In an Instant = Forever

[5thKingdom]

Let me state unequivocally that forgiveness of sins can only with the one offended by sin. However, and purely for the sake of argument, even if your argument is true-- and again, it is not!-- God can never be obligated to act positively toward man at any time sans his own willingness. Your entire premise, that man initiates salvation, is self-stultifying!
Doug

Now YOU are arguing a strawman.
I never said God is OBLIGATED to act positively toward any man.

I have said that ALL MEN are born spiritually DEAD and are destined
to hell. That God therefore "elected" or "chose" certain men that
He would save. And sometime in that man's life God will "draw"
him to Christ and he will become saved.

If God is "obligated" in any sense it would ONLY be to finish what
He has started. To save those who He "elected". I would be
willing to go that far.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

Your entire premise, that man initiates salvation, is self-stultifying!
Doug

There must be some confusion here.
I have never argued that man initiates salvation.
I have stated that OTHERS make that argument but that
is heresy as far as I am concerned.

Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

The rulership over the physical creation is a singular aspect, not the whole, or even the foundation of the whole. Two weeks of the three specific expressions of man's independent sovereignty are directly related to his volition; the choice of what to eat, i.e, bananas or pomegranates, and/or to eat of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or any of the other trees in the garden, including the Tree of Life. These are independent of God's sovereignty.

Such sovereignty is not taken away by sin's contamination! Sin certainly effects a change is the way choice operates, but nothing besides a Divine edict would remove said sovereignty.
Doug

But, again, neither I or the Bible argues that man does not have
the sovereignty to chose what clothes to wear, or what food to
eat. Neither I or the Bible argues that man does not continue
to have that kind of sovereignty AFTER the fall.

However, what the Bible and I argue is that man became
SPIRITUALLY DEAD and from that point forward NONE of his
offspring are able to make a spiritual move toward God. This
is shown clearly after Romans 1 and 2 conclude in Romans 3
saying that NO MAN will seek God, no, not even one.

So, we need no "Divine Edict" about the secular sovereignty
of mankind. And we already HAVE a "Divine Edict" regarding
the spiritual sovereignty of man.

BTW... what I find strange is that you do not hesitate to say
that you do not agree with my theology about man being
unable to move toward God... but I cannot remember you
ever offering SCRIPTURES that say otherwise. Why is that?


Jim

 

[TibiasDad]

Do you think the MASTER of the unsaved "tares" in the church
is the SAME MASTER as the saved "wheat" in the church?
Of course not.

So why do you PRETEND Christians all have the SAME MASTER?
Seems very foolish (or naive) to me.

Jim

Jesus Christ is my Master, if yours is different, I will leave that in your hands to deal with, but I wrote assuming we were both of the same family, if not the same thinking soteriologicaly.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

There must be some confusion here.
I have never argued that man initiates salvation.
I have stated that OTHERS make that argument but that
is heresy as far as I am concerned.

Jim

Your premise was that I assert that man can initiate salvation, which I do not! Thus, I assert that your argument is both based on a strawman, and self-stultifying!

I would consider a man initiated perspective as heresy as well.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

You can argue that man has sovereignty to chose to wear
black socks or white socks today... and I will not disagree.
But what you cannot argue (with any Biblical support) is that
men have sovereignty in the process of their Salvation.

If man's choice of what to wear is sovereign and independent of God's desire, then all his choices are are, because choice itself is a God ordained independent sovereignty. You cannot have free choice in one catagory and not in another!

As for man's being dead in sin, again I assert that your argument is self-stultifying: yes man is dead in sin, meaning he has no relationship with God and therefore is an enemy against God. Man has no natural ability or desire to seek after the things of God and would not do so had God not moved toward man first. But the Imago Dei with which we were created will respond to the presence of source from which it came.
In other words, if God moves toward man in a positive manner, we can (not necessarily will, for that is a matter of choice) respond to that movement of God. (Acts 17:24-28, John 12:32-36)

Doug

 

[5thKingdom]

Jesus Christ is my Master, if yours is different, I will leave that in your hands to deal with, but I wrote assuming we were both of the same family, if not the same thinking soteriologicaly. Doug

Come on Doug... I asked a simple question based on your
implication that EVERYONE in the church has the same Master
and Christ's declaration that Satan is the Master of some in
the church... why did you not just address the question
instead of assuming it was an ad hominem attack?


I said:
Do you think the MASTER of the unsaved "tares" in the church
is the SAME MASTER as the saved "wheat" in the church?
Of course not.



Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

If man's choice of what to wear is sovereign and independent of God's desire, then all his choices are are, because choice itself is a God ordained independent sovereignty. You cannot have free choice in one catagory and not in another!

Then there is not difference between secular and spiritual.


When the Bible declares we are born spiritually DEAD it means
we cannot seek God... it does NOT imply we cannot choose
the color of socks we wear. You have gone toooooo far.


When the Bible declares that NO MAN can come to Christ
unless the Father first "draw" them... it does NOT mean that
NO MAN can choose what to eat for dinner... you go too far.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

As for man's being dead in sin, again I assert that your argument is self-stultifying: yes man is dead in sin, meaning he has no relationship with God and therefore is an enemy against God. Man has no natural ability or desire to seek after the things of God and would not do so had God not moved toward man first. But the Imago Dei with which we were created will respond to the presence of source from which it came.
In other words, if God moves toward man in a positive manner, we can (not necessarily will, for that is a matter of choice) respond to that movement of God. (Acts 17:24-28, John 12:32-36)
Doug

Acts 17 is completely true... God is not far from any man.
However Romans 3 is also true... NO MAN will seek Him,
no, not even one. You must harmonize ALL RELATED
Scriptures and not just isolate those you like.


Joh 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Again, we must harmonize John 12:32 with all related Scripture.
Since we know that ALL MEN the Father draws "shall come" to
Christ and He will lose NONE of them then we can see that the
CONTEXT of John 12:32 is not everyone ever born - or else
there would be nobody in hell, and hell is heavily populated.

So we learn the CONTEXT of John 12:32 is particular to those
who are "His Sheep" which harmonizes with the immediate
passages and the entire Scripture.

Please do not tell me you think the CONTEXT of John 12:25-32
is the entire unsaved world when we can easily see it is limited
to the disciples of Jesus.

Then you must limit John 12:32 to the SAME context...
you have no Biblical authority to EXPAND that context to
include those who reject Christ and those who never hear
about Him. Context means everything.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

Your premise was that I assert that man can initiate salvation, which I do not! Thus, I assert that your argument is both based on a strawman, and self-stultifying!

I would consider a man initiated perspective as heresy as well.

Doug

Again, as I said above, I did not imply that YOU ever stated
that man can initiate salvation... but there are OTHERS in this
forum that openly declare that to be their gospel. This is just
a case of miscommunication - I do not know if it was my fault
but I apologize if it was.

I said:
There must be some confusion here.
I have never argued that man initiates salvation.
I have stated that OTHERS make that argument but that
is heresy as far as I am concerned

I was talking about a couple of specific posters as "others"
you were not included in them. Again, I apologize if that
is the impression you got.

Jim

 

[TibiasDad]

Come on Doug... I asked a simple question based on your
implication that EVERYONE in the church has the same Master
and Christ's declaration that Satan is the Master of some in
the church... why did you not just address the question
instead of assuming it was an ad hominem attack?


I said:
Do you think the MASTER of the unsaved "tares" in the church
is the SAME MASTER as the saved "wheat" in the church?
Of course not.



Jim

My comments were framed in the scope of just you and me. Your soteriology is not a factor in whether you are a believer, nor is mine, so while I disagree strongly about your interpretation of the gospel and the details as to the protocols involved in the process, and your apparent dispensational approach to hermeneutics, I do not count you to be unsaved. Thus, I believe we both have the same Master to which we will all answer!

Doug

 

[5thKingdom]

My comments were framed in the scope of just you and me. Your soteriology is not a factor in whether you are a believer, nor is mine, so while I disagree strongly about your interpretation of the gospel and the details as to the protocols involved in the process, and your apparent dispensational approach to hermeneutics, I do not count you to be unsaved. Thus, I believe we both have the same Master to which we will all answer!

Doug

I appreciate the comment but you avoided the main issue that
those in the church are either saved "wheat" sown by God or
unsaved "tares" sown by Satan.

So, clearly, those in the church do NOT have the same Master.
That was really my only point.

Jim

 

[TibiasDad]

Again, as I said above, I did not imply that YOU ever stated
that man can initiate salvation..[/B]. but there are OTHERS in this
forum that openly declare that to be their gospel. This is just
a case of miscommunication - I do not know if it was my fault
but I apologize if it was.

I said:
There must be some confusion here.
I have never argued that man initiates salvation.
I have stated that OTHERS make that argument but that
is heresy as far as I am concerned

I was talking about a couple of specific posters as "others"
you were not included in them. Again, I apologize if that
is the impression you got.

Jim

Jim,

This is your quotation related to the issue of a man initiated salvation:

We were NOT talking about man having dominion over animals.
We were talking about MAN being able to initiate the salvation
process... which YOU CLAIMED man has "limited sovereignty"
in that process.

(Emphasis mine)

We were not talking about man being able to initiate the salvation process because I would never say that. You were projecting your interpretation of my argument as saying such, but that is not what I said.

Nor did I ever suggest you believe man initiates salvation. But you are the only one between us that, until now, has used those words to describe the salvation process.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I appreciate the comment but you avoided the main issue that
those in the church are either saved "wheat" sown by God or
unsaved "tares" sown by Satan.

So, clearly, those in the church do NOT have the same Master.
That was really my only point.

Jim

Those who attend a church are not the same as those who are in the church, for in the church is about those who are actually "in Christ" , not those who are simply gathered at a church service.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Then there is not difference between secular and spiritual.

Not in terms of if our choices are strictly ours to make, and not controlled or made by God. Choice is free of it is not, the object of that choice notwithstanding!

When the Bible declares we are born spiritually DEAD it means
we cannot seek God... it does NOT imply we cannot choose
the color of socks we wear. You have gone toooooo far.


When the Bible declares that NO MAN can come to Christ
unless the Father first "draw" them... it does NOT mean that
NO MAN can choose what to eat for dinner... you go too far.


Jim.

No man can choose anything that is not made available to him. Thus, no man can choose between white socks and black socks if only blue socks are available. No man can choose to move toward a God or an offer of salvation unless God makes himself or salvation available for him to choose.

The image of God is always within us, that proverbial void that only God can properly fill, and it cannot be filled by anything but God. Thus, if man is separated from relationship with God by sin (being dead), we cannot seek for or find something not provided for us to seek. Does not Jesus say, "seek and you will find"? That means that God has made something available to seek after, and that we can, by the grace of God moving in our direction, seek after that which he has made available. Find the Light while the Light may be found!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Now YOU are arguing a strawman.
I never said God is OBLIGATED to act positively toward any man.

I have said that ALL MEN are born spiritually DEAD and are destined
to hell. That God therefore "elected" or "chose" certain men that
He would save. And sometime in that man's life God will "draw"
him to Christ and he will become saved.

If God is "obligated" in any sense it would ONLY be to finish what
He has started. To save those who He "elected". I would be
willing to go that far.


Jim

If you claim someone says man can initiate the process of Salvation, which you've said is true of a couple of posters on the forum, then you are implicitly saying that man's actions to be saved obligate God to necessarily save simply because man wants to be saved and has done what was necessary to accomplish salvation. In other words, if man can start to process of salvation, God must act in response to man's initial action and save him.

Doug

 

[5thKingdom]

and your apparent dispensational approach to hermeneutics, Doug

I studied the Bible for over 40 years before I noticed that Jesus
established different "dispensations" in God's Plan of Salvation.
Before that I was indifferent about dispensational arguments.

But now I understand there can be no dispute that Jesus NAMED
several separate-and-distinct (temporal) "Kingdoms of Heaven"
on earth BEFORE the Eternal "Kingdom of Heaven".

I spent about 10 years studying that issue and several related
issues.

Now, with almost 50 years of Bible study, I submit to whatever
the Bible teaches (understanding the only measure of Biblical Truth
is harmony of ALL RELATED passages). So when I see that Jesus
specifically NAMED several different Kingdoms and they are related
to Daniel's four Beasts/Kingdoms I have to accept the harmony
of Scripture.

I will tell you, it becomes a whole new ballgame when you realize
the Great Tribulation is a separate "Kingdom of Heaven" and that
it's the same period/events as the Revelation Beast(s) and Daniel's
Fourth Kingdom/Beast.

Of course, as the Bible foretold, nobody wants to hear this reality
because it immediately destroys their gospel to learn that there
is another "Kingdom" after the Great Commission is finished and
the Final Harvest is from the Fourth Kingdom and not the Third
Christian "Kingdom of Heaven".

Most people cannot even get their mind around the reality that
Jesus identified the Christian era as a "Kingdom of Heaven"...
and just will not accept the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" named
in Matthew 22:2 and referenced again in Matthew 21:43.

Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

If you claim someone says man can initiate the process of Salvation, which you've said is true of a couple of posters on the forum, then you are implicitly saying that man's actions to be saved obligate God to necessarily save simply because man wants to be saved and has done what was necessary to accomplish salvation. In other words, if man can start to process of salvation, God must act in response to man's initial action and save him.

Doug

Yes, that is my point exactly.
If man is sovereign in the salvation process, if man can do some
"work" to initiate the process then God is OBLIGATED to save that
man and finish the process. That is my main argument against the
idea that men can "save themselves"... it makes MEN sovereign
over God.

Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

Not in terms of if our choices are strictly ours to make, and not controlled or made by God. Choice is free of it is not, the object of that choice notwithstanding!

I have to respectfully disagree.
The way I see it, man can be born spiritually dead and lose
all ability to make a move toward God and still be able to have
the "free will" to chose what clothes to wear or what food to eat.

No man can choose anything that is not made available to him. Thus, no man can choose between white socks and black socks if only blue socks are available. No man can choose to move toward a God or an offer of salvation unless God makes himself or salvation available for him to choose.

Agreed.
We cannot chose blue socks if we have none available
(unless we have amazon same day delivery)

And we cannot choose to move toward God if we are spiritually
DEAD.

We are seeing this from different perspective I think
Before the Fall man DID have a choice... after the Fall
we still had the responsibility to seek God but we were
no longer able since we were spiritually dead.

Lazarus had a choice to get out of bed every day that
he was alive. But after four days of being dead he no longer
had that option. We are all like Lazarus now... we NEED to be
"drawn" and ONLY those chosen before the foundation of the
world will be "drawn".

Man's responsibility continues... even after the Fall occurred
and man's ability was lost.

There is a dynamic between the Kingdom of God and the
Kingdom of Satan that needs to be understood in this process.

Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

The image of God is always within us, that proverbial void that only God can properly fill, and it cannot be filled by anything but God. Thus, if man is separated from relationship with God by sin (being dead), we cannot seek for or find something not provided for us to seek. Does not Jesus say, "seek and you will find"? That means that God has made something available to seek after, and that we can, by the grace of God moving in our direction, seek after that which he has made available. Find the Light while the Light may be found!

Doug

Yes, we all have that void that only God can fill.

And we all have the responsibility to seek God and serve Him.

But you are going too far when you say we MUST be able to
seek God because we are commanded to do so...

(1) first, because the Bible assures us we are spiritually dead and
NO MAN, no, not even one, will seek God

(2) Second, because there is no reason why we cannot still have
the responsibility when we have lost the ability

Does Jesus say seek and ye shall find? Absolutely.
But the Scripture also says NO MAN will seek. So HOW do we
harmonize those two realities. We realize the responsibility remains
while the ability is limited to only those "elected" before the world
began.

It is not like some will not seek... but they will not do it until
AFTER the Father has "drawn" them. Only "His Sheep" will seek.

We could look at this two ways:

(1) First we could say this is not fair... God has made me this way.
That argument is handled in Romans 9. We are lumps of clay and
God is the potter.

(2) Second, we could say that, since ALL MEN are going to hell...
THANK GOD some are saved.

We have no right to think that God is OBLIGATED to save every
person ever born. Therefore, we have no right to think that God
is OBLIGATED to save anyone other than the "elect" He chose
for His own Good Purpose. Now we are back to #2 above,
Thank God that ANYONE receives mercy.

Frankly, since we all BELONG to Satan after the fall, I find it
presumptuous to argue that man is entitled to the chance
to be saved. The truth is, in a battle with Satan, we would
all lose just as Adam and Eve did... even if we were NOT
born spiritually dead, we would all rebel anyway... even
ONE sin is enough to make us spiritually dead.

So those are my thoughts on the subject.
I do not expect many (or any) to agree... but
I really do not care... unless the Bible teaches otherwise.
And I have yet to see a Biblical argument that refutes what
I just said - only human "feelings" about the fairness of it all.

Jim