Why can't Salvation be mutual?

[Dondi]

People seemed to be caught on one side of the issue (Calvinism) or the other (Armenism). In all the arguements and confusion, we lose track of the fact that salvation is wrapped up in a relationship. Why can't there be a compromise? Well, I think there can be.

God made covenants with various people in the OT. For example, in Genesis 15, God makes a covenant with Abraham. First God tells Abraham that his descendants will be as the stars of the sky that Abraham could not number them. And Abraham believe God and it was acounted to him for rightouesness. So God then confirms the covenant by instructing Abraham to take several animals and divide their entrails, which Abraham does. Then when Abraham falls into a deep sleep, a darkness falls over him and God gives a prophesy about his people being taken captive, strangers in a strange land, but then will return again. Then a burning furnace/lamps passes through entrails and seals the covenant.

Abraham acted on what God told him because he believed God was going to do what He said in regard to his seed. If Abraham didn't believe, then God would not have made the covenant. But by preparing the sacrifice of the various animals for God to consume, Abraham takes an active role in completing the covenant, though it was God who initiated it.

The covenant established a relationship with God. A mutual agreement to God's plan for Abraham in blessing the world through him.

God did the same thing with Noah, in promising that their would be no more global deluge, AFTER Noah sacrificed clean animals to the Lord, giving a sweet savor. Now why did Noah sacrifice to God? Because Noah was responding to the covenant that God gave back in Genesis 6:18-21. It was a response to Noah's faithfulness and recognition of the purpose of the clean animals he took with him on the ark as sacrifices to God, for the seven of each clean animal was taken as extra besides the two of every animal.

Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to prepare the passover, and they obeyed. Then Jesus instituted the New Covenant on the night before He died, saying "...'Take, eat; this is my body'. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins...". - Matthew 26:26-28

Now what was Jesus really doing? He is giving us instructions, just as God gave instructions to Abraham and Noah. Our response is to eat and drink of His Body and Blood. I suppose any number of disciples could have refused, but they all partook (even Judas BTW, even after Satan entered him - Luke 22:3). But Jesus also gave a prophesy, saying,

"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." - Matthew 26:29

Just as God gave Abraham a prophesy, a future hope, Jesus is giving a prophesy, a hope that the disciples will be in the kingdom with Christ one day, to drink of the fruit of the vine with Him once again.

Because of our nature, we are helpless to save ourselves. We cannot save ourselves. God knew this all the way back to the beginning. In order for us to be saved, our nature has to be changed. The only way Man can be regenerated is through the Spirit of God. But first, in order for the Spirit to dwell in Man, we have to be made new creatures. But since new wine cannot be placed in old wineskins, we need salvation through the Blood of Jesus.

But stop for a moment and think what salvation really is:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3

Salvation isn't about heaven and hell, but a relationship with God. Heaven and hell are just by-products that is dependant what kind of standing relationship one has with God.

Relationships are built on mutual trust. For us to enter into a relationship with God, we must believe and trust in God. But at the same time, God needs to know what kind of trust He can have in us. Which is why we have freewill.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him." - II Chronicles 16:9

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." - John 4:23

God is looking for hearts that will have a relationship with Him. He isn't forcing anyone to worship Him.

God institutes salvation, our part is to respond to it. It is a mutual covenant. Both are involved.

 

[mlqurgw]

People seemed to be caught on one side of the issue (Calvinism) or the other (Armenism). In all the arguements and confusion, we lose track of the fact that salvation is wrapped up in a relationship. Why can't there be a compromise? Well, I think there can be.

God made covenants with various people in the OT. For example, in Genesis 15, God makes a covenant with Abraham. First God tells Abraham that his descendants will be as the stars of the sky that Abraham could not number them. And Abraham believe God and it was acounted to him for rightouesness. So God then confirms the covenant by instructing Abraham to take several animals and divide their entrails, which Abraham does. Then when Abraham falls into a deep sleep, a darkness falls over him and God gives a prophesy about his people being taken captive, strangers in a strange land, but then will return again. Then a burning furnace/lamps passes through entrails and seals the covenant.

Abraham acted on what God told him because he believed God was going to do what He said in regard to his seed. If Abraham didn't believe, then God would not have made the covenant. But by preparing the sacrifice of the various animals for God to consume, Abraham takes an active role in completing the covenant, though it was God who initiated it.

The covenant established a relationship with God. A mutual agreement to God's plan for Abraham in blessing the world through him.

God did the same thing with Noah, in promising that their would be no more global deluge, AFTER Noah sacrificed clean animals to the Lord, giving a sweet savor. Now why did Noah sacrifice to God? Because Noah was responding to the covenant that God gave back in Genesis 6:18-21. It was a response to Noah's faithfulness and recognition of the purpose of the clean animals he took with him on the ark as sacrifices to God, for the seven of each clean animal was taken as extra besides the two of every animal.

Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to prepare the passover, and they obeyed. Then Jesus instituted the New Covenant on the night before He died, saying "...'Take, eat; this is my body'. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins...". - Matthew 26:26-28

Now what was Jesus really doing? He is giving us instructions, just as God gave instructions to Abraham and Noah. Our response is to eat and drink of His Body and Blood. I suppose any number of disciples could have refused, but they all partook (even Judas BTW, even after Satan entered him - Luke 22:3). But Jesus also gave a prophesy, saying,

"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." - Matthew 26:29

Just as God gave Abraham a prophesy, a future hope, Jesus is giving a prophesy, a hope that the disciples will be in the kingdom with Christ one day, to drink of the fruit of the vine with Him once again.

Because of our nature, we are helpless to save ourselves. We cannot save ourselves. God knew this all the way back to the beginning. In order for us to be saved, our nature has to be changed. The only way Man can be regenerated is through the Spirit of God. But first, in order for the Spirit to dwell in Man, we have to be made new creatures. But since new wine cannot be placed in old wineskins, we need salvation through the Blood of Jesus.

But stop for a moment and think what salvation really is:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3

Salvation isn't about heaven and hell, but a relationship with God. Heaven and hell are just by-products that is dependant what kind of standing relationship one has with God.

Relationships are built on mutual trust. For us to enter into a relationship with God, we must believe and trust in God. But at the same time, God needs to know what kind of trust He can have in us. Which is why we have freewill.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him." - II Chronicles 16:9

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." - John 4:23

God is looking for hearts that will have a relationship with Him. He isn't forcing anyone to worship Him.

God institutes salvation, our part is to respond to it. It is a mutual covenant. Both are involved.

I am sorry but truth cannt be compromised. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. To give man a part in it is to say that man saves himself. We do willingly choose Christ but only after we have been made by the sovereign love and grace of God to see our need of Him. Free-will is what put Christ on the cross. It is the monument to free-will. I say this with all seriousness and concern for truth.

 

[PETE_]

Who made the difference in your decision for Christ, you or God?

"that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus...that as is written, 'He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.'" (1 Cor. 1:29-31)

"For who makes you differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1 Cor. 4:7)

"But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

If you made the difference in your decision for Christ, then you'd have reason to boast, wouldn't you? Many credit God for 99% of salvation, and themselves for the other 1% (their decision.) Will you give Him ALL the glory? ​

 

[TwinCrier]

There is no one in this forum who believes in Armenism, we already did a poll. That is just an accusation Calvinists hurl at those who do not believe their doctrine. Calvinism in incompatible with faith. God grants us assurance of salvation because of our faith. Calvinism dashes the hopes of those seeking salvation, which is why some of us so strongly oppose it.

 

[PETE_]

Calvinism dashes the hopes of those seeking salvation, which is why some of us so strongly oppose it.

Spugeon's preaching did not seem to deter salvation. People flocked to hear him preach the Gospel, and still his sermons are winning people to the Lord and uplifting believers. It is not the message or pastor or anything we do, but God who saves.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

God made covenants with various people in the OT.

Well, that raises an interesting thought.

Does He have the same understanding and agreements with the Jews He has with Christians? I think not.

Or, for that matter, are the agreements and understanding He has with YOU, personally, the same as those with each other person that has accepted Him as their Lord and Saviour? Again, I think not.

 

[Atlantians]

I am sorry but truth cannt be compromised. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. To give man a part in it is to say that man saves himself.

There is a difference between saving ourselves, and asking to be saved.

It is like:
A man dangles from a cliff, only one person can save him.

He can either with his own pride climb up that cliff, though there is no place else to grab to pull himself up.
Or he can surrender and say: "Help me!"
In the end, it is the one who helped that did the work from begining to end.
The one needing help simply realized it and acknowledged the need.

Well, that raises an interesting thought.

Does He have the same understanding and agreements with the Jews He has with Christians? I think not.

Or, for that matter, are the agreements and understanding He has with YOU, personally, the same as those with each other person that has accepted Him as their Lord and Saviour? Again, I think not.

Christ was the fullfillment of the Covenant.
Thus Christians are Jews.

Judaism today is a skeleton of what was before Jesus.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Christians are Jews.

my my. Spoken like a true Replacement Theologian.

 

[TwinCrier]

There is a difference between saving ourselves, and asking to be saved.

It is like:
A man dangles from a cliff, only one person can save him.

He can either with his own pride climb up that cliff, though there is no place else to grab to pull himself up.
Or he can surrender and say: "Help me!"
In the end, it is the one who helped that did the work from begining to end.
The one needing help simply realized it and acknowledged the need.

What a fantastic parelle. Great illustration of salvation and grace.

 

[BBAS 64]

There is no one in this forum who believes in Armenism, we already did a poll.

Good Day, Twin


The poll was flawed in that the Historical definition of
what a Arminian is gets igorned by many here, just like a Calvinist is historicly. I have started a thread to help in the understanding of what a Arminian is from a Baptist point of view.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3999573-historical-baptist-view-on-arminians.html

That is just an accusation Calvinists hurl at those who do not believe their doctrine.

It is a catergory of theology that is historically defined, so it is much more than a basless accusation.

Calvinism in incompatible with faith.

Really, how did you come to that conclusion??


[/quote]God grants us assurance of salvation because of our faith. Calvinism dashes the hopes of those seeking salvation, which is why some of us so strongly oppose it.[/quote]

I think some here oppose it because like Arminianism, it is often misunderstood in the historical context and it's teachings.

Remember:

There are none that seek after God no not one.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Dondi]

I am sorry but truth cannt be compromised. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. To give man a part in it is to say that man saves himself. We do willingly choose Christ but only after we have been made by the sovereign love and grace of God to see our need of Him. Free-will is what put Christ on the cross. It is the monument to free-will. I say this with all seriousness and concern for truth.

I do not argue that salvation is from the Lord, from beginning to end. What I don't agree with is the notion that man cannot have any part of it without compromising the Sovereignty of God. It is His will that we chose Him, but it is also His will that we decide on that choice.

Note the words of Jesus:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" - Matthew 23:37


I see two wills here. Jesus wants Jerusalem to come to Him, it is His (God the Son, mind you) will. Yet there is another will here too, that opposes Jesus' will, "ye would not".

Seems to me that even tough it is God's will that Jerusalem repents, they chose not to.

What of the young rich ruler in Mark 10:17-23?

"And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him,"

Hold this thought. Did you notice that last line? It says that Jesus loved him (the rich man). Let's continue.

"Then Jesus beholding him loved him,and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"

Evidently, this man did not get saved that day. But is it because God didn't love him. Of course not, for it even says Jesus loved him. Jesus was showing the man how to be saved. It was God's will that this man be saved.

But what happened? The man rejected that invitation. Now who's will is in play here?

 

[mlqurgw]

There is a difference between saving ourselves, and asking to be saved.

It is like:
A man dangles from a cliff, only one person can save him.

He can either with his own pride climb up that cliff, though there is no place else to grab to pull himself up.
Or he can surrender and say: "Help me!"
In the end, it is the one who helped that did the work from begining to end.
The one needing help simply realized it and acknowledged the need.

That would be a great illustration if it truly described the condition of man. He isn't dangling he has fallen and is now dead. The Savior doesn't help him save his own life but comes to him while he is dead and gives him life. I think no better example can be given than that which God gives in Ezek. 16:1-8 and 37:1-10

I do not argue that salvation is from the Lord, from beginning to end. What I don't agree with is the notion that man cannot have any part of it without compromising the Sovereignty of God. It is His will that we chose Him, but it is also His will that we decide on that choice.

Note the words of Jesus:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" - Matthew 23:37


I see two wills here. Jesus wants Jerusalem to come to Him, it is His (God the Son, mind you) will. Yet there is another will here too, that opposes Jesus' will, "ye would not".

Seems to me that even tough it is God's will that Jerusalem repents, they chose not to.

What of the young rich ruler in Mark 10:17-23?

"And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him,"

Hold this thought. Did you notice that last line? It says that Jesus loved him (the rich man). Let's continue.

"Then Jesus beholding him loved him,and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"

Evidently, this man did not get saved that day. But is it because God didn't love him. Of course not, for it even says Jesus loved him. Jesus was showing the man how to be saved. It was God's will that this man be saved.

But what happened? The man rejected that invitation. Now who's will is in play here?

As I said before, I do not deny that man has a will. What I do deny is that it is capable of doing anything good until it is renewed.
Now as to Christ's statement to Jerusalem; He sent them prophet after prophet and called them to repentence. He did so sincerely and would have healed them but if they had Christ would not have come. Christ was proclaiming the responsibility of man to do what God calls them to do. At the same time they did exactly as God had determined that they should. Acts 2:23, Rom. 11:36. Man is responsible because he is obligated to obey by God's right as the Creator. His ability has nothing to do with it. Adam had the ability but when he shook his fist in the face of God and in essence said that God had no right to command that ability was lost but the responsibility remained.

The rich young ruler did exactly as he willed. Now it is true that we read that Christ loved him but that doesn't mean that he was never saved. Christ loves all His elect even when they are dead in sin. I would say that he was saved at some point because Christ loved him. The point of the story isn't man's will but man's inability.
BTW, I have heard some very good arguments that the rich young ruler was Saul of Tarsus.

 

[BBAS 64]

I do not argue that salvation is from the Lord, from beginning to end. What I don't agree with is the notion that man cannot have any part of it without compromising the Sovereignty of God. It is His will that we chose Him, but it is also His will that we decide on that choice.

Note the words of Jesus:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" - Matthew 23:37


I see two wills here. Jesus wants Jerusalem to come to Him, it is His (God the Son, mind you) will. Yet there is another will here too, that opposes Jesus' will, "ye would not".

Seems to me that even tough it is God's will that Jerusalem repents, they chose not to..... snip

Good Day Dondi

The verse does not say Jesus wished to "gather" Jerusalem, it is her children. Even know you quoted the verse and "bolded: some of it you some how missed it.

Who/what is Jerusalem
Who or what is her children

Is "her" will primary to the "will" of her children?

I am still not clear that this has any thing to do with salvation, in answering the above questions will help to see if "salvation" is in fact a direct and necessary implication.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Dondi]

That would be a great illustration if it truly described the condition of man. He isn't dangling he has fallen and is now dead. The Savior doesn't help him save his own life but comes to him while he is dead and gives him life. I think no better example can be given than that which God gives in Ezek. 16:1-8 and 37:1-10[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]














As I said before, I do not deny that man has a will. What I do deny is that it is capable of doing anything good until it is renewed.
Now as to Christ's statement to Jerusalem; He sent them prophet after prophet and called them to repentence. He did so sincerely and would have healed them but if they had Christ would not have come. Christ was proclaiming the responsibility of man to do what God calls them to do. At the same time they did exactly as God had determined that they should. Acts 2:23, Rom. 11:36. Man is responsible because he is obligated to obey by God's right as the Creator. His ability has nothing to do with it. Adam had the ability but when he shook his fist in the face of God and in essence said that God had no right to command that ability was lost but the responsibility remained.

The rich young ruler did exactly as he willed. Now it is true that we read that Christ loved him but that doesn't mean that he was never saved. Christ loves all His elect even when they are dead in sin. I would say that he was saved at some point because Christ loved him. The point of the story isn't man's will but man's inability.
BTW, I have heard some very good arguments that the rich young ruler was Saul of Tarsus.

As I said before, I do not deny that man has a will. What I do deny is that it is capable of doing anything good until it is renewed.

So is it renewed before we come to Christ? Or is it renewed when we come to Christ? Or is it renewed after we come to Christ?

Now as to Christ's statement to Jerusalem; He sent them prophet after prophet and called them to repentence. He did so sincerely and would have healed them but if they had Christ would not have come.

While repenting would be good, but Christ still would have to have come. Repentence alone is not enough to washs sins away (a function only of the Blood of Christ), nor wold it get rid of the sinful nature inherited from Adam (a function of the death, burial, and resurrection according to Romans 6).

Christ was proclaiming the responsibility of man to do what God calls them to do. At the same time they did exactly as God had determined that they should. Acts 2:23, Rom. 11:36.

"And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." - Luke 19:39-41

The Sovereignty of God is in the fact that His will in the course of events will be done. What does that do in relation to Man's will? As the verses above demonstates is that God is not dependant upon anyone in getting His will done. If one refuses His will, then He will find soneone else to do accomplish it, in this case the very stone would cry out.

In His determinate counsel, God waited for the perfect conditions to develop before sending His Son to earth, for the hearts of the people, particularly the chief priests and scribes, were bent on what the 1st century Judaism prescribed for their traditions and beliefs. They were already primed to reject Christ, for their status would cause them to stumble. God knew what kind of hearts they had. But they still had two roads, two paths they could have taken, had their pride not gotten in the way. Had they recognized John the Baptist as the Elijah to come and recognized Jesus as the Messiah, all would have been well. But Jesus said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." (Matthew 11:14) and again, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him."

Evidently, Jesus is suggesting that they had a choice: To receive John the Baptist as the coming Elias, or not. But obviously, they chose not.

If God desires all men to repent (I Peter 3:9), that would mean that man has the capability to do so. In the godly sorrow which produces repentence one sees a need in one's sinful heart for salvation. Repentance is the door to salvation. It is a cry in our helplessness that we cannot save ourselves. That is why it is God's salvation and why He gets the glory. We can do nothing to change our nature, but we can recognize our dilemma and implore God for help.

 

[Easystreet]

God is looking for hearts that will have a relationship with Him. He isn't forcing anyone to worship Him.

God institutes salvation, our part is to respond to it. It is a mutual covenant. Both are involved

I appreciate these statements. I love to study and learn all the hard words and deep terms. Thanks for just saying in in everyday language.

Yes, I agree that salvation is mutual as you have expressed it. The only way to harmonize the issues concerning salvation is to see it as mutual. For me God's Holiness is at stake. To see Him in another light would violate His Character.

I know I have said this over and over again but the fact that God desires that no one perish and that all come to repentance is so strong and pure and straight forward that it is impossible to arguer it to mean anything different.

I see God reaching out in this verse telling the "all" "I am not willing that you continue in your sin and die and go to hell. You can repent and if you will I will save you. And all mankind has the capacity to accept or reject, because they are created in the image of God. The image of God was not wiped out when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. It resulted in separation (called spiritual death) not cessation of life. The definition “of dead in sins and trespasses” that has been use to defend particular salvation or arbitrary salvation (save a few and everyone else God will not save) is an incorrect definition of the spiritual death. We all know that the image of God is not dead. It is separated from fellowship not eradicated, not missing, or absent from the body. If it were the body would drop the ground and decay for the real person is the Spirit of a man and that spirit is able to think, feel, and make decisions - it is the image of God. These attributes are alive and well in humans.


If I took the position that God arbitrarily picks some and not all, then mutuality would not exist and I would be taking a position against God directly. I would tremble in my skin to accuse God of this evil. I see this view as 100 percent against God and makes God a respecter of Persons. Salvation is universal but the acceptance of it is personal and is only effective in the mutuality of it, man has to believe freely, not forced, coerced. Jesus died for the all, his propitiation is for the all, but of the all each one mutually has to agree with God about their state and accept the universal offer to all, Grace. The universal blanket or offer does not seal salvation it only offers it. God in His Grace Died for All and All can freely receive His Grace. Mutuality.

The good of the right is this: On the one hand - one group only accepts a part of the truth concerning the complete message of salvation. Where as on the other hand, the Biblical side, embraces all God has to say and this results in a clear Biblical understanding that Salvation is Mutual. God’s Grace - Man’s Faith. Its that simple.

 

[Atlantians]

my my. Spoken like a true Replacement Theologian.

I am not a replacement theologian.
We never replaced anything.
There was nothing to replace Judaism with.
Christ fullfilled the Jewish Covenant correct?
We are not the vine that Jews are grafted into.
We were grafted into the vine through Christ,
and those who reffused to continue in belief were cut off.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by Atlantians
Christians are Jews.

I am not a replacement theologian.
We never replaced anything.
There was nothing to replace Judaism with.
Christ fullfilled the Jewish Covenant correct?
We are not the vine that Jews are grafted into.
We were grafted into the vine through Christ,
and those who reffused to continue in belief were cut off.

Your own words above are self-contradictory. Realize or admit it or not you are speaking Replacement Theology. RT continued from Paul's time until, essentially, the 1960's and 70's. From roughly the mid-1800's to the present RT morphed into Covenant Theology. The roots are still the same. The story is the same. The truth of the matter is that Christians are not Jews nor did they Replace the Jews. The covenants and promises God made with the Jews are still valid for the Jews and do not include the gentiles (Christians). Nor do the covenants and promises made with the Christians include the Jews. Being in grafted in no way took over or replaced what rightfully belongs to the Jews. The concept of Christians being spiritual Jews is hog wash at best, sacrilege at worst. It is deceptive and demonic twisting the truth of God's word into a lie.

 

[mlqurgw]

So is it renewed before we come to Christ? Or is it renewed when we come to Christ? Or is it renewed after we come to Christ?

It must be renewed before or we will not come. The dead must be first raised to life before he can even see his need of Christ. That is what being born again is. It is regeneration or being made a new creature in Christ. God must do something in you and for you or you will remain dead in trespasses and sin. Christ first came to the tomb of Lazarus and then called for him to come forth. If He hadn't given him the power by giving him life Lazarus would have remained in the tomb. Christ came to the impotent man at the pool and did somethng for him that he couldn't do for himself. He didn't do it for any of the mulitudes that were there. In Matt. 1614-17 Christ asked who men thought He was and Peter answered that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus then told him that flesh and blood had not revealed that to him but the Father. In Matt. 11:27 Christ said that no man knows the Father but the Son and he to whon the Will reveal Him. In John 5:21 Christ Jesus said, For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them even so the Son quickens whom He will.

While repenting would be good, but Christ still would have to have come. Repentence alone is not enough to washs sins away (a function only of the Blood of Christ), nor wold it get rid of the sinful nature inherited from Adam (a function of the death, burial, and resurrection according to Romans 6).

Great catch. Good point. I wasn't as clear as I should have been and didn't quite think through my statement. Let me see if I can do better. Looking at the passage in Luke 13:31-35 I believe my original statement that Christ wasn't speaking to their ability is correct. He was speaking to their obstinate refusal and the fact that they killed the prophets sent to them as they would kill Him. God's covenants with them were conditional and if they had obeyed and done what He required He would have did what He promised for them. His startement thet they would not goes to their not keeping their part of the conditions of the covenants even though he reminded them of them by the prophets. They didn't meet the conditions and still wouldn't.

"And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;

Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." - Luke 19:39-41

It always amazes me that many if not most of these same people who cried Hosana here later cried crucify Him.

The Sovereignty of God is in the fact that His will in the course of events will be done. What does that do in relation to Man's will? As the verses above demonstates is that God is not dependant upon anyone in getting His will done. If one refuses His will, then He will find soneone else to do accomplish it, in this case the very stone would cry out.

Christ's answer that the stones would cry out was a reference to the fact that the Scriptures must be fulfilled. Zech. 9:9 The problem with this line of thinking is that it makes God reactionary. He reacts to what men do instead of men doing what He wills. That would make Him to be mutable and having to constantly change His methods and His mind, so to speak. He wills it to be done this way but men refuse so He must seek another way of getting it done. It also goes against His infinite knowledge and wisdom. If He knows the best possible way to accomplish His purpose and will why would He make it contingent on man's puny will? I never read in the Bible god sayng I hope you will or even I wish you would but He always says I will and usually follows it with you shall. No maybes, mights or hope so's. See Ezek. 36:22-31 for an example.

In His determinate counsel, God waited for the perfect conditions to develop before sending His Son to earth, for the hearts of the people, particularly the chief priests and scribes, were bent on what the 1st century Judaism prescribed for their traditions and beliefs. They were already primed to reject Christ, for their status would cause them to stumble. God knew what kind of hearts they had. But they still had two roads, two paths they could have taken, had their pride not gotten in the way. Had they recognized John the Baptist as the Elijah to come and recognized Jesus as the Messiah, all would have been well. But Jesus said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." (Matthew 11:14) and again, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him."

I would say that God wasn't waiting but that He was working by providence to bring the world to that fullness of time that Paul spoke of in Gal. 4:4. When I read the history of the Old Testament I see the hand of God working to bring Christ into the world at the perfect for-ordained time to accomplish His purpose of grace to chosen sinners. From the first gospel proclamation in Gen. 3:16 to the time when Joseph was espoused to Mary, God was working to bring Christ into the world. He is still working to bring the world to its expected end and it will not happen until He brings it to that point. All that God has done and is doing is perfectly planned and wisely worked out by the Sovreign of the universe.

Evidently, Jesus is suggesting that they had a choice: To receive John the Baptist as the coming Elias, or not. But obviously, they chose not.

Not really. He is simply telling them that they have been given every opportunity to recognize God's prophet but they did as they wished, as does any unbeliever, and refused. It doesn't speak at all to ability but it does to responsibility. All unbelievers do exactly as they wish. God gives them over to a reprobate mind and leaves them to have their way. I believe peter speaks to this in 1Pet. 2:7,8.

If God desires all men to repent (I Peter 3:9), that would mean that man has the capability to do so.

I have challenged another on this board to do an honest exposition of 2Pet. 3:9, which is the passage I believe you meant to reference, which would show that the common understanding and use of it isn't according to grammar or context. The any is in reference to the us who believe. It by no means is in reference to all men. It cannot be shown to be so by any rules of grammar and context. I do not believe the Scriptures teach anywhere that God loves all men or desires all men to be saved. There is really only two passages that are used to prove it and one is 2Pet. 3:9, as I have already explained, and 1Tim. 2:4. Now it has already been shown that the passage in 2Pet. is used out of context so that leaves us with 1Tim. Do we build doctrine from one passage of Scripture or do we take that one passage and interpret it according to the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole?

In the godly sorrow which produces repentence one sees a need in one's sinful heart for salvation. Repentance is the door to salvation. It is a cry in our helplessness that we cannot save ourselves. That is why it is God's salvation and why He gets the glory. We can do nothing to change our nature, but we can recognize our dilemma and implore God for help.

The crux is whether we can do this without God first working.

 

[Easystreet]

John 20:31. but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This verse clearly teaches the order of spiritual life from spiritual death. “That believing” is first. In believing the result is “life in His name.”

8:24. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.''

Here is the opposite of 20:31 Mankind is dead in “sins” the solution to this “die in your sins” is not resurrection of the dead sin then believe but just believe. The person dead in sins becomes alive upon believing.

John 12:46 "I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

Here John is using synonyms to say the same thing “light” is salvation and “darkness” dead in sins. The dark person who believes has the light upon believing.

Acts 16:31. So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.'

This verse is straight forward too. Believe first - Life next. I know - don’t get your hair in a know. We all know that saved is the same as life from the dead, spiritual dead. The gift of salvation is life from the dead.

I Timothy 1: 16. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Here we see God through Paul clearly explaining to us the process and with “longsuffering”. God is waiting on a response form us and sapping us to make us believe. Notice that Paul calls this lovingness of God as “longsuffering”. He says it is a “pattern” and if that don’t make you jump and shout in your “live” spirit, well perhaps your spirit is “dead in sins and trespasses”. Everlasting life is given on the spot the moment of belief.

Matthew 9:2. And behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.''

If a person is dead in sins and trespasses - and we are - then life from sins and trespasses means that they are forgiven.
So, to hold the view that God has to quicken the soul so that it can believe is EXTREMELY contradictory. It is so weird it is craze. It really defies logic and common sense.
Notice that Jesus saw their faith. First, Jesus see by the way of foreknowledge their faith. Second it was their faith not an infusion of faith sapped into them, and third, it resulted in sins being forgiven.

 

[Easystreet]

The next thing on the agenda of those PCers will be either drowning us or burning us at the stake. Look what they did in history. Murdered people in the name of their Doctrine.

If it were not for our Government being as it is today those of us that Believe the Bible would be treated the same way. PC,ers would evolve back to Murderous tyrants.

Killing believers who they rejected infant baptism and then were baptized in public professing the Lord Jesus Christ.

Put the PC,ers in an environment like that day and we Free Willers are toast.