Why?

[Benedicta00]

Okay. Thanks again for your time Michelle.

God bless

No problem Don, Any time you need to hash out some deep theological issue, you now I’m your girl!

 

[JesusServant]

What makes one person receive the word and another reject it. I will re quote JP because I believe he says it perfectly. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life.

Since Don did not ask, I must.

Apparently, from this answer and I assume quote from JPII, that, a person can "close onseself up in sin" and deny the Holy Spirit and/or God. IOW, Jesus' sacrifice was not a powerful enough atonement for some people because they were so good at wrapping themselves up in sin and defending their d*mned souls from the saving power of the Holy Spirit?

I see that you are saying that a person can be so confounded and refuses to accept God's grace. But 95% of the non-believers I've spoken to just don't believe. It's not like they sin as much as they can to wrap themselves up in sin. They just don't believe and/or the Gospel doesn't make sense to them and all of the churches in-fighting and bickering and the judgmental eyes of church-goers have run them off. That is what I discern and have experienced before converting to Christianity myself.

I see Don's points so clearly, and I've had the same questions and yet there seems to be no definitive answer. In scripture you can find "save the whole world", "the One who takes away the sins of the whole world", etc. and yet find scriptures that describe how the whole world is really not saved or going to be saved. This is very frustrating to me. I can accept that I don't understand it and still hold on to my own personal faith. But I cannot be expected to help unbelievers in any way or answer the questions of any believer who is struggling when not one Christian church can answer some of the simple questions with simple answers that don't leave a slew of other questions in their wake.

At one point I decided to just stay away from Theology. But how can I? People need answers and if churches cannot give these answers then what good are we?

Sorry if I sound cynical, but I am frustrated by this and a couple of other major questions that I have about the big picture.

God bless
Steve

 

[Reformationist]

Since Don did not ask, I must.

LOL! Well, I didn't ask this time though I sincerely wanted to ask the exact same questions. I guess great, or maybe demented, minds think alike. Anyway, the reason I didn't ask THIS TIME is because I have asked, about a thousand times, and every time I receive an answer that I find sorely lacking. To me it is more an attempt to sidestep issues that they don't really have logical answers for. Either way, I do appreciate their attempts but, to be honest, how many times can you hear the same anthropocentric, man sovereign answers before you feel like the point becomes not worth making? Anyway, I appreciate the fact that I am apparently not the only who feels like these types of answers place man's power to thwart God at the forefront of the explanation.

God bless,
Don

 

[JesusServant]

LOL! Well, I didn't ask this time though I sincerely wanted to ask the exact same questions. I guess great, or maybe demented, minds think alike. Anyway, the reason I didn't ask THIS TIME is because I have asked, about a thousand times, and every time I receive an answer that I find sorely lacking. To me it is more an attempt to sidestep issues that they don't really have logical answers for. Either way, I do appreciate their attempts but, to be honest, how many times can you hear the same anthropocentric, man sovereign answers before you feel like the point becomes not worth making? Anyway, I appreciate the fact that I am apparently not the only who feels like these types of answers place man's power to thwart God at the forefront of the explanation.

God bless,
Don

I'm leaning towards demented Don.

Next, someone will say. "It's each man's choice. Free will is involved. If we did not have a choice, we would be enslaved by God and it would not be a relationship or act of love, it would be forced."

 

[Reformationist]

I'm leaning towards demented Don.

Next, someone will say. "It's each man's choice. Free will is involved. If we did not have a choice, we would be enslaved by God and it would not be a relationship or act of love, it would be forced."

Already been said, numerous times. It sounds like you've heard that a few times. Welcome to the club.

 

[Benedicta00]

Jesus Servant,

I believe the answer is that God does not force salvation. Jesus’ blood is powerful to save all men, meaning there is no sin that he won’t forgive a man but sin against the Holy Spirit he will not forgive, so he hardens the man’s heart because the man made his choice against the Spirit which the bible says in the unforgivable sin.

Evil is what sin brings into the soul and evil and good are two opposites so man has a choice to make, if he chooses to continue to sin that will bring evil into his soul and if he choose sin unto his death, God hardens his heart against Him.

If God has harden his heart the man is incapable of choosing Him but God up and until the man’s mortal death allows the conviction Holy Spirit to still stand. So what does that tell us? I think in light of this, the Calvin theory is correct The soul is called but not chosen.

 

[Benedicta00]

LOL! Well, I didn't ask this time though I sincerely wanted to ask the exact same questions. I guess great, or maybe demented, minds think alike. Anyway, the reason I didn't ask THIS TIME is because I have asked, about a thousand times, and every time I receive an answer that I find sorely lacking. To me it is more an attempt to sidestep issues that they don't really have logical answers for. Either way, I do appreciate their attempts but, to be honest, how many times can you hear the same anthropocentric, man sovereign answers before you feel like the point becomes not worth making? Anyway, I appreciate the fact that I am apparently not the only who feels like these types of answers place man's power to thwart God at the forefront of the explanation.

God bless,
Don

By the same token I feel like why ask the same question over again. If you disagree with the answer, fine but please do not think the answer is sidestepping the issue because it’s not. We believe in free will and we can not say anymore than that. To me that covers the whole question.

 

[Reformationist]

By the same token I feel like why ask the same question over again. If you disagree with the answer, fine but please do not think the answer is sidestepping the issue because it?s not. We believe in free will and we can not say anymore than that. To me that covers the whole question.

Okay. Regardless, I think that you do sidestep the issue. I feel that your explanations, while deeply felt, ignore much of the Bible. I understand the reasoning behind that. You don't hold Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and morals. I do. I seek to interpret the Word of God by understanding the implicit in light of the explicit. You, on the other hand, believe what you believe because of how your church leaders interpret the implicit. It's fine with me that we disagree. Not that I cherish the thought of Christians disagreeing on matters of such importance, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that those who have forgotten more theology than I ever knew have tried and failed in bringing unity where there is division.

Either way, I do enjoy the discussions we have, in a wierd sort of way. If nothing else it motivates me to become more familiar with the tenets of reformed theology as well as being exposed to your beliefs, which, I believe, is the true measure of our love for God. When we seek to understand God by understanding the natures of those around us we can acknowledge that we are but a small part of God's plan.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Okay. Regardless, I think that you do sidestep the issue. I feel that your explanations, while deeply felt, ignore much of the Bible. I understand the reasoning behind that. You don't hold Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and morals. I do. I seek to interpret the Word of God by understanding the implicit in light of the explicit. You, on the other hand, believe what you believe because of how your church leaders interpret the implicit. It's fine with me that we disagree. Not that I cherish the thought of Christians disagreeing on matters of such importance, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that those who have forgotten more theology than I ever knew have tried and failed in bringing unity where there is division.

Either way, I do enjoy the discussions we have, in a wierd sort of way. If nothing else it motivates me to become more familiar with the tenets of reformed theology as well as being exposed to your beliefs, which, I believe, is the true measure of our love for God. When we seek to understand God by understanding the natures of those around us we can acknowledge that we are but a small part of God's plan.

God bless

Well said Don. And I too have learned more about this then I have ever cared to know because you made me go out of my comfort zone and seek the answers and the answers I have found have strengthened my faith and helped my understand it better. So I have you to thank.

But I will say this, a lot of our frustration comes to us because I think we are both guilty of presenting a false premise about what we each believe to one another. I will suggest something you believe inaccurately and expect you to defend it and you, vice-versa.

Take this for instance.

You don't hold Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and morals.

This really is wrong. We don’t think scripture isn’t the final authority. We think scripture supports our deposit of faith, which is the closed revelation of God.

You, on the other hand, believe what you believe because of how your church leaders interpret the implicit

And this is really, really wrong. Our Church leaders do not interpret scripture at all. They only teach us the deposit of the faith and they use the scriptures to support that and the scripture may support that explicitly or implicitly but it will never contradict.

My opinion, but I think this has a lot to do with the frustration. We aren’t getting no where when we do this one another.

So why we keep going around in circles? I dunno because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I guess because we’re both insane.

 

[Reformationist]

Well said Don. And I too have learned more about this then I have ever cared to know because you made me go out of my comfort zone and seek the answers and the answers I have found have strengthened my faith and helped my understand it better. So I have you to thank.

Your welcome.

But I will say this, a lot of our frustration comes to us because I think we are both guilty of presenting a false premise about what we each believe to one another. I will suggest something you believe inaccurately and expect you to defend it and you, vice-versa.

I agree and I think that the more we discuss these issues, though that may seem like a daunting prospect, the less we will make those errors.

Take this for instance.

This really is wrong. We don?t think scripture isn?t the final authority. We think scripture supports our deposit of faith, which is the closed revelation of God.

Exactly. You believe Scripture has a supporting role to how you understand the church fathers. It seems to me, and many other Protestants, that you subordinate Scripture, the Word of God, to the teachings of the church fathers, the word of man. I mean no offense by this. I only tell you this to enlighten you as to how I, and others, see it.

And this is really, really wrong. Our Church leaders do not interpret scripture at all. They only teach us the deposit of the faith and they use the scriptures to support that and the scripture may support that explicitly or implicitly but it will never contradict.

My apologies. Let me rephrase. You, on the other hand, believe what you believe because of how your church leaders understand the teachings of the church fathers, well some of them anyway, and then, in turn, pass on those teachings to you.

So why we keep going around in circles?

I imagine a good deal of it is pride and a desire to defend what we hold as the Truth of God's Word.

I guess because we?re both insane.

LOL! Well, that may be true but I think I'd rather be insane than ambivilant to God's Will.

God bless,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

Exactly. You believe Scripture has a supporting role to how you understand the church fathers. It seems to me, and many other Protestants, that you subordinate Scripture, the Word of God, to the teachings of the church fathers, the word of man. I mean no offense by this. I only tell you this to enlighten you as to how I, and others, see it.

No Don, wrong again. The ECF have nothing to do with what we believe, they, as scripture, support what we believe. What we believe is the apostles and Christ. The ECF are however, not infallible and inspired, scripture of course is.

My apologies. Let me rephrase. You, on the other hand, believe what you believe because of how your church leaders understand the teachings of the church fathers, well some of them anyway, and then, in turn, pass on those teachings to you.

No, this is also amazingly incorrect. The Church leaders who ever you think they are, I am not even sure who your are referring to, do not interpret the ECF or scripture in the sense that they make beliefs from them. They teach to us in the truest sense of the word what Christ taught the apostles who passed that teaching down to the Church leaders.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Reformationist]

No Don, wrong again.

Okay. I'm sure I am wrong about your church. However, in numerous discussions with you you have made it clear that if your understanding of the Gospel conflicted with the teachings of your church then you'd automatically assume you were wrong. Now, I acknowledge that this can be good and bad. It shows a lot of faith in your church and your belief that God directs her leaders. I admire that. On the other hand, if your church is teaching falsehoods then everyone learns falsehoods and your church is protected from her members calling her out on it because there are so many levels of claimed infallibility within the heirarchy no lay person is ever going to believe the church is wrong. Every theological problem you face is prefaced with the presupposition that if what you believe conflicts with what your church professes then you're automatically wrong.

The ECF have nothing to do with what we believe, they, as scripture, support what we believe. What we believe is the apostles and Christ. The ECF are however, not infallible and inspired, scripture of course is.

Um...you know, unless the Apostles and Christ come speak at your church it's a bit silly to make these types of statements. If you're a Christian then I, as a Christian, already know that you believe the Apostles and Christ. You make it sound like you get exclusive teaching from them. You don't. What you believe is what your church teaches you about the Apostles and Christ, just like every Christian.

They teach to us in the truest sense of the word what Christ taught the apostles who passed that teaching down to the Church leaders.

No. They teach you in the truest sense of the word what they believe Christ taught the Apostles. What do they go on Michelle? You say the ECF have nothing to do with what you believe so what does your church base their teachings on if not the teachings they claim were taught before them? Wouldn't that be the church fathers?

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Okay. I'm sure I am wrong about your church. However, in numerous discussions with you you have made it clear that if your understanding of the Gospel conflicted with the teachings of your church then you'd automatically assume you were wrong. Now, I acknowledge that this can be good and bad. It shows a lot of faith in your church and your belief that God directs her leaders. I admire that.

Yep. That is more like it.

On the other hand, if your church is teaching falsehoods then everyone learns falsehoods and your church is protected from her members calling her out on it

The question is, if.

because there are so many levels of claimed infallibility within the heirarchy no lay person is ever going to believe the church is wrong

No, I am not familiar with this belief, we all are under one level of infallibility laity and the bishops, and that is the pope. We ultimately are under his authority. That is what we his primacy is for. He is the only one who can bind what the other bishops lose and lose what they bind and consequently that is why there is a division in the east and west because the east does not believe he has that infallible authority, the Orthodox faith believes that all bishops have equal authority, the Latin Rite Catholics disagree.

Every theological problem you face is prefaced with the presupposition that if what you believe conflicts with what your church professes then you're automatically wrong.

That is correct. They were given the faith, not me.

Um...you know, unless the Apostles and Christ come speak at your church it's a bit silly to make these types of statements.

We believe just that. When the Church speaks to us we believe it speaks with Christ's voice.

If you're a Christian then I, as a Christian, already know that you believe the Apostles and Christ. You make it sound like you get exclusive teaching from them. You don't. What you believe is what your church teaches you about the Apostles and Christ, just like every Christian.

And your entitled to think that, I'm okay with that, I disagree with that, but I'm okay with you thinking that.

No. They teach you in the truest sense of the word what they believe Christ taught the Apostles.

IYO.

What do they go on Michelle?

Sacred Tradition.

You say the ECF have nothing to do with what you believe so what does your church base their teachings on if not the teachings they claim were taught before them?

The Church was established by Christ, in our opinion. The Early Church fathers did not establish the Catholic Church.

Wouldn't that be the church fathers?

No, that would be the apostles. The early fathers learned from them and so fourth down the line. The early fathers are pretty much the same as a bishop in the Church today but they are the “ECF” because they were the first Christians so to speak who left us their writings as evidence that we today, still follow the apostolic faith. They are also important because they leave the historical record of the formation and growth of the Church from the time of the persecutions through the time of the falling of the empire.

So that is why you are entitled to think we are in error but we believe we have the ECF and the history to show us, today that we are not in error.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Hello Reformationist. I have just returned to this thread. Lack of time prevents me from engaging in this discussion in any depth.

Can I get that reference in context?

Luke 13:3,5--24:47, Acts 17:30

Also, and I know you've addressed this before--so I am not trying to be redundant I just don't remember what you said---In Matthew chapter 11 Jesus rebukes the unrepentant cities for not repenting:

Matthew 11

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

He is clearly telling the cities that people in Hell would have made a different decision (ie repented) had they known what was in store for them. If Jesus knew only the elect were able to repent, then why did he say that?

You say that He will not force anyone to stay but that implies that they are His to begin with. How can a fig tree be dead if it is indwelt with the life of God through the Holy Spirit? Also, at what point in the mind of an immutable, omniscient Creator does soemthing "become clear?"

You are saying the fig trees were dead to begin with?

Do you believe that it is God's sovereign action of bringing each and every one to full glory that causes them to be brought to full glory?

I believe He could. But I also believe that he requires cooperation.

Who said that God's elect don't make the choice to love Him? I believe they do. However, Scripture relates that the reason they do is because God loved them first.

Yes I believe they make the choice and they are able to do that because God loved them first--ie gave them grace.

Sorry about that. Just take them one at a time if you feel inclined.

Okey doke. I will as time permits. I don't want to delve too deeply into this because I have learned from past experience that if I get caught up in a discussion and feel compelled to keep posting incessantly, then I allow my pride to get in the way. I would like to keep my attitude civil, which is another reason that I am participating in this discussion in moderation.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think it would be very difficult living my life striving to obey God thinking that I'll never know if I'm His until I'm in Heaven.

I know that many people have a hard time understanding this. But, I don't live in fear of going to hell. I believe we can be reasonably assured of salvation, so long as we remain and abide, in other words keeping our souls in a state of grace.


Michelle

 

[Miss Shelby]

Hey, that's wierd. My name is Don too.

What a coincidence, eh? Don is my third personality, haven't you met him yet? Shelb5 is my alter-ego.


Michelle

 

[Benedicta00]

[/font]
What a coincidence, eh? Don is my third personality, haven't you met him yet? Shelb5 is my alter-ego.


Michelle

Wer’e Don? Say it ain’t so!!

 

[JesusServant]

Thanks Michelle, for taking the time to at least give it a go.

Jesus Servant,

I believe the answer is that God does not force salvation.

Actually this cannot be true, which is Don's/Calvin's point. God has to do the heart change, we cannot, because by our nature we are against God. Only He can change our hearts towards Him. Therefor, technically He has to force salvation or it would have never been. We cannot accept diddly until God opens our hearts to receive the 'invite' so-to-speak.

However, I can see the point that God will not accept an unrepentant heart. This is the paradox our human minds end up arguing over and dwelling on. He won't accept an unrepentant heart, and yet only He can change our hearts so that they are capable of being repentant. No wonder we go in circles

Jesus’ blood is powerful to save all men, meaning there is no sin that he won’t forgive a man but sin against the Holy Spirit he will not forgive, so he hardens the man’s heart because the man made his choice against the Spirit which the bible says in the unforgivable sin.

Which is still debated today as to what exactly sin against the Holy Spirit is. I know what the RCC teaches, but I'm not sure that's exactly right. For example, Jesus teaches that we are to forgive 70 times 7. IOW, forgive as many times as you're wronged. Yet, He doesn't? Of course, He has to. He cannot disobey His own commands. Therefor if sinning against the HS is simply turning down the invitation or telling God, you don't want His salvation, and one realizes their mistake later, where is the forgiveness then?

Evil is what sin brings into the soul and evil and good are two opposites so man has a choice to make, if he chooses to continue to sin that will bring evil into his soul and if he choose sin unto his death, God hardens his heart against Him.

Again, this sounds good, but not according to real-world examples. I know non-believers that do *good*. Not just by my standards but by the standards in the Bible. Yet they do not do it in Jesus' name, nor do they give Him the glory. Yet, they do completely selfless acts of giving and other times do something that is a sin. So a man can do both and both can exist in a man.

I understand that God may at some point know that a man will not return to Him, so He puts up a veil so that man is blinded and His heart is hardened. And I may be misunderstanding you, but a man can have good in his heart and still make bad decisions, simply by life experiences.

If God has harden his heart the man is incapable of choosing Him but God up and until the man’s mortal death allows the conviction Holy Spirit to still stand. So what does that tell us? I think in light of this, the Calvin theory is correct The soul is called but not chosen.

But what makes a man chosen, and how does he have hope in Christ and know he will be saved if there is always a church or another believer telling them different things and pointing to different scriptures with their "proofs" of when a man is saved? Personally, I have that hope that I will be and therefor have peace in my heart and can sleep at night knowing I have a merciful and graceful God that love me. It is always chruches and other 'believers' that see this in a person and try to strip it from them like a pack of wolves because they do not have that peace and are jealous. So they try to make them doubt that Jesus saved them as well. What are these people thinking? If this whole world had the hope of Christ's blood redeeming them, imaging what world it would be.

 

[JesusServant]

Also, and I know you've addressed this before--so I am not trying to be redundant I just don't remember what you said---In Matthew chapter 11 Jesus rebukes the unrepentant cities for not repenting:


He is clearly telling the cities that people in Hell would have made a different decision (ie repented) had they known what was in store for them. If Jesus knew only the elect were able to repent, then why did he say that?
You are saying the fig trees were dead to begin with?

That's not what He was saying at all from what I read. Jesus was saying that He was performing miracles in their cities and they did not believe in Him. If He would have performed those miracles in Sodom, etc. then they would have repented. He's saying He is giving them proof, right before their eyes and they're still unrepentant, so judgment will be more severe for them than the sinful cities past.

 

[Miss Shelby]

That's not what He was saying at all from what I read. Jesus was saying that He was performing miracles in their cities and they did not believe in Him. If He would have performed those miracles in Sodom, etc. then they would have repented. He's saying He is giving them proof, right before their eyes and they're still unrepentant, so judgment will be more severe for them than the sinful cities past.

JesusServant .

Thanks--I did word that poorly. I am extremely tired please forgive me. What I meant was why did Jesus say those cities would have repented had they been given the same opportunity? According to the Calvinist position, those who are not the elect are not given the opportunity to repent, but to me it seems that Jesus is saying the opposite.

I know Reformationist answered this a long time ago, I just can't remember what he said. At least I think he addressed it, who knows I could be wrong about that, too.

Michelle

 

[Reformationist]

Luke 13:3,5

Yes, this says that those who don't repent will perish. It does not, however, say that all are morally able to repent.

24:47

I assume you mean Luke 24:47. If so, this does not say that those that don't repent will perish.

Acts 17:30

Again, this is just a reference to the command to repent, not what happens if one doesn't.

Also, I'm not saying I disagree that those who don't repent will perish. I do agree. I think the area of difference starts before that with why will one repent and another not. What's your theory?

Also, and I know you've addressed this before--so I am not trying to be redundant I just don't remember what you said---In Matthew chapter 11 Jesus rebukes the unrepentant cities for not repenting:


He is clearly telling the cities that people in Hell would have made a different decision (ie repented) had they known what was in store for them. If Jesus knew only the elect were able to repent, then why did he say that?

All Jesus is saying is that it was by God's design that they "not know what was in store for them." It wasn't just a quirk of fate. All Jesus is doing is reinforcing the position that it is by God's irresistable, sovereign intercession that man comes to a saving knowledge of his Creator. If it was just an issue of man being completely free to "make a decision for Christ" then it would be highly probably that at least one person would have done so.

You are saying the fig trees were dead to begin with?

I'm saying that man, after the Fall, is dead to the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The carnal mind is unable to grasp the Truth of God and, in fact, considers it foolishness. Ironically, it is in this state of carnality that Catholics say that man comes to a saving knowledge of God by the power of their own positive volition.

I believe He could. But I also believe that he requires cooperation.

He requires cooperation from the creation to institute His divine plan of salvation? Do you believe that God has sovereignly willed to be impotent in the face of man's will? Just to clarify, I do believe that man cooperates in the plan of God. I just believe his cooperation is a direct result of God's irresistable grace. God gives or withholds His grace to accomplish His Will and God's immutable Will is never thwarted, certainly not by His creation.

Yes I believe they make the choice and they are able to do that because God loved them first--ie gave them grace.

This is a bit misleading as to the actual beliefs of your church. Catholics acknowledge that man is able to make the choice because of God's grace. You're saying that they do make that choice because of God's grace. This cannot be in line with your church's teachings because they also teach that all men receive that grace. If God's grace does cause man to make that choice and all men receive that grace then all men would love God. You can't get different results with the same causal agent. Are you just saying that man is able to make the choice to love God?

I know that many people have a hard time understanding this. But, I don't live in fear of going to hell. I believe we can be reasonably assured of salvation, so long as we remain and abide, in other words keeping our souls in a state of grace.

This is one of the things that is most difficult for me to swallow. "Grace" directly implies a lack of merit yet you are saying that one remains in that state because of their abiding by God's Law, which would actually imply meriting salvation. Did I misunderstand?

God bless