How can a person stay saved?

[frumanchu]

Show me the otherwise. My Bible says that God calls all men to repentance. How about yours?

Mine says the same. What it does not say is what you believe: that God enables all men to respond to the command to repent (John 6:44,65). In fact, quite the opposite...He purposefully withholds the means from men as He chooses (Mark 4:11-12)

Wrong application. Christ saved every human being. He showed mercy upon all. Romans 11:32.

Are you saying that every human being will be in Heaven then?

Tell me....where is it first mentioned in Scripture of hardening Pharaoh's heart?

God works in their hearts. His power is effective.

Strictly speaking, that statement is at odds with your theology. According to you, His power is sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective...and it's up to man to determine whether or not God's power is effective and whether or not God's will comes to fruition.

Now, either Paul is saying man is a cooperative agent with God, or God is the one who holds man fast and overpowers man's will.

Your argument is with Scripture, not with me, sojo. There are a number of statements which leave no room for man's supposed 'veto power' over the will of God.

Happy Easter!

 

[sojourner]

frumanchu,

Mine says the same. What it does not say is what you believe: that God enables all men to respond to the command to repent (John 6:44,65). In fact, quite the opposite...He purposefully withholds the means from men as He chooses (Mark 4:11-12)

First, it countermands most of scripture to the contrary. Believers are not chosen and no verse nor foundational intent can be found in scripture of being chosen.
Secondly, it must be great to pick out a single verse, pull it from context and then set a whole doctrine upon it, disregarding most of scripture to do it.
It is great to have foreknowledge but Jesus is simply acknowleging this aspect. We know that with His use of Judas. Judas was selected to fulfill a prophecy, a prophecy obviously known by foreknowledge, that even though chosen to be a disciple, he was not of them, but eventually betrayed Jesus. The only one Jesus lost, to fulfill a prophecy.
He in fact did and has enabled every man to receive him. Everyman, no exceptions will answer that call of repentance. You make God capricious, a liar, and a respector of persons if you say that He actually calls all men, but willfully withholds capriciously, the ability of some to even respond, then condenms them when they had no choice.

Are you saying that every human being will be in Heaven then?

Either you don't really read these posts and you have such a one-track mind you cannot comprehend much beyond your own understanding.
The anwer is NO.

Tell me....where is it first mentioned in Scripture of hardening Pharaoh's heart?

Again, this is based on God's foreknowledge. He simply used a wicked man, who had no intention of every serving God, which God knew, to use Him for His own purpose.
I'm not sure for you, but some who use this verse for the same reason you are, think that God hardened Pharaoh's heart from day one to the day he died. When in fact, he hardened it for a time and several times during the plagues. This was not a permanent state of Pharaoh, being hardened.

Strictly speaking, that statement is at odds with your theology. According to you, His power is sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective...and it's up to man to determine whether or not God's power is effective and whether or not God's will comes to fruition.

It is always effective. The same reason that God will never leave nor forsake you. But the backside of that it, that man does not leave Him. If he does, then God does not honor His part because it depended on the mutual agreement. God is never the problem, man is. Here, if man withholds permission, or willfully rejects, willingly changes to a sinful life, God will not honor his side of the relationship either. But God is NEVER the first party to the separation.
God wills and desires that all men be saved, but because He specifically created man in His Image with a will independent of His own, He risked His creation in order to have a creature who would freely return a mutual response, love and obedience.
So, it is also quite obvious that his will is not sometimes realized.
By the way, in part to that NO above, that is why He saved all of mankind from death and sin. He did two things by so doing. He put the responsibility solely at man's doorstep and that man cannot blame Adam for anything anymore. He completely freed mankind to make that choice and suffer the consequences.
You create a capricous God, who created puppets, compels and forces man to His desires and then condemns some because he forced them not to believe(withheld means). He hates some, seeks vengence for no reason, will destroy them and you still want to call your God a God of love.

Your argument is with Scripture, not with me, sojo. There are a number of statements which leave no room for man's supposed 'veto power' over the will of God.

I don't have an argument with Scripture. Scripture clearly gives man the cooperative power and will to work with God and God cannot nor will override man's independent free will. It would violate the very principle of being God, His sovereignty and the sole purpose of creating man.

 

[Van]

James, while making an argument that believers should not show partiality to folks who possess much in the way of worldly riches, points out that God chose the poor, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He promised to those who love Him. No matter how you slice it, God chooses those who love Him, and to love God is to believe in God. And these folks who have little in the way of worldly possessions are instead rich in faith, they do not believe just a little, but abundantly. See James 2:5.

Now in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 we see the same truth taught by Paul. The brethren of Paul are believers and are asked how many of them are from the upper crust, those that in the eyes of the world are wise, or mightly - have a powerful position, or noble - well born. Instead, Paul says God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. God gives grace to the humble but is opposed to the proud. God's choice of those who have little in the way of worldly riches nullifies the world's value system. And God does this, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, God chose you and put you in Him. Christ by His revealing life became wisdom from God to us - believers in Christ - and righteousness, because once we are in Christ our body of flesh (sin) is removed and we become righteous in Him. In Him we are sanctified, set apart from the penality of sin, and for good works, and for an inheritance of eternal life. Therefore, because we are chosen based on our trust in Him, and not because of our wisdom or power or birthright, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord." Amen.

 

[frumanchu]

First, it countermands most of scripture to the contrary. Believers are not chosen and no verse nor foundational intent can be found in scripture of being chosen.

That's an easy claim to make, sojo.

Secondly, it must be great to pick out a single verse, pull it from context and then set a whole doctrine upon it, disregarding most of scripture to do it.

Ironically, that's exactly the principle, applied several times over in succession, by which one comes to the view you espoused in your first point.

He in fact did and has enabled every man to receive him. Everyman, no exceptions will answer that call of repentance.

Scripture please.

You make God capricious, a liar, and a respector of persons if you say that He actually calls all men, but willfully withholds capriciously, the ability of some to even respond, then condenms them when they had no choice.

Capricious how? Because God won't tell why He chose one and not another, except that it was not according to anything meritorious about them but rather according to the good pleasure of His will? Sorry...I don't think that word is applicable.

A liar? Because He doesn't do things they way man thinks He should do them?

A respector of persons? How so, given that the Reformed view is one of unconditional election?

Either you don't really read these posts and you have such a one-track mind you cannot comprehend much beyond your own understanding.
The anwer is NO.

How gracious of you, sojo.

You said that Christ saved every human being. So, are there saved people in hell, or did Christ only potentially save all men on the cross (but didn't actually save anyone on the cross)?

Again, this is based on God's foreknowledge. He simply used a wicked man, who had no intention of every serving God, which God knew, to use Him for His own purpose. I'm not sure for you, but some who use this verse for the same reason you are, think that God hardened Pharaoh's heart from day one to the day he died. When in fact, he hardened it for a time and several times during the plagues. This was not a permanent state of Pharaoh, being hardened.

The answer is:

Exodus 4:21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

God will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let them go. It doesn't say "but Pharaoh will harden his own heart and not let them go." There is no room for your interpretation here, sojo.

It is always effective. The same reason that God will never leave nor forsake you. But the backside of that it, that man does not leave Him. If he does, then God does not honor His part because it depended on the mutual agreement. God is never the problem, man is. Here, if man withholds permission, or willfully rejects, willingly changes to a sinful life, God will not honor his side of the relationship either. But God is NEVER the first party to the separation.

Effective: Having an intended or expected effect.

So unless your view is that God expects or intends His power to fail in some people, then I again point out that saying God's power is "always effective" is directly at odds with your theology.

God wills and desires that all men be saved, but because He specifically created man in His Image with a will independent of His own, He risked His creation in order to have a creature who would freely return a mutual response, love and obedience. So, it is also quite obvious that his will is not sometimes realized.

So His will is not realized, but His power is always effective? Do you see the paradox created here?

By the way, in part to that NO above, that is why He saved all of mankind from death and sin. He did two things by so doing. He put the responsibility solely at man's doorstep and that man cannot blame Adam for anything anymore. He completely freed mankind to make that choice and suffer the consequences.

So in your view, now that Christ has died and has risen, are men born completely free from the effects of Adam's transgression? Or is this freedom conferred later in life?

You create a capricous God, who created puppets, compels and forces man to His desires and then condemns some because he forced them not to believe(withheld means). He hates some, seeks vengence for no reason, will destroy them and you still want to call your God a God of love.

Already dealt with capricious. The puppets comment is laughable. God does not compel or force man to sin. That you equate withholding means and forcing indicates to me that you're arguing from emotion and not reason, because these words have actual meanings which do not support the conclusions you're trying to create with them.

So, I suppose you can continue to throw these terms around in an attempt to tear down my position. You certainly aren't the first. I don't see why you feel the need to be so hostile. I could make all manner of grand rhetorical statements about what you make God out to be with your theology, but the fact is that I'm content to deal with your position on the level of Scripture and logic, and leave the emotional conclusions unspoken. Can I ask the same of you please?

I don't have an argument with Scripture. Scripture clearly gives man the cooperative power and will to work with God and God cannot nor will override man's independent free will. It would violate the very principle of being God, His sovereignty and the sole purpose of creating man.

I fail to see how man's independent free will is necessary to "the very principle of being God." It sounds as if you're saying God cannot be God unless man has free will.

What, in your opinion, is God's sole purpose for creating man?

 

[sojourner]

frumanchu,

That's an easy claim to make, sojo.

When there is no scripture to contradict it, and it has been always believed and explained that way, it the primary ingredient of our human nature. It is mostly what makes us human. To be in His Image.

Ironically, that's exactly the principle, applied several times over in succession, by which one comes to the view you espoused in your first point

Except, as yet, you have failed to prove that point.

Scripture please

All the texts dealing with redemption. It is the purpose of redemption. Christ allowed death to be the punishment, so He could redeem mankind and overcome death with life. We were freed from Adam through Christ, in order to be in UNION with Him, the purpose of man's creation.
But to be specific, Col 1:15-20, Rom 5:6-21, I Cor 15:20-58, II Cor 5:14-19. Rom 11:32.
Act 2:39, Joel 2:28ff fulfilled at Pentacost - Acts 2:16ff, Matt 9:13, Acts 17:30, II Pet 3:9, Mark 2:17,
I don't see anything in the Bible where God selects, or God does not offer salvation to all. He specifically saved all from the judgement of the fall, so that man could once again be in UNION. Union is the purpose of man. It is also why He needed to redeem His whole creation which also suffered the judgement of death, so that man could bring creation back to God.

Capricious how? Because God won't tell why He chose one and not another, except that it was not according to anything meritorious about them but rather according to the good pleasure of His will? Sorry...I don't think that word is applicable

He didn't chose except to chose every man. Left no one out. See texts above. Saved all of mankind from the fall, to mankind could fulfil his created mandate, or existance.

A liar? Because He doesn't do things they way man thinks He should do them?

No, because you are countermanding what He specifically did and says in scripture.

A respector of persons? How so, given that the Reformed view is one of unconditional election?[/qoute] Yes, unconditional for some, condemnation to all others. Diametrically opposed to what scripture actually says and teaches, at least as far as the Apostles are concerned and which has been preserved faithfully for 2000 years by the Holy Spirit.

You said that Christ saved every human being. So, are there saved people in hell, or did Christ only potentially save all men on the cross (but didn't actually save anyone on the cross)?

Absolutely, check the texts above and many more than that. He very specifically, and effectively, saved every human being from the judgement of Adam, death. Besides that, He also atoned, paid the penalty of our personal sins, for all of mankind as well. However, that is potential, because forgiveness of those sins only comes with repentance. So, no man was left untouched, real and potential. The second part(atonement) would have been totally useless without the first part.(overcoming death).

Exodus 4:21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

God will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let them go. It doesn't say "but Pharaoh will harden his own heart and not let them go." There is no room for your interpretation here, sojo.

Precisely, because even wicked men do love, show mercy, and God wanted to use Pharaoh to show His power. It says God took the choice away for a moment because in the long of it, it would not matter in Pharaoh life to do so.

Effective: Having an intended or expected effect.

yes, God wills, and desires, influences, even in His providence can work to lead men, but He will not violate His own will that He impose His on man's in this respect - salvation. Salvation is Union with God, and God created man to be free and independent so that God could commune and be in Union in a mutual relationship, not an arrangement.
If man aligns his will with God, God will effectively, without exception bring that persons salvation to fruition - being in Union with Him.

So His will is not realized, but His power is always effective? Do you see the paradox created here?

No paradox at all. His will is that He not impose on man's freedom to love and obey freely. Your theology would need to show why God let Adam slip. What applies to Adam applies to us, especially now that we are again free from bondage of the judgement against Him.

So in your view, now that Christ has died and has risen, are men born completely free from the effects of Adam's transgression? Or is this freedom conferred later in life?

No, we are still born in our sinful nature. But because that nature has been given life, realized at His second coming, God also provided atonement for the sins which we will commit living with sinful natures, in a sinful world, and thwarted by the devil. That is why Paul speaks of the war between fallen flesh and the regenerated spirit of man. It is our responsiblity, not God's, to work with God, to overcome that fallen flesh, to live our life in the spirit. Make sure the spirit dominates and we can only do that with the Gifts, Grace that He has provided to us. But we are free to deny them, to reject them, to change our minds for whatever reason. Adam is the same human being as we are, free. We can leave the communion the same way he did.
Therefore, the freedom is now, so we can begin to be in UNION with Christ, here and now. Christ's saving work provided the means by which man can have the spiritual walk, the spiritual communion, we call Union with God.

Already dealt with capricious. The puppets comment is laughable. God does not compel or force man to sin

I didn't say that, but that is also true of your view. You have taken the will of man away. He no longer can make choices, he is compelled to move to the puppeteers moves. Obviously, you believe man still sins without the Holy Spirit actually doing it, so then you have a monumental contradiction. Man is free and he is not free at the same time.

Already dealt with capricious. The puppets comment is laughable. God does not compel or force man to sin. That you equate withholding means and forcing indicates to me that you're arguing from emotion and not reason, because these words have actual meanings which do not support the conclusions you're trying to create with them.

Obviously not in your view, but Scripturally, the logic demands it.

So, I suppose you can continue to throw these terms around in an attempt to tear down my position.

I'm not even attempting to tear your view apart. You are certainly free, or are you, to believe as you will. However, if you are going to claim it is salvation Scripturally understood from the beginning, then you have not begun to show it. You have shown a view, your interpretation, based on a limited number of isolated texts.

but the fact is that I'm content to deal with your position on the level of Scripture and logic, and leave the emotional conclusions unspoken. Can I ask the same of you please?

Have done the same. The problem with your view is based on your interpretation of scripture and thus the logic you apply will always fit the presuppositons and premises, notwithstanding a lot of other parts of scripture to the contrary, as I have pointed out. However, if you can show historically, that the Holy Spirit has preserved your understanding of Scripture from the beginning, then you truly have the correct Biblical understanding.
But having dealt with this many times, you would have difficulty getting out of the 20th century, let alone back to the reformers. The second part is the method you use, doens't seem to lend to any kind of universal gospel, which it is supposed to be, at least scripture says so. There are more views than verses in the Bible, not on this topic, but when all the differences added up, I don't see any gospel.

fail to see how man's independent free will is necessary to "the very principle of being God." It sounds as if you're saying God cannot be God unless man has free will.

Because God created man to be such. To for no reason, change His mind at some point in regard to His supreme, highest created creature and to deny that creature the purpose for which He was created. What kind of God is that?
What I am saying, God would not be God, if He violated His own sovereign plan. At least what has been revealed to us. Everything He has revealed about man, his creation, his purpose in that creation, is suddenly reneged, when in fact, the whole plan hinges around overcoming the fall. Getting man back to his free state, so he can fulfill that created mandate.
What I am saying, is that your view puts man totally out of the picture, he is no longer even human really, cannot commune with God, freely, at least God revealed He wanted man to be free. Man may not like it, Adam thought he could do a better job alone than with God, and true to human nature, that seems the mind of most men even today. They do not need God.

What, in your opinion, is God's sole purpose for creating man?

To have Union with God and bring His creation along with him. Man was created to be prophet, priest and king over God's creation. Man, himself is a union of matter, material -body and the divine - the soul. That is why death is the extinction of man in the form in which he was intended to exist - whole and in communion.
God first needed to reconcile this creation. Bring it back to the form in which it was intended. To give it life instead of death. Then man can have eternal consequences regarding any spiritual communion or Union with God, beginning in this life.

One other view by many protestants regarding Christ's work, not mentioned as yet in these posts, is that the primary work of Christ was to overcome sin. To save man, from sin. His death covered our sins. Theologically, if that was the only reason, even primary reason, man could have communion with God in this life but upon death, his soul and body would be separated eternally, thus extinct and any communion with God would be terminated. Man would cease to exist as he was created to be. Christ first needed to overcome death, give life, so man could be free to choose God, answer His loving call to all men, and begin that movement to be in perfect union with Him and continue in eternity.
Your view, by the way, theologically, would eliminate hell. Man ceases to exist, hell has no purpose. However, man as fully man, living in body and soul, in eternity, will suffer consequences of his freely rejecting his Savior. Those consequences will be the result of his choice at any time in his life, and God will simply mete out the sentence of his choosing.
All the dead will rise, be resurrected with new bodies, be judged, all will be judged, but the judgement for believers is that they will not be condemned. In Christ they are not condemned, but they will be judged, judged according to the works they have done in their lives.

 

[frumanchu]

sojo, this conversation is over. I quite simply do not have the time to address the number of fallacies and historically/Scripturally ignorant statements you made in that post. That you believe sovereign election cannot be traced back past the last century is a clear display of this fact. You've grossly mischaracterized my position, and then drawn equally ridiculous conclusions from those mischaracterizations.

Christ said on the cross, "It is finished."

Not "I did my part..."

Good day, sojo. May the Spirit illuminate the truth to you. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[sojourner]

frumanchu,

sojo, this conversation is over. I quite simply do not have the time to address the number of fallacies and historically/Scripturally ignorant statements you made in that post.

Relative to your view that would be very true. However, relative to being scripturally accurate there is 2000 years of faithful practice, understanding of those statements.

That you believe sovereign election cannot be traced back past the last century is a clear display of this fact.

You obviously did not understand what I stated. That particular view begins in the 16th century and before the centery ends there is a large disagreement on exactly what it is and means. That has only digressed over the next centuries where, if one discusses almost any doctrine on a protestant forum, you can have a different understanding from every single person contributing and any consesus is remote and improbable. Notwithstanding they are all using the same method to arrive at their truth. Where is the Gospel?
The Gospel was given so we can live it. Not attempt to figure out what it is.

Christ said on the cross, "It is finished."

Not "I did my part..."

Shows a complete lack of understanding on the position that I have been making. The "it is finished" has absolutely nothing to do with man having any part in it. It is Christ redeeming the world, reconciling the world to Himself, granting life and paying the penalty of death for our own sins. This was done specifically so that man could enjoy UNION with God once again as he was created to be. That part is cooperative, synergistic and has everything to do with man working with God. All men, not some or a few. God has no intention of destroying His creatures or universe for that matter.

Good day, sojo. May the Spirit illuminate the truth to you. Feel free to have the last word.

I have been illuminated. I don't need the last word so you are welcome to respond.