Not being honest with myself

[golgotha61]

That is exactly the verse I was referring to. Thanks for your wonderful post. I have a Baptist background and that perspective sounds a lot like "Once Saved Always Saved". If this is the case, do we lose our free will upon becoming Christians?

Yes this does teach "eternal and secured salvation" the old "once saved always saved" doctrine. Before I go further I would like to point out that the idea of eternal security is not a license to sin. Paul saw something like this reasoning in Romans when he was teaching about the grace of God abounding where sin abounds and he the question he anticipates is; "Are we to continue to sin that grace may abound?". The mind set is the same in the misuse of eternal security, if I am secure in my salvation does that mean I can go on sinning. Paul says "God forbid" and then goes on in chapt. 6 of Romans to explain. The sin he is referencing, by the way is habitual or a lifestyle of sin and not the individual acts of weakness we all succumb to from time to time.

In my early years as a serving Christian, I ran into situations from time to time that made me question whether or not some people who claimed to be saved and professed the name of Christ were "really saved" since the things the did were not compatible with Christian living. In later years after studying God's word and different classes in college, I am convinced that one can not turn to God unless He chooses you: (Romans 8:28-30). Once he chooses and we accept, He will not loose us (Romans 5:7-10). Also, the verse I gave in my previous post say nothing can take us out of Christ's hand.

Now, the issue of will. When referring to the will of God, will is defined as an "active choice". And I think the will of man would be the same definition. There seems to be a difference in the act of choosing which does not necessarily include an action and the exercising of our will which does always include action of some sort. To will something involves desire and planning and action and is much more personal. For instance some one can ask me a question on a survey and offer me the choice of a. or b., and I can say "I choose a". I have not acted on the choice, I have simply made a selection known. However, when I exercise my will, it must involve action.

So, when I desire to respond to God's call it is more than a sterile choice, it is a desire that must be satisfied. I did not turn to God because of my own desire first; I could not have sought Him first because I was spiritually dead and when something is dead it cannot respond to any stimulus. The only way then for me to respond was by His regenerating me back to spiritual life:
The word regeneration (Gk. paliggenesia) appears only twice in the New Testament. Once is used eschatologically, “of the renewing of the world in the time of the Messiah” (Matt. 19:28), the second usage is “of the rebirth of a redeemed person” (Titus 3:5). Regeneration should be distinguished from conversion.

Conversion refers to the response of the human being to God’s offer of salvation and approach to man. Regeneration is the other side of conversion. It is God’s doing. In regeneration the soul is passive; in conversion, it is active. Regeneration may be defined as the communication of divine life to the soul…as the impartation of a new nature…or heart…and the production of a new creation.
​

Succinctly stated, to regenerate means “to impart life.” Regeneration is the act whereby God imparts life to the one who believes.
The Moody Handbook of Theology.

As far as I can see, once the free will is exercised, there is no danger of what the Arminians teach and that is; we can will to receive salvation and we can forfeit salvation as an act of our will or through specific sins.

You could not have responded to God in any positive fashion on your own volition, it was because He chose you. He marked you our from eternity past (Eph. 1:4).

 

[SPB1987]

Yes this does teach "eternal and secured salvation" the old "once saved always saved" doctrine. Before I go further I would like to point out that the idea of eternal security is not a license to sin. Paul saw something like this reasoning in Romans when he was teaching about the grace of God abounding where sin abounds and he the question he anticipates is; "Are we to continue to sin that grace may abound?". The mind set is the same in the misuse of eternal security, if I am secure in my salvation does that mean I can go on sinning. Paul says "God forbid" and then goes on in chapt. 6 of Romans to explain. The sin he is referencing, by the way is habitual or a lifestyle of sin and not the individual acts of weakness we all succumb to from time to time.

In my early years as a serving Christian, I ran into situations from time to time that made me question whether or not some people who claimed to be saved and professed the name of Christ were "really saved" since the things the did were not compatible with Christian living. In later years after studying God's word and different classes in college, I am convinced that one can not turn to God unless He chooses you: (Romans 8:28-30). Once he chooses and we accept, He will not loose us (Romans 5:7-10). Also, the verse I gave in my previous post say nothing can take us out of Christ's hand.

Now, the issue of will. When referring to the will of God, will is defined as an "active choice". And I think the will of man would be the same definition. There seems to be a difference in the act of choosing which does not necessarily include an action and the exercising of our will which does always include action of some sort. To will something involves desire and planning and action and is much more personal. For instance some one can ask me a question on a survey and offer me the choice of a. or b., and I can say "I choose a". I have not acted on the choice, I have simply made a selection known. However, when I exercise my will, it must involve action.

So, when I desire to respond to God's call it is more than a sterile choice, it is a desire that must be satisfied. I did not turn to God because of my own desire first; I could not have sought Him first because I was spiritually dead and when something is dead it cannot respond to any stimulus. The only way then for me to respond was by His regenerating me back to spiritual life:
The word regeneration (Gk. paliggenesia) appears only twice in the New Testament. Once is used eschatologically, “of the renewing of the world in the time of the Messiah” (Matt. 19:28), the second usage is “of the rebirth of a redeemed person” (Titus 3:5). Regeneration should be distinguished from conversion.

Conversion refers to the response of the human being to God’s offer of salvation and approach to man. Regeneration is the other side of conversion. It is God’s doing. In regeneration the soul is passive; in conversion, it is active. Regeneration may be defined as the communication of divine life to the soul…as the impartation of a new nature…or heart…and the production of a new creation.
​

Succinctly stated, to regenerate means “to impart life.” Regeneration is the act whereby God imparts life to the one who believes.
The Moody Handbook of Theology.

As far as I can see, once the free will is exercised, there is no danger of what the Arminians teach and that is; we can will to receive salvation and we can forfeit salvation as an act of our will or through specific sins.

You could not have responded to God in any positive fashion on your own volition, it was because He chose you. He marked you our from eternity past (Eph. 1:4).

Are you a Calvinist? I am not completely sure what a
Calvinist is beyond believing in pre-destination(I am sure it is not this simple). So you believe that God chooses only some of us or all of us? What good does it do to go out and witness if an individual can only find God if God chooses that individual in the first place?

 

[razeontherock]

What good does it do to go out and witness if an individual can only find God if God chooses that individual in the first place?

Well consider the non-Calvinist position that all are called. What good does witnessing do then? Obviously, quite a bit. So under the Calvinist scheme, it still needs to be done. They make it easier to turn your back on those who don't immediately receive the Gospel

 

[SPB1987]

Well consider the non-Calvinist position that all are called. What good does witnessing do then? Obviously, quite a bit. So under the Calvinist scheme, it still needs to be done. They make it easier to turn your back on those who don't immediately receive the Gospel

So you feel that our individual efforts can cause a person to be called at any given time? They still certainly have the ability to reject this call right? This is something I have never been able to understand. Growing up I was always under the impression that hell was a literal place of eternal suffering. I once asked a youth pastor at a southern Baptist Church if God knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. His response was yes. I then asked him why create someone you know is going to hell? He responded with "Does that mean God should stop creating people?". The conversation ended at that point. Now that was not a word for word translation of what was said(that was approx 8 years a go) but you get the general idea of what I am getting at here.

I now think that hell is likely total destruction of the person. A literal death, where the person ceases to exist. I think Revelation refers to the second death, meaning the death that comes after our physical death.

 

[razeontherock]

So you feel that our individual efforts can cause a person to be called at any given time? They still certainly have the ability to reject this call right?

We are not God, so our witnessing does not control God's "call." However our prayers, for G-d to draw someone to Himself We know those are in His will. Now, what does witnessing to someone whom G-d has not "called" look like, and how does it differ from someone who's been called? Hopefully you see my point, that this is beyond our knowledge.

This is something I have never been able to understand. Growing up I was always under the impression that hell was a literal place of eternal suffering.

I now think that hell is likely total destruction of the person.

The early Church was also split on this; something like 40% annihilationism, 2 out of 5 theological schools taught that. I don't see how we can know, but we can know when we are in right relationship with HIM!

 

[aiki]

Growing up I was always under the impression that hell was a literal place of eternal suffering.

It is very easy to make the case for this view from Scripture.

I once asked a youth pastor at a southern Baptist Church if God knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. His response was yes. I then asked him why create someone you know is going to hell? He responded with "Does that mean God should stop creating people?". The conversation ended at that point. Now that was not a word for word translation of what was said(that was approx 8 years a go) but you get the general idea of what I am getting at here.

Hell is punishment of the wicked and guilty. It is not an evil place; that is, it doesn't exist as an expression of some evil aspect of God, but rather as an expression of His holy justice and deep hatred of sin. Evil gets its just desserts in hell; those who seem to get away with evil while living on this globe ultimately find themselves before the wrathful Judge of all sin on the other side of death. Hell is God's guarantee that the wicked do not get away with anything.

Hell is also a powerful motivator for reconciling with our Maker. Sometimes it is the stick rather than the carrot that provokes us initally to turn to God. We find Him a loving Father when we do, but it is the fear of hell that often prompts the unrepentant sinner to give sober second thought to the course of his/her life and reach out for the gift of eternal life and fellowship God offers us in His Son.

I now think that hell is likely total destruction of the person. A literal death, where the person ceases to exist. I think Revelation refers to the second death, meaning the death that comes after our physical death.

Hell is explicitly referred to as a place of everlasting punishment. (Matt. 25:46) Annihilation avoids punishment. Punishment must be experienced for it to be punishment.

"The punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 cannot be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear in this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner comments, 'One can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it.' " (pg. 331)

"How do we know that the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. As Bible scholar Alan Gomes explains it, 'one is either annihilated or one is not. In contrast, the Scripture teaches that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.)' The very fact that people will suffer degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts." (pg. 332)

"Moreover, one cannot deny that for a person who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing, not a punishment. As theologian William Shedd notes, 'The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of conditional immortality explains it to be a curse.' Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define eternal punishment as an extinction of consciousness.

Torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Alan Gomes comments, 'A punishment that is not felt is not punishment..."

Note also in Matthew 25:46 that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihiliationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective "aionion" in this verse means "everlasting, without end." ...this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:7, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the forever existence of our eternal God. Moreover, as Professor Gomes notes,

'What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios" is used to describe both the length of punishment for the wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked without at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked.'

From Ron Rhodes' book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses."

I see that you have decided to ignore my posts, SBP1987, which is fine. I offer the above, not so much for your interest, but for those others who read this thread. Hope you won't mind.

Selah.

 

[SPB1987]

We are not God, so our witnessing does not control God's "call." However our prayers, for G-d to draw someone to Himself We know those are in His will. Now, what does witnessing to someone whom G-d has not "called" look like, and how does it differ from someone who's been called? Hopefully you see my point, that this is beyond our knowledge.



The early Church was also split on this; something like 40% annihilationism, 2 out of 5 theological schools taught that. I don't see how we can know, but we can know when we are in right relationship with HIM!

Thank you for your response. I am happy that you simply stated that it is out of our realm of knowledge as opposed to just making something up. I understand your point. There will obviously be some things that we will never understand.

 

[razeontherock]

Oh, we'll understand them alright, come Judgment Day!! In the meantime, we can tell when we are in right relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ ...

 

[golgotha61]

Are you a Calvinist? I am not completely sure what a
Calvinist is beyond believing in pre-destination(I am sure it is not this simple). So you believe that God chooses only some of us or all of us? What good does it do to go out and witness if an individual can only find God if God chooses that individual in the first place?

I agree with some of his theology but not all. I agree with the sovereignty of God: (Ps. 135:6; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11). I agree with predestination and election but no to the extent that it excludes human responsibility.I agree with the total depravity of man (Eph. 2:1). I do not believe in reprobation which means God decrees the non-elect to suffer eternally in hell. I do not accept limited atonement because of John 3:16, I Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 3:9, and John 2:2. Irresistible grace is also a hard one for me to accept because of the issue of free will of man. I believe perseverance of the saints (security of the believer) has strong emphasis of Scripture.

The reason why we witness is because we don't know who is called and who is not. God gave us the "great commission" in Matthew and this tells me that we have a work to do and God has commanded us to witness to everyone. He knows through His eternality who will and who will not believe. We have the work of making the Gospel known and God has the work of regeneration and adoption.

Eternity is a hard concept to understand and I do not have a full grasp on it, I don't know of anyone who does. We point out aspects of eternality but we have no true understanding of it. I think mainly because eternity is a concept and not something that can be tested and observed. There are mathematical statements that show how eternity can not be tested and observed with the science of math.

Jeffrey Niehaus, professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, wrote an article that addressed the eternality of God. Here is a snippet: God vis-à-vis time. God is outside of time.5 That is why he says, “I am the first and I am the last” (Isa 44:6, 48:12), and of all human generations he can say that he has been “calling forth the generations from the beginning. . . I, the LORD—with the first of them and with the last—I am he” (Isa 41:4). Likewise in John’s Revelation he says, “I am the Alpha and theOmega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev 22:13; cf.
“ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was,
and who is to come, the Almighty,’ ” Rev 1:8; cf. Rev 21:6). Another way of
putting this is to say that God “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15, kjv, esv, asv
[Heb, d[" ˆkEvø]; cf. Ps 102:12 [Heb 102:13]).6 One consequence of this fact is that all times are present to God. God existed eternally before he created the cosmos, and man and woman in it, and when God created them God also already dwelt in the eschaton, and in eternity beyond the eschaton. That is why Paul can say of God that “he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4). God could choose Paul’s contemporary believers (and subsequent believers as well) “before the creation of the world” because all of them were present in his view before the creation of the world. So also at this moment in human time God is already with his redeemed in our future: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6). Paul can say that God has already “seated us with him” in heaven, because,although for Paul it was future, for God it was past. And for God, outside of time, it remains future, present, and past.

 

[SPB1987]

It is very easy to make the case for this view from Scripture.



Hell is punishment of the wicked and guilty. It is not an evil place; that is, it doesn't exist as an expression of some evil aspect of God, but rather as an expression of His holy justice and deep hatred of sin. Evil gets its just desserts in hell; those who seem to get away with evil while living on this globe ultimately find themselves before the wrathful Judge of all sin on the other side of death. Hell is God's guarantee that the wicked do not get away with anything.

Hell is also a powerful motivator for reconciling with our Maker. Sometimes it is the stick rather than the carrot that provokes us initally to turn to God. We find Him a loving Father when we do, but it is the fear of hell that often prompts the unrepentant sinner to give sober second thought to the course of his/her life and reach out for the gift of eternal life and fellowship God offers us in His Son.



Hell is explicitly referred to as a place of everlasting punishment. (Matt. 25:46) Annihilation avoids punishment. Punishment must be experienced for it to be punishment.

"The punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 cannot be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear in this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner comments, 'One can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it.' " (pg. 331)

"How do we know that the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. As Bible scholar Alan Gomes explains it, 'one is either annihilated or one is not. In contrast, the Scripture teaches that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.)' The very fact that people will suffer degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts." (pg. 332)

"Moreover, one cannot deny that for a person who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing, not a punishment. As theologian William Shedd notes, 'The guilty and remorseful have, in all ages, deemed the extinction of consciousness after death to be a blessing; but the advocate of conditional immortality explains it to be a curse.' Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define eternal punishment as an extinction of consciousness.

Torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Alan Gomes comments, 'A punishment that is not felt is not punishment..."

Note also in Matthew 25:46 that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihiliationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective "aionion" in this verse means "everlasting, without end." ...this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:7, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the forever existence of our eternal God. Moreover, as Professor Gomes notes,

'What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios" is used to describe both the length of punishment for the wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked without at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked.'

From Ron Rhodes' book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses."

I see that you have decided to ignore my posts, SBP1987, which is fine. I offer the above, not so much for your interest, but for those others who read this thread. Hope you won't mind.

Selah.

Not ignoring your posts. I work 6 days a week, have 2 kids and a wife plus I am a full time college student. I will respond but your posts are larger and contain more content so it will take some time.

 

[aiki]

Not ignoring your posts. I work 6 days a week, have 2 kids and a wife plus I am a full time college student. I will respond but your posts are larger and contain more content so it will take some time.

Honestly, especially in light of how full a plate you've got, I don't need you to answer my posts. Please don't feel any obligation at all to respond. I'd rather you spent your free time with your wife and kids.

Selah.

 

[SPB1987]

Honestly, especially in light of how full a plate you've got, I don't need you to answer my posts. Please don't feel any obligation at all to respond. I'd rather you spent your free time with your wife and kids.

Selah.

Lol, well my kids go to bed at 8 and my wife usually goes to bed around 10. I go to bed around 12 usually so I usually find time to get on here.