"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Rightglory]

drstevej,

When Luther was asked why he changed words in his german Bible, his answer was because I said so.

This is common knowledge, at least I have known it for almost 45 years. I learned this in college. He also eliminated what protestants have since called the Apocrapha books from the Bible. I do not know the original sources but a recent book has this to say about Luther. You might want to read most of this book as it gives a great study of several books of the NT and what Paul was actually saying.
The Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers
by Fr. Georges Florovsky
Chapter: The Epistle of St. James and Luther's Evaluation.
'Luther's attitude toward the Epistle of St. James is well-known. In fact, Luther positioned not only James at the end of the German Bible but also Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. And his criterion was that they lacked evangelical "purity." He was not the first to do so. His colleague at Wittenberg, upon whom Luther later turned, Carlstadt, had distinguished among the books of the New Testament — and the Old Testament — before Luther took his own action. As early as 1520 Carlstadt divided the entirety of Scripture into three categories: libri summae dignitatis, in which Carstadt included the Pentateuch as well as the Gospels; libri secundae dignitatis, in which he included the Prophets and fifteen epistles; and libri tertiae dignitatis.'

'Luther even added the word "alone" — allein — in Romans 3:28 before "through faith" — durch den Glauben — precisely to counter the words in James 2:24:"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only” — ???te ?t? e? ????? d??a???ta? ?????p?? ?a? ??? e? p?ste?? µ????. What is more is that Luther became very aggressive and arrogant in his response to the criticism that he had added "alone" to the Biblical text. "If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so and says: Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges." Luther continues in a bantering manner in an attempt to imitate St. Paul in the latter's response to his opponents. "Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they writers of books? So am I. And I shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they cannot. I can translate; which they cannot... Therefore the word allein shall remain in my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys should get furious and foolish, they shall not get the word out." In some German editions the word "allein" was printed in larger type! Some critics of Luther's translation have accused him of deliberately translating inaccurately to support his theological view. As early as 1523 Dr. Emser, an opponent of Luther, claimed that Luther's translation contained "a thousand grammatical and fourteen hundred heretical errors." This is exaggerated but the fact does remain that there are numerous errors in Luther's translation."

 

[expos4ever]

And, you have not started another thread to take this line of discussion to, as I asked you to, to keep from derailing this thread into something which has nothing to do with the OP.

You never made such a request in respect to what we are talking about. You asked me to start another thread in respect to the "Jew under Torah" issue. And I chose to do what you suggested. How is my present line of argument in this thread "derailing" anything? I believe I have done nothing more than respond to other poster's statements.

In my view, God is the ONLY Being with a truly unlimited, autonomous free will. The idea of a god who cannot act freely is, in my mind, ludicrous, as it would rob God of that which He is. God is the ONLY self-existent, self-determining Being that exists. The reasons for His actions, and the cause of His actions reside totally within Himself. No other being can make that claim. It is summed up in His very Name: "I am that I am" - YHWH That is one of many names He has identified Himself as, each one revealing apsects of His Being and Character.

I agree with what you say here. But this does no damage to the position that men have limited free will.

As I percive it, you're basically stating that entity A has "autonomous free will". The only Being that is true of is God. So we must draw a distinction between God and His Creation.

I am saying that man has some autonomous free will, yes. But just because God is a different, distinct being from man, it does not follow that something which is true of God - that He has free will - is not also true of man (albeit to a much lesser extent).

So what you need to do is state your view as it applies to mankind, apart from God, because what is true of God is not necessarily true of man. There is a difference, not just of degree, but of kind as well.

I will state that man has some degree of freewill in accordance with the definition I have given. While I agree that what is true of God is not necessarily true of man, it does not follow that what is true of God is not true of man - there is no problem of "divine vs human" category error by claiming that man has a limited amount of something that God has lots of - free will.

But it is equally possible for that reaction to come about by experience, such that there is no "outside cause" for the salivation, but a response conditioned by and learned by actual experience of eating the steak. I think that your analogy breaks down at that point.

I agree that the reaction can also come about through experience. But you asked for a definition of free will and I have given one.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Your constant appeal is to an authority in addition to God's Word, which you place absolute faith in, whether you realize it or not.

It sure is. It is the source the Giver of that Word. I place all, absolute, complete trust in His Word. What He said, what He gave, what He has preserved since He gave it to the Apostles. You got it precisely correct. The Bible has no authority outside of Christ. Surely not man and his many interpretations including yours.

As such the authority you appeal to is ex scriptura and on that basis, you and I are appealing to two different authorities, hence the disagreement.

Right again. but you are not appealing to scripture. If you were, and all the others who say the same thing, would of necessity arrive at the same conclusion. But Scripture by itself, first, is not the whole Gospel. Secondly, it has been extracted from the context which is Christ's Body in which it is being preserved.

All you have is a book used as a basis for your own interpretation and you make your personal interpretation have the force of Gospel. You should be able to see that after 400 years. You cannot even prove your point to such as Ben, let alone any other protestant because they all make the same claim as you. You have no authority whatsoever, but your own thoughts and interpretation. Even within Sola Scriptura you have many paradigms all of them personal thus incompatible with any other personal view.

As a Calvinist or within the view of Reformed theology you have a much better support of at least some historical content since it is the only systemized theoloical view within protestantism. All others, save Lutheranism and possibly Episcopalian have just some texts they use, exegisis them and declare dogma from them to the contrary of the rest of scripture. But none of them get beyond the 16th century and some view of some man. Luther, but even Calvin relied upon Augustine to the exclusion of all others. Augustine is often considered the father of Roman Catholicism but even they never went all the way in accepting everything he said. On the other hand both reformers adopted views that were never accepted by the Christian Church as representing the once given Gospel. The Reformers even developed them further than Augustine who in later life changed some of his earlier views.

It is a fallacy to claim that the authority I appeal to is myself. That's completely ridiculous.

Why would it be a fallacy? Just what authority do you rely upon. It is not scripture, nor is it the Gospel as it was given and presevered by the Holy Spirit. You do appeal to some other modern theologians, but they are men and in most cases they are appealing to other interpretations by men, including the first reformers,. but most protestants will always rely on their own interpretation over against any other.

Give me one example of your understanding that aligns with every other protestant group ever formed on a given text or context. If Scritpure is authoritative as you wish it to be, then that text should be uniformly understood and accepted by all those using scripture as an authority. If not, then whose view is authoritative? That is the predicament you have with Ben, who is using the same source and makes the same claim.

That is also one of the "talking points" the EO position constantly holds up as "proof" that what they believe is the only correct belief. In this, the EO position is similar to the so-called "three legged stool" of Catholicism: Scripture, Tradition, and Papal proclamations.

Not really similar at all. There is ONLY ONE source, it is the Gospel which is Holy Tradition which is how it was delivered and practiced for several centuries. The text is part of the Holy Tradition, it comes out of Holy Tradition. It is part of it and cannot be separated from it. It must be treated as a whole. We are not speaking of tradition here which is usually what protestants think we mean. We have traditions as well, and they differ from one communion to another, but the faith, the practice the Gospel has not differed, has not changed from the beginning for 2000 years.

EO is not holding it up, but the Holy Spirit is holding it up as His authentic witness in time with men, within the Body of Christ. The Bible also says so.

This is why, apart from the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to convince the Catholic of the errors in their position, because they always run to another authority when one is shown to be wrong. The talking point rests on a fallacy.

You don't need to convince them of their errors. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Being a Berean you should have seen that a lot of what they claim does not go any further back than the Council of Trent relative to the many changes they have made. Including those the reformers rejected and with good reason. But to appoint oneself as his own authority, instead of the Pope of an organization is taking it to even higher level of independence and separation from the real authority, Christ as Head of His Body, His Church.

And it is an article of faith that you believe this to be so, yet you can offer no objective proof of this "fact".

Yes it is. Faith is based on reason, reason to believe that what Christ promised in the Scriptures is visibly obvious in time and history. Man, individual man, has not changed, altered, added to or subtracted from that Gospel. Can you find any person that changed the doctrine of the fall, from the beginning, of the act and meaning of baptism, of the Eucharist, of salvation, of the Incarnation, of the Trinity, the Liturgy and many others?

Most protestants have completely removed the sacramental aspect of the Church and salvation. It is probably the single reason that protestantism in any form of belief has been relative, has no universal meaning.

This completely ignores and misstates what the Protestant Reformation was actually based on.

It was based on Luthers attempt to reform the RC Church. Failing to do that, after being excommunicated, he formed his own faith. It may have been based on some very faulty RC doctrines and practices, but the reforms were not any better. They were of the same type the Pope and magistrates made. The only difference is that Luther made them and they were his and not the Popes. It isn't that they did not know the Eastern Church existed though not known well, mostly because of the language factor. But that could hardly be given as an excuse today.

You have in fact misrepresented Calvinism, both from an historical perspective, and from a doctrinal perspective. You cannot hide that behind the canard that every man is his own authoity, or that factions "prove" that it is error. The Lord knows who are His. My authority is the scriptures, and I do not impose what I want them to say on them, I read them, meditate on them, and ask the Holy Spirit to show me what they mean, so that I can align my thinking and beliefs with scripture. the Calvinists I know all do the same thing. What you describe as Calvinism is a far cry from what it actually is, and what we actually believe. therevore, your speaking against Calvinism is speaking against a straw man that you yourself have erected, and are trying to set on fire to "prove" that you are the only oe speaking the Truth here. As a Calvinist, I reject your caricatures and straw men. Set them on fire if you wish, they do not affect me at all, because they do not repreent what I believe.

Calvinism stands on its own. It is no different than any other faith that is developed from Scripture or even part of scripture. However, when the principles of Calvinism are juxaposed against Scripture as it was believed, practiced from the beginning within the Body of Christ that Christ Himself established here on earth, with the fullness of that Gospel, it may sound or seem misrepresented, but that is how it looks from the other side. Within Calvinism you obviously do not have contradictions, but alongside of the Gospel as given, it is full of contradictions and totally unscriptural in content.

That is how false teachings are determined, as they are aligned with Scripture, the Rule of faith, that which has always been believed.

I would still be very interested in seeing your thelogical explanation of how the Incarnation fits in with a Calvinism or if you prefer, the Refomed view. Calvin, as far as I know, never made an explanation. The refomers simply expressed agreement with the first four Ecumenical Councils without possibly understanding what they might mean in view of their interpretations of the Bible.

I know you have stated that you believe in the Incarnation.
But if you do, you cannot be a Calvinist. The Incarnation as historically understood and defined by the Ecumencial Councils, especially Chalcedon, is diametrically opposed to most of the teachings of Calvinism.

Quote frankly, you're wasting your time, and trying to muddy the waters here. Most of what you post amounts to trying to derail the threads into side issues. I respect your right to believe as you wish, but I reject the implicit message that you promote, that your beliefs are the only correct ones here because of your appeal to an authority that the rest of us neither recognize, nor accept, being ex scriptura.

Neither a waste of time, nor muddying the waters. More like making the water clearer.
It isn't my message, even though it is my belief. It is the Gospel after all. I cannot do other than teach what Christ commanded all Christians. To proclaim HIS Gospel to the world. That it might show yours to be off track is not my problem. As you stated, I and you are free to believe what we desire. If you cannot put forth your view as the Gospel Truth and be able to show some evidence that it might be, why would you teach it? The Gospel was given complete, what good is it to have only bits or pieces when all of it was given and free for all to take.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

the fact that all men have a knowledge of God has never been open to any dispute on these forums , the idea that all men have faith , even when scripture says "all men do not have faith " IS open to objection , thus far you have failed to do what I asked , show from scripture that all men have faith ....... and I am still waiting .

First, scripture does not say all men do not have faith. It says those that reject Christ, those who lose faith, those believers who lose their first faith, do not have faith any longer in Christ. But they can repent, and believe. Faith in Christ is not a act of God upon man at some point in time.Paul makes this statment in Rom 12:3. It is part of the very essence of man. It is part of the soul of man. It is why all men seek God, dispite your theory that man does not. It is true that many, if not most men, pervert that seeking and end up with idols. You have the same problem with faith or the ability of all men to believe to accept the calling of God to repent.
You have an unscriptural view of man and of Christ in the work of the Incarnation.

try , I know it must be difficult for you , but please try and leave all that bagage behind , this is not a thread about Calvinism . nor is it a thread about the "infallibility" of you or your Church ,

I left all the baggage behind 10 years ago. You are right it is not about Calvinism. It is about the Gospel once given. That Gospel of which the Bible speaks about. So why does calvinsim become so prominent if Calvinism is not the topic?
Maybe you should try to understand the Bible without the presuppositions of Calvinism. You might learn something about that Gospel once given for all.
You are right it is not about infallibility of any Church except that which Christ established for us here on earth to which the Gospel was given to be preserved. The Scripture says that, do you actually believe it or interpret around that little fact?

if you wish to debate either of those items and how diversity exists with infallibility , just start YOUR OWN thread.

now that is a novel approach, diversity within infallibility. I guess that makes Mormonism correct, infallible but different from you.

 

[nobdysfool]

You never made such a request in respect to what we are talking about. You asked me to start another thread in respect to the "Jew under Torah" issue. And I chose to do what you suggested. How is my present line of argument in this thread "derailing" anything? I believe I have done nothing more than respond to other poster's statements.

But this thread has gone far afield of the OP, that cannot be denied.

I agree with what you say here. But this does no damage to the position that men have limited free will.

That's not what you said before. I also agree that men have limited free will. Where we differ, I'm sure is the scope and reach of that free will, and why.

I am saying that man has some autonomous free will, yes. But just because God is a different, distinct being from man, it does not follow that something which is true of God - that He has free will - is not also true of man (albeit to a much lesser extent).

It also is equally true that what is true of God may not necessarily be true of man in any sense. In any case, "autonomous free will" must be defined. In what sense is it autonomous? How much of what you would call autonomous is in fact not truly autonomous?

I will state that man has some degree of freewill in accordance with the definition I have given. While I agree that what is true of God is not necessarily true of man, it does not follow that what is true of God is not true of man - there is no problem of "divine vs human" category error by claiming that man has a limited amount of something that God has lots of - free will.

Yet that difference is significant, when applied to scriptural concepts. I have seen free will arguments that basically dismiss any affect of a man's nature on his ability to choose, such that the Grace of God is really not needed, because it is argued that a man, by the power of his own will, can at any time choose to submit to God, and repent of his sins and receive Christ, completely apart from and with no action on the part of God, no Grace, no enlightenment by means of Grace, no action of Grace whatsoever. I find that to be unscriptural in the extreme. Yet this is usually where free will advocates want to go with such reasoning.

I agree that the reaction can also come about through experience. But you asked for a definition of free will and I have given one.

And I think I have made the case that it has problems. You are correct to say that it is tricky to define free will. I agree. Very often such a discussion will get nowhere, because in reality each side is addressing what they perceive the other side to be saying, rather than what they actually have said. That's why definitions are necessary.

My view is this: men have the ability to choose freely from the real options open to them. Their ability to choose is affected and controlled by their desires, good or bad. since men are born as sinners, their desires are controlled and spring from their sinful natures, such that while they can choose among sins, they will not choose to not sin. At most they can choose to not commit a given sin. But the sinful nature runs deeper, to the motivations for their choices. Scripture defines sin as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the boastful pride of life. Sinful men may choose to do seemingly morally good acts for selfish motives, which makes even those actions sinful. In short, men in their natural state are incapable of not sinning, for even the good they may do is marred by selfish motives.

Thus, men in their natural state do not care to turn to God, to know Him, or to obey Him. It is not that they lack the ability to choose Him, what they lack is the moral ability to choose to obey God. That is what Paul meant when he said that God had shut up all men under sin, that all have sinned, that there is none who seek after God. not even one.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Knowledge does not equal faith. That seems to be the mistake that RG is making here. Good post, Cyg!

No this is described as the belief of the devil. He believes In God as well. But he does not have the second element of faith,. to rely upon, to trust to act on that belief. Man does and all men can do this. Christ freed mankind from the bondage that held us captive, just so all men could believe, could join with God which was the purpose of our being created. It is in stark contrast to predestination of some and the passive or default condemnation of all others.

 

[MamaZ]

nobdysfool,

No this is described as the belief of the devil. He believes In God as well. But he does not have the second element of faith,. to rely upon, to trust to act on that belief. Man does and all men can do this. Christ freed mankind from the bondage that held us captive, just so all men could believe, could join with God which was the purpose of our being created. It is in stark contrast to predestination of some and the passive or default condemnation of all others.

Christ has not freed all menkind from bondage. If this were true then sin would not abound in our our world..

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

Christ has not freed all menkind from bondage. If this were true then sin would not abound in our our world

If He did not then Christ never died and was resurrected. We are all still under the condemnation of death.
Could you point out which text says that Christ was not risen, that Christ was also not man, did not assume our human natures?
Or that Christ did not overcome death, thus freeing us from that condemnation of death?
Having sin abound, has nothing to do with the fact that man is no longer in bondage to it. That is the work of atonement, the propitiation of sin. If sin was eliminated we would not have needed an atonement.

 

[nobdysfool]

Mamaz,



If He did not then Christ never died and was resurrected. We are all still under the condemnation of death.
Could you point out which text says that Christ was not risen, that Christ was also not man, did not assume our human natures?
Or that Christ did not overcome death, thus freeing us from that condemnation of death?
Having sin abound, has nothing to do with the fact that man is no longer in bondage to it. That is the work of atonement, the propitiation of sin. If sin was eliminated we would not have needed an atonement.

That is not what she said, RG. The fact is, all mankind IS still under the condemnation of death, the exceptions being those who have been joined to Christ in faith. They, and they only, have passed from death to life, in Him. You are trying to make it seem as though she has said things she did not say. That is, quite frankly, dishonest in the extreme.

Mankind in general (apart from those who are in Christ) are still very much in bondage to sin. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. The evidence is all around. Christ overcame death for those who are and will be in Him. He died for His People, His sheep.

Sin has been overcome, but has not yet been eliminated. It will be, when Christ Returns,. to consummate all things, at the end of the Age.

She did not say that Christ was not risen, that He was not a man, or that He did not assume our human natures. You are falsely accusing her of things she did not say, and would never say.

You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

That is not what she said, RG. The fact is, all mankind IS still under the condemnation of death, the exceptions being those who have been joined to Christ in faith. They, and they only, have passed from death to life, in Him. You are trying to make it seem as though she has said things she did not say. That is, quite frankly, dishonest in the extreme.

Hardly, that is Calvinism's interpretation, it is not what scripture says at all. It is why I have repeatedly stated that Calvinists in particular but Protestants in general do not believe in the Incarnation as described in Scripture.

Not a single human being is under the condemnation of death any longer. We are no longer under Adam but under Christ. Christ is the Second Adam reversing what the first Adam did. If mankind is still under the condemnation of death just who in your theology will be in hell?

Actually, as per I Cor 15:14-19, If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised. So, by scripture, not even those who believe will ever see heaven as it does not exist, which is what verse 18-19 is explicitly stating.

If Christ did not conquer death, then there can be no resurrection at the end. Who is going to be raised from the dead?

Since you agree with her, show me a text that says all shall not be raised from the dead?
Show me a text that refutes that Christ is the first born of the dead?
Show me a text that refutes I Cor 15:22, or even Rom 5:18-19, or Col 1 ;15-20, or John 6:39.

The IN Him to which you include does not refer to Christ's work on the Cross. It refers to man's response to God's call to believe and when we do we spiritually pass from death to life. This is also what happens in Rom 6, the regenerative baptism chapter, which is also known as the "first resurrection", a spiritual resurrection.

Mankind in general (apart from those who are in Christ) are still very much in bondage to sin. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. The evidence is all around. Christ overcame death for those who are and will be in Him. He died for His People, His sheep.

Hardly, they have chosen to be in bondage to sin just as a believer has chosen to be in bondage to Christ. We can either be a slave to sin or to Christ, That is what the judgement is all about. We are no longer under Adam already condemned in spite of ourselves. Christ freed mankind and put all the responsibility upon every single individual to chose who they will serve. There is NOTHING in scripture that refutes that understanding. It is the whole purpose of man being created, and being created free to exercise a will freely to dwell with God as intended or to reject Him.

If Christ did not die for mankind then there can also be no believers. One must first have an eternal existance before God and man can have a relationship that will last an eternity, including hell. Hell is eternal. If man is not given life, immortal existance, and man cannot attain this, which is why Scripture constantly states we cannot save ourselves, Christ is the ONLY answer. Christ became man, assumed our human natures and raised those natures from death to life, to immortal eternal existance.

Now, since man has been made alive, has an eternal existance we can begin to speak of a relationship with Christ. A dead, mortal being cannot believe.

Sin has been overcome, but has not yet been eliminated. It will be, when Christ Returns,. to consummate all things, at the end of the Age.

But He can ONLY come again, because He arose from the dead and gave life to the world. It is why the world will not be destroyed just as any human being will not be destroyed. Satan lost the battle with God, and lost it with Christ's resurrection.

She did not say that Christ was not risen, that He was not a man, or that He did not assume our human natures. You are falsely accusing her of things she did not say, and would never say.

But she did. Why do you think I asked the questions. I have asked you the same. If you believe that Christ did all the above how can you justify preselection, predestination of believers and only a few at that? Christ saved mankind, If he arose from the dead with our human natures, restored, just how do you limit that to some. Do we actually have different natures, in that Christ assumed ONLY the natures of future believers? That all the rest were not really human beings, were not created in His Image, could be jettisoned into oblivion which is the death sentence given in Gen 3:19?

Your theology bypasses the Work of Christ on the Cross. You have beleivers forordained from the beginning and you use imputing both sin and righteousness. Christ is not needed if God can do that to man. Some actually believe God created man mortal which is just as bad as saying God forordained all acts of man, thus ordained man to sin. I can see why Christ would not be needed since God is the cause of sin, rather than man. You put man as a passive irrelevant object and everything is based on a changing God, rather than a changing man, a man who was created to be in a communal relationship with God, freely and to be conformed to His Image to become like Christ, thus glorifying God.

You sir, should be ashamed of yourself

Of knowing and teaching the Truth. Why would that be so? Maybe you should study the Scriptures a little more without all the presuppositions. You might get a much better view of who God is and His relationship to man, a creature He created good to be eternally in communion with Him.

 

[cygnusx1]

That is not what she said, RG. The fact is, all mankind IS still under the condemnation of death, the exceptions being those who have been joined to Christ in faith. They, and they only, have passed from death to life, in Him. You are trying to make it seem as though she has said things she did not say. That is, quite frankly, dishonest in the extreme.

Mankind in general (apart from those who are in Christ) are still very much in bondage to sin. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. The evidence is all around. Christ overcame death for those who are and will be in Him. He died for His People, His sheep.

Sin has been overcome, but has not yet been eliminated. It will be, when Christ Returns,. to consummate all things, at the end of the Age.

She did not say that Christ was not risen, that He was not a man, or that He did not assume our human natures. You are falsely accusing her of things she did not say, and would never say.

You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

I have been waiting for this post and the one from MamaZ and I agree without reservation.

The concept that the world is saved in order that it can be saved , the idea that salvation is accomplished so that sinners can never die but still go TO HELL , is nothing to rejoice over and much less is this salvation , a pre-emptive "salvation" which makes salvation a possibility is not salvation , it is neither logical nor Biblical.

The concept that all bodies are saved (from death) so that all souls can be saved is to wrongly divide scripture where the body is of much less concern than the soul , and where does scripture speak of salvation of the body , and all men still die , except and ONLY the Christian , who "SLEEPS" , all men still sin , except the Christian who does not have his sin imputed to him.

Biblical "universalism" isn't that Christ effects salvation for every sinner , but that in order to save mankind (the species) it is sufficient that SOME are saved , thus mankind is saved . AMEN !!!

One never quibbles over the claims of conservationists who claim to have "saved" a rare animal or breed announcing that a few have been saved , therefore the breed has been saved.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

The concept that the world is saved in order that it can be saved , the idea that salvation is accomplished so that sinners can never die but still go TO HELL , is nothing to rejoice over and much less is this salvation , a pre-emptive "salvation" which makes salvation a possibility is not salvation , it is neither logical nor Biblical.

Which is why Calvinism is Calvinism and not the Gospel.

A faulty understanding of the creation and purpose of man;
A faulty understanding of the fall, combined with a faulty understanding of salvation from that fall; leads to a conclusion that is nowhere found in scripture.

Man is not being saved from union and communion. What we do as believers is what man was created to do even before the fall. It is why we exist. Adam was required to work at becoming immortal. He was created neither mortal or immortal. That union and communion was terminated because of one sin and the judgment of death for that sin against mankind. Man needed life to reverse the death, the fall, in order that union with God might be fulfilled as God intended for man.

You bypass Christ's work because you have a faulty understanding of the fall. Then you want Christ to somehow do what man and God were created to do in the first place.

The salvation of our soul was always the purpose of man's existance. Christ saved mankind so God and man could fulfill the purpose of our being created, union and communion for an eternity.

Can you show that death was not the result of Adam's sin?
Can you show that Christ did not overcome that death?
What is the fall precisely in your view and why would Christ be needed in that view?
Show that your view is much more than your opinion? Give some historical evidence that the early Church actually believed as you do? Can you do that? You have 2000 years of history to use, can you find anything to give some credence to your view that it might be a universal Gospel given by Christ and preserved by the Holy Spirit?

The concept that all bodies are saved (from death) so that all souls can be saved is to wrongly divide scripture where the body is of much less concern than the soul , and where does scripture speak of salvation of the body , and all men still die , except and ONLY the Christian , who "SLEEPS" , all men still sin , except the Christian who does not have his sin imputed to him.

I would presume you would of necessity believe that we don't actually die, it must be just a spiritual death. That Christ when living on this earth was just a figment of someones immagination in that He was not really a physical being. That He died a spiritual death on the Cross and rose again, a spiritual resurrection. We are human beings, Cygnus, not mythical creatures. We exist as human beings in body and soul. The perfect human being is body and soul, and in union with God.

No sin is imputed to any man. It is all our sin, Cygnus.

Biblical "universalism" isn't that Christ effects salvation for every sinner , but that in order to save mankind (the species) it is sufficient that SOME are saved , thus mankind is saved . AMEN

Care to support that with Scripture? I see just the opposite. Christ is the Savior of the World. It was taught that way from the beginning, but you are free to show any evidence that it is not correct. Christ assumed our human natures, was born of a Virgin, just so that man would not ber destroyed by death, annihilation of Gen 3:19. He raised our natures from death to life, from mortal to immortal. Can you find any text that refutes it? All men shall be raised at the general resurrection when He returns. All men shall stand in judgement? Just how do you propose that these so-called reprobates can even stand in judgement when they were left as dust, death, permanently by Adam?

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,

Hardly, that is Calvinism's interpretation, it is not what scripture says at all. It is why I have repeatedly stated that Calvinists in particular but Protestants in general do not believe in the Incarnation as described in Scripture.

Not a single human being is under the condemnation of death any longer. We are no longer under Adam but under Christ. Christ is the Second Adam reversing what the first Adam did. If mankind is still under the condemnation of death just who in your theology will be in hell?

Actually, as per I Cor 15:14-19, If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised. So, by scripture, not even those who believe will ever see heaven as it does not exist, which is what verse 18-19 is explicitly stating.

If Christ did not conquer death, then there can be no resurrection at the end. Who is going to be raised from the dead?

Since you agree with her, show me a text that says all shall not be raised from the dead?
Show me a text that refutes that Christ is the first born of the dead?
Show me a text that refutes I Cor 15:22, or even Rom 5:18-19, or Col 1 ;15-20, or John 6:39.

The IN Him to which you include does not refer to Christ's work on the Cross. It refers to man's response to God's call to believe and when we do we spiritually pass from death to life. This is also what happens in Rom 6, the regenerative baptism chapter, which is also known as the "first resurrection", a spiritual resurrection.



Hardly, they have chosen to be in bondage to sin just as a believer has chosen to be in bondage to Christ. We can either be a slave to sin or to Christ, That is what the judgement is all about. We are no longer under Adam already condemned in spite of ourselves. Christ freed mankind and put all the responsibility upon every single individual to chose who they will serve. There is NOTHING in scripture that refutes that understanding. It is the whole purpose of man being created, and being created free to exercise a will freely to dwell with God as intended or to reject Him.

If Christ did not die for mankind then there can also be no believers. One must first have an eternal existance before God and man can have a relationship that will last an eternity, including hell. Hell is eternal. If man is not given life, immortal existance, and man cannot attain this, which is why Scripture constantly states we cannot save ourselves, Christ is the ONLY answer. Christ became man, assumed our human natures and raised those natures from death to life, to immortal eternal existance.

Now, since man has been made alive, has an eternal existance we can begin to speak of a relationship with Christ. A dead, mortal being cannot believe.

But He can ONLY come again, because He arose from the dead and gave life to the world. It is why the world will not be destroyed just as any human being will not be destroyed. Satan lost the battle with God, and lost it with Christ's resurrection.



But she did. Why do you think I asked the questions. I have asked you the same. If you believe that Christ did all the above how can you justify preselection, predestination of believers and only a few at that? Christ saved mankind, If he arose from the dead with our human natures, restored, just how do you limit that to some. Do we actually have different natures, in that Christ assumed ONLY the natures of future believers? That all the rest were not really human beings, were not created in His Image, could be jettisoned into oblivion which is the death sentence given in Gen 3:19?

Your theology bypasses the Work of Christ on the Cross. You have beleivers forordained from the beginning and you use imputing both sin and righteousness. Christ is not needed if God can do that to man. Some actually believe God created man mortal which is just as bad as saying God forordained all acts of man, thus ordained man to sin. I can see why Christ would not be needed since God is the cause of sin, rather than man. You put man as a passive irrelevant object and everything is based on a changing God, rather than a changing man, a man who was created to be in a communal relationship with God, freely and to be conformed to His Image to become like Christ, thus glorifying God.

Of knowing and teaching the Truth. Why would that be so? Maybe you should study the Scriptures a little more without all the presuppositions. You might get a much better view of who God is and His relationship to man, a creature He created good to be eternally in communion with Him.

You are not even addressing what I said, or what MamaZ said. You're using this as a springboard to talk about what you want to talk about. You are twisting what others have said into things they did not say, and then attack what you have redefined. There can be no further discussion with you. You have dishonestly mangled what she and I have said into somethin unrecognizable. You might as well be speaking Swahili. I reject your Universalism, and your Tradition which you elevate above God's own Word. You are derailing the thread, and any further posts which continue this derailment will be dealt with according to Forum rules.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdsfool,

You are not even addressing what I said, or what MamaZ said. You're using this as a springboard to talk about what you want to talk about. You are twisting what others have said into things they did not say, and then attack what you have redefined. There can be no further discussion with you. You have dishonestly mangled what she and I have said into somethin unrecognizable. You might as well be speaking Swahili. I reject your Universalism, and your Tradition which you elevate above God's own Word. You are derailing the thread, and any further posts which continue this derailment will be dealt with according to Forum rules.

I have answered very directly what either of you have stated.
I answered your unscriptural statements. I have shown that Scripture has never meant it as you present it. You are presenting it as you or some modification of what Calvin has put forth as HIS interpretation.
I am addressing what the Gospel states. We are not addressing Calvinism. We are addressing what the Scriptures mean. That Calvinism is not close to scripture is your problem not mine. I have twisted nothing. It has been understood that way for 2000 years. You cannot show any evidence otherwise.
You obviously do not understand an apposing view. How can this be derailing a post? It is not my problem that you also cannot follow a theological argument. You use the word Universalism and you don't even know what it means since that is not what I have ever stated.
You say I elevate Tradition above God's own word. Tradition is Scripture. It cannot be separated. It is what God gave, which makes it His Word.
You are the one that is limiting what God gave to man then not accepting what He gave to us as HIS Gospel.
And what forum rules says that one cannot discuss scripture? What forum rules says that one cannot teach the Gospel as it has always been understood. I see no rule that says we are discussing Calvinism? It says Christian Forum, not Calvinism Forum.
What it is not is man's word, man's interpretation. The Gospel is not individualized, but universal. It has been unified since the beginning. The same faith for all, given for all, to all.
If you believe you are correct then you should be able to show that historical evidence that it has always been believed. You should be able to show that the Apostles taught, believed as you do. They did teach it to thousands in the half century they lived. It has been taught and believed by many more the same way, from all parts of the world. It has not changed.
Can you do that for Calvinism? Why is it called Calvinism, when it is the Gospel according to Christ?

 

[cygnusx1]

Sin remains and is imputed to the world , the Christian sin has been imputed to Christ.

The soul of the Christian is everlasting and is the object of salvation , not his/her body which is transformed after passing away , the soul unlike the body is saved and does not die.Everlasting life is promised only to the Christian , everlasting "death" , the second death is all the world shall see.

Christ made salvation a matter of great importance in view of our souls , is it not far better to lose a limb and be saved than keep a limb and perish?

John 3:16 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.

obviously everlasting life is limited , restricted to those and only those who believe upon Christ.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

Sin remains and is imputed to the world , the Christian sin has been imputed to Christ

Christ became sin for our sakes. Sin is not imputed to anyone including Christ. It would actually make Christ a sinner. Christ became the propitiation of sin, not just some sin or somebodys sin. Sin period. All sin was atoned for, the sin of the world.

The soul of the Christian is everlasting and is the object of salvation , not his/her body which is transformed after passing away , the soul unlike the body is saved and does not die.Everlasting life is promised only to the Christian , everlasting "death" , the second death is all the world shall see.

The soul of every human being is everlasting. The salvation of the whole man was necessary.We were created as human beings, not separated parts. We were created to be in a relationship with Christ working to bring the world and man as a living sacrifice to God, so that God could be all in all. That has never changed.
The fall intervened and precluded the union from ever occurring unless someone could correct the fall. This is what Christ did for mankind, for the world. He overcame death, the loss of existance, both body and soul.
The ONLY reason your body will be glorified is because Christ arose from the grave with our mortal bodies and that change occurs at the eschaton,. when ALL men shall be raised from the dead. All shall be immortal, all shall be glorified, all shall stand before Christ the judge. All men will live eternally, some with Christ, all others apart from Him. No man, no human being will be lost to death because Christ assumed that human being our nature and raised it (them) to life. This is what is so explicitly stated in John 6:39. What is being saved is an (it) which is our natures. The next verses then speaks of those human beings who were saved from death, could believe and exist with Christ everlastingly.
Everlasting life WITH CHRIST is promised to the believer. Everlasting life is promised to all mankind. The second death is not a physical death, it is a spiritual separation from God, not a physical separation. Man cannot exist apart from God. We are creatures sustained by God's grace.
this does not align with Calvinism but then you have not shown that Calvinism is actually what the Apostles taught. You have not shown that Calvinism even comes close to recognizing the Incarnation of Christ in his theology. You do not explain how all men will be judged, raised from the dead if Christ is not the agent for that change.

Christ made salvation a matter of great importance in view of our souls , is it not far better to lose a limb and be saved than keep a limb and perish?

Yes, He did, that is the whole purpose of our existance. To be in union with Him as human beings. This is why the physical aspect of man must also be saved since death was the verdict of Adam's sin. Man does not exist as only a soul or only a body. It is both or nothing and better to be in union with God.

John 3:16 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.

but the everlasting life is life with Him which is inferred by those that believe. Perish is the second death, spiritual separation, but not loss of existance. If so, then hell cannot exist. Who would be in hell, a pile of dust?
Man cannot believe being and remaining a dead mortal. Christ gave life to the world so that He could have a believer, so that He could offer this union and communion with Him. It is the reason He came because a dead mortal being cannot give himself life, nor could he atone for his own sin. But union and communion is what we were created to do. Christ is not saving us from union, but to have union.

obviously everlasting life is limited , restricted to those and only those who believe upon Christ

only in your view, but not according to scripture. All men shall be raised to immortalilty. That is as everlasting as it will get. If you want your reprobates to be in hell, then you need to make provision that they have everlasting life so they can experience hell. Adam left them all a pile of dust in Gen 3:19. How does your view get them raised to live eternally in hell as human beings.

 

[Hismessenger]

Expose4ever,

I post this for you to consider from the book of Job,

Job 34:12Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
Job 34:13Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
Job 34:14If he set his heart upon man, [if] he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
Job 34:15All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.Job 34:16If now [thou hast] understanding, hear this: hearken to the voice of my words.

My question to you is what is there in our being that doesn't fit into the word, ALL. See without God, there is no good, no evil, no thoughts, or choices, no being no mind to even consider what it is you are contending with the creator about. It is in fact, His creation and He will accomplish all that He has set His will to do in the creation. Our choices are made from things that HE gives us to choose from, yet whatever choice we make will ultimately manifest His will in the earth. If it weren't so, then as the scripture says, if He were to gather unto Himself His breath which is our spirit, we would cease to be and return to the earth from which He formed us. Meditate hard on this word and seek the Holy Spirit for the truth.

hismessenger

 

[cygnusx1]

Loss of existance is not scriptural , neither is eternal life granted to all men , LIFE is a positive attribute , it is to do with God's grace in saving individuals , merely existance in the corridors of hell is a traversty of the word and meaning of Life as found in scripture , it is more death than life , it is eternal torment and sin is certainly dealt with in hell , the Christian never shall see death , the Apostles deliberately called the Christian's death ; SLEEP , for in truth he who believes on Christ shall never see death , whereas as those who do not believe shall abide in death ........ confusing the state of the Christian with the world is not harmless , it is error.

Scripture uses the word death even over those who perish and are never saved but "exist" forever , Christ came to bring everlasting life , whosoever shall believe shall never perish , if everyone NEVER perishes then all restrictions , "whosoever believes" is meaningless.

Now back to the OP.

 

[cygnusx1]

Christ has not freed all menkind from bondage. If this were true then sin would not abound in our our world..

"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1).


Limited to those and only those in Christ , all others are not quickened but abide in death not life.

 

[MamaZ]

"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1).


Limited to those and only those in Christ , all others are not quickened but abide in death not life.

I agree completely. Only those in Christ are set free from Sin..