I was wondering what really is salvation? It is the belief in what God wants you to believe in order for Him to give you eternal life. He has asked us to believe in a simple thing, whether before Christ or after Christ, to believe in God in Christ. If you believe in God you will believe in Christ as God since Christ shows Himself to be God and only God can forgive our sins and give us power over the evil spirit by our death on the cross with Christ. In the Old Testament men were given new life who believed though they did not have the indwelt Holy Spirit (they had to cover themselves because the glory would fade so quickly when the Holy Spirit came upon them) for the Spirit did not dwell man until the Apostles. after Christ's resurrection. received the Holy Spirit. So today, salvation comes to those who believe in a simple thing, that Jesus Christ is God and in His Son we may come to the cross as helpless sinners and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior. If man can not at least do this, how can God be expected to know that man and save Him for really, that man has rejected Him. All you have to ask someone is that very simple question, "have you come to the cross as a helpless sinner and received the Lord Jesus as Savior?" If they say no, they are not saved. If they say sometimes I feel like I do and sometimes not, who is to say God's verdict? If someone says, "no, Jesus is not God" or if someone says "God is a man's construct" or "we have no proof God even exists", undoubtedly God will use the lake of fire to forever make them cease to exist. We do not have eternal life, yet all our names are in the Book of Life, but one by one God blots us out of that book of life. In fact, God already has foreknowledge to whom He will save and whom He will not because He can already forsee who will choose Him and who will not, and yet He never touched our free-will. What is amazing is that He told us He was God over and over and over, but many will not listen. Jesus said "I am the first and the last", just as God of the OT did. John said "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God". Jesus said "I AM", just as the God of the OT said "I AM". If this is not good enough for people for God to prove Himself, what is?
Salvation is few and far between
- Thread starter Troy777
- Start date
- Status
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Troy777 said:
We are saved by trusting in Christ as the One who has promised to save us. We believe because He has first made us believe (John 15:16) and we can know we are saved by trusting God's promise to us, the spiritual descendents of Abraham (Romans 4:1; Galatians 3:7-8), to be our God (Genesis 17) (which entails providing salvation, which is through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2). The mere fact that we trust Christ to save us and believe that He has atoned for our sins is enough to know that He will save you. An indicator of you being regenerated and having faith is your works (John 15; the whole book of James).
Troy777 said:
Eh...where is "free will" in the Scriptures? How is our will autonomous from Almighty God who is totally Sovereign? He is not some false Greek god that merely manipulates in the affairs of men, no! God controls all things, as that is the definition of sovereign. He chooses who He will and won't save (Romans 9; Ephesians 1) but that does mean that we have no responsibility. God is not a weakling whose will can potentially be thwarted.
Troy777 said:
Those people who do not listen do not, because they have not been awakened unto their salvation. People who do not see the seriousness of their sin think they have no need to be saved. Saved from what? Until we see our sin as it really is, we cannot understand the concept of grace.
"Ye who think of sin but lightly, nor suppose the evil great
Here may view its nature rightly; Here its guilt may estimate
Mark the Sacrifice appointed; See who bears the awful load
Tis the Word, the Lord's annointed, Son of Man, Son of God"
{Smitten, Striken, and Afflicted, v.3}
Soli Deo Gloria
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Ehhhhh, but if God only saves who He wants, this reveals a God who hates men into existence -- which really makes him an omnipotent devil; scripture is clear that we cannot save ourselves, and that sin is congenital; that is, an afflication from our birth.
The only way Calvinists attempt to get out of this is a rather difficult view of us all making a conscious choice in the loins of Adam, with Adam, prior to our existence -- which smacks precisely of heresy, and the unperceived indirect claim that every single human being once in this world, coming into this world, and in this world, has freely rejected a God of infinite beauty and sovereignty. This seems a slap in the face of God, and thus a reason not to accept this form of theology.
The only way Calvinists attempt to get out of this is a rather difficult view of us all making a conscious choice in the loins of Adam, with Adam, prior to our existence -- which smacks precisely of heresy, and the unperceived indirect claim that every single human being once in this world, coming into this world, and in this world, has freely rejected a God of infinite beauty and sovereignty. This seems a slap in the face of God, and thus a reason not to accept this form of theology.
Upvote
0
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Romans 9:18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
Says who? Are you to be God's judge?
Romans 9:20 "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"
Original Sin is heresy? As I recall, every Apostalic denomination, even the Roman Catholic Church **** says that Original Sin is truth and that Pelagianism (which you are bordering upon) is heresy.
Edited as a violation of this rule
Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
2) You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretional" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures. This will include members entering inaccurate personal details in their profile in order to gain access to restricted forums. You will not post new threads for the sole purpose of soliciting requests for prophecies.
Received said:
Says who? Are you to be God's judge?
Romans 9:20 "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"
Received said:
Original Sin is heresy? As I recall, every Apostalic denomination, even the Roman Catholic Church **** says that Original Sin is truth and that Pelagianism (which you are bordering upon) is heresy.
Edited as a violation of this rule
Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
2) You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretional" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures. This will include members entering inaccurate personal details in their profile in order to gain access to restricted forums. You will not post new threads for the sole purpose of soliciting requests for prophecies.
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Well, first of all, to make a better idea of the context of Romans 9, I advise a reading of Jeremiah 18. As Norman Geisler states:
"...a Hebrew mind would not think this way, knowing the parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18. For in this context the basic lump of clay will either be built up or torn down by God, depending on Israel's moral response to God..."
I would also point out that one scholar has interepreted Romans 9 as being totally opposite of what the reformed tradition has had it; God's having mercy and hardening whom He desires is not an emission of His lack of love, but precisely of his love, for Paul is responding to those who believe in limited election -- i.e. election of Israel, the bloodtype.
There is an objector, revealed perfectly in Romans 9:19:
"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'"
As to who this may be is open to interpretation.
In regards to Romans 9:20, in all sincerity, who are you to misinterpret Him? Moreover, the idea expressed by Paul is common sense -- certainly a thing molded according to its own moral desires will not respond to the one molding it in accordance with perfect justice (Psalm 62:12) as being unjust. That misses the entire point!
And in regards to your claim that I deny original sin, you clearly are misunderstanding me; I am claiming that the Calvinistic solution to original sin while still holding intact the universal guilt of mankind for somehow consciously and voluntarily choosing to reject God in Adam prior to their existence -- this reeks of heresy, for it implies a soul that exists prior to the existence of the human, which is what I believe it to be Origin was scorned for.
You seem to have a strong stomach. Does not the idea of every man in innocence freely and equally rebelling against an infinitely beautiful God cause a reconsideration of your views? Well, it would for those who reject Calvinism.
There are different interpretations of Romans 9 out there; heck, the very words of Paul within the first four verses of this chapter express a will contrary to the reformed interpretation of Paul, for in these verses Paul desires the salvation of all of His countrymen, the Jews, of which it is obvious that not all will be saved. Should we therefore label Paul double-minded? How can one who desires what God desires not desire what God desires in desiring precisely the salvation of those God will not save? Are you telling me that the love of the Christian is unconditional and unmerited in regards to a subject? Well, so much the worse for the reformed interpretation of God, who loves only a limited number, and allows His newly created to love the enemies He could not! This isn't sovereignty!
Take it easy.
John
"...a Hebrew mind would not think this way, knowing the parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18. For in this context the basic lump of clay will either be built up or torn down by God, depending on Israel's moral response to God..."
I would also point out that one scholar has interepreted Romans 9 as being totally opposite of what the reformed tradition has had it; God's having mercy and hardening whom He desires is not an emission of His lack of love, but precisely of his love, for Paul is responding to those who believe in limited election -- i.e. election of Israel, the bloodtype.
There is an objector, revealed perfectly in Romans 9:19:
"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'"
As to who this may be is open to interpretation.
In regards to Romans 9:20, in all sincerity, who are you to misinterpret Him? Moreover, the idea expressed by Paul is common sense -- certainly a thing molded according to its own moral desires will not respond to the one molding it in accordance with perfect justice (Psalm 62:12) as being unjust. That misses the entire point!
And in regards to your claim that I deny original sin, you clearly are misunderstanding me; I am claiming that the Calvinistic solution to original sin while still holding intact the universal guilt of mankind for somehow consciously and voluntarily choosing to reject God in Adam prior to their existence -- this reeks of heresy, for it implies a soul that exists prior to the existence of the human, which is what I believe it to be Origin was scorned for.
You seem to have a strong stomach. Does not the idea of every man in innocence freely and equally rebelling against an infinitely beautiful God cause a reconsideration of your views? Well, it would for those who reject Calvinism.
There are different interpretations of Romans 9 out there; heck, the very words of Paul within the first four verses of this chapter express a will contrary to the reformed interpretation of Paul, for in these verses Paul desires the salvation of all of His countrymen, the Jews, of which it is obvious that not all will be saved. Should we therefore label Paul double-minded? How can one who desires what God desires not desire what God desires in desiring precisely the salvation of those God will not save? Are you telling me that the love of the Christian is unconditional and unmerited in regards to a subject? Well, so much the worse for the reformed interpretation of God, who loves only a limited number, and allows His newly created to love the enemies He could not! This isn't sovereignty!
Take it easy.
John
Upvote
0
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Received said:
Nevertheless, we are still that lump of clay and God is the one who controls this. Our will is not autonomous from God's will.
Received said:
The Reformed Tradition never says that it "is an emission of His lack of love". The point of Romans 9 is to demonstrate God's sovereignty. In fact, the Reformed Tradition is all about God's abundant love. Why do you think that Calvinism was called the Doctrines of Grace long before Calvin?
Received said:
Not if you believe that God is omipotent it is not open to interpretation. If God is truly omnipotent (nobody can thwart His will) then this verse applies to anyone who objects to this doctrine.
Received said:
Um, v20 is respond to an objection to v18. As demonstrated:
v18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
v20 "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"
It is very clear and reading it other than what it says is just plain eisogesis.
Received said:
Calvinism does not say this. Calvinism says that Adam and Eve had a neutral state and if they once sinned, they would be incapable of ever being in communion with God again (unless He provided a way). Then when sin entered the world, it tarnished future generations. These (in a nutshell) are the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity. These are in no way, whatsoever, anywhere near heresy. I'd like to see how someone could claim they are.
Received said:
I like my coffee black?
Received said:
That is not Original Sin. That view is called Semi-Pelagianism and it is borderline heresy (which would be Pelagianism).
Received said:
I am a Calvinist and I desire that all men be saved. I have no idea who will and won't be saved, just like Paul. You are presupposing that Paul knows God's plan for election. You can't do that.
Received said:
You are first, being the judge of God. What God says He does or not, is by default good and perfect. We cannot say what He should do or not do. That is the point of verse 20, by the way. Another thing, Calvinism never once said that God doesn't love everyone. I don't know who told you that, but you misunderstand the Reformed Faith.
Check what John Piper has to say about Calvinism on his Desiring God website. He defines it well. Just do a search for an article called: "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" on that site.
~Soli Deo Gloria~
Andy Bartus
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Yes, we are still the lump of clay; but I am attempting to uncover the truth of context as it relates to the Hebraic understanding of God's sovereignty here, that being in accordance with our moral choices. Our will is not autonomous from God's will? This is not necessarily the case. The non-Calvinist will declare that it is God who ordains; who allows things to come to pass; that our wills are entirely free and whatever God decides to actualize is actualized; it is as a younger Augustine would state: God is the arbiter, not cause, of sin. There is no need for compelling, and hence no superseding of man's will being individual to God's, yet still used by God to establish His will. It is the Lutheran position of fate being precisely what God desires, though our freedom constitutes this, while God ordains whichever worlds He sees fit.
Well, at least as this relates to the context of the passage, and how it relates to possible interpretations, the reformed tradition has the perception of a God who loves less than the other. This was really all I was getting at.
I don't think I'm following. God's being omnipotent does not supersede any objective historical understanding of what the verse is saying -- of who at that time Paul was speaking to. It would be a fallacy to assert that Paul is speaking to everyone -- Jew and Christian -- when he may only be speaking to Jews, etc. This doesn't hurt God's sovereignty at all.
Yes, but as stated above, there is no necessary reason to accept that the idea of God hardening whom He will and having mercy on whom He will is in accordance with the reformed tradition; I have been arguing that Paul's implications may be entirely opposite of what the reformed stance has had all along -- that he is responding to those who hold a limited election through the bloodline of Israel -- which the Pharisees were notorious for as evidenced over and over again in the gospels --, and that Paul's statement of God having mercy on whom He will is his way of saying that He will save whoever He darn well pleases; that matters of a limited election mean nothing to Him, and that He truly desires the salvation of all. A few verses later I attempt to fuse this idea with the Jewish understanding of using one lump for honorable and another for dishonorable use conditional on one's willingness to repent and follow God or not.
They mean heresy when you stand fast with the belief that it is necessarily factual that sin nature entered the world not through one man, but through the choice in conscious agreement with this one man by acting with him, in his loins, prior to their existence. This is heresy, for it implies the existence of a soul prior to one's existence. If sin enters the world without man's choice -- as the non-Calvinists agree to being the case with Romans 5 --, man is not responsible for the existence of sin, but is responsible for his sin as it relates to his unwillingness to repent. Paul declares very plainly in Romans 7 that sin is a power workinig contrary to the mind that wills the law; it is, as he states in former chapters, deceptive. I have no problem with the doctrine of original sin; I have infinite problems with the claim that we all brought about this sin through a volitional and conscious choice in Adam, prior to our existence.
I may have been chasing an irrelevant rabbit all along; and for this I apologize in advance.
That's just repulsive, manI like my coffee black?
How the heck do people drink coffee; I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
What do you mean? This is a fact for those who hold this interpretation of original sin.
Ok, fair enough. What I am saying, however, is that it seems quite a difficulty for the one who does desire the salvation of all -- the one who is sanctified according to the very spirit of God who elects on a non-universal scale -- being the subject of salvation by one who does not. It seems to imply a greater capacity for love for the creation rather than the creator, who is love (1 John 4:8) essentially. As this relates to the fundamental disagreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, at least you understand our point of view.
Well, first, I'm not judging God -- I'm judging your interpretation of God -- an ideal, a thesis, and not necessarily a person consciously revolted against. Moreover, the claim that whatever God does is good allows all sorts of skewed interpretations of His nature, namely in the sense that we are limiting God's nature to our epistemological capacity, and with the death of value as it relates to God we are defining Him, if you will, in the dark. For instance, a man may say that the scriptures point to Mormonism with the exact same worldview as your own in that whatever God does is good, rather than good being the essence of God discernable through our judgment. While this man may obviously be mistaken, the idea is the same.
God's nature must be something that we can understand as good and just a priori, or else we can never know whether our interpretation of God is correct.
Furthermore, regarding your point of God still loving everyone yet not saving them, I ask you how this can be the case. Does not love desire the best for its subject? Yes, you may reply that it is just for God to condemn men; but I ask you where in scripture this idea of condemnation is not made in reference to anything other than the law, save those who willingly reject belief in Christ, and how to reconcile this idea of justice with such passages as Psalm 62:12 that declare God's mercy and justice to be one and the same. Our view states that man is paying for his sinfulness. As Jesus said, all sins will be forgiven save blasphemy against the spirit (Luke 12:10); that is, rebellion.
Upvote
0
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Received said:
That is why they aren't Calvinists
A Calvinist would say that God is sovereign over our wills, as He is sovereign over everything. A Calvinist would never say that God forces us to do anything we don't want to do, however.Received said:
The older would say the same. Calvinists agree with this as well.
Received said:
Right, and I disagree with this. In fact, I'm willing to argue that our view of God has Him "loving more so" than the non-reformed view.
Upvote
0
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Received said:
First, it seems to me that you are equating love with the notion that if God loves all men, He is obligated to save all men. I ask you, where do you get this notion? Grace is nowhere in that assessment. People are rebels against God and want to go to hell--until God first regenerates them, and they begin to see the wieght of their sin. They don't see their need for God because they are so sinful and so self-righteous that they feel that because they've heard that God loves all men, God is somehow obligated to save all men.
Yes, I will say that men deserve justice! Justice is one in the same with mercy, through Christ. God's justice is perfectly distributed to the non-elect and to His Son on the Cross. Those of us who are saved have had mercy poured on us, but Christ has paid the ultimate price for that...which is a gift. How dare we say that God is obligated to save everyone! Everyone is obligated to go to hell because everyone is a sinner! God, even in saving just one, has shown an overwhelming amount of love and grace upon humanity.
Psalms 62:12 "And lovingkindness is Yours, O Lord, For You recompense a man according to his work." - God is good. Whatever He does is good. If He saves nobody, He still is good and He still is loving. If He rewards men according to their work, He is still good.
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
If you are saying the latter sentence, then I am by your definition a Calvinist. Again, God ordains whatever worlds He will, while we are still the ones who desire whatever we do in these worlds, and hence are responsible for whatever world is actualized. This is what it means for God to be sovereign over man's wills -- He establishes the steps of man according to his heart (Proverbs 16:9).That is why they aren't Calvinists
To say that we are obliged to do something when we love something is to equate love with debt, which is as far from the nature of love as can be conceived. Nowhere do I advocate that God is obliged to save all men; rather, that because of His infinite love He desires the salvation of all men, for this is simply the nature of love.
Grace? Since when was grace ascribed in scripture as 'getting what you don't deserve', etc? I consider this understanding entirely foreign, and hence superflous, to scripture -- it is the invention of the church.
People are rebels against God because they are deceived by a sinful nature they did not originally institute; they do not desire to go to Hell any more than a blind man desires his blindness. This is why men repent -- because they realize the futility of their actions, and grasp the goodness of God in its entirety through Jesus Christ -- this, obviously, is what we believe.
Again, there is no obligation in love; to juxtapose love and desert is to miss love.
This I do not find in the scriptures; again, I find that all sins shall be forgiven save blasphemy against the Spirit (Luke 12:10), which is evidenced quintessentially in the Pharisees.
Upvote
0
rnmomof7
Legend
- Feb 9, 2002
- 14,465
- 733
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Received said:
I think it is important as one searches for what the Jews believed or how they saw God that they had blinded eyes . They did not have a complete understanding or revelation . What we see in their interpretations is a small snapshot of a very large God .
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ecclesia Reformata
Relentlessly Reforming
Received said:
Would you say that God has no control then over a man's actions?
Received said:
Proverbs 16:9 "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." I think you are reading into this text. It simply says what I am arguing for: God controls what men do.
Received said:
Okay, regardless if God has expressed desire that all men be saved or not, what I am saying is simply that all men are not saved. Do those who are not thwart God's will? I say no.
Received said:
Why would the hebrew/greek (which I don't know either) words be translated into English as 'grace'?? Is every translation wrong?
Grace - Mercy; clemency; A favor rendered by one who need not do so
Received said:
They desire do go to Hell in this way:
1) All rebellion against God is sin
2) Sin leads to Hell
3) Man's nature is inherintly sinful and they are blinded to this fact
4) Since all Men are inherintly sinful and their nature is such, then men desire to sin (serve themselves rather than God)
----
~ Therefore, all men are sinners are rebels against God by nature. They are blinded to this fact. All men who desire to serve themselves rather than God, by conjunction, also (blindly) desire to go to Hell.
Received said:
To expand upon that, we believe because He first has chosen us. (John 15:16) We believe because we were first regenerated, then we had faith. Both gifts of God, not of ourselves, that we should ever boast.
Received said:
Sure, all sins will be forgiven of those who are saved. Simple fact is, not everyone is saved.
Upvote
0
CSMR
Totally depraved
- Nov 6, 2003
- 2,848
- 89
- 42
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Why do you take that to mean rebellion? Isn't all sin rebellion.
PS Received, are you a Kierkegaard devotee? I'm currently reading (at a very slow pace) the concept of irony and the sickness unto death.
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Again, God ordains whatever worlds He will, while we are still the ones who desire whatever we do in these worlds, and hence are responsible for whatever world is actualized.
The very idea of grace as getting what you don't deserve is foreign to scripture -- we get what we deserve because God desires that we get it.
5) Until men have a reason not to sin -- namely the special revelation of God that comes about not by their desire (Romans 10) -- they cannot not sin, for in these sins are found momentary pleasures that allow us relief from the stress of life; in short, they do not desire these sins in themselves, but as a means to transcendence. Those who desire sin in itself are precisely those who cannot be forgiven, for to forgive rebellion is to condone it. These men may desire to serve God, but until they are called there can be made no final conclusions. You cannot conclude that a man born blind desires the blindness he has -- for he is, if you will, blind to his blindness! A fish doesn't know it's wet. True rebellion spawns from consciousness.
----
As stated in my former reply, repeated above, God has the power to allow to come to pass or not the possibility that man is willing to actualize in whatever world he is placed in. Also, I do believe it is possible and likely probable that God does in some sense use men's hearts according to their own moral standard -- but what He cannot do, and what is futile for Him, is to constrain man's moral desires solely according to His will, without their former desire to change. There is no need, there is no sovereignty: it reveals only a God too uncreative to ordain other freely willed actions into whatever world is necessary for Him. Make no mistake, I do not believe that God uses men as puppets for the sake of using them as such -- that would be instrumental use -- even if this is in regards to non-moral matters; but it would rather go along with the idea of men getting what they deserve -- God's way of rewarding them according to their deeds (Ps. 62:12).
The verse very clearly states that the heart of man plans his way -- nowhere in this verse is it stated that God obscures this intention: if it did then you could say that God controls what men do, for only through intention are external acts established, and this verse does not declare that God manipulates men according to this fashion. It is the fact that God establishes the steps of men that means precisely a solution to any previous claims of God's sovereignty and man's freedom clashing, for in establishing man's steps He works according to the desires of his heart -- He quite literally creates the road by which we walk; we are the ones who determine what we will do with it.
Sure those who are not saved may not thwart God's will, but they do fail to meet His desire, which is -- for the non-Calvinist conception of God -- a paradoxical double-movement: He desires the freedom of His creatures, and He desires their salvation only through Him. In this sense, His desire is both met and unmet.
Well, this is still the very question begging I have been attempting to unveil. While some men believe grace and mercy to be as you stated, others do not: they rather hold that mercy is an expression of love by a greater power established unto a lower power; thus you have grace.
The very idea of grace as getting what you don't deserve is foreign to scripture -- we get what we deserve because God desires that we get it.
Non-Calvinists would add this point:
5) Until men have a reason not to sin -- namely the special revelation of God that comes about not by their desire (Romans 10) -- they cannot not sin, for in these sins are found momentary pleasures that allow us relief from the stress of life; in short, they do not desire these sins in themselves, but as a means to transcendence. Those who desire sin in itself are precisely those who cannot be forgiven, for to forgive rebellion is to condone it. These men may desire to serve God, but until they are called there can be made no final conclusions. You cannot conclude that a man born blind desires the blindness he has -- for he is, if you will, blind to his blindness! A fish doesn't know it's wet. True rebellion spawns from consciousness.
----
But this Hell is considered to be earned on the basis of one's refusal to repent (Romans 2:5). How can one who is blind to what he should do be blamed for what he is doing? An ought implies a can; to claim that God would demand of us something we cannot admit is beyond inconsistency. Men must go to Hell because they refuse repentance.
Well, applying a soteriological meaning to this verse seems a misconception; the context does not point to salvation, but to Jesus' choosing the twelve to bear the fruit of their salvation -- obviously in the hope of converting others.
But if Luke 12:10 is speaking of the saved only, how is it that they, being saved, can commit a sin that cannot be forgiven? -- namely, claiming with absolute consciousness of who God is that He is not who He says He is? This is not something that the saved can commit, for only one who is previously unsaved can commit this specific sin. Jesus here must be speaking to everyone; and while everyone who will be saved may not be saved now, we cannot judge the future by the present.
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Yes, all sin is rebellion, but a transitory sin is not an eternal sin; if this were the case then Jesus would not dichotomize as He has in Luke 12:10, where He clearly implies sins that can be forgiven, and a sin that cannot. Why, we must ask, is it that there is a specific sin that cannot be forgiven? Because only one sin -- eternal rebellion -- cannot be forgiven. To forgive what which will not be repented of is not to forgive but to condone: to label the action in question as forgotten when it is not for the one who commits -- like a mother who forgives her child's eternal hatred: if she says that she forgives him for the act he is still committing, he is thereby free to continue in his hatred of her, seeing it as a thing of no offense to his mother. This reveals that forgiveness is possible only with those who stop sinning -- you cannot be forgiven of all the sins you will commit while you still commit them. This does not imply a lack of willingness on God's part, but a lack on your own. Forgiveness is a prospect involving mutual action.CSMR said:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ChiRho
Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Received- Do you mean "stop sinning"? Without sin? What if you, in a moment of weakness and complete sinfullness, entertain a lustful thought for the flesh of a woman that you are not entitled to, and in your sinful blindness proceed into oncoming traffic, where you are struck and instantly killed. Without repenting, are you still saved? Please remember that I am a man of simple understanding when answering.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
