"P" for perserverance, some problems....

[Landmark Baptist]

Hello all, I am new to the forum. I am just aching to get in on some discussion, especially concerning Calvinism. Personally, I love to read long, intriguing articles....but I know it can be difficult to read them sometimes. I apologize in advance if that is the case here. I would like to refute the idea of "perservance of the saints", in the sense that Calvinism uses it. I will attempt to focus on this issue alone, and not stray to others for the reason above.

I have read many reasons why the Calvinists hold to this particular belief. Unfortunately, there are MANY scriptures to be dealt with that will disagree. Only a couple can be dealt with here. First off, I implore you to look at the scriptures with a straight face, and tell me that the Bible doesn't warn God's elect of their own sin nature, even of a "falling away." (II Thessalonians 2:3) By the way, just a tidbit of food for thought. Is it possible to fall away from something you were never in?

Who was the Bible written to? Old Testament-to God's covenant Israel...New Testament-to God's covenant churches. You cannot deny this.

Romans 1:7- To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
I Corinthians 1:2- Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints
II Corinthians 1:1- ...unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints...
Galatians 1:2- unto the churches of Galatia...
Ephesians1:1- to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful...

Need i go on....

Therefore, Paul wrote to the churches and his message was to the churches. His message was to the Elect. Peter was no different. It is with Peter I wish to deal with.

I Peter 1:1- ...to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
II Peter 1:1- ...to them that have obtained like precious faith WITH US through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Peter comes out and says it directly. In I Peter, he specifically acknowledges he is talking to an Elect group of people. In II Peter, he equates his recipients to have faith like unto himself. Was not Peter elect? I certainly believe so.

And now to the heart of the matter. I Peter 1:8-11 "For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." What things were in them? Well, verses 5-7 gives a list of characteristics. Peter said those characteristics would "MAKE YOU that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful." Continuing on "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." Peter said TO THE ELECT that if you don't have those characteristics in 5-7, YOUR ARE BLIND. He even went so far as to warn them that such a one "hath forgotten he was purged." A Calvinist would say that one who "falls away" was never really one of the elect to begin with. DO NOT put your own theology into the Bible. Peter was talking to the elect, and if he said you could forget something like that, who are we to say that we can't??

When you put the verses above into the correct perspective with the elect, verse 10 makes more sense. "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." Most who oppose Calvinism like to focus on the first part of that verse. And of course, there is a jaded response to it. But I believe the second part is even more important, for the Bible explains itself. It needs no Great Reformer!! Peter said , "IF YE DO THESE THINGS (what things, v5-7, remember?) ye shall never fall!!" The Calvinist teaches unconditional perserverance of the saints, but Peter teaches a condition!! God warns his elect all the day long.

I Peter 2:20-22 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteusness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." There was a good article on this forum concerning the idea of "knowledge" and "foreknowledge" written by a Calvinist. I agree with its interpretation. It absolutely refers to an intimate, special knowledge that God has with his people, not just a factual knowledge. You cannot use that interpretation for Romans 8, and not also use that one here, for it is being used when spoken to the same quality of people. They were church members who were considered by the apostolic authors to be elect. Peter said those that had "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord" could "become entangled again!!" And my friends, that doesn't mean for a short time and then finally he gets back on the right track. Peter said his end "is worse with them than the beginning!!" Is it possible for one who is not elect to escape the pollutions of this world? Does God dangle His grace like a treat, and when we jump to it, He tantalizling pulls it away? God forbid!! It is a gift! "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness" Once again, this is not referring to a factual knowledge of righteousness. I do not believe that, nor can the Calvinist concede that point. It would invalidate his other arguments on the subject. The Word is True. Praise the Lord.

I will close soon. Isaiah 45:4-"For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel MINE ELECT, I have even called thee, though THOU HAST NOT KNOWN ME. Once again, spiritual knowledge folks. Wow, that is clear. Did not God choose Abraham's seed to be his circumcised, covenant people. Did not Israel reject God, and the Messiah. Yet they were elect!! It is for that reason alone that the Lord saw fit to "graft in" the nation of Gentiles and cut off the elect Jews who did not have their hearts circumcised. They held to physical circumcision and God said you aren't worthy. The Lord desired a people worthy of His election and calling.

The Calvinist quotes the scripture, and twists them, when Paul said that the election was according to "His good will and pleasure." Well I quote the Lord right back. Ezekiel 33:11- "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Verses 17,18 - "Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby." Ezekiel said a RIGHTEOUS man could turn and die from his iniquity. These words are from the mouth of GOD. Does God call that which is unrighteous, righteous. Does HE call a non convenant member righteous?? Does God say that the individual was never a convenant member to begin with? NO!! HE said he WAS righteous, and then he turned away. Verse 20- "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel I will judge you every one after his ways." So many times the Bible says that we will be judged by our works, and yet I strongly believe that our salvation is not of works!! Quite a conundrum for the worlds religions.

Romans 10:21- "But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." What a stumbling block to Calvinism!! Lets assume they are correct for this moment. God ELECTED Israel (Isaiah 45:4) Israel DID NOT KNOW GOD. God "stretched forth his hands" to them. If that is not the Will of GOd, then it doesn't exist!!! God begged, he pleaded, for his sheep. He sent His Son for his sheep. My friends, God would not stretch forth his hands to a DISOBEDIENT people that HE HAD ALREADY NOT ELECTED from the foundation of the world. There would be no point. God did not tell Isaiah to prophesy in a false manner. Matthew 23:37- "O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" If God wanted to gather them, He would have. But he didn't. Not because he wasn't an all powerful God, and not because He wasn't Sovereign, but because "YE WOULD NOT."

My friends, just as Israel was found unworthy, though called, to be the elect, so much more can we the Gentiles be found. That is why the Bible is our exhortation "to make our calling and election sure." I do not preach works for salvation. I vehemently proclaim God's saving grace, and also proclaim the second part of that oft misused passage...."THROUGH FAITH." I don't believe the Bible's salvation to be a one time "ask him into your heart" routine that is soo commonly heard today. In fact, the term "salvation from hell" is not found once in the bible, although I do believe in an eternal punishment for those that have never experienced first faith. The term "saving of your soul (translated life)" however is found in the scripture. We are called to the resurrection, that is clear. I will not delve any further here on the topic of what the Bible's salvation is. I firmly believe in the doctrine of election. I believe He has chosen his elect body and predestinated it. BUT, as to who makes up that body, that is left up to the faith of the individual. We must allow God to work through us, else we fall into the same boat as Israel in Matthew 23:37 above.....because she "WOULD NOT" even though God's hand was stretched out to her. Mr Calvin, God should have just elected them to begin with; then he wouldn't have to stretch forth his hands to a "DISOBEDIENT AND GAINSAYING PEOPLE"....His people no less.

 

[Drotar]

Ha, WOW! Talk about Providence!

This is fate. I happen to love to defend Calvinism, and I've written some EXTREMELY lengthy articles on each point. I'd rather start with total depravity.

Hey, man, I'll oblige you. I'm kind of excited. Usually people hate to read long articles. TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

 

[Reformationist]

The "P" is better understood if the word "preservation" is used.

God bless

 

[FormerFundy]

A faith that fizzles at the finish had a fatal flaw at the first.

 

[Reformationist]

A faith that fizzles at the finish had a fatal flaw at the first.

FF, isn't it a very telling attribute of a person's intent that when they want to discuss issues they disagree with they like to define exactly which areas of Scripture they'll consider in a discussion?

"Let's talk about the inaccurate view of reformed theology, specifically perseverance, but let's only address the verses that I want to address."

Landmark Baptist, here's a tip for you. Anyone can try to show that the Bible agrees with their interpretation as long as they limit the proof texts they are willing to entertain. The most accepted and dependable evangelical practice of interpretation of Scripture follows a very important rule of faith, i.e., interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. Additionally, unless you can show that you receive some special divine revelation from God, which, by the way, is a claim of the Gnostics who were deemed heretics, then it is pointless as well as arrogant for you to start a thread and include the oft used phrase, "DO NOT put your own theology into the Bible," which is something you yourself do everytime you read the Word. We all make theological errors, including you. Calvin is credited with saying, "At our best we are correct in our theology no better than 80% of the time."

Here's a verse for you to contemplate and most likely twist:

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Twist away.

God bless

 

[Drotar]

Love it, former fundy!

Oh wait... FORMER fundie?

Well, we'll have to work on that. TTYL Jesu slove syou!

 

[Landmark Baptist]

Additionally, unless you can show that you receive some special divine revelation from God, which, by the way, is a claim of the Gnostics who were deemed heretics, then it is pointless as well as arrogant for you to start a thread and include the oft used phrase, "DO NOT put your own theology into the Bible," which is something you yourself do everytime you read the Word.

Hold on a minute there, lets take this one step at a time....First off, I personally do not believe that I "put my own theology" into the Bible when I read it. Granted, we all have a slant towards our predisposed belief system, BUT It is my dear hope and prayer that the LORD can overcome that. If my heart is truly open, then if I believe something wrongly, the LORD can show me and correct me. I hope you feel the same. It must be proved in the WORD. That is all I meant by that statement. It is unscriptural to "put your own theology" into the the WORD, as you claim I or anyone else does.

Landmark Baptist, here's a tip for you. Anyone can try to show that the Bible agrees with their interpretation as long as they limit the proof texts they are willing to entertain. The most accepted and dependable evangelical practice of interpretation of Scripture follows a very important rule of faith, i.e., interpret the implicit in light of the explicit.

I have absolutely no problem dealing with any scripture in the Bible. Obviously one of us, or both of us is "twisting" the scripture, since we both read and believe in the same Bible!! We both cannot be right. All I am doing is trying to challenge you folks as well as myself, to think. As I said previously, I believe the Bible's salvation is not primarily the salvation that most denominations today believe in. I definitely believe in a "first faith" occurence, i.e. the point in time where you realize you are a sinner, and you need Christ, etc. That is just the BEGINNING though of your Christian walk. The Bible is loaded with things that need to be accomplished after that point. The reason, however why the Calvinist-Arminian argument exists, is because both are basing the Bible primarily on the existince of a "one point in time" "first faith" salvation, regardless of whether you were "elected" or had the will to believe in the first place. Since I do not believe the Bible teaches that this "first faith" salvation is what most believe it to be, I approach the scripture in a different light than you. I will attempt to explain myself a little bit. Lets start with the verse you chose Reformationist....now now no twisting, hehehe j/k

1 John 2:19- "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

This verse is true and I believe it. No doubt that any who turn away "were not of us." But I propose this food for thought. Go read Matthew 10:1-8. I will not quote it here, for it is bit lengthy. Don't you find it interesting that God gave the disciples "power against unclean spirits", including Judas Iscariot? In fact, his name is specifically listed with the twelve in verse 4. Futhermore, verse 8 gives the direct command to all twelve, "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Moreover, Matthew 19:28- "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus did not say eleven, he said twelve. Regardless of the fact that Jesus knew Judas would betray him, Judas was given power by God against sickness and demons AND was promised a throne, IF IF IF "ye which have followed me." Jesus said that, not me.

Now wait, I'll quote it before you can, hehe. Matthew 7:22,23- "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." I don't think Jesus will tell Judas that he never met him before, or had never seen him before. But he WILL tell Judas that he didn't know him in the special, spiritual way that God knows HIS people. The Bible answers our question as to whether Judas never had faith or power from God, or whether he just "fell away" from it. Matthew 12:25-28- "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." AMEN Praise the LORD. JUDAS DID have power from God to cast out demons. JUDAS DID do miracles. Judas was promised to be a judge with the TWELVE. It is impossible to say that Judas cast out demons and did miracles by Satan's power. Therefore he had God's power. But God removed His power from Judas because he was the one who betrayed Him. Do you mean to tell me that Judas thought he cast out demons, but he really didn't cause he was the betrayer a couple years later? If you believe in unconditional election, why did Jesus elect Judas to be one of the twelve?? If you say that it was only because Judas was the betrayer, and he was necessary to fulfill God's plan, then you have just gone back to the primitive definition of "foreknowledge." You would be saying that God chose Judas simply because he "knew" that Judas would betray our Lord. I agree with the Calvinists that "foreknowledge" doesn't mean factual knowledge, but a special, spiritual knowledge. If Judas wasn't one of God's elect, then you say that God gives power over demons to unsaved people!!! Satan does not cast out Satan.

On the contrary, I stated above that there is a whole lot more to the Bible than a "first faith" salvation. I believe in salvation from a fiery, eternal torment. I believe in security of the believer. But I also believe that there is a wrath for those who do not proceed as Peter said in I Peter 1:9, "to the saving of their souls (translated lives)" Otherwise you are snowed under the argument b/w Calvinist and Arminian over whether we all have this first faith salvation or not. If you fall away, you never had it in the first place. First faith salvation is a salvation from the eternal torment. It is by grace, the gift of God, and NOT of works. But Paul, using the example of the younger widows, said in I Timothy 5:12- "Having DAMNATION, because they have cast off their first faith." The Bible says it, and I believe it. Did it say they never had a faith, absolutely not!! But did they cast it off? YES

I have strayed from your initial passage, Reformationist. Lets continue a bit more. I John 2:21- "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because YE KNOW IT, and that no lie is of the truth." Verse 24, "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning, IF that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." Verse 28, "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." Oh the simplicity and yet the difficulty of this passage. We must ABIDE IN HIM, dear friends, or we WILL be ashamed at His coming.

I challenge each of us to read Phillipians 3. I love that chapter. Paul says in verse 4, "...If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more." Paul had a long list of accolades to his name, but they didn't mean squat. Verses 9-14 are soo critical. "...That I may know Him, and the power of his resurrection....If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead....Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect...Brethren I count NOT myself to have apprehended...I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling." Does this sound like the talk of a man who believes in unconditional election?? I mean, Paul had a vision from God on the road to Damascus...he was caught up to the heavens for a revelation "not lawful to be uttered"...yet he felt it necessary to "press toward the mark." If you were Paul, unconditionally elected, this would all be to no effect. As far as an "elect" was concernced, how could you possible experience ALL those things and yet not have attained?? Therefore Paul's words, not meant for the un-elect, would be of no edification to those who were already elect. Verses 17- "Brethren be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example."

Paul answers our questions in II Timothy 4:6-7- "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day..." Nearing the end of his life, Paul knew that he HAD pressed towards the mark, and that God was faithful to him for it. God was not slack concerning his promises. Paul went from saying that he had not attained, to saying that he had....all within one lifespan. If Paul was a Calvinist, and believed their interpretation of God "calling those things which be not as though they were" he would have considered himself to have "attained" from the very beginning. But he did not. He knew that God required faith.

Romans 8:38,39, "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The Calvinist uses this passage to support the idea of "perserverance." I do not discount its importance either. I absolutely agree that none of THOSE THINGS will be able to separate us from the love of God. He is TRULY faithful to HIS people. Yet, are HIS people always faithful to Him? I ask you, what separated Israel from God's love? It was nothing listed above, but it was their own disobedience. I reference my previous post when "God stretched forth his hand to a disobedient and gainsaying people." I John 2:5- "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." It is REQUIRED that you keep His Word, otherwise the love of GOd is not perfected in you. Jude 1:21- "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." God said "KEEP YOURSELVES" in HIS love, but I thought nothing could separate us from it, if we were elect?? Paul DID NOT say NOTHING could separate us from it, but he DID SAY that ALL THESE THINGS could not separate. Paul rejoiced in the fact that absolutely nothing in this world could take God's grace and mercy and love away from him, and I do too. I am still required to be faithful though, and so was Paul.

 

[Reformationist]

Hold on a minute there, lets take this one step at a time....

Okay, good idea.

First off, I personally do not believe that I "put my own theology" into the Bible when I read it.

Of course you don't believe that you "put your own theology" into the Bible when you read it but that doesn't mean that you don't. The ironic thing is that you seem to have no problem discounting the interpretations of respected people that have spent their entire lives researching the Word in an effort to accurately understand the Gospel by assuming that they do insert their "own theology" into the Bible. Please tell me, what makes your view so much more credible than any one else's? You study. They study. The majority of them have spent years studying the languages of the Bible. I don't even know that you have.

Granted, we all have a slant towards our predisposed belief system, BUT It is my dear hope and prayer that the LORD can overcome that.

I'm sure that the Lord can overcome whatsoever we do. That does not mean that His method of "overcoming" is by stopping it from happening. IOW, if you are incorrect in your understanding then it serves the Lord's purposes because His Plan is greater than our understanding of His Plan.

If my heart is truly open, then if I believe something wrongly, the LORD can show me and correct me.

As I said, just because the Lord can correct your inaccurate understanding doesn't mean that He does. It's a very self centered view of God's eternal Plan to assume that whatever we believe must be correct because the Lord hasn't changed our beliefs.

I hope you feel the same. It must be proved in the WORD.

Okay. I'd really love to see you prove your beliefs. You see, for our fallen minds the immutable truths of the Gospel are not always revealed, nor is it always God's Plan to reveal all understanding to us. Your "proof" might be nothing more than your adamant belief of your understanding. That does not make it true.

That is all I meant by that statement. It is unscriptural to "put your own theology" into the the WORD, as you claim I or anyone else does.

Two things. First, it's not "unscriptural." Holy Scripture is full of examples of fallen man's uncanny ability to "put their own theology" into the Word. It is, however, irreverent. Second, I didn't make the claim. You did:

DO NOT put your own theology into the Bible.

I have absolutely no problem dealing with any scripture in the Bible. Obviously one of us, or both of us is "twisting" the scripture, since we both read and believe in the same Bible!! We both cannot be right. All I am doing is trying to challenge you folks as well as myself, to think.

I am more than happy to accept the challange. However, I encourage you to incite discussion on something rather than posting with the common Christian application of pride, i.e., "I'm right, you're wrong."

As I said previously, I believe the Bible's salvation is not primarily the salvation that most denominations today believe in. I definitely believe in a "first faith" occurence, i.e. the point in time where you realize you are a sinner, and you need Christ, etc. That is just the BEGINNING though of your Christian walk.

So the beginning of your Christian walk is when you realize you're a sinner? God does not enlighten you to your sinfulness prior to your realization of your sinfulness? If so, the beginning of your Christian walk is God's monergistic action of regeneration which, in turn, enlightens you to your need for a Redeemer and gives you a desire to serve the Lord.

The Bible is loaded with things that need to be accomplished after that point.

"Need to be accomplished" for what, salvation?

Lets start with the verse you chose Reformationist....now now no twisting, hehehe j/k

1 John 2:19- "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

This verse is true and I believe it. No doubt that any who turn away "were not of us." But I propose this food for thought. Go read Matthew 10:1-8. I will not quote it here, for it is bit lengthy. Don't you find it interesting that God gave the disciples "power against unclean spirits", including Judas Iscariot? In fact, his name is specifically listed with the twelve in verse 4. Futhermore, verse 8 gives the direct command to all twelve, "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Moreover, Matthew 19:28- "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus did not say eleven, he said twelve. Regardless of the fact that Jesus knew Judas would betray him, Judas was given power by God against sickness and demons AND was promised a throne, IF IF IF "ye which have followed me." Jesus said that, not me.

You're missing one crucial element of Judas' life. He NEVER followed Christ. He served his own sinful wickedness. I don't see your point here.

Now wait, I'll quote it before you can, hehe. Matthew 7:22,23- "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." I don't think Jesus will tell Judas that he never met him before, or had never seen him before. But he WILL tell Judas that he didn't know him in the special, spiritual way that God knows HIS people. The Bible answers our question as to whether Judas never had faith or power from God, or whether he just "fell away" from it. Matthew 12:25-28- "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." AMEN Praise the LORD. JUDAS DID have power from God to cast out demons. JUDAS DID do miracles. Judas was promised to be a judge with the TWELVE. It is impossible to say that Judas cast out demons and did miracles by Satan's power. Therefore he had God's power. But God removed His power from Judas because he was the one who betrayed Him.

This is just overflowing with inaccurate biblical interpretation.

Do you mean to tell me that Judas thought he cast out demons, but he really didn't cause he was the betrayer a couple years later?

Judas was ALWAYS a betrayer. Judas NEVER did anything by faith. He was ALWAYS self serving. He was ALWAYS in rebellion to God.

If you believe in unconditional election, why did Jesus elect Judas to be one of the twelve??

Huh? By the prophecy revealed by God Jesus had to die. He had to be betrayed. It wasn't an accident that Judas was an Apostle. It was exactly according to the providence of God. God put Judas in that position for the purpose of bringing about the necessary death of Christ. Do you think that the death of Christ was a coincidence?

If you say that it was only because Judas was the betrayer, and he was necessary to fulfill God's plan, then you have just gone back to the primitive definition of "foreknowledge." You would be saying that God chose Judas simply because he "knew" that Judas would betray our Lord.

Oh geesh. First off, "foreknowledge," in the biblical sense, doesn't just mean "to know ahead of time." All things happen according to the holy counsel of God. It is by His grace that whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass. God knew that Judas would betray Christ because it was God's Plan for Judas to betray Christ and God Himself brought about the necessary conditions for this even to come to pass. You seem to have a lot of "accidental" theology in your beliefs.

I agree with the Calvinists that "foreknowledge" doesn't mean factual knowledge, but a special, spiritual knowledge. If Judas wasn't one of God's elect, then you say that God gives power over demons to unsaved people!!! Satan does not cast out Satan.

Why don't you show me where Judas cast out demons and we'll go from there. Also, please share with me the verses that show that God does not use ALL things, INCLUDING UNSAVED PEOPLE, to bring about His Will. The death of Christ is the perfect example of that. Judas was, as is satan, the tool of God. Read the book of Job. It's all about God bringing forth His own glory by using satan to bring affliction upon Job.

We must ABIDE IN HIM, dear friends, or we WILL be ashamed at His coming.

Here's the obvious crux of your beliefs in a single sentence. You credit your own ability to "abide in Him" with your salvation.

Does this sound like the talk of a man who believes in unconditional election??

What part of that makes you believe that Paul was insecure in his present state of salvation. Here's a tip, if you want to contest unconditional election, don't use Paul to accomplish it. Unconditional election was one of Paul's most espoused theological viewpoints. Read Ephesians. Read Romans. Paul talks constantly of our need to walk as children of the light because that's what we have been made by the grace of God, not our works, which includes our ability to "abide in Him."

He knew that God required faith.

Of course God requires faith. That's why it is by His grace that we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who works in us to conform us IN FAITH to the image of Christ. Prior to God's action of releasing us from the bondage of our natural, rebellious, fallen, unregenerate, enslaved natures we have no faith and do not desire it.

Yet, are HIS people always faithful to Him?

We are not saved because we are faithful. We are saved because He is faithful:

1 Thessalonians 5:23,24
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

2 Timothy 2:13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Philippians 1:3-6
I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

I ask you, what separated Israel from God's love? It was nothing listed above, but it was their own disobedience.

Nor have I ever said otherwise. However, it was God's Plan that the Gospel be spread to the Gentiles because of an unbelieving and disobedient people, the nation of Israel. Do you think that was coincidence? Do you think God wanted it to happen that way but didn't have the power to ensure that it would happen that way and He was just sitting around hoping it would work out like He wanted it to?

Paul DID NOT say NOTHING could separate us from it, but he DID SAY that ALL THESE THINGS could not separate.

Okay, give me an example of something that ISN'T in one of the following catagories and you'll have your answer as to what can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus:

"death,life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, any created thing."

Paul rejoiced in the fact that absolutely nothing in this world could take God's grace and mercy and love away from him, and I do too.

Actually, Paul didn't limit it to "this world." He included, angels, principalities, and powers.

I am still required to be faithful though, and so was Paul.

If you mean that you are still commanded to be faithful because you are a child of God I would wholeheartedly agree. If, however, you mean that you are still required to be faithful to be saved I would say you're "putting your own theology into the Bible," as you claim not to do. If you disagree, please explain how, even though you are a "created thing," something which Paul specifically said could not separate you from the love of God in Christ Jesus, can actually separate you from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

Now, now. No twisting.

 

[Drotar]

Landmark Baptist, I would appreciate it if you addressed my defense of total depravity. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Landmark Baptist]

which defense would you be talking about Drotar?? Is this in another post?

 

[Drotar]

Yes, in soteriology, look under a thread called Total Depravity.

 

[Landmark Baptist]

Of course you don't believe that you "put your own theology" into the Bible when you read it but that doesn't mean that you don't. The ironic thing is that you seem to have no problem discounting the interpretations of respected people that have spent their entire lives researching the Word in an effort to accurately understand the Gospel by assuming that they do insert their "own theology" into the Bible. Please tell me, what makes your view so much more credible than any one else's? You study. They study. The majority of them have spent years studying the languages of the Bible. I don't even know that you have.

Thats just it. I don't believe in the interpretations of "respected" people if they don't agree with the Bible. I don't believe we need "commentaries" or any other ideas of man to tell me or anyone else what God's word says. And yet that is what the devil has wanted us to believe all along. I shy away from anything or anyone the world holds in high esteem. Thats what the catholics believed didn't they? They said only the priests should have the Word of God. Thats one of the reasons Calvin and the others broke away. Oh, btw, they did come out of a false church, didn't they. And oh, btw, they did want to stay catholic, until they were forced out by the pope and the bishops. Can a true church come forth out of a false church. We both agree that catholicism is in err, do we not? Jesus said the "gates of hades will not prevail" against the church. That means it should have never needed to be "reformed." Just a thought.

As I said, just because the Lord can correct your inaccurate understanding doesn't mean that He does. It's a very self centered view of God's eternal Plan to assume that whatever we believe must be correct because the Lord hasn't changed our beliefs.

I never said that everything you or I believe is correct just because the Lord hasn't changed them...I merely stated he could if he wanted to.

Okay. I'd really love to see you prove your beliefs. You see, for our fallen minds the immutable truths of the Gospel are not always revealed, nor is it always God's Plan to reveal all understanding to us. Your "proof" might be nothing more than your adamant belief of your understanding. That does not make it true.

I agree that the Holy Spirit must reveal His WORD to you. No amount of proof would sway the mind of a hardened person. I did not say otherwise.

I am more than happy to accept the challange. However, I encourage you to incite discussion on something rather than posting with the common Christian application of pride, i.e., "I'm right, you're wrong."

Well well....neither of us would say the things we do if we didn't believe we were right and the other was wrong. Come on now, lets be serious. I apologize, though, if I came off sounding like that with an attitude. it was not my intent. However, you fall into the trap of the "universal church" ideaology. You still don't get the fact that I am approaching the idea of salvation simply from the Bible's definitions and descriptions of it alone. I can list you a host of verses with restrictions, requirements, and even demands for salvation. NOT your first faith salvation, for that is of God's grace and not of works!! I will say it again. I believe in salvation from hell, as a "first faith" salvation. BUT my goodness man, what do we do after that point in time when we have first believed?? Whether you accepted salvation, or you think you were elected, the Bible tells us to "make our calling and election sure" and to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling!!" We must reconcile these scriptures with the rest of the Bible, for the Bible does NOT disagree with itself. Romans 13:11- "And that, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep: for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed." My friend, you just can't justify the mounds of words that the Bible uses to admonish and exhort the church, and still say that we were unconditionally elected. I believe in God's unconditional election as a "bride for her husband", but as to who makes up that bride that remains to be seen. II Thessalonians 2:12- "That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." We must walk worthy of God!! II Corinthians 5:10- "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Such an un-Calvinistic thing to say.

I believe in security of the believer. But I also believe that we must walk worthy, after that we have believed, because "FOR WE ARE SAVED BY HOPE; but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" Romans 8:24. Do you believe you are saved by hope, or that you are saved because God elected you and you had no choice in the matter? What does the Bible say? Hebrews 11:1- "Now FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!!" There is your answer right there in black and white. We are saved by hope, and FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE of that hope. Therefore if you don't have faith, you don't have hope?! Why did Paul say that, including himself there in Romans...."WE are saved by hope", if he was already signed, sealed, and delivered to the Father?

In short, I believe you cannot lose the gift that God has freely bestowed by His good will and pleasure, i.e. salvation from hell, what I call first faith. That is the salvation of your SPIRIT from eternal torment in hell. BUT do not forget our 3 parts...we are in the image of the trinity, likewise we have a body, spirit, AND soul. And these three are one. Peter said in I Peter 1:9- "Receiving the END OF YOUR FAITH, even the salvation of your SOULS." HE SAID IT WAS AT THE END OF OUR FAITH, and guess what? Thats what the defintion of Hope is. Praise the Lord, how beautiful it is. This is a whole 'nother subject, but I believe if you DO NOT walk worthy, and you do not have faith, after that you have "first believed" you will be like the young widows in I Timothy 5:12- "Having Damnation, BECAUSE THEY HAVE CAST OFF THEIR FIRST FAITH." I believe you will be outside the city of God, as prophesied by John. Revelation 21:24- "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it." Let that be for another time though.

So the beginning of your Christian walk is when you realize you're a sinner? God does not enlighten you to your sinfulness prior to your realization of your sinfulness? If so, the beginning of your Christian walk is God's monergistic action of regeneration which, in turn, enlightens you to your need for a Redeemer and gives you a desire to serve the Lord.

I agree that God must first enlighten you to your need of a Saviour. This does NOT justify that simply because He enlightened you, He must also have regenerated you!! You still need to heed to His call. It is preposterous to say that all response to God is considered works of man, and therefore not possible. Faith in God is a human response to Him, therefore according to you, faith is a work, which we are not capable of with regards to salvation. Therefore, the young widows in I Timothy mentioned above could not have had the power to "CAST OFF" something they never had the power to "CAST ON" in the first place. God forced them to believe, i.e. gave them their faith through no response of their own. THEN, He changed his mind and took it away. RIDICULOUS!! I believe those widows didn't lose their salvation from hell, which is by grace, but they did NOT ATTAIN to the salvation of their souls that Peter spoke of. Why did Jesus warn his own disciples of gehenna (incorrectly translated hell) fire!! Were they not already saved people?? Forget Judas for a moment, the other eleven did miracles also. Did they not also have to have faith to accomplish those things?? And yet they were warned, and so are we.

You're missing one crucial element of Judas' life. He NEVER followed Christ. He served his own sinful wickedness. I don't see your point here.

You've got to be kidding me!! Judas followed the LORD for 3.5 years. There is not one peep in scriptures that says he was anything other than faithful until he betrayed Jesus. Do you not think that if Judas was scheming and conniving and lying the WHOLE time about his true intents, he would have been found out. Wouldn't the other eleven disciples call him out for it?? Lets be realistic here.

Huh? By the prophecy revealed by God Jesus had to die. He had to be betrayed. It wasn't an accident that Judas was an Apostle. It was exactly according to the providence of God. God put Judas in that position for the purpose of bringing about the necessary death of Christ. Do you think that the death of Christ was a coincidence?

Absolutely not. I completely agree that it was God's providence that chose Judas.

Oh geesh. First off, "foreknowledge," in the biblical sense, doesn't just mean "to know ahead of time." All things happen according to the holy counsel of God. It is by His grace that whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass. God knew that Judas would betray Christ because it was God's Plan for Judas to betray Christ and God Himself brought about the necessary conditions for this even to come to pass. You seem to have a lot of "accidental" theology in your beliefs.

HA! Did you even read what i wrote earlier??!! I completely agree that "foreknowledge" is not simply "to know ahead of time." And that is my point exactly. God didn't just choose Judas because he would betray Christ. To say so, is to revert back to that definition of "foreknowledge" meaning "to know ahead of time!!" Once again, think about it. If Judas all along was planning to betray the Lord, do you think he would have wasted 3.5 years of his life doing it? Put yourself in his position; lets get this over with already. Luke 22:3-"THEN ENTERED SATAN into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." If you hold that Judas never was faithful, then he never had the spirit of God within him. You agree with me, that we either have the spirit of God, or we have the spirit of Satan (i.e. darkness) in us. Would Satan need to enter a person, whom he ALREADY POSSESED as his own?? Surely not.

Why don't you show me where Judas cast out demons and we'll go from there.

I DID. His name was listed among the twelve specifically in that passage. They ALL were given the power and the command to cast out demons. Once again, think about this logically. Could Judas parade himself around for 3.5 years pretending to cast out demons, when the other 11 were actually doing it. Could he pretend to heal the sick, could he pretend to do ANY of the things that they did? I think not. He would have been found out.

Here's the obvious crux of your beliefs in a single sentence. You credit your own ability to "abide in Him" with your salvation.

Nay my friend...not my ability at all, it is God through me. BUT i have to ALLOW Him to work through me. I have to "DIE DAILY" to myself. Otherwise God will not work through me. I have that choice to make EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE. ELse what is your definition of "die daily?" I have to choose to die to myself, so that I might live for Christ.

II Corinthians 13:5- "EXAMINE YOURSELVES, whether ye be in the faith; PROVE YOUR OWN SELVES..."

I Timothy 1:19- "Holding faith, and a good conscience; WHICH SOME HAVING PUT AWAY CONCERNING FAITH have made shipwreck..."

I Timothy 4:1- "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times SOME SHALL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctines of devils..."

II Timothy 2:18- "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and OVERTHROW THE FAITH OF SOME."

Oh, I thought only God could overthrow faith, since it is a work, and we are not capable of it on our own?? Must have SOMETHING to do with our response, eh??!!

James 2:18- "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."

Hebrews 4:11- "Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, LEST ANY MAN FALL AFTER THE SAME EXAMPLE OF UNBELIEF."

And finally, II Timothy 2:13- "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." AMEN AMEN I completely believe that passage. God does not change his mind about His timetable for us, regardless of belief or non belief. If WE believe not (Paul includes himself) GOD STILL abides faithful....THIS MEANS GOD IS TRUE TO HIS WORD, HE DOESN"T CHANGE......this in NO WAY can justify the idea that he will still reward you if you do not believe!!!!!!!! God is a JEALOUS GOD and HE is a RIGHTEOUS GOD, and HE WILL JUDGE!!! AND HE will Bless those that have followed him, too. Romans 3:3 states it a bit more clearly, "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid" Just because some don't believe, doesn't mean God won't make good on his promises TO THOSE THAT DO BELIEVE!!! I.E. the unfaithful won't ruin it for the faithful. BE VERY CAREFUL, when you imply the Calvinistic view, that because God is faithful, he just decides to make those who do not believe, into believers. Mind you we are already talking about people in a new testament church, people who have already had a first faith belief in Christ, and were baptized no less!!! You Calvinists try to apply this to unregenerate man, this is not so! Paul is talking to a group he referred to as "called to be saints" Romans 1:7. YOU MUST look at the Bible in light of who was the message written to. It was written, in Paul's cases especially, to baptized church members, and church members ALONe!! AMEN


Whewe.....alot of typing....

 

[Reformationist]

Thats just it. I don't believe in the interpretations of "respected" people if they don't agree with the Bible.

So I'll ask you again. Do you receive some direct biblical revelatory instruction on the proper interpretation of the Word? If your answer is no then the best you can say is "I don't believe in the interpretations of respected people if they don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible." If, however, your answer is yes, then again I warn you that this will sound alot like the Gnostic heresy that was prevelent in the early Church.

I don't believe we need "commentaries" or any other ideas of man to tell me or anyone else what God's word says.

Really??!! So basically you read your Bible and whatever you understand it to say is the Truth of the Gospel? Yeah, I can see why you are so comfortable with that. I know that I'd feel real comfortable discounting years and years of study of the Gospel so that I could maintain my own interpretation of the Gospel. Here's the thing LB, I do read a lot of commentaries and I do pay attention to what my Pastor teaches and I do compare their teachings to the Word. Does that mean that I think their teachings aren't helpful to my spiritual growth? Of course not.

And yet that is what the devil has wanted us to believe all along.

So it was the devil's plan for us to read biblical commentaries? I see. That makes a lot of sense.

I shy away from anything or anyone the world holds in high esteem.

What do you mean "world?" Do you mean the world of the unsaved? The world of believers? Kinda makes a difference.

Thats what the catholics believed didn't they? They said only the priests should have the Word of God.

From my numerous discussions with Catholics I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they don't teach that only priests should have the Word of God. In fact, I think they teach the Word of God in their churches. Whether they teach it accurately is another issue in my opinion but I don't think they believe that only priests should have the Word of God. I do think they believe that only their appointed authorities have the spiritual calling to interpret the Bible but that's not what you said.

Oh, btw, they did come out of a false church, didn't they.

Who, Calvin?

And oh, btw, they did want to stay catholic, until they were forced out by the pope and the bishops.

Uh, this is something you might want to address in a forum where Catholics have an opportunity to respond instead of just sitting here bashing them.

Can a true church come forth out of a false church.

Well, the original Christians were all worshippers of idolotrousness. Does that tell you anything? Do you think that just maybe God is more powerful than human error?

We both agree that catholicism is in err, do we not?

I believe that the doctrines espoused by the Catholic church are erroneous. I would not call them a "false church" nor do I think you should.

Jesus said the "gates of hades will not prevail" against the church. That means it should have never needed to be "reformed." Just a thought.

Yup, that's about as accurate a statement that can be said about that, "just a thought." It's a thought all right. Not a very well thought out one though.

I never said that everything you or I believe is correct just because the Lord hasn't changed them...I merely stated he could if he wanted to.

Okay. I've already agreed with that.

I agree that the Holy Spirit must reveal His WORD to you. No amount of proof would sway the mind of a hardened person. I did not say otherwise.

LOL! If you were directing this at me personally, I'm not a "hardened person." But, I do pray that God gives you a real intense knowledge of Himself that you seem to desire and I hope He couples that knowledge what His grace of overcoming pride.

However, you fall into the trap of the "universal church" ideaology.

I don't know what that is. Are you referring to universalism? If so, I am most certainly not a universalist. I am a firm believer in limited atonement.

You still don't get the fact that I am approaching the idea of salvation simply from the Bible's definitions and descriptions of it alone.

You still don't get the fact that you are approaching the idea of salvation simply from your understanding of the Bible's definitions and descriptions of it alone.

I can list you a host of verses with restrictions, requirements, and even demands for salvation.

I'm sure you think you can but I would not agree with your misinterpretated prooftexts.

It's quite obvious that this is going to be nothing more than an argument about who's right and I've had more than my fair share of those on this MB. Please, if any of my fellow reformed believers are up to the daunting task of dealing with LB's misinterpretations of the counsel of God, which are as numerous as they are erroneous, then please feel free to step up to bat.

I am going to retire, at least for the evening.

God bless

 

[Landmark Baptist]

So I'll ask you again. Do you receive some direct biblical revelatory instruction on the proper interpretation of the Word? If your answer is no then the best you can say is "I don't believe in the interpretations of respected people if they don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible." If, however, your answer is yes, then again I warn you that this will sound alot like the Gnostic heresy that was prevelent in the early Church.

Come on now. I do not claim to have any special "revelation"...unless of course you count any truth at all to be knowledge granted by God. I do not wish to come out as high minded. I do not wish to attack you personally, so I would ask that you do not attack me personally. You have not dealt with my scripture references, only my philosophical intro. I don't care what you think about me, I care only about the Bible. And yes, the Bible can be understood to best of human ability if you will only read it and let the Holy Spirit work. It is absolutely false to say that commentaries are necessary. Sure, there may not necesarrily be anything wrong with them, but will you trust any man who we know has NOT received any revelations above God's own word...First and foremost the Bible is my commentary. If we didn't have a single commentary in this world, are you telling me you couldn't understand the Bible?? If God said it is all that is needed for the "man of God to be perfect AND thoroughly furnished" II Timothy 3:16, then I believe that.

Really??!! So basically you read your Bible and whatever you understand it to say is the Truth of the Gospel? Yeah, I can see why you are so comfortable with that. I know that I'd feel real comfortable discounting years and years of study of the Gospel so that I could maintain my own interpretation of the Gospel. Here's the thing LB, I do read a lot of commentaries and I do pay attention to what my Pastor teaches and I do compare their teachings to the Word. Does that mean that I think their teachings aren't helpful to my spiritual growth? Of course not.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, as I said before...but I personally don't think it is necessary, i.e. would you know nothing if you didn't have it? Put yourself in the shoes of the early churches, who didn't even have a complete Bible to read in their own homes, and only saw the apostles when they came to visit!! Do you not consider them to be ten times more diligent and spiritual than many churches of many denominations today, who have the complete Word, and a whole lot of nothing to show for it!! The early churches didn't have commentaries, they simply had the Word of God, and the Spirit of God to guide them....therefore, nothing more is necessary. Key word "necessary."

From my numerous discussions with Catholics I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they don't teach that only priests should have the Word of God. In fact, I think they teach the Word of God in their churches. Whether they teach it accurately is another issue in my opinion but I don't think they believe that only priests should have the Word of God. I do think they believe that only their appointed authorities have the spiritual calling to interpret the Bible but that's not what you said.

I was referring to the early Catholic church. At the first they didn't allow the laymen to have the word at all. And yes, there are many falsehoods in the Catholic church, which you claim to have proceeded out of as a Reformationist. Did God leave off the Catholic church, and move over to the Reformers?? Or did he split, and support both. BTW, did God order both Protestants and Catholics to go around and kill MILLIONS of people who professed Christ, amongst their own ranks and others!! What a horrific period in our time, and done blasphemously in the name of our LORD AND SAVIOUR no less!!!!!! He NEVER commanded us to kill others who didn't believe like us. You'd better thank your lucky stars that isn't the case today, 'cause Protestants and Catholics would have all killed themselves over it by now. And you believe they were in the right mind spiritually to come up with some of these doctrines??

Also, I don't have to argue this point in front of Catholics, since their is nothing to argue about. What I have said is historical fact. This isn't even the point of this thread...how did I get off on this?? Oh well.

Well, the original Christians were all worshippers of idolotrousness.

Wow, I bet you got that from some commentary!!! Unbelievable. Not found in the Bible. How can you say that ALL the original Christians were worshippers of idolotrousness. Oh wait, ALL doesn't mean ALL. LOLOLOL j/k sorry i couldn't resist.

I believe that the doctrines espoused by the Catholic church are erroneous. I would not call them a "false church" nor do I think you should.

Then what, pray tell, is a false church????? A church that has false (um, erroneous) doctrine is not a false church, that is EXACTLY what I meant when I said you believe in a "UNIVERSAL CHURCH." We are all saved people, we are all good people, you say I have error, I say you have error....ITS ALL GOOD. Once again, completely unbiblical.

Yup, that's about as accurate a statement that can be said about that, "just a thought." It's a thought all right. Not a very well thought out one though.

I beg of you to reconcile the verses I have shown that is absolutely possible to fall away from faith "AFTER YOU HAVE FIRST BELIEVED" as the Bible says...and make it fit with Calvinism. Once again, you always apply the Bible to unregenerate man...when 9 out of 10 times its talking to people who already been saved and baptized in the LORDS CHURCHES. That is a Protestant method of interpretation, which of course you hold to, but the disciples did not. They were not just wasting their time warning "ELECT" church members of something that couldn't happen to them. I bet you think Jesus preached about salvation from hell for 3.5 years before he died on the cross. Well guess what, he didn't!!!! That phrase isn't found ONE TIME in the Bible, even. The BIble tells us what he DID preach, though.
Matthew 4:23- "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sicknesses and all manner of disease among the people." What is the gospel of the kingdom, once again, the Bible has our answers. Matthew 24:13,14- "But he that SHALL ENDURE UNTO THE END, THE SAME SHALL BE SAVED. And THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." There it is my friends, he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved (saving of your soul I Peter 1:9)....and this gospel of the kingdom is what will be preached in all the world. I didn't say it, the Bible did. Remember, he was talking to his disciples, who had already done many miracles in Jesus' name and in the faith of God. Do you think they were still required to endure unto the end?? But wait, I was an apostle, I'm special....no they weren't. Judas didn't meet the requirements, and he was an apostle....and I SHOWED YOU where he did miracles..btw there are other verses too that back that up.

You still don't get the fact that you are approaching the idea of salvation simply from your understanding of the Bible's definitions and descriptions of it alone.[

My friend, the ONLY thing I have done is quote scripture to you. You have tried to insult my presentation, but you have not dealt with my scriptures. I do not mean to insult you or claim to be your judge, as you are not mine either. BUT EVERYTHING I have said is quotation from scripture. I have shown it IS POSSIBLE for the faithful to fall away. That was the original intent here. I showed THEY ARE ADMONISHED to "abide with HIM" and the minute that a Christian thinks he can do that of his own power, he has lost the grip of the truth. You cannot avoid the Word. We could go round and round with this for years. All I have done is quote the Word. If it doesn't fit with my interpretation, then I must answer for that. But on the other hand, the things I have said definitely DO NOT agree with Calvinism, and yet they have been quoted out of the LORDs Holy Scripture. These must be reconciled!!

All I wish to do is shed doubt on the concept of "perseverance of the saints" in the way that Calvinism approaches it. And that is why I started this thread.

I Corinthians 10:12- "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

"Lest (i.e. unless) he fall." Does that not mean that he has not fallen, BUT HE MIGHT IF HE DOES NOT TAKE HEED" (Notice all i did was quote the scripture in a different order. Is that misinterpretation?!! If soo, I am guilty as charged.) He's talking to CHURCH MEMBERS now!!! People that have already been baptized, NOT unregenerate man.

James 4:8- "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [ye] double minded."

The Calvinists wish that verse was written the other way around. BUt it wasn't, Praise the Lord. What does it say?? (YOU) Draw nigh to God, and (THEN) God will draw nigh to you. This isn't talking about unregenerate man, and how God wants to save their spirit from hell. James wrote to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad....MY BRETHREN" James 1:1,2. These people had already been "regenerated" so to speak, BUT they had a Christian walk to live, and James was exhorting them to live it!! Did not he call them sinners in that verse above....and yet they were church people!! James 5:14- "Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church..." There it is, they were in a church!! Proof in the scriptures no less. If those people fell away, did it EVER negate the fact that they had faith at one time?? The Calvinists do, and I believe that to be prepostorous.

It is for that reason I wish to discount the idea of "perserverance of the saints." You cannot negate one's original faith, even if they turn from it, to say they never had it. You had brought up Job earlier, and you have brought up an excellent example. EXCUSE ME, but OBVIOUSLY Satan doesn't believe in "perserverance" because he challenged God to test Job. He said "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." AMEN, Satan thought he had a chance to turn Job away. Now we know Job was an excellent example of faith, BUT HOW CAN YOU DENY THAT SATAN DID NOT BELIEVE IN ELECTION?? Why would he waste his time if God would not allow Job to turn away from him!! In fact, what is the devil doing at all right now. The un-elect he already has, and the elect he has no chance of getting......my friends what does he do?? Twiddle his thumbs, no way. He goes about "like a ROARING lion, seeking whom he may devour." According to Calvin's theology, he must be doing alot of roaring, since he hasn't got one new catch since the beginning of time. God elected some, and the rest will perish. Such a bleak outlook. Funny how Calvinists think they got the good end of the stick, what makes them so special? If that isn't high-minded, I don't know what is.

 

[Reformationist]

I would ask that you do not attack me personally.

I was not aware that I had done so. Please forgive me if I have.

You have not dealt with my scripture references, only my philosophical intro.

I do not think it productive to deal with so many different verses at one time because, more often than not, strawman arguments are made and before you know it you're faced with dealing with 10 different verses. How about we take a couple of verses that you think support your view and we'll deal with those and continue from there.

I don't care what you think about me

Huh? No offense but I don't think about you. I certainly don't think anything bad about you. I don't even know you.

And yes, the Bible can be understood to best of human ability if you will only read it and let the Holy Spirit work.

Two things. First, I never said the Bible couldn't be understood, at least as much as God reveals to our finite minds. Secondly, the Holy Spirit accomplishes whatsoever He sets out to accomplish, regardless of our cooperation. In fact, our cooperation is the product of God's grace.

It is absolutely false to say that commentaries are necessary.

Okay. I never made that claim so I'm not sure what your point is.

Sure, there may not necesarrily be anything wrong with them, but will you trust any man who we know has NOT received any revelations above God's own word

Aside from those who are no longer among us, i.e., those who were given specific revelation in the Bible, who has received anything above God's Word? I would say no one has so this is a moot point.

...First and foremost the Bible is my commentary.

Great. I've never said anything contrary to this. As I said, I relish the instruction that I receive from Scripturally learned men but I don't view their word as the Gospel.

If we didn't have a single commentary in this world, are you telling me you couldn't understand the Bible??

No, nor have I implied such a thing.

If God said it is all that is needed for the "man of God to be perfect AND thoroughly furnished" II Timothy 3:16, then I believe that.

So anyone with a Bible is perfect and thoroughly furnished? I doubt even you think that. Godly knowledge is the product of prayer, study, industriously seeking to understand the Word, and learning from those who have gone before us.

Key word "necessary."

Yes, the Spirit of God is necessary for us to gain understanding of the Holy counsel of God. However, just because you have a Bible and an opinion does not mean that what you have is sufficient to be accurate in interpretation.

And yes, there are many falsehoods in the Catholic church, which you claim to have proceeded out of as a Reformationist.

I can have my opinion, as can you, as to whether the Catholic church teaches error. I can make my case for my view and I can do my best to help others understand the Word. However, I know that the reasons I disagree with the Catholic doctrines of faith are because of the grace of God. It's not because I'm supierior in intellect or more deserving of the Truth.

Did God leave off the Catholic church, and move over to the Reformers?? Or did he split, and support both.

That is a topic for a whoooole different thread and not one that I'm going to get into.

BTW, did God order both Protestants and Catholics to go around and kill MILLIONS of people who professed Christ, amongst their own ranks and others!! What a horrific period in our time, and done blasphemously in the name of our LORD AND SAVIOUR no less!!!!!! He NEVER commanded us to kill others who didn't believe like us.

Thanks for sharing that. What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

You'd better thank your lucky stars that isn't the case today, 'cause Protestants and Catholics would have all killed themselves over it by now.

Okay, I'll "thank my lucky stars." Or maybe I should just thank the One responsible for the end of that era.

And you believe they were in the right mind spiritually to come up with some of these doctrines??

What in the world are you talking about and why are you asking me this question. Are you getting confused as to who you're responding to or what the topic of the thread is?

Also, I don't have to argue this point in front of Catholics, since their is nothing to argue about. What I have said is historical fact.

Okay. Great.

This isn't even the point of this thread...how did I get off on this?? Oh well.

Kinda wondering the same thing myself...

Wow, I bet you got that from some commentary!!! Unbelievable. Not found in the Bible. How can you say that ALL the original Christians were worshippers of idolotrousness. Oh wait, ALL doesn't mean ALL. LOLOLOL j/k sorry i couldn't resist.

Ooops, the bell for kindegarten recess just rang. Do you want to pick this up after you get back?

Here's my point, if you're interested, prior to our conversion to being children of God we worship something other than God, which is an idol. Is that easier for you to understand?

that is EXACTLY what I meant when I said you believe in a "UNIVERSAL CHURCH." We are all saved people, we are all good people, you say I have error, I say you have error....ITS ALL GOOD. Once again, completely unbiblical.

ROTFLOL! How about you do a search on my posts and see if I espouse that we are all saved and we are all good. That is ridiculous. Do you know anything about Calvinism or reformed theology? We espouse the comprehensive evil inherent to man's fallen nature. We espouse a limited atonement. It seems we espouse a lot of things you think you know about that you really don't.

As before, the rest of your post is an exercise in "how smart am I," or worse yet, "how dumb are you" (btw, I got that from a commentary).

It is very clear to me that you don't really want to discuss this. You want to preach to me and show me how wrong I am. I have no clue of your credentials which gives you very little credibility in my opinion.

I encourage you to find someone else to continue this with as I will not continue to respond.

Have a blessed day.