predestination

[rnmomof7]

If God caused Judas to commit this horrendous sin, and then put him in the lake of fire for being obedient, then this God of yours has a serious problem in doing what is right. He calls on us to obey him.

Judas, yes lord. Betray Christ. Yes Father. Judas, yes Lord. What did you do that for? I was just obeying you my Lord. Well, brother, you really messed up this time. Off to hell with ya. You gonna burn for eternity for this one brother… Sounds like this God needs a good shrink huh? I know that this is not what you believe, I’m just putting raw, unadulterated reformed theology in action.

Judas chose to betray Christ because Christ was not living up to the agenda that he had for him. God did not ordain Judas to betray Christ. He did know that he would. So God used it to accomplish his purposes. There were many others wiling to betray Christ. The only thing ordained about Judas betrayal was his ordination as as an apostle that the scriptures might be fulfilled. God ordained that because he knew his heart…

Judas was born with an agenda in place. and He lived up to it.
If we were to follow your reasoning Christ might have been born and lived to be 100 and never been the propitiation for the sin of men. The coming of Christ would have been a dice shoot. Maybe he will and maybe He will not be able to save. It depends on what men do.

Act 2:23**
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 15:18**
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Isa 46:10**
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Judas was the ordained tool in the hand of God to bring to pass the death of Jesus as the propitiation of my sins

*
Jhn 6:70**
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

**
*
Jhn 6:71**
He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

**
*
Jhn 12:3**
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

**
*
Jhn 12:4**
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him,


Jhn 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him;

Read this again the devil now" HAVING BEEN PUT IN HIS HEART"
Who do you think was sovereign over Judas and Satan here?

*
*
1Pe 1:18**
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;

**
*
1Pe 1:19**
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

**
*
1Pe 1:20**
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

[/b]Well, under the influence of scripture, I refuse to attribute evil to God just so I can watch him cause good to come out of it. I say that without sin in the first place, God has all the good that he needs. Without sin, all that is left is good.

You are free to accept or refuse any thing you want to, but your decision has no impact on the truth

No disrespect received. Still if I rethink it a billion times, I will still hold on to the righteous, just, and holy God revealed to “ME” in scripture.

I too worship a JUST and HOLY and righteous God. No one of Gods attributes is greater than another.

His Justice is as much a part of Gods nature as is His Holiness and mercy.

The justice of God put Adam and Eve out of the garden,
The Justice of God demanded a complete destruction of the world by water..with the exception of His elect Noah.
In that flood Men , women and children were washed away to satisfy the justice of God
It was the justice of God that demanded that women and children have fire and brimstone fall on their heads in Sodom. It was the Justice of God that slaughtered the Egyptian infants, and drown the perusing army . It was the justice of God that led the Hebrews to slaughter all the Men , women , children and cattle of the conquered nations.

What seems not to be understood is that is the justice that every single one of us deserves. God owes us nothing except eternal damnation .That He would even ordain a remnant to be saved is testimony to His Mercy. (Not giving us what we deserve )No where does it say that God MUST give mercy , mercy is a gift not a reward

That he saves any is a testimony to His love

If you find a God there that does evil as comfortably as he does good, you can have him. I love God with all the strength within me, I cringe at the thought of a God that could hate me even before I was born, and would predestine me not to ever love him, and then punish me.

You may want to check your God against the one revealed in the Bible.

You may cringe at the thought that God hated some men before they were born ..but that is what the word of God tells us .
God does not have to predestine men not to love him. That is their natural state. Men are born rebellious and hating God .
God takes nothing away from the reprobate, He does not keep them from coming to Him, that is their free will choice, and they will suffer an eternity of punishment for that choice .
God takes nothing away from the off spring of Adam , they like their father run from and hide from God because of their spiritual death .
God draws the elect to Himself but He does not restrain the non elect from coming.
The question is always who will hear, who will come.

He can stop it, or he can allow it and cause good to come out of it. Anyway, God does not cause good to come out of all sin; he only does that for those that love him.. There goes your God ordaining all evil to produce good…

So you at least admit He does use even sin for the good of those that love him That is a start :>))

God gives good things to both the elect and the non elect. He blesses all of His creation . The rain falls on the just and the unjust, the wicked prosper

Logical to a third grader with a learning disability. That professor has some real problems with comprehension…

That Pastor had a PHD and taught on the University level before becoming a Pastor.

Unlike some that claim ordination, He was not ordained by a mail order church.
If you are in the country miles from all civilization and you hear the sound of a 1 year old that fell into a creek crying for help , and you do not choose to rescue him and instead just stand and watch you have predestined the infants death by YOUR INACTION.
When God decides to do nothing to stop an event , that event will surely happen . It is predestined by His inaction

Predestination is proactive, not passive. Your analogy is foolish if for no other reason than that…

Predestination is by the degree of God . But for God to pass over someone or something is an action by God

If I tell someone that you are a wonderful person, does it necessary follow that I am leading them to you to do all kinds of horrible things to you. Out or two possible scenarios, keep that which is good, discard that which is bad.

God has His own sorting system....it is according to His good pleasure






Be blessed.

 

[Chappie]

Judas was born with an agenda in place. and He lived up to it.

If we were to follow your reasoning Christ might have been born and lived to be 100 and never been the propitiation for the sin of men. The coming of Christ would have been a dice shoot. Maybe he will and maybe He will not be able to save. It depends on what men do.

Act 2:23**

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Christ came to do the will of the Father. Neither was he placed in hell to be tortured for eternity because of his obedience. He is glorified and sitting at the right hand of the Father because of his obedience. And you try to equate his situation with that of Judas. How shortsighted, how unfortunate….

Act 15:18**

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Isa 46:10**

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Judas was the ordained tool in the hand of God to bring to pass the death of Jesus as the propitiation of my sins.

If that is the case, Judas found out about the ordination of his life shortly before he died. If this is a common practice used by God, he just might have something evil and hot waiting for you. No disrespect meant, but you appear to be comfortable with a God that ordains the sole existence of one created in his image to consist of the troubles of this world and an eternity in hell. If that was the kind of God I serve, I would be worried about what he has waiting for me.

Jhn 6:70**

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? [/quote]

You have posted a lot of scriptures, none of which support predestined salvation within the context it was written. If you want to convince me, pick one or two passages at a time and explain how they support your position.

1Pe 1:20**

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

You are free to accept or refuse any thing you want to, but your decision has no impact on the truth.

That’s true, but unfortunately the same holds true for you.

I too worship a JUST and HOLY and righteous God. No one of Gods attributes is greater than another.

His Justice is as much a part of Gods nature as is His Holiness and mercy.

The justice of God put Adam and Eve out of the garden,

The Justice of God demanded a complete destruction of the world by water..with the exception of His elect Noah.

In that flood Men , women and children were washed away to satisfy the justice of God

It was the justice of God that demanded that women and children have fire and brimstone fall on their heads in Sodom. It was the Justice of God that slaughtered the Egyptian infants, and drown the perusing army .

Yet every sin or evil deed ever done was designed and ordained by God. And you perp this stuff as justice. Are you blind, have you absolutely no concept of what justice is. God caused all of this evil to happen, blamed it on men, and started the slaughter in the name of justice. I don’t care what you believe, I just know that the things that you say are awful…

It was the justice of God that led the Hebrews to slaughter all the Men , women , children and cattle of the conquered nations.

What seems not to be understood is that is the justice that every single one of us deserves. God owes us nothing except eternal damnation .

The reason for the slaughter was designed and ordained by God, perhaps he just felt like a little bloodletting. Because all seems to have gone according to plan.

That He would even ordain a remnant to be saved is testimony to His Mercy. (Not giving us what we deserve )No where does it say that God MUST give mercy , mercy is a gift not a reward.

Well goody, goody, goody; still look at all the blood on his hands.

You may cringe at the thought that God hated some men before they were born ..but that is what the word of God tells us .

Guess I’m just not a strong person, but I can no longer tolerate this stuff and respond within the rules of this board. Thank you for the conversation.

If you were telling me that God did all these things because of man’s disobedience, then I could perhaps understand. But what you ask me to believe is that God ordained all rebellion and disobedience, sin and evil, but he just needed some men to burn for what he did. Men created for the sole purpose of suffering for what God predestined and ordained.

My stomach is getting queasy, think I’ll take a break for a couple days. A couple cases of pepto bismol and I’ll be back…

 

[nobdysfool]

Two views:

Predestined-Election: God regenerates the heart BEFORE the person asks. "Born again CAUSES (or leads invariably to) belief.

Responsible-Grace: God draws ALL MEN to where they CAN believe; those who believe, are born again THROUGH that belief. "For by grace have you been saved THROUGH FAITH (salvic-faith = salvic-belief)

Eph2:1 "When you were DEAD in your sins, He made you alive" --- I perceive this is when we believed, made alive in Him THROUGH our belief...

I cannot see how you get that out Eph 2:1. That is not even a good paraphrase. The words "hath he quickened" do not appear in the Greek. From the Greek, it would read: "And you were dead in trespasses and sins"; The statement of being made alive occurs in verse 5: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved);" . The verb "hath" here referring back to God in verse 4. No statement about our belief having anything to do in causing us to be saved here. You're reading that into it, obviously.

I think it would be clearer if you could actually quote the scriptures, rather than parapharase them. Less chance for mistakes and misinterpretations.
But, even looking at your paraphrase, it doesn't say what you say it does. "When you were dead in your sins, He made you alive." Dead people don't cooperate in their resuscitation by doing anything. What brings them back to life is the work of doctors and the like. I believe the comparison holds for the spiritual as well. I really don't understand why that is such a problem for you to accept.

----------------------

And so this "doesn't get lost in the shuffle" --- Rom9:21-22 speaks of "time" honor and "atimia" dishonor and " skeuos-vessels orge-wrath katartizo-fitted eis-to apoleia-destruction". If God MAKES from ONE LUMP of clay both "saved" (elect) and "unsaved" (unelect), then this contradicts the idea that God DOES NOT REPROBATE. Either He MAKES them reprobate, or He does NOT.

God creates the vessels, all of them, from the same lump of clay, just as He has created all men from Adam. All men are born reprobate sinners. All the vessels are created the same. The Potter chooses some of those vessels for honor, and the rest he uses for dishonor. He actively chooses the ones for honor, leaving the rest to dishonorable use. So it is with God. You've got this idea that Calvinists think that God creates someone just for the purpose of reprobating them. Not so. Because all men are in Adam, and from Adam, all men are initially reprobate, born with a curse, sinners, destined for Hell, and justly so, for For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom 3:23). and, Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Eze 18:4)
God's Righteous judgment for sin is already their portion, already their fate. God is perfectly within His right as Sovereign Lord to choose to save those whom He Wills, as many as He Wills, or as few as He Wills, and in so doing, not be unjust to those whom He does not choose to save.

If God does NOT make them reprobate, then the only understanding of "time-atimia" would be, as NASV asserts, "honor-COMMON". (They are both from the SAME LUMP OF CLAY, they are both SAVED.)

You're apparently talking in some sort of shorthand, because I cannot follow your thought here. God created Adam and Eve, He does not directly create humans anymore. They reproduce, just as He ordained. Every child born is born reprobate. That is the initial condition of all mankind. Already reprobate. The Potter creates vessels from the same lump of clay, and some He chooses for honor, while leaving the rest for dishonor. You're somehow getting three different types of vessel here, and the scripture speaks of two. Honor/dishonor; vessels of wrath/vessels of mercy.

Thus God does not MAKE the "orge-wrath-to-apoleia-destruction", He just ENDURES them...

They didn't make themselves.

(I submit that His ENDURING, is His patiently waiting for them to REPENT; they will not be able to say "You didn't give us enough TIME"...)

No sinner will ever make that statement before the Throne of God, Ben. that's a complete fabrication designed to appeal to emotions and lend weight to your view through an emotional appeal. It's not scriptural at all.

This I see as a "major point" --- if Rom9:21-22 asserts "predestination", then you must agree that God CAUSES their reprobation. But if you cannot say that, then you must agree that this is not predestination...

#1 (God reprobates), #2 (this is not predestination); is there a #3?

Yes, there is a #3. God creates the vessels. Their initial state is not neutral, it is one of reprobation, i.e. the vessels are only fit for dishonorable use, because of the nature of the clay used. Don't stretch the illustration too far here. However, He decides that He can rework some of the vessels, making them into vessels fit for honor and honorable use. He chooses some to rework into vessels of honor, vessels of mercy (His mercy in choosing them), and the rest are used for what they're fit for: spittoons, toilets, garbage receptacles, etc. He hasn't actively dishonored them (reprobated them), He has put them to use as they were already fit to be used. This is a classic illustration of Predestination. God is the potter, we are the clay, and He can do with any of us as He desires, either changing us into vessels of honor, at His choosing, or use us as we are, dishonorable, fit only for dishonorable use, and ultimate destruction.

 

[Ben johnson]

I understand the influence Shank has had on you in favoring overall context over immediate context.

Influence SHANK has had on ME? 93% of my text was written LONG BEFORE I ever READ "Elect in the Son". And I have YET to read "Life in the Son". And yet Robert Shank and I are STRIKINGLY PARALLEL; how do you explain that? Two texts written WITHOUT one another, but in many places saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING?

(It's almost as if he and I were working from the same SOURCE...)

In order to address this, I must establish the pattern of inconsistent or incorrect hermeneutical process

What does this MEAN? Who shall define "correct hermeneutics"? I demonstrated how inserting "SOIL PREPARED BEFOREHAND" is ADDING TO THE WRITING --- eisegesis; exegesis simply acknowledges that the GOOD SOIL is they who RECEIVED the word with a good and honest heart and held fast and persevered and bore fruit. That is ALL that can be said; there is no "prepared beforehand" that can be exegeted. I read things at FACE VALUE. I understand salvation is by GRACE through FAITH --- and on this message board a Calvinist has said to me, "FALLEN FROM GRACE DOESN'T MEAN FALLEN FROM SALVATION, Ben." For the length of eternity, I shall NEVER believe that "fallen-from-grace" is still "saved-by-grace". It's too clear to me to ever deny.

In order to address this, I must establish the pattern of inconsistent or incorrect hermeneutical process

Fru, I can't even state your (Calvinist's) position (not in the PE's esteem). First I am told that "God unilaterally regenerated their hearts, BEFORE they believed, BEFORE they asked or consented, which leades irresistibly and unavoidably to faith". But when I say, "God IMPOSED regeneration or COMPELLED it or FORCED it, I am met with CRITICISM; even though "unilateral-instillment WITHOUT consent IS "impose/compel/force". It is as if I call something PURPLE, and I am contradicted with: "OH NO, it's NOT purple, it's DARK LAVENDAR...

Would you not agree that if I can demonstrate systematically

You see, Fru, it is this SYSTEMATICISM that I question. When I read, "TAKE CARE, brethren, that there not be in any of YOU a hardened heart ...hardened by the deceitfulness of sin ... to FALLING AWAY FROM THE LIVING GOD", and I am given a "system" that "explains how it does not SAY what it SEEMS to be saying, for they that FALL weren't really SAVED BRETHREN-ANY-OF-YOU' --- I am less interested in the SYSTEM, than I am in the SIMPLICITY of simply reading it at FACE VALUE.

This is one verse out of literally, DOZENS; about THREE dozen at this juncture...

CLEARLY Robertson feels that the order IS clear and that the appointment DOES PRECEDE the belief.

You are CERTAIN that Robertson asserts that?

"By no (manipulation) can it be made to mean 'those who believe were appointed".
"The Gentiles gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected."
"These Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side."
"The stand that THEY TOOK ...for the Lord."

It reads to me as Robertson DENYING the "apoint-believe" sequence. "They cannot be made to mean 'the believed, were appointed'." Robertson uses PRESENT BELIEVE, does not mean PAST-APPOINTED. To my eyes, Robertson flat CONTRADICTS the "appoint-believe" sequence...

as he points out in stating that it does not solve the problem of divine sovereignty vs free agency, does it rule it out.

I am content if it is indeterminate; for by convincing of its ABIGUITY, I can (hopefully) demonstrate its CORRELATION with the many other verses that speak of "Responsible Grace"...

They were 'ranged on the side of eternal life' PRIOR TO their belief.

It reads to me as Robertson boldly declaring, "They ranged on God's side, BY their belief..."

"BELIEVE-PRESENT, were not APPOINTED-PAST"...

He speaks of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices (vv1-4), the fulfilling of God's will in Christ's sacrifice (vv5-10), and how Christ's death perfects the sanctified (vv11-18). The author then pastorally sets forth to encourage them in their confession (vv19-25) and show them the greater value of the new covenant over the old by juxtaposing (in a hypothetical manner - "do you suppose") failure to keep the old covenant of works with failing to keep the new covenant of grace and faith (vv26-31). He then from vv32 to the end of the chapter by reminding them of their past perseverance, that confidence in the confession is important and carries with it reward, and that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul."

So your assertion that the "whole chapter" talks of falling from salvation is not accurate.

There is no contextual reason to think that the "continue sinning willfully after having RECEIVED TRUE-SAVED-KNOWLEDGE (epignosis)", was NEVER saved., or is NOT REAL OR POSSIBLE. No reason to think that "a saved, once SANCTIFIED, but now tramples Jesus & scorns the Blood & insults the Spirit" --- is not equally possible. No reason to see "do not throw away JESUS" (10:35, see6:19 & 10:19) --- is not real and possible. No reason to think that "You have NEED of endurance, SO THAT when you have done His will you may receive the Promise" --- is not a real warning. No reason to see vs39 as anything but "positive affirmation" and NOT "dictate". You see, if all of 10 is NOT "admonishing against true apostasy", then chapter 10 diverges from chapter 2, 3, 6, 12.

Chapter 6 (specifically 6:4-8) once again is conveyed as an exhortation for believers to prove their faith by their perseverance. The author again (just as in Heb 10), expresses confidence of "better things" concerning them.

Once again there must be a CHOICE-OF-THE-FOUR. Were they NEVER-SAVED ( -partnered-with-the-Holy-Spirit)? Were they "never-FELL ( -despised-Jesus-&-unrepentant)? Is this HYPERBOLE? (Doesn't sound like empty hyperbole/rhetoric to me...) "In the CASE of those who HAVE ONCE BEEN..." Sounds like a REAL CASE...

Those who are not chastened show themselves to be illegitimate and "not sons."

I'm afraid it doesn't, Fru; "If you [refuse] discipline, then you are NOT sons (8); so DON'T REFUSE HIM or YOU won't ESCAPE (25); don't fall short of grace (15) but pursue peace (14)...

I don't think I said that I don't affirm the notion that Eph 2:8 indicates faith being a gift from God, only that at the most this verse would simply be seen as inconsequential.

Good to hear you say that; though PE asserts "salvic-faith IS a gift from God"...

The doctrines of "Calvinism" are not built on one or two verses.

No, they're not; Calvinism is built an perhaps a DOZEN passages; foremost, Eph1:4-11, parts of Rom8 & 9; it is the job of the theological debater to refute each and every verse of the other side; and if the other side cannot refute the verses claimed for RG (at least three dozen clear and specific, many more that are also sympathetic), then the credibility must fall on the side that is unrefuted.

 

[Ben johnson]

So are you saying that there then has to be some decision made by man in order for his regeneration? Because then it seems to me that a person would have to have a pretty good grasp of spiritual things in order to believe, yet we are told we cannot see the kingdom of God UNTIL we are born again. I Cor 2:14 The natural (unregenerate) man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, nor can he know them. I think you would have to know them in order to believe in them.

Grasp of SPIRITUAL THINGS? There is only ONE THING that needs to be grasped; they are SINNERS, and need Jesus-God-became-man in their hearts to be saved. Do you really think this concept cannot manifest in an unbeliever, to CAUSE belief (to CAUSE him to be "open to things of the Spirit")?

I see the paradigm of the Gospel, as "WHOEVER calls on Jesus may be saved; the WORD convicts the hearts of SOME, they BELEIVE and receive Jesus; this OPENS the heart to RECEIVE 'spiritual things'." Nowhere do I see, "the heart is regenerated BEFORE belief" --- but rather, "the heart is regenerated THROUGH belief, THROUGH the received Lord in their heart.

That means it is fixed. It can't be fixed by us since we are not alive yet to make our free choices.

GOd KNOWS the future; but does not necessarily CAUSE it.

Romans10:14: "How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? How shall they believe ...without a preacher?" Think about what Paul is saying --- if their salvation was DECREED, then why can't God OVERCOME the lack of a preacher? Why does "believing" condition here on "available preaching"? I submit the "how shall they believe" is NOT mere hyperbole; but a true question.

God did not commit the act of sin in crucifying Christ, but He leads Christ into their hands that they might crucify Him. If you say they had a free choice in the matter then why did God make so much prophecy which might later have provenfalse?

Again, did God DO anything to their hearts, or did He just KNOW them?

God leads into temptation, but He does not tempt as James points out. In each of these cases I am arguing from the greater to the lesser. If these things happened to Christ, then why not Job, Joseph or us.

We ARE "tested"; James says, "Blessed is he who iperseveres under trial; for once he has PASSED THE TEST, he will recieve the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who LOVE HIM." 1:12

If you wish to talk about "temptation" and "free will", then why not include 1Cor10:12-13? "Let he who thinks he STANDS, take HEED lest he fall. For no temptation has overtaken you but such is common to man; God is faithful, and will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the means of escape, that YOU may be able to ENDURE it." Whaddya see here --- predestination, or CHOICE? Do we have any SAY in whether we cave to temptation, or endure?

Look to logic. If there is prophecy then there is foreordination thus limiting your idea of free will. If there is not foreordination then mans free will foils the idea of prophecy. God must have been quite lucky to have everything go the way He said it would while allowing His creatures the free will to change whatever might occur.

Time is traversable; we CAN travel to the future AND to the past. Suppose the year is 1999; you figure out how to "create an Einstein-Rosen bridge by exceeding critical threshold of optical flux (the light tearing holes in space-time); you jump ahead to January 2004; you discover the attack on America in 2001; the loss of the space shuttle Columbia 2003; you RETURN to 1999 and try to TELL people about it --- but no one believes you. They happen ANYWAY. Are you GUILTY of these events? Did you CAUSE them? Or did you just REPORT them?

If God exists OUTSIDE OF TIME, then Him SEEING what happens is not the same as His CAUSING it to happen.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

QUOTE=Ben johnson Two views:

Predestined-Election: God regenerates the heart BEFORE the person asks. "Born again CAUSES (or leads invariably to) belief.
Cannot be born again before belief

Responsible-Grace: God draws ALL MEN to where they CAN believe; those who believe, are born again THROUGH that belief. "For by grace have you been saved THROUGH FAITH (salvic-faith = salvic-belief)
Gracc and Faith are given by God cannot be done by man

Eph2:1 "When you were DEAD in your sins, He made you alive" --- I perceive this is when we believed, made alive in Him THROUGH our belief...

Man did nothing but believe since God removed the blind that we had from this world

----------------------
And so this "doesn't get lost in the shuffle" --- Rom9:21-22 speaks of "time" honor and "atimia" dishonor and " skeuos-vessels orge-wrath katartizo-fitted eis-to apoleia-destruction". If God MAKES from ONE LUMP of clay both "saved" (elect) and "unsaved" (unelect), then this contradicts the idea that God DOES NOT REPROBATE. Either He MAKES them reprobate, or He does NOT.

argueing with God word again

If God does NOT make them reprobate, then the only understanding of "time-atimia" would be, as NASV asserts, "honor-COMMON". (They are both from the SAME LUMP OF CLAY, they are both SAVED.)

Thus God does not MAKE the "orge-wrath-to-apoleia-destruction", He just ENDURES them...

(I submit that His ENDURING, is His patiently waiting for them to REPENT; they will not be able to say "You didn't give us enough TIME"...)

This I see as a "major point" --- if Rom9:21-22 asserts "predestination", then you must agree that God CAUSES their reprobation. But if you cannot say that, then you must agree that this is not predestination...

#1 (God reprobates ? ), #2 (this is not predestination); is there a #3?

 

[augustine32]

Ben, you know full well that you did not answer my direct questions but only danced around the issue. Did God predestine that Christ die? Did He gather together Herod, Pilate, etc. to do His will or not? Did the Spirit lead Christ into the wilderness to be tempted or not? And again, what is the difference between His foreknowing and foredoing? Yes God is outside of time, yet Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which is a certain point in time - did God just see it would happen or did He predetermine it? He knew it would happened because He planned it. If so then Herod, Pilate, the Jews and Roman soldiers did not have a say in the matter as to whether they crucified Christ or not. Yes they did do what was according to their nature but IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

Also, realizing that you are a sinner and need a saviour is what the Bible calls being poor in spirit. This is a mark of one in the kingdom and the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Matthew 5:3 Yet before you are born again you cannot even see that kingdom. Please explain this according to your view. Thanks

 

[CCWoody]

Influence SHANK has had on ME? 93% of my text was written LONG BEFORE I ever READ "Elect in the Son". And I have YET to read "Life in the Son". And yet Robert Shank and I are STRIKINGLY PARALLEL; how do you explain that? Two texts written WITHOUT one another, but in many places saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING?

I could explain it, but I'll refrain. The fact that your book resembles Shank is utterly irrevelant. Two wrongs don't make a right! If readers choose to believe you and Shank, over Jesus & Paul, then that is not my concern; it is between themselves and Jesus.

 

[CCWoody]

Obviously the church has fallen a long way into error and essentially no longer respects the truth she once taught. Paul warned us of this a long time ago:

• For the time will come, when they will not suffer wholesome doctrine: but hauing their eares itching, shall after their owne lustes get them an heape of teachers, And shall turne their eares from the trueth, and shalbe giuen vnto fables.
  (2Ti 4:3-4 GB)

There was once a day when the entire professing church believed in Biblical Predestination. Now, the times of fables are upon us; of "free will" idolatries, Open Theism, and so forth. Faith has been replaced with a PMA (positive mental attitude). The gospel is no longer preached, but an impotent Christ who commands the respect of no truly thoughtful individual. And, on account of this, the Atheists blasphemy and deride Him as conflicted, self-contradictory, & impotent. I am continually told that my theology is refreshingly honest for 2 reasons: I share it and I don't pretend that Jesus is loving or has ever set His redemptive love upon those whom He will trample in His fury and stain his garments with their blood.

And I am held captive in this Pelagian church. I cannot escape.

No longer are Bible studies setup to study the Bible; they are about the latest fad book. It is nothing but a book club. When I try to attend, I get silenced because "that's not the way I feel." Well, who gives a fig leave one way or the other how the truth makes one "feel." Instead of classes on a Christ centered life, I get to learn about a "purpose driven life."

I get to see guilt trips replace evangelistic encouragment. And that is a sad pathetic substitute. For the Lord, in encouraging Paul to enter a city used the Biblical doctrine of Election: "I have many people in this city." In stead of preaching Predestination and Election as my guarantee of missionary success, I'm told I will be sending people to hell if I don't go.

I see the Christian experience reduced to an assembly line salvation, a number of self-help steps. Do this, do that "invite" Christ here and there, "accept" Him, tithe, believe you are saved PMA, etc. Most now have a Christian experience whereby they are either smarter or simply luckier than the poor fools who don't believe because they have "made the right choice."

You have to dig deep to find any publicans anymore, who utterly cast themselves upon the mercy of the Lord, knowing they don't deserve to be saved and wouldn't even blame Him if He chose to cast him utterly from His presence. There is scarcely a man anymore who prostrates himself before the altar of God and pleads: "Have mercy upon me a sinner."

Instead, we have the multituldes who swagger up, inform the Lord that He is now "acceptable" in their sight. Where is the flesh trembling fear in the saint like that spoken about in the Psalms?

Still, I am confident. The Lord has never left Himself without a faithful servant before Him. He will not abandon those whom He foreknew. According to the election of grace, even today, He reserves for Himself those who will not bow the knee to the false doctrines of neo-Pelagianism.

(Author's note: Due to past misunderstandings I am not saying that any person is not saved due solely to doctrinal error. Were that the case no man would be saved because no man has a perfect doctrine.

Nor am I calling anyone posting anything. If you will read the context of my statement in the first sentence, I am speaking of the church in general and not YOU specifically.

If anyone is unable to understand this disclaimer, I suggest remediation in English. I cannot bear the sole responsibility for misunderstanding.)

 

[frumanchu]

Influence SHANK has had on ME? 93% of my text was written LONG BEFORE I ever READ "Elect in the Son". And I have YET to read "Life in the Son". And yet Robert Shank and I are STRIKINGLY PARALLEL; how do you explain that? Two texts written WITHOUT one another, but in many places saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING?

(It's almost as if he and I were working from the same SOURCE...)

Even if that is true, that fact does not give any more legitimacy to your view. Rest assured, neither you nor Shank are the first to take that approach to Scripture.

What does this MEAN? Who shall define "correct hermeneutics"? I demonstrated how inserting "SOIL PREPARED BEFOREHAND" is ADDING TO THE WRITING --- eisegesis; exegesis simply acknowledges that the GOOD SOIL is they who RECEIVED the word with a good and honest heart and held fast and persevered and bore fruit. That is ALL that can be said; there is no "prepared beforehand" that can be exegeted. I read things at FACE VALUE.

Go back a few posts to [post=1542531]#126[/post], Ben. You will see that I agreed with you that speaking to the preparation of the soil is pushing the parable too far. That parable doesn't speak specifically to either of our positions.

I understand salvation is by GRACE through FAITH --- and on this message board a Calvinist has said to me, "FALLEN FROM GRACE DOESN'T MEAN FALLEN FROM SALVATION, Ben." For the length of eternity, I shall NEVER believe that "fallen-from-grace" is still "saved-by-grace". It's too clear to me to ever deny.

I believe the Roman Catholics term this "invincible ignorance"

Since you've provided a quote, I assume you'll provide a link to that quote.

It appears as though you don't actually READ our posts, you just skim them to determine whether or not we agree with you. Do you have any real response to what I gave you on Heb 10 or 12? Explanations have been given. Please SHOW ME why these explanations are insufficient.

Fru, I can't even state your (Calvinist's) position (not in the PE's esteem). First I am told that "God unilaterally regenerated their hearts, BEFORE they believed, BEFORE they asked or consented, which leades irresistibly and unavoidably to faith". But when I say, "God IMPOSED regeneration or COMPELLED it or FORCED it, I am met with CRITICISM; even though "unilateral-instillment WITHOUT consent IS "impose/compel/force". It is as if I call something PURPLE, and I am contradicted with: "OH NO, it's NOT purple, it's DARK LAVENDAR...

You have given me a perfect example right there in your complaint, Ben.

Yes, I do believe that Scripture teaches that "God unilaterally regenerated their hearts, BEFORE they believed, BEFORE they asked or consented, which leades irresistibly and unavoidably to faith."

Then you say ""God IMPOSED regeneration or COMPELLED it or FORCED it, I am met with CRITICISM; even though "unilateral-instillment WITHOUT consent IS "impose/compel/force"."

In the times you have said such thing, you have either said that He compelled or forced their SALVATION (NOT their regeneration), or implied it with your use of regeneration. You must understand that there appears to be a difference between your concept of regeneration and ours. Regeneration, though inextricably tied to salvation, is not in and of itself salvation. Your position appears to be that regeneration refers to salvation itself (the whole process) or that it proceeds FROM faith (logically following it).

So you are creating a false dilemma here whereby you are stating (and we are agreeing) that God unilaterally regenerates men (which we see happening BEFORE faith), then complaining when we object to statements about oru believing that God forces faith upon men.

You see, Fru, it is this SYSTEMATICISM that I question. When I read, "TAKE CARE, brethren, that there not be in any of YOU a hardened heart ...hardened by the deceitfulness of sin ... to FALLING AWAY FROM THE LIVING GOD", and I am given a "system" that "explains how it does not SAY what it SEEMS to be saying, for they that FALL weren't really SAVED BRETHREN-ANY-OF-YOU' ---

Apparently you cannot even accept the means because you are too afraid of the possible conclusions. I told you, we are subject to the same scrutiny. If your position is truly correct, it should be born out in the examination of these verses according to the process I just described. I made no secret of my method. Why are you so afraid of doing it that you cannot respond to it without becoming defensive?

I am less interested in the SYSTEM, than I am in the SIMPLICITY of simply reading it at FACE VALUE.

This is one verse out of literally, DOZENS; about THREE dozen at this juncture...

Horsepuckey, Ben. You have jumped through more hoops than a circus tiger to AVOID 'simply reading at FACE VALUE' Acts 13:48. And I don't care if it's one out of a thousand, I will look at each one.

What are you afraid of, Ben? Iron sharpens iron, no?

You are CERTAIN that Robertson asserts that?

"By no (manipulation) can it be made to mean 'those who believe were appointed".
"The Gentiles gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected."
"These Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side."
"The stand that THEY TOOK ...for the Lord."

It reads to me as Robertson DENYING the "apoint-believe" sequence. "They cannot be made to mean 'the believed, were appointed'." Robertson uses PRESENT BELIEVE, does not mean PAST-APPOINTED. To my eyes, Robertson flat CONTRADICTS the "appoint-believe" sequence...

Ben, I will go over this ONE MORE TIME, and then can we put it to rest?

"The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord."

Read that again. And then again, Ben. It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who WERE APPOINTED, who WERE RANGED. They were appointed unto or "ranged on the side of" eternal life BEFORE they believed. They were revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand they took. That means the stand they took revealed what was already a reality. Ben, he is CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THIS MATTER. Do I have to diagram Robertson's sentences as well? It's plain English, Ben. You took his "legerdemain" comment out of context in your original citation of him in your support. I've shown thoroughly that he is NOT saying what you claim.

You can lead a horse to water...

I am content if it is indeterminate; for by convincing of its ABIGUITY, I can (hopefully) demonstrate its CORRELATION with the many other verses that speak of "Responsible Grace"...

Robertson says it does not solve the problem, but he has shown that it does make one point abundantly clear: appointment DOES PRECEDE faith. What you are left with is determining the nature of that appointment.

It reads to me as Robertson boldly declaring, "They ranged on God's side, BY their belief..."
"BELIEVE-PRESENT, were not APPOINTED-PAST"...

If one were to isolate that one sentence from all the rest in that section, you could conceivably hold that view, but the rest of what he said COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS your view of what he was saying in that sentence. So, either Robertson is contradicting himself (and therefore not a credible source), or you are wrong about what he said.

There is no contextual reason to think that the "continue sinning willfully after having RECEIVED TRUE-SAVED-KNOWLEDGE (epignosis)", was NEVER saved., or is NOT REAL OR POSSIBLE. No reason to think that "a saved, once SANCTIFIED, but now tramples Jesus & scorns the Blood & insults the Spirit" --- is not equally possible. No reason to see "do not throw away JESUS" (10:35, see6:19 & 10:19) --- is not real and possible. No reason to think that "You have NEED of endurance, SO THAT when you have done His will you may receive the Promise" --- is not a real warning. No reason to see vs39 as anything but "positive affirmation" and NOT "dictate". You see, if all of 10 is NOT "admonishing against true apostasy", then chapter 10 diverges from chapter 2, 3, 6, 12.

Thank you for demonstrating EXACTLY why I am taking the course I am with you on these verses, Ben. Notice that you did not actually refute what I wrote on chapter 10, but ultimately appealed to your interpretation of chapters 2, 3, 6, and 12 to support your view on 10. So, if I demonstrate that your view of those chapters is incorrect, then to what do you appeal? Other verses? Then we will move on to those.

Once again there must be a CHOICE-OF-THE-FOUR. Were they NEVER-SAVED ( -partnered-with-the-Holy-Spirit)? Were they "never-FELL ( -despised-Jesus-&-unrepentant)? Is this HYPERBOLE? (Doesn't sound like empty hyperbole/rhetoric to me...) "In the CASE of those who HAVE ONCE BEEN..." Sounds like a REAL CASE...

I disagree, because I don't agree with your use of the word hyperbole. It is a hypothetical, used to illustrate a point. Or do you maintain there are no hypotheticals in Scripture? I have given you numerous examples of the employment of hypotheticals which require no hyperbole to illustrate a very real and important point. Shall I dig them up and present them again?

I'm afraid it doesn't, Fru; "If you [refuse] discipline, then you are NOT sons (8); so DON'T REFUSE HIM or YOU won't ESCAPE (25); don't fall short of grace (15) but pursue peace (14)...

Umm, Ben. Did you not notice that you ran all over that chapter grabbing verses to string them together? Words mean things, Ben. Context means something. If I used your method I could promote all manner of error, all the while 'citing' Scripture.

Also, please cite for me any translation which inludes the word "refuse" in Heb 12:8. You have inserted that word where it does not appear. The Lord chastens whom He loves, and Heb 12:8 says that if you are without chastening, then you are illegitimate and not a son.

Good to hear you say that; though PE asserts "salvic-faith IS a gift from God"...

Read that again, Ben. I don't think I said it. Said what? Said that I don't assert that Eph 2:8 indicates faith being a gift from God.

I'm sorry, Ben. But at this point you're not even keeping MY words straight.

No, they're not; Calvinism is built an perhaps a DOZEN passages; foremost, Eph1:4-11, parts of Rom8 & 9;

Perhaps a dozen?!? Good grief, Ben...surely you don't mean to tell me that at most we've only cited perhaps a dozen verses in our defense.

it is the job of the theological debater to refute each and every verse of the other side; and if the other side cannot refute the verses claimed for RG (at least three dozen clear and specific, many more that are also sympathetic), then the credibility must fall on the side that is unrefuted.

Hello. I do believe that I just spent a great deal of time telling you that that is precisely what I intend to do.

So, if you claim credibility by default on the verses you claim we've never addressed or refuted, and I claim credibility on the verses we've at length discussed and you have failed to refute (acts 13:48 for starters), then where does that leave us Ben?

I am open to your critique of the explanations I've given for Heb 6:4-8, Heb 10 and Heb 12, all of which you have in the past claimed refute the doctrine of perseverance. I have given reasonable explanations from the context of the verse (not appealing to any "overall harmony" but simply appealing to the language and immediate context). I have also shown repeatedly that Acts 13:48 can by NO means be twisted to support the notion that the faith exercised by the Gentiles was lead to or in any way preceded their being appointed unto or 'ranged on the side of' eternal life. I also maintain that your view of Romans 9:20-22 is not logical, not supported by the context, and not compatible with your views.

Whichever of these you wish to dispute, let us examine them.

 

[blackwasp]

Obviously the church has fallen a long way into error and essentially no longer respects the truth she once taught. Paul warned us of this a long time ago:

• For the time will come, when they will not suffer wholesome doctrine: but hauing their eares itching, shall after their owne lustes get them an heape of teachers, And shall turne their eares from the trueth, and shalbe giuen vnto fables.
  (2Ti 4:3-4 GB)

There was once a day when the entire professing church believed in Biblical Predestination. Now, the times of fables are upon us; of "free will" idolatries, Open Theism, and so forth. Faith has been replaced with a PMA (positive mental attitude). The gospel is no longer preached, but an impotent Christ who commands the respect of no truly thoughtful individual. And, on account of this, the Atheists blasphemy and deride Him as conflicted, self-contradictory, & impotent. I am continually told that my theology is refreshingly honest for 2 reasons: I share it and I don't pretend that Jesus is loving or has ever set His redemptive love upon those whom He will trample in His fury and stain his garments with their blood.

And I am held captive in this Pelagian church. I cannot escape.

No longer are Bible studies setup to study the Bible; they are about the latest fad book. It is nothing but a book club. When I try to attend, I get silenced because "that's not the way I feel." Well, who gives a fig leave one way or the other how the truth makes one "feel." Instead of classes on a Christ centered life, I get to learn about a "purpose driven life."

I get to see guilt trips replace evangelistic encouragment. And that is a sad pathetic substitute. For the Lord, in encouraging Paul to enter a city used the Biblical doctrine of Election: "I have many people in this city." In stead of preaching Predestination and Election as my guarantee of missionary success, I'm told I will be sending people to hell if I don't go.

I see the Christian experience reduced to an assembly line salvation, a number of self-help steps. Do this, do that "invite" Christ here and there, "accept" Him, tithe, believe you are saved PMA, etc. Most now have a Christian experience whereby they are either smarter or simply luckier than the poor fools who don't believe because they have "made the right choice."

You have to dig deep to find any publicans anymore, who utterly cast themselves upon the mercy of the Lord, knowing they don't deserve to be saved and wouldn't even blame Him if He chose to cast him utterly from His presence. There is scarcely a man anymore who prostrates himself before the altar of God and pleads: "Have mercy upon me a sinner."

Instead, we have the multituldes who swagger up, inform the Lord that He is now "acceptable" in their sight. Where is the flesh trembling fear in the saint like that spoken about in the Psalms?

Still, I am confident. The Lord has never left Himself without a faithful servant before Him. He will not abandon those whom He foreknew. According to the election of grace, even today, He reserves for Himself those who will not bow the knee to the false doctrines of neo-Pelagianism.

(Author's note: Due to past misunderstandings I am not saying that any person is not saved due solely to doctrinal error. Were that the case no man would be saved because no man has a perfect doctrine.

Nor am I calling anyone posting anything. If you will read the context of my statement in the first sentence, I am speaking of the church in general and not YOU specifically.

If anyone is unable to understand this disclaimer, I suggest remediation in English. I cannot bear the sole responsibility for misunderstanding.)

AMEN!!!

That was beautifully put. My mouth is agape in awe over the great insight that God has bestowed upon you!

A healthy alternative to The Purpose Driven Life would be The Soul Winner by Charles H. Spurgeon (if one is really searching for what God wants of us). I'm ashamed to admit that Rick Warren is Southern Baptist.

 

[Chappie]

Obviously the church has fallen a long way into error and essentially no longer respects the truth she once taught. Paul warned us of this a long time ago:

For the time will come, when they will not suffer wholesome doctrine: but having their ears itching, shall after their own lusts get them an heape of teachers, And shall turn their ears from the truth, and shall be given unto fables.
(2Ti 4:3-4 GB)

There was once a day when the entire professing church believed in Biblical Predestination. Now, the times of fables are upon us; of "free will" idolatries, Open Theism, and so forth. Faith has been replaced with a PMA (positive mental attitude). The gospel is no longer preached, but an impotent Christ who commands the respect of no truly thoughtful individual. And, on account of this, the Atheists blasphemy and deride Him as conflicted, self-contradictory, & impotent. I am continually told that my theology is refreshingly honest for 2 reasons: I share it and I don't pretend that Jesus is loving or has ever set His redemptive love upon those whom He will trample in His fury and stain his garments with their blood.

Woody:

Your manifesto is beautifully written. Based on all the mechanics of creative expression, I must even say that it is among the best that I have ever read. I even sense that it is sincere and laden with that which you truly believe.

Still, as far as substance (validity) is concerned, I get the impression that your oratory begins with facts not in evidence, which therefore causes you to initiate in error, and then to subsequently proceed in error.

First of all, Paul did not teach that there would come a day when The Church will not suffer wholesome doctrine, these comments were made in reference to men, not the church. If we are going to quote Paul, then we should quote Paul.

My second concern is your comments that perhaps could use a little clarification. When you speak of biblical predestination; which scripturally states that believers are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ that he may be the firstborn of many sons. Nothing more, nothing less. Or are you speaking of Reformed Theology’s version of predestination which is forced to include predestination unto salvation.

Next, personally; I must say that I do not believe that your belief in a Christ that ordains all that happens (including evil) is an essential ingredient in a wholesome and reverent respect for Christ. Just as love, respect, and even reverence is enhanced between a Father and his son when the Father has a genuine respect for the choices and privacy of his son. So it is with our Heavenly Father and his Children.

Just as our earthly Fathers attain a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction in teaching his children, and watching them grow into well balanced, compassionate, caring adults, so Does our Father in heaven. Remember the accolades heaped upon Job. Some would say that Job Got the short end of the stick, but I wonder what Job would say after receiving his reward for having suffered for the glory of God.

Finally, concerning The Christ that will judge the world, the one with his vestures covered in blood, his judgments are true, just, and righteous, men are condemned because they chose to disobey, not because they were hopelessly predestined to disobey. Men are judged because they chose of their own freewill to reject the love that he had for them, a love covered in his blood shed for them that they might have a right to live.

You worship a double minded God; essentially, he is a God of love, that loves to hate. Having nothing to hate, he created men to fill that need.

The bible says that God is Love, even that which he hates must be filtered by love. A question, if God predestines disobedience, why is he so angry? With men, his wildest dreams have been fulfilled. He got precisely what he wanted…..

 

[augustine32]

Did Herod or Pilate have a choice? They were gathered together to do the will of God. How long will you avoid this question? Is it because you know you cannot answer or just haven't had enough time to come up with an answer yet?

 

[Chappie]

Did Herod or Pilate have a choice? They were gathered together to do the will of God. How long will you avoid this question? Is it because you know you cannot answer or just haven't had enough time to come up with an answer yet?

Yes, Herod had a choice. Yes, Pilate had a choice. Still, no matter what choice they made, God can and does accomplish his will out of it.


Question for you.
If they had no choice, and were simply doing the Fathers will; say, like Daniel, David, Elijah, and Moses; will they recieve a reward for it like those afore mentioned. Or will they be punished.

If punished, perhaps you have a scriptural reason why God both rewards and punishes for obedience..

 

[augustine32]

Acts 4
27***"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28***to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

What you are saying contradicts the above passage directly. Besides what if the Jews had decided to take matters into their own hands and stoned Christ. Then would the prophecy have been fulfilled? No. They had to crucify Christ so that the prophecy would be fulfilled.

The wages of sin is death. Putting Christ to death was sin so they will be punished for it. Did God sin? No. He predestined that an event would happen and naturally wicked men did what their hearts led them to do. Explain the above passage in light of that.

 

[CCWoody]

AMEN!!!

That was beautifully put. My mouth is agape in awe over the great insight that God has bestowed upon you!

A healthy alternative to The Purpose Driven Life would be The Soul Winner by Charles H. Spurgeon (if one is really searching for what God wants of us). I'm ashamed to admit that Rick Warren is Southern Baptist.

Evidently, Chappie was not so impressed. Perhaps I may wade through his post and see if there is something with which I'd care to respond.

But, I'd rather be less insightful. I am merely drawing upon personal experience of being held captive in the church of Pelagius. I was recently subjected to a long campaign where a major selling point was that I get to give money so that I could later boast about what I had accomplished. Needless to say, I passed on the "opportunity."

In the mainstream denominations in which I have attended (Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, non-denom former AOG) I have had the pleasure of the following heresies taught from the pulpit of these Arminian/ Pelagian churches:

1. Open Theism.
2. open Pelagianism.
3. The denial that the scriptures are "God breathed."
4. Baptism saves.
5. etc. (I'm sure I have forgotten some)

I won't even bother to mention the sea of individual heresies, among which "all you have to do is say the words and you are saved" has to be one of my favorites. The actual disregard for sound doctrine in the church is staggering.

I have personally witnessed a boy being singled out in front of an audience and then brow beaten that his confession was real. Instead of taking him off privately and reading the many promises of the scriptures, he was nearly assaulted into believing that another person's faith in his "experiences" were correct.

I have been told that Mormons are saved because the confess and believe in the name of Jesus.

I have been told that anyone who never gets the gospel preached to them will be in heaven. After all, they "couldn't reject it" so it's not their fault. Apart from that being so contrary to the Bible that it could actually be ragarded as a depraved indifference kind of hate against the non-believers, it actually is a kind of attitude which stifles and kills missionary work. After all, it is better to not give them the opportunity to reject the gospel and "lose their salvation." And it was told to me by a Methodist pastor. It is no wonder that we Calvinists still lead the world in mission efforts among the "Protestants" even if we are a small minority.

Perhaps you will remember the mother who drowned her kids in the bath tub a few years ago in my home state of Texas. One of her motivations was that she didn't want them to grow up and "reject Jesus." So, she killed them as a means of preventing them from losing their salvation in a sick pervision of the false teaching of "age of accountibility."

Where ever is it taught anymore that the Lord has things perfectly under control? You certainly won't find it in the garden variety church. They preach "free will" over the Sovereignty of God.

My gospel is not the "Jesus-on-a-rope" Soap gospel which I recently read.

We have a glorious Gospel, but there's only one difficulty. To be effective it has to be applied. A fellow once asked a minister, "If your Gospel is so great, why isn't everyone a Christian?" The pastor responded, "If soap is so good, why isn't everyone clean?" Does the fact of dirty people testify against the value of soap? No. It works, but you have to apply it. ~ Chuck Smith
​

Salvation is a bit more profound.

(OK, so I mentioned a few things.)


In my personal experience, I have never shaken the hand of a confessing TULIP guy. And, I never even knew I was a Reformer until I met them online. Then, I figured out that I was not the wierdo in church. My doctrine is not that which is commonly confessed. My doctrine is that of the historic church and those great Predestinarian Reformers:

Jesus
Paul & the Apostles
Augustine
Wycliffe
Tyndale
Luther
Calvin
etc. etc. etc.
​

Finney "excitments" might impress some but I would rather be mute in ignorance like the heathen than spout the nonsense which is widely regarded as "spiritual."

My experience comes at a price. And, I am thankful that the vast majority of my doctrinally sound brethren have not had to endure it.

(It's good to be back.....)

 

[Ben johnson]

Dead people don't cooperate in their resuscitation by doing anything. What brings them back to life is the work of doctors and the like. I believe the comparison holds for the spiritual as well. I really don't understand why that is such a problem for you to accept.

Spiritual death vs physical death; yes a "physically dead" person doesn't do anything. But --- does a spiritually dead person walk outside and see BLUE SKY? Does he recognize the sky is blue? Does he recognize that black-n-white care behind him with the flashing lights is a COP, and pull over? Does he pull a stack of papers from his wallet, and select one with the correct numbers to purchase a hamburger? Seems that a spiritually dead person can do quite a NUMBER of things. Why not LISTEN to the Gospel, and CONSIDER that Jesus IS the Savior?

God creates the vessels, all of them, from the same lump of clay, just as He has created all men from Adam. All men are born reprobate sinners.

The question between us, is "does God CAUSE their reprobation." Did God create lucifer as EVIL? The Scripture says: "You were blameless and perfect in all your ways, until the day iniquity was found in you..."

They didn't make themselves.

You seem to take the Rom9 passage to mean, "God SHAPES some as good, and God SHAPES some as evil." This I cannot see in Scripture...

No sinner will ever make that statement before the Throne of God, Ben. that's a complete fabrication designed to appeal to emotions and lend weight to your view through an emotional appeal. It's not scriptural at all.

Oh they'll try any excuse they CAN; but God promises "they are without excuse"...

 

[augustine32]

"You seem to take the Rom9 passage to mean, "God SHAPES some as good, and God SHAPES some as evil." This I cannot see in Scripture.."

What is the example given? Potter and clay. What does the potter do with the clay? Makes it as He sees fit. "MAKE one vessel for honor and one for dishonor?" Make, shape,, what is the difference. The point is that the Potter makes the clay as He sees fit. You seem to think that illustrations have no meaning. Please explain in a way that agrees with your view and does no violence to the illustration.

 

[augustine32]

"God SHAPES some as good, and God SHAPES some as evil."

I also see you have chosen the word AS in your paraphrase of our view. I don't see that in Scripture either. I see it as saying that God makes one FOR honor and the other FOR dishonor. No He does not make them evil. All are evil as they are born of Adam. God makes no one evil; we do that well enough on our own.

 

[blackwasp]

Spiritual death vs physical death; yes a "physically dead" person doesn't do anything. But --- does a spiritually dead person walk outside and see BLUE SKY? Does he recognize the sky is blue? Does he recognize that black-n-white care behind him with the flashing lights is a COP, and pull over? Does he pull a stack of papers from his wallet, and select one with the correct numbers to purchase a hamburger? Seems that a spiritually dead person can do quite a NUMBER of things. Why not LISTEN to the Gospel, and CONSIDER that Jesus IS the Savior?

Your point is moot. What are you proving by saying that a spiritually dead person can experience the physical world? Are you equating that since the spiritually dead have physical life, they can "choose" to have spiritual life?

That dog doesn't hunt.