Predestination vs. Seeking, knocking and Answering the Door

[BobRyan]

Okay. . .God is not partial in administering justice, he gives everyone what they are owed.

He owes redemption to no one, therefore, there is no partial justice taking place in choosing some for redemption.

And yet that "only failure.. you should not find success here " is not what Paul presented in Romans 2.. as we just saw here -- #291

However, you don't understand what the context of Romans 1:18-3:20 is, and your understanding of the above, being totally out of context, is incorrect.
.

All we see in this post - -- #291 -- is the mere "Quote of the text" and the mere quote of it - appears to be sufficient cause to give rise to your objection to it.

How is that even possible?

 

[98cwitr]

I know that a debate has continued since Calvin and will continue until the Rapture BUT I'm curious how the debate on grace alone and predestination are rationalized with scriptures that mention "seek the Lord" "answering the door" (Rev 3:20). Why answer the door if it's not necessary? It certainly looks like some action is required on our part. Why "seek" Hebrews 11:6. I just cannot ignore the simple logic in the scripture and go through scripture gymnastics to see things differently. When scripture is defined by the context it seems overwhelmingly clear to me. If exercising faith is a "Works" then answering the door and seeking are much more so.

Luther tackles this very topic with his debate with Erasmus and his "Diatribe." The "seek," according to the Diatribe (a defense of "free will") suggests that man must be able, freely, to make the choice to seek or not seek. Luther counters this point and IMO puts the issue to bed in saying that the verbs used are imperative, and are a command given by God to the elect, which they will do.

My advice is we need not beat this dead horse until we go back and look at what killed the horse in the first place: Read The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther and research Pelaganism, which was already condemned as heresy over 1500 years ago, yet here we are 1500 years later seeing a semi-functional form of it take over liberal and progressive Protestantism. It's our fault too for not educating ourselves better and pushing back on it, especially in the seminaries.

 

[Clare73]

And yet His justice is "revealed from faith to faith", it is His justice that we, the unjust, are made just by His grace.

Justice isn't about giving what a person is owed. Justice is about making things right.

Which is done by guaranteeing everyone receives what he is owed.

That can be a just compensation, for example when a widow is taken advantage of by a conman, and the judge orders the widow to be repayed in full--that is justice. But justice is also when the judge shows leniency. It is also justice when the king grants full pardon.

Where is the justice in the pardon of criminal behavior without its punishment?
It's not justice, it's clemency. No court regards it as justice.
God required bloody sacrifices as penalty for law breaking, he didn't just wipe their sin off the books.

God's justice is revealed from faith to faith, the Apostle writes. So that "the just shall walk by faith". That is the Justice of the Gospel, the Justice by which God justifies the unjust.

The righteousness from God that is revealed in the gospel is by faith from first to last, from faith to faith--no works involved, only faith
(Romans 4:5).
This righteousness from God is justification; i.e., judicial declaration of "not guilty," through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice, apart from works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28).

God's justice is not cold, but warm and compassionate

That is hard for me just to read. I am appalled at man, for the sake of "compassion," just skipping over the horrific penalty like it was free in the unimaginably awful price Jesus had to pay to satisfy God's justice.

I'm thinking the cross was anything but "warm and compassionate," it was terrifying, wretching and painful beyond description, or there would have been no agony causing his body to try to decompose in the sweating of blood in the garden of Gethsemane.

It is His compassionate, merciful justice that Christ comes into the world, to fulfill all justice and then, suffering the death of all men, reckons all justified (Romans 5:18). This very same objective justification is made our personal justification by the grace of God, through faith. It is Christ's justice that renders us just--and therefore justified.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Luther tackles this very topic with his debate with Erasmus and his "Diatribe." The "seek," according to the Diatribe (a defense of "free will") suggests that man must be able, freely, to make the choice to seek or not seek. Luther counters this point and IMO puts the issue to bed in saying that the verbs used are imperative, and are a command given by God to the elect, which they will do.

My advice is we need not beat this dead horse until we go back and look at what killed the horse in the first place: Read The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther and research Pelaganism, which was already condemned as heresy over 1500 years ago, yet here we are 1500 years later seeing a semi-functional form of it take over liberal and progressive Protestantism. It's our fault too for not educating ourselves better and pushing back on it, especially in the seminaries.

I am wondering if that is illustrated well in the Matt 18 "forgiveness revoked" teaching of Christ or the Romans 11 "salvation revoked" teaching of Paul, in Matt 13 it is the "stony ground" that "springs to life" and embraces the Gospel with joy... then dies out.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pastor, the RCC church has a proven track record of gross sins from the early formation of the RCC up until today. Their dealings in WWII, Bank Fraud, Protecting Pedofiels, proven forgeries, not to mention all the many strange things that have taken place. The current Pope's efforts to establish a One World Religion is prophetic. Many believe the Pope / Papacy is the false prophet in end times. I'm not a fan of their doctrine and their history cannot be ignored.

Actually, contrary to your position, the Roman Catholic Church was the most orthodox, conservative and blameless of the ancient Patriarchates, with the possible exception of Alexandria - both had one heretical Pope (Honorius I of Rome and George of Alexandria) but it was in Alexandria where Arius started teaching his heresy (he was of course immediately excommunicated by Pope Alexander and his deacon Saint Athanasius), that Jesus Christ was not God but a creature; the Roman church had a history of immediately rejecting heretics like Marcion and Valentinus, and was on the right side of history with every major heresy and schism (except the unnecessary EO/OO schism at Chalcedon, which was really the fault of two liars, the actual monophysite Eutyches and the crypto-Nestorian Ibas - the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites). And the most admirable Pope, Saint Gregory the Great, who had previously worked in Constantinople as part of the delegation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not only developed the beautiful system of Gregorian chant from the related eight mode Byzantine Chant, but also declared that any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction was the forerunner of the antichrist.

Problems with the Roman church did not really start until circumstances forced the church to become the civil government of Rome, which eventually led to the phenomenon of caesaropapism that reached its nadir under the Borgias and Julius II. The first doctrinal divergence was the filioque in the 9th century, and then Papal Supremacy, leading to a schism with the Eastern Orthodox. But thats after 700 years of excellence. Martin Luther and the other Reformers, and the sovereign monarchs who backed them, furthermore put the fear of God back into the Roman church, and the reforms undertaken by Pius V were for the most part highly beneficial, including abolishing the detestable sale of indulgences. I would argue the Roman church for the most part improved until the 19th century, when Vatican I under Pius IX introduced Papal Infallibility, which alas was not the only controversial new doctrine during his tenure. However, Pope Pius X was in my opinion excellent for his fight against modernism.

Regarding WWII, the Church was in an impossible position of having to protect the lives of Roman Catholics, but did in several cases act to protect Jews. I think Pius XI did as well as anyone could under the pressure of being in a nominally sovereign regime completely surrounded by Fascist Italy, who could if annoyed (or if Hitler was annoyed; there were substantial German forces in Italy during portions of the war) trivially invade, arrest and replace the Pope, and probably do it in secret if the precaution of jamming or disabling Vatican Radio was taken beforehand.

Pius XII was admirably anti-Communist but made several disastrous changes to the ancient liturgy, rewriting the Presanctified Mass written by Gregory the Great and also used by the Eastern Orthodox, and the Vesperal Liturgy on Holy Saturday, which was also a commonality with the Orthodox. His successors, until John Paul II, were extremely liberal, and the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 is in my opinion the defining disaster of liturgical modernism in the late 20th century, and the regulations Pius X put in place regarding church music are sadly widely ignored. It is my understanding that problems with sexual abuse escalated dramatically in this error, as well as efforts to conceal it or let it go unpunished. And other denominations, even the SBC, have suffered from this moral catastrophe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm thinking the cross was anything but warm and compassionate, it was terrifying, horrifying, wretched and painful beyond description, or there would have been no agony causing him to sweat blood in the garden.

It's on that cross where He saved you, that is His grace and love. Read Romans 5:8.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Our Lord tells those who already believe in Him to knock, seek, etc. Revelation 3:20 is in the letter to the Church in Laodicea, it is addressed to believing Christians. These believing Christians have kicked Christ out of the house--as it were--in their lukewarm status of comfort. That is why He calls on them to open the door so that He may come in and sup with them once more. He tells them that they brag of their comforts and wealth, but says they should instead ask Him for pure gold and silver refined in fire.

What we can gather, by context, is the following:

St. John was exiled to the island of Patmos by the Roman authorities, and so he was in essence a prisoner. We aren't certain who this particular John is (different opinions have existed since the earliest centuries of Christianity), but the fact that he wrote to the seven churches located in the Roman province of Asia gives us a clue that he was clearly someone whose voice mattered among those churches. In his Apocalypse there are seven "mini" epistles to those seven churches, and the circumstances in each were different. One thing that most of them have in common is that they are suffering, there are false teachers, and also they are facing persecution. But the Church in Laodicea is different, they aren't suffering, but in fact they seem to be doing quite well--at least materially speaking. They aren't suffering persecution like their brethren around them, and they aren't living in poverty either, as Jesus charges them with bragging about being rich. So He tells them to purchase true silver and gold, refined in fire, to let Him back in that He might dine with them.

The word to the Laocideans isn't to non-Christians, but to Christians. And thus serves as a potent reminder to us, that we not forsake our first love. That we do not allow our comforts in this life lead us to lives of complacency and push Christ out from His place as Head and Master of the Household. It is His Table that we sit at, not our own table. We are His. But He reminds them, and also us, that the chastising word He speaks He speaks not out of anger or malice, but in love. "I chastise those whom I love", He is the Good Shepherd, and we are the sheep of His pasture, and if He uses the shepherd's crook to pull us back, He does not do so to harm, but to keep us safe with Him.

In the same way, "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened" are statements the Lord makes to those with faith, not those who are without faith. The faithless do not seek, nor do they knock. Christ speaks to His listeners as a people who already believe in God, they are already listening in earnest, they are already there at Christ's feet. He says to them to seek, to knock--by which He means to call us to abide in Him, to walk in His way, and to take God's kingdom seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

The tradition of the very early Church firmly establishes this was St. John the Beloved Disciple who in exile on Patmos experienced the Revelation. Attempts at dividing St. John into different persons are in my opinion an unpleasant case of modernism.

 

[98cwitr]

I am wondering if that is illustrated well in the Matt 18 "forgiveness revoked" teaching of Christ or the Romans 11 "salvation revoked" teaching of Paul, in Matt 13 it is the "stony ground" that "springs to life" and embraces the Gospel with joy... then dies out.

Luther's book does not make reference to Matthew 13 or 18, but does make reference to Romans 11 5 or 6 times.

As for the parable of the sower, the message of the Kingdom is from the lips of evangelicals. Those words are the seeds and the hearts are the soil on which they fall. Now, who has dominion over a man's heart? Himself or God? Ref: Ezekiel 36:26 & Jeremiah 31:33

For the parable of the wicked servant, we see that effectually the debt was not revoked, yet one must contend that in actuality, that an Omniscient Master would know this even as He gave the servant the initial pardon in the first place. This stands to reason that the objects of God's wrath are "bore with great patience" and yet "prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22).

 

[Points To Ponder]

Read it again. . .they aren't "removed," they are "not found" in the Book of Life because they were never there in the first place.

Rev 22:19 NKJV "God shall take away", KJV " take away his part out of the book of life" Not sure which version of the bible your reading.

 

[98cwitr]

Rev 22:19 NKJV "God shall take away", KJV " take away his part out of the book of life" Not sure which version of the bible your reading.

Rev 17:8 and 20:15 say "not found" or "not written", Rev 22:19 is in context of those who remove words from Scripture (particularly this "scroll"; Revelation).

 

[Points To Ponder]

Rev 17:8 and 20:15 say "not found" or "not written", Rev 22:19 is in context of those who remove words from Scripture (particularly this "scroll"; Revelation).

Regardless, my point is that you can fall from grace and lose your salvation. The reason behind that removal is in this scripture is removing words from the scripture. One would have to believe that removing words from the scripture is the only way to fall from grace. James 5:19-20 is very clear.

 

[BobRyan]

Luther's book does not make reference to Matthew 13 or 18, but does make reference to Romans 11 5 or 6 times.

As for the parable of the sower, the message of the Kingdom is from the lips of evangelicals. Those words are the seeds and the hearts are the soil on which they fall. Now, who has dominion over a man's heart? Himself or God? Ref: Ezekiel 36:26 & Jeremiah 31:33 .

God does not take that dominion as can be seen in John 1:11

God sovereignly chooses to uphold free will even for sinners , even for His OWN - who choose to reject Him.

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Which is how Isaiah 5:3-4 scenarios happen -

3 “And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah,
Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?
Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.t

And yet it is only the "FEW" of Matt 7 on the narrow road and it is the "MANY" of Matt 7 that suffer the second death.

It is how Matt 23 scenarios happen
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

It is why the Romans 11 warning is so necessary!
Rom 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

It is why Evangelism is in the form of "begging you to be reconciled to God"
2 Cor 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

It is why the "forgiveness revoked" sermon is preached by Christ in Matt 18
Matt 18: 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their master all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his master *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

 

[BobRyan]

Rev 17:8 and 20:15 say "not found" or "not written", Rev 22:19 is in context of those who remove words from Scripture (particularly this "scroll"; Revelation).

Ezek 18
24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Clare73]

It's on that cross where He saved you, that is His grace and love. Read Romans 5:8.

-CryptoLutheran

That doesn't make his justice warm and compassionate.

It makes his mercy warm and compassionate at the price of executing his justice.

 

[Clare73]

Rev 22:19 NKJV "God shall take away", KJV " take away his part out of the book of life"
Not sure which version of the bible your reading.

I'm reading the Greek, and in Revelation 22:19 it is the tree of life, not the book of life.

 

[Clare73]

I notice that Paul gives both failing successful examples in Romans 2 - and you aren't responding to the details in the text posted here -- #291
How is it in any way unclear??

I don't know what you consider a "failing successful" example in Romans 2.
I don't know what details you want me to respond to in #291.

How in the world is "glory, honor, peace" and "eternal life" in Romans 2 presented as a "bad thing" in your view?? It is as Paul says "according to the Gospel" Rom 2:16

I don't know what point you are making in relation to our discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

I notice that Paul gives both failing successful examples in Romans 2 - and you aren't responding to the details in the text posted here -- #291
How is it in any way unclear??

How in the world is "glory, honor, peace" and "eternal life" in Romans 2 presented as a "bad thing" in your view??

It is as Paul says "according to the Gospel" Rom 2:16

I don't know what you consider a "failing successful" example in Romans 2.
I don't know what details you want me to respond to in #291.
I don't know what point you are making in relation to our discussion.

I find that response very interesting.

It is in bold and in highlights in #291

At least it is on my computer - maybe the display driver on your computer monitor is not working.

 

[Clare73]

And yet that "only failure.. you should not find success here " is not what Paul presented in Romans 2.. as we just saw here -- #291
All we see in this post - -- #291 -- is the mere "Quote of the text" and the mere quote of it - appears to be sufficient cause to give rise to your objection to it.
How is that even possible?

It's possible when it becomes the source of condemnation instead of the source of righteousness.

 

[BobRyan]

It's possible when it becomes the reason for condemnation instead of giving righteousness.

or maybe Romans 2 just means what it says.. even when highlighted.

 

[Clare73]

I find that response very interesting.

It is in bold and in highlights in #291

State the point you are making in regard to specific Scripture.

At least it is on my computer - maybe the display driver on your computer monitor is not working.