Luther Bondage of the will

[Clare73]

It's been explained before, where those things that the church has always simply believed and practiced are often argued over between Sola Scriptura advocates.

Sure would be nice if you gave me an example or two to inform me.

And yet you can only speculate and second-guess when it comes to those verses about apostasy. Because, for one thing, you reject the Tradition that possesses correct understanding by experience, having received at at the beginning.

I'm thinking taking my understanding of apostasy from NT teaching and its context thereof is not speculation and second guessing.
I'm thinking any understanding of apostasy not in agreement with what the NT and its context presents is the speculation and second-guessing.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, if it's not available you can't read it.

I'm thinking if the elect find themselves in such dire circumstances, God will provide for them, they need not fear.

 

[fhansen]

Sure would be nice if you gave me an example or two to inform me.

I mentioned one earlier here in a previous post. I'll repeat it, with a few modifications.
"The church, in the east and in the west, always considered baptism to be regenerative as long as faith is present, by Christ’s model and teaching and command. It’s simply what they believed and practiced since the beginning, and there was unanimous agreement on this. There wasn’t any question, nothing to resolve. But why should there be? This is what they received. But Protestants, going by Scripture alone, argue plausibly all day long with each other over this matter of soteriology. And I can see why, going by Scripture alone!"

I'm thinking any understanding of apostasy not in agreement with what the NT and its context presents is the speculation and second-guessing.

True, but instead you attempt to conform Scripture to fit your theology.

 

[Clare73]

No, since some choices are hard to choose and others not even available.

You are right about that.

What do you mean by total submission and total obedience? Do you mean we owe God what is impossible for anyone to do?

Precisely. . .that is why all mankind is condemned (Ro 5:18, Gal 3:10).

This reminds me of what many Christians say: "I'm a sinner like anyone else, but I'm a forgiven sinner." This is a huge misunderstanding. If you sin like everyone else, you haven't received forgiveness. Forgiveness changes you from the inside, so you from there on are a saint, not a sinner.

Being a saint does not mean you never "fall short of the mark" (sin). If you say you are without sin, you are a liar (1Jn 1:8-10), however, habitual sin is not your way of life.

 

[Clare73]

I mentioned one earlier here in a previous post. I'll repeat it, with a few modifications.
"The church, in the east and in the west, always considered baptism to be regenerative as long as faith is present,

Faith being in the person being baptized, or just in the room, because infants do not have faith.

by Christ’s model and teaching and command. It’s simply what they believed and practiced since the beginning, and there was unanimous agreement on this. There wasn’t any question, nothing to resolve. But why should there be? This is what they received.

But Protestants, going by Scripture alone, argue plausibly all day long with each other over this matter of soteriology. And I can see why, going by Scripture alone!"

They also agreed that salvation was by merit, rather than "by faith. . .not by works" Eph 2:8-9.
Neither of which demonstrates either that baptism regenerates, or that salvation is by merit (Eph 2:8-9), demonstrating only that everyone agreed they were.

However, the testimony of Scripture is that regeneration is by the totally sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind in his action (Jn 3:7-8), and is not "summoned" by baptismal rite.
Not to mention no one can even see, much less believe in the things of God unless they have been regenerated by unaccountable act of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),.
The spiritually dead cannot make spiritual responses; e.g., faith, until they are raised to spiritual life, in regeneration by the sovereign unaccountable act of the Holy Spirit.

True, but instead you attempt to conform Scripture to fit your theology.

Actually, I reconcile Scripture to itself (2 Co 1:22, 5:5, Eph 1:14) so that it is agreement with itself (Heb 3:12, 1 Co 9:27, 10:12) instead of contradicting itself, because I know that God does not contradict himself in his word, but rather it is my misunderstanding of it that would be contradictory.

Your understanding of Heb 3:12, 1 Co 9:27, 10:12 is contradictory to 2 Co 1:22, 5:5, Eph 1:14, thereby making it misunderstanding of the import of the former.

 

[fhansen]

Faith being in the person being baptized, or just in the room, for infants do not have faith.

So you disagree that faith is necessary? For an infant, the belief has been that the faith of the household/family and community stand in until the person is of age to be able to confirm the baptismal vows.

They also agreed that salvation was by merit, rather than "by faith. . .not by works" Eph 2:8-9.
Neither of which demonstrates either that baptism regenerates, or that salvation is by merit (Eph 2:8-9), they demonstrate only that everyone agreed they were.

And you have no way of knowing, only of guessing.

However, the testimony of Scripture is that regeneration is by the totally sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, who is as unaccountable as the wind in his action (Jn 3:3-8), and is not "summoned" by baptismal rite.
Not to mention no one can even see, much less believe in the things of God unless they have been regenerated by unaccountable act of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5),.
The spiritually dead cannot make spiritual responses; e.g., faith, until they are raised to spiritual life, in regeneration by the sovereign unaccountable act of the Holy Spirit.

God works as God desires, not as yourself or anyone else desires.

Actually I reconcile Scripture to itself (2 Co 1:22, 5:5, Eph 1:14) so that it is agreement with itself(Heb 3:12, 1 Co 9:27, 10:12) instead of contradicting itself.[/color][/b]

That's not reconcilcing, that's conforming.

 

[zoidar]

Do you think a person's [continued] salvation depends on his repenting of every sinful thought or deed? Do any of have a true concept of the depth of our "old man" nature? I have reason to believe there is always sin we are unaware of, yet commit against God.

No, I don't think that a person needs to repent of every sinful thought or deed. When you say repent, do you mean ask for forgiveness? How do you repent of a sinful thought? However, I think there are sins we need to repent of and make amends for, if you want to be eternally saved. Like if you have commited an act of violence against your neighbour, you need to do more than ask God for forgiveness or trust in God's forgiveness. If you want to be forgiven by God, you need to seek up your neighbour and ask him or her for forgiveness and be willing, if it's possible, to repay any harm you have caused.

 

[zoidar]

Yes, we do. This is something that is hard for many believers, and non-believers, for that matter, to accept. For a human, it is implied in this that God's point-of-view is merely cold and factual, and not loving and soft.

I don't know how to soften the blow, except by appealing to God's mercy toward believers, and the necessary implication of his intentions in creating. For eg, that, "this life is not for this life". But here's the blow, as I see it:

God made certain things true, in order for there to be a Body of Christ, and a Bride for Christ (bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh), and a Dwelling Place of God. In order for this to happen, it has to be so that God has ordained that some things are opposed to him. Since that opposition implies destruction/contradiction of truth, it must be itself destroyed ("sooner or later" from our perspective). It is a cold fact, and as real a comparison to the LIFE that God is, compared to the life that we of ourselves deserve, to compare the clay to the Potter, who may justly make vessels suited for destruction and vessels suited for permanent use.

We consider ourselves worthy of respect by God, for some reason, as though by making us sentient and morally responsible for our choices it is not fair for him to destroy those of us who are not given the ability to obey. But the heart of God is so beyond ours, and that, not only in degree but in TYPE or KIND of existence, that we are unable to comprehend how it is 'fair' or 'just' for God to judge us by what we are.

Remember that God made Lucifer. And God did so, knowing what would come of it.

Potter, and clay.

"...like anyone else" is a figure of speech. It is not said to imply there is no actual difference, but only, "I don't claim to have arrived". It is an admission that while the "Old Man" is put to death in the believer, unlike his life in the unbeliever, he still must continually be put to death.

An unbeliever can certainly not fulfill what God asks of us. I believe on the other hand you as a believer can fulfill what God asks, since I don't believe God asks for perfection. God is willing to forgive us where we fail, but God is asking us to live a comitted life to His Son. If we are not willing to be committed, then we are not really worthy of belonging to Jesus.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
— Matthew 10:37-39

 

[zoidar]

Precisely. . .that is why all mankind is condemned (Ro 5:18, Gal 3:10).

The whole mankind being condemned, means man is condemned until he repents. Believers are not condemnd or else they wouldn't be saved.

Being a saint does not mean you never "fall short of the mark" (sin). If you say you are without sin, you are a liar (1Jn 1:8-10), however, habitual sin is not your way of life.

I am to believe no one will live a perfect life without ever sinning, but I do believe sinning is supposed to be a rare thing and not a daily practice. Maybe we agree?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I don't think that a person needs to repent of every sinful thought or deed. When you say repent, do you mean ask for forgiveness? How do you repent of a sinful thought? However, I think there are sins we need to repent of and make amends for, if you want to be eternally saved. Like if you have commited an act of violence against your neighbour, you need to do more than ask God for forgiveness or trust in God's forgiveness. If you want to be forgiven by God, you need to seek up your neighbour and ask him or her for forgiveness and be willing, if it's possible, to repay any harm you have caused.

From our perspective, yes, there are differences, but from God's perspective, I can't help but think, the 'worse' is not so much the particular sin, but the heart behind it, and the compounding of one upon another. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. I think that if God was to display all our sin before us at once, we would come apart at the seams.

For an example, there are public sins that a Christian must not have anything to do with, yet our private sins we take to be of minimal importance, not realizing, not only how they oppose God, but how that opposition to God affects the particular member of the body of Christ that I am —which affects all the others.

This makes me think of one believer, who has had the life-long habit of uncontrolled anger. From time to time he is convicted of it, and repents publicly, with tears, and I don't doubt he begs God for relief from it, but he has not changed, and most of the day he must continue to function in spite of his habit. I know another who does not even seem to be aware of having the same problem. But neither seems to realize that their sin is primarily against God, instead of how we see it against one another.

Who knows how God sees these two? (But I am confident that God intended this very thing, for his own purposes —if for no other purpose, so that we would have this conversation about it. The story is not completed in this life.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

An unbeliever can certainly not fulfill what God asks of us. I believe on the other hand you as a believer can fulfill what God asks, since I don't believe God asks for perfection. God is willing to forgive us where we fail, but God is asking us to live a comitted life to His Son. If we are not willing to be committed, then we are not really worthy of belonging to Jesus.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
— Matthew 10:37-39

None of us is worthy of belonging to him. But, no, I'm not saying there is therefore no reason to pursue that worthiness.

What seems accurate to me is a somewhat different definition, or use, of, "committed", than what I once thought; the commitment is, first of all, the work of God in me, so that what I find in myself is not what God sees. What I see now is not what I am in his eyes —what he has made is the "final product". So the wonderful things that are said of us believers, concerning which we see ourselves as falling so short, (or even excuse ourselves for falling short), are indeed true, though we do not yet see it as such.

It is God that is committed to seeing this through. And we are in it. God does ask for perfection, and he will have it. And until then, we suffer, longing to be clothed with his righteousness.

 

[Clare73]

So you disagree that faith is necessary? For an infant, the belief has been that the faith of the household/family and community stand in until the person is of age to be able to confirm the baptismal vows.

And you have no way of knowing, only of guessing.

God works as God desires, not as yourself or anyone else desires.

That's not reconcilcing, that's conforming.

Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration, Scripture being the judge of all spiritual truth.

 

[Clare73]

The whole mankind being condemned, means man is condemned until he repents. Believers are not condemnd or else they wouldn't be saved.

I'm referring to condemnded at birth (Ro 5:18). We are agreed.

I am to believe no one will live a perfect life without ever sinning, but I do believe sinning is supposed to be a rare thing and not a daily practice. Maybe we agree?

We are agreed.

 

[zoidar]

I'm referring to condemnded at birth (Ro 5:18). We are agreed.

We are agreed.

I'm not sure about condemned at birth, but at least from first sin. If babies are condemned at birth, how can a baby that dies be saved, from your understanding.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure about condemned at birth, but at least from first sin. If babies are condemned at birth, how can a baby that dies be saved, from your understanding.

By the grace of God, who is absolutely just.

 

[zoidar]

By the grace of God, who is absolutely just.

Exception to the rule?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exception to the rule?

Not at all! Who but God knows the heart of an infant and knows how to talk to it?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Faith being in the person being baptized, or just in the room, because infants do not have faith.

Animals are living creatures and do not have faith.
Are you saying infants are like animals?

Behind these assumptions, is the question of what it means to be truely human.

 

[zoidar]

Not at all! Who but God knows the heart of an infant and knows how to talk to it?

I guess then you mean an infant is in a "born again" state? Because we need to be born again to be saved. Then infant baptism would be in order, don't you think?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Faith being in the person being baptized, or just in the room, because infants do not have faith.

The Doctrine of Creation is the starting point where Baptist theology goes off the cliff. To affirm infants can't have faith is to affirm infants are created as incomplete creatures of God and don't become complete creatures of God until the Age of Accountability. At that point they can have faith. They are inferior beings and God created them inferior to adults.

Quite disturbing.

What is even worse is their treatment of severely mentally handicapped. The will forever be incomplete creatures of God.

Baptists and American Evangelicals possesses a deep history of prejudice against the intellectually disabled not only withholding baptism but also Holy Communion, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. A withholding of all the means of grace.

This is highly offensive.

Salvation for some baptists is age based. Only at the Age of Accountability is a child a full member of the human race.

So what lies behind this assumption is God the Father has a self imposed restriction on Himself, He cannot communicate to the unborn, infants and children, and clinically insane even though they are spiritual beings.
As David Scaer wrote,

THERE IS NO MOMENT IN LIFE, WHEN A PERSON IS MORE HUMAN THAN ANOTHER
AND NO TIME WHEN A PERSON IS LESS A SINNER THAN ANOTHER,
AND NO TIME WHEN HE MORE CAPABLE OF FAITH THAN ANOTHER