AssemblyBoard

Please,

On this thread, let's try as much as possible not to drift to far off topic!

---

If salvation is a gift----I'm sure most of us agree with that----then what must one do to be saved?

Are we saved when we accept the gift?  You have probably heard this type of approach,  "God so loved you that He gave His Only Son to die in your place!  All you need to do is:

1.)admit you are a sinner
2.)believe that Jesus Christ paid for your sins on the cross
3.)ask Jesus to come into your heart
4.)purpose to live a life that honors God."

Granted, perhaps 1-3 are more popular than all four.  

Here are my questions:

In the model above, salvation requires three or four things from us.  Can this be called a "free gift," when we cannot get it unless we do 1-3?

Or, is salvation NOT a free gift?

Or, is the model outlined above not really the way a person gets saved at all, despite its current popularity?

Or, are there other ways of looking at it that I haven't mentioned at all?

Brent

Before anything else, I gotta say that this thread is going to get quite quite long  ::)

--
lucas

good!  I think it's worthwhile.

Brent

Actually, I think it's about the third thread on the same topic.

Are we making any headway?

S

I hold that carnal knowledge of Jesus is not required. Therefore, that kills all but 2.  I would also hold that the 4th comes automatically and is irrelevant to include....

I view salvation as a tunnel through an impediment.  A free gift to be sure, equal to EVERY Man God created.

I don't like it  ;)

I don't wish to flood this thread with my reasoning behind any of my answers, but if anyone is really interested - www.forceboy.com/LFUR (http://www.forceboy.com/LFUR) is a decently organized collection I wrote a couple days ago.  Also, if anyone really really has too much time on their hands; myself, Brent, (and i think Joseph R?) went at this a little while ago, with the thread being http://www.buildingup.net/post/viewtopic.php?t=302&start=0 (http://www.buildingup.net/post/viewtopic.php?t=302&start=0) (starts around the 10th post).


(I should also add the disclaimer that the forceboy.com/LFUR page is a collection of the logic behind my thoughts - if there are any questions regarding my conclusions from my thoughts, please ask rather than assume (I usually don't bother being as clear or consice as I cant be in such writing)  ;)
--
lucas

Question - Was the good Samaritan saved?  

::c:v::

Hi Chuck,

Good to see your digitally reproduced words again!  Happy Freedom day to you! :)

RE: your question above,  now we're talking!

My answer, I don't know......however, he did do the will of God, in contrast to the Pharisee, who only talked about the will of God.  So, if I had to be pinned down, I would say yes, he was saved.

How do you see this in regard to the thread?

Brent

Take it.

OK,  while I think that the simplicity of your statement is wonderful, and no doubt it is that simple,  how does this jive with the idea that we aren't saved by works?

Is the act of taking it a work?  Do we make too much fuss about works?  Is salvation a result of both faith and works?

Please understand, I am not trying to belabor this, confuse it, or say something controversial.  I have a definite reason for asking this question.

Before we move on,   I hope some others would be so bold as moonflower2, and state what they think about it.

Is this what the thief on the cross next to Jesus did?

I think maybe the key is acceptance of the gift in your heart without going through a formula to get it.

So does the formula above help someone who has never heard the gospel before understand salvation more easily? Or does it merely enable the natural man's inclination that there must be something I need to do to get this?

As for #4, Dabney says there is a difference between purposing to live a life for Christ and being regenerated and inspired to live a life for Christ.

Is there a correlation to salvation in that? Is there a moment of conviction when the Holy Spirit speaks to someone and they accept the gift to the very core of their being as opposed to someone who follows the formula, believes they're saved but never experiences the new life that comes from regeneration?

These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way, I don't know the answers and I don't take for granted anything that I thought I knew before I started questioning my doctrinal history.

S

How about a word study on the difference between "accept" and "take." Isn't accept a passive verb, kind of like acknowledge? As opposed to take which denotes some type of action.

ROM 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
ROM 10:10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

ROM 10:13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

EPH 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Yes, but is that a work? That almost makes it sound like we have to meet Christ halfway. Or that we have to reach out to him.

Or is it that the belief is quickened in us and the Holy Spirit causes (enables?) us to confess the truth?

S

These verses seem to be quite clear.  Confession, true belief and a calling upon the Lord are necessary to be saved, or are they?

Therefore hear the parable of the sower:  19  "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand [it], then the wicked [one] comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who  received  seed by the wayside.  20  "But he who  received  the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;  21  "yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.  22  "Now he who  received  seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.  23  "But he who  received  seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands [it], who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

Just to throw something else in the mix,  I submit that simply receiving the Word does not result in salvation.  Also, it doesn't say anywhere that we must accept Him,  however, it does say that He has accepted us!

I submit that confession, repentance, and calling upon The Lord is fruit, or evidence of salvation, and not what brings it about.  BTW, I am still NOT a Calvinist.

The reason I am bringing this up----and there is so much more to say about this----is that I hope to talk about the type of theology we were taught under George, and root out the various aspects of it that will come back to trouble us.  

If we start at the beginning, then we can "  As you have therefore  received  Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, "

I think it is important to get the beginning right, so we can continue on the right path.  The Galatians started right, but became confused, thinking that they could be "better" Christians if they did certain things that seemed to from The Word.  In the same way,  many of us struggle as a result of not really understanding salvation and grace from the get go.

This doesn't mean that we aren't saved!  Neither does it mean that someone who is convinced that they must "take it" isn't saved.  God saves us when we are helpless.  

I ramble. :-[  If this is important to anyone, please chime in!

Brent

Michael Coren was invited to speak at our church. He is a journalist and a gifted speaker. He has been a Christian for 8 years now. He was watching TV late one night and someone was interviewing a Christian minister (or something). He says he fell asleep on the couch and when he woke up the next morning he knew that he was saved. Maybe this ties in with what you are saying here. But I am curious to know 'what brings about our salvation'.

Marcia

     ...not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (v.9)

     I addressed this last passage on another thread, and Brothers Calvin and Maddux teamed up to point out that the language of the text declares that it is salvation, not faith, which is being referred to as "the gift of God."
     This point I readily concede because it changes nothing of the meaning of the passage.  Verse 8 clearly establishes that our salvation has been given us through faith.  So if that salvation is the gift of God, then clearly the faith through which it is administered to us is also a part of that gift, so that salvation can be witnessed to be absolutely and entirely not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
     The exercising of faith may surely be viewed as a "work," but a work in which no one may boast.  That is, the "work" is worked by the Lord.  ...so that no flesh may boast before God.  But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus ...so that, just as it is written, "let him who boasts boast in the Lord." 1Cor.1:29-31  "This is the Lord's doing: It is marvelous in our eyes." Psa.118:23 (cf Matt.21:42; Mk.12:11)
     Our "good works," the fruits by which we may be recognized, are the product of, not the means to, the working of God's Holy Spirit within us.  Christ in you is the hope of glory.  His glory, not ours.  Nothing we are capable of initiating apart from God could possibly be of any value to Him, and therefore, neither can it be of value to us.

     Consider an analogy from the world of sports:  Preceding every season, large numbers of students appear to try out for the team.  They go through preseason conditioning, study to learn the playbook and teamwork, and they practice, practice, practice.  But in the end, none of that can give them a place on the team.  It is all entirely up to the Coach.  You will read the sportswriters and hear the commentators say, "Smith looked fantastic in the preseason, but the Coach picked Jones for the position-- He must know something the rest of us don't."
     You bet He does!  The Coach has been at His job forever and He's the best there is.  He knows exactly what He's looking for, and He understands exactly what He's looking at.  The reasons behind His choosing are WAY beyond our understanding.  He's looking not at what the player has done, but at what He can potentially do with the player.

     Is there anything at all we need to do to receive God's gift?  It depends on how you look at it, but should you choose to think that the offer of salvation requires a response, you need to understand that the response has to come from God, because if you can do anything to warrant receiving it, then salvation is no longer a gift.  And if it is no longer a gift, then it is no longer salvation.

     Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! 2Cor.9:15

al Hartman                                 all scriptures = updated NASB

Three comments:

1. If you look at the quote in context, I don’t think Calvin was necessarily denying that faith is the gift of God. He was just saying that the gift in this passage is not limited to faith but refers to the whole work of salvation, which includes saving faith. Here is the quote in context
(taken from http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/htm/iv.iii.iii.htm):

"Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God."

Calvin did not want to "restrict the word gift to faith alone" in this passage but wanted to apply it to the whole work of salvation. That does not mean that he didn't believe that saving faith is also a gift from God.

2. The Greek structure of the verse does NOT really make it clear that salvation is the gift, and not faith. Some say that since the Greek word translated "that" is neuter whereas the Greek word translated "faith" is feminine that it therefore cannot be referring to faith. The problem is that the Greek words for "salvation" and "grace" are also feminine. So what does the word "that" refer to? Here is what an unnamed Greek scholar has to say
(taken from http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/ephesians/gill/ephesians2.htm):

"Here you ask a wonderful theological/exegetical question to which I can only give an opinion, and not a definitive answer. The problem is that there is NO precise referent. Grace is feminine. Faith is feminine. And even Salvation (as a noun) is feminine. Yet it must be one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Since all three come from God and not from man, the latter might seem the more likely. However, it is a tautology to say salvation and grace are "not of yourselves," and in that case it certainly looks more like the passage is really pointing out that man cannot even take credit for his own act of faith, but that faith was itself created by God and implanted in us that we might believe (i.e. the normal Calvinistic position). In which regard the whole theological issue of "regeneration preceding faith" comes into play. So, that is basically my opinion, though others obviously disagree strenuously, but from an exegetical standpoint, the other positions have to explain away the matter of the tautology."

3. Fortunately, the teaching that saving faith is a gift from God does not depend solely on  Ephesians 2:8. There are a number of verses which either clearly teach it or at least imply it, such as the following:

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Jhn 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; ….

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Mark 16:16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.  

What does this mean to you? I take it that God demonstrated who He was to man and demonstrated His love to mankind and offered us the option to believe He loved us and had forgiven our sins. Now we have to decide what to do with that. God's gift if anything is to make it possible for us to lay hold and believe but He does not force us to do so.

Brent----

Great discussion.

"Ho, everyone that thirsts, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yeah, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price"(Is. 55:1).

One could argue that to be saved all one has to do is "take the gift" of the free water. But is this the salvation---or is the "thirsting" what is salvation? If you are not thirsty you won't even want to come and drink the "free gift".   Kind of a paradox.

--Joe

Brent wrote:
"If salvation is a gift----I'm sure most of us agree with that----then
what must one do to be saved?

Are we saved when we accept the gift?  You have probably heard this type
of approach,  "God so loved you that He gave His Only Son to die in your
place!
 All you need to do is:

1.)admit you are a sinner
2.)believe that Jesus Christ paid for your sins on the cross
3.)ask Jesus to come into your heart
4.)purpose to live a life that honors God."

Brent, this is an excellent question to ask.   IMO, not to debate but to make people think of what they believe.

 
Salvation and then comes works.   Salvation is of the Lord alone.  Look
at Lydia:
Acts 16:14  A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of
purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened
her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
15  And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us,
saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my
house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

"THE LORD OPENED HER HEART"  

And the Phillipian jailer:

Acts 16:30  and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do
to be saved?"
31  They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and
your household."
32  And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were
in his house.
33  And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds,
and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
34  And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and
rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

He first asked what he needed... they spoke the Word and the Holy Spirit
produced in this man, and his household, Salvation.   And, then came the
works.
(note that I just used the references in Acts 16 because that happens to be where I am presently reading.  there are many other examples)

So, how I would respond to your questions:

"In the model above, salvation requires three or four things from us.
Can this be called a "free gift," when we cannot get it unless we do
1-3?"

  Brent, I think that the 4 step formula is not an answer to how to be
saved.   My opinion is that this is just another way that we like to make things all nice and packaged in a way that is palatable to our own understanding.   Thus, IMO, it would seem to be a work to "accept" or "receive" the Word and believe.  To which I would ask, where does this put a Sovereign God who's ways are not our ways?        

So, I guess what I'm saying that if someone hears the Word and their
heart has been transformed by the Holy Spirit, they would be able to say
that they believe etc...and their life will begin to produce works worthy
of the Name.  

"Or, is the model outlined above not really the way a person gets saved
at all, despite its current popularity?"

   I agree with this statement.   However, I do believe that 1-4 do happen in a life that is saved.
(I will try to clarify where I'm coming from in another post)

  As for if the Good Samaritan was saved...  I'm not sure I see the point
of the question.   I don't believe that is the point of the parable
either.   Although I guess that it could support the statement that Jesus
made in Matthew 5:20 "20  ¶"For I say to you that unless your
righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not
enter the kingdom of heaven."
   Also, the Parable was in response to "...who is my neighbor?"   We don't minister to our neighbor by our doctrine but by our love.    Love that is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.   So, IMO, the question asked about the Samaritan's Salvation is moot in it's reference in the current topic.

Peace be with you,
Tony

Brent wrote:
"I submit that simply receiving the Word does not result in salvation.
Also, it doesn't say anywhere that we must accept Him,  however, it does
say that He has accepted us!"  

  And I say Amen!And He will continue HIS work within us and produce HIS fruits for HIS glory!

"I submit that confession, repentance, and calling upon The Lord is fruit, or evidence of salvation, and not what brings it about.  BTW, I am still NOT a Calvinist."

I would agree that the above are evidence to ourselves.   I believe that the Fruits of the Holy Spirit are evidence to others as well.


"The reason I am bringing this up----and there is so much more to say
about this----is that I hope to talk about the type of theology we were
taught under George, and root out the various aspects of it that will come back to
trouble us.

If we start at the beginning, then we can "  As you have therefore
received  Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, "

I think it is important to get the beginning right, so we can continue on
the right path.  The Galatians started right, but became confused, thinking that
they could be "better" Christians if they did certain things that seemed to from The Word.  In the same way,  many of us struggle as a result of not really understanding salvation and grace from the get go.
..."

   I believe that this is a good issue to discuss on this forum because of what you mention above.  
Marcia said:
"Michael Coren was invited to speak at our church. He is a journalist and
a gifted speaker. He has been a Christian for 8 years now. He was
watching TV late one night and someone was interviewing a Christian minister (or something). He says he fell asleep on the couch and when he woke up the next morning he
knew that he was saved. Maybe this ties in with what you are saying here.
But I am curious to know 'what brings about our salvation'."

I used to disregard the above type of testimony until recently when I reflected on my own...

  I was filled with drugs, prescribed and self-prescribed early in the morning New Year's Day, 1989.   I cried out to God to let me die...I then asked that He change me.   I fell asleep and awoke the next morning and pitched all of the medications and *some* of my own "meds"
   I quit drinking and using the narcotics and four months later, I met my wife.   It wasn't until about a year and a half later that I began reading the Bible on cassette tape.   It was thrilling to read His Word for the first time.   I never prayed a "Sinner's Prayer" or followed a formula.   I did however, confess that He was my Savior to many people.   I was not Baptized until June of 1994.

   Was I Saved when I cried out to the Lord on New Year's Day?   I believe from the Lord's "perspective" that I was.   From my own perspective...what does it matter?!  I have seen that the Lord has narrowed my path in spite of my wanderings, He has continued to "change my life."   He has remained Faithful and Trustworthy, even though most times I have been anything but...

   I believe that I personally needed to be hit with something as clear as the collapse of the self-proclaimed *ministry* of George Geftakys to fully recognize the Grace by which my lord has kept me through these years.

...Blessed be the name of the Lord!

--Tony

I don't quite get how we are discussing this issue on this thread and also how it somehow migrated to "The Inner Ring" thread.

Brent just recently made a response to Tom Maddux on that thread re: faith and I don't know how to quote it here (oh well!)

I don't have time to go into detail as to all I believe on this topic, but I wanted to chime in with what little time I do have.

I'm no theologian and with all the assembly stuff I am having to divest myself of........I am still trying to sort through what I DO believe.

One of the problems I have with the strict, "Confess with your mouth......believe on the Lord Jesus.......and you shall be saved", "steps" approach to determining salvation, is my experience on the "outside", so to speak.

My family, of which none but my step-father profess Christ, show more love, acts of service, belief in "God" without "ramming" and "preaching" at others and what they "should" be doing.  I know Romans 2 talks about the law written on men and womens hearts bearing more witness than those who are the "descendents" of Abraham.

My mother, who is one of the most loving, compassionate, service oriented, has an incredible "testimony" amongst hundreds of her acquaintances, by the "steps" method of salvation is clearly not saved.  But she has taught me more about the love of God and the "nature" of God than any christian I have been associated with in the assembly.  Not to mention my sister and brother in law, who are the most incredible parents I have ever witnessed.  These individuals have watched the "hypocrisy" of Christians and want nothing to do with being "indoctrinated" with what they have to do to be "saved."  But they are "living" the word, more than I see many Christians I have been assocaited with through the assembly.  And their foundation is a spiritual one.  They all profess a faith in God, but they are unwilling to "label" it.

I am still questioning the "salvation" issue.  The fruit in my life compared to the fruit in my mother's or my sister's life?  I dunno............I seem to be the one who is missing the boat more than they, and I took the "steps".

Interesting topic, one in which I will continue to debate on with y'all.  What do you think?

Brent and Kimberly,

Rather than go into a long verse by verse discussion, especially since I don't know how to bring Brent's last post over here either, I am going to give a very general reply.

It seems to me that the core issue in this discussion is the idea that God must do something in/for an individual before they can believe.

Reformed theology says that the elect are regenerated prior to salvation.  This is seen as necessary because of their view of man's fallen nature, (Total Depravity).  Reformed folks believe that man cannot believe, so God must, through the operation of irresistable grace, so work in the man that he must believe.  He will do this because God has so decreed.


Arminians believe that because of man's fallen nature he cannot believe. They say that since Christ died for the sins of all men, common grace makes it possible for all men to believe.  Some will, some wont.  God has known for all eternity who will and who wont, so He elected those who will.

Now the purpose of my post is not to argue for one against the other.  I don't believe either one is completly correct myself.  Those who get their underwear in a bundle about this usually make the mistake of thinking that these are the only options.

I wanted to make a few points that can be considered in this discussion.

1. Both views require prevenient grace.  Prevenient just means "comes before" so whether it is irresistable or not all grace operating on men before salvation must be prevenient.

2. The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace, through faith.  Faith is an decision of the mind and will to respond positively to Divine revelation.  In this case the gospel.

Remember, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".  You must have something to believe before you can have faith in it.  This dictates an order.  How can someone believe before there is anything to believe.

A widly accepted rule of interpretation is that truth established by clear passages is to used in understanding unclear passages.  BTW GG rejected this.

3. We must be careful about drawing conclusions that do not follow from a particular verse.

 For example the verse that says, "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:44).

This verse says that no one can come unless they are drawn.  It does not say that all who are drawn come.

It may be true that all come.  But it is a violation of the rules of logical inference to draw that out of this verse.  One who wishes to establish that idea must find a verse or passage that does lead one to that conclusion.  

No one can ride in my car unless I invite him.  But not all who are invited ride in my car.

What reformed theologians do with verses like this to impose their systematic theology on them.  The verse must mean what we have concluded is true, ie, TULIP.  However, that is doing theology backwards.  It is an exponential form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy.

4. Kimberly, unless people are sinless, they need a savior.  No one, as far as I know, believes that only Christians can live a good outward life.  There are plenty of very nice people who live outwardly moral lives, at least generally.

But if we offend in one point of the law, we are guilty of all the law.  We need Christ, and apart from his cross there is no salvation.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

H,

What you have done in your post under "Soaring with the Seagulls" is what I was talking about in point #3 in my last post.

You quoted John 6:37-39.  Then you made the point that all who the Father has given to the son will come to him.  Well, that is exactly what it says.

The problem is the conclusion you draw.  Everyone believes that the elect will be saved.  The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

Is it by irresistable grace, or by choosing Christ while enabled by prevenient grace?

You have simply stated the obvious.  But this in no way leads to the point under discussion.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

To quote text from one thread to be posted in another thread:


1. Click the Quote button.

2. Click the message box.

3. On the keyboard, while holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

4. Start the Notepad program.

5. Click the Notepad text window.

6. While holding Ctrl press V.  The quoted message should appear in the Notepad text window.

7. Click the internet browser Back button to cancel posting in the source thread.


You can repeat this process (except step 4) to include multiple quoted messages in your post.


8. Compose your post using Notepad.  While composing you might want to turn on Word Wrap in the Format menu so that paragraphs will be easier to read.  After you have composed your message you should turn Word Wrap off again so that the Notepad line breaks won't interfere with the BB paragraph formatting.

9. While holding Ctrl press Home, then while holding Ctrl and Shift press End, then while holding Ctrl press C.

10. Find the destination thread and click the Reply button.

11. Click the message box.

12. While holding Ctrl press V.  Your post should appear in the message box.


From here you can post as usual.  For longer posts I usually use the preview option and if needed fix the post with Notepad then redo the text copy and paste operation, deleting the contents of the message box just before the copy.  I also save longer posts to files in case something goes wrong.  File save must be done with Word Wrap turned off.

Seems like a lot to go through. Why not just CTRL A, CTRL C in the quote, then go to the other thread, hit reply and hit CTRL V? Am I missing something?

It is good to write your messages in Notepad or Word, I'll admit, but only because I've written posts and when I tried to hit the Post button, found out that my login session has expired. Ow. Have to start over if I don't have it in Word originally.

Since that has happened, I'm always conscious of my login and don't worry about typing it in Word if not necessary.

Or, I guess, if you are using multiple quote sources and need to keep copying and pasting them into your message.

S

     A few days ago I expressed some thoughts on another thread which triggered an allergic reaction in some assembly-trained minds.  Owing to our common background, I can understand why my remarks were construed to be those of one infected with the overcomer virus.  There was a concern that I was leaning, and leading others to lean, away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ and toward the idea that we continue and ultimately complete our salvation by virtue of our own works.

     In ensuing attempts to clarify my conceptions, I may have inadvertently swung too far in the other direction, giving the impression that I believe the whole matter to be decided by God, leaving us as helpless puppets or pawns in His hands.

     As this BB goes, I am far from the brightest bulb on the tree.  I am not attempting to teach doctrine or to lead anyone toward a particular line of thought beyond that God the Father loves us, God the Son saves us and God the Holy Spirit teaches and leads us.

     My purpose in sharing my views beyond that is to inspire prayer, discussion and study that will bring us each farther into His Light and enable us to please and glorify Him.
=========================================

     Why are the nations in an uproar
               And the peoples devising a vain thing?
     The kings of the earth take their stand
               And the rulers take counsel together
     Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
               "Let us tear their fetters apart
     And cast away their cords from us!"  Psalm 2:1-3

     Why?  After God created mankind in His image and likeness, the first man and woman took steps of disobedience that brought about a rift between God and them, and all who followed them.  Originally God and man could fellowship face to face and man, the creation, had opportunity to be intimately acquainted with God, the Creator.
     Ever since that relationship was severed, mankind has been unable to know and understand God, and so has sought and yet seeks to re-create a god in his (man's) image and likeness.  That is, mankind wishes to have a god who is defined within the parameters of human comprehension.  To define God is also to confine Him within the very limited capacities of the mortal mind.

     And that brings us to the conflicting ideas of the Calvinists and the Arminianists:  all with the noblest intentions of understanding our God, Whose thoughts and ways infinitely exceed ours in our present state upon the earth.
     Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights...  James 1:17
     Can there be any doubt as to the nature, power and extent of God's grace?  Can we possibly have any need too great for grace to cover?  And yet previous posts offer scriptural evidence that an active response must take place on the part of each of us in order that we may be partakers of and continue in that grace.
     We do understand, I believe, that any positive response toward God could not possibly originate from a heart not prepared by grace, or we would be able to claim partial credit for our own redemption, thus negating the completeness of Christ's work.  So, then, we are left debating the design, nature and working of grace at a level far beyond our need to know.  Opinions are to be encouraged, but not to become doctrine.  Doctrine is for guidance in the essentials of redeemed life preceeding death or rapture; not for speculation beyond that.
     Suffice to know that God has acted magnanimously on our behalf, and we shall respond with acts only possible because of Him.  And the final scorecard will show that He alone scored every point, and not one of us will have credit for an assist.  And we will all rejoice and be fine with that...

God bless,

al Hartman



     

     

You make some really good points here Tom.  

I agree, faith comes through hearing.  It is extremely difficult to make that one say something else.

So, do I undertand you correctly in that you are saying there is prevenient Grace, which enables faith?  Therefore, although confession and a receiving of Christ's gift of salvation is required, it isn't a work?  Do I have this right?

Brent

Brent,

Any grace that operates in/on a person before their salvation is by definition prevenient, ie, it comes before.  The "ven" root of the word is from the Latin for "to come".  Pre is obvious to English speakers.

When Reformed folks think of grace that "comes before" they don't say "prevenient grace".  That is because what that term means for Arminians is different than Calvinists believe.  But in their view the regenerative work of God that precedes new birth is by God's irresistable grace.  But it obviously "comes before" faith unto salvation.  So it is prevenient in that sense at least.

When Weslyan Arminians speak of prevenient grace they mean common grace, which they believe operates on all men, enabling, not forcing them to believe.  Reformed folks also believe in common grace, but to a more limited extent.

I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of an elect group.  Because of this, it seems likely to me that grace is available to all men.  To enable faith unto salvation, it would have to be prevenient.

This also seems, to me at least, to accord best with Biblical injunctions to go into the world to preach the gospel to all nations.

Perhaps I am wrong in this.  In the past Christians have gone so far as to kill each other over this issue.  In our day, I am well aware that many would despise me for my opinions.

I am just not sure why I should care very much about folks that think that way.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I don't think it's a good idea to take our discussion to the extreme you mention above.  Are you with me Saints?  ;)

You have actually answered my whole point in starting this thread.  We are saved by God, not by our efforts, diligence, self-denial, faithfulness, performance, or wisdom.  

If we begin in this way, we must also continue this way, in grace.  It is quite simple, but if I understood it 20 years ago, I wouldn't have done all the things I did!

I am attracted to reformed theology because of its emphasis on grace.  However, I am not a Calvinist!   If you are looking for someone to come to blows with over whether grace is irresistable or not, you've got the wrong person.

The very idea of that is best illustrated with an episode of The Simpsons.  The residents of Springfield discovered what they thought was the skeleton of an angel.  In no time at all, two guys were fist-fighting over it,  "I say it's the angel of Mercy!"  "No! You idiot!  It's the angel of peace!"   Pretty good insight in those writers, eh?

Brent

Tom,

Prevenient grace working on the hearts of ALL men throughout the course of their lives? Or a conviction of the Holy Spirit at certain key moments (such as hearing the gospel)?

S

[/b]

Need one ask "now what?" Makes me wonder if one understands salvation.  

Some thoughts follow on this Gift and "Now what?"

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved. Once I understood this it opened up a whole new vista for me. When I got saved I could no less tell you what happened than a three year old could explain how he came out of his mama.  All I could say was "Jesus saved me, He loves me, and He loves you, too. Jesus Christ is so wonderfully incredible." (hadn't memorized the Way, the Truth, and the Life, yet.)  Hey, that's a pretty good gospel isn't it? How's that for the four spiritual laws and quoting John, Ephesians, Romans, etc.  But, this "now what?" stuff...

Whereas a person who is saved may "not understand salvation"...I would say they usually understand "Now what!"

Quick digression - I think a lot of people "get saved" without going through the right "steps"...probably most.  I would submit for the readers' consideration that few people have testimonies that are neat and tidy.  It is rare that someone REALLY gets saved at a Billy Graham Crusade or via a Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws or via a James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion program, et. al.   I'm amazed at people that had gone through those means, or via verse methods/diagrams and/or special events, and if you talk to them years later after they got saved, even when I had personally administered the saving tool, that they rarely would cite the method or the special event or the unique means that saved them.  Indeed, we were physically knit in our mother's womb in secret, and in our salvation, too the Lord seems to constantly defy our elementary notions of His mysterious workings.  We western men like our solutions in a bottle. It's the way we like our answers straight-up, no unanticipated twists, no stray hairs...Well, salvation defies the reductionism.  It is like the wind, nobody knows where it is coming from or where it is going. It is not tidy...but, really saved people usually know "now what."

The Good Samaritan - No really truly good deed can be done except by God's grace. None.  It is God's grace that allows us to suffer the pangs of compassion in such a way for others that we act "in faith" on behalf of our neighbor.  Love compells us to see others through the lense of our own weaknesses and needs and yearning for redemption, we relieve ourselves of these mercy pains by doing good to others - really this is Him doing good through us.  I believe this is the "light that comes into the world and enlightens every man" how we respond to that light is how we will be judged - the Light of Christ.  The Good Samaritan knew what to do in his moment of "Now". ..."Now what" was never an issue.

Jesus speaks of the man in the temple who was beating his chest and crying out to God for forgiveness.  There is no evidence that he knew that Jesus Christ heard him, but He does hear the man who has "the gift" to see his sin and have godly sorrow for it.  Jesus says he left justified and yet there is no evidence that he went through the four spiritual laws or could relate the gospel of grace to another sinner.  Even though this guy probably didn't understand the Gift of Salvation - You know what? He knew what.

The Centurian is another example - He trusted in Jesus, but he had no idea of the cross, the resurrection or "about receiving Christ"...He knew Jesus was the Christ and therefore had the authority to heal His servant.  "Say the word and it is enough." He trusted.  Salvation is a free gift...Now what?  He knew what.

The children who Jesus exhorted his disciples to "be converted unto" had no concept of salvation theology, yet they were the benchmark that Jesus set for being intimate with Him.  They didn't know that they knew...But, they knew what. They wanted to be close to Him.  If we were to go there, this gets into the rewards.  Jesus is the Reward and closeness to Him is the prize.  That's what the children wanted and like Mary at Jesus' feet listening, who might have been a good for nothing, she had what was important..She knew what - Jesus was what.  He's the great What. He was the What for salvation, He was the What after salvation. Before Moses was He was What. The first and the Everlasting What...The Great What.  

I would submit that we are surrounded by hundreds and even millions of people who are saved and don't call themselves Christians.  Many and perhaps most of these "hidden saved" people are following Jesus in the context of the LIGHT they have had, however, the light that they have too often had from Christianity has overwhelmingly and far too often not really been a Light at all.  

As an aside let me confess something, I find it is easier to find "non-Chrisitans" that I like than I do Christians that I like.  You know, I'm changing in my views a bit - I'm not ready to write all these unbelievers off as "unsaved." I'm not at all saying they're saved, but I'm not ready to say they are lost just cause I can't see what is going on inside...Wow, maybe I'm not a fundementalist anymore.  

To be frank, there are more examples of Jesus in movies like Peter Jackson's adaption of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings and Russell Crow in the early historical 19th century fiction sailor warrior movie "The Master and the Commander" than in most churches I know...The Good Samaritan was definitely a Chrisitian even though he never knew Jesus' name.  He knew Jesus' name Compassion, His name Love...God is One.  He knew that One.

If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't want to be a Chrisitian. In fact, for those who can accept it, I would say I'm not a Christian - I refuse the 20th/21st century baggage that comes with that term.  

Brent, my point in how it relates to this thread is salvation is a free gift - But, how do you get the gift?  Answer: with another gift - the box inside the box - faith. The gift of the gift in all the examples above is faith.

The "now what?" question to me belies that one has not understood something basic about salvation -.  The one "saved" leper didn't have to ask "now what?" he knew what to do...As did the Samaritan, the Centurian, the man in the temple as do all who are REALLY saved.  By the way, the leper KNEW the CROSS when he forgot self and pursued the worship of the Author of his new life...even though he knew not "the wooden cross."

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved - but it is a huge benefit in worshipping Christ in the only way that matters  - in our actions. Knowing what now.  

Jesus had really few problems with the ignorant.  His bone to pick was primarily among a certain kind of ignorance. It seems it is ignorant, rude, and simple people of this planet that are most fit to be enlightened to "knowing what" about Him.  In fact, our intelligence is often what blinds us to knowing what...cause we're trying to figure it out and God is not apprehended that way.  This is why the simple are most blessed...and, perhaps why the West has lost its way in our age. Most people that "Know what" know not of much else.

Chuck, believer in Jesus Christ, the non-Christian.

::c:v::

Chuck........you convey with your words, I think, what I was trying to communicate re: my family, particulary my mom and sister.  They know "what".  They don't put it in a box.  My step-father and I were just talking about this over lunch yesterday.  Us (western especially) Christians want to put God in a box.  You know, "What" do I have to "do".  It really is an ageless question..........the man who asked Christ, "What must I do to be saved?"  There's the "what" again?

We were agreeing that Christ always thought and operated "out of the box."  And that is what I think you have aptly described, Chuck........thinking and acting "outside of the box."  Isn't that what got us all into trouble being apart of the assembly?  We wanted everything neat and tidy, to be able to check off on our list that we were in a right relationship with God today, because I've done the "what", that which is "required" of me.  And all that is required is that I believe.  And I, like Chuck, believe there are many who "believe" and yet aren't in "the box."  And quite frankly, I hope they never get "in the box."

I was discussing this with Brent via EMs and thought that I would continue it on the BB.

Brent:
I submit that confession, repentance, and calling upon The Lord is fruit, or evidence of salvation, and not what brings it about.

Marcia:
I am still curious as to what it is you believe brings about salvation.

Brent:
Salvation is brought about by God.  His blood is applied to everyone He saves.  We do not command His appearance with a sinner's prayer, neither do we render Him impotent with an unbelieving heart.  I honestly believe that He chooses who will be saved, and that He saves them.

In some marvelous way, His choosing in no way infringes on our "free" will. Paul the Apostle is a good picture of this.  Paul says he was called from the womb to preach the gospel, yet he began as a persecutor and enemy. God saved Saul, without his co-operation!  That's the way I see it. I'm a 3.7 point Calvinist.

Brent:
He chooses who will be saved, and that He saves them.

Marcia:
Other evangelicals, ie besides assemblyites, disagree with you on this. I can't say I agree either. What if I was not one of the ones appointed for salvation?? This opens up a whole unpleasant can of worms. e.g. existing assemblyites cannot help themselves in their deception because they have been appointed for the 'deceiving spirit' etc...

Brent:
The "what if" question is actually quite easily dealt with.  First of all, you are saved, so it is a moot point! Usually, the question is more like, "What if my friend isn't appointed?"

That's a valid question. Let's look at it from three angles.

1.) No one is appointed, salvation is dependent on our choice.  This means that our salvation is up to us.  Frankly, that really scares me.  Do I really believe?  Have I really repented?  What about the doubts I feel from time to time, where I wonder if God is really real?  I don't like this idea at all.  My salvation is dependent on a very unstable and unreliable person, me.

2.) Salvation of your friend is up to you.  If you aren't faithful to share the gospel, be a good example, and show forth Christ's love, your friend could perish.  Again, salvation is on very shaky ground.

3.) Salvation is up to God.  Everyone he chooses to save, gets saved.  Not one of them are lost.  If you struggle, He is strong.  If you aren't as faithful in preaching as you should be, He can still save, because He is God.  In this case, your friends salvation rests on the surest possible foundation,  the Love of God.

The next question, that follows the first one is,  "Isn't God unjust for saving some and not others?" Actually, God would be just to save no one.  It isn't His justice that saved us, but His Mercy.  It is a wonder that He saved anyone!  I am totally comforted by this.

On the one hand, God will not lose a single person He wants to save,  on the otherhand, everyone who calls upon His name will be saved.  Our salvation is a sure promise.

The only way I know of to "become one of the elect" is for God to choose you before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4 - "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" 2Ti 1:9 - "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began")  

[/quote]

[Tom,

Prevenient grace working on the hearts of ALL men throughout the course of their lives? Or a conviction of the Holy Spirit at certain key moments (such as hearing the gospel)?


Scott,

That is a good question.  I have really never thought about that before, nor have I ever seen anything about it in writing.  


I will definitely question some professors about this next semester.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

Another question, as you seem to have a good handle on the origin of most of the doctrine that has been discussed here:

When was the last time there was a valid, original thought concerning Christian doctrine?

S

H,

Of course.  That is what all Christians believe.  The question that causes so much heat among Christians is something like, "On what basis does God elect?"

Here is a better way to illustrate what I am talking about:

Westminster Confession of Faith-Chapter 3, Section 2.

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

You and Verne are the Calvinist "big guns" here.  So I am asking you guys, "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Scott,

Probably today.  Having been around some theologians, I have heard them talk about Dispensationalism and Reformed Theology moving toward each other in many ways.  

I does, however, take many years for ideas to become widespread.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Tom,

You're having discussions with four or five people here that all have studied similar questions, etc. but your audience is probably several dozens or more people who don't have that background.

I submit that you should not always satisfy your own thirst for intellectual stimulation and instead break it down for the rest of us! Verne and H don't need to have their Calvinism debunked as badly as everyone else here needs to be taught sound doctrine without the taint of Geftakysism.

Teacher teach!

Please? :)

So is the above confession from Westminster (Calvinist institution?) saying that God does not decree anything just because he knows it will turn out that way?

And you're asking, "How do they know that?"

Am I following this so far?

S

Scott,

The Westminster Confession is a Calvinist document written in England in 1643-46.  Most Calvinist churches use it as a doctrinal standard for all teaching.  When I say Calvinist churches I mean the ones that haven't gone liberal.

The document states clearly that in electing people God does not consider future acts or events.

I am asking them, "How do they know this?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     Some, perhaps many, of the readers here are aware that I spent twenty-some years away from any regular Christian fellowship.  During that time I prayed, was prayed for, requested prayer, and thought about God a lot.  I went for years at a time without seriously reading the Bible, but there was no escaping the remembering of all those passages with which I was so familiar, or the many spiritual hymns and songs I had learned.
     But I considered also many alternative theologies; many other ways of looking at God that seemed, from a human standpoint, much more fair and reasonable that the gospel I had learned.
     I was never entirely free of the Gospel, and it disturbed me greatly.  I felt I had nothing to lose by being honest with God (whover He might be) as I was in no position to change anything about Him.  So I told Him what I thought at any given time.  Sometimes I argued theology with Him (imagine!!) and sometimes I railed against Him for perceived injustices.  Sometimes I was truly grateful and thanked Him, and often I interceded for others (although I was frequently unclear as to what ends).

     From all that, I learned a couple of things:
     God is not at all troubled by our honesty before Him, no matter how unscripturally we behave.  By that I mean that regardless of how bizarrely we may act, it affects nothing at His level.  He doesn't change.  His compassions do not fail.  Jesus Christ the Same, yesterday, today, forever.
     Because His nature is changeless, so is His plan.  Both His master plan, the "big picture," and every little specific detail have been decided upon, approved, and will be implemented, each part at its appointed time.
     It is a good thing to accept, adjust to and learn to appreciate these things.

     God is Love.  You and I read that, hear it, say it, and have yet to comprehend it.  We relate God to ourselves, to our experiences, and we interpret, "God does love."  And indeed He does.  But we can't conceptualize an entire divine nature that is Love.  
     God is the Father and God is the Son, and the LOVE of that relationship exceeds by universes our ability to grasp.  There has never been, can never be such a love as characterizes God the Father and Son.  And yet, the love of God for us is so deep, profound, strong, that the Father sent the Son to lay down His life for our sakes, and for love of the Father, the Son did so.

     How am I going to consider the magnitude of God's love for me then question His plan?  Can I blithely dismiss the dimension of my redemption because He hasn't reduced His blueprint to language I can fully comprehend?  Will I challenge the "fairness" of the One who bore all the wretchedness of my rebellion against Him because I'm not sure about someone else's salvation (no matter who that someone may be)?

     No, the only response to such love, such magnanimity, is to fall upon one's face in gratitude and utter surrender, to adore and to trust wholeheartedly.  His nature within us will bring about His desired ends in each of our lives as we see that "but one thing is needful," and, out of hearts full of responding love, we choose "that good part."

al Hartman

ACT 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
ACT 2:21 'And it shall be, that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'
1JO 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
John 3:16   etc.

I do not agree with the 'limited atonement' teaching. Another question arises as to why then did God not appoint all to be saved. In fact 1 Tim 2:4 says God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

God's grace is also to be balanced with His love and His sovereignity and His justice etc. IMO God's love would not exclude certain ones. He has decided that He will give the gift to those who choose to accept it. It is still a gift, but a gift not rejected. A gift does not become mine if I refuse to accept it.

Going back to Brent's original post on this thread, I would agree that the ABC or the 1-3 method does make God's gift of salvation into a work. The model ought to be a guideline, but there are some people out there who may actually be under the false impression that they are saved just because they went through the steps and prayed the sinner's prayer.

Marcia

I also have trouble with limited atonement.  While I can't deny that Christ's atonement IS indeed limited if only in the sense that there will be people in Hell,  I have difficulty with the idea that He only died for the Elect, and that He appointed some for eternal wrath.

Please understand,  there are some really good arguments around what I say above,  which are rather convincing.  Nevertheless, I still can't give myself to the doctrine with a clear conscience.

As far as limited atonement, I have decided to approach from the standpoint that I know I am saved, and that Christ knows who belongs to Him.  No one I love and care about has rejected Him,  and I know that He can save the most hardened person.  

He chose us, and we chose Him.  Somehow, this neither limits His soverienty, or His atonement, while at the same time each and every one of us is responsible before God.  

Salvation is not about Judgement, it's about Mercy.   Believing in one's heart that Christ's atonement is limited does not bring about salvation!   However, in my heart I know I'm saved, even if I am unsure about the scope of His atonement.

I also know that He chose me, and marked me out for salvation, which is a comfort.  And yes, I responded to His grace.

I don't see this as contradictory at all, even if it is hard to grasp.  There is Romans 9  AND Romans 10, afterall.

Brent

Verne,

I am not clear as to what you are referring to in your comments.  Do you mean what I said, or what I quoted?

Tom

Joe, I agree with you.

Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

Something practical! That's refreshing.

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

A common fallacy is that people who believe in God's sovereignty, and pre-destination don't believe in sharing the gospel.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  I know plenty of people who are burdened for the lost, who are five pointers.  One of the things that is so great about reformed preachers, is that when they preach the gospel, they don't focus on what the sinner needs to do, they don't try to guilt or scare people into the kingdom, instead, they focus on Christ.

You will never hear a more blessed gospel than when a really great reformed preacher shares it.  
 
There may be plenty to criticize about Calvinists, but saying there is no point in preaching the gospel is similiar to saying that republicans want to poison children, because they don't believe in killing American business with draconian environmental regulations.

5-pointers are our friends!

Brent

I guess, the fact that they believe that God will do the saving removes the burden from them to 'lead the person to Christ'. That does definitely liberate one from a works-based gospel. Interestingly enough, it was the love of God that brought me to salvation. And it was my co-worker Armand Cossette who preached the gospel to me. I have some reservations re. Ray Comfort's method ie preach the law, people need to be convicted of sin etc.

Marcia

[quote author=Scott McCumber

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? ;D

Thank you kindly, sir! That helps.

S

Scott,
I'm actually not as interested in discussing election as I am interested in discussing the atonement, but when others bring up the subject, I join in. I agree with Verne that it is important, and would perhaps add that unconditional election promotes humility (God didn't choose the elect because of any goodness in them but simply because of His own goodness). It seems to me that conditional election (the idea that God chooses people because He foresees that they will be smart enough or good enough to believe in Christ) would tend to promote pride.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
H

Tom, Brent,

Due to several factors including inflation, late fees and a high demand for bb space, I will now require a full five cents worth of your opinions.

S :)

This thread truly interests me, in fact, so much so that I went and spoke with one of the elders about this subject last night. He explained, and of course he is correct, that the 144,000 who will ultimately enter Heaven are classified as "saved". The rest of us "Jonadabs" will live forever on a restored earth after the evil people are annihilated. This is why none of us receive the "emblems" at communion. Only a Heavenly "spirit-born" member of the 144,000 would dare to eat the bread or drink the wine.

We know this because the Golden plates have revealed it all to us. Thanks be to Joseph for deciphering them for all of us. We also learn from them that there is no such thing as pain or suffering. These are deceptions, and not associated with the "Spirit Mind". That's why we do not eat pork and only worship on Saturday.

For more information on the above you can attend a service this Saturday AT:

The Church of Latter Day Christian Scientific Jehovah's Witnesses of the Seventh Day.
1112 W. Lomar St.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90045

Head Coverings required for 1/4 of the service please.

Brent,

You are quite mistaken here.

Back at the beginning of the 19th Century the Church of Scotland split over this very issue.  This was the beginning of the great missionary outreaches by Western Christians.  The Wesleyian movement had revolutionized English Christianity, as the Moravians had influenced the Continent. They had popularized the idea of unlimited atonement and grace for all men.

Many, like Adoniram Judson in the US,  were told that "God didn't care about the heathen, since he had never sent the gospel to them".  In this, they were following the teaching of Calvin.  He says this specifically in his Institutes.  (Please don't ask for the reference, I find digging through Calvin tedious...have mercy!)  I assure you I have read this.

Judson and others had to set up independent mission boards in order to support foreign missions.  That is where they originated!  The churches that were influenced by Calvinism were reluctant to do anything.  Eventually, Judson changed from Presbyterian to Baptist.

In the case of the Church of Scotland, the ones that left became "Seceder Presbyterians", and began foreign mission activity.  Some of them, now that they were questioning Calvinism, moved on from Presbyterian churches and went into other groups.

Two of these guys, Alexander Campbell and his dad Thomas, were the founders of the Church of Christ and Christian Churches here in the USA.

Two others, the Haldane brothers, became influential teachers and leaders in the early Plymouth Bretheren movement.

In early America there were a series of revivals that swept through various areas.  They believed in preaching that Christ died for all men and offered salvation to all men as a result.  Many Calvinist groups were thrown into turmoil by this.  The ones who rejected this type of gospel preaching were referred to as "old light", and the ones who accepted it were called "new light", as in "New Light Presbyterians".

There have always been Calvinists, like Whitfield, who preached the gospel as if Christ died for all men.  As Pascal said, "The heart has reasons the head knows nothing of...".

The reason American Christianity is so , "Arminian", is that they went out and offered the Love of Christ to all men, and many responded.  The Calvinists were content to be "right".

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

That's my .05

Hi folks,

I just re-read my post, and it brought something to mind.

The reason most Calvinist churches tend to be small is, IMHO, that they tend to give the memebers an cold and exclusive attitude toward people.

After all, if God doesn't love the world, why should I?

Another reason is that Calvinists traditionally believed in Church/State alliances.  The Church taught morals to the magistrates, and they passed laws accordingly.  Early Massachussets is an example of this.

What this had usually produced is one of two things: Either a dead state Church led by "professionals" who are quite educated but not necessarily born again; or liberal churches whose people, in rejecting the "Horrific Decree" of God for emotional reasons, have rejected the book they believed taught it.  They end up with homosexual pastors and marriage being ok.

There are some healthy Calvinists churches of course, usually led by great preachers who preach as if they believed differently.

The truly faithful Calvinist churches tend to be small, as with the OPC.

Most Evangelicals reject Unconditional election and limited atonement in part or wholly.  I believe that this is a key to their evangelistic success in this country, and in others.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux 3.5 pointer

You debaters sometimes bore me................

My 5 cents (for Scott ;))

Right after we left the assembly, we ended up at a wonderful Calvinist preaching and believing church.  Preaching wonderful grace sermons, an evangelical zeal, a love for one another and the community at large and the unsaved as a whole, welcoming us with open arms and teaching us with great love and care (particularly considering what we had just come out from.)

I was thankful for a Calvinist leaning teaching (based on grace and no merit of myself) as opposed to finding an Arminian style of ministry (of which I have had WAY too much of since I've been saved.)

Without having all the correct doctrine and citing this biblical scholar or that biblical scholar, blah, blah, blah, blah............here is my response............

I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church. ;D

When we begin looking again for a church, I will be looking for the same kind of church.

my 5 cents

I enjoy the debates for the most part. I've learned a lot and more importantly UNlearned a lot.

I do however think the debaters often get so caught up in it they forget their audience and thereby miss a great opportunity to teach and witness.

There are a million bulletin boards where you can find debates about Calvinism and Arminianism. There are only two  ;) boards where former victims and adherents of Geftakysism can go to find answers to their questions and help with their new lives from other former members.

Mark C understands this. Brent tries to keep it focused. Al is pretty good about it.

Verne, Thomas and H are uniquely qualified for the purposes of this board. I just think that sometimes they miss the chance to contribute their best stuff.

But hey, that's just me and my opinion ain't even worth a nickel! ;D

Scott

   I am indeed thankful to Joseph for his very informative post, but I must strongly disagree with the last sentence quoted as anybody that knows anything knows that head coverings should be worn at any meeting where Angels are present and observing the gathering, as they will immediately fly away if they see the glory of man in the meeting. It is clearly heretical to not follow the full pattern of compliance by wearing the covering for the full term of the meeting.  Of course the women have the option of shaving their heads and thus forgoing the head covering.
  I learned this from my great-great grandaddy, Thomas Campbell, (the same one Tom Maddox mentioned) the great founder of the Campbellite church.  The Campbell's had a Scottish heritage and the true hidden meaning of their name is very instructive.  The name "Campbell" came from the Scottish military where an individual was assigned to ring the Camp Bell, much liike the Buglar in our army.  This explains a lot about us Campbell's as we come from a long line of ding-a-lings! :D ;) ;)
                               God Bless,  Mark C.

It's interesting how we've all had different experiences.
I grew up in a Calvinistic church and i felt that I had to strain to hear preaching of what Christ had done for me. Yes, we heard that "it" was all of grace and not of ourselves, but it  was assumed that because our parents were Christians, we the children were going to heaven. They really believe that. So I was always left with the question of what do I do when I sin, because I'm supposed to know better; I'm saved. But, am I really? Maybe I'm one of the ones that God didn't choose. Maybe I'm going to hell and don't know it.

There was not a real focus on outreach because those unsaved people may not have been chosen by God to be saved, and that's why they (and their children will be eternally lost.) We were preached to as if we were better than other Christians. We had the truth (and ALL the catechism). We had all the Bible (head) knowledge but nowhere to go with it because we were predestined to be where we were and the unsaved were predestined to be where they were.    

According to Calvinistic thought, we can't help but sin. What happened to grace here?

I was saved when I heard Billy Graham preach to me like I needed to be saved and that Christ died to give me eternal life.

I'm just glad I finally heard the gospel and that there is grace for every moment of my life, if I want to turn to God and take hold of it. I don't believe that anyone is beyond the reach of God's grace.

Scott and all,

  I do agree with the following:

Scott said:
"There are a million bulletin boards where you can find debates about Calvinism and Arminianism. There are only two
 boards where former victims and adherents of Geftakysism can go to find answers to their questions and help with their new lives from other former members."

--Tony

P.S.  Can we try a bit to change the subject line when we change the subject?  

Kimberley,

You wrote, "I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church. ;D

How "Arminian" of you.  You see, a Calvinist can never be certain of his salvation.  :o  

The "P" in TULIP stands for perseverance of the saints.  While you are still alive you have not persevered to the end.   Therefore, you can only arrive at "I think I'm saved", or "Its likely that I am saved".  You really cannot know that you will not deny Christ before you die.

The Arminian churches have traditionally accepted a profession of faith to be adequate evidence of salvation.   The apostles seem to have fallen in to this error also,  ;).

Colonial Puritans had a big ruckus over this in the "Halfway Covenant" controversies.

Also, Kimberley, I wouldn't call the ignorant blather we heard so frequently in the Assembly the "Arminian style of preaching".

BTW, I said the state churches and liberal churches were "dead".  There are many fine Christians of Calvinists persuasion.  However, they have their nuts as well.

Are you aware of the Calvinist "Theonomy" movement?   They believe that it is the churches mission to establish the Law of Moses as the law of the land.  :P

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I was discussing this just the other day with someone off the board. They were concerned with the concept because even though they believed they were saved, had accepted Christ as saviour, etc.

"But what if I'm not one of the elect?"

Guess you'll just have to hang tight 'til the end and see how it plays out, huh?

Scary thought.

S

Folks,

What I am doing on these boards is exactly what GOT ME OUT of the assembly years before it collapsed.

We have all heard of the Bereans who were more noble than the others...when we were Geftakysites we were sure WE were their descendants.

When someone comes to me and says, "The Bible clearly says...", I subject it to critical examination before swallowing.

I have been pointing out some problems with a brand of Christianity that many ex-assembly folks seem enamored with.  The basis for their infatuation seems to be, according to what I have read here, that "they teach grace".

Friends, ALL HEALTHY CHURCHES teach grace.   We are saved by grace, through faith.  Is there any one here that would claim that Calvary Chapel, which is clearly "Arminian", does not teach grace?

Remember, WE WERE IN A GROUP THAT HAD GONE CULTIC!

The weird form of works based salvation that GG taught was destructive in its results.   One does not have to go to go Calvinist to find better.

If you wish to go to a Calvinist church, that is up to you.  I certainly didn't ask anyone's permission to attend E. Free of Fullerton.  But do it for the right reasons, not in reaction.

All man made systems of theology, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, have problems.  If we never do anything because there are problems, we will never do anything.

The perfect church will cease to be perfect when you and I get there.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

You wrote, "Perseverance has to do with God's faithfulness, not ours. This type of thinking is unscriptural. The only time we get into trouble is when we stray form God's Word."

To be sure Verne.  But my point is, How do you know you are one of the elect?  

Regarding most Calvinist churches being small...I readily admit my subjective judgement.  That is why I wrote IMHO.

Nevertheless, two things are undeniable:

1. Calvinism of one form or another was the dominant form of Christianity in early America.

2. The Arminian churches have outstripped the Calvinists exponentially.  There is a reason for this my friend.

Also, I most certainly do not believe that God exists in the time frame of this universe.

Whether God is a timeless being or exists in another time dimension is a matter of debate among theologians and philosophers.  It is possible that the concept of time cannot be applied to God at all.

In fact, Calvinist theology is very time bound.  First, God elects, then he...etc. etc.  How do you know that God experiences this in this way at all, and that it isn't just described in this way to fit our limitations?

We are incapable of visualizing dimensions beyond our experience.  Some have used math to work with the concept, but they can't visualize beyond three dimensions.

What does the history of the universe and all the men in it look like to an omnicient being to whom all events are present?  This is a question I thought of over 30 years ago.  

In fact, it is what got me to take a second look at Calvinism.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     Actually, Billy Graham preached on "Man in the Fifth Dimension" back in the early 1960s.  He visualized time as the fourth dimension and the spiritual realm as the fifth.
     Some science fiction authors have written brilliantly about dimensions beyond those with which we are familiar.  But not everyone is attuned to such concepts, and if they were important for us to comprehend, surely God would have made our capacity for them more universal.  (Unless one chooses to believe that only "trekkies" can be among the elect) ;D

     Verne sums up my personal opinion as follows:


Verne and Tom,

     In all humility, I ask you to use the Preview feature to edit your expressions before posting.  It would multiply the blessings of the things you share. :) ;) :D

God bless,
al

I'm tired of seeing this person's quote and that person's quote so I'm just going to write without the "quote" thingy. :o

I am neither "Arminian" nor am I "Calvinist".  I am a "Christian".  I believe I lean more "towards" Verne's "argument" than that which Tom postulates.  But I would not categorize myself as a 5-point Calvinist.

I was trying to ascertain why these debates annoy me.  I think I have stumbled upon the reason.  As you can see by both Verne's and Tom's "heated" debate, they both vehemently believe in their position.  I am not persuaded by their arguments(and I believe, particularly the non-believer, repudiates this form of "winning").  You both have your "scriptural references" to support your thesis.  It just grates on me the arguing back and forth, each one trying to jockey for position as to who is "right".  

That is why I firmly stated to you Tom, "I am saved, I know I'm saved."  I don't care that the "P" in Tulip stands for the perseverance of the saints.

I use to love to argue...............then I spent 15 years in the assembly.  Using my skills at debate to wound people :'(, to distance them from my God by my behavior...........I'm just not interested anymore.

I, for one, enjoy reading these discussions.
Getting away from my Calvinistic ways of looking at things released me from binding chains, but reading these discussions, especially Verne's insights and  viewpoints, has helped me to see a little farther and understand some of what Calvin's beliefs were.
Weren't these protestant reformers reacting against the salvation by works taught by the Catholic church at the time?
It is interesting, to me, to note the severe persecution of the "anabaptists" of that time. They were the believers who did not believe that the baptism of infants was a scriptural idea and stood fast against the state in their beliefs. The adult believers who were baptised at that time, were hunted down and drowned in a mockery of their beliefs.
Can someone explain to me why protestant reformers (Zwingli) would go along with the persecution of "anabaptists"?
In the back of the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church is an article in which one must agree to disagree with the teaching of the anabaptists, in fact, it must be repudiated.
Zwingli had an clue that infant baptism wasn't a scriptural idea, but wouldn't stand against the state, and in fact held a state office, but why wouldn't the rest of the reformers take a stand against it?

Verne,
I agree with what you say here, but the way I was taught to look at things was to look at the teachings of Calvin, first, then look to see how scripture backed it up. It's the wrong way to do it. We were not taught to look at a scripture verse and say that because God says so, it is true. Calvin was supposed to have been the last word on interpretation of the Word.
So when the doctrine of "election" is brought up, was I or was I not one of the elect? It appears that I was not the only one who was adversely affected by this way of thinking.

[quote author=Kimberley Tobin link=board=6;threadid=601;start=0#msg15230 date=1075044968

I was trying to ascertain why these debates annoy me.  

I use to love to argue...............then I spent 15 years in the assembly.  Using my skills at debate to wound people :'(, to distance them from my God by my behavior...........I'm just not interested anymore.
 Hi Kimberley and other fellow Christians ;),

  My problem with the quote stuff is that I make weird mistakes and I cannot account for what I did wrong. ???   Earlier on this thread I tried to quote Chuck and ended up quoting myself and shifting the screen to the right ??? :-[
   Kimberley:  Paul talks about the dangers of knowledge in I Cor. 8 and states, "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."  Paul, in that passage, was talking about being loving in our knowledge of the liberty we have in Christ and not stumbling those who are not clear in this regard.  I think your post makes a very good point and that is we need to think about our confused friends from the Assembly who may be reading here.
   Let's remember our BB history and what a certain individual did  here in his attempt to achieve mastery via argument.  I'm not saying we can't disagree, but we should eschew using sarcasm and ridicule of another's opinion as there are sensitive souls for whom this can wound (as Kimberley mentioned.)  We are not here to master one another, but to serve one another.  If someone post's clear error we should seek to" restore such a one in the spirit of meekness" but if we are debating the finer points of Reformed vs. Dispensational theology let's strive to consider what is edfying.
   I do think it is very valuable to study these theological perspectives for the exassemblyite, if they have active intellects that are searching for answers in this area, but not all Assembly people will be able to follow these arguments and we need to help them to start thinking again on their own from a good basic foundation.  Most exassemblyites don't even have a clear idea of salvation (which I believe was Brent's idea in starting this thread) and whether Reformed Baptist or Foursquare Gospel we need to understand what it means that I'm a Christian saved by grace through faith.
   Now, if we can only get Joe Sperling to stop spreading his heresy re. wearing head coverings for only "1/4 of the meeting please" we will be able to attain to BB Nirvana ;) ;) ;)!
                                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

My .05 worth:

I learn from any profitable discussion of the Scriptures. Though Verne and H have an opposing viewpoint to Tom's (sometimes) I enjoy seeing the argument from both perspectives. I might actually be a 3.5 pointer myself without knowing it. I have never thoroughly investigated Calvinism etc.

Anyway, like Kimberley, I know too that I am saved whether Calvin agrees with me or not. :)

Lord bless,
Marcia

My .05 cents (again)

I enjoy the debates. I have learned a lot from them. I think Tom, Verne, H & others have kept it very friendly and positive.

My only suggestion was that the debaters remember their audience. IMHO, the topic is much more profitable when viewed through the context of this particular BB (Geftakysism).

Last night Tom wrote about how this type of questioning led him to see errors in Geftakys doctrine and how this particular topic often comes into play as ex-Assemblyites move on with their lives.

By putting the debate in this context, it made the whole thing make much more sense.

Sometimes those engaged in a discussion take it for granted that the audience understands the context and purpose of it. That's not always true.

When some small effort is made to keep the context and purpose as part of the discussion, many more people can profit from it.

Carry on, gentlemen!

Scott  :)

Re. topic of this thread, today's sermon (Jan. 25) by Kim Riddlebarger at CRC was on the Reformed view.  It can be heard for about a month at http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml (http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml).  

Hi folks,

Today I went over to Biola to buy books for next semester.

In one of my classes the texts will be Grudem's Systematic Theology and some historical writings.  Grudem's is written from a Reformed viewpoint.  (this should be VERY interesting)

One of the other books is the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is a Reformed catechism written in the Generation after Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.  This publication is by the Christian Reformed Church.

A catechism is an instructional book written as a series of questions and answers.  I browsed through the book this afternoon.  I discovered this, which was quite a surprise to me.

This is question 85, page 115.

85. Q. How is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by Christian discipline?

A. According to the command of Christ:

Those who, though called Christians, profess  unchristian teachings or live unchristian lives,
and after repeated and loving counsel,
refuse to abandon their errors and wickedness,
and after being reported to the church, that is, to its officers,
fail to respond also to their admonition-

such persons the officers shall exclude from the Christian fellowship
by withholding the sacraments from them,
and God himself excludes them from the kingdom of Christ.

Such persons
when promising and demonstrating genuine reform,
are received again
as members of Christ
and of His Church.

Do you realize what this is saying?  It says that:

1. The leaders of the church have the authority to cast you out of the church for "unchristian teachings".  This could be a real problem to many evangelicals, depending on what these fellows choose to define as "unchristian".

2. The means of this casting out is by withholding the "sacraments".
    This sounds a lot like "sitting back" to me.
3. God honors such judgement by casting you out of the kingdom of Christ!!!!!

4. The church leaders may relent, upon conditions they dictate, and recieve you back.
 This reception is not just into the fellowship of the congregation, it is reinstatement as MEMBERS OF CHRIST!

(this must necessarily mean that they have cast you OUT of Christ)

5. Notice also the part about the subjects conduct being reported to the officers.  

I have called these groups the semi-reformed churches many times.  This I have always done tongue in cheek, as sort of a pointed joke.

This, however, is obviously Catholic baggage that they need to jettison.  There is much more, but this is obviously very close to the teaching/practice of George Geftakys.

John 10:27-29.  "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Interesting little quote below!  So, the officers of the church didn't believe in priests...now they had "officers."    

Perhaps reforming Catholicism wasn't a good idea?  ;)  I wonder how the reformed branch of Geftakysism will fare?

Also, with regard to the section above, I believe you will find in the text, that by withholding the Sacraments, they are merely ackknowledging what God has already done.   In other words, the "officers,"  got together and recognized that God excluded Bro. so-and-so from the kingdom late last Thursday, meaning that this person is no longer welcome at Baptisms, Communion, etc.

How do they know?  ??? ???

Brent

Margaret and All,

I listened to the Jan 25th sermon.  It was an excellent message on how faith is a gift.  But then he ended his message with a statement like "...flee to Christ to take the gift...".  So am I missing something?

Marcia

No, you're not missing anything.

Welcome to the first realization (maybe?) that perhaps reformed folks really do believe in evangelism, and do indeed try to persuade people to turn to Jesus.

I see absolutely no contradiction at all in the final statement he made.  It is perfectly fitting and scriptural.  Didn't Jesus say,  "Come unto me?"

Brent

Good point.  I've heard some say that 'taking' the gift is a 'work' attitude.

Marcia

Again, if we pass from death to life when WE take the gift, or appropraite the grace, or accept Jesus, or repent, etc. then it implies we are saved by our choice, which is a work.

However, if "fleeing to Christ to take the gift," is the first demonstration of a redeemed heart, which it is, then there is no problem theologically.

I like what Tom was saying a while back, about Prevenient Grace.  No matter how you slice it,  we aren't going to flee to Christ without grace working on our behalf.  This holds true for Calvinists and Arminians of the worst description!  They can say whatever they want, but it requires grace, and as grace, can't be earned by works!

Brent

Howdy folks,

I think that what some of you are doing here is to unwittingly commit a fallacy of equivocation in your thought process.

A fallacy of equivocation is a subtle change of definition of a word used in your argument.

Example,

1. Men are saved by grace not by works.
2. Faith is a work

Therefore men are not saved through, (by), faith.

That is the reasoning behind some of what is being said here.

However, in premise 1 "works" means "acts of righteousness that win the favor of God to a degree that overcomes their debt of guilt".  This is the meaning of "works of righteousness" in the NT in the context of grace/works discussions.

In premise 2 "work" simply means "an act performed by a human being".

That is why the conclusion is invalid.  Men are indeed saved by grace, through faith.

In all theologies I have ever encountered to the right of outright Pelagianism, some form of grace must be operating in/on the person before faith can be exercised.  That is why "salvation is of the Lord", but we must obey the command, "Repent and believe the gospel".  We must do it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,


To me, this sort of reasoning displays the inner contradictions of Reformed theology.

John 3:18 tells us that, "...he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God".

If God judges men for their lack of faith, and if faith can only be obtained as a gift from God, then you have God judging men because they do not have what He refuses to give them.

Huh?

Romans 1: 18-21 speaks of this.

The wrath of God is revealed against men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

That which is known about God is evident within them.
For God made it evident!

Verse 20 says that nature alone is enough to cause belief in God.

Verse 21 says that they knew God, at least as to His existence.

Their condemnation is based on their suppression of the truth and their turning to delusions about false gods.  Not because they could not have believed in God.

Men are held morally culpable for not doing what was in their power to do, ie, believe in God.  This causes them to descend to a state where they do all manner of evil.

Why suppress the truth if you can't believe it anyway?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

Do I detect an anti-reformed bias in your writing?  ;)

I am not a  Calvinist, but I do have to call you on this one.  Does not Romans teach that every man abides under the wrath and judgement of God?  God isn't judging us for something He didn't give us, (faith) but for who and what we are.

Does not Romans carefully explain and defend God's judgement against sinful man?

Your rehetorical question is akin to "Then who has resisted His will?  Why does He still find fault?"   The issue here has nothing to do with God's judgement not being just as explained by the reformed camp.  On the contrary, they explain it by saying that He would still be just and righteous if every single one of us went straight to Hell.  We "earned" it, all by ourselves.

The perspective on this is one of mercy, not judgement.  God's righteous judgement condemns us all, but His mercy in Christ saves many!  That is the wonder.  The fact that all aren't saved isn't the issue, the fact that ANY are saved is the issue.

While I agree with much of what you are saying,  you aren't representing the reformed tradition accurately in your most recent post.

Brent,  3.67 points.

Brent,

Actually what I have is a bias against is self-contradictory nonsense.  When you speak of the "Reformed Tradition" one has to realize that all reformed theologians are not identical in their teachings.

What I frequently do is to follow the logical train to the last station on the line.  (reductio ad absurdam)

If that results in an absurd conclusion, so be it.  That is not bias, it is thinking.

That is what I was pointing out to Verne.  You have to deal with what John 3 actually says, not what Reformed, or any other, theology demands that it should say.

One of the BIG, BIG problems I have with Reformed teaching is that it makes God the author of sin.  Reformed authors realize this, but they attempt to avoid this by authoritative declaration.

They insert the phrase, "yet without sin", right after they admit that God causes sin!    

The "secondary cause" dodge doesn't work either...in my opinion.

I would prefer the honesty of Zwingli, who said something like, "Yeah, God causes sin, get over it buddy, that's just the way it is".

Regarding Romans, one of my habits is to read the old testament passages that are quoted in the NT.  Remember, the "first hearers" of these teachings were familiar with the OT, and therefore understood the passages in context, not in isolation.  If you go through Paul's arguments in Romans and look at the OT passages, it raises many questions about what the quotations actually mean.

I am taking a class on Essential Christian Doctrine, which starts today.  I will have a chance to discuss these things with a trained theologian.  We'll see what develops.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Does the conversation below confuse you? I know that it confuses me. Therefore, I do what comes natural: I let someone else do the thinking for me.

It's easy, it takes little effort, and all you have to do is drive to a meeting. Be sure to wear a 3 piece suit or a head covering, and come Sunday at 10:00 to a service you'll never forget:

First Church of Latter Day Christian Scientific Jehovah's Witnesses of the 7th Day(Reformed)
1022 W. Logan Ave.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90045

This Sunday's Sermon: "Is it individuality or Demon infestation?"   Father Herb McNally explores our natural desire to be individuals, rather than the corporate expression God so desires.

Hi Tom,

I was merely pointing out that you misrepresented the "other"  side in your post.  I know that I can speak for all of us by saying that we are getting lots of benefit from your views on this and other topics.

Nevertheless, it is not becoming for us to misrepresent the "other" side.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said,  "The Bible teaches that God is judging people because He didn't give them faith."  That is, no one says this unless they are trying to either blaspheme----which was certainly not your motive----or they are trying to make a straw man out of reformed folks.

Calling an Arminian a "virulent dog," is pretty low....but so is claiming that a Calvinist asserts that God is handing out gifts, and then punishing those He didn't give a gift to.   It just isn't true.

There may be plenty that is wrong with Reformed theology, but let's at least stick to what this theology really is!

Carry on,

Brent

I guess I don't understand this statement.  I understood Reformers took the position that God sovereignly elects some (gives them the gift of salvation) while others he chooses not to elect.  When one asks about the justice of this the reply seems to be 1) The person who is being judged was born a sinner and should be judged like everyone else.  Therefore don't get hung up on the fact that the person who has no chance to find salvation is being judged (after all everyone deserves hell).  Rather look over here and marvel that God is granting mercy to His elect.   2) Don't question God - isn't it His Sovereign right to make one a vessel of mercy and another a vessel of wrath?  If He wants to withhold salvation for reasons of His own choosing, who are we to argue?

It seems to me that "punishing those he didn't give a gift to" is a more straightforward way of saying just this.   I understand why Reformers wouldn't want to say it like this as it comes across a bit crass.  But, I don't see how it is any different than their more carefully worded apology.

I just read the letter from Theron Messer on the ga website.  Written in 1990...remarkable insight.  Or maybe anyone who reads their Bible's...without a certain influence...could have seen the error.


Though it probably wasn't so much a pure motive as a desire to be dominant.  

Not being able to argue against justification by grace, he argues against sanctification by grace.

Those words pretty much encapsulate it all, don't they?

Verne,


1. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on deductive logic.

Premise 1: The Bible calls three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God.
Premise 2: The Bible says there is only one God.

Conclusion: There is one God, who subsists in three persons.

2. Logic is the art of clear thinking.  If your thinking is not logical, it is confused.  Logic serves to force us to think clearly.

3. Doctrines such as the incarnation and the resurrection are not illogical.  They are not empirically verifiable...but that is not the same as either illogical or absurd.

When, in the discussion of logic, the word absurd is used it usually means self-contradictory.  For example, Verne Carty does and does not exist.  Both states of being are possible, but not at the same time and in the same sense.  Therefore the statement is absurd.

4. Regarding the origin of sin.  The first sin we know anything about was the rebellion of Satan.  This limits the options.

a. God created Satan with the potential to sin or not to sin, but left him free to decide to sin or not.

b. God created Satan with a nature that forced him to sin, so he could not fail to sin.
   
c. God created Satan sin free but acted upon him in such a way as to make him sin.

Unless you can think of some other options Verne, that's all there is.  Option a. makes Satan a free moral agent...which in the view of many Reformed theologians is impossible.  It violates their idea of God's sovereignty.

Which option would you choose?

4. The idea that God is the author of sin has been discussed among serious theologians for centuries.   Zwingli taught it.  So I think "wrong" would be a better word to use if you disagree, rather than "blasphemous".

I think that that those who believe this use the voluntarist argument: God makes the rules so whatever He chooses to do is right.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Brent,

I have to get to work.  I will try to answer you on this tomorrow.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
 Virulent Dog First Class with Gold Oak Leaf Cluster

Tom,

Satan was obviously a free moral agent, as was Adam. Can you show us where a Reformed theologian denies this?

One of the most interesting, stimulating and enlightening discussions of "free will" that I have come across so far is "FREE GRACE VERSUS FREE WILL" by W. E. Best
(http://www.webbmt.org/EngHTML2/Free%20Grace%20Versus%20Free%20Will.htm).
Here are some extracts that I think might be helpful in this discussion:

"Absolute freedom of the will can belong only to God. No law restrains God’s will, because He is His own law. Since God is sovereign, no power can overcome His will. He is omnipotent. He “...worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11). God’s will is irresistible, fixed, and everlasting: “...For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). It is everlasting because God does not change: “For I am the Lord, I change not...” (Mal. 3:6). The Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Godhead, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). With God there “...is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). God’s will cannot be changed for the better because God cannot be better. It cannot be changed for the worse because God cannot be less than He is.

God’s will is subject to no one, but the will of every man is subject to God. … God’s freedom indicates that He is under no compulsion outside of Himself. He acts according to the law of His being. God is self-moved, and unable to sin. ….

Freedom in God is immutable self-determination; conversely, freedom in a finite being—Adam before the fall—is mutable self-determination. The truth that freedom in God is immutable self-determination is the key to the remainder of the discussion of the freedom of the will. ….

Adam’s will was a free will because it was self-determined. ….

Adam’s original uprightness was self-determined but not self-originated. His fall, however, was both self-determined and self-originated. The doctrine of concurrence—cooperation—cannot be connected with Adam’s sin or his fall. God is the author of neither Adam’s sin nor his fall. ….

Adam … was created in a state of mutable self-determination, which allowed the possibility of his fall. And he did fall when he went from an inclination toward God to a selfish, ego-centered inclination. Sinful inclination is the creature’s product and activity. ….

Adam’s sinful determination originated within himself. God did not cooperate in Adam’s evil self-determination. He created Adam a free person. ….

Man must be a free agent to be accountable to God. … Free agency is the power to decide according to one’s character. Free will is the power to change one’s character by volition or choice. Free agency belongs to every man, but the power to change one’s character by the exercise of the will does not belong to mankind. ….

Some people have been mistaken in trying to determine causes of sin. Men have blamed God Himself for sin. God’s decree is not a cause of sin. Proper distinction must be made between God’s decree and the actual action that brought sin into being. God’s decree has no causal influence on sinful action, since a decree as such does not operate to effect the thing decreed. God’s purpose is one thing and His actual bringing into being that which He purposed is another. Sin entered the world by Adam’s fall and not by God’s creative hand.

Everything decreed does come to pass in time, but God’s foreknowledge of an action does not necessitate the action. Whatever man does, good or bad, he does with as much willingness as though his will were really free. Foreknowledge of an action does not actively influence the action itself. God remains omniscient, and He knows every deed that every man will perform. Nevertheless, we must distinguish between God’s foreknowledge of a thing and the activity of the foreknown thing. ….

How can a person be a free and responsible agent if his actions were foreordained from eternity? “Free and responsible agent” indicates that an intelligent person acts with rational self-determination. The term foreordination signifies that from eternity God made certain the course of events that occur in the life of every person and in the course of nature. The same God who ordained all events ordained the free agency of man in the midst of those foreordained events. Free agency is under God’s absolute sovereignty."


 

     All parts of this discussion have been stimulating and helpful to me.  It gets pretty heavy at times, but I'm enjoying it immensely and hope many others are too.
     One of the most marvelous considerations, to my mind, is that in that day when we all shall know as we are known, we will all be in full agreement regarding these things which will then be very obvious to us all.
     Our God is a wonderful God!!!

al

Verne,

A deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  The argument for the Trinity I posted is a deductive argument.

Now, as to your example, and your request for an explanation as why it would not be true:

Your "conclusion" does not logically follow from the premises.  In fact, it has nothing to do with the premises.  This merely qualifies as a comment.

What I am saying is that there is nothing in your premises that leads you to your conclusion.

Verne, I am currently reading "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius.
Athanasius is the church father that stood so courageously against the Arians, (which sometimes included the Roman emperor) in the early 4th century.  He led the fight to define the doctrine of the Trinity.   He used logic.

When you say that the doctrine of the Trinity rests on "faith", (I'm not sure what that means), I would ask you a question; How, without logic, can one establish this doctrine?

You say that you believe this doctrine because "God said it".  Can you show me where the scriptures actually say that three persons subsist in one being, or an equivalent statement?

As to your comment that the Word says there is nothing logical about the preaching of the cross:

1. Who said logic was fully adequate to expound the truth?

2. Logic, however, is necessary in order to expound the truth.
Logic is necessary to even think!  And that means about anything.

The verse you are thinking of says, "for the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish".

Is preaching painting?  No.  Why?  Because of the rules of logic.
All A=A.   That is known as the law of identity.  If it weren't true, preaching could be painting.

Why couldn't the preaching of the cross be foolishness and not be foolishness at the same time?  Because of the law of non-contradiction, All A is not non-A.  The statement relies on the rules of logic to make sense.

3. Regarding "the people who invented logic".  People didn't invent logic.  God invented logic Verne.   He created the human mind and Aristotle described how it works.   No one has ever shown that it works in any other way.

If you say, "I disagree", you must utilize two of the laws of logic to do so.





God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Brent,

My reasoning in saying that is as follows:

Verne said that the Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God.

John 3 says that God condemns men because they do not have faith.

All I said is that that would mean that God condemns men because they don't have what He didn't give them.  How does that misrepresent "the other side"?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

H,

Quite interesting.  I agree with much of what you say.  However you must admit that Calvin taught that God caused Adam to fall.

For example: "I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved: and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself".  Institutes, 23,4.

What you are arguing is that God caused it to happen but he didn't cause it to happen.  

 Huh?

Here's a question for you, my voluntarist friend; If God's will is absolutely free...why is he "The God who cannot lie"?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I thought you were refuting Calvinsism, not Verne.

Verne is easy to refute, but even he doesn't say that God judges men because He didn't give them gifts..... ???

We are judged for who we are,  sinners, and what we do....sin.

Reformed folks are crystal clear on this point.

Brent

     I hope to not muddy the waters by asking this:  Isn't the issue here not that God gave the gift of faith to men, but that men refused to accept it?  You may mail me a check, then later condemn me for never having cashed it.  If I don't open the envelope, sign the back of the check and take it to the bank, it serves me not at all, even though you gave it to me and I carry it in my pocket every day.

al

One of our children's devotionals helped quite a bit with the Trinity.

Example one:  The sun.

We see its light, feel its warmth, and require its phototrophic properties.  3 distinct "aspects" sunlight, the character of one sun.

Example two:

H2O, water:  It exists as solid, liquid and gas, yet it is all water.

Perfect examples?  No, not perfect, but surely if water can have 3 "persons," God is also able to exist as a Trinity.

Brent

My kids had no trouble believing it.

Tom,

No, I don't have to admit that "Calvin taught that God caused Adam to fall." And no, I am not arguing "that God caused it to happen". Calvin said that it was "by the will of God" that Adam fell, but that is not the same as saying that He caused it. I interpret him to mean that since Adam fell, it must have been God's will (in some sense) to allow him to fall (as a result of his own free choice), since otherwise God would not have allowed it to happen.  After all, "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37), so it seems to me that He could have prevented it if it had not been His will. But that doesn't mean He caused it.

This basically involves the age-old question of "Why is there evil in the world if it was created by a good God?" People have taken a number of different approaches to this question through the centuries. Some have simply denied that God exists. If God doesn't exist, then the question is clearly meaningless and doesn't need to be answered. Some have denied that the God who created the universe is good (Marcion, for example). Some have denied that God is omniscient (i.e., He didn't know that Satan and Adam would rebel when He decided to create them). Calvin (and many others, myself included) simply bowed in humility before God's sovereignty and said that for His own reasons, He wanted to create Lucifer and Adam, even though He knew they would rebel, thus introducing sin and evil into the creation. As the Lord Jesus said, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Mat. 11:26).
What is your approach?

As for your question "If God's will is absolutely free...why is he "The God who cannot lie"?", it reminds me of some questions that atheists have asked, such as "If God is omnipotent, why can't He make a rock he cannot move?" If you answer that question correctly, you will also have answered your question.

God bless,

H

 

     Good!  Then it has fulfilled its purpose, which is to help kids get a sense of the reality of the triunity of God.  Jesus said that unless we become as little children we won't enter the kingdom of God.  Hence Verne's acceptance of the Trinity "by faith."
     In a different context, Paul points out his having put away childish understanding and thought when he became a man, to illustrate that we shall know even as we are known.  In the interim (while not yet having such full knowledge), faith, hope and love abide and are enough to sustain us in our curiosity because they are ours in the Person of Jesus Christ.  In our longing for utter fulfillment, we have need of patience...

     Farther along we'll know all about it,
               Farther along we'll understand why,
                         Cheer up, my brother,
                         Walk in the sunshine,
               We'll understand it all bye and bye.

al  

Verne,

Calvin's Institutes contain a chapter that is titled: "God So Uses the Works of the Ungodly, and So Bends Their Minds to Carry Out His Judgements, That He Remains Pure From Every Stain".

So, if God "bent your mind" so that you stole a car it would be your fault, not His.   Well, maybe that works for you.

As Robby the Robot would say, "That does not compute".

It doesn't compute for me either.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

1. My views on the Trinity can easily be found stated clearly in the documents produced at Nicea and Chalcedon, as well as in the so-called Athanasian Creed.  They are not just "your definition not mine".  They are a statement of the historical Christian faith.

2. You might want to write these folks a letter explaning where they went wrong,  ;), since they clearly used the logical process I have described in their deliberations.

3. Mathematical arguments are a class of deductive arguments, and are therefore subject to the same rules.  I don't think it applies in this case, however.  One would need to describe the manner of God's existance in numbers.  I don't think that is actually possible.

4. Remember, a deductive arguments is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  That is why my syllogism is valid, and produces a conclusion that is true as well.


5. You have said that you believe in the Trinity by "faith".  It seems to me that a proposition must be stated before one can exercise "faith" as to its truthfulness.   How did you arrive at what you have placed your faith in?

6. The reason the Greeks believed the preaching of the crucifixion and resurrection were "foolishness" is that they were so deeply influenced by Platonic philosophy, which taught that matter was evil.

Therefore, the idea that God could enter humanity and have a body before or after death was repugnant to them.  This was because they used a false premise in their logic.

1. God is completely holy and pure      (ok so far)
2. Matter is evil and corrupt                 (there's the problem)
conclusion: God would never enter matter.

Their syllogism was valid.   It just wasn't true.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Sorry I seem to be spinning my wheels on this one.

I agree that salvation is a gift.
I get stuck on the pre-destination and limited atonement stuff.
Those who are pre-destined to get saved will get saved.
Those who are not, will be judged before the judgement seat of God for not getting saved.

Marcia

A while back I found a catalog among the books for sale at a flea market.  The title on the binding says, "I am certain this has to be the Invitrogen product catalog for the year 1996."  The joke being that biochemical research is so full of uncertainties that the researchers can't be sure of anything.  The things they research are so complex that often something that seems definite later turns out not to be so.

If God's creation is so difficult to be sure about, perhaps the same sort of caution is advisable in interpreting God's word.


As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
                                  -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

No,

this statement is totally eroneous.  Sinners will be judge according to their thoughts, deeds and actions.   Not, because they aren't saved.

Jesus bore the judgement for us.  Every sin has to be judged.  Sin is the issue, not lack of salvation.

Brent

Hi All  :) !

  I have been following this topic with great interest and wondering if there is anything that I could possibly add to the debate between Reformation thought and Arminian.  After all, this argument has been going on for hundreds of years.
  Tom remarked in one of his post's that Reformed theology and Dispensational theologians were actually getting closer to each other in modern times and I think that this is true.  There is great value in understanding both of these views as both have something to offer.
   As I shared before I studied books on grace byReformation writers and by dispensationalists and it was wonderfully encouraging for me to discover both views were absolutely opposed to the false holiness message of GG, though they came from different ways of expressing their thoughts on grace.
 When Reformed writers,and from the Disp. view Charles Ryrie, discuss grace and the Christian life they both emphasize honesty and humility.  Charles Ryrie in his book "So Great Salvation" takes on the "Lordship Salvation" teaching and uses Reformation authors to refute it. ("Lordship Salvation" is a teaching supposedly based on Calvinism which teaches that if a Christian is really saved he will express the Lordship of Christ in his/her life)
   I thank God for the Reformation and I don't think we should ridicule men like Calvin, Luther, etc. as they moved us out of the darkness of Roman Catholism into clear Gospel light.  The declaration of the authority of the Bible over the church, the priesthood of every believer, and salvation through grace by faith alone is the foundation from which modern Evangelicalism must be rooted in order to be truly Christian.  That these Reformists had great flaws in some of their views is an opportunity for us to learn from these mistakes.
   Reformed teaching bases it's teaching on "sola scriptura" and teaches that what the Bible says trumps any philosophy that is contrary.  Yet, when talking about the Christian life they recognize that one must be honest re. one's tendency to sin and it colors their interpretation of passages like Rom. 6.  They understand that though this passage says "I've died to sin" it does not mean sinless perfection because they don't experience it in their lives.
  Yet, there are those in Reformed churches who feel a great fear of falling into Humanist philosophy as this is what led their brethren into Modernism.  This is a logical fear,and yet I believe that the tension between God's Word and understanding my humanity is a necessary component to growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
   In conclusion:  As a follower of Reformation theology I must understand that God's ways are past my powers of reasoning and ask why it is that Jesus chose a child as an example of what His Kingdom was like.  For the Dallas Theological Seminary graduate who has taken psychology courses I must be able to allow the Bible to take precedence in my understanding of humanity.  
                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 
 

You have broken the 1000 barrier with this post, Brent. :)

But...  They did not have a choice in the matter, if they were not pre-destined to get saved.

BTW I'm not trying to knock any theology here, I'm just trying to understand.  :-[

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

When I re-read my post it sounded a little terse, mainly because I was in a hurry.

Here's the deal.  Your question is so common, that Paul answered it about 2000 years before you had a chance to ask:

Romans 9:13  As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."  14  What shall we say then? [Is] [there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

In other words, "Gee, it seems like God is unjust if he loves Jacob and hates Esau.  I mean, they didn't have a chance, He decided it even before they were born."  Paul answers by saying it isn't a matter of judgement, or justice, it's a matter of mercy!  Fairness and justice scream for all of us to go straight to Hell!  But mercy has been shown to all those who believe.


The next question is much more serious, and betrays an attitude that borders on blasphemy:

Romans 9:15  For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."  16  So then [it] [is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.  17  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."  18  Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.  19  You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"  20  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?"  21  Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Here, the question is actually an accusation, not unlike a rebellious teenage boy, who forgets to bring his homework home.  His father rebukes him for not doing his homework and the boy says,  "Geez Dad!  How can I obey you when I don't have my homework?  I don't have a choice, I can't do it."  

The fact is he can't do his homework...but because he "chose" not to by forgetting it.   In this case,  a sinful man actually accuses God of finding fault with people who have no choice...which is blasphemous.  Paul answers this fellow with harsh language, as seen above.

I find it very interesting that those who feel they must oppose the doctrine of unconditional election often resort to the same arguments that Paul dispatches in Romans 9!  

It isn't that difficult!

1.)God pre-destined/pre-ordained/forknew those who would be saved. Romans 9
2.)Everyone who calls upon the Name of The Lord shall be saved.  Romans 10

Just because our understanding has trouble with this doesn't mean it isn't true.  When I read Romans 9, I am thankful that God chose me, and showed mercy to me in Christ.   When I read Romans 10, I am happy that I called upon His name, and that he promises me that I will be saved.  

What's the big deal?

Brent

H,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is a good answer.  Arguing that God "orders everything after the counsels of His sovereign will" but then He has nothing to do with the results is, in my humble opinion, just goofy.

Saying that "If God's will is absolutely free why can't He lie" is like an atheists trick questions is incorrect.

The "If God is omnipotent can he create an irresistable force and an immoveable object" type of question is not really a question.  It is a word game.

God cannot create square circles, or circular squares.  That is because if he makes a square circular, it is no longer a square, and vice versa.   The term square circle is a nonsense term.

In the case of an immoveable  object versus the irresistable force, the two cannot co-exist, and therefore the "question" is self referentially absurd.  Or, if you wish, self contradictory.  If a thing is unmoveable, there cannot exist an irresistable force at the same time and in the same sense.   The opposite is also true.

However, the Bible clearly says that God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2).

Therefore, God's will is not free in this area.  This shows that the proposition that God's will is absolutely free is false.

God is not free to lie, nor to do anything unholy, unmerciful, unjust and so on.  That is why voluntarism is false.

God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Brent,

In dealing with a child's mind, this might be helpful.  However, it is exactly the reasoning employed by a very popular heresy in the early Church.

This was called "modalism".  God was said to be one being, who subsists in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It preserved the Unity of the Godhead, but to do so it sacrificed the personhood.  That is why it was rejected by the early Church fathers.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom, Brent, Verne, H, Mark C, and All,

     Admittedly, I am light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion, as are many if not most of its readers.  But certain things seem evident and beg addressing.  Please consider that the questions of the less scholarly are as important to our faith and understanding as are the deeper matters to you...

     Is it not that God cannot lie because He has chosen to be so?  Doesn't "the will of God" connote desire, intent and choice?  It is uncanny to think that God could be limited by anything but His own choice.  Who established His sovereign nature if not Himself?  Who else could have possibly imposed such restriction upon Him?  If God is omnipotent-- can do anything-- then the only possible reason that He cannot lie is that He will not lie.

     God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have.

     I am open to instruction regarding these things, and request your response...

al


     

Tom,

I didn't say that He has nothing to do with the results, I just said that He did not "cause" Adam to sin, Adam sinned by his own free choice. Adam's free choice was part of God's plan, but that doesn't mean that God "caused" it. By the way, how do you understand verses like Eph. 1:11 ("In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,")?


I disagree with you regarding the nature of your original question. Just like "circle" and "square" are mutually exclusive concepts, so "God" and "liar" are mutually exclusive concepts (at least in my mind; if they are not mutually exclusive in your mind, then we have a problem). Just as it is impossible for a square to be a circle, so "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). Thus your question ""If God's will is absolutely free why can't He lie?" is just as absurd and self-contradictory as the atheist's questions about God's omnipotence, since they both involve an impossiblilty. This is crystal clear to me. If it is not clear to you, then there is not much I can do apart from praying for you (which I do, by the way).

Just as I believe that God is omnipotent even though He cannot do impossible things, so I also believe that His will is absolutely free even though He cannot do impossible things. As W.E. Best said, "God’s freedom indicates that He is under no compulsion outside of Himself. He acts according to the law of His being. God is self-moved, and unable to sin." You yourself said "God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature." I agree with this 100%!

God bless,

H

al,

thanks for your excellent post! The only part I disagree with is the first sentence. The rest of your post makes it abundantly clear that you are NOT "light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion"!

Lord bless!

H

Hi, Al,

The way you stated this makes it seem as if you are saying God created himself. Or at some point in eternity, he was thinking, "Hmmm, what do I want to be? Truthful or not? Righteous or not."

You are saying that someday God can change his mind. Or that he can lie if he wants to but he just won't.

I don't think God decided how he should be. I think his nature defines what truth, righteousness, holiness, etc. is. His nature and his actions are not defined by our definitions of these concepts. He IS these concepts.

Just my (very inadequately stated) two cents.

S

Yes, Modalism.
I also am familiar with Pelagianism,  Arianism,  Sibellianism and a few other "isms."

Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect, but I don't know of a perfect analogy....do you?

God said that nature itself reveals "the Godhead," Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,  

So, I'm not so sure that it's that bad of an analogy.  Perhaps you are under the mistaken idea that water only exists in one form at a time?  Actually,  this isn't true,  as even at the south pole there is solid, liquid and vapor.

Anyhow, I do not subscibe to Modalism, or the Arian heresy.  I also know that I have no problem whatsoever with the Trinity, and I am not a Oneness Pentecostal.

In spite of that, this thread is getting way off track.

Brent

This is not about knocking Calvin and the reformers, but about re-evaluating my beliefs on various Christian doctrines.  All of my Christian education, prior to the last 7 months, was in the assembly.  Quoting the Scriptures did help me to see where the teaching on 'pre-destination' gets its credibility.  However, I still do not agree with that teaching based on the 'whoever' (whosoever) verses.  Albeit, I would rather go to a Christian Reform Church where they love the Lord and are off in some doctrines IMO, than stick with an ex-Geftakys assembly where the ex about the Geftakys part is mainly that GG is not welcome anymore.  Also, I tend to agree with Tom re. Plymouth Bretherenism.  I have discovered in my search for a new place of fellowship that not all churches under the same umbrella are living and growing.  However, there might be some that are.  Though I now fellowship at a Baptist church, I would not go so far as to 'promote' the Baptist way.  The discussion here, from my standpoint, is to discuss the Scriptures and how they influence my belief system.  In doing so the various theological viewpoints will be be opened for scrutiny.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Al,

You wrote,

"    God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have."

I don't believe that there is any basis upon which to make statements like this.  All we know of God is what we can glean from what He has revealed of himself in His word.

The Bible just doesn't say anything about this.  So, we cannot know.

One of the uncommunicable attributes of God that theologians describe is His unchangeableness.  And He has said, "I change not".  So it would seem that this is not a possibility.

If God could and did decide to change, He would make the earlier statement false.

So, I just don't think enough is known about this to make draw the kind of conclusions you seem to have drawn.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Exodus 3:13-15
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

"I am that I am" could be said in reverse: "I am because I am."  The essential meaning being that God decides his own existence.  It's as if he is saying that he created himself.  The question about God changing his mind is illogical because God doesn't make mistakes.

What do you think of this? (It is a quote from a friend's theology dissertation that I have been thinking about for a while now)

"It is not to God whom we relate, but to the affects of His being; grace, love, and perfection.  While Our perception of each is subject to subtle change resulting from environmental elements, the reason for their existence, their affect upon Our existence, and the applicatory nature of their existence universally remain the same."

--
lucas

"He created himself."  ???????  

I am that I am doesn't mean I am because I am which doesn't mean I created myself.

It means He is eternal, immutable, always was, always will be, forever the same, never changing. No option to change, never was. Never will be.

Not to mention "created" is past tense. God does not exist on a timeline. He has not evolved into his present form and there was never a time (past or future as we reckon it) when He was not who He is.

S

Hehe, Scott - you bring out the annoyingly technical in me ;)

You pretty much killed your first statement with your second.......Since God does not "live" in reference to "Time", how can there exist a "never"?  ::)

More seriously, this is a similar question to asking "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?"   The easiest way to think about this is to understand that God exists in our reality but is not exclusive to it.  His existence is therefore not mandated to having a commencement (the sentiment upon which we base our entire scientific understanding) :)

--
lucas

Hey, Lucas,

I had hoped by putting in the paranthetical "(past or future as we reckon it)", it would discourage someone like you from pointing it out.  ;)

God certainly exists outside of time/in all times/apart from time but it is helpful to use "never" and "always" when trying to describe eternity. Pull out a concordance and see how the writers of the bible often used "never" when speaking of eternal things. Think "audience!"

As far as the rock question, it's fun to throw it at my kids (the question, not the rock ;D) but I agree with Tom's earlier post that it doesn't have much value other than that.

Since God's existence does not have a commencement how can he have been created? "He created himself" is contradictory.

So are Stephen and Al trying to say God had a decision to make? Did he ask himself, "Do I want to be truthful, honest, righteous, etc.?"

No, he didn't have to make that decision. His existence defines those attributes not vice versa.

S

Nah, depends how you look at it :)

He created this Universe within Himself in it - therefore, in the reference frame of the Universe, He created Himself.....  ;)

My point about commencement was simply that God is outside all the rules we hold to the Universe as we percieve it.....including mandatory creation  ::)

--
lucas

In that regard maybe you can say he created his identity or persona in reference to the Universe.

But again, I don't believe his attributes or identity can be said to have been put on by him or chosen by him. His existence defines those attributes or identity, not vice versa.

S

Best answer I've heard given when posed this question by a skeptic:

  "Yes, he created you...  (pause)... and me"

Obviously not a reformed answer, but definitely puts the person on their toes.

Assuming there was nothing of "God" within an uncreated Universe, the first "piece" of God to be placed within this Universe once it was created would be the Creation of God "in reference to the Universe".  Since God is constant in reference to Time, He has not changed since that "first piece".

Therefore, God created Himself  ;D

However, if you are seriously wanting to get into a discussion including that which is outside our Universe (ie, God creating a "persona" for Us, so who is He really?)........you start, i got nothin' ;)

By way of His existence, attributes are able to be shown.  Ok, so take away all the attributes....does God exist?  ::)


ps - I hope you realize I am serious in logic throughout this whole thing, but joking in intent ;)  :P
--
lucas

Yeah, I know, but I'm trying to figure out how I could have misinterpreted Al and Stephen's comments.

And no, I don't have anything either as far as God creating a persona for a Universe. Nothing based on anything other than my very fertile imagination anyway.

For instance, when I was an AK I'd daydream during meetings about things such as: Maybe God chose this reality as a way to reveal himself. But what if there are other realities, completely alien to us in which he has chosen to reveal himself in a different way.

Again, just a bored mind wandering through Stated Ministry! ::)

S

The reason for using the words "as if" is that the word create normally implies change from non-existence to existence.  "As if" indicates a figurative usage since the normally implied change didn't actually happen, but the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended.

Effect -- noun -- a result
Effect -- verb -- to cause to be
Affect -- verb -- to influence
Affect -- verb -- to aspire to -- (archaic)
Affect -- noun -- an emotion -- (archaic)


Your quote of your friend reminds me of Acts 17:23, about the altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
He calls some attributes of God effects of God, as if God was some kind of impersonal force.
If their effect on us is universal, then that would seem to imply universal reconciliation.


Some verses about the attributes mentioned:

I John 4:1,15-16
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. ...  Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.  And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.  God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

II Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.  Amen.

Job 11:7
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

Psalm 50:2
Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.

Psalm 119:96
I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.

Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Stephen,

Bear with me! " . . . the decision-making aspect of the word create is intended."

Are you saying God chose what his nature is?

S

Tom, and All,

     I don't pretend to speak with any authority, and it is quite right to point out that there is no foundation upon which to lay my statements regarding God's "origin."  What I said in my last post on this thread was purely my opinion, and I apologize for not so stating.

     Even before I knowingly accepted Christ, I never understood the ways in which people tried to define the God whom they all seemed to agree was infinite, nor why they attempted to do so.

     If we can recognize that God's ways are past finding out, why do we insist upon establishing parameters for His capabilities?  We say that nothing, nothing is impossible with Him, then quibble over His lifting unliftable rocks and moving the immovable... Why?  This thought process is understandable in the minds of the lost.  But are the redeemed, being born again and indwelt of His Holy Spirit, so earthbound in our thinking that we cannot conceive of God's description exceeding our capacity to comprehend, at least for the present?

     To me personally, it is inconceivable that God cannot alter His nature if He so desires.  That He will not (I change not) is, to my mind, a pledge that expresses the greatness of His character rather than a restriction which limits His choices.  I take it that with God nothing shall be impossible is literally true regardless of its context.  As for His "inability" to lie; because He is God, if He were to declare that "Black is white," it would be so.  Let God be true...

     In the military I served beside a cynical fellow who, although himself professing no particular faith, loved to enter into discussions of religion just so that he might answer a philisophical question by sneering, "If I knew that, I'd be God, wouldn't I?"  Knowing more about God than my Bible reveals is something I will only accept from God Himself in the world to come, and will not scrabble to establish in this lifetime.  (no credit to myself-- I am humbled, not prideful, because of the impossibility)

     As to the kindness of those who have assured me that I am neither light years nor millennia behind themselves in knowledge, I thank you.  
     I shall content myself, then, to follow by mere thousands of miles and hundreds of years... :) ;) :D ;D

al

Scott, personally, I would put it in the present tense (as being more in keeping with the concept of timeless eternity):  God chooses...

And why not?  Surely nobody else can have made such a designation for Him.  Is there any less reason to believe that God chooses His own nature and character than to believe He does not?  Does it make any difference?  (genuine questions)

Surely these things have no bearing upon the Gospel...

al

I think the biggest problem here is my inadequacy in expressing a concept that is not fully formed in my mind. ???

Saying that God chooses his nature/character/attributes, implies that things such as truth, righteousness, holiness exist separately from God. It supposes that these are things that exist in eternity outside of God.

Conversely, he must also have the opposite choices.

What that says is that there are forces in the universe, good and bad, and this immensely powerful being we call God chooses which force he represents.

I've been saying that God IS truth, righteousness, holiness and they are NOT attributes that he puts on or chooses or sides with or aligns himself with.

And the opposite of truth, righteousness, holiness are not attributes either. They are the ABSENCE of God.

Therefore, he CANNOT lie. He CANNOT be unfaithful. He CANNOT be stained. Because then he would not be who he is and he has said, "I am that I am."

So this does not limit him in any fashion.

And yes, I believe it has a significant bearing on the gospel.

However, I must grudgingly admit that there have been at least 2 or 3 times when I was wrong. ;) ;D And I could very well be wrong now.

S

God says what's true, right and pure.  Their existence is his choice.


God is more than immensely powerful.  There is no force that he didn't create.


The Bible teaches that God is a person, not merely abstract qualities.


There is no contradiction here.

     ...what Stephen said...

 ;)al

What Scott said.  ;)

What if God is simply the dream of another God, and I'm really a worm dreaming I'm human?

 ;D sorry.

Joe, did you  forget to say the 'selfers prayer' this morning ?

Many apologies - I didn't have his paper in front of me and was attempting to quote it  :o    The grammar issues are on my end ;)

I would still say that all these traits are the derivative of actions; they may work well to "define" God in this Universe, but that does not mean they would define Him in another.  

This is only relevant as it is important to realize that "good" is only able to be shown with a running comparison to "bad".  Similarly, while the actions God has made in refernence to Man are constant enough to use potentially interchangably as Him in the Universe we know (as you argue, Truth/Holiness/Righteousness), they are only shown to the extent that we can understand.  Ie, we are shown holiness....but as holiness is just a trait of actions, there must  exist a greater holiness that will make what God has shown us seem "bad".  

My point is, it is a bad idea to define anything by actions, but a good one to classify by characteristics.  

--
lucas

I think we're pretty much at a point where we understand each other, we just don't agree. Which is fine, too. :)

Did want to clarify a couple things, though. I did not say God was merely an immensely powerful being. I said that I believed your supposition would reduce him to that logically.

The bible does teach God is a person. I did not say God is "merely abstract qualities". You implied that righteousness, holiness, truth, etc. are forces God created. I said God's existence defines them.

By your line of reasoning, God created good and he also created evil and he chose to align himself with good and oppose evil.

I said God's existence defines good and the absence of God is evil.

I certainly don't have to have the last word, so feel free to continue to rebut me, but again, I think we're starting to go in circles.

Especially since we are way off topic on this thread and it's purely speculation anyway. Maybe someday we can picnic under the Tree of Life and grin at each other in embarrassment as Jesus tells us the way it REALLY is! ;) ;D

S

Scott, (and Kimberley, based on your endorsement,)

It seems as if you are extending the political premise that no man can be trusted with absolute authority to include God as well.

Isaiah 45:7,9
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. ...  Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!  Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth.  Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Job 23:3,10,13-15
Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! ...  But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold. ...  But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.  For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.  Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.

(Click the quote links to read the full stories.)


In retrospect, I think that perhaps what the Lord had wanted me to do then was to quit my job and move to San Luis Obispo.  It was soon after this that I made the mistake of taking upon myself a project at work which the Lord didn't want me to do.  I was clueless about company politics.  Enemies worked behind the scenes to cause the project to fail.

Since losing my job there, there have been a few times that I might have been more thoughtful and made a better choice in a decision of life.  On those occasions there seemed to be evidence of subtle manipulation so that I would make the wrong choice.


After the telling of the forbidden thing, it might have been that my dessert at a Christmas dinner was poisoned.  I was in bed with chemically induced hepatitis for three weeks.  At a later date the small company I worked for moved to another building.  The carpet in the area where I was to work was thoroughly saturated with some kind of solvent, perhaps benzene.  This caused some kind of severe allergic reaction so that I had to quit, and my health was bad for a long time afterwards.

My faith was shaken by these things.  It seemed as if God was defending the lies and falsehoods of this evil organization.  I decided that if God is acting contrary to what the Bible teaches, then it would seem that the Bible is not true.  It was not possible to reject the existence of God, since the scientific evidence in favor of the existence of God cannot be denied.  I just couldn't conceive his nature and identity.  From the philosophical point of view he has to be good, because otherwise there would be no reason for him to exist.  I ended up arguing with him while I was hiking in the arroyo behind my mom's mobile home, and he caused me to fall and break my hip.

After the hospital stay I lived at my mom's place for several months.  I started watching a some spanish language TV to improve my understanding of the language.  The Lord reached my heart with a crazy story in a show produced by Catholics called "Carita de Angel".  In the story a man disowned his daughter because he didn't approve of the man she married.  Because of that he never met his granddaughter.  Subsequently his daughter died and the man he didn't approve of remarried.  The Spanish word for this is "rencor".  Besides its obvious meaning, it can also mean a grudge.  The idea that a man wouldn't want to meet his granddaughter because of a grudge is rather far fetched, but then, so is having a grudge against God who loves me.  Looking up the word again, I just noticed that a very similar word "renco" means lame in the hip.

So I've learned the hard way that God can do anything he wants.  I don't know if he will let me walk again, but early last year he promised that he would do good for me.  He also indicated the need for my manners to improve, and my memory of people.  Thinking about remembering people was what led to my discovery of the GA web site and this BB.

Joe,

We've all been PMing each other for weeks about this.

We didn't want you to find out you were only a worm.

 ;)

Thomas Maddux

Steve,

You wrote, "
After the hospital stay I lived at my mom's place for several months.  I started watching a some spanish language TV to improve my understanding of the language.  The Lord reached my heart with a crazy story in a show produced by Catholics called "Carita de Angel".  In the story a man disowned his daughter because he didn't approve of the man she married.  Because of that he never met his granddaughter.  Subsequently his daughter died and the man he didn't approve of remarried.  The Spanish word for this is "rencor".  Besides its obvious meaning, it can also mean a grudge.  The idea that a man wouldn't want to meet his granddaughter because of a grudge is rather far fetched, but then, so is having a grudge against God who loves me.  Looking up the word again, I just noticed that a very similar word "renco" means lame in the hip."

Caryl and I watched Carita de Angel many times.  I was still teaching Spanish language students at the time, and I found that almost all their families watched it regularly.

It was a very intriguing story.  Although sometimes it was downright silly, the way Dulce Maria won her grandfather's heart and healed his bitterness was something I have never seen portrayed on tv before.  I was heartwarming to watch.

Speaking of heartwarming, you seem to need a little yourself.  Do you have wise, godly men (or women) in your life right now for fellowship and counsel?

I know that when I have been perplexed and troubled on occassion, it has really helped to talk it over with a brother of spiritual experience and stature.

Hang in there Steve.   God loves us far more than we realize.  Some of the best lessons I have learned have been learned when I was emotionally prostrated by some problem that seemed almost overwhelming.

God was always there, always faithful.  Glory's cancer and Grace's adolescent troubles were hard trials.

But we look back in joy at what God did for us, and in us.

Hebrews 13:6 is still true.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom----

Thanks. I've always wondered why I wake up sometimes, rolling around on the wet lawn at night , and have such a great  fear of the sound of birds.

--Joe ;D

     Joe Sperling, folks, the perfect fishing companion! ;D

We are studying Church History in the Sunday adult class I attend.

Martin Luther came on the scene when the established church was corrupt. They acquired wealth via indulgences and through the renaissance artists (which they commissioned).  The opulence and corruption shook the confidence in the church which had become more political and less religious.  Hence the reformation.

A familiar story.  The leader of the study made an interesting comment.  Martin Luther's nailing his 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg was akin to the modern day Bulletin Board.  Thus he was publicly challenging the authority of the church and opening up the matter for public debate.

In 1517 it Martin Luther was the man who was willing to bear the reproach and stand up for his convictions.

Marcia

Hmm.....very interesting.

Thanks, Marcia

Moonflower

MF2,

Here's another historical event that is interesting.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to some white folk on the bus she was riding.  This brought the issue of segregation to the forefront.  In the process it cost her and her husband their jobs.  It cost other prominent black families their homes, but the end result was integration.

Her conviction and resulting choices affected her and her family and other families, but someone needed to take the first step and Rosa Parks was the one to do so.

So, yes there is a cost when one stands for what's right.

Blessings,
Marcia

Has anybody seen the movie Barbershop?
According to one of the barbershop philosphers, Rosa Parks didn't derserve that much credit.
While I don't necessarily agree with him, his take on the whole affair was hysterically funny. The movie offended a lot(mostly blacks) of folk...
Verne

YIKES!! 'LEVEN HUNDRED ALREADY??!!!!!!!!

The Barbershop philosphers were  funny.
I always thought the Saturday Night Live movie short, "White Like Me" starring Eddie Murphy was funny too.