Where do you stand?

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Br. Max
SO reformationist - there has been a question burning in my heart for a long while now . . . How long have you been a frustrated preacher??

Since about March 7th, 2002.  My register date.

God bless 

 

[dignitized]

reformationist: Maybe we could do a collection here and put you through seminary and end that frustration

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Okay I am kind of confused if this was meant to me in some way but I know that Calvinism teaches what you say.  I hope I did not give the impression that I did not.  In fact I agree with this view.  Man in his natural state will never choose God not because he physically could not but because in his natural state man does not want to choose God.  Both Jacob Arminius and Calvin agree here.

Sorry bro.  I misunderstood.

The question is what does God do from there?  Does He partially regenerate all (previent grace) so that one can make a choice or does God fully regenerate only some and they all make the choice to choose God because He is irrresistable?  This I believe is the real question and point of contention between Calvinism and the theology of Jacob Arminius.

That is definitely a point of contention.  Let me see if I can address it.  First off, we should establish what regeneration is.  The reformed view is that regeneration is the act of God alone, in which He renews the human heart, making it alive when it was dead.  If God only "partially regenerates" man then that is to say that He only partially brings him back to life.  IMO, one of the foundational things that must be understood is that not only won't fallen man choose that which is right, i.e., believing in the Truth of God's Word, of his own volition, he is dead.  You see, we aren't sinners because we sin.  We sin because we are sinners.  It's our very nature.

Now, let's just say it was possible to "partially" bring someone back to life and that meant that, spiritually, they were redeemed to an indifferent disposition.  By indifferent I don't mean apathetic.  Rather, I mean that he has no particular inclination towards good or evil and can choose either equally.  So, here we have this indifferent being that now has to make a choice.  What is that choice?  Do I put my faith in God that He will give me the credit for Christ's righteousness and not impute the penalty for my sins?  That's the question, right?  Now, if we say that salvation is by grace through faith we are saying one of two things.  Either we agree with the reformed view that salvation is of God and it is by His grace alone that we are saved, or we take the view the God is bases our salvation on some inherent merit that is found in us, apart from Him, i.e., us having faith, and us putting it in Him.  The problem posed with the latter view is that if God saves us based on anything then it ceases to be grace.  By it's very definition grace is unmerited.

So, the real question is, "Do we believe in a God who is a Savior, or merely a God who is a potential Savior?"

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Br. Max
reformationist: Maybe we could do a collection here and put you through seminary and end that frustration

As long as it's a reformed one.  

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Reformationist
I'm going to strive to give you the benefit of my doubt because, to me, this makes no sense.  "Good" is defined as "what God says is good."  How can man choose "good" but it not be what God says is "good?"  If something is other than what God says is "good" then that would seem to negate it's goodness.  If all man can choose is what God would say is "evil," then wouldn't that mean that all of man's choices are "evil?"  "Good" is not determined by what man says is "good."  So, saying that man can choose what God says is "evil" makes the decision evil, regardless of what man determined as "good" or "evil."

All religion is an establishment of what is good.  Good in mans eyes.  Helping and old lady across the street is always good.  But if the action is based out of some need for to not feel evil and not out of love for God then the action is not Godly or Holy.

Before I address the rest, let me once again point out that "foreknew" DOES NOT just mean to "know before, or know about."  It implies an obvious relationship, a relationship of intimacy.



It amazes me how people regularly seek to prove their intelligence in a way that shows they have no understanding of what they're talking about.  If the verse says that "those that God foreknew (had an intimate relationship with) He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son" then those that He foreknew WILL BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.  To imply that God predestines, that is, determine the destination of prior to [the foundations of the world], and then there are some that were so predestined and yet were not conformed to the image of Christ is to blatantly say that God made a sovereign effort to bring something about and it didn't happen.  How do you even worship God if He cannot bring about His own Will.  It's one thing to think that man can resist God's power, as odd as that is, but to think that God cannot bring about that which He purposes to bring about is ridiculous.

I never said that God can not bring about what He purposes.  I only said that He will not make man choose Him.  Choose to be saved. 

How can a man have an "intimate relationship" with God before he knows God?

Heres were what you suggest doesn't make sence.  If foreknew means having an established relationship before recieving His son and even before a person has developed the ability to have a relationship, then are you endorsing the belief that all souls existed before they were born?  If only by recieving Christ am I able to even aproach God, how can God have an already existing relationship with me?  I feel as though I am running in circles trying to figure out how you could think that.

Huh???!!!



Double Huh???!!!  God predestined everyone but not everyone enters that predestination???  What is predestination?  A building?

Predestination is a plan, a predetermined desire.  We must agree with God inorder for that desire to be fulfilled.  You are haveing trouble understanding my stand point because you start with the assumtion that man has no mans will is worthless and has no part to play with in God's plan.  I start with the assumption that God desires that man choose, and that he chooses life rather then good or evil.  I start with the garden, and say that this is the reason that God created man.  For us to come into agreement with Him.  For us to choose.  For us by our own will to choose Him, to choose life.  To forsake the knowing good or knowing evil, to forget about right and wrong and only see God.  But you assume that man has no choice.

Ooooohhhh, I get it now.  God has to have His creations permission and agreement before the death of God incarnate was of any value in a person's life.  Yeah.  That makes sense.

If no man ever recieved the gift then the gift become valueless.  And that would be a sad thing.

God bless

P.S.  Its kind of rude to start a dialog by insulting the person you wish to talk to.  I am niether ignorant of the subject nor trying to sound intelligent.

[line]

 

Man in his natural state will never choose God not because he physically could not but because in his natural state man does not want to choose God.  Both Jacob Arminius and Calvin agree here.  The question is what does God do from there?

I agree completely with this statement.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by cenimo
Blackhawk


1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to know the truth.

Okay but how is wanting to save all and coming to save all the same thing?  My point was that He knew that not all would be saved so when He died He died for the elect.  Whichever side one is on I think one can see that He died so that all can have a chance at salvation but only so that some could have salvation.  Now when I say chance I mean that so all that have faith can be saved.  But then we get back to how do we get that faith. 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Reformationist
Sorry bro.  I misunderstood.

No problem.  I am a confusing read often.

That is definitely a point of contention.  Let me see if I can address it.   [/B]

I know I used these words but let's not make it a pont on contention between us.  Let's make it a point of contention between the two different theologies.  We will surely do that but I wanted to just say that ahead of time.  Also I want to say that I still have not made up my mind on this.  I think I am doomed to just not know which I guess will make me trust in the Lord even more.  How can that be a bad thing huh?  It is hard to no know though.  But I am not anti-total regeneration or pro-previent grace.  My last post probably sounded like it and maybe if I had to choose I would not choose 100% regeneration at this moment but then again I would only choose if God made me choose.  Right now I see iot as a wonderful mystery that God has given to me.  I get to learn more and more about HIm.  I think if it was so easy to explain I would not love Him so much.  He would not be big enough. 

First off, we should establish what regeneration is.  The reformed view is that regeneration is the act of God alone, in which He renews the human heart, making it alive when it was dead.  If God only "partially regenerates" man then that is to say that He only partially brings him back to life.  IMO, one of the foundational things that must be understood is that not only won't fallen man choose that which is right, i.e., believing in the Truth of God's Word, of his own volition, he is dead.  You see, we aren't sinners because we sin.  We sin because we are sinners.  It's our very nature. [/B]

Okay.  I guess the other side is that there is a middle ground between being totally depraved and being saved.  After typing that it seems to make less sense to me but oh well.   But I think that physical death and life can be used as an analogy but not as a way to explain that this is how it is completely.  I think it is more complex than that.  It might end up being somewhat like it but to just say there is no physical middle ground so there is no spiritual middle ground is too easy of an explanation.  Spiritual life and physical life are not the same.  But then again I am not discounting the reformed view just when some use this analogy too much.  I think I am getting ahead of myself though.   

Now, let's just say it was possible to "partially" bring someone back to life and that meant that, spiritually, they were redeemed to an indifferent disposition.  By indifferent I don't mean apathetic.  Rather, I mean that he has no particular inclination towards good or evil and can choose either equally.  So, here we have this indifferent being that now has to make a choice.  What is that choice?  Do I put my faith in God that He will give me the credit for Christ's righteousness and not impute the penalty for my sins?  That's the question, right?  Now, if we say that salvation is by grace through faith we are saying one of two things.  Either we agree with the reformed view that salvation is of God and it is by His grace alone that we are saved, or we take the view the God is bases our salvation on some inherent merit that is found in us, apart from Him, i.e., us having faith, and us putting it in Him.  The problem posed with the latter view is that if God saves us based on anything then it ceases to be grace.  By it's very definition grace is unmerited.

So, the real question is, "Do we believe in a God who is a Savior, or merely a God who is a potential Savior?"

God bless [/B]

Yes this argument is a really good one. It really makes me just about join the reformed side completely.  Then I see that God desires that the nonsaved be saved.  That seems to throw a wrench in things ust like this throws the wrench in the other side.  This side is great and says God is sovereign but what occurs when Jesus' lament over the nation of Israel? 


Matt 23:37-39
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38 "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39 "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!"'
(NAU)

Even though Jesus really says some terrible things earlier in this chapter against the pharisees and Isael He still wants Israel to convert.  So then the Calvinist has to say well God wants to save everyone but allows us a choice to choose hell.  But then God wants something to be done but we stop it unless God does things differently.  notice I said the last snetence the way I did on purpose.  God could of changed the way He did things and save everyone but He chose to do it a certain way.  But then we stop what He wants because of our disbelief.  So I want to hear the Calvinst side of how this issue can be resolved.  Why is our having a faith on our own so much different than us not being saved because of our disbelief although God wants us to be saved? 

Again I am an investigator in the issue.  I do not want to be put on either side because I am not trying to argue a side.  I am trying to get at the truth or the closest to the truth that we humans can get.  I think though it will always be a mystery to me and that is okay because God is sovedreign and is my Lord.  Also Iwant you to know Reformanist that I chose you to do this with because we have a history of debating here and I fele confortable that we can debate the issues only.  We have a real respect for each other.  Also I think you are one of the best if not the best proponents of the reformed view here.  So let's discuss and have some fun. 

 

[cenimo]

Blackhaws

That was from TEV, I think KJV says, "Christ came so that all may be saved...

Along with predestination, chosen, elect, etc..Calvinists also like to promote Replacement theology, the Jews had their chance as the chosen people and blew it, so "the elect" take their place. To get their requires quite a bit of scripture twisting and "new interpretations"...
Just MHO, but it certainly amazes me that no matter what the discussion, be it predestination vs free will, preterism vs end-times, etc that people on both sides of the issue refer to the very same verses of scripture to "prove" that they are right (Matthew 24 for example in the preterism - end times discussions)

Personally, I'll stick with John 3:16, Matthew 8:8-10, Acts 16:30-31 without clouding things up or causing myself or anyone else to have doubt, or confuse things. We all know who the author of confusion is and spreading doubt is his ost favored weapon.

There's a Bptist minister up in Minnesota who has written a book called Not Chosen to Salvation. His book is a replt to Chosen to Salvation. The author of Not Chosen to Salvation says there are chosen and elect all right, but they were chosen to fulfill roles, not chosen to salvation.

http://www.heritagebbc.com/resources.books.notchosentosalvation.htm

from the web page:

<B>Not Chosen to Salvation
</B>By Dr. Max D. Younce
<CENTER>
This book covers all the Scriptures relating to the false doctrine of predestination to salvation and illuminates the free will and responsibility of man.&nbsp; Answers the verses used by those who believe in predestination for salvation.&nbsp; A good witnessing tool.

This book reveals how dangerous and manipulative it is when you take pieces of Scripture and whole verses out of context to build false doctrine.&nbsp; It also reveals how one false teaching will have many other tributaries of false doctrine attached.&nbsp; This book has been sent to missionaries in Argentina, Australia, South America, and many other countries.&nbsp; It is one of the most complete books in answering the Scriptures set forth by the Predestinationalists.&nbsp; In the back are all the Scriptures used, with a quick page reference.&nbsp; For a complete study on the subject of Predestination, this book is a must for your library.

(bolding and underlining cenimo's)

&nbsp;</CENTER>

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
All religion is an establishment of what is good.&nbsp; Good in mans eyes.&nbsp; Helping and old lady across the street is always good.&nbsp; But if the action is based out of some need for to not feel evil and not out of love for God then the action is not Godly or Holy.

"Good in man's eyes" doesn't mean "good."&nbsp; It is severely incongruous to say that man&nbsp;can do "good" and "evil" and then say man's&nbsp;opinion of what is "good" isn't actually what is&nbsp;"good."&nbsp;&nbsp;While I agree that man's opinion of what is "good" isn't good&nbsp;unless it mirrors&nbsp;what God says is "good," it just seems pointless to me to say that man&nbsp;can do good but it's not really "good."&nbsp; If man's version of&nbsp;"good" isn't what God says is "good," then, it shouldn't be called "good."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

I never said that God can not bring about what He purposes.&nbsp; I only said that He will not make man choose Him.&nbsp; Choose to be&nbsp;saved.

Saved is something done to us, not with us.&nbsp; The only reason man would choose God is because God gives&nbsp;him a new nature that desires the things of God.&nbsp; Otherwise man, in his fallen state, doesn't want the things of God.&nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;God has to make man want to choose Him.&nbsp; The&nbsp;efficacious result of God making man want to choose Him is man choosing Him.&nbsp;

How can a man have an "intimate relationship" with God before he knows God?&nbsp;

Heres were what you suggest doesn't make sence.&nbsp; If foreknew means having an established relationship before recieving His son and even before a person has developed the ability to have a relationship, then are you endorsing the belief that all souls existed before they were born?&nbsp; If only by recieving Christ am I able to even aproach God, how can God have an already existing relationship with me?&nbsp; I feel as though I am running in circles trying to figure out how you could think that.

Jeremiah 1:4,5
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> </SUP>"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Before you were born I sanctified you;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Do you think He was being allegorical?&nbsp; He plainly states that He knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb.&nbsp; This wasn't a unique thing with Jeremiah.&nbsp; God has an intimate relationship with all of His elect.&nbsp; Obviously He also knows everything about everyone.&nbsp; But that intimate relationship was something God had with those He sovereignly elected before the foundations of the world.

Predestination is a plan, a predetermined desire.&nbsp; We must agree with God inorder for that desire to be fulfilled.&nbsp; You are haveing trouble understanding my stand point because you start with the assumtion that man has no mans will is worthless and has no part to play with in God's plan.&nbsp; I start with the assumption that God desires that man choose, and that he chooses life rather then good or evil.&nbsp; I start with the garden, and say that this is the reason that God created man.&nbsp; For us to come into agreement with Him.&nbsp; For us to choose.&nbsp; For us by our own will to choose Him, to choose life.&nbsp; To forsake the knowing good or knowing evil, to forget about right and wrong and only see God.&nbsp; But you assume that man has no choice.

Of course man has a choice.&nbsp; That's not what I'm objecting at all.&nbsp;&nbsp;Man has a will.&nbsp; Man can make decisions.&nbsp; What I'm telling you is that due to the effect the Fall had on the nature of mankind,&nbsp; no one will choose God out of a fallen heart.&nbsp; God must first redeem a person.&nbsp; The "choosing" of Christ is the result of being brought back to life.&nbsp; Look at the story of Lazurus.&nbsp; Did Jesus say, "Hey Lazurus...would you please come forth.&nbsp; I'll make it worth your while?"&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course not.&nbsp; Lazurus was dead.&nbsp; Jesus said, "Lazurus, come forth."&nbsp; It was a command.&nbsp; Lazurus definitely responded by coming out of the tomb.&nbsp; However, he played no part in being brought back to life.&nbsp; All I'm saying is that Lazurus' actions after he was resurrected were the natural result of being brought to life.&nbsp;

If no man ever recieved the gift then the gift become valueless.&nbsp; And that would be a sad thing.

Are you telling&nbsp;me that unless you had a say so in being saved then Christ's work on the&nbsp;Cross is worthless?&nbsp; I think you're putting the focus on the wrong thing.&nbsp;

P.S.&nbsp; Its kind of rude to start a dialog by insulting the person you wish to talk to.&nbsp; I am niether ignorant of the subject nor trying to sound intelligent.

I apologize.&nbsp; I was out of line.

I agree completely with this statement.

I don't understand.&nbsp; You say that you agree that man, in his natural state will never choose God.&nbsp; Yet, you contend that man must first willfully receive the gift before the gift can be made manifest.&nbsp; Those are opposing statements.

God bless

 

[cenimo]

reformationist

Jeremiah 1:4,5
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
<SUP></SUP>"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

From the website for the book Not Chosen To Salvation

This book reveals how dangerous and manipulative it is when you take pieces of Scripture and whole verses out of context to build false doctrine. It also reveals how one false teaching will have many other tributaries of false doctrine attached. This book has been sent to missionaries in Argentina, Australia, South America, and many other countries. It is one of the most complete books in answering the Scriptures set forth by the Predestinationalists. In the back are all the Scriptures used, with a quick page reference. For a complete study on the subject of Predestination, this book is a must for your library.

Let's say you go somewhere and there is this gift package with your name on it that has been sitting on a shelf for years- decades. Someone reaches on the shelf and says, "This is for you." You still have to accept the gift.

The gift in this case is salvation and heaven.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by cenimo
Let's say you go somewhere and there is this gift package with your name on it that has been sitting on a shelf for years- decades. Someone reaches on the shelf and says, "This is for you." You still have to accept the gift.

The gift in this case is salvation and heaven.

Well, true as that may be in that example, that isn't how God does things.&nbsp; If He wants something, He makes it happen.&nbsp; If something is not His desire, then He doesn't bring it about.

I think the thing that blows my mind when reading the statement that for Christ's sacrifice to be of any merit man must "receive" or "accept" it from their own free will is that it makes Jesus the actual Savior of none, but only the potential Savior of all.&nbsp; This raises the serious theological consideration that, potentially, all men could have rejected the manifestation of Christ's saving work.&nbsp; Tell me, if it is man's action of receiving or accepting that makes Christ's work of any merit what, pray tell, would have happened had no one "accepted" His works as valid?&nbsp; Does that mean that Christ would have died in vain?&nbsp; It is a&nbsp;option that has to be considered.&nbsp; Additionally, if it was God's sovereign Plan to save all mankind, and we both know that not all will be saved, does that mean you think God's Plan failed?&nbsp;

God bless

 

[cenimo]

Reformationist

...think the thing that blows my mind when reading the statement that for Christ's sacrifice to be of any merit man must "receive" or "accept" it from their own free will is that it makes Jesus the actual Savior of none, but only the potential Savior of all. This raises the serious theological consideration that, potentially, all men could have rejected the manifestation of Christ's saving work. Tell me, if it is man's action of receiving or accepting that makes Christ's work of any merit what, pray tell, would have happened had no one "accepted" His works as valid? Does that mean that Christ would have died in vain? It is a option that has to be considered. Additionally, if it was God's sovereign Plan to save all mankind, and we both know that not all will be saved, does that mean you think God's Plan failed?

Good stuff, but to answer the bolded part, no, of course not. Christ, God in human form, knew that some would accept it and some would reject it.
I have been hashing this out for three years now every opportunity I get to go to once a week or so lunch with a reformed preacher. For God to have people "born condemned" and then still hold them accountable for their actions (Hitler*, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc...) just "doesn't compute. It puts god in the role of puppet master, and that is an example of Christ dying in vain. Just MHO.

God Bless

* While stationed in Germany, three of the guys in my section rented an aprtment in a German house. They found a trunk in the attic with WW II memorobilia in it, to include copies of Mein Kampf in the original German. The translator found several passages in it where Hitler said, " I am only doing what God told me to do."

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by cenimo
Good stuff, but to answer the bolded part, no, of course not. Christ, God in human form, knew that some would accept it and some would reject it.

So because God knew ahead of time that some would accept His sacrifice means that when He came He knew He wasn't on an exercise in futility?

But, at the same time, you're saying that God sent His Son to die for people that He knew would not avail themselves of the sacrifice?&nbsp; Don't you think, according to that, God would have been setting Himself up for some disappointment?&nbsp; Do you think God is disappointed with the way things are turning out?&nbsp; Do you think God failed?

It puts god in the role of puppet master, and that is an example of Christ dying in vain. Just MHO.

Well, I don't&nbsp;see the whole "puppet master" analogy but if there was one don't you think it would be God?&nbsp;&nbsp;Is the better interpretation that we are the puppet master and God's Plan&nbsp;is subject to our decisions?&nbsp;

* While stationed in Germany, three of the guys in my section rented an aprtment in a German house. They found a trunk in the attic with WW II memorobilia in it, to include copies of Mein Kampf in the original German. The translator found several passages in it where Hitler said, " I am only doing what God told me to do."

Yeah well, people say a lot of things.&nbsp; That doesn't make them true.&nbsp; Nor does it prove that the&nbsp;sovereign election and effectual calling of God isn't true.

God bless

 

[cenimo]

Reformationist

Well, I hesitate to introduce this part of this, but here goes...If God does indeed deem some people to be born not chosen, i.e., they are predestined to be bad people, and then he condemns them for fulfilling a role he gave them, at least logically (ouch!, I know) there are only two possible explanations, generational curses, or punishment for misdeeds in a past life (reincarnation).

Just MHO, but I cannot see how Calvinism can fit in with the Great Commission - to go out and spread "the Good news", and have peole ask, "Is this available to me?" and then tell them, "Maybe, if you are elect" is really reaching.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by cenimo
Well, I hesitate to introduce this part of this, but here goes...If God does indeed deem some people to be born not chosen, i.e., they are predestined to be bad people, and then he condemns them for fulfilling a role he gave them

The problem here seems to be that the assumption is being made that because God created all people He is obligated to save all people.&nbsp; That because man is born with a nature that despises God that God is required to give man the necessary grace to be able to overcome that fallen nature.

at least logically (ouch!, I know) there are only two possible explanations, generational curses, or punishment for misdeeds in a past life (reincarnation).

But man did inherit a generational curse.&nbsp; Through the seed of Adam we all inherit the curse of original sin.&nbsp; That God deems it good to redeem some doesn't mean that He's being unfair to those that He doesn't redeem.&nbsp; We are God's creation.&nbsp; It pleased Him, according to the counsel of His own Will, to save some.&nbsp; Again, the fact that He does not equip all with a nature that is inclined to serve Him doesn't mean that He was obligated to do so.&nbsp; That is what is addressed in Romans 9:19-21:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"&nbsp; But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"&nbsp; Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

It is God's perrogative to do with His creation as He will.&nbsp; We are not in a position to question Him.

Just MHO, but I cannot see how Calvinism can fit in with the Great Commission - to go out and spread "the Good news", and have peole ask, "Is this available to me?" and then tell them, "Maybe, if you are elect" is really reaching.

Well, if someone were to say that someone is able to be saved "if you are elect" then they are missing the point of spreading the "good news."&nbsp; It is neither our job to determine if someone is elected unto salvation by God nor whether our ability to proficiently preach is what "reaches" them.&nbsp; Our preaching, or spreading, of God's Word is never what leads someone to God.&nbsp; God leads people to Himself.&nbsp; We spread the Gospel because doing so is something that God uses to spread the Word to His sheep that are scattered.&nbsp; The belief that should be represented is that everyone is one of God's elect and place our faith that He will bring everyone to a saving knowledge that He desires to be.&nbsp; Also, whether we personally believe someone is, or will be saved&nbsp;makes no difference in the way we are commanded to treat them.

God bless

 

[cenimo]

Reformationist

Brother, I know what you are saying, but since The Great Commission is targeted at the unchurched, those who aren't sure of their salvation, &nbsp;and those who haven't heard the Gospel, those How Can You Be Sure You Are Going To Heaven approaches are sure less confusing.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Matthew 8:8-10

God Bless

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Reformationist

I don't understand.&nbsp; You say that you agree that man, in his natural state will never choose God.&nbsp; Yet, you contend that man must first willfully receive the gift before the gift can be made manifest.&nbsp; Those are opposing statements.

God bless

I don't really wish to be apart of a debate here and cenimo seems to be doing a wonderful job arguing the otherside so therefore I will only answer this part of your post.

Its quite simple.&nbsp; God courts us.&nbsp; Coaching and drawing us to salvation.&nbsp; Without Him introducing Himself and loving on us then we would never know what to choose.&nbsp; If you only know the two options of good and bad then you will never know the greatest option, God.&nbsp; You have to see the third before you can choose it.

When I talk about good and evil I'm not just talking about good from mans point of view, but also good from God's point of view.&nbsp; Good being defined as anything that is positive and benificial, but lacking God's imput.&nbsp; Doing something that is Godly has nothing to do with trying to do something good.&nbsp; When you do something Godly you do it because of the relationship that you have with God, not because of some ethics that you have.&nbsp; Godly is outside of the realm of right and wrong, good and evil.&nbsp; It is in the realm of relationship which has no right and wrong only love.&nbsp; Choosing what is Godly is not choosing an action, it is choosing a person.&nbsp; The reason that choosing good or evil is always evil in God's eyes is because you are choosing something else other then having a relationship with Him.&nbsp; Even choosing to do exacly what God says but in your heart still keeping a distance from God is evill to God because you are not relying upon the relationship that is supposed to impower you and sustain you to do what God has asked.&nbsp; God would prefer you to never do anything else except love on Him then to do everything that He ever asks outside of the relationship that He has ordained.

If we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son then in order to fulfill the predestination we should be doing what the Son did.&nbsp; And what did the Son do?&nbsp; He always looked to the Father, and did what ever the Father did.&nbsp; He rested soully upon the relationship He has with His Dad.&nbsp; He did not worry about what was right or wrong, He only did what the Father wanted.&nbsp; So we are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son right?&nbsp; Well I know very few people who are accually walking in a deep fulfillment of that predestination.&nbsp; When there is no longer good and evil for you, but rather there is only the Father, then you are experiencing the reality of the third and only real choice.

There are so many people, even christians, who think that if they are a good person then they will make it into heaven.&nbsp; They aren't even taught this, its just something that they just seem to inherently believe.&nbsp; It is the seed of the knowledge of good and evil within them.&nbsp; They are so sadly misslead thinking that is has something to do with the way they behave, not understanding that it really has to do with whether or not they have a relationship with God.

Does faith play a role in salvation?&nbsp; If it does then the truth is that in order to be saved you must make the discission to start trusting God.

P.S.&nbsp; I don't believe that we exist before we are born.&nbsp; Therefore it is impossible to have a relationship untill a person has the ability to think, and love (ie. after they are born).&nbsp; God's foreknowledge of us is simply that, He knew who we would be and what we would be like and what we would choose.&nbsp; I don't believe that the Bible supports the idea of the preexistance of the human soul.&nbsp; If you have some scriptures that in your opinion supports such an idea, I would love to see them.

 

[sola fide]

We don't pre-exist, but God is not bound by time. I always use this, but I don't think God is up in heaven watching T.Vo. Saying that God chooses us based on foreknowledge alone is saying that God is really not in control, He just knows alot.
When studying God's Word, I see a God that has not just watched a plan unfold, but a God who has MADE HIS PLAN UNFOLD. Did all of the things that have happened throughout all of history happen without Him ordaining them? Did He know they were going to happen but not really play a part in them? I don't think so. God has appointed a time and a place for the salvation of His people, that leaves our duty as submitting, obeying, and working for His cause of saving those He has chosen. We don't know whom He has chosen, so we must witness to all and let God do the work. We may sow or water, but God gives the increase.
When God draws us it is not as though He merely woos us into loving Him. He doesn't "court" us. If this was the case then we would all break the relationship. It is He who is faithful. When we are unfaithful, He remains faithful.
When you draw water out of a well, you don't whisper sweet nothings into the water's ear. You grab the rope and you bring the bucket to you. I'd say that's similar to what God does.
Faith is a requisite for salvation. Therefore we must have faith...but "[we] are saved by grace through faith, and that not of [our]selves, it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8,9). Faith is a gift just as grace is. He must give us the faith, for we have no faith naturally in us, being that we are dead in trespasses. We have not faith or righteousness but that faith and righteousness that is imputed to us through Christ.

Grace to you.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by cenimo
Reformationist

Brother, I know what you are saying, but since The Great Commission is targeted at the unchurched, those who aren't sure of their salvation, &nbsp;and those who haven't heard the Gospel, those How Can You Be Sure You Are Going To Heaven approaches are sure less confusing.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Matthew 8:8-10

God Bless

As I said, our approach in spreading the Word should be to recognize that God will bring about His Will no matter what we say, do, don't say, or don't do.&nbsp; If someone asked me about God I'd just tell them about my relationship with God.&nbsp; I'd share the Gospel with them.&nbsp; I'd tell them about Jesus' works.&nbsp; It is not going to be my words that have any effect.&nbsp; If God has&nbsp;regenerated the person than my words won't fall on deaf ears.&nbsp; If God has not regenerated someone, then, well, it doesn't matter how good I am at explaining the Word.&nbsp; It will fall on deaf ears.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
Its quite simple.&nbsp; God courts us.&nbsp; Coaching and drawing us to salvation.&nbsp; Without Him introducing Himself and loving on us then we would never know what to choose.&nbsp; If you only know the two options of good and bad then you will never know the greatest option, God.&nbsp; You have to see the third before you can choose it.

Is this the "wooing" of God that many Christians adhere to?&nbsp; Did God "woo" Abraham?&nbsp; How about Moses?&nbsp; Name one person in the Bible that God "courted."&nbsp; Please.

When I talk about good and evil I'm not just talking about good from mans point of view, but also good from God's point of view.&nbsp; Good being defined as anything that is positive and benificial, but lacking God's imput.&nbsp; Doing something that is Godly has nothing to do with trying to do something good.&nbsp; When you do something Godly you do it because of the relationship that you have with God, not because of some ethics that you have.&nbsp; Godly is outside of the realm of right and wrong, good and evil.&nbsp; It is in the realm of relationship which has no right and wrong only love.&nbsp; Choosing what is Godly is not choosing an action, it is choosing a person.&nbsp; The reason that choosing good or evil is always evil in God's eyes is because you are choosing something else other then having a relationship with Him.&nbsp; Even choosing to do exacly what God says but in your heart still keeping a distance from God is evill to God because you are not relying upon the relationship that is supposed to impower you and sustain you to do what God has asked.

Is this just a really drawn out way of saying that a person's motive is what makes their actions pleasing to God???&nbsp; If so, I agree.&nbsp; If not, well, I don't know what you're saying.&nbsp; Sorry.

God would prefer you to never do anything else except love on Him then to do everything that He ever asks outside of the relationship that He has ordained.

This is a pointless statement.&nbsp; No person, saved or unsaved can do everything that God COMMANDS, much less being able to do it if a person is not saved.&nbsp; An unsaved person is morally incapable of the two greatest commandments, not to mention doing any of the others with the right motive.

If we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son then in order to fulfill the predestination we should be doing what the Son did.&nbsp; And what did the Son do?&nbsp; He always looked to the Father, and did what ever the Father did.&nbsp; He rested soully upon the relationship He has with His Dad.&nbsp; He did not worry about what was right or wrong, He only did what the Father wanted.&nbsp; So we are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son right?&nbsp; Well I know very few people who are accually walking in a deep fulfillment of that predestination.&nbsp; When there is no longer good and evil for you, but rather there is only the Father, then you are experiencing the reality of the third and only real choice.

Okay.&nbsp; It seems like you're&nbsp;really trying to make some deep point here but, to be honest, it makes no sense to me.&nbsp; Sorry.&nbsp;

Does faith play a role in salvation?&nbsp; If it does then the truth is that in order to be saved you must make the discission to start trusting God.

That's definitely a question that needs to be addressed.&nbsp; And right after that should be asked, "Is that faith&nbsp;something that&nbsp;was inherent to you or was it a gift from God?"&nbsp;

P.S.&nbsp; I don't believe that we exist before we are born.&nbsp; Therefore it is impossible to have a relationship untill a person has the ability to think, and love (ie. after they are born).&nbsp; God's foreknowledge of us is simply that, He knew who we would be and what we would be like and what we would choose.&nbsp; I don't believe that the Bible supports the idea of the preexistance of the human soul.&nbsp; If you have some scriptures that in your opinion supports such an idea, I would love to see them.

Well, I don't know what you mean "exist."&nbsp; I'm saying that God is eternal.&nbsp; We are linear.&nbsp; God didn't just one day think "Hey, I'll make myself a planet of fallen humans."&nbsp; God's relationship with mankind definitely did exist before the foundations of creation.&nbsp; I understand that to mean that we are known to God, who is eternal, before He creates us.&nbsp; His actions are loving.&nbsp; His creation is a loving act.&nbsp; His providence in the Fall, by sending His Son, which was an eternal action, was loving.&nbsp; Love didn't start with the creation SnuP.&nbsp; God is love.&nbsp; The relationship wasn't a result of my thinking, or loving, or anything I did.&nbsp; My relationship was a result of God's love.

God bless