The Reformed room Bible study

[ksen]

This is why I said some Premills. Not all teach that, though some do.

It does seem to me that this verse teaches that we Gentile believers will become a part of the nation of Israel, i.e. receive an inheritance among them. I believe that this is demonstrated by other verses as well.

I believe they are right in a way because as far as I can tell the saved of all ages will have part in the Millenial Reign of Christ: the saved Jews of the OT, the saved Gentiles who joined themselves to Israel in the OT, and the saved of this post-Resurrection era.

 

[ksen]

hi there guys , I wondered if you can spare a few mins .... there is a guy (van) who is diputing that the saved of the Old Testament were born-again ... I don't accept this dispensationistic view at all ... perhaps your input may help in Soteriology


Thanks
Greetings Cygnus

To us Dispensationalists wave: ) saved and born-again are synonymous. Do you view "saved" and "born-again" as describing different things?

 

[cygnusx1]

To us Dispensationalists wave: ) saved and born-again are synonymous. Do you view "saved" and "born-again" as describing different things?

Hi ther ksen , no I think that regeneration is the doorway to salvation .......
without regeneration no man can comprehend truly the things of God ..... it would be like me trying to explain reformatting my hard drive to my dog

hope you are well

greetings Cygnus

 

[CCWoody]

hi ccwoody
yes quite , I have mentioned that weeks ago , tha Nicodemus was rebuked for being ignorant ....... yet still some see the New Testament period as bringing regeneration , I don't accept this at all.
there is only one Church and all who are in her are Christ's body , the Kingdom of heaven to my understanding is merely a way of expressing the Eternal Kindom of the Elect from all generations.......... OK many things were hidden but that doesn't mean they didn't exist ....

btw , is that the Geneva Bible you are using ?

"OK many things were hidden but that doesn't mean they didn't exist ...."

Exactly!!! Now, if this passage is not clear and convincing proof that the new birth was something Nicodemus should have known because it was not something brand new, then the Lord was just rebuking Nicodemus for no reason whatsoever. Are we to believe that the Lord just dresses people down for no reason? Wouldn't that be some kind of sin?

Of course, if the new birth was actually something new, then all of the OT saints will be excluded from the kingdom of God. And, it is this type of theology which leads people into the kinds of belief that we Gentiles and the Jews will be seperated, which, leads me back to my original question about Paul's testimony in Acts 26.

 

[cygnusx1]

"OK many things were hidden but that doesn't mean they didn't exist ...."

Exactly!!! Now, if this passage is not clear and convincing proof that the new birth was something Nicodemus should have known because it was not something brand new, then the Lord was just rebuking Nicodemus for no reason whatsoever. Are we to believe that the Lord just dresses people down for no reason? Wouldn't that be some kind of sin?

Of course, if the new birth was actually something new, then all of the OT saints will be excluded from the kingdom of God. And, it is this type of theology which leads people into the kinds of belief that we Gentiles and the Jews will be seperated, which, leads me back to my original question about Paul's testimony in Acts 26.

good post Brother
I may be quoting this post if that is OK with you

 

[CCWoody]

Hi ther ksen , no I think that regeneration is the doorway to salvation .......
without regeneration no man can comprehend truly the things of God ..... it would be like me trying to explain reformatting my hard drive to my dog

hope you are well

greetings Cygnus

Here is a question: If you view regeneration as a kind of enablement to comprehend the things of God, then wouldn't regeneration be a kind of salvation from your ignorance? And wouldn't that make being born again synonymous with a kind of salvation?

I would say that we would have to clearly define what we mean when we say salvation because I think that the Bible talks about salvation in different senses.

 

[CCWoody]

good post Brother
I may be quoting this post if that is OK with you

Be my guest. I used to feel guilty about "stealing" the ideas of another brother until I found from reading Augustine that he had lifted his argument from Augustine. Then, I didn't feel so bad. Augustine hasn't complained so far that his ideas are being used today.

 

[cygnusx1]

Be my guest. I used to feel guilty about "stealing" the ideas of another brother until I found from reading Augustine that he had lifted his argument from Augustine. Then, I didn't feel so bad. Augustine hasn't complained so far that his ideas are being used today.

good point !!!

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is a question: If you view regeneration as a kind of enablement to comprehend the things of God, then wouldn't regeneration be a kind of salvation from your ignorance? And wouldn't that make being born again synonymous with a kind of salvation?

I would say that we would have to clearly define what we mean when we say salvation because I think that the Bible talks about salvation in different senses.

well certainly regarding infant salvation regeneration although necessary may not bring with it a deep understanding of Spiritual truth ......... there again a deep understanding isn't the bench mark of salvation

 

[CCWoody]

Psa 3:8 GB

(8) Saluation belongeth vnto the Lord, and thy blessing is vpon thy people. Selah.


​

This verse contains the sum and substance of Calvinistic doctrine. Search Scripture through, and you must, if you read it with a candid mind, be persuaded that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone is the great doctrine of the word of God: “Salvation belongeth unto the Lord.” This is a point concerning which we are daily fighting. Our opponents say, “Salvation belongeth to the free will of man; if not to man's merit, yet at least to man's will;” but we hold and teach that salvation from first to last, in every iota of it, belongs to the Most High God. It is God that chooses his people. He calls them by his grace; he quickens them by his Spirit, and keeps them by his power. It is not of man, neither by man; “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” May we all learn this truth experimentally, for our proud flesh and blood will never permit us to learn it in any other way. ~ C.H. Spurgeon in The Treasury of David

 

[CCWoody]

What do you think is the meaning of this verse (from tonight's lesson list)? As a Partial Preterist Amil, this probably means something different to me than to some of you.

Mat 16:28 GB

(28) Verely I say vnto you, there bee some of them that stande here, which shall not taste of death, till they haue seene the Sonne of man come in his kingdome.


​

 

[CCWoody]

dSo you suppose that our dominion given by God extends even to the stars, and that we were originally intended to rise up and explore them (from the evening Psalms)?

Psa 8:3-4,6 GB


(3) When I beholde thine heauens, euen the workes of thy fingers, the moone and the starres which thou hast ordeined,
(4) What is man, say I, that thou art mindefull of him? and the sonne of man, that thou visitest him?
(6) Thou hast made him to haue dominion in the workes of thine hands: thou hast put all things vnder his feete:



​

 

[CCWoody]

I have a question (from yesterday's lessons): If Arminius was correct and Romans 7 was talking about Paul when he was not saved, which was a new doctrine to the Reformation, then why does my Bible render the tense in the present?:

Rom 7:14 GB

(14) For we knowe that the Law is spirituall, but I am carnall, solde vnder sinne.

 

[ksen]

dSo you suppose that our dominion given by God extends even to the stars, and that we were originally intended to rise up and explore them (from the evening Psalms)?

Psa 8:3-4,6 GB



(3) When I beholde thine heauens, euen the workes of thy fingers, the moone and the starres which thou hast ordeined,
(4) What is man, say I, that thou art mindefull of him? and the sonne of man, that thou visitest him?
(6) Thou hast made him to haue dominion in the workes of thine hands: thou hast put all things vnder his feete:




​

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we were intended to explore ALL of God's Creation.

 

[CCWoody]

Jer 32:27 GB

(27) Beholde, I am the LORD GOD of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?


​

It does seem to me, after reading this verse from this morning's OT lesson, that in the mind of the Arminian, there is a nearly endless supply of things too hard for the LORD. The first being:

1. God is neither smart enough nor powerful enough to figure out how to have every single human freely give himself to God.

 

[CCWoody]

I am actively debating Romans 11:4 here, but I am presenting this argument to be kept on this Bible study thread. I welcome any comments here or on the thread. I believe this is a fair treatment of the verse.

Shredding myths concerning Election one verse at a time (Rom 11:4)

An election of Grace.​

Romans 11:4-8 GB

(4) But what saith the answer of God to him? I have reserved unto myself seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal.

(5) Euen so then at this present time is there a remnant according to the election of grace.

(6) And if it be of grace, it is no more of works: or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works, it is no more grace: or else were work no more work.

(7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that he sought: but the election hath obteined it, and the rest have been hardened,

(8) According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber: eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.


The very elegance and majesty of God’s sovereignty in election is set before us in these verses. It begins "I have reserved." The context of Paul’s discussion here is the setting forth of a plausible question in his epistle Has God cast away his people? God forbid! He has not cast away his people who he knew before. I have reserved unto myself… the Scriptures declare. Paul brings forth for us a particular example from the days of Elijah the prophet. God has kept a remnant who are said to be of an election of grace of a people he foreknew. It must be understood that when Paul speaks of "his people" that he is speaking of the physical descendants of Abraham. He says, "I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Paul has made a clear identification as a physical descendant. So, we must accept that the elect, this people he foreknew, are physical descendants of Abraham as well as spiritual descendants.


We assert that these people are a people reserved by God and kept for himself that they will not fall away into idolatry. So, when we read that God has kept them, we understand that, at least in part, God has kept them from bowing the knee to Baal.

And, thanks to my friend Calvinist Dark Lord, we know that even the very structure of the sentence supports this interpretation of Scripture:

The word translated as 'reserved' is katevlipon, which is first and third person aorist indicative active of kataleivpw, which Moulton defines as follows:

to leave behind;​

at death, Mar. 12.19; to relinquish, let remain, Mar. 14.52; to quit, depart from, forsake, Mat. 4.13;16.4; to neglect, Ac. 6.2; to leave alone, or without assistance, Lu. 10.40; to reserve, Ro. 11.4.​

Moulton, Anylitical Greek Lexicon, 1978 ed, p.217​

• • So, just what is God "Leaving them behind from"?
  • How is God "relinquishing " them?
  • You mean that God is really "departing from" or "forsaking" them?
  • Is God actually "neglecting" them?
  • Has God "Left them alone" or left them "without assistance"?

I believe that you can see that the only real alternative is "reserve" which some translations have rightfully rendered as "Kept"



This begs the questions of:

1. 1. Who they are being kept by...and
   2. What they are being kept from...or if you prefer, reserved.
      
   
   

The first one is easy, God has kept, or reserved them to Himself.



Now what are they being reserved from? Bowing the knee to Baal of course, that's what the text SAYS.

The verb is active, the subject...God...is performing the action.

BUT​

the passage is ALSO using a reflexive pronoun "to Myself", or "For Myself" in some translations. So, God has kept, or 'reserved' these 7000 men for His own purposes.

The Arminians really have no appeal to the grammar of the passage.

However, in charity, we are willing to entertain the non-Calvinist interpretation of this passage, even if there is absolutely no reason to interpret it this way other than the non-Calvinist must force this reading on the passage to be consistent with his theology. It has been explicitly asserted that God’s choice of them, his "election of grace," is based on their "demonstration of faith." "God said He will leave all the knees that have not bowed." "God spared them because of their behavior." Very good! In charity, we will freely grant the interpretation and examine its implications in light of Scripture.

First of all, if we say that this election of grace is nothing more than God will leave the 7000 in the state in which He found them, what exactly is this election accomplishing. Certainly not their eternal salvation. After all, if God is merely leaving them how he found them, then there is nothing which will prevent them from falling away into complete apostasy like the rest of the nation of Israel. After all, the non-Calvinist is adamant:

It is not: I have kept, etc.. That is not the meaning of the passage nor the word.

Therefore, it is impossible for this election of grace to be a grace which prevents the 7000 from sinning against God.

Now, it might be asserted that God is electing to spare them from the sword of Hazael and from the sword of Jehu and from Elisha. I do suppose that this is what must be meant by election. After all, there was no guarantee that the 7000 would not fall into the same idolatry as the rest of Israel. Remember, "it is not ‘I have kept.’" Sadly, that is not much of a people for God. They might be faithful and they might not. Still, God had to elect someone to keep a people for himself, lest the original accusation to which Paul is responding would be true and God would truly be casting away his people. So, I guess that these were the ones who were most obedient to God. Perhaps, the non-Calvinist will assert that God knew that these 7000 would remain faithful and never bow their knee to Baal and so he elects to call them his own.

Secondly, if we accept the non-Calvinist contention that "God chooses faithful believers," then we are immediately presented with the problem of just how much obedience it takes to be considered faithful. Is merely obedience to only certain of the 10 Commandments enough to get it done? You see, God’s choice of these faithful 7000 waw nothing more than people who were obedient to this Command:

Exo 20:3-6 GB

(3) Thou shalt have none other Gods before me.

(4) Thou shalt make thee no graven image, neither any similitude of things that are in heaven above, neither that are in the earth beneath, nor that are in the waters under the earth.

(5) Thou shalt not bow down to them, neither serve them: for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third generation and upon the fourth of them that hate me:

(6) And showing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Or do you have to demonstrate obedience to all of the 10 Commandments to show that you love God? Exodus 20:6 does seem to suggest that one must keep all the commandments, not just a few. So, the critical question does seem to be, how much is enough for God to merely overlook a failing here and there. It is merely Baal that one can’t bow down before, but the god of Islam is OK? The non-Calvinist all but admits to this when he says:

In other words God assesses our faith, and He sovereignly decides whether our unrighteous depraved useless sinful faith is sufficient for His divine purpose.

Far be it for me to point out the obvious self-contradiction within 4 words. Is this faith "useless" for God’s divine purpose or "sufficient" for God’s divine purpose? Oops!

Unfortunately, all of this does have one GLARINGLY fatal problem. We have done nothing but introduce works righteousness to justify this interpretation of the verse. It is the dagger in the back of this interpretation. It is impossible to introduce any kind of demonstration of faith through obedience to the Commandments of God and divorce from that obedience under the Law. This should be self-evidently obvious. Those who did not bow their knee to Baal were being obedience to an expressed Commandment of God. Unfortunately, there is no justification by the deeds of the Law. Yet, the non-Calvinist who insists upon this interpretation is convinced that God choose them because they were obedient to the Law. Romans 4:2, clearly indicates that if we achieve anything by our obedience under the Law, then we also have a reason to boast before God.

It is actually more problematic than that. Abraham’s belief was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:5). And, lest there is any confusion about what this righteousness entails Romans 4:7-8 cites the following from Psalms 32:

Psa 32:1-2 GB

(1) A Psalm of David to give instruction. Blessed is he whose wickedness is forgiven, and whose sin is covered.

(2) Blessed is the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

This whole line of Paul’s words in Romans 4 includes the idea that this justification is not only for Abraham, but for those of us who believe in Him that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. We understand that if we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved." This is nothing but a pure and unabashed salvation by meritorious human works. And, those who truly believe this doctrine can look forward to only having their works reckoned as a debt owed to God.

The real irony of this position that is advocated by the non-Calvinist is that Paul himself is actively arguing against it. He says that if election is of works, it is no longer grace. I believe that Paul has made specific use of the keeping of the 7000 on account of the fact that we are told that this remnant was obedient to the command to not bow before idols, a clear work of the Law. We should be instructed that Israel did not obtain what it sought by the works of the Law. Only the elect have obtained it. The rest were hardened.

Now, if God choice of them, his "election of grace," is not based on their "demonstration of faith," and I believe that any honest examine of this scripture passage must conclude that Election cannot be turned into a meritorious human work, then we must conclude that God’s choice of them was so they would not bow the knee to Baal. When we read I have reserved unto myself seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal, it must be, since we have eliminated God’s choice of them because they did not bow their knee, but that they would not bow their knee. God has kept them from falling away from Him into a dreadful idolatry. This is what it means to be kept by God. This is what Election must rightly be. This is why it is called an "election of grace."

 

[CCWoody]

The compassionate beauty of the Lord

in the salvation of a leper
​

Mar 1:40-42 GB

(40) And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeled downe vnto him, and said to him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me cleane.
(41) And Iesus had compassion, and put foorth his hand, and touched him, and said to him, I wil: be thou cleane.
(42) And assone as he had spoken, immediatly ye leprosie departed from him, and he was made cleane.

​

The leprosy was firmly seated and fully developed in this man. Luke says that he was “full of leprosy”: he had as much of the poison in him as one poor body could contain, it had come to its worst stage in him; and yet he believed that Jesus of Nazareth could make him clean. The Law forbid that any touch him so it would have been a long time since any other than another leper might have touched him. The text tells us that "as soon as He had spoken, the leprosy departed from him." It would have been sufficient that the Lord heal the leper with nothing but a word. Scripture records that the Lord was able to heal a nobleman's son with nothing but a word (John 4:50). Yet, it is not enough for the Lord to merely heal the disease. In his compassion as the Great Physician, He must touch the leper. The beauty of Christ in salvation is that he does not merely cleanse the sinner from the filth of his sin; he must caress those whom he saves. This is the compassionate beauty of the Lord.

 

[CCWoody]

The Doctrine of reaping and sowing:​

Gen 1:12 GB​

(12) And the earth brought foorth the bud of the herbe, that seedeth seede according to his kind, also the tree that beareth fruit, which hath his seed in it selfe according to his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
​

Believe it or not, but I have heard certain pastors use this verse to prove that it is an axiom of the kingdom of God that what a man sows he will reap. And, while I can go along a few steps, I cannot go down the path that they run to demonstrate that we are all getting what we deserve in this life.

​

 

[cygnusx1]

Happy New Year CCWoody

great to see you back , I thought of you when someone said we and our God were monsters , or words to that effect

http://www.christianforums.com/t2444266-why-i-think-i-will-never-be-a-calvinist.html&page=35#post21081074 post #345

I miss your wit!

 

[CCWoody]

Good to be back, though, I don't know if it is a good thing that the idea of a Calvinistic monster brought up visions of Woody. hehe!

By way of example of how some use the Genesis 1 verse, it has been put to me that if you sow money by tithe and offering or general charity you will be guaranteed to reap a harvest of money.