expression of an action. We will need to look at the verbs thelO and boulomai, but if you trace its use through the NT you will find that there are elements of desire and of decision involved. However, as far as I have been able to ascertain no explanation as to what does the 'willing' other than the person.Your references are all the ones I would have quoted. Do you not see that there is a difference between the process of choice and the ability (or otherwise) of a 'will'. I believe strongly in choice and its consequent virtue or sin; I hold the individual responsible for every choice. I believe that the word of God is empowering, so every command brings its own enabling. If I then refuse the grace of that enabling I am culpable. I am culpable, not Adam.

If I then refuse the grace of that enabling I am culpable. I am culpable, not Adam.I would say something similar to this; "If I resist the Holy Ghost I am culpable for each and every occasion of it." If I cease not to do despite unto the Spirit of grace I have in store a more sorer punishment than those who under Moses died without mercy. As it is written; Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. That includes the persons living in the deepest jungles of South America and the plush high rises of New York City. Each shall be accountable for the LIGHT they resisted. Light, being, the revelation of their Master's will. And yet, what is the finality of that resistance to revelation? What happens to men and women who do always resist the Holy Ghost? What happens to those who do not like to retain God in their knowledge? They are doomed to the path of perdition, that same end of Satan and his angelic followers; an unending flame filled with multiplied torments that no amount of tophim (drums of distraction) shall drown the screams thereof. They silenced the voice of both conscience and the Spirit and yet they will never silence the torments of such a place. Hell is as eternal as Heaven. Therefore knowing the terror of the Lord we pursuade men.If the word aionos is used in John 3:16 to mean 'eternal' we dare not shorten aionos to mean something less than endless eternity for those being punished without reducing the “eternal life” of those who will be in Heaven. Yet, in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10, we find the emphatic forms eis aionas aionon and eis tous aionas ton aionon (through the ages of ages). And the smoke of their torment goes up to ages of ages, and they have no respite day and night who do homage to the beast and to its image, and if any one receive the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:11 Darby) We read the same thing basically in Revelation 20;10 And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of ages. (Darby)Let the Gospel be preached to every person under Heaven. Let them be warned that God hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness. May we warn men of the ho topos tou basanou, "The topos (place) of torment" that men seek to press to the deepest recesses of the mind must be flushed out. ForTOPHET is ordained of old and was prepared for the Lucifer and his angels. God Bless,-Robert

No, this is my whole point. You have switched from the concept of The Will, which would be a noun, and a faculty, to a verb which is the expression of an action.I highlighted "want" :-) I was trying to structure the part of the sentence referring to "and to do" so as to give the impression that I didn't consider it as dealing with the "will" but rather with the (mostly) external things that have to be in place for the believer to actually be able to do what it is God wants (e.g. if for some reason he needs to reach a book on a really high library shelf, he's going to need a ladder or something similar, regardless of how much he wants to do it). If those things were not in place, the action would simply not be possible, and the man would not be held accountable for not getting the book.We will need to look at the verbs thelO and boulomai, but if you trace its use through the NT you will find that there are elements of desire and of decision involved.(emphasis mine) I tend to focus on the "desire" part, saying that the man is quite free to attempt whatever he desires, although he may not succeed due to being a finite being (but not due to his moral depravity, that's in a different category)However, as far as I have been able to ascertain no explanation as to what does the 'willing' other than the person.The person does the "willing", or "makes the decision", and that decision flows naturally from his desires, which in turn flows naturally from what I call his character, or nature. It is his nature that (if he is unregenerate) is utterly opposed to obeying God, and he has no power whereby to change that. A couple (non-rhetorical) questions regarding this: Can anyone change their own nature, and what would that look like? Would anyone desire to do so, or is that categorically impossible due to desires flowing from character? Or are there other sources of desire? Do you differentiate between nature and character, or are you going to send me scurrying off to Biblically define "desire", "character", and "nature"? :-)Your references are all the ones I would have quoted. Do you not see that there is a difference between the process of choice and the ability (or otherwise) of a 'will'.I think I see it fairly clearly: an unregenerate man can, if he truly desires do to so, obey God's moral commands, love God, etc (assuming God is providing the neceessary enabling grace, which you discussed later). Being unregenerate, however, such a desire will not arise from his selfish, God-hating nature (one might also use the word "heart").I believe strongly in choice and its consequent virtue or sin; I hold the individual responsible for every choice.As do I. The unregenerate sins because he wants to sin, and the sin (edit: that sinful desire) is the fruit of the corrupt tree that is his heart.I believe that the word of God is empowering, so every command brings its own enabling.As Bro. Robert mentioned earlier, this was a point of disagreement between Augustine and Pelagius; your side being with the latter in this case (though I do not think this particular distinctive to be an aspect of what makes Pelagianism heresy). I tend toward's Augustine's side, my position being along the lines of: God created man with all the enabling they needed to be able to obey Him, and man fell from that into a state where they need much more in order to obey, but was still held to the same standard of obedience, and God may or may not have mercy in an individual case and grant what the man needs in order to obey. A poignant responding question here is "are they morally culpable for what they cannot do?" and, subsequently, "if not, is the reprobate man culpable for his refusal of the Gospel?"But I'm still not sure what you mean by "enabling", for if you mean the same as the ability to do it if they wanted, then I can hold the position that God always gives enabling grace for what He commands (sidestepping those two questions), and not cause problems with my earlier statements in this post. Or by "enabling" do you mean the necessary change in the unregenerate's nature that will actually make it possible (even likely, or perhaps even certain) that he will want to obey? If so, would you distinguish such enabling grace from regeneration itself?If I then refuse the grace of that enabling I am culpable.If enabled, and you refuse, you are culpable, yes. I suppose the disagreement is over whether the first part (being able) is a prerequisite for moral culpability. I certainly see why one would say that it is, and I'm teetering towards the "God always enables when He commands" position, but whether or not that makes any difference with what I've already said depends on what kind of "enabling" you're talking about. Ability to do, or ability to want?I am culpable, not Adam.Seeing as I don't believe men are held judicially responsible for what Adam alone did, it would be odd for me to believe that Adam is held judicially accountable for what we do :-) I think I see what you're getting at, though: if our choices flow naturally from our desires, and our desires flow naturally from our nature, and our nature is such that it naturally produces sinful desires, and thus sinful choices, then the blame (it could be argued) falls on the one responsible for making our nature that way: Adam. If this is what you mean (please correct me if I'm wrong on any of my extrapolations of what you're saying, I just take stuff and run with it), then our point of disagreement would be on whether or not the one responsible for our nature being what it is would be morally responsible for the fruit (good or bad) of that nature.(Bro. Robert posted while I was writing this)Very sobering, Brother, thank you for the reminder. I don't see anything in there to disagree with, so you're probably not talking to me :-)

Ron--Though I believe we should declare our independence from creeds and check everything against Scripture (as the Bereans), I find a total rejection of creedalism to be a foolish enterprise. If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). Interact with the creeds with respect. These are the work of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Dismiss them at your peril.Is there really a need for a detailed definition of the will? Is it really anything more than whatever intellectual or spiritual faculties allow us to make decisions under own own power? You clearly have decision-making capabilities. When I say you have a will, that's all I'm saying. So, like it or not, in my mind, you have a will. Get used to it.Discovering whether the will is bound or not is a more productive endeavor (and in the process I think we can at least clarify parameters of the will). For example, I have some difficulty with Jonathan Edwards' depiction of the will as bound to its greatest desire. (Evidently, if we choose to go against a particular "strongest desire," we our motivated by an even stronger desire to prove our independence.) For him this is true of the regenerate will, as well. I don't specifically why, but I don't buy this kind of determinism. Yes, I understand that in many senses one would still be "free" (since you are not required, indeed are unable to, choose against your own will). But, to me (intuitively), the will is more complex than that...and freer.As I said before, to me the question we have been dealing with (concerning the Doctrines of Grace) has more to do with the spiritual inability of the unregenerate, rather than any lack of "freeness." Happy Nativity!--Eric

Svineklev wrote:So, like it or not, in my mind, you have a will. Get used to it.Do we have to, or do we have free will in the matter? :-)Discovering whether the will is bound or not is a more productive endeavor (and in the process I think we can at least clarify parameters of the will).Indeed, and I think the question is not so much whether the will is bound, but rather which way it is bound. When we say "free" will, do we mean to imply that it is completely and perfectly unbound? If anyone would like to make that case, I'd like to hear it, but I expect that we'll be able to agree that we are referring to a (possibly large) degree of freedom, rather than any kind of absolute autonomy. For example, I have some difficulty with Jonathan Edwards' depiction of the will as bound to its greatest desire. (Evidently, if we choose to go against a particular "strongest desire," we our motivated by an even stronger desire to prove our independence.) For him this is true of the regenerate will, as well. I don't specifically why, but I don't buy this kind of determinism.I remember that, some time ago, you objected to my using "determinism" to describe the Calvinist/Reformed view of reality, though the (largely forgotten) context might be important. Is it Edwards's "kind" of determinism that you object to? Is there a kind you don't mind? As I've mentioned, the Westminster Standards make it pretty cut and dried: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (WCF III. I.) Is this one of your points of disagreement with that confession? Or do you see a semantic difference between that and determinism (and I should note, I'm not using that term in the pejorative or incompatibilist sense)?As I said before, to me the question we have been dealing with (concerning the Doctrines of Grace) has more to do with the spiritual inability of the unregenerate, rather than any lack of "freeness."I think I'm agreeing when I rephrase myself: the unregenerate is free to choose according to his desire, but his desires are bound by his spiritual inability (being spiritually dead).And a very merry celebration of Christ and His incarnation to y'all :-)-Keith

Calvinists would say something quite similar, he can indeed respond to God's grace when it appears. We just say that this happens through the agency of the Spirit. We are drawn; we are regenerated; we are justified. It is the work of the Spirit and not of our own gentle will or intellectual brilliance. We do not believe the earthly man is "wired" in such a way as to be unable to respond, but that he is dead to Spiritual things and must be regenerated before he can respond.I would agree with Finney on his categorization of sinners:1) Careless Sinners2) Awakened Sinners3) Convicted Sinners Careless sinners 'care-less' about their soul. They have pressed God into the back of their minds and quenched their conscience until it must be awakened. They metaphorically are wilted in need of both the light of God's word and the water of the Holy Spirit. When the grace of God appears that brings salvation, they will have the necessary means of responding rightly. Awakened Sinners have been made to realize they have a need to at least consider their soul's estate. This could be in response to preaching or a disaster or anything that will get their attention. Convicted Sinners are those who are under genuine Holy Ghost conviction- being compelled and enabled by the Holy Spirit to turn to Christ. They are being 'turned' in this condition and are 'striving' with the Holy Spirit. It is at this point that Finney would press upon the sinner (compel them) to repent. If they would not repent he would probe to flush out the cause or source of their resistance. The sinner was left to know exactly what they were trading their soul for when it was all said and done. Many beliefs have commingled with or been derived from the Reformed /Presbyterian branch of the church, including Finneyitism and Dispensationalism, but these all diverge from actual Reformed doctrine. As the Jew's say; ask two Rabbi's and get three opinions. I could possibly go along with you as regards Ephesians 1 (looking ahead to 2:11) but Romans 8 has no such context.Romans 9-11 deal with the Jews in particular. Actually the thought's continue (therefor) into Romans 12. Election is in Christ because He is the ELECT of God. The particular individual's election into Christ is a simple Gospel message as given by Wesley; "I believe election to be conditional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal decree concerning both is expressed in those words, He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned. And this decree without doubt God will not change, and man cannot resist,"It is not intended to take away from the notion of the Freedom of the Will, but to establish the absolute Sovereignty of God.I have no problem with and emphasis on God's sovereignty so long as we understand that God does not reveal himself as a tyrranical sovereign but as a Omnipotent God of love. The strict hyper FPC might say; "If God wants to damn a soul that's His perogative"- my reply would be "If God wants to save a soul it's His perogative." One is an emphasis on sovereignty unto a hellenistic pagan construct; the other is one of God's love and mercy over all humanity to whosoever will as revealed in scripture as opposed to Greek mythology. That leaves Soli Deo Gloria. And whereas we may differ on the interpretation of this Latin phrase, few Christians are going to say they don't want all glory to go to God. I do not believe that God wants the glory for the fall of man. I do not believe God wants the glory for all my sin. Why, because there is no glory in these things. Nor does God want the 'credit' or 'blame' (if you please) in order to demonstrate His absolute sovereignty . When I first taught soteriology years ago to my class I came to the point with which you now speak. In order for God to get "all the glory- must He have done every action start to finish?" I answered the question by asking; "If someone took a meal to a starving man in Africa and he ate it- does he deserve the 'credit' for saving the man's life?" Will the man give thanks to him? Surely he would. Or, would we say that he does not get all the thanks unless he chews and swallows the meal for him? It is nonsense to suggest that unless God 'chews' and 'swallows' the free gift of salvation that God does not deserve the glory. That is where the whole topic goes off the rails and we end up blaming God for everything. It is God's grace alone that we are saved. 'Only the scriptures' are the final authority for life and doctrine. To God be the glory alone for all of his marvelous works. In Christ alone is salvation. And by faith alone are we saved- for the just shall live by faith. Not just assent of the mind, but a verifiable trust in God authenticated by a right response to the revelation of God.God Bless,-Robert

Very sobering, Brother, thank you for the reminder. I don't see anything in there to disagree with, so you're probably not talking to me Just my general position thats all.God Bless,-Robert

If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). Interact with the creeds with respect. These are the work of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Dismiss them at your peril.I hope Bro. Ron does not mind me here; He does not reject these men who devised them 'out of hand' and has rebuked me for doing so in the past. Some of our sharpest exchanges have been when I did just that. ;-) BTW, Adam Clarke is one of my favorite commentators. :-) God Bless,-Robert

Svineklev wrote:If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). To clasify any biblical truth within the genre of the above mentioned smacks of what Paul talks of in 1 Cor 3. The goal of any truth is the revelation of Christ in his fullness. I personly would never put myself into any of these categories, but I would class myself as a bible believer. And the bible has the truths contained in the great calvinism/arminianism debate. God never tries in his word to reconcile them, because they are both held together in the wisdom that he has.I would rather say I believe such and such from the word and not package the truth into creeds and definitions would lead to intelectual stalemates in our understanding of them. If someone believes half of calvinism, does that make him a calvinist? I see that the problem in these is that we make it something that is external to the word and not the word itself, which is truth. Surely our mantra should be, is that the bible says this, this is the word and leave the absolute applcations of that word to the one who wrote it. Lets keep people free in regard to such things.

I see that the problem in these is that we make it something that is external to the word and not the word itself, which is truth. Surely our mantra should be, is that the bible says this, this is the word and leave the absolute applcations of that word to the one who wrote it. Lets keep people free in regard to such things.Good point ZekeO!

Keith--Well, well, well…is the will involved in regeneration? We'd have to nail down the parameters of regeneration. I doubt the actualities are as clear-cut as anyone's ordo salutis. Is any part of it a process? Or is the process only properly called conversion? I tend to conflate the two to some extent. Given that, then yes, the will is involved, but mostly passively…in being drawn, persuaded. But look, if I took you to a beach and tried to convince you of the existence of the ocean, I wouldn't need to be coercive and you wouldn't need to rationalize too proactively.The ever-unregenerate are dead and will never be able to respond. The elect who are as yet unregenerated, will be brought to life and then show the signs of that life. (I'm not sure if there is any name given to the providential protection of the elect while they are still unregenerate.)I think actual inabilities cannot be considered "wired," whereas restrictions can. It would be wrong to say you are programmed to be flightless (no wings!), but if born with a congenital defect making you crippled, we could say you were "wired" not to walk.The regenerate will always cease resistance (whether one is talking justification or sanctification). The unregenerate can resist to greater and lesser degrees the common grace they are given.No, the regenerate cannot apostasize (apparent believers can). Such inevitability does not imply that there is nothing to be done, merely that one will do it. If we are called to climb a mountain and assured we will get to the summit, we still have to climb (it may require extremely intense work…and our success is conditional upon our doing it…but the point is moot because we WILL do it.) Give me a break, Keith: Arminians don't KNOW they are saved anymore than anyone else!When we speak of the past we can say, "She KNEW that what she was doing would be successful" only if she actually proved successful (otherwise we would say "she THOUGHT she would succeed.") Arminians believe regeneration to be FEELABLE (or otherwise subjectively / spiritually experienced) and knowable in that sense.In a similar way, Calvinists believe it to be MOSTLY KNOWABLE, based on their subjective experience PLUS the Sovereignty and Fealty of God. They know--that is, they believe--they will persevere. And with confidence they work toward that end. Arminians can only work, pray, and hope for the best.The "Eternal Security folk" are in most ways identical to Calvinists on this (and John MacArthur would not take well to your calling him an antinomian…I would say the majority of Dispensationalists are not antinomian, but I have no study to cite).You're being too literal with 1 John 3:15. His point in this passage is that we should love one another. If we don't love we cannot say that we are part of the kingdom. Matthew 5:22 is similar to this: anger or hate toward one's brother is equated with murder. That doesn't mean that just because I'm A-N-G-R-Y with you right now, I'm headed for hell. (Besides, my anger will dissipate the moment you show proper respect and agree with me!) BTW, one cannot be RE-regenerated (there's no need). Like physical birth, regeneration is a one-time event. David never lost his salvation. (Look at God's intense interaction with him throughout the whole process if you truly believe otherwise.)Good point about the possibility of one's theology being consistent (or inconsistent) with Soli Deo Gloria.(I hinted at this in my post, but didn't state it directly: SDG could be used in part for a defense of Calvinism. But then we would really only be talking about interpretation not the "letter" of the sola. There are those who do this with Sola Fide, but their point is that Arminianism is neither genuinely Protestant nor orthodox nor biblical.) I gotta go buy presents!--Eric

Keith--My point was that (to the extent to which I understand him) Edwards comes too close to hyper-Calvinism in his concept of the will. (In other words, I think he is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith.) On the other hand, I'm sure I'm missing something. I was throwing it out there in case anyone knew how to reconcile his teachings with compatibilism.--Eric

Robert--If someone takes a meal to a town in Africa, and a starving man walks 20 miles from his home village into town, takes the meal and eats it--who deserves the 'credit' for saving the man's life?--Eric

ZekeO--Last time I checked there was "nothing new under the sun." All of our thoughts are derivative. All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation. Your own theology either conforms to a particular system or is a hodge-podge of parts of different systems. It is a delusion to think that we come to any biblical conclusion on our own...or that the Bible says anything at all...on its own.And before you fly to the Holy Spirit for aid--all of us have heard incredibly bizarre interpretations of Scripture coming from the lips of people claiming the guidance of the Paraclete.(In my original post on this matter, I said I was for independence of mind rather than slavish devotion to dogma. But anti-creedalism is neither a rational--nor a spiritual--option.)--Eric

Arminians can only work, pray, and hope for the best.This man believes that if you are a Child of God you will have the witness of the Holy Spirit and will walk in the Spirit. That is the only real means of knowing if you are truly 'saved' or not. Do you have the witness of the Holy Spirit? That is the question. Not can I recite the Apostles creed and go to church. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 6:17) At any given moment one can only be assured of a present state of salvation with no assurance in the present of final salvation. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. (Hebrews 3:14,15) All we can say with certainty is "I am saved"; yet if I change my mind and begin to resist the Holy Ghost as an affirmation that I choose sin and it's end, I can do that also. The outworking of the Holy Spirit in us is love; We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:14)Moreover we are saved by hope, for if we have received what we hoped for why would we continue to hope for it? As a matter of fact I do work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. I do take heed lest there be in me an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God due to sin induced hardness. I also get under my body and bring it into subjection lest at any time I myself would be adokimos. Adokimos being, rejected nigh unto cursing whose end is to be burned (Hebrews 6:8) ADOKIMOSAnd even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1:28)ButI keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others,I myself should be a castaway. (I Corinthians 9:27)Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (II Corinthians 13:5)ButI trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. (13:6)Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved (dokimos), but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. (13:7)Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (II Timothy 3:8)They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 1:16)But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing (Katara); whose end is to be burned.(Hebrews 6:8)God Bless,-RobertGod Bless,-Robert

If someone takes a meal to a town in Africa, and a starving man walks 20 miles from his home village into town, takes the meal and eats it--who deserves the 'credit' for saving the man's life?The man who brought the meal, as there is no need to walk had provision not been made. If I drive 200 miles to a service and am gloriously born again it is all of God's grace anyhow. But I still have to drive there in the body God created, in the car He provided, with the gas He provided, and pray with the breath He provides. The synergism does not deny God His rightful glory. And after we have done all these things shall the Lord thank us? Nay, we shall declare we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which is our duty to do. Shall God thank a man for repenting when He commanded Him to do it? When he did that which was his duty? Nay verily. He can only ever do his duty. And once he is bought with a price, he can only ever be a servant who is eternally indebted to Christ. God Bless,-Robert

All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation. Now we are at the bottom of the problem. We are forever relying on subjective etymological 'interpretation' rather than Holy Ghost Divine Revelation. T.A. Sparks once said that 'carnal men' are handling 'Divine things'. How convenient! How do we know a truth? Does the Holy Ghost back the words. This is the realm of New Testament living. Not in the enticing words of men's wisdom; but in demonstration of power and in much assurance. This is not where we are, but it is where we need to be.And before you fly to the Holy Spirit for aid--all of us have heard incredibly bizarre interpretations of Scripture coming from the lips of people claiming the guidance of the Paraclete.This does not get us off the hook. It merely turns back to rely on private (idios) interpretations (Epilusis). Oh for the days of a Holy Spirit based hermeneutic. God Bless,-Robert

Robert--No disrespect intended, but I couldn't decipher this particular post. Were you agreeing with me or not? I believe very strongly in a Holy-Spirit-based hermeneutic, but not one that doesn't also apply time-honored rules of interpretation. Sound use of linguistic, historical, cultural, and theological data is an absolute must.The priesthood of all believers grants us freedom of individual interpretation but it does not grant us license. We each are only one part of the body of Christ. We must rely on one another. We must listen to the voices of those who have gone before us.I can sincerely listen to a T.D. Jakes sermon, buy into Oneness Pentecostalism, "feel" the blessing of the Holy Spirit on my new interpretation of Scripture, and look "mature" in the faith in all my actions. But it is not the Holy Spirit, and I am sincerely wrong.A friend of mine was briefly tempted by the Latter-Day Saints Church after reading the Book of Mormon and receiving the promised "warm spiritual feeling." I am so glad he did not succumb to such a "Holy Spirit hermeneutic." I fervently hope you are as glad as I.I'd love to develop a hermeneutic as open as open can be to the leading of the Spirit. Tell me, how do you go about deciding that the Holy Spirit has endorsed a particular message or biblical interpretation to you?--Eric

Similarly, if the man never walks those 20 miles, there is no need for the PROVISION to be made. And if another man walks only 2 miles, the 20-mile man has cause to boast. (Not to mention, if someone picks him up and gives him a ride to town, THEY get another notch in their Bible!) Yes, the starving man should thank God that He gave him two legs to walk upon...but in this analogy, God is the meal provider, NOT a leg maker! If you wish to throw leg-making into the mix, it would have to be seen as a function of Prevenient Grace which in this case was effectual: it got the man to town. Are you a budding Calvinist?

Svineklev wrote:Tell me, how do you go about deciding that the Holy Spirit has endorsed a particular message or biblical interpretation to you?Well, I would say a 'revelation' of truth from the 'Holy Spirit' must be viewed through three lenses. Does it keep the believers free in the liberty that is found in the gospel and does it it any way detract from the centrality of the Lord Jesus. And thirdly how does this 'revealed truth' stand up against versus which seem to contradict it. That is my own personal check list.

Svineklev wrote:All of our thoughts are derivative. All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation. To be a bit padantic this Christmas morning, all of what the bible says is what the bible says. This brings us to another interesting juncture. Do we take the bible literally or are we figurative in 'our own' interpretation?Your own theology either conforms to a particular system or is a hodge-podge of parts of different systems.No it doesn't. It is not different systems, but the breadth of scriptural truth, that contain all of the isms. I align myself first and foremost with the word, and in truth, it may be seen as hodge-podge, but in these truths I see boundary fences of living whic act as guides in our walk. As has been adequately covered, taking any of the isms to the furtherest degree of application will lead to some serious vexation of spirit and of mind.It is a delusion to think that we come to any biblical conclusion on our own...or that the Bible says anything at all...on its own.I think that I may on a different tangent to were you have come from and where you are heading. I say that because your beef may just be in how truth comes to us, while I am not seperating the work of the triune God upon a human soul.But anti-creedalism is neither a rational--nor a spiritual--option.I suppose it depends on whether those creeds can be classed at the level of the word. I would challenge anything that is not from the word, even if it was/is considered one of the pillars of the church. In my own experience and especially on this site, if I never look for myself and find out for myself what the word is on certain things how can it become revelational to my life. It is the case of God himself revealing that truth to me, not via the teachings and thoughts of the 'cloud of witnesses'.

From EricBut look, if I took you to a beach and tried to convince you of the existence of the ocean, I wouldn't need to be coercive and you wouldn't need to rationalize too proactively.As I am now, sure. However, if I were blind, and had a passionate inborn hatred of you (both conditions being analogous to the unregenerate state), you might have quite a time even getting me to go to the beach with you, let alone accepting something from you that I could not verify myself; even if you threw me in the ocean (which is getting pretty coercive), and I had at least the sense of touch to know water when I felt it (and do the unregenerate even have the analogous spiritual sense?), I might be so stubbornly opposed to agreeing with you that I'd deny the existence of the ocean even in the midst of drowning. No, I think you'd have to do something about that inborn hatred (and possibly the blindness) before you could even get started on the whole ocean thing.I think actual inabilities cannot be considered "wired," whereas restrictions can. It would be wrong to say you are programmed to be flightless (no wings!), but if born with a congenital defect making you crippled, we could say you were "wired" not to walk.I'd agree on flightlessness not being programmed in, but humans were never designed with the ability to fly (well, I think I heard of one of the Hagin's teaching that Adam could fly, but nevermind him), whereas I would contend that Adam was designed in such a way to be at least basically able to obey God. Everyone since then has been born with a "congenital defect" (or, rather, congenital depravity) because of which they never desire to obey God unless (and until) He regenerates them (removing, or at least sufficiently mitigating, said congenital defect). Is congenital depravity "wired" in? Or were humans never designed with the ability to be obedient to God, even without such congenital problems?No, the regenerate cannot apostasize (apparent believers can).So are some believers unregenerate (and presumably non-elect, if never regenerated)? Are they covenant members? I'm somewhat fond of Douglas Wilson's teachings on faithful and unfaithful covenant members, as that is one way in which I could reconcile most of my issues with the P.Such inevitability does not imply that there is nothing to be done, merely that one will do it. If we are called to climb a mountain and assured we will get to the summit, we still have to climb (it may require extremely intense work... and our success is conditional upon our doing it... but the point is moot because we WILL do it.)I think I agree fully with the compatibility of inevitable salvation and "working out your salvation with fear and trembling," at least as I hear some Calvinists formulate it. Strictly speaking, I think it can be said that Calvinists believe in conditional eternal security, but it is conditional upon God rather than man, and one can trust with no doubt whatsoever that God will see it through. I would distinguish this from the folks I tend to call antinomians, who believe in an eternal security that is so unconditional that they think confidence in the security is warranted no matter what the person winds up doing (murder, outright denying Christ, etc), and some even go so far as to say that even God cannot take away their salvation even if He wanted to.Give me a break, Keith: Arminians don't KNOW they are saved anymore than anyone else!Depends on the Arminian (bearing in mind the wide variety of people called that). Some, like Bob George, emphatically teach that if a person has even had the slightest "past moment of faith" (faith being mere intellectual assent in this case), they are unconditionally eternally secure (i.e. will go to Heaven, no ifs, ands, or buts). That's absolute certainty (perhaps not satisfying radical epistemological skepticism, but I wasn't asking for that). Falsely grounded certainty, but certainty nonetheless. In most cases, however, I agree with your point: neither Calvinists nor (most) Arminians believe with absolute certainty that they will go to Heaven (some of the Arminians believe with absolute certainty that they are regenerate, but that does them about as much good on the Heaven question as it does a Roman Catholic).The "Eternal Security folk" are in most ways identical to Calvinists on this (and John MacArthur would not take well to your calling him an antinomian... I would say the majority of Dispensationalists are not antinomian, but I have no study to cite).If Mr. MacArthur construed my comments as applying to him, I would apologize for the misunderstanding. MacArthur and his fellow "Lordship Salvationists" believe, as you say, quite similar to Calvinists on the issue of assurance: if a professing believer fell into serial murder and other such things and died without repenting, MacArthur and most Lordship Salvationists would probably say that the professing believer was not saved in the first place, regardless of how much assurance they seemed to have before. Other Dispensationalists, like Charles Stanley and Charles Ryrie, might answer the question differently if said person had come to the altar and prayed the prayer (remember our pastor's disagreement with Mr. Stanley over the fate of that one young man whose funeral he was asked to speak at?). By "Eternal Security folk" I did not mean everyone who believes in Eternal Security (I apologize for the misleading terminology), but rather those that believe in Eternal Security and also believe that one can objectively know with certainty that they are saved ("Of course I'm saved, I prayed the prayer!" and such like).You're being too literal with 1 John 3:15. His point in this passage is that we should love one another. If we don't love we cannot say that we are part of the kingdom. Matthew 5:22 is similar to this: anger or hate toward one's brother is equated with murder. That doesn't mean that just because I'm A-N-G-R-Y with you right now, I'm headed for hell. (Besides, my anger will dissipate the moment you show proper respect and agree with me!)Anger is not necessarily the kind of hatred referred to by the Apostle. This is the kind of hatred that amounts to murder (in the way that Jesus put it), and I would term it "malicious hatred" or desire consciously opposed to the object's best interest, as distinguished from God's "hatred" of those who do wrong (Psalm 5:5) which I would call "benevolent hatred" because it is rooted in a passionate desire for the best interest of everyone involved (which may require the removal/punishment of the wrongdoer) or David's hating God's enemies "with a perfect hatred" which would be similar to God's (for we must love what God loves, and hate what God hates, no? I'm sure Bro. Robert could dig up some good Finney quotes on that, and I recently saw some strikingly similar words in Wilson's blog).So anger is not necessarily the hatred referred to here, indeed: Ephesians 4:26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:There are times when we should be angry, though we need to heed the Apostle's injunction to not let it become sinful (one way of which is letting it drag on too long). One such time of necessary anger may be when someone intentionally blasphemes or embraces heresy. I do not believe I have done that, however, so I'm not sure where the present situation lies. Nonetheless, I doubt very much that you are harboring any kind of malice towards me or anyone, regardless of the frustrations our theology may cause you.As an aside about anger in these kinds of disagreements: I appreciate what you've said about how many have gone too far in asserting (implicitly or explicitly) that anger has no place in theological discussion, but I find that I do not become angry (so far as I recall) with someone I'm convinced is honestly trying to be consistent with Scripture and loving towards God and men, essentially regardless of the extent of the disagreement (I might think they're not regenerate in extreme cases, but I probably wouldn't be angry). Why? Partly because I could ask no more of them, any more would be asking them to embrace beliefs that they find unbiblical (unless they can be convinced otherwise, which I would certainly try), which is tantamount to asking them to sin. And in this case it's not that I'm rejecting aspects of your position despite convincing Biblical evidence; indeed, I dearly wish I could embrace historic Reformed theology, my heart and mind lead me to it, but my Bible raises flags of warning.In any case, let me see if we agree on our basic interpretation of 1 John 3:15 and Matthew 5:22 : I believe that if anyone does not love their brother, if they are consciously embracing malicious hatred in their heart for someone made in the image of God, they do not love God and they are not regenerate. There I stand, and can do no other. Are we on the same ground?If so, the question is whether or not David was in this kind of state regarding Uriah. Your thoughts?All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation. From Robert:Now we are at the bottom of the problem. We are forever relying on subjective etymological 'interpretation' rather than Holy Ghost Divine RevelationFirst, I would probably prefer the phrasing "All of what we say about the Bible we say through interpretation," let me know if you don't agree with that distinction. Second, I agree: if we take absolutely no system of interpretation to a text (if that is even possible) then it will be to us merely ink and paper (or whatever physical material composes it). That system could be "If I preach it and people start getting miraculously healed, it's true" (not intended at a strawman, just a possibility), or it could be "If it is the interpretation most consistent with all available data, it's close enough and God won't hold it against us if we lacked important information," or whatever. That said, this usually isn't a problem because God does much to overcome our limitations and help us understand His Word.From Zeke:This brings us to another interesting juncture. Do we take the bible literally or are we figurative in 'our own' interpretation?Well, at the risk of exasperation, "taking the Bible literally" is just another system of interpretation, and often people claiming to follow it have come to disastrous conclusions, in some cases to taking a word or phrase to mean what it would "literally" mean if the person were to say such a thing, but meant something quite different to the person who wrote it down all those years ago. Strict literalism can also get you in a heap of trouble in Revelation. But to get to the point: God's Word is objective truth, and no two mutually-contridictory interpretations of the Bible can both be true (neither, perhaps, or one or the other, but not both). Nonetheless, we are constrained to subjective means of getting at that truth, as Satan could masquerade as an angel of light and perform miracles to lend his support to false doctrine, or act as "the voice" impersonating direct communication through prayer. Not that we're entirely helpless in this, not at all, nor that God could not give us effectively objective knowledge as He (apparently) did with the Apostles.

ZekeO--Yes, but how can you be sure such liberty is even found in the Gospel? Depending upon which "liberty" you speak, different Christians (together with the Holy Spirit, at least in their belief) would either agree or disagree with you.I have a hard time disagreeing with the centrality of Jesus--there's a tiny bit of consensus on that I do believe--but it's too amorphous to be any kind of a real guide on many issues. Homosexual marriage doesn't in and of itself push Christ out of the center. (Yes, it does conflict with several explicit Scripture passages...your next guideline...though there are plenty of people who find creative ways of interpreting those passages.)Letting Scripture interpret Scripture (or your own private revelations) is undoubtedly wise, but certainly not sufficient. Because you're interpreting the Scripture which is doing the interpreting. As a matter of fact, you will always intervene...you cannot do otherwise. Suppose you get a revelation saying polygamy is ok. It doesn't directly conflict with Scripture. It would seem to increase any kind of liberty you may be speaking of. It doesn't hurt the centrality of Christ in any way. I expect you to pick up a third wife by late next week.An how about the Trinity? Your three neat little rules will not vouchsafe its safety.Just playing with you (they're good rules...they're just not enough)--Eric

ZekeO--You may honestly think you're going off "the breadth of Scriptural truth" alone, but you're not. The Bible can't stand alone, but it's NOT because it isn't above every other book. There is nothing even remotely on its level. The Bible can't stand alone because no document can, no matter how unique, no matter how God-given. That's hard for a lot of people to accept. But Sola Scriptura does not mean that and never has. The Reformers would quote the Fathers of the Church by the barrel full (in attacking that same church). They didn't reject tradition per se. They rejected the received tradition. They didn't put tradition on a par with Scripture (as did Rome), but they made use of it nonetheless. And they didn't react any too kindly to those who threw out the baby with the bath water!Hope you're having a GREAT Christmas,--Eric PS: Read what Keith has to say about what happens when we always take Scripture literally (as opposed to how it was intended by the original author). I don't want anybody dashing babies' heads against rocks.

Keith--Yes, I must open your regenerate little eyes before (or as) I take you to the beach.Your question about whether "flightlessness" in unregenerate man is designed in (or conversely whether "flight" as a property is a supplemental gift given to the regenerate--rather than a restored trait) takes us to the ins and outs of supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism. I'll be glad to hash that all out, but I haven't definitively made up my own mind on it. Were you to accept the premise in general, what do you think might work?Tell me more about D. Wilson's faithful vs. unfaithful covenant members, and I'll give you my take.God cannot take salvation away from the elect not because he lacks the power but because he would not do it. There is no need. The antinomian Calvinists you speak of, generally speaking, are not a part of the elect. The elect are attached to the vine...and will produce fruit.We must speak about these warning flags that are keeping you from further Reformed-ness. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.About my ANGER toward you. I wasn't the slightest scintilla of a smidgeon of a speck upset with you. It was merely rhetoric. Am I going to have to start using those blasted emoticons to get anybody to understand my inflections?!? Saying, "All of what we say about the Bible we say through interpretation" is not saying anything different from "All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation." All of what the Bible says it says to US. I was not casting aspersions on the Bible or on the Living Word. Perhaps your rendition will be more acceptible to some on this forum, but conceptually they might as well be identical. Even were we to allow the notion of direct mystical access to Scripture--which, believe it or not, I do--the apparent prophet must be subject to evaluation by those with the spiritual gift of interpretation and/or discernment AND the benchmark of Scripture (as interpreted by the elders, seen through the lens of sound hermeneutics and a knowledge of tradition).Well, I'm off to Christmas dinner. Hope you're enjoying your break!--EricPS: Obviously, I wasn't speaking of the routine devotional use of Scripture. If it reminds me to be kind to or patient with my neighbor, I don't need to run that by my pastor (or bishop or elders). On the other hand, if it tells me that the end of the world is in six weeks because Turkey is being considered for inclusion in the European Union.... PPS: It would help me if we kept our missives shorter and posted more often. Perhaps that's not feasible. But I won't always have the time or the patience to wade through all 95 theses on the Whittenberg Castle Church door.

I'd love to develop a hermeneutic as open as open can be to the leading of the Spirit. Tell me, how do you go about deciding that the Holy Spirit has endorsed a particular message or biblical interpretation to you?In the same way that I know I am a child of God; by the witness of the Spirit. I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, (Romans 9:1). Notice what he says; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit . This is not hermeneutics it is discernment. (edit) It is not that every little message, sermon, or doctrine is going to raise red flags and whistles. But, I know for a fact that if no person speaking by the Holy Spirit would call Christ accursed (anathema) then no person speaking by the Holy Spirit would call Christ the author of sin .(/edit) I don't even have to look that one up, though I may have to come up with a Biblical apologetic. One may come to a place where they can ask a question that I cannot give an answer for, but you have not convinced me because "I know what I know." It does not agree with my conscience in the Holy Ghost (edit) that God authored sin, unconditionally damns, and nor does a temporal hell. The concept of sin originating in the Holy Ghost (supralapsarianism) is totally rooted in pagan philosophy that spoils the minds of men against the true nature of a loving God. I can never believe that God unconditionally decrees damnation.(/edit)No disrespect intended, but I couldn't decipher this particular post. Were you agreeing with me or not? That is because it is description of Spiritual discernment, rather than hermeneutics. You will either understand it or you will not (I Cor. 2:14). Men cannot teach discernment by the Holy Spirit, it comes with the genuine presence of the Spirit. I'm sure you have retraced the footsteps of Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament and found that without the promptimg of the Holy Spirit the interpretation given in the New Testament of an Old Testament passage would have never came about. I dealt with this all the time with the Jews at the Jewish Roots Institute. They simply cannot see the Holy Spirit's application of the passages. Why? And here is the clincher- because they want the Tenach but not the 'Glory.' They want the Book, but not the God of the Book. They want to keep the glory vailed and it is that very glory that illuminates their understanding. They have a hermeneutic of their own, but it is devoid of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I believe very strongly in a Holy-Spirit-based hermeneutic, but not one that doesn't also apply time-honored rules of interpretation. Sound use of linguistic, historical, cultural, and theological data is an absolute must.There is a vital difference between hermeneutical interpretation and Divine Revelation. There are no rules of interpretation that can replace the unction of the Holy Spirit; not someones fuzzy feelings, but the one and only Holy Spirit. BTW I have taught hermeneutics using (among other things) the Chicago Statement as a point of reference; but make no mistake in what I say about the necessity of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be an, "Oh, by the way, you really ought to pray before study." NO! You need to seek the face of God with all of your being and get the sin out of your life so you can hear clearly what God is saying (II Thess 2). The prophets were read every week in Israel in the time of Christ but they missed the message. How can that be when the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy? Simple? Again, don't miss this, they did always resist the Holy Ghost. The word + rebellion = DECEPTION. I fervently hope you are as glad as I.I am familiar with this concept of the Mormon's wanting God to 'bare witness' of the authenticity of the B.O.M. I live a few blocks from the RLDS world headquarters and I see bumperstickers with that propoganda all the time. Yet, how will the Spirit witness to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit indwelling? People are not deceived because of what they feel- they are deceived because they are not FULL of the Holy Ghost and are therefore susceptable to deception. Want a pure hermeneutic? Nothing influences your hermeneutic as much as your personal walk with God. You will notice that as you backslide- so does your theology and vice versa. A person full of the Holy Ghost can listen to a minister and detect sin in the preacher by his preaching. Listen to Paul; Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness? He was not coming to hear a flashy hermeneutical, homiletical, sermon of man's wisdom; he was coming to check the DUNAMIS. (edit) He knew the real from the counterfeit. He was coming to see If the GOD he knew was backing the words (with the dunamis he knew). (/edit) God Bless,-Robert

the apparent prophet must be subjectThis is a contradiction if we are talking about a true Prophet. A real Prophet is subject to God alone for the purpose of being the very mouthpiece of God. If he receives a rebuke it will be by another prophet or someone functioning in that office. The above statement almost scarred me! It rings with the mentality the Rabbi's have in making 'man' the final authority in matters of life and practice. What next, we take the Prophet before the Sanhedrin? It all sounds pious because after all, were using the Bible to do our discerning and the Holy Spirit. We are growing closer and closer to It Is Not In Heaven (Bath Kol) every day. We need to let God be God again. We need to get beyond basing our Christian lives on a bunch of so-called doctrines and invite God back into our camp. We need a move of God desperately. Would to God that that day would soon come when God gets tired of being represented and shows Himself.God Bless,-Robert

Hi ZekeOI thought I would put together a little group of verses designed to show why you are quite safe to ignore Augustine, Calvin etc if you so choose.The real issue in ‘theology’ is always the question of authority. To which authority do we credit absolute authority etc. It is obviously important to find a right criterion of truth. I don’t know whether you were around in the day’s of Jake who is a liberal/modernist quaker; his supreme authority was his own judgement of his own inner witness. We had discussions which covered an enormous range of topics but it always came back to this basic issue. Who are we to trust?The Bible tells us that many ‘false prophets are gone out into the world’, and this long before the prosperity merchants hit the road. Error will always live cheek by jowl with truth. Christianity will always be a battlefield of the mind. How then can we have a reliable principle by which we may test the conflicting voices that claim to have the truth.Perhaps if we just touch on some possibilities…We cannot trust absolutely to the personal dignity of the speaker. 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8-9 KJV) This is not Paul setting up himself against everyone else but Paul. Paul actually includes himself in this protest and imprecation. The sound bite mania of the modern age gives credibility to people of stature or fame. A local congregation here in Reading currently has a statement of Bono from U2 covering its signboard. Bono is famous, lots of people like him, his opinion must matter… at least that is the thinking.Secondly we must not be overawed by true servants of God. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Gal 2:6 KJV) This is not pride or arrogance on Paul’s part but a statement of his way of thinking. I once heard it said that Paul went to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to seek arbitration on the matter of circumcision. I think anyone who thinks such a thing has not understood Paul… To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Gal 2:5 KJV) He was ready to take on the whole world and the whole church if necessary… that the truth of the gospel might continue with you…We also need to be particularly careful of sectarian loyalties whether they be Calvinistic, Finney, Holiness, David Wilkerson, A W Tozer etc. We may recognise such as real gifts to the church of God, but the second generation (and subsequent ones) stand is particular danger of defending positions held by people who have been a blessing to them. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mar 7:13 KJV) You must not allow previous generations to set the agenda, but neither must you slip into the equally dangerous error that Job roundly condemned No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. (Job 12:2 KJV) There is a lovely comment made by G H Lang when visiting a Bible College; ‘Remember’ he said, ‘my brethren that none of us is infallible not even the youngest of us’.Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion when he was 26. That is a dangerous age at which to begin to systematize doctrine. I was a formal pastor at 26, I speak from personal experience. The only people who absolutely know everything are teenagers and 26 year old pastors. It is dangerous because it is so difficult to unsay what you have said. If you have preached something it is so much more difficult to change your mind when you have publicly committed yourself.We must also be on our guard against the prophetic utterances of people in intense states of mind, even if they are good people.. perhaps especially if they are good people. Doctrine may have the status of honoured tradition or ecstatic states and still be error. A thing is not better because it is older; tradition may just be ‘error grown old’. But the new is not safer either. Test all things and hold fast to that which is good.Sometimes the sectarian loyalty dominates a whole approach to scripture, as with Roman Catholicism where the scripture is venerated but locked into a single acceptable interpretation at the hands of the ‘church’. Only one interpretation is valid, the others are heresies.J I Packer once said “The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those that result from disagreement about authority”. Calvinists and Arminians are supposed to be in agreement about this at least that the Scripture is the final authority. The quarrel is not about the authenticity of the supreme authority but about interpretation. My personal quarrels with Calvinism are that it assumes an authority of interpretation almost equal to that of inspiration. I reject this. Calvinism is one of many perspectives not the standard against which all others must be judged. How then does a Christian interpret the scripture? First, by obeying it, in the enabling that God provides. The Book unlocks its treasures to those who are ready to respond to it. My old Bible College Principal used to say 90% of knowing the will of God is being ready to do it before you know what it is. Secondly, by conscious dependence upon that same Holy Spirit who has enabled the obedience. "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. (Joh 7:17 NASB) By being willing to learn and unlearn and learn again. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. (Psa 25:9 KJV)Meekness is not only a vital criterion for the learner but for the teacher too; Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (Mat 11:29 KJV) Meekness is a golden virtue; it means not claiming my rights, for love’s sake. The implication in the oft quoted words of the Lord is that the meek can only learn from the meek.Although we will inevitably develop our own systematic theology, this is not necessarily wrong as long as we are constantly prepared to re-examine it. Consequently, as far as I am concerned, the possibility of Ron-ism, as Eric describes it, doesn’t worry me. It would only worry me if a ZekeO became a Ron-ist, or if a Ron became a ZekeO-ist or, perish the thought, a Calvinist.Be prepared to learn from all, especially those who oppose you. Josiah threw away his life because he did not learn this lesson. (2Chron 35:22) Be prepared to learn from all but be careful who you commend, even to yourself. Remembering always that sparkle of wisdom that I saw on a bumper in Oregon… if you haven’t changed your mind recently, how do you know you still have one?

Remembering always that sparkle of wisdom that I saw on a bumper in Oregon… if you haven’t changed your mind recently, how do you know you still have one?Bro. Ron, I enjoyed that exhortation thoroughly. It helps me stay in balance. I also understand that there are many Calvinists that do not take the doctrine to its final conclusion. I get the feeling that had I lived in those times I would have been burned to death. I know, all things being equal, I could not have succumbed to such a belief as supralapsarianism. Yet, as I understand it, Calvin did not make God the author of sin. I also wanted to put to rest in our minds the issue of whether or not God really desires all to be saved. I have copied over an excerpt of a lecture I have on "'philosophy' and the bible." 5. FPC election basically has two parts:a. God chose a determinate number of men and women, which cannot be increased or diminished. They have no scriptural basis for this whatsoever. b. This choice is ‘unconditional.’ This is in gross conflict with the fact that God’s grace is over all and that all have been given the measure of faith. Consider whether we will deny God’s sincerity in the following passages:• For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:3,4)• For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)• The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ( II Peter 3:9)• For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)• And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Acts 2:21)• And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)The question is one of sincerity. Was God sincere in these and many other like passages? In the mouth of two witnesses let every word be established. These great cloud of witnesses (I Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11, John 3:16, II Peter 3:9, Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21, Revelation 22:17, etc.) cannot be gainsayed or resisted. 6. This doctrine of unconditional election necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional damnation. This cannot be reconciled with the revealed attributes of God such as His love, goodness, grace, compassion, mercy, or sincerity. Unconditional election makes God a respecter of persons. This would make God a transgressor of His own laws. God is the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe. 7. It is good to know that most all modern evangelicals have moved to some degree or another towards the doctrines of the remonstrants. They have resisted the accusation that they do not give God all the glory in attributing to Him the sins of man. And they have resisted a doctrine that so militates against the true Gospel. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely (Revelation 22:17). God Bless,-Robert

RobertW--Simple accountibility scarred you? What I described is standard practice in every Evangelical church I've ever been a part of: it is a normative position, nothing the least bit radical.It fits the natural reading of 1 Corinthians 14:26-33..."What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."I'm sure God does get tired of being represented (especially incorrectly). I'm sure He also tires of getting directly "quoted" by those who in essence "put words in His mouth." False prophecy is not exactly more holy than solid exegesis that doesn't exude prophetic "flash."--Eric

Ron--Yes, Calvin was young, but he was also somewhat of a prodigy. (Composing symphonies at the age of nine is too young unless one's name happens to be Mozart!) Youth at times is to be respected (e.g., Paul commending Timothy). Indeed, Calvin was deeply respected by his elders in the Reformation, the Luthers and Melancthons and Zwinglis. Besides, though youth often brings with it a certain tendency toward arrogance, the characteristic is by no means universal. And I know of no biographical sketch of Calvin's life that would depict him as inordinately arrogant. He was an unabrasive, retiring sort on the whole.--Eric

Robert--You are correct. From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of Calvinists are infralapsarian (something like 90%). And even supralapsarians do not make God the author of sin.And beg to differ, but the question is not one of sincerity. Come on, Robert, let's at least try to be civil. I would never say that your interpretation makes God out to be a liar. Don't say that of mine.Calvinists believe whole-heartedly in every Scripture you quote. They simply interpret them slightly differently. And there is a huge amount of scriptural basis for the idea that “God chose a determinate number of men and women, which cannot be increased or diminished.” You cannot simply ignore those verses that go against your thesis:“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30). “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day”(John 6:44).“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand” (John 10:27-29).Should we likewise ask if God was sincere when He inspired these words?And I’ve already told you—very few Calvinists believe that the doctrine of unconditional election necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional damnation. Though logically such a conclusion is easily reached, there are many other considerations. I won’t get into all of the argumentation here, but Infralapsarianism is undoubtedly philosophically tenable.Actually, at least here in the United States the vast majority of Evangelicals (I believe it has been estimated at close to 80%) are Dispensationalists. And they disagree with the Remonstrants on almost everything. They do accept Limited Atonement, of course. But there is a growing trend at Southern Baptist seminaries (especially the flagship school in Louisville, Kentucky) toward full-fledged Reformed Theology.--Eric

And I know of no biographical sketch of Calvin's life that would depict him as inordinately arrogant. He was an unabrasive, retiring sort on the whole.Arrogance has many forms. It isn't always brash. These are the words of his preface..."I dare not bear too strong a testimony in its favour,and declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too highly. However I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume. Wherefore,should our Lord give me henceforth means and opportunity of composing some Commentaries, I will use the greatest possible brevity, as there will be no occasion to make long digressions, seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the articles which pertain to Christianity."Who does this man think he is? His institutes are "a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume." It would have been encouraging to see just something here of Paul's lovely expression... we know in part. His future commentaries of specific books will be 'brief' 'seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the articles which pertain to Christianity'. I don't know how accurate the translation is but I commend him for his honesty in using the word 'deduction'. That is what all systematic theology,and particularly Calvinism is, a series of deductions. If I am ever tempted to produce a 'Ron-istic systematic theology' it's going to have the disclaimer 'we know in part' at the bottom of every page.Mozart's genius was just natural ability. I think you are probably right in adducing such to Calvin, but you need something more than natural ability to discern the mind of God. You need time for reflection and time to be taken through humbling experiences... 26 is not enough time.

Hi Svineklev,You cannot simply ignore those verses that go against your thesis:I don't ignore these passages, but I interpret them in light of God's revealed personality. I refuse to come to any conclusion that is not in harmony with God's revealed personality. When it comes to reconciling my interpretation of a certain passage and God's revealed personality; God's revealed presonality has the preeminence. I will not adjust God's personality to fit my interpretation or hermeneutical deduction. Though logically such a conclusion is easily reached, there are many other considerations. I won’t get into all of the argumentation here, but Infralapsarianism is undoubtedly philosophically tenable.It may be philosophically tenable, but is it Biblically accurate.Excerpt:2. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (I Corinthians 2:6-9) Here we see:a. The mysteries of God are not understood by mere observation.b. Men commit abominable crimes against God in ignorance of His mysteries.c. The wisdom of this world shall come to nothing.d. Apart from divine revelation, the heart is empty and the senses are dull to the mysteries God.3. Men are not satisfied that they are ignorant of the manifold wisdom of God and seek to understand Him on the basis of the afore mentioned faculties of impotence and ignorance. God’s revealed character and attributes are necessarily compromised or discarded to accomidate the anomalies of certain of men’s explainatians of the workings of God in order to apprehend mysterious passages of scripture. If we know in 'part' we do not have all the pieces of the 'puzzle.' I think it is a dangerous thing to theorize about God and then allow that theory to dictate how scripture is interpreted. Theories stand or fall based upon their success of application. To what point of the decimal can we prove the theory? If there are anomalies to the theory, the theory is wrong. Yet, for the sake of teaching and trying to have a mental understanding they continue to be used. Case in point; the Newtonian model of an atom. High School science depicts a solar system looking atom- yet when you get to college and study quantum physics you learn that things on a micro level do not behave after the Newtonian model (particles act like waves, etc.). My point is this, science can get away with misrepresenting reality for the sake of teaching; but we are talking about God Almighty and His word. Can we take such an approach towards teaching about God, knowing there are anomalies to the teachings? things are not as 'cut' and 'dry' as we would like them to be. So when in doubt, take the most disciplined route. That route should always preserve what we know of a certainty about God's personality. God has revealed Himself as a loving and merciful God. He is a God of holiness and righteousness. His love is the primary characteristic He has revealed to us. He has revealed that He is willing to do whatever it takes apart from violating His own attributes or our free moral agency in order to save us. His grace is over all. God Bless,-Robert

Keith wrote: Did God have to let that sin occur?Robert replied:Hmmm. I have thought through this before. If man had chosen to love God verified by complete obedience love could have existed in sinless perfection throughout the ages. Yet, certain parameters and variables have to be in place in order to allow the real possibility of not loving God. Satan provided the alternate option (sin). This invariably leads to a discussion of the origin of sin itself. We will have to save that for another post.I am a little behind things here, but am slowly working through some of the older stuff to see if I can make any contributions.My answer to this would be, it depends on the kind of universe He wanted to create. Perhaps I am being too simplistic here, but a universe with the potential for virtue must surely be a universe with a potential for vice; otherwise what virtue is there in virtue?In my understanding there has to be a potential for sin if there is to be any virtue in virtue. We come back to my problems with 'the will'. If there is choice there has to be ability to choose, otherwise I don't understand what choice means. The word to Adam was 'thou shalt not eat of it'. This was clearly a command to Adam and not a decree. God could have said 'you're not going to eat of it' I'll put it too high, or make it impossible to take from the tree', but He commanded and did not decree that Adam must not eat of it.It spite of this Adam was fully able to eat of the tree. He made his choices and there has been a worldwide consequence. Adam could easily have been programmed so that he never ate of the tree, but then he would not have been 'man' but something quite different. God created and placed man into a world which made development possible, for good or ill. At this point of man's history there were no prohibitions other than the fruit of this tree. In a sense there was no other way that man could sin than by eating this tree, as everything else was declared edible. Everything else was within the permitted will of God. But if there is to be any virtue in Adam he must choose between something which is according to the will of God or according to his own self-interest. He made his choice, that is part of what it means to be human.We may say that God gave man full opportunity to sin, but this is not predetermining that event, or even 'allowing it to happen'. And I can think of no sense of justice where the man with apples in his garden could be blamed for being the source of the temptation to the man who stole them.I know I frequently return to this but Adam's sin was not the original sin; it was the first human copy. Original sin was angelic rather than human, and Adam's disobedience introduced Satan and his sin into the human race. Yes, God could have prevented all this by making men like rocks without personal accountibility; but God chose to create man in His own image and likeness and that surely must include choice.

Hi Bro. Ron,The word to Adam was 'thou shalt not eat of it'. This was clearly a command to Adam and not a decree. God could have said 'you're not going to eat of it' I'll put it too high, or make it impossible to take from the tree', but He commanded and did not decree that Adam must not eat of it.I have a simple little way I describe the progression of any sin:1) I2) NO3) SIN4) EVILWhen "I" say "NO" to God I "SIN" and that sin introduces "EVIL." Evil is the consequence of SIN. Sin is the result of saying NO to God. Saying no to God is the choice I made. My choice was not God's decree. This agrees with your statement:It spite of this Adam was fully able to eat of the tree. He made his choices and there has been a worldwide consequence.One of the things tthat has really made me rethink my position on the 'flesh' has been the fact that Adam and Eve were temptable with lust of eyes, lust of flesh, and pride of life.1) Things2) Illicit Experience3) AscendancyAt this point of man's history there were no prohibitions other than the fruit of this tree. In a sense there was no other way that man could sin than by eating this tree, as everything else was declared edible. Everything else was within the permitted will of God.Also every tree in the Garden was beautiful to the eyes. There was nothing special about the 'looks' of the tree. The enemy did not catch Eve on a full stomach which in my opinion is still a strategy of his; yet I concur with those who say the attraction was much more than that. What were the ingredients in his recipe of temptation?

Robert--Do you still not get it? You frustrate me. Every Calvinist also interprets Scripture in the light of God's revealed personality. We see you as "adjusting" God's character to fit your hermeneutic. This is a dead-end road you've gone down, my friend. Can we use more productive avenues?Calvinism is not exactly the "wisdom of this world." Compatibilism is rejected out of hand by modern philosophy as illogical. The mystery of God and of his revelation is in no wise ignored in Reformed Theology. Can you quit with the ceaseless mischaracterization?I agree that each of our systems is too simplistic and not at all "cut and dried." Please see this as something we all do.You theorize about the character of God and then interpret Bible passages accordingly. We all do it. We cannot not do it. Quite honestly, I believe there is very little real difference between Arminianism and Calvinism. (I do not hate Arminianism. In general, do not find it contrary to the revealed personality of God. I do not think of it as unbiblical (except in some ultimate sense known perfectly only to God, where I do believe Calvinism comes closer to his truth and is thus more biblical).Calvinism is a slant on God's truth that emphasizes humility (we bow before a sovereign Lord) and assurance (He will not let us go). Do these notions really offend you so much? Arminianism emphasizes man's responsibility for holy living and his freedom in Christ.I think those are terrific!What concerns me is Arminianism's tendency toward legalism (man's efforts rather than God's) and subjectivism (the freedom of the individual to interpret for himself).What concerns me about Calvinism is its tendency toward antinomianism (God will take care of it) and objectivism (Since we cannot "know that we know" the voice of the Spirit, let's drop him out of the equation entirely.)What concerns me most, however, are those Arminians who hate Calvinism and those Calvinists who hate Arminianism. (The old adage from the American Revolutionary War comes to mind: "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately." –Benjamin Franklin) In significant ways, we abide and grow in Christ through our own efforts. Those efforts, however, we recognize as altogether futile without him. Our academic pursuits of exegetical excellence must be thoroughly bathed in prayer and the Spirit.Calvinists must evangelize with every sinew of their being. (This is after all, our heritage: Carey, Brainerd, Edwards, Whitefield, et al.) Arminians (especially Charismatics) must bring their spirituality under the objective Lordship of Christ and his church. (I have actually heard that this is happening and that--for example--Charismatics in significant numbers are opting for Reformed seminaries.) I am in no way denigrating Charismatic seminaries, but they simply do not stress objectivity and accountibility as much.I firmly hope that the Third Great Awakening will spring out of the Reformed camp...and that the greatest exegetes of the 21st Century will be Charismatic.Ciao,--Eric

Hi Svineklev,Do you still not get it? You frustrate me. Every Calvinist also interprets Scripture in the light of God's revealed personality. We see you as "adjusting" God's character to fit your hermeneutic. This is a dead-end road you've gone down, my friend. Can we use more productive avenues?I certainly am not trying to be frustrating. Maybe I have read one too many old polemic books on these issues. I am drawing from those memories. One thing I will say, those men were pretty smart. They knew their Bibles. I still havn't seen works that quite so impressed me as the debates between the Calvinists and the Remonstrants.Let me characterize my position and see if we are on the same page or not. I believe that God has revealed Himself primarily as a God of love. All of His attributes must be seen in that light. I believe God desires all men to be saved. I do not consciously think about who will or will not make it when I minister. I feel everyone, while breath is in their lungs, have a chance to repent. I know that there were some great Calvinists who preached revival. I tend to lean towards Finney on revival, but would also love to see a modern day Hebrides revival. As a matter of fact, I don't care how it comes so long as it comes. I also want to give God ALL the glory. Our mischaracterizations of each other go both ways. I want to live a life that authenticates my worship by demonstration of genuine reverence for God every second of the day. When someone repents, I give God all the glory. So on and so forth. Are we in agreement so far?God Bless,-Robert

One of the interesting underlying issues we're dealing with here is the validity (or lack thereof) of human reasoning ("philosophy", partly) in theological enquiry. I am sensitive to the heavily "philosophical" nature and tenor of some of my arguments, and how that may be unsettling to those (like myself) who get unsettled when processing a theological argument that goes more than about two paragraphs without quoting Scripture. I meant to address that at some point, but Brother Ron has already said much of what I would say in a recent post in another thread (which was very helpful, thank you, Ron).Ron: (some emphases mine)It is not unbelief or backsliding to ask questions....We were created with the power of reason, and the need to link cause and effect. Somehow we have always known that every event must have a cause. This is the admission of every child who asks a question beginning with the word ‘why’. ‘Why’ demands that there is a reasonable basis to our universe. Some Christians shrink from such questions; they feel that somehow the question is impertinent. The command to ... love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (Luk 10:27 KJV) undercuts that escape from reason.The mind or understanding however needs more that raw data to make its right deductions; it requires revelation.As for the justification of applying our reasoning at all, I appeal to the highlighted section of Luke 10:27.The specific kind of reasoning I applied earlier in this thread is readily seen as rooted in the assumption Ron pointed out: every event must have a cause. I'm wary of explicitly (or implicitly) importing Plato into any discussion like this, but I think one concept from him is inescapable: God is the uncaused cause. There are two parts to this: first, that God was not "caused", that is, He has simply always existed and does not derive His existence from anything else; and second, that God is the root cause of everything else that exists. Is there any disagreement here on the first? (I should hope not, frankly) And what about the second?Deuteronomy 4:35 KJVUnto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Romans 11:36 KJVFor of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.Lamentations 3 KJV37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?Lamentations 3:37 really gets at what I've been talking about. To back up and summarize:Foreknowledge of "x" + Ability to prevent "x" = Choice of whether or not "x" will occurIn sentence form: If person "p" has foreknowledge of "x" and ability to prevent "x", "p" has a choice whether or not "x" will occur.If there is any disagreement on this, please bring it up now, as discussion of things based upon this will probably not be fruitful if we do not agree on the basis.Therefore, if "x" occurs and God had both foreknowledge of "x' and the ability to prevent "x", then God chose for "x" to occur.(Note that this does not work out the same in application to humans, as humans lack perfect foreknowledge and ability.) In any case, do we agree that this is true in the case of God? Again, disagreement here needs to be dealt with before anything later.Example implications:Substitute "Saul's existence" for "x" (still agree?)Substitute "Paul's Salvation" for "x" (still agree?)Then, substitute "Judas's Damnation" for "x" (still agree?)Finally, substitute "Everything other than God" for "x" (still agree?)Truly, shall anything come to pass "and the Lord hath not done it?"To clarify, I am not saying that God necessarily "does" these things in the same sense that a man "does" them (though Jesus' actions during the incarnation would come closer to that), in that He is not morally responsible for all the events that occur, but that nonetheless He is in some sense responsible for their occurrence because He chose not to prevent them.Also, backing up two verses I think we see (though we may not need much reminding) that these things which "cometh to pass" are not necessarily what He "approveth":Lamentations 335 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,36 To subvert a man in his cause, the LORD approveth not.37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?Thinking about it, I suppose there's some question as to what injustice is being referred to in 35-36, and whether God even permits it to occur. Perhaps someone has a way of showing 37 as meaning something different in context than I've taken it to mean. But even then, is it even conceivable that a thing would come to pass without the Lord's permission? And how could a thing even come up for "permission" if it had not been caused by something else? And on down the line (perhaps through many indirections involving human natures, circumstances, and human choices), until one is left with the conclusion that it, like everything else, has its root cause in God. In Him we have our very being, how could any of our choices not be grounded in Him in some sense?And that is the mode of many of these arguments: proof by the absurdity of the contrary. To the orthodox Christian, it is absurd to think that there is another ultimate source than God (there may be, as I believe Ron pointed out, subordinate "sources" that God creates, but they in turn have Him as their source), and thus I find it sufficient proof of my point to show that the contrary would be to assert the existence of another such ultimate source (a known falsehood). I might go so far as to say that monotheism (even Trinitarian monotheism) is inherently deterministic to some degree, but I haven't thought it through enough to be sure.And, as I said before, it doesn't so much matter (for the sake of the argument) whether God chose to save some through a way that resembles Reformed theories, or Arminian theories, or Pelagian theories, or Roman Catholic theories (mixtures though they are), or something distant from all those systems; it would still remain that God chose to save, how to save, when to save, and who to save, simply because God chose everything anyhow. The Reformed position would seem to be the most honest reflection of that reality, were it the case, as ultimately the choice of who to save ("election") would be conditional only upon those things which have their root cause in Him (which is to say, everything), and are thus in that sense "unconditional", because (as I understand it) the Reformed never meant "unconditional" to mean "arbitrary" or "random" or "not based upon any condition whatsoever," but merely "conditioned upon the approval of God's most holy and wise will."I feel like a broken record here, having restated the above so many times, and I do not wish to weary you all with this, but I think this is a basic question that must be addressed before we can make headway in many of these other issues:Did God foreordain whatsoever comes to pass?Did He at least choose it? (is there a difference?)As for the recurring objections that are essentially questions in the form "How is that consistent with His character?," I think the questions being asked by the Biblical characters Ron referred to (Jeremiah, Asaph, etc) were questions of why rather than whether God had ordained the calamity before them. I contend that they were not at all confused about who was ultimately responsible for what was happening, about who they should ask about it, but instead they were confused about why He had made such things come to pass, because they had difficulty seeing how it could be reconciled with His character. Similarly, Jesus did not tell His audience that God had nothing to do with the tower of Siloam incident, but instead pointed out that their deductions of God's motives in the matter were too simplistic.And if the question is not whether God has done a thing, but why, then that is an issue that must be taken up with Him, for I can but guess (and guess poorly at that).I expect all of you (even Eric) to disagree somewhere above, my question is: where, exactly, do our paths part? I've taken some effort to be roughly linear in my reasoning, so if you disagree with the conclusion there should be some point along the line where you think I've taken a logical misstep or misinterpreted a fact (premise).Thanks again, and may the Lord's will be done in and through us all,-Keith

philologos wrote:Be prepared to learn from all, especially those who oppose you. Josiah threw away his life because he did not learn this lesson. (2Chron 35:22) Be prepared to learn from all but be careful who you commend, even to yourself. So are you saying that this is not my battle?:-) Thats fine, my theological training stretches about as far as my own study, so all the isms are interesting in regards to History.Romans 14:22... whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. I know the context is a little different, but this is one of the watchdogs that I use in any discourse on areas of truth. In this context about the talking about the same coin just from the perspectives of the East and the West. One mans faith allows him to eat everything and anothers faith is strictly vegetarian, thats in regard to truth, I mean. Do not by what you approve condemn another who may not have the same faith as you. Remembering always that sparkle of wisdom that I saw on a bumper in Oregon… if you haven’t changed your mind recently, how do you know you still have one?That all depends on whether we accept the authourity of that which is challenging our minds. 8-) To let you know that I have had my mind challenged by you theological space cadets, and sometimes there has been change.p.s. I am using 'you' as in a general one, not to you Ron. :-?

Foreknowledge of "x" + Ability to prevent "x" = Choice of whether or not "x" will occurIn sentence form: If person "p" has foreknowledge of "x" and ability to prevent "x", "p" has a choice whether or not "x" will occur.If there is any disagreement on this, please bring it up now, as discussion of things based upon this will probably not be fruitful if we do not agree on the basis.Hi KeithAs requested I will bring it up NOW.I don't think your algebra is right here.foreknowledge of 'x' plus ability to prevent x only equals choice if 'x' has no power of choice itself.If I see a cup rolling across a table and do not catch it, I have made a choice, but my choice was 'not to prevent' the event. You might call this my permissive will. But if I see someone about to jump into a crocodile infested river my 'choices' will be limited by 'his choices'. Certainly I could stop him temporarily but if he sets his mind to it do I have the right to stop him? I have a mentally handicapped daughter. Sometimes I reduce her choices by standing in a doorway that I don't want her to enter. I do this reluctantly because I know I am violating her choices. I do it for her safety because her mental powers do not equip her to make a reasoned decision.In the creation of mankind God invested man with certain 'rights' of choice and gave him the mental powers to make a reasoned decision. To do so and then prevent their use and man's choice would be to defeat the whole purpose of man's creation in the image and likeness of God.God's will, in the sense of His revealed will in commands, is often 'not done'. Every sin is a command of God 'not done'. God has limited Himself by His decisions in full knowledge of the outcome of those decisions. My favourite example of this is the 'colt tied at the crossroads'. Through Zechariah God had limited Himself to a triumphal entry in Jerusalem on the back of a colt. Having made this decision, He must keep to it. We then have the astounding comment of the Lord concering the colt 'the Lord hath need of him'. The concept of the Lord needing this creature is staggering and thrilling.In terms of personal destiny God does not impose His will upon another but seeks his cooperation. Hence the picture of Abraham's servant speaking with Rebekah and saying 'wilt thou go with this man?. Although everything is set and all the power brokers in the deal have had their say, they have need of Rebekah's consent.This is the way God has made human beings. In terms of our personal destiny 'the Lord hath need of thee' because He has chosen to have need of thee. This does not diminish God's greatness. God's allowing of Adam to behave as a human being is not God's choice for Adam's destiny, but God's respect for human beings in their integral 'rights' to behave as human beings and not as automatons.God's acknowledgement of a human's right to their own choice is very moving. Have you ever noticed Jer 2 where God remembers Israel's choice to follow Him into the wilderness and describes it as 'Israel's kindness'; not Israel's obligation, though it was that too.. but Israel's kindness. The idea comes earlier in the story of Ruth who makes the 'choice' to attach herself to Boaz. You might think 'she knew a good thing when she saw it' but Boaz describes it as her 'kindness'.When we choose to obey God and follow Him, God does not take it for granted and say 'and so you ought' He welcomes us with all the excitement of the prodigal's Father and heaven shares His infectious joy.There can be no choice unless God takes the initiative but there will be no joy unless man makes the right choice.Did God foreordain whatsoever comes to pass?Did He at least choose it? (is there a difference?)What about the next step> If He allows it does that mean the same thing as Him choosing it? Did He choose monarchy for Israel or permit it?God is the uncaused cause. There are two parts to this: first, that God was not "caused", that is, He has simply always existed and does not derive His existence from anything else; and second, that God is the root cause of everything else that exists. Is there any disagreement here on the first? (I should hope not, frankly) And what about the second?If one of my children sins against me did I 'cause' that sin by 'causing' my child? Will God hold me responsible for that child's sin? There is a independent integrity in the child's person-hood that makes him 100% responsible for his own actions.

As requested I will bring it up NOW.Thank you :-)I don't think your algebra is right here. foreknowledge of 'x' plus ability to prevent x only equals choice if 'x' has no power of choice itself.If I see a cup rolling across a table and do not catch it, I have made a choice, but my choice was 'not to prevent' the event. You might call this my permissive will. But if I see someone about to jump into a crocodile infested river my 'choices' will be limited by 'his choices'. Certainly I could stop him temporarily but if he sets his mind to it do I have the right to stop him?But do you not see that there your choices are not limited by his choices? They are, in fact, limited by your choice to restrain yourself (which was in turn based upon your choice to respect his rights; not that I disagree with having that kind of respect, but I do believe it is a choice). If you had not chosen to restrain yourself, his choices would not limit yours at all except in matters of ability (i.e. he could do things in such a way as to preclude your ability to interfere, but that's not the scenario I'm talking about: none can preclude God's ability to interfere). You're still choosing 'not to prevent' the event, even though you have a reason for that choice.I have a mentally handicapped daughter. Sometimes I reduce her choices by standing in a doorway that I don't want her to enter. I do this reluctantly because I know I am violating her choices. I do it for her safety because her mental powers do not equip her to make a reasoned decision.To care for a fellow human in such a way is a fearsome responsibility... but here we see that it is not the other person's choices that limit our choice, but rather our choice to grant (or not grant) them the liberty to choose as they will. We operate with standards of what kind of choices we will not interfere with and what kind of choices we will try to interfere with, but the limitation upon our choices comes from our choice to adopt those standards, not from the other people involved.In the creation of mankind God invested man with certain 'rights'Sorry to cut your sentence in half but I wanted to focus on this: God chose to invest man with these rights, intending full well to choose to honor those rights in the future, and God made this choice knowing full well the consequences (good and bad), but He deemed them acceptable. God was not limited in His choices here, those limitations came about as a result of His choice, and thus He was choosing then "not to prevent" everything that He would be unable to prevent later as a result of those limitations. It's indirect, of course, but it's still choice, no?To do so and then prevent their use and man's choice would be to defeat the whole purpose of man's creation in the image and likeness of God.I'm not sure that it would defeat the entire purpose, but I think I agree with the substance of this. God chose before the foundation to do things this way, to make us the way He made us, to give us the rights and abilities He gave us, to respect those rights even when it grieved Him, and He will not go back on His word. But no one forced Him into this, He chose this way.God's will, in the sense of His revealed will in commands, is often 'not done'. Every sin is a command of God 'not done'. God has limited Himself by His decisions in full knowledge of the outcome of those decisions.I agree in full. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I again emphasize that God chose to limit Himself in this way.My favourite example of this is the 'colt tied at the crossroads'. Through Zechariah God had limited Himself to a triumphal entry in Jerusalem on the back of a colt. Having made this decision, He must keep to it. We then have the astounding comment of the Lord concering the colt 'the Lord hath need of him'. The concept of the Lord needing this creature is staggering and thrilling.Indeed, "staggering" and "thrilling" are very apt words, to which I could only add "glorious" and perhaps "mysterious". I have thought much in the recent past on what glorious use God has made of weakness (primarily our weakness, as in the weakness through which His strength is shown most clearly), and how creation as we know it seems utterly impossible without God making thorough use of the weak and limited (which furthers my suspicion that our omnipotent, infinite God is distinctly fond of irony).But is it not plain that this glorious event would not have taken place if God had not ordained it?In terms of personal destiny God does not impose His will upon another but seeks his cooperation.Granting this (and I don't disagree), is there not something being glossed over here? Whose cooperation is God seeking? A man's. Who chose to give this man the right and ability to choose (for example, to cooperate or not cooperate)? God.In terms of our personal destiny 'the Lord hath need of thee' because He has chosen to have need of thee.Exactly.This does not diminish God's greatness.Of course not. God's allowing of Adam to behave as a human being is not God's choice for Adam's destiny, but God's respect for human beings in their integral 'rights' to behave as human beings and not as automatons.Again, God chose to respect those rights (and indeed He chose to give them to begin with, and for that matter He chose to make Adam in the first place), and Adam's destiny would have been quite different (or altogether nonexistent) were it not for God ordaining (choosing) that it be thus, no?God's acknowledgement of a human's right to their own choice is very moving. Have you ever noticed Jer 2 where God remembers Israel's choice to follow Him into the wilderness and describes it as 'Israel's kindness'; not Israel's obligation, though it was that too.. but Israel's kindness. The idea comes earlier in the story of Ruth who makes the 'choice' to attach herself to Boaz. You might think 'she knew a good thing when she saw it' but Boaz describes it as her 'kindness'.Ruth's kindness to Boaz really moved me, thank you for bringing up the similar passage connecting that idea to God's relationship with His people. The depth of the love He offers and asks (indeed, asks, for it is different than mere obligation that binds us) is, to use the above word, staggering. It really struck me when listening to Wilkerson's sermon on "Christ and His harlot Church" from this site all the way back at the beginning of this year. The exchange of grace, kindness, and blessing... in a word, love... that He has made possible... it is too wonderful for me. But has it come to pass and He has not ordained it?When we choose to obey God and follow Him, God does not take it for granted and say 'and so you ought' He welcomes us with all the excitement of the prodigal's Father and heaven shares His infectious joy.Amen, for this is part of His glorious plan.There can be no choice unless God takes the initiativeThat's at the root of my point.but there will be no joy unless man makes the right choice.I'm not sure about no joy at all, but I think I agree with what you're getting at. God has chosen to have a lot riding on man's choices, that is not at all inconsistent with what I think I've been saying.

Did God foreordain whatsoever comes to pass?Did He at least choose it? (is there a difference?)What about the next step> If He allows it does that mean the same thing as Him choosing it? Did He choose monarchy for Israel or permit it?

This is the way God has made human beings. In terms of our personal destiny 'the Lord hath need of thee' because He has chosen to have need of thee.I think this to be one of the greatest demonstrations of His sovereignty and power. ********As I read through Bro. Keith's thread I am reminded of an old math problem of Einstein's that was impossible to make work. No matter how many times you added it up, 2+2 = 5 (so to speak). So we have to look into where we are going wrong here. The only way we will be able to do it is with imperfect illustrations that can be discounted. After all, understanding is not necessarily that you "figure every thing out", but it is a state in which you are content to go on the facts without asking any more questions. Understanding is a state of mental contentment, in this case, that cannot be achieved without the ingredient of faith. By faith we understand, etc. We may be called to serve God with all our mind, but we are also told not to lean on our own understanding. The Hebrew there is Sha`an and it means to 'support yourself' or to 'trust in'- as one would trust in God. The word for heart is leb and it means; the inner man, mind, will, heart, and understanding. I must not trust in my understanding in the same way as I would trust in God. When my logical deductions do not jibe with God's revelation- trust and faith must kick in to bring me into a state of mental contentment. ************On "Permissive Will"When I was kid I used to hear stories of a great great uncle of ours that was very jealous. He lived out in the woods with his wife and for fear she would run off with another man or have another man in the house he would pad lock the woman inside. It is said that once he came home and saw foot prints in the snow coming from the house and went in and beat her up thinking they were another man's. He was filled with a controlling jealous rage. Later he realized they were the prints he himself made when he left for work earlier that morning. If the day ever came when he felt secure enough to leave the pad lock off the door and his wife made off with another man, was the chice he made in any way the cause of her infidelity? Would he be in any wise culpable? What would be the nature of the culpability? Culpable neglegence? Culpable deriliction of duty? Culpable carelessness? Did he tempt her to commit the act by leaving the lock off? Now I must ask, who can come up with a scenerio where this man would not be blamed no matter what he did? If he leaves the lock on we say he is a madman. If he takes it off we say it was his fault she committed adultery. What is the solution? The woman must do her duty and maintain her fedility. That is the only scenerio that will work. Otherwise we get to what ends up being the general answer for the disaster; "Well, they say, it was his fault for marrying her." God Bless,-Robert

One day, I will learn brevity.me too. :-D

Hi KeithA little less brief this time… But do you not see that there your choices are not limited by his choices? They are, in fact, limited by your choice to restrain yourself (which was in turn based upon your choice to respect his rights; not that I disagree with having that kind of respect, but I do believe it is a choice). If you had not chosen to restrain yourself, his choices would not limit yours at all except in matters of ability (i.e. he could do things in such a way as to preclude your ability to interfere, but that's not the scenario I'm talking about: none can preclude God's ability to interfere). You're still choosing 'not to prevent' the event, even though you have a reason for that choice.This is getting complicated but I see that …in the illustration of the crocodile infested river… My choice is only limited by my previous choice. In other words I have chosen to behave in a certain way. In this sense we might say God has chosen to be as He is, although the statement is close to nonsense. He has consequently chosen to behave consistently with His earlier choices. I don’t believe that God chose earlier that some would be predetermined to salvation and others ‘not to salvation’. I do believe that God chose to behave towards the human race in a way which would not compromise what He had created the human race to be. i.e. a moral agent, responsible and hence accountable for his choices.I do see that God would be under no obligation to provide salvation for any member of the human race who had chosen to exercise his ‘right to choose’ in rejecting God and His known will. Yes, I (and in the picture, God) is still choosing ‘not to prevent’, but that choice was made long ago at the design stage. This is so with us in a much more limited way. Decisions that I made decades ago set a direction which automatically eliminated many other options. If I had made different decisions there would have been different options to consider, but as it is my historical decisions have put me in geographical and spiritual locations where I don’t ever have to make those choices. For example, 40 years minus 4 days ago, I made a decision to ‘take unto me Margaret, as my wife… and plighted my troth, as the language is over here. That choice automatically eliminated all kinds of other choices for me. In ‘keeping thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live’ that one choice has made many other choices none-existent. I don’t have to make a choice about Alice, Dorothy, Florence, or any others. The one choice obviated the need for all those other choices.God chose to make man responsible for his actions and consequently accountable for them. This one choice obviated all other choices about interference in man’s choices. He may warn or woo but He will not impose. He has delegated genuine responsibility to man. To ignore this would be in contradiction of His own word; Let us make man in our own image and likeness. As regards ‘ability’ to interfere, God cannot override man’s moral choices and be true to His original creative word. In that sense He has put restraints upon Himself. We may regard it as one of God’s ‘cannots’; He cannot deny Himself.

Keith, another bit...Sorry to cut your sentence in half but I wanted to focus on this: God chose to invest man with these rights, intending full well to choose to honor those rights in the future, and God made this choice knowing full well the consequences (good and bad), but He deemed them acceptable. God was not limited in His choices here, those limitations came about as a result of His choice, and thus He was choosing then "not to prevent" everything that He would be unable to prevent later as a result of those limitations. It's indirect, of course, but it's still choice, no?If this is saying that God made an original decision about how man would be constituted and how God would interact with that constitution, I am with you. I have not been arguing for a relationship between God and man where every moment means a fresh decision on God's part, although I don't believe that God has wound it up and set it going either.I know that those Calvinistic decress are only a literary device to help folk get their heads around things outside time. I don't like the concept myself. I think that is because while we recognise anthropomorphisms (talking about God as if He were man, Delboy!) when we are dealing with the making bare of arms, and God being right-handed, it is all too easy to forget that we are also dealing with anthropomorphisms when we talk about God thinking or deciding.We know nothing about God's forethoughts or foreplans, we only see what has happened on the canvas of human history. These concepts of God as a linear thinker have got to be wrong, only time-based beings would think in such a way. In that sense all we can really talk about is what we see God do, biblically. This is part of my discomfort with the Calvinism scenario. I 'know' it couldn't have happened that way. (the Calvinist may tell me he knows it did!) I don't think it is possible for a carbon-based creation to even begin to understand the interface between time and eternity, but that is exaclty what Calvinism seems to set out to accomplish.As I read the scriptural accounts, in real time, I get the impression of people making choices and being held responsible for them. I get the impression that man's history has been a defiance of God and His will rather than the following of a script. And, and this is my main point here, I think I am supposed to get that 'impression'. I don't think we were ever intended to 'understand' God's outworkings by taking the perspective of a watcher at the decrees.This affects my understanding of prophecy too. I don't think of prophecy as prediction awaiting fulfillment, but I look to the future to explain the prophecy. This is why my eschatology (Delboy, knowledge of the last things) is often so annoying to folks. It isn't that I set one scheme against another, I refuse to systematise. In the interface of eternity with the future, I consciously refuse to create a scenario. In the interface of eternity with the past, I similarly refuse to create my scenario.Annoying, ain't I?

In Bro. Ron's response to Keith, I don't think it is possible for a carbon-based creation to even begin to understand the interface between time and eternity, but that is exaclty what Calvinism seems to set out to accomplish.I agree with this completely. Everything we experience in this cosmos is a creation of God. We have to try and understand everything based upon the creation. God is seperate and other (holy) from His creation. We have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time with which to gain experience, and it is ALL a creation of God. This is why we can apprehend certain things, but not fully understand them. This is how I answer the question we often get from children (usually) about how God has "always been." We can only understand things as they relate to 'time'. We have been created this way. Yet, God created time. God does not need time. He created time as one dimension of our reality. It isn't that I set one scheme against another, I refuse to systematise. In the interface of eternity with the future, I consciously refuse to create a scenario.Wow! This is not bad advice. I often will create a scenerio about things like Revelation 13, etc. Not to make a doctrine, but to extrapolate the warnings. Many "have it all figured out" and they are set up for deception. What will happen to their faith when the prophesies they were so dogmatic about do not come to pass as they thought?

Robert--You wrote: "Let me characterize my position and see if we are on the same page or not. I believe that God has revealed Himself primarily as a God of love. All of His attributes must be seen in that light. I believe God desires all men to be saved. I do not consciously think about who will or will not make it when I minister. I feel everyone, while breath is in their lungs, have a chance to repent."I agree wholeheartedly but with a couple of caveats:1. God's love must be seen for what it is, encompassing both mercy and justice.2. God may not will for every single individual to be saved. This does not mean that God is not Love any more than saying God does not ensure that every single individual will be saved means that he is not loving.3. We do agree that while they have life and breath "whosoever will" may come.I certainly did not intend to mischaracterize you as not wanting all glory to go to God. I only believe that you--quite unintentionally--do not end up giving him all the glory. But I assume you would say the same for me in light of my unacceptable Calvinistic positions.We do agree on much. Thanks for the outstretched hand of fellowship....--Eric

Hi Svineklev,I understand. I just pray that God will use all of us to preach repentance to this generation. I have no quarrel that a man or woman would preach like Whitfield. Glory to God if it is! I will likely be taking more of a Finney line on it; but however revival and repentance comes, let it come.God Bless,-Robert

Though I believe we should declare our independence from creeds and check everything against Scripture (as the Bereans), I find a total rejection of creedalism to be a foolish enterprise. If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). Interact with the creeds with respect. These are the work of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Dismiss them at your peril.EricI only reject creedalism and the isms as foundations, or as I have called them the setters of the agenda. I am more than ready to listen to what others have said in other times, but I accept or reject their testimony as I see it to be consistent or otherwise with the scriptures. The greater cloud of witnesses that you refer to, of course, are biblical persons with authentic, inerrant life stories. Their witness is to faith in the word of God not to theological schemes.The only reason I asked for a definition of the will is that folks often go on to specify its characteristics. It is not the will that is fallen but man. It in not the intellect that is fallen but man. Regeneration is a new start with a new man.since you are not required, indeed are unable to, choose against your own willIf as you say the will not really anything more than whatever intellectual or spiritual faculties allow us to make decisions under own own power How does this definition fit into the above quote? How can I choose against my own choice? I can change my choice, but it is still my choice. Is what I am seeing no more than a snap-shot of a process of decision? ie at one moment in the process I am heading in this direction, but at another an opposite direction.As I said before, to me the question we have been dealing with (concerning the Doctrines of Grace) has more to do with the spiritual inability of the unregenerate, rather than any lack of "freeness."What can be said more than that someone is 'dead', how much more unable can someone be than 'dead'. However, Adam was 'dead' from the day he transgressed but that did not stop God communicating with him. Those similarly 'dead' can hear the voice of God; this is just a foreshadowing of the promise of the hour coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.When God speaks 'being dead' is 'no excuse'. ;-)

Robert wrote:"Now I must ask, who can come up with a scenerio where this man would not be blamed no matter what he did? If he leaves the lock on we say he is a madman. If he takes it off we say it was his fault she committed adultery. What is the solution? The woman must do her duty and maintain her fidelity. That is the only scenerio that will work. Otherwise we get to what ends up being the general answer for the disaster; 'Well, they say, it was his fault for marrying her.'"Well, Robert, first we must clarify a couple of things:1. To what are you comparing her (potential) adultery? To sin or to apostasy? For the regenerate, the door is open for the former and locked for the latter.2. How inclined is she toward adultery? Is it like chocolate ice cream or crack cocaine? We don't accuse mental health institutions of being run by "madmen" if they lock up someone who's going through heroin withdrawal (heck, we'd probably approve four-point restraints!) There are those God brings through such a withdrawal period to the cleanness of the other side and those he leaves in their addiction.Those to whom he is married (his beloved elect) do not blame him for this apparent heavy-handedness. We know we would be lost had we been left on our own. We do not wish for unaided choice. Our response is less a clear-headed "Choose you this day whom you shall serve" and more a desperate "I believe. Help thou my unbelief!"For freedom Christ has set us free...the chains of sin have been severed (in the sense that we do not serve our rebellious natures). But we are captive free--bond slaves of Christ--and quite content to be. He is the Good Shepherd, and he keeps his lambs within the fold!--Eric

Hi Eric,For the regenerate, the door is open for the former and locked for the latter.I agree with you to an extent. Let me preface by saying that I believe that most so-called "backslidings" are not really backslidings they were merely the results of a person who prayed off conviction and were never regenerated (their backsliding was going back to what they ARE). I believe that when the regenerate backslide they are not at home in sin. By and large pigs return to the pig pen and the sons return to the Father's house (this was J. Vernon Mcgee's take). However, there is a word I use a lot and have not really got a lot of hits on it. I hope that sometime Bro. Ron will shed some light on it for me, but it is the Greek word ADOKIMOS. No matter how we slice it, Paul got under his body (hit it in the eye) and brought it into subjection (led it away captive) lest when he had preached to others, he himself would become ADOKIMOS. That is a very real warning to even those who we would be considered as definately elect. We all have heard the arguments back and forth, but what are (anyone please input) thoughts on this passage? (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Ron--I had to go back quite a ways to find the quote of mine you cited:"Yes, I understand that in many senses one would still be "free" (since you are not required, indeed are unable to, choose against your own will)."I am speaking here of Edwards' view and not my own. He virtually equates desire and will. Surely, you see that one can choose against one's own desires (like staying away from that tempting pint of Ben and Jerry's in the fridge). Edwards says that is only because you have a stronger desire to remain on your diet (the stronger desire always wins). I believe we can actually reason and opt for the best choice even when our stronger desire says otherwise. I simply think Edwards is too deterministic...and does not teach true freedom as I would define it. --Eric

(Another book-length post, sorry, but much of the space is taken up by quotes that can be skimmed or skipped)

This is the way God has made human beings. In terms of our personal destiny 'the Lord hath need of thee' because He has chosen to have need of thee.I think this to be one of the greatest demonstrations of His sovereignty and power.

I am speaking here of Edwards' view and not my own. He virtually equates desire and will. Surely, you see that one can choose against one's own desires (like staying away from that tempting pint of Ben and Jerry's in the fridge). Edwards says that is only because you have a stronger desire to remain on your diet (the stronger desire always wins). I believe we can actually reason and opt for the best choice even when our stronger desire says otherwise. I simply think Edwards is too deterministic...and does not teach true freedom as I would define it.Eric,I have a lot of sympathy with Edwards here. You will know that thelO and boulomai both have connotations of 'desire' in them. If you trace either of these words you will find texts where 'desire' would be quite appropriate. Willing and wanting are very much the consequence of desire. I would go for an even more primitive word and use the word 'hunger'. A man will follow his hungers unless he has another hunger that is greater than they.I can choose against one desire for Ben & Jerry's (is that some kind of ice-cream you have over there?) but only if some other desire masters my appetite for ice-cream.The old Methodists used to speak of the expulsive power of a new affection in describing 'sanctification'. Maybe we are not so wrong when we use the word 'love'. I love chocolate ice-cream. If I love my health more I will find the strength to choose health over ice-cream. The only real safety is in the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit.If I am truly convinced that I have a heaven to gain and a hell to shun that can act as a powerful stimulus to a change of choice. You seem to put reason up as the best alternative to desire; this is good Greek philosophy but I don't think it is New Testament truth. This would put the man with the better reasoning faculty at a distinct advantage in choosing God's way. I don't think that is a scriptural position.

Hi Keith Let me boil down the proposition you're rejecting a little and see if it's the same to you: "God chose who would be saved and who would not be saved." Just trying to get to the point.Yes, I am rejecting that theocentric proposition, and I am also rejecting the equivalent anthropocentric position that God determined to enable some to believe and others not to believe. Faith is a response, a human response, to revelation. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Sin too is a response, a human response to revelation. To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. I have been (partly) trying to show that the Arminian (and various others) really don't have much of a leg to stand on when they accuse Calvinism of making God the chooser of who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, because Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, and whatever else all make God the chooser of who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, they just put it in different ways. If God sets down an "unconditional" decree to the effect, He chooses who will be saved.Every ‘other’ Calvinist I have discussed this with accuses me of saying that if man chooses then he has contributed and hence salvation in not of grace alone. My answer has always been ‘salvation is not of grace alone’, ‘salvation is by grace through faith.’If there are two doors and one says ‘life’ and the other ‘death’, that is not the same as saying God chooses who ‘goes to heaven’; that is choosing the way that folks ‘go to heaven’. The choice, ‘to go or not to go’ is in the hands of the man who chooses the door. I don’t believe God chooses who ‘goes to heaven’ at all. I believe God has made a way through His Son for men and women to be rightly related to Him. As far as I understand penal substitution and its implications there never could have been any other way. Even those who knew nothing about it still came through this unique provision of God.He sets before them ‘life’ and ‘death’, and says ‘choose life’. To refuse His command to choose life is to incur additional sin. He commands all men everywhere to repent. To refuse to repent is to incur additional sin. If God "foreknows" that some will respond rightly to previenient grace, and has total control (at design time) over who responds rightly or wrongly (or even exists), He chooses who will be saved. If God makes man such that the unregenerate can simply, naturally, turn back towards Him without His assistance, knowing full well which men will actually do so and being in total control (at design time) over who will do so, He chooses who will be saved.Do you believe that total control over who responds rightly or wrongly was established at the design stage? Isn’t that the most obvious form of determinism? (Delboy. Unchangeable scripts) I don’t believe that God built any kind of control into who responds rightly or wrongly. If I did that would make God as guilty of sin as He is creditworthy of virtue. A man achieves virtue by cooperating with God, and ‘achieves’ sin by refusing to cooperate with God. In each case the choice is man’s, as a result virtue is commended and sin condemned. I like to think of prophecy as partly a statement of intent, i.e. that God will make sure whatever it is comes to pass (not overriding any previous commitments, of course). It's just a statement of intent, however, and not the beginning of that intent; that started before the foundation of the world.I still can’t better the statement of Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln which I have often quoted previously, but for completeness sake…"God's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God."\tWordsworth Revelation Intro. p 154

Every ‘other’ Calvinist I have discussed this with accuses me of saying that if man chooses then he has contributed and hence salvation in not of grace alone. My answer has always been ‘salvation is not of grace alone’, ‘salvation is by grace through faith.’I'm not sure what the Calvinists say, though that wouldn't surprise me. I get the impression Eric might have a different way of putting it. It seems to me that even the Roman Catholics could pass Sola Gratia, after a fashion.If there are two doors and one says ‘life’ and the other ‘death’, that is not the same as saying God chooses who ‘goes to heaven’; that is choosing the way that folks ‘go to heaven’. The choice, ‘to go or not to go’ is in the hands of the man who chooses the door.But God, knowing who would choose to go if He chose this particular way in which they could go, and also knowing how everyone would respond to any other plan of salvation, chose to do it this particular way, and thus accepted (chose, no?) this particular set of consequences. By choosing the way of salvation, He chose who would be saved. If He wanted a different (for example, larger) group, He would have done it in a different way, no? Or, if other commitments of His (for instance, a desire to grant and honor free moral agency) were more important to Him than the salvation of more people, it is nonetheless the case that He chose those considerations over His desire that all be saved. On that last part even I am wary, but is it not evident that God considers something (i.e. justice, free will, etc) more important than everyone going to Heaven? Perhaps I'm missing something, but He certainly doesn't seem to be willing to bend over backwards, throw justice away, and let an unrepentant sinner into Heaven. Interestingly, I think we're seeing the "strongest of the desires" phenomena here.As far as I understand penal substitution and its implications there never could have been any other way.Here lies the one possible exception I currently see to a de facto God-chooses view of Justification : One of my assumptions in the above paragraph is that there were other ways in which God could have reconciled sinners to Him, specifically other ways in which more could have been saved. But is this the case? Were God's hands quite literally tied in that there was no possible way in which He could have designed creation that would allow for free moral agents (no one else would need salvation, because no one else could fall, no?), and allow for reconciliation of more sinners to Him than the way He actually chose? I think that would be a form of Molinism (that God picked the way that would cause the least evil), saying that God picked the way that would save the most people. What do you think? Or are you still shaking your head at the idea that choosing the way of salvation is choosing to save those who He knew would respond to that way?Do you believe that total control over who responds rightly or wrongly was established at the design stage?I believe that He had such control, in that He could have done it any way He pleased to do it (again, He's sticking with His plan, which would seem not to include forcing people to do things contrary to their will, but His choice of this plan was totally free, no?). Honestly, could He not have arranged things such that Lucifer would not want to rebel? Made him a bit different, fiddled with a few circumstances, gave him a different role? This is a genuine question: could God have ordered things differently in such a way as to preserve Lucifer's free moral agency but also change the kinds of inclinations (desires) he would have? Or is it impossible to manipulate a person's desires in that way (even though they don't exist yet, and won't if you don't make them).Isn’t that the most obvious form of determinism?It's determinism whatever way you slice it, since if God really did have the control to change whatever He liked about how creation would turn out, it seems logically inescapable that He chose what He wanted.I don’t believe that God built any kind of control into who responds rightly or wrongly.I don't think He put in an override switch or attached marionette strings or any such thing, but I think He had total control over what went into "the black box" and knew exactly what each configuration would do (and, for that matter, He had control over the standards of what constitutes a "right" or "wrong" response, or did He?). He doesn't break it open and change things later (with the possible exception of that whole "take out the heart of stone, put in the heart of flesh" matter), because He doesn't have to.If I did that would make God as guilty of sin as He is creditworthy of virtue.Why? Why would God incur the guilt for a man's actions? Why does He get the credit for man's virtuous actions? The answer to the second question is a good lead on the first: God gets the glory for man's virtuous actions because man could not act virtuously without God's personal, within-time involvement (i.e. the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), not because God foreordained that the man perform the virtuous action. At least that's the theory I just came up with, and I expect at least a dozen holes shot through it by nightfall :-) A man achieves virtue by cooperating with God, and ‘achieves’ sin by refusing to cooperate with God. In each case the choice is man’s, as a result virtue is commended and sin condemned.I don't think I disagree with this, odd as that may seem."God's foreknowledge sees everything and forces nothing. It leaves the liberty of the human will untouched. Whatever is foretold by God will be done by man; but nothing will be done by man because it is foretold by God."God's merely foreknowing something doesn't force anybody involved to do anything, no, they do it out of their own free will, which is quite in line with their nature.And then the question that comes to mind, that I think we've been walking around: did God determine their nature?

Ron--I wasn't trying to be precise in pitting reason against desire (superego vs. id, perhaps?)All I was saying is that something else is involved. You yourself talk about "finding the strength." One doesn't have to find anything if it all comes down to what is the inherently stronger desire.It is possible to be both good Greek philosophy and NT truth. They clearly overlap a great deal. But yes, I opt for Scripture over Aristotle whenever there is a conflict.--EricPS: I thought it was a Brit who mentioned Ben and Jerry's earlier in this thread. At any rate, yes, it's basically designer ice cream.

Ron (via Keith)--Protestant orthodoxy states that justification is "by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone." It is not simply by grace through faith...one needs to include the solas.I don't agree that Wesleyans/Arminians don't comply with grace alone, but they do sometimes compromise it, leaving the door open for some to slip into Semi-Pelagianism and worse.Oh, and Keith--I won't shoot you full of holes, or at least not yet. I think you're quite right that God's foreordaining (in sanctification) has more to do with effectual providential aid than anything approaching deterministic coercion. In theological parlance you're talking "synergism." Nothing radical there.--Eric

Hi Keith But God, knowing who would choose to go if He chose this particular way in which they could go, and also knowing how everyone would respond to any other plan of salvation, chose to do it this particular way, and thus accepted (chose, no?) this particular set of consequences.Isn’t that mixing up foreknowledge and predestination. I may acquire the foreknowledge that a burglar is going to break into my house but that is surely not the same as predetermining the burglary. To accept is not the same as to choose. Relating to marriage the Lord said ‘God allowed you to divorce your wives’. That is not the same as God saying ‘knowing your hard hearts and the circumstances you would go through, I choose divorce.’ On that last part even I am wary, but is it not evident that God considers something (i.e. justice, free will, etc) more important than everyone going to Heaven? It is not any of these aspects that is ‘more important’. It is the nature of God that is immutable. God’s love is a holy love; both forensic justice and power to choose are expressions of that holy love. We must not set one facet of God’s character against another. Here lies the one possible exception I currently see to a de facto God-chooses view of Justification : One of my assumptions in the above paragraph is that there were other ways in which God could have reconciled sinners to Him, specifically other ways in which more could have been saved.I have never seen another theory of atonement which ‘made sense’. As much as I understand Finney I would take a solid stand against his Moral Government theory, although there are organisations which teach it strongly, and a high profile UK evangelical has just drawn some fire by embracing it. C S Lewis’ preoccupation with ‘ransom to the devil’ was always a non-starter Honestly, could He not have arranged things such that Lucifer would not want to rebel? Made him a bit different, fiddled with a few circumstances, gave him a different role? This is a genuine question:I recognise it as a genuine question. My answer would be ‘yes’ God could have made him ‘less’ than He made him. God could have made man ‘less’ than He made Him, But would He then have been able to say ‘let us make man in our image and likeness?’ Psalm 8 asks the question what is ‘man’? And answers it gloriously; there is no ‘sin’ in the Psalm. This is man as he was created; anything less than this would not have been ‘man’. Part of his intrinsic glory is that ‘he is crowned’. Man was created to be a servant-king. His serving was to be his own choice and not hard-wired. I don't think He put in an override switch or attached marionette strings or any such thing, but I think He had total control over what went into "the black box" and knew exactly what each configuration would do (and, for that matter, He had control over the standards of what constitutes a "right" or "wrong" response, or did He?). He doesn't break it open and change things later (with the possible exception of that whole "take out the heart of stone, put in the heart of flesh" matter), because He doesn't have to.You are picturing a very ‘straight line’ universe here, with only one possible route. This is what I mean by determinism and I can’t accept it. Again, I agree that He knew what each configuration would do, but foreknowledge is not predetermination. Why? Why would God incur the guilt for a man's actions? Why does He get the credit for man's virtuous actions? The answer to the second question is a good lead on the first: God gets the glory for man's virtuous actions because man could not act virtuously without God's personal, within-time involvement (i.e. the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), not because God foreordained that the man perform the virtuous action. At least that's the theory I just came up with, and I expect at least a dozen holes shot through it by nightfallI saw that coming. ;-) which is why I expressed it the way I did. It is all about cooperation or defiance. Sin in this is seen to have at its heart ‘I will do what I want to do’. Faith, utter trust in the revelation, is cooperation with God’s will and power. Sin, is quite otherwise. At it’s heart there is a clash of wills. There could be no human sin if God had not created man’s moral ability to choose. There would just have been the inexorable line by line outworking of the programme. And then the question that comes to mind, that I think we've been walking around: did God determine their nature?He created their nature, but left room for it to change as a result of events. That ‘room to change’ is the essence of humanity. It is what makes repentance possible, although I believe repentance is an expression of faith which has believed the word spoken. Romans actually says that man was ‘reconstituted’ as a result of Gen 3. For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous. (Rom 5:19 Darby) ‘constituted’ here is kathistEmi which to fix in place permanently. ie. Kata – thoroughly, histEmi – to place in a specific position. Man’s ‘constitution’ changed when Sin entered; this is uniquely expressed in Rom 5:12ff, and is changed again in ‘regeneration’.

EricEric writes:All I was saying is that something else is involved. You yourself talk about "finding the strength." One doesn't have to find anything if it all comes down to what is the inherently stronger desire.I can't find the context but I frequently use the word 'find' to mean discover, and I frequently use discover as with the KJV to mean uncover. This strength would not require searching only uncovering.Prayer is often the means of 'uncovering' the stronger desires, 'as in not my will, but Thine..' There is a lovely old hymn 'My Goal is God Himself' which has a stanza... So faith bounds forward to its goal in God,And love can trust her Lord to lead her there;Upheld by Him, my soul is following hard,'Till God hath full fulfilled my deepest prayer.In the believer there is a prayer 'deeper' than 'just get me out of this'. It is found in prayer as our God conscious spirit is uncovered. I sometimes pray along the lines of 'these are my conscious request' but underneath all these there is a 'deeper' prayer... Father, the hour has come, glorify Thy Son. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. (Phi 1:19-20 KJV) That's the 'deepest' prayer which arises from 'deeper' desires.

Eric writes: Protestant orthodoxy states that justification is "by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone." It is not simply by grace through faith...one needs to include the solas.Hi Eric,Then Protestant orthodoxy is adding to the scripture to fine tune its own creed. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV) I see no need to tweak Paul here.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace:For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (Titus 2:11)are ye saved through faithFor I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith (Romans 12:3)Both the grace of God that bringeth salvation and the faith to receive it are over all. The grace that saves by faith is brought to us by the agent of that grace- the Spirit of Grace, whom we can resist. The Spirit we can resist can also be grieved, quenched, done despite to, and blasphemed. I wonder why we never read a creed- Sola Ruach HaKodesh? Seems to me that that says it all. :-)God Bless,-Robert

For by1 grace are ye saved through2 faith; and that3 not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV)This is my own quote but I wanted to draw attention to the prepositions.1. is not a preposition but the declension of the noun 'charis' supports the translation 'by' as the originating condition.2. this is 'dia' which gives the route through which 'grace' does its work.3. to what does the pronoun refer? the pronoun here would have to be feminine to agree with either grace or faith but it isn't. The 'that' referred to is the saving work of God, in other words, salvation.Grace then is the source, faith the channel through which salvation, which is of God and not of 'yourselves', is achieved

Ron--No one is tweaking Paul. One is deciding which of two options is true:1. For by Grace (and nothing else) are ye saved through faith (and nothing else).2. For by Grace (and something else) are ye saved through faith (and something else).I think it's readily apparent which is the natural reading of this text. Protestantism doesn't tweak the text in this case, but untweaks the tweakers of it.Whose side are you on?--Eric

Robert--I fail to see how Solus Spiritus Sanctus says anything more than Solus Christus.Is the Trinity not in complete agreement?--Eric

Ron--You make a distinction between 'finding' and 'discovering' (which you take to mean 'uncovering').Are you saying that one is passive and the other is not? It may be argued that prayerful listening to God is passive, but determining to be obedient is undoubtedly active.Where are you coming up with the concept of deeper prayer? There is certainly no mention of greater depth in Philippians 1. And surely the Spirit always intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27) not just when we attain unto some New Age "God consciousness." I can see a notion of genuine prayer in Scripture, but none of this "deeper" mumbo-jumbo. Did you get that from the Bible...or from the systematics of the Keswick Movement?--Eric PS: I know this sounds like I'm sticking my hand in a hornet's nest for the mere pleasure of stirring up trouble. Actually, all I want is the biblical basis for your argument.Have a great New Year's!

Whose side are you on?I'm on the side of the text which mentions no solas, but simply says that salvation is the free gift of God by grace which is God's responsibility and faith which is mine.It is not by grace alone, but by grace through faith. The salvation process is by grace and through faith.

Eric -Where are you coming up with the concept of deeper prayer? There is certainly no mention of greater depth in Philippians 1. And surely the Spirit always intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27) not just when we attain unto some New Age "God consciousness." I can see a notion of genuine prayer in Scripture, but none of this "deeper" mumbo-jumbo. Did you get that from the Bible...or from the systematics of the Keswick Movement?Gee it's not often I get accused of New Age, mumbo jumbo AND holding to Keswick Teaching all in one posting. Just where did you learn your discussion skills? Is it too late to ask for your money back? (just joking) I am beginning to see you prefer rough-house discussion, and am unwilling to accommodate you, but I will try to answer the question.Let's eliminate the Keswick thing first. Probably 99% of this readership is not going to know what Keswick is, but let me say I don't hold to Keswick teaching, but then again not many Keswick people do now; it has pretty much drifted into anaemic evangelicalism. In the days when 'deeper life' teaching was available I would almost certainly have identified myself with Oswald Chambers and the Pentecostal League of Prayer rather than Keswick suppression/counteraction teaching.New Age? you've obviously not read the furore I caused on the mysticism thread. :-) I guess that must leave mumbo jumbo. Have you never prayed and discovered the prayer taking you with it? Have you never begun to pray for one thing and discovered that as you prayed desires bubbled up from your heart that you had not realised were there? Have you never prayed for one line of action only to find that as you prayed you were led to embrace another? If not, there's nothing I can say to explain it to you. However, if you haven't I doubt if you have ever prayed.You make a distinction between 'finding' and 'discovering' (which you take to mean 'uncovering').Are you saying that one is passive and the other is not? It may be argued that prayerful listening to God is passive, but determining to be obedient is undoubtedly active.I only made that distinction to try to show you that it wasn't something you had to go to search for, but that it needed to be 'uncovered' or revealed. The revelation is when I discover that I can obey God in the thing where I knew I couldn't. That He that is within me is greater... Several days after this posting I read this quotation from Oswald Chambers "The Spirit of God alters my dominating desires; He alters the thing that matters, and a universe of desires I had never known before, suddenly comes on the horizon."

Hi Svineklev,I fail to see how Solus Spiritus Sanctus says anything more than Solus Christus.Wow, is this an open door for a 100 post thread! Sure they are in agreement, obviously. I have some awesome material on the Trinity I could share, but that's not the point. We would glean nothing pastoral from it. So I won't go there. I'm talking about the office of the Holy Spirit as that working plays out in our lives bringing us to salvation. Everything boils down to how you respond to the Holy Ghost. That is always the case. I see most of salvation as a person's response to the Holy Spirit. Will you resist or will you submit (yield)?Where are you coming up with the concept of deeper prayer? There is certainly no mention of greater depth in Philippians 1. And surely the Spirit always intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27) not just when we attain unto some New Age "God consciousness." I can see a notion of genuine prayer in Scripture, but none of this "deeper" mumbo-jumbo. This would be a good time to go into the Holy Spirit's role in helping us to pray. As a Pentecostal, we could take this discussion to a whole new level. maybe we could start a new thread on it.;-) Finney is a good place to start though. He has a Lecture called; The Spirit of Prayer which is very good. It deals with the Holy Spirit coming upon people and congregations so they can really pray and not just mutter words in their own power. There is a audio of it HERE.God Bless,-Robert

Robert--What I am saying is that I don't believe anyone from a Reformed stance would have any trouble saying that justification is by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone through the agency of the Holy Spirit alone (initiated by the Father alone). I think it's not spelled out because those who would have troubles with Solus Christus would have the exact same troubles with the other members of the Trinity.And of course, we wouldn't be able to agree with you that it "all boils down to how you respond to the Holy Ghost." We believe it all boils down to Him...and not us.--Eric

Ron--Sorry about the "mumbo-jumbo" gibberish. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you (or for that matter Robert) have posts on other threads where you outline your basic beliefs? It would help immensely.By the way, the Holy Spirit is not a respecter of denominations. Your nicely-put quote on prayer aptly describes an experience we share in common: "Have you never prayed and discovered the prayer taking you with it? Have you never begun to pray for one thing and discovered that as you prayed desires bubbled up from your heart that you had not realised were there? Have you never prayed for one line of action only to find that as you prayed you were led to embrace another? If not, there's nothing I can say to explain it to you. However, if you haven't I doubt if you have ever prayed."--Eric

Sorry about the "mumbo-jumbo" gibberish. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you (or for that matter Robert) have posts on other threads where you outline your basic beliefs? It would help immensely.Yes, I guessed you were trying to figure out where I was 'coming from'. For myself I have no threads where I have outlined my basic beliefs. I subscribe to no school of theology but am happy to be identified with the people of God whereever they may be found.I have a four part series on what it means to have 'begun in the Spirit' that Greg has been kind enough to place on the site here. That would tell you my 'basics'.RepentanceJustificationRegenerationAdoptionIf you discover 'where I am coming from' please be sure to let me know.By the way, the Holy Spirit is not a respecter of denominations. Your nicely-put quote on prayer aptly describes an experience we share in common:Neither am I. I don't belong to one.

Ron--Everyone here is on the side of the text. And yes, the text includes no solas. But there are only two ways to interpret this verse regarding justification (the two I gave previously):1. For by Grace (and nothing else) are ye saved through faith (and nothing else).This is the general Protestant take on it.2. For by Grace (and something else) are ye saved through faith (and something else).This is the general (Tridentine) Roman Catholic take on things (the something else being the merit of sanctified works or participating in the sacramental means of grace).There are no other options I'm aware of. To my mind, not choosing simply implies one doesn't think it means anything at all. How is that text honoring? I suppose you can hold it all as a mystery. If that's true--say so. That's more than fine. But don't imply anyone else is not following the text.--Eric

And of course, we wouldn't be able to agree with you that it "all boils down to how you respond to the Holy Ghost." We believe it all boils down to Him...and not us.Hi Eric,Well, we can agree to disagree. I will always view my response to the Holy Spirit as my responsibility. I have one duty to do for which I am worthy of no thanks and that duty is to yield to the Holy Ghost. Yeilding, technically, is not something I do, it is something I stop doing. I must cease and desist from resisting Him and allow Him to do what He wants to do in bringing me to salvation.If I resist the Holy Ghost, it is my fault and I will rightly suffer for it. If I submit to the Holy Ghost- it is still God's grace that saved me. But God's grace is over all. God Bless,-Robert

EricLet's play some algebra...salvation=sgrace=gfaith=fyou have produced two formulaes=g + 0s=f + 0according to normal logic that would mean that g=f. I don't think you want to say that do you?I have a single formulas=g+fI don't see logically how we can put the words 'only' and 'and' into the same sentence, unless what follows the 'and' is zero. I do not believe faith is zero. I believe it is absolutely necessary in order to please God, but I also believe it is impossible without grace. A grace, however, than enables but does not compel.

Robert--We don't disagree on the necessity to submit to the Holy Spirit, nor that it is our responsibility to do so.We only disagree on when one is able to accomplish such a feat. The Reformed believe one must be regenerated first before one can respond. We don't believe you can stop resisting unless your heart is circumcised. Babies don't "submit" to circumcision...they have no choice in the matter. Whether they like it or not, they are part of the family.But as a part of the family, they certainly have responsibilities.--Eric

We don't believe you can stop resisting unless your heart is circumcised.Ah, circumcision of the heart. I took a beating over that in class once at the instutute (not a literal one). In our industry we have computer chips that are 'powered on' from an external source. They cannot function unless they are powered up. I think of God's dealing with us as sinners in that sense. The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all- yet not all have rightly responded. God gives the opportunity to rightly respond by supplying the necessities for us to make a right response if we are willing. If we respond to that grace rightly by exercising our measure of faith (that He has provided also by His grace) then we will be regenerated and justified and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Our heart will be circumcised, etc. God Bless,-Robert

Ron--I'm not sure how algebraic we would want to become with theology, but it should generally follow the basic principles of logic.It is not entirely accurate to maintain that Salvation equals Grace plus Faith. (Justification comes by Grace through Faith...and those prepositions are important. Salvation is something that was, is, and will be. It includes the notions of Election, Calling, Sanctification, Perseverance, and Glorification.)But for the sake of simplicity, I can go along with your formulations.In such a case, I would be proposing:s = (g+0) + (f+0)When simplified, this yields: s = g + f.Which, as far as I can understand, does not differ from your summation.The "alones" (the zeros) are there merely to differentiate Protestant formulations from Roman Catholic:s = (g+sacraments) + (f+works).I doubt that you espouse this second formula. That makes you someone who believes in Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone. But for some reason you'd rather not admit it.I hope you can see how "only" and "and" do indeed fit into the same sentence. By no means am I making Faith into a "zero." Obviously, "without faith, it is impossible to please God." And without Grace there would be no Faith. Moreover, I believe it was Luther himself who said we are Justified by Faith alone, but not by a Faith that is alone. Works are the necessary outworking of our sanctification. Roman Catholics conflate the concepts of Justification and Sanctification, confusing a lot of their rank and file (though I have known quite a few thoroughly Evangelical RC's).It is a misunderstanding to say that Calvinists believe we are compelled by Grace. Grace enlivens and enables those who were previously unable. Of our own free will we choose to follow God...but it is a will that has been set free and is no longer captive to sin. There is no need to coerce someone who has been set free to follow his or her redeemer. It is the only natural thing to do. It is strange to call something a "choice" when the options are the leg irons of sin...or the wings of Christ.--Eric

Robert--That's it exactly! We differ only as to the order. The Reformed believe we have no "measure of faith" to "rightly exercise" until we are first regenerated.Our order means that God himself determines who will respond. We trust him implicitly for this. Why shouldn't we?Your order means that every single individual is given enough grace to choose between life and death...and man determines who will respond. (Nonetheless, grace is absolutely necessary throughout the whole process. And God is given the glory.) But you wish to make sure that no one is left behind unnecessarily.My problem with your order has mostly to do with the predicament of man. I believe God is--and needs to be--more helpful. And Christ by no means will leave anyone he has died for behind.--Eric

It is not entirely accurate to maintain that Salvation equals Grace plus Faith. (Justification comes by Grace through Faith...and those prepositions are important. Salvation is something that was, is, and will be. It includes the notions of Election, Calling, Sanctification, Perseverance, and Glorification.)I was just interpreting the verse For by grace (g)are ye saved(s) through faith(f); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8 KJV)or as I formulated its = g + fEric writes: When simplified, this yields: s = g + fI think that's about as close to agreement as we are likely to get, unless I missed something.