Revival

[holdon]

I'm asking simply this, how could God or God's plan be rejected by fallen, dead in sin, man (which we do before regeneration) and God not have the power to do anything about it? Does God have to up with different plans to 'get around' mans freewill and have His way?

But it is like you said: God's plans are rejected by fallen man. Does God have the power to change man? If so, why didn't He do so in Genesis 3?

 

[eph3Nine]

Gods method of dealing with mankind has always depended on BELIEVING. What God said to any given individual was thought on, and either believed or disbelieved. That is how God determined if they HAD faith, or trust in what He said.

It is Calvinist theology, NOT the plain teaching of the Bible that has convoluted this simple basic truth into something that scripture DOES NOT TEACH. God has NOT chosen some to believe and some NOT to, but desires that ALL men be saved and come to a full knowledge of the Truth. He gives them FREE will. They are NOT BRAIN DEAD. THEY ARE STILL CAPABLE OF REASONING AND MAKING CHOICES.

Thats why our bibles say "FAITH COMES BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD".

 

[TheScottsMen]

.

 

[TheScottsMen]

He gives them FREE will. They are NOT BRAIN DEAD. THEY ARE STILL CAPABLE OF REASONING AND MAKING CHOICES.

Can you give me a verse that says that God gives man free will? You say man is not braindead, I say his spirit is dead and he cannot understand the things of God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

Paul seems to believe the same. Natural man cannot receive the things of God because they are foolishness to him. Where does Paul say that God gives man free will?

God grants that we believe, but he is the one that opens our hearts so that we can, and those whos heart is opens, will receive.

Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;


This faith is the work of GOD, not of man, and those whom God has given to believe in Christ he gives faith for them to believe (because we are dead in our sins and cannot do so of ourselves.)

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God appoints people to believe

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

And god predestines

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:


But again, show me where God gives all men free will to believe.


The problem with your soteriology is it is much like that of the Roman Catholic,your positiion is one that elevates man's will and mans philosophy.


You undo what the reformation and the break with the Catholic church was reall about, not that of secondary things like that of indulgences, but in the reformers strong belief in total depravity, total inability, that there is NOTHING that man can do in cooperation with God in his salvation, but that it is ONLY God that saves us; that our will is so tainted by sin that given the choice, we will never choose God.


Martin Luther said it best:

"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

 

[TheScottsMen]

TSM stated:

I HAVE studied it out, and therefore dont fit into that category.

What books?

 

[holdon]

The problem with your soteriology is it is much like that of the Roman Catholic,your positiion is one that elevates man's will and mans philosophy.


You undo what the reformation and the break with the Catholic church was reall about, not that of secondary things like that of indulgences, but in the reformers strong belief in total depravity, total inability, that there is NOTHING that man can do in cooperation with God in his salvation, but that it is ONLY God that saves us; that our will is so tainted by sin that given the choice, we will never choose God.


Martin Luther said it best:

"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

I think that's pretty much Catholic too!

I don't think fallen man has freewill either. But to say that God is the sole determinant whether one will be saved rather than the other is ludicrous, because it puts the blame squarely on God for anybody who perishes...

 

[TheScottsMen]

I think that's pretty much Catholic too!

But to say that God is the sole determinant whether one will be saved rather than the other is ludicrous, because it puts the blame squarely on God for anybody who perishes...

On God? You focus on how could God let someone perish; I focus on how can God choose a dead rebel sinner that is at enmity with Him! Only grace is the answer. None of us deserve salvation and each of us deserve to die in our sins; God in his love chooses sinners to bring to himself;


Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.


If God chose not to bring others to salvation and leave them in their sins and children of wrath: do you blame God?

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Does not God have the power and the right to save some and leave others? Does not God have the power and the right to give faith to some and not to others?

Rom 9:21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

TSM

 

[holdon]

On God? You focus on how could God let someone perish; I focus on how can God choose a dead rebel sinner that is at enmity with Him! Only grace is the answer. None of us deserve salvation and each of us deserve to die in our sins; God in his love chooses sinners to bring to himself;

He wants nobody to perish. He wants to save all....

Does not God have the power and the right to save some and leave others?

No, that wouldn't be right.

Does not God have the power and the right to give faith to some and not to others?

No, He can't give faith. The believing is done on the part of man.

 

[TheScottsMen]

No, that wouldn't be right.No, He can't give faith.
The believing is done on the part of man.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The believing is a result of the gift of faith.

John 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the father

The Gentiles in Acts 13 believed because they were appointed to; they were not appointed because they believed.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many were appointed to eternal life believed.


Also, who says it's not right for God to do what he wishes with the pot? Did you not read Romans 9:21 ?


Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Paul said this rightly, who are you to say what God can and cannot do?

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

 

[holdon]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The believing is a result of the gift of faith.

No, that's not what this text says. "It" in the last clause does not match in gender with "faith" in the first, so it does not refer to that.

John 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the father

But, who you think the Father would not grant to come to Him?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes on Him, will not perish"

The Gentiles in Acts 13 believed because they were appointed to; they were not appointed because they believed.

They had ranged themselves on God's side. See AT Robertson on this verse: "a military term to place in orderly arrangement". It does not say they were arranged that way by God. It was the Gentiles who heard, then rejoiced, then glorified the Word of God. That's how they were "appointed." In contrast to the Jews who rejected the Word of God, they were "disappointed".

 

[holdon]

Also, who says it's not right for God to do what he wishes with the pot? Did you not read Romans 9:21 ?

Oh, I do read Romans 9. But do you really think the Potter makes bad pottery?

 

[Iosias]

For the Calvinistic dispensationalists, I’d like to know how your reconcile full 5 point Calvinism with dispensational teaching.

Well I used to do it easily enough. Would you share where the incompatibility is?

 

[TubaFour]

Well I used to do it easily enough. Would you share where the incompatibility is?

I see the kingdom "offer" as Arminian. Christ offers the kingdom -- the Jews reject it out of their own free will, and, voila, you have a new program -- the church!!!

Actually, the bigger difficulty with the kingdom offer is that it never happened, and if it did happen, it was not a genuine offer.

aL

 

[Iosias]

I see the kingdom "offer" as Arminian. Christ offers the kingdom -- the Jews reject it out of their own free will, and, voila, you have a new program -- the church!!!

Actually, the bigger difficulty with the kingdom offer is that it never happened, and if it did happen, it was not a genuine offer.

aL

Firstly I am not a dispensationalist.

Secondly, I see your logic but do not agree. We are told by Paul that God had blinded the Jews so that they would reject Christ and so he would die fulfilling Isaiah 53 etc. No it is easily argued that it was all apart of God's sovereign plan from the start. In the same way we preach the gospel to all and the reprobate reject it and the elect accept it.

JND the father of dispensationalism was a staunch Calvinist - he defended Calvinism in the Genevan churches and wrote an article attacking 'free-will'.

They are compatible IMHO.

 

[TubaFour]

Firstly I am not a dispensationalist.

Secondly, I see your logic but do not agree. We are told by Paul that God had blinded the Jews so that they would reject Christ and so he would die fulfilling Isaiah 53 etc. No it is easily argued that it was all apart of God's sovereign plan from the start. In the same way we preach the gospel to all and the reprobate reject it and the elect accept it.

JND the father of dispensationalism was a staunch Calvinist - he defended Calvinism in the Genevan churches and wrote an article attacking 'free-will'.

They are compatible IMHO.

I am not a dispensationalist either, and I figured you weren't one.

I know some (not many) dispensationalists who are five point calvinisits. In that sense the two systems can and do coexist, albeit in a typically watered down way.

Nonetheless, I do understand your comments about God's sovereignty in making the kingdom offer to the Jews. However, I do believe that the kingdom offer, had it been actually made could not have been a genuine offer. The reason is that the cross was prophesied. The suffering/dying messiah was prophesied. Had the jews accepted the offer, Jesus would not have been crucified. That's a comment on the nature or genuineness of the offer, not on God's foreknowledge.

In distinction, the offer of the gospel is made to reprobates who reject it. The offer is genuine in that God is able to come through on it and provide the salvation offered in the gospel even to those who reject it, should they actually accept it. This seems like splitting hairs, but I don't think it really is.

Whether or not God knows the Jews would have rejected the so-called kingdom offer is irrelevant. The issue is whether God could have established the messianic kingdom at that time, had that been His intention. I am saying it's not possible, because the cross would have been "avoided".

A good treatment of this issue is found in John Gerstner's book: Dispensationalism, Wrongly Dividing the Word of God.

aL

 

[eph3Nine]

We who are mid acts dispensationalists do not consider John Gerstners book a good treatment at all. I'm not sure God would call it that either! Wink

 

[TubaFour]

We who are mid acts dispensationalists do not consider John Gerstners book a good treatment at all. I'm not sure God would call it that either! Wink

Of course you don't. His books are devastating to dispensationalism in all its forms.

aL

 

[eph3Nine]

Of course you don't. His books are devastating to dispensationalism in all its forms.

aL

You cant DEVASTATE something that God Himself set up! How foolish is that? LOL LOL

One who doesnt SEE right division is merely ignorant and untaught. Once he has been shown that there are indeed two programs, two realms that God has purposed and planned to RE ESTABLISH His reign and rule in, and rejects it, then it becomes a matter of loosing rewards for not adhering to Gods most recent revelation to mankind. We will all be judged for how we handled Gods revelation to Paul for us. Most of professing Christianity is preaching another gospel and another jesus...ONE of a different kind...ONE program BEHIND!

 

[JM]

Firstly I am not a dispensationalist.

Secondly, I see your logic but do not agree. We are told by Paul that God had blinded the Jews so that they would reject Christ and so he would die fulfilling Isaiah 53 etc. No it is easily argued that it was all apart of God's sovereign plan from the start. In the same way we preach the gospel to all and the reprobate reject it and the elect accept it.

JND the father of dispensationalism was a staunch Calvinist - he defended Calvinism in the Genevan churches and wrote an article attacking 'free-will'.

They are compatible IMHO.

Darby wrote alot of things, but that doesn't mean they're compatible. Don'tforget what Darby wrote on Eph. 2:

Now as to the passage in Ephesians 2, it is very simple. What is said of the neuter is this: the adversaries of this truth say the [Greek] "that" cannot agree with "faith," because the latter is feminine; but in the same way it cannot agree with "grace" because it is [also] feminine. Then they say, "It is true, but it agrees with the whole thing, salvation; but this has [makes] no sense. "By grace ye are saved through faith, and that (this salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Certainly salvation by grace is not of ourselves, otherwise it would not be grace--impossible to suppose that grace is of myself, so that in this case "and that" has no meaning. But it may well be supposed that faith is of ourselves, as you say; therefore when he has said that it is by faith he adds, "and that, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." In short, by true faith we have life; we are children of God; but this is so because we are born of the Spirit, who works in us, and produces faith when we are begotten of God by His own will. To be begotten of God is by His operation, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; but seeing that it is by the word, and by means of faith (the Spirit gives to the word the divine power which produces life, as the incorruptible seed of the living God enduring forever), the word of God becomes the revelation of His Son in us, and Christ thus received is our life.

1879. Letters, Vol. 2, page 480​

http://withchrist.org/darby.htm

I just don't see how God has two plans, Ethic Israel being plan A and the Church being plan B. The only reason we have plan B is because God was prevented from following thru with his plan of redemption for Israel.

I don't agree with replacement theology, but I only see one people of God...not two and those who believe in Christ are those people/elect.

www.stempublishing.com has a ton of Brethren works to look at.

Besides, the position is called Amyraldianism (four pointer) which Darby was.

​

 

[eph3Nine]

I just don't see how God has two plans, Ethic Israel being plan A and the Church being plan B. The only reason we have plan B is because God was prevented from following thru with his plan of redemption for Israel.

I don't agree with replacement theology, but I only see one people of God...not two and those who believe in Christ are those people/elect.

You will find the two plans represented from the first verse in scripture. Gen 1:1.

TWO realms that God has a purpose and plan for. HEAVEN, and EARTH. The whole of your bible is an explanation of Gods methods of RE ESTABLISHING His rule and reign over BOTH.

He has chosen the Nation Israel to be the channel of blessing for the EARTHLY realm.

He has chosen WE, the Body of Christ, as the channel of blessing for the heavenly realm.

STUDY is the only way you will SEE this overall plan of God.

I would suggest you get a copy of Keith Blades book "Satan and his plan of Evil"...google his name and his website will come up. This book is the best out there in showing us the BIG PICTURE, and just exactly what God is after, and has been after from the beginning.

If you dont SEE the big picture you will MISS where YOU fit in the scheme of things, and only get involved in "religiousity".

God wants us to KNOW what Hes doing. Do you want to know? I will send you MY copy to read if you want it. I am also waiting for your mailing address to send you the other material...PLEASE...take advantage of this. It will revolutionize your life and make alot of things alot more clear for you.