# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Verses That Destroy Arminianism

## Sola_Fide

This will be an ongoing thread.  Contribute of you want to.




> 1st Corinthians 1:28-30
> 
> *God chose* the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsand the things that are notto nullify the things that are,*so that no one may boast before him.**It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus,**who has become for us wisdom from Godthat is, our righteousness,*holiness*and redemption.** Therefore, as it is written: Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.*


God chooses. 

It is "because of Him" that a Christian is in Christ.

No one can boast in his own will in choosing.  Salvation is all of God.

----------


## jmdrake

Hello Sola_Fide.  Care to answer the question of whether Hosea was an adulterer?  Or are you still in hiding over that thread?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 9:14-16
> 
> “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
> 
> *It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.


Salvation does not depend on man's desire or effort, but God's mercy.

----------


## jmdrake

> Salvation does not depend on man's desire or effort, but God's mercy.


The book of Hosea is written by a man doomed to hell (according to Sola_Fide).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Do as you will, but I find threads about "destroying" others generally unproductive and unpersuasive.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

sola-fide, can you straighten this out for me.

(I am assuming that you are one such soul that god chose...Or rather that you believe this to be the case?)

How did you come to your faith?  Did you make any choices along the way?  Do you not feel a little..._disingenuous?  proud? vindicated?_ to now look at other people and think, "Well god wants me at his feet and them in hell?"

When you look at a happy dog, do you imagine that this is how _it_ feels when looking at the shelter dogs?

----------


## matt0611

John 10:26 I think illustrates it pretty well. 

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "

Jesus doesn't say that they can become his sheep if they would believe, he tells them that they are not his sheep, and for this reason they do not believe. 

I think this verse pretty much destroys many arminians claim that everyone just has a "free choice" to accept Jesus and there is no predestination etc

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 1:12-13
> 
> Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—*children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God*.


The ones who believe are born, not of human decision, but of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 10:26 I think illustrates it pretty well. 
> 
> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "
> 
> Jesus doesn't say that they can become his sheep if they would believe, he tells them that they are not his sheep, and for this reason they do not believe. 
> 
> I think this verse pretty much destroys many arminians claim that everyone just has a "free choice" to accept Jesus and there is no predestination etc


Absolutely.

"You do not believe because you are not my sheep".  Can't get any clearer than that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

God controls the will:




> The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
> 
>  (Prov. 21:1).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> John 10:26 I think illustrates it pretty well. 
> 
> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "
> 
> Jesus doesn't say that they can become his sheep if they would believe, he tells them that they are not his sheep, and for this reason they do not believe. 
> 
> I think this verse pretty much destroys many arminians claim that everyone just has a "free choice" to accept Jesus and there is no predestination etc


John is not a synoptic gospel, so take it with a grain of salt.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Of his own will begat he us* with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
> 
>  (James 1:18)


It is because of God's will, not man's, that He begat us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John is not a synoptic gospel, so take it with a grain of salt.


....._WHAT?_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ephesians 1:3-5
> 
> Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. *For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship* through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace,


God chose His elect before the creation of the world.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ....._WHAT?_


Allow me to educate you a bit on the Synoptic vs apochryphal gospels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

ETA: Do you ever take into account the context and intended audience of the gospels, or do you always just read into it what you want?

----------


## eduardo89

You seriously have an Arminianism fetish. Honestly, who cares about Calvinism and Arminianism? They're both minority fringes within Christianity.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> God chose His elect before the creation of the world.


So he also chose the "Un-elect" before creating them?  That sucks.

----------


## pcosmar

> This will be an ongoing thread.  Contribute of you want to.


*How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You seriously have an Arminianism fetish. Honestly, who cares about Calvinism and Arminianism? They're both minority fringes within Christianity.


Trolls gonna troll?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 6:61-64
> 
> Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them,*“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 
> 
> *The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.*
> 
> The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
> 
> *For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”*


The Spirit gives life, * the flesh counts for nothing.* 

Jesus said "no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him".  Jesus taught predestination and election.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You seriously have an Arminianism fetish. Honestly, who cares about Calvinism and Arminianism? They're both minority fringes within Christianity.


Since your apostate church endorses Jesuit/Arminian arguments, this thread is for you as well.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

if the flesh counts for nothing then why does the spirit get punished if you stick it in the wrong hole though?

----------


## eduardo89

> Since your apostate church endorses Jesuit/Arminian arguments, this thread is for you as well.


Catholicism does not teach Armininianism. The Church fully believes and teaches predestination. 




> Catholics believe that all of the predestined will be justified, but not all of the justified are numbered among those who are predestined. That's because not all of the justified persevere to the end, as taught by Scripture (John 15:2, 6, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, Hebrews 6, 10:26-29). Since the Bible teaches that the predestined are assured glorification (Romans 8:29-30, John 10:28-29), then all those who lose lose their justification and die in that state cannot be numbered among the predestined. They were truly justified but were not numbered among the predestined. This is what is taught by the Bible, taught by Saint Augustine, and taught by the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years. This was also taught by Martin Luther.

----------


## erowe1

> John is not a synoptic gospel, so take it with a grain of salt.


Why does not being a synoptic gospel entail that?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I didn't know that there would be so many Calvinists here!  The only ones I know IRL go to my church.  Glad to see it!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ephesians 1:3, 4
> 
> Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: *according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world*, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:



God chose His elect before the foundation of the world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Peter 1:2
> 
> "*Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”*


Elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father.  "Foreknowledge" describes a relationship of love that God has with His people.  To "know" someone in biblical language is a term of intimacy.  God knew and loved His people before the creation of the world.

This verse is also a prooftext for the Trinity.  Father, Son, and Spirit are all 3 described here in their roles of redemption.

----------


## pcosmar

> I didn't know that there would be so many Calvinists here!  The only ones I know IRL go to my church.  Glad to see it!


There is some truth in Calvinism. But some take it to extremes. There is also truth to Arminianism.

I believe there is a Balance within  the Book. I don't see them as contradictory, but rather complementary.

As with much,, it can be overemphasized to the point of distraction and error.

There is truth in the Faith Message,, but folks tend to go overboard with it.
Even Snake handlers are scriptural based,, but go on to excess and error.

I try to find balance,

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ....._WHAT?_


I think he's using secular reasoning.  Most secular scholars don't believe Jesus said the things he said in John, since he preached in a different style than the Synoptic Gospels.

Of course, to me that just means Jesus preached in a different style under different circumstances.




> You seriously have an Arminianism fetish. Honestly, who cares about Calvinism and Arminianism? They're both minority fringes within Christianity.


Except that the Bible teaches the Calvinistic view.




> Since your apostate church endorses Jesuit/Arminian arguments, this thread is for you as well.


LOL!




> I didn't know that there would be so many Calvinists here!  The only ones I know IRL go to my church.  Glad to see it!


I was surprised as well.  I wondered if I might be the most radical here when I first joined.  Sola_Fide quickly put that to rest.

----------


## jmdrake

> Trolls gonna troll?


SF is following his predictable pattern.  Having totally been beaten down in other threads that prove his false ideas false, he decides to start fresh.  It's funny that they only way he can "destroy Arminianism" is to ignore the plain reading of all of the verses that support Arminianism.  Proper theology is not arrived at by only selecting and analysing the verses in the Bible that seem to agree with you.  Calvin himself gave commentary over the entire Bible, and when he read verses that disagreed with his position he, at times, interpreted them as they were actually written.  That is something that Sola_Fide and others like him are afraid to do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Paul, the most important missionary in history, describes his motivation for missions:




> ◄*2 Timothy 2:10*
> 
> *Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect,* that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

He did it all for you bro.  Congratulations.

----------


## jmdrake

> Except that the Bible teaches the Calvinistic view.


Only when you ignore most of the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1st Timothy 1:9
> 
> He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,


God saves a man, not because of anything he's done, _but because of His own purpose and grace.  This grace was given to a man before the beginning of time!_

----------


## BetterCallSaul

Yeah SF- you were better than all of us even before the universe.  LOL  Congrats dude.  Enjoy that distinction.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

Obviously it feels good and makes you so happy; you are always so cheerful.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Romans 8:30
> 
> And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.*


God does everything in salvation--predestinating them, calling them, justifying them, and glorifying them.

----------


## eduardo89

> Except that the Bible teaches the Calvinistic view.


That's strange, because none of the Church Fathers, including the Apostolic Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles who wrote the Bible, taught anything like Calvinism. 

It wasn't until 1500 years later that these whacky ideas began to be invented.

----------


## matt0611

> Yeah SF- you were better than all of us even before the universe.  LOL  Congrats dude.  Enjoy that distinction.


Calvinists don't believe the elect were chosen because they were somehow "better" than those who were non-elect.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yeah SF- you were better than all of us even before the universe.  LOL  Congrats dude.  Enjoy that distinction.


Calvinist predestination and predetermination is unreasonable and unbiblical. However, predestination certainly is taught in the Bible, just not the way Calvinists claim it is. 

This is a decent comparison of Calvinist and Catholic views on predestination:




> Calvin : God's sovereignty determines the will.
> Catholic : God's sovereignty includes free will.
> 
> Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
> Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.
> 
> Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
> Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.
> 
> ...

----------


## matt0611

> Calvin : God's sovereignty determines the will.
> Catholic : God's sovereignty includes free will.


I agree with the Calvinist on this one. 




> Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
> Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.


If God knows what the future is, then there is a destiny for everyone. Everyone has a destiny, so yes I believe everything is predetermined. 




> Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
> Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.


I believe its both at the same time. I don't see why it needs to be only one or the other. 




> Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
> Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.


Both are true but I believe the ones who persevere to the end are the ones who are truly born-again. 




> Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
> Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.


I agree with both, only God knows who they truly are. 




> Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
> Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.


I agree with both of these statements. 




> Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
> Catholic : Christ died for all men.


I agree with Calvin, Christ died for his elect people. Everyone who will end up believing in him and persevering till the end.

----------


## otherone

> I agree with the Calvinist on this one. 
> 
> 
> 
> If God knows what the future is, then there is a destiny for everyone. Everyone has a destiny, so yes I believe everything is predetermined. 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe its both at the same time. I don't see why it needs to be only one or the other. 
> ...


...and thus; another sect is born: * matt0611ism*, jumping into the pharisaic ring, in glorious testimony to the clarity of the scriptures.

----------


## matt0611

> ...and thus; another sect is born: * matt0611ism*, jumping into the pharisaic ring, in glorious testimony to the clarity of the scriptures.


Nah, don't want to start my own sect, we all have different opinions about things and I'm not saying I'm infallible. Just because we disagree on things doesn't mean there is no truth or that there is no right answer.

Scientists, economists, historians, all disagree on things to some extent. It doesn't mean there are no right answers though and that we can't know anything.

I don't think anything I said goes against what's considered "calvinism" anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's strange, because none of the Church Fathers, including the Apostolic Fathers who were disciples of the Apostles who wrote the Bible, taught anything like Calvinism. 
> 
> It wasn't until 1500 years later that these whacky ideas began to be invented.



When have I posted anything in this thread from what someone wrote in the 1500's?  I have done nothing but posted verses from the Bible, and I will continue to do it.

Here's another one:



> *Romans 9:18-21
> 
> Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
> 
> One of you will say to me:*“Then why does God still blame us?*For who is able to resist his will?”*
> 
> But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?*“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,*‘Why did you make me like this?’”
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?*


The Potter has the right to make some pots for common use and some pots for special use.  It is interesting to note that Paul answers the objection that most people have with the doctrine of predestination ("why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?")  And of course Paul smacks that objection down.  Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?

----------


## VIDEODROME

wtf

----------


## Sola_Fide

Psalm 65:4




> Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Job 14:5




> A person’s days are determined;
> you have decreed the number of his months
> and have set limits he cannot exceed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Isaiah 14:24




> The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen.


God's plan and purpose will always come to pass.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The crucifixion was predestined and planned by God:




> Acts 4:27-28
> 
> "For truly in this city there were* gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus,* whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, *to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.*

----------


## Cowlesy

All you guys fighting over this stuff makes me grumble at my ancestors for leaving paganism behind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ephesians 2:4-5
> 
> But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, *even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),*


God makes a person alive when they are *dead* in transgressions and sins.  Dead men can't choose anything.  Dead men are unresponsive.  God has to *make* a person alive.  

That is why Paul says "by grace you have been saved".  There's nothing a dead man can do.  It's all God's choice.

----------


## moostraks

> All you guys fighting over this stuff makes me grumble at my ancestors for leaving paganism behind.


ah well then sf will just pull out his kjv of not suffer a witch to live. Looks like someone must have lost another argument and has gotten his knickers in a twist so he is going to pitch a cyber tantrum. Anyone who has some patience and time can probably copy/paste links to many of these verses where the position has been explained. The Bible can be taken at a very superficial level and be construed to mean almost anything. Sf thrives on prooftexting to prove his self serving points.  Context matters...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2nd Thes. 2:13
> 
> But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.*


If one is saved, it is because God has chosen them from the beginning.

----------


## moostraks

> If one is saved, it is because God has chosen them from the beginning.






> 13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because *God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through* sanctification by the Spirit and *faith in the truth. 14It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.*…


Why not this part SF? What does faith and standing firm have to do with anything if one is already guaranteed a position because they were chosen definitively beforehand according to the whims of a fickle god who creates for the pleasure of destruction? If we are made in the image of our Creator then why would you presume that human parents would be more loving than the ultimate Parent? Your god is a throwback to greek gods imo...

----------


## moostraks

> The Spirit gives life, * the flesh counts for nothing.* 
> 
> Jesus said "no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him".  Jesus taught predestination and election.


John 16:27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father

----------


## Sola_Fide

You want proof of predestination and election?  In Acts 13:48, after Paul and Barnabas preached to the gentiles, the word of God says:




> *When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed*.


All who were appointed to eternal life believed.  Predestination and election proved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You want proof of predestination and election?  In Acts 13:48, after Paul and Barnabas preached to the gentiles, the word of God says:
> 
> 
> 
> All who were appointed to eternal life believed.  Predestination and election proved.


I'd say that also disproves Catholicism or any other system that rejects Perseverance of the Saints.  Otherwise, some who were not appointed to eternal life would nonetheless have believed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'd say that also disproves Catholicism or any other system that rejects Perseverance of the Saints.  Otherwise, some who were not appointed to eternal life would nonetheless have believed.


Yes it does.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'd say that also disproves Catholicism or any other system that rejects Perseverance of the Saints.  Otherwise, some who were not appointed to eternal life would nonetheless have believed.


Interesting that you bring up Catholicism, yet again, but have no idea what Catholicism teaches. 

This might help you understand what Catholics believe:




> If one defines "saint" as one who will have his "saintification" completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a "perseverance of the saints" (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called "the predestined" or "the elect," one might replace "perseverance of the saints" with "perseverance of the predestined" or, better, with "perseverance of the elect."
> 
> Read the full thing here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

----------


## Todd

I don't argue with Calvinists.  The Bible teaches both doctrines of predestination and grace by faith......so therefore it is not something Christians should grumble too much over.  I see it as a mystery that God may reveal to us someday, but not with our understanding.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Have you ever heard someone say that our works co-operate with grace? The Bible rejects that:




> *Ephesians 2:10
> 
> For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.*


A Christian's good works were predestined by God.  Christians are GOD'S handiwork.  The works they do were "prepared in advance" for them to do.

----------


## robert68

> All you guys fighting over this stuff makes me grumble at my ancestors for leaving paganism behind.


The Christian backed emperors didn't give your ancestors much choice, they outlawed paganism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Christian backed emperors didn't give you ancestors much choice, they outlawed paganism.


Your atheist-backed dictators outlawed Christianity.  The nature of the state is to outlaw freedom.

This isn't a thread about politics, it's a thread about theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Have you ever heard someone say, "faith is required for salvation" as if something a man does can gain him eternal life?  The Bible rejects that.




> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> For it is by grace you have been saved, *through faith—and this is not from yourselves*, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.


Faith is not from ourselves.  Faith doesn't originate in a man.  Faith is a gift that God gives His elect people.

----------


## robert68

> Your atheist-backed dictators outlawed Christianity.  The nature of the state is to outlaw freedom.
> 
> This isn't a thread about politics, it's a thread about theology.


It was the Roman Empire/Christian hierarchies collusion that began in the 4th century with Emperor Constantine to, among other things, outlaw paganism, that did it. I’m surprised to see you come to the defense of this. 

Anarchists backed dictatorships? You're not making any sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

In Romans 11, Paul is describing how God has always had an elect remnant people chosen by grace:




> *Romans 11:5-8
> 
> And what was God’s answer to him? 
> 
> “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
> 
> So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
> 
> What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written:
> ...



God chooses His remnant people completely by grace, and the other people He* hardens. *

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have you ever heard someone say, "faith is required for salvation" as if something a man does can gain him eternal life?  The Bible rejects that.
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is not from ourselves.  Faith doesn't originate in a man.  Faith is a gift that God gives His elect people.


Faith doesn't actually bring about salvation, but a person reveals themselves to be of the elect when they exercise their God-given faith.  Those who have faith will be saved, those who do not, will not.

----------


## eduardo89

> Faith doesn't actually bring about salvation, *but a person reveals themselves to be of the elect w*hen they exercise their God-given faith.


Only God knows who the elect are.




> Those who have faith will be saved, those who do not, will not.


Those who persevere to to the end are saved, not those who merely have faith at one point in their lives. The false doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" is biblical. The perfect example of how this doctrine is false is Judas Iscariot.  He believed in Jesus Christ, walked with Him, was one of the Twelve and was given the same powers from Him as the others.  Yet what Christian actually believes that Judas Iscariot went to Heaven? According to 'once saved, always saved' Calvinists would have to believe Judas is in Heaven as he more than met the requirements of salvation according to this faulty doctrine.




> But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Those who persevere to to the end are saved, not those who merely have faith at one point in their lives. The false doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" is biblical. The perfect example of how this doctrine is false is Judas Iscariot. He believed in Jesus Christ, walked with Him, was one of the Twelve and was given the same powers from Him as the others. Yet what Christian actually believes that Judas Iscariot went to Heaven? According to 'once saved, always saved' Calvinists would have to believe Judas is in Heaven as he more than met the requirements of salvation according to this faulty doctrine.


Judas' faith was not really genuine, his faith never brings forth fruit, and the worries of the world clearly choked him up.

Of course, its always hypothetically possible that he could have repented at the last minute, but I doubt it.

----------


## eduardo89

> Judas' faith was not really genuine, his faith never brings forth fruit, and the worries of the world clearly choked him up.


How do you know that? What makes your faith genuine? How do you know that in 10 years you don't reject Christianity? If you believe in 'once saved, always saved' then even if you later become an atheist you still consider yourself one of the elect? What if you murder someone in 15 years? Are you still saved? What if the same thing happens to you that happened to Judas in Luke 22:3 and you become possessed by Satan. Are you still saved?

You are saved if you persevere until the end. Salvation is not a one time event. You may claim to be saved today, but you have assurance of salvation unless you persevere until the end of your earthly life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Only God knows who the elect are.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who persevere to to the end are saved, not those who merely have faith at one point in their lives. The false doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" is biblical. The perfect example of how this doctrine is false is Judas Iscariot.  He believed in Jesus Christ, walked with Him, was one of the Twelve and was given the same powers from Him as the others.  Yet what Christian actually believes that Judas Iscariot went to Heaven? According to 'once saved, always saved' Calvinists would have to believe Judas is in Heaven as he more than met the requirements of salvation according to this faulty doctrine.


It literally boggles the mind how Roman Catholics, Arminians, and cultists cannot see the text right in front of their face (of course I know why you can't see it, but it is still amazing to me).




> John 17:12
> 
> While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. *None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled*.


None has been lost EXCEPT the one DOOMED to destruction so that the SCRIPTURE WOULD BE FULFILLED.

Judas is the QUINTESSENTIAL example of predestination and reprobation in the Bible.  He was doomed to destruction.  He was predestined. The cross of calvary was predestined, and all the events leading up to it and after it have been predestined.

----------


## eduardo89

> It literally boggles the mind how Roman Catholics, Arminians, and cultists cannot see the text right in front of their face (of course I know why you can't see it, but it is still amazing to me).
> 
> None has been lost EXCEPT the one DOOMED to destruction so that the SCRIPTURE WOULD BE FULFILLED.
> 
> Judas is the QUINTESSENTIAL example of predestination and reprobation in the Bible.  He was doomed to destruction.  He was predestined. The cross of calvary was predestined, and all the events leading up to it and after it have been predestined.


The verse you quoted in no way shows that it was the will of God that Judas should be lost; but only that what happened to Judas confirmed the prophecies, not that it was causes by them. God foretold it, because he foresaw clearly the future perversity of his disposition but God did not make Judas betray Christ. God does not predestine any one to Hell, we choose to be separated from Him. 

St. John Chrysostom said it well:



> And see how great is the wickedness of Judas, in that *he comes unto them of his own accord*

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Faith doesn't actually bring about salvation, but a person reveals themselves to be of the elect when they exercise their God-given faith.  Those who have faith will be saved, those who do not, will not.


How do you view evangelism?

Sola, would you answer as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you view evangelism?
> 
> Sola, would you answer as well.


We should view it like Paul viewed it:




> 2 Timothy 2:10 
> 
> Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.


Paul endured everything...being beaten, being homeless, being mocked, being destitute...all for the sake of the elect.  That should be our motivation for missions, to preach the word so that the elect will respond.  Only those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will respond, and those ears and eyes can only be granted to a man by God's sovereign grace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How do you view evangelism?
> 
> Sola, would you answer as well.


I'm not a hypercalvinist, and I'm pretty sure Sola_Fide isn't either.  Only God knows who the elect are, so we should preach the gospel to  anyone, and those who are appointed to eternal life will believe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How do you know that? What makes your faith genuine? How do you know that in 10 years you don't reject Christianity? If you believe in 'once saved, always saved' then even if you later become an atheist you still consider yourself one of the elect? What if you murder someone in 15 years? Are you still saved? What if the same thing happens to you that happened to Judas in Luke 22:3 and you become possessed by Satan. Are you still saved?
> 
> You are saved if you persevere until the end. Salvation is not a one time event. You may claim to be saved today, but you have assurance of salvation unless you persevere until the end of your earthly life.


A member of the elect cannot commit apostasy.

As for murder, David committed murder and was still saved. So its certainly possible.  Although I seriously doubt any Christian would be characterized by that.  The Holy Spirit inside of them wouldn't allow them to do so.

I don't believe Judas was ever saved to begin with.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not a hypercalvinist, and I'm pretty sure Sola_Fide isn't either.  Only God knows who the elect are, so we should preach the gospel to  anyone, and those who are appointed to eternal life will believe.


Yes, I'm not a hypercalvinist.  Hypercalvinists do not obey the prescriptive will of God in preaching the gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Phillipians 1:29




> *
> For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him
> *


God *grants* belief to a man.  Belief is not something that originates in a man.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

http://www.gotquestions.org/one-of-the-elect.html

As believers we do have an action to make, whether it be called "the will", or a simple, "yes", to receive Christ.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism-evangelism.html

----------


## eduardo89

> Phillipians 1:29
> 
> God *grants* belief to a man.  Belief is not something that originates in a man.


I agree, we need God's grace to believe. 




> Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, *God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.* The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...ism/p1s1c1.htm





> By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, *which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers*: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...1s1c2a1.htm#50





> http://www.gotquestions.org/one-of-the-elect.html
> 
> As believers we do have an action to make, whether it be called "the will", or a simple, "yes", to receive Christ.


I agree with this also, we must cooperate with God's grace. We have a choice whether we want to say yes to Christ or say no and spend eternity separated from God, which is what Hell is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree, we need God's grace to believe.


No, that is not what the verse says.  That is your unbiblical eisegesis.  That's what you read in to the text, not get out of it.

The text says:




> *Phillipians 1:29
> 
> 
> For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him,*


Paul was writing to the believers in Phillipi specifically, telling them that God has granted them belief.  It's not that God grants grace to everyone, and then they believe with their free will.  

_The text says that God granted them belief.  It doesn't say God granted them the grace to believe, but the belief itself._  Romanism cannot explain the Bible because it is not a Christian religion.

This was the issue of the Reformation.  Is God's grace _necessary_ for salvation, or is it _alone sufficient_ for salvation?  This is the question Rome got wrong, and it is why Rome does not have the gospel.

----------


## moostraks

Revelation 3: 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Revelation 3: 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 *He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”*


He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to THE CHURCHES.

That verse is directed to BELIEVERS.

This has been pointed to you I don't know how many times, but you are spiritually blind to it.

----------


## moostraks

> He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to THE CHURCHES.
> 
> That verse is directed to BELIEVERS.
> 
> This has been pointed to you I don't know how many times, but you are spiritually blind to it.



I am not blind to what you claim. I disagree with your assessment of the matter. I see an action which proceeds the statement. When this is presented to a believer it is stated that if you hearing me saying this then beware you are not ignoring the voice of He who knocks at the door. This is not a specific call that He will only knock on the elect's doors. He stands at the door and knocks. One either opens the door and shares their life or they ignore the knock. Why not bold print and increase font and underline of:
*if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne* 
?

----------


## moostraks

> How do you view evangelism?
> 
> Sola, would you answer as well.


I used to attend Calvinist churches so I will offer my 2 cents from experience for anyone who might be curious. Evangelism in Calvinism is approached as an obligation for the person doing the evangelizing to show they are obeying Biblical directives. It is not urgent for the unbelievers because they are chosen and it won't effect those who are to hear it because they will hear what they need to hear or it was never meant to be in the first place. That is not to say it is not important to evangelize because it is the means by which the chosen hear and thus receive the Word but the urgency is lacking because the chosen are predetermined to hear it before they die or they were never chosen in the first place.

If you read the numerous Calvinist websites in regards to this issue and look at the manner in which they answer this question you will see that the focus is largely on the believer. An example of this http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/whyevangelise.html



> 1) Because God has commanded it...
> 2) Because we believe that God has ordained the means of bringing many sons to glory as well as the end...If we don't evangelize, someone else rightly will. Calvinists believe as much in man's responsibility as they do in God's sovereignty.
> 3) Evangelism gives Calvinists the glorious opportunity to praise the God whom they believe unconditionally elected them to salvation...
> 4) Evangelism gives us the opportunity to unburden our souls for the lost...Many of us were brought savingly to Christ because someone else was burdened for us and prayed for us and witnessed to us. Any man who names the name of Christ, Calvinist or not, should have the burden to win others. It is an evidence of grace when we want others to experience it for themselves. IIf there is no burden for the lost, we are left to wonder does the professing Christian (of whatever school) believe there is a Day of Judgment, an immortal soul and an eternal hell?
> 5) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to serve God...
> 6) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to bear reproach for the name of Christ...
> 7) Far down our list, but there nevertheless, we evangelize because it nails the lie often uttered against us that Calvinism kills evangelistic endeavor...


 If you notice even the points number 2 and 4 emphasis the believer over the unbeliever while giving a nod towards how this will benefit the unbeliever. ( Four is particularly amusing because it is a slip up that is common to Calvinist reasoning that they don't do works but yet another person's evangelism is what brought them "savingly to Christ".) The other 5 points are flat out why they benefit the believer. This is how I have seen it handled in the church as well so this list is not an anomaly.

Another example:http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07b.html 


> Why am I, a Calvinist, so passionate about evangelism? Several reasons immediately spring to mind. First, my Lord Jesus Christ commands me to do so (Mark 16:15). Second, given that my chief duty (and delight) is to glorify God, I am moved by the fact that the Father is honored whenever the Son is honored. The supreme means of honoring the Father is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 5:22-23)! Third, I know that when the nonelect reject the gospel, as they are wont to do, preaching leaves them all the more without excuse when they receive the condemnation they justly deserve. And last, I know that God brings his elect to himself through the preaching of the gospel.


Notice how the first three points are fairly self serving with no love for one's fellow man and the final point is a perfunctory nod towards the conditional method by which a believer is said to come to belief. Furthermore, a Calvinist will be screaming from the rooftops if an Arminian cultist makes the statement about the obligation of an act (preaching) but yet this is dismissed when they themselves feel duty bound to an action.

A person whom SF would call a cultist Arminian would evangelize because of a love for their fellow man and would feel a burden to prevent their suffering. (much as one will tell a child don't touch a hot stove you will get burned, a believer knows the consequence of lack of Faith and so wants to share their beliefs) From this perspective, all people will be equal in their potential and the believer feels an excitement for other's to share in this knowledge and have the choice made known to them. If there is some doubt regarding another's salvation, a believer feels remorse for having failed to share or failed to share properly and that their time was squandered. There is a sense of urgency and feeling of personal duty and honor to one's Creator and humanity because they were given a light in the darkness and by not sharing they are hiding The Light under a bushel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am not blind to what you claim. I disagree with your assessment of the matter. I see an action which proceeds the statement. When this is presented to a believer it is stated that if you hearing me saying this then beware you are not ignoring the voice of He who knocks at the door. This is not a specific call that He will only knock on the elect's doors. He stands at the door and knocks. One either opens the door and shares their life or they ignore the knock. Why not bold print and increase font and underline of:


I didn't underline it because who the verse is directed to refutes your entire position.

You say the verse is directed to everyone, and the actual text of the Bible says the Spirit is saying that to the believers.

The Bible says one thing, you say another, therefore you're wrong.

----------


## moostraks

> I didn't underline it because who the verse is directed to refutes your entire position.
> 
> You say the verse is directed to everyone, and the actual text of the Bible says the Spirit is saying that to the believers.
> 
> The Bible says one thing, you say another, therefore you're wrong.


Using your logic, the believers already believe and they cannot lose their salvation. There is no purpose for this Scripture. In order to be a believer one has already opened the door. Now for those who aren't seeing your view of elect it reads that when He says He knocks on the door and ANYONE who hears (thus not just your elect get the knock) He will dine with and those WHO OVERCOME (o·ver·come  (vr-km)
v. o·ver·came (-km), o·ver·come, o·ver·com·ing, o·ver·comes
v.tr.
1. To defeat (another) in competition or conflict; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To prevail over; surmount: tried to overcome the obstacles of poverty.
3. To overpower, as with emotion; affect deeply.
v.intr.
To surmount opposition; be victorious.) receive reward.Meaning not those who have just passively been party to a verbal pronouncement made in their presence because it was a right of passage for a special entity with royal lineage.

This information is for the churches to know that He comes to ANYONE and those that OVERCOME are the victors and those that have the wisdom to listen will heed the Spirit who is issuing this proclamation. One must open the door and overcome to be granted reward.

----------


## moostraks

If I apply your position to that verse SF then anyone never was anyone in the first place because He only came to the elect. The overcome is irrelevant because there is no failure aspect to it. A believer is saved. You just rendered a verse of hope and responsibility into a cheap gloat for the elite chosen ones.

----------


## erowe1

> I used to attend Calvinist churches so I will offer my 2 cents from experience for anyone who might be curious. Evangelism in Calvinism is approached as an obligation for the person doing the evangelizing to show they are obeying Biblical directives. It is not urgent for the unbelievers because they are chosen and it won't effect those who are to hear it because they will hear what they need to hear or it was never meant to be in the first place. That is not to say it is not important to evangelize because it is the means by which the chosen hear and thus receive the Word but the urgency is lacking because the chosen are predetermined to hear it before they die or they were never chosen in the first place.
> 
> If you read the numerous Calvinist websites in regards to this issue and look at the manner in which they answer this question you will see that the focus is largely on the believer. An example of this http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/whyevangelise.html
> 
> 
>  If you notice even the points number 2 and 4 emphasis the believer over the unbeliever while giving a nod towards how this will benefit the unbeliever. ( Four is particularly amusing because it is a slip up that is common to Calvinist reasoning that they don't do works but yet another person's evangelism is what brought them "savingly to Christ".) The other 5 points are flat out why they benefit the believer. This is how I have seen it handled in the church as well so this list is not an anomaly.
> 
> Another example:http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07b.html 
> 
> ...


The way you describe it, it sounds like Arminians see evangelism as trying to persuade unbelievers to change their minds, like the destiny of somebody's eternal soul depends on their salesmanship.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I used to attend Calvinist churches so I will offer my 2 cents from experience for anyone who might be curious. Evangelism in Calvinism is approached as an obligation for the person doing the evangelizing to show they are obeying Biblical directives. It is not urgent for the unbelievers because they are chosen and it won't effect those who are to hear it because they will hear what they need to hear or it was never meant to be in the first place. That is not to say it is not important to evangelize because it is the means by which the chosen hear and thus receive the Word but the urgency is lacking because the chosen are predetermined to hear it before they die or they were never chosen in the first place.
> 
> If you read the numerous Calvinist websites in regards to this issue and look at the manner in which they answer this question you will see that the focus is largely on the believer. An example of this http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/whyevangelise.html
> 
> 
>  If you notice even the points number 2 and 4 emphasis the believer over the unbeliever while giving a nod towards how this will benefit the unbeliever. ( Four is particularly amusing because it is a slip up that is common to Calvinist reasoning that they don't do works but yet another person's evangelism is what brought them "savingly to Christ".) The other 5 points are flat out why they benefit the believer. This is how I have seen it handled in the church as well so this list is not an anomaly.
> 
> Another example:http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07b.html 
> 
> ...


I just read through this crap of a post, and it left me with one question:

If God has declared that evangelism be one way, and you don't like it, what does your objection matter?

----------


## moostraks

> The way you describe it, it sounds like Arminians see evangelism as trying to persuade unbelievers to change their minds, like the destiny of somebody's eternal soul depends on their salesmanship.


There is a sense that we know the message of Love and Hope therefore if someone fails to accept it then it isn't the message but the messenger because there is nothing wrong with the message. I just failed to explain it properly because I lacked the proper ability to render it understandable to my intended audience or I have some personal failures for which I am not a proper example and need to clean my own house up first.

James 3:1Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. 2For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.

2 Timothy 4:1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with [a]great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to THE CHURCHES.
> 
> That verse is directed to BELIEVERS.
> 
> This has been pointed to you I don't know how many times, but you are spiritually blind to it.


If I recall correctly, he was knocking on the door of the church, because there wasn't anyone saved in the church in question at that time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump because I can.

----------


## eduardo89

> Bump because I can.


That's an Arminian thing to say. You should have said "bump because God preordained and predetermined I would."

----------


## erowe1

> That's an Arminian thing to say. You should have said "bump because God preordained and predetermined I would."


Bump because I can.=bump because God preordained and predetermined I would

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *John 1:12
> 
> Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.*


...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's an Arminian thing to say. You should have said "bump because God preordained and predetermined I would."


LOL!

I can only do that because of the grace of God

That said, to my understanding, Calvinism teaches that God predestines who will be saved, not that he necessarily forces me to take every single action I take.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That said, to my understanding, Calvinism teaches that God predestines who will be saved, not that he necessarily forces me to take every single action I take.


Modern Calvinism might teach that, but it wouldn't be biblical.  God causes all things that come to pass.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Modern Calvinism might teach that, but it wouldn't be biblical.  God causes all things that come to pass.


I hate to be nitpicky, but I think that depends on what the word "Causes" means.

If you mean that God is literally forcing me to write this response, I don't agree with that, although I suppose I could be convinced by Scripture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Proverbs 16:9
> 
> The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps*.


Man has a will.  He "plans his way".  But the Lord is above all establishing his steps.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *
> Proverbs 19:2
> 
> Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand*.


God's purpose will always stand and no plan in the mind of man can thwart it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Proverbs 16:4
> 
> The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.*


God ordains everything, even the wicked for their judgement.

----------


## Theocrat

To my Arminian brethren, here is an analogy that we Calvinists like to use to help you understand our position on soteriology: the idea of birth. As everyone knows, our being born was an act decided upon by our parents' choice to mate and procreate. That decision happened outside of our own choice to exist. We did not have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted to be born into this world or not before it actually happened (such a suggestion is an impossibility, I know). Our births were a gift given to us, superintended by God through the union of our parents.

And so is the case with the new birth (or being born again). God chose us to be His children, and then by means of His word, He made us alive before we wanted Him. That was the nature of our heart. We were spiritually dead. Our decision to follow Christ was given to us because we were given a new heart that naturally (through the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration) wants to believe God and obey Him. Our spiritual birth, therefore, does not begin with our decision (just as it is the case with our natural birth); rather, it is initiated by God our Heavenly Father, because of Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Does that analogy make sense?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To my Arminian brethren, here is an analogy that we Calvinists like to use to help you understand our position on soteriology: the idea of birth. As everyone knows, our being born was an act decided upon by our parents' choice to mate and procreate. That decision happened outside of our own choice to exist. We did not have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted to be born into this world or not before it actually happened (such a suggestion is an impossibility, I know). Our births were a gift given to us, superintended by God through the union of our parents.
> 
> And so is the case with the new birth (or being born again). God chose us to be His children, and then by means of His word, He made us alive before we wanted Him. That was the nature of our heart. We were spiritually dead. Our decision to follow Christ was given to us because we were given a new heart that naturally (through the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration) wants to believe God and obey Him. Our spiritual birth, therefore, does not begin with our decision (just as it is the case with our natural birth); rather, it is initiated by God our Heavenly Father, because of Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Does that analogy make sense?



It makes perfect sense, and it goes to the heart of the issue...something that everyone needs to understand:

The reason that non-Christians of every stripe...atheists, Roman Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Eastern Orthodox, Hindus, Mormons, etc...the reason that all of these non-Christian religions hate Christianity is because Christianity teaches that God is sovereign over the human will.

All of the false religions of man militate against this one truth:  God is the Potter who creates some pots to glory and some pots to destruction. 

Every non-Christian religion will be in confederacy against this one truth.  The essence of sinful man is to exalt his own will and convince himself that he is the savior.  The sinful man will always recoil at the thought that he is not sovereign.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Proverbs 16:33
> 
> The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord*.


Even the most random thing in the world, like rolling the dice, is predestined by God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Isaiah 45:7
> 
> I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.*


The Lord is the sovereign determiner of every event, good and bad, in this world.

----------


## eduardo89

> It makes perfect sense, and it goes to the heart of the issue...something that everyone needs to understand:
> 
> *The reason that non-Christians of every stripe...atheists, Roman Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Eastern Orthodox, Hindus, Mormons, etc...the reason that all of these non-Christian religions hate Christianity is because Christianity teaches that God is sovereign over the human will.
> *
> All of the false religions of man militate against this one truth:  God is the Potter who creates some pots to glory and some pots to destruction. 
> 
> Every non-Christian religion will be in confederacy against this one truth.  The essence of sinful man is to exalt his own will and convince himself that he is the savior.  The sinful man will always recoil at the thought that he is not sovereign.


I'm quoting this so I know of respond to some of the utter nonsense in this post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm quoting this so I know of respond to some of the utter nonsense in this post.


What's nonsense about it?  Eduardo, you are not sovereign over your will.  You do not decide your eternal destiny. Salvation is completely conditioned on God's grace in choosing, and nothing in yourself...not your will, not your effort, not the grace inside you, nothing.

I know that the very thought of this enrages you, but this is one way that you know you're not a Christian.  

You can ask any Reformed believer the experience they had when that gospel of grace first came to them.  Forget about proving this from the Scriptures (which you don't seem to care about).  Forget about the logic of it.  You want experience?  Ask any Reformed believer the experience they had when God took the scales off their eyes and they saw grace for what it truly is.  This is the supernatural Christian experience of salvation.

----------


## eduardo89

> It makes perfect sense, and it goes to the heart of the issue...something that everyone needs to understand:
> 
> The reason that non-Christians of every stripe...atheists, *Roman Catholics*, Seventh Day Adventists, Eastern Orthodox, Hindus, Mormons, etc...the reason that all of these non-Christian religions hate Christianity is because Christianity teaches that God is sovereign over the human will.


I cannot speak for any non-Christian religion, nor for Eastern Orthodoxy although I assume the answer might be similar, only for my measly understanding of Catholicism.

We all have free will which has been given to us by God, but being all powerful and all knowing God has known since the beginning of eternity who will use their free will to follow Him and who will reject Him. And based upon His foreknowledge, He will determine how He uses each and every one of us to serve Him. He will even use those who He knows will reject Him to serve His ultimate purpose. God gives some people more graces and others less graces based upon His plan, and the graces given by God either softens the hearts of the wicked preventing them from exercising all the evils they are capable of committing or He will not give them the graces which allow them to do everything that they want to do which can be used by God as a way of punishment or trials to others which in His plan has an outcome that brings about a better good.

Calvinists go wrong in thinking that since God is Sovereign then man cannot be free. This is a fundamental misunderstanding and a false conclusion. The truth is that precisely because God is Sovereign, therefore man is able to be free. Man's freedom is completely dependent on, because it is caused by and absolutely requires, the Sovereign and Infinite Freedom of God. Created freedom is so far from being hindered by or contradictory to the Sovereign Freedom of God because it is founded upon it. 

A good analogy of man's freedom and God's freedom and sovereignty not colliding nor contradicting one another would be an author cannot collide with the characters he writes in a novel. Our wills, desires, and choices must conform to God. Man is not in charge, God is, and the free will He has given us does not change that.






> All of the false religions of man militate against this one truth:  God is the Potter who creates some pots to glory and some pots to destruction.


You need to read that in the context of Jeremiah 18:3-10. God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is easy very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'




> The essence of sinful man is to exalt his own will and convince himself that he is the savior.


I agree. And the Catholic Church teaches that man cannot save himself, man cannot do anything to earn his salvation, man can do nothing good without God's graces, and merit nothing from Him, all that He gives us is a free gift.




> Forget about proving this from the Scriptures (which you don't seem to care about).


And there you go again, claiming Catholics do not care about the Scriptures.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What's nonsense about it?  Eduardo, you are not sovereign over your will.  You do not decide your eternal destiny. Salvation is completely conditioned on God's grace in choosing, and nothing in yourself...not your will, not your effort, not the grace inside you, nothing.
> 
> I know that the very thought of this enrages you, but this is one way that you know you're not a Christian.  
> 
> You can ask any Reformed believer the experience they had when that gospel of grace first came to them.  Forget about proving this from the Scriptures (which you don't seem to care about).  Forget about the logic of it.  You want experience?  Ask any Reformed believer the experience they had when God took the scales off their eyes and they saw grace for what it truly is.  This is the supernatural Christian experience of salvation.


You won't find many Reformed believers (Outside Marc Carpenter's cult of course) who link their acceptance of the doctrines of election with their salvation.  

I was very strongly leaning in the predestination direction before this, but a conversation with my grandmother a few weeks ago opened my mind to the sheer importance of this truth.  I could go on and on about this, but the short version is that, I figured out that her excuse for watering the gospel was ultimately, logically and philosophically, linked with her Arminian doctrine.  I can tell you that that wasn't the moment of my salvation, but I definitely felt some scales come off my eyes at that point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

John 10:28-29 absolutely obliterates Arminianism as well.   It says "All who the father gives to me, will come to me."

Who gives them?  The Father.  Do they have a choice?  No, they all come.

Arminianism is defeated.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 10:28-29 absolutely obliterates Arminianism as well.   It says "All who the father gives to me, will come to me."
> 
> Who gives them?  The Father.  Do they have a choice?  No, they all come.
> 
> Arminianism is defeated.


Yes, Jesus clearly taught election and predestination.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, Jesus clearly taught election and predestination.


That's a very Catholic thing to say.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, Jesus clearly taught election and predestination.


Amen.



> That's a very Catholic thing to say.


How?

----------


## eduardo89

> How?


Because Catholicism teaches both election and predestination...

----------


## Christian Liberty

But not the same way  Reformed Christians do.

----------


## green73

I don't care what you guys say. I'm an Armenian to the death!

----------


## eduardo89

> But not the same way  Reformed Christians do.


You'd be surprised at how similar Catholic and Calvinist teachings on election and predestination are.




> "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"


Catholics certainly can believe in unconditional election, and many do. All Catholics believe in predestination, it is clearly taught in the Bible.

----------


## shane77m

Every time I read this thread title I think of the game Mortal Kombat. I imagine these two guys fighting it out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Every time I read this thread title I think of the game Mortal Kombat. I imagine these two guys fighting it out.


LOL!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is a very clear passage from Paul that disproves Arminianism completely:




> *1 Corinthians 1:26-31 NASB
> 
> For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
> 
> But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."*


It is by HIS DOING that you are in Christ Jesus.

God CHOSE the weak ones of this world to shame the powerful ones.

Jesus is our righteousness and our _sanctification_ (disproving the idea man cooperates with grace).

A Christian can boast in nothing but the Lord, because he didn't do anything to be saved.  He was chosen.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't understand how anyone denies that the Bible teaches predestination and election, and I don't understand how anybody could put an Arminian/free will spin on those doctrines.  I used to do it but it was so intellectually dishonest.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You'd be surprised at how similar Catholic and Calvinist teachings on election and predestination are.
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics certainly can believe in unconditional election, and many do. All Catholics believe in predestination, it is clearly taught in the Bible.


Most Catholics have never even heard of predestination.  NONE of the priests or lay people taught this, in the decades I've attended Mass and Cathechism classes.  Nor did we hear of the elect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Most Catholics have never even heard of predestination.  NONE of the priests or lay people taught this, in the decades I've attended Mass and Cathechism classes.  Nor did we hear of the elect.


Rome uses the words, but changes the concepts.  In the Roman view of things, a man is made right with God by God giving man grace, and then man working with that grace through the sacraments to be saved.

The Bible teaches that salvation is all of God, and none of man.  A man is made right when God justifies him at the cross.  Even a man's good works are the Spirit working through him and were already predestined.

*The difference between Rome and the Bible can be summarized like this:*

--Rome says justification is subjective, happens in the heart, and is worked out through man's religious works.
--The Bible says that justification is objective, happens on the cross, and is purely by God's sovereign grace.

Rome does not have the gospel.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Rome uses the words, but changes the concepts.  In the Roman view of things, a man is made right with God by God giving man grace, and then man working with that grace through the sacraments to be saved.
> 
> The Bible teaches that salvation is all of God, and none of man.  A man is made right when God justifies him at the cross.  Even a man's good works are the Spirit working through him and were already predestined.
> 
> *The difference between Rome and the Bible can be summarized like this:*
> 
> --Rome says justification is subjective, happens in the heart, and is worked out through man's religious works.
> --The Bible says that justification is objective, happens on the cross, and is purely by God's sovereign grace.
> 
> Rome does not have the gospel.


Oh yes, the working out of man's salvation was made very clear.  EXHAUSTING and kept one always hoping that salvation was secured with daily mass, weekly confession, prayers to the saints, etc.    It is taught in the cathecisim that missing Sunday mass is a grave sin and lead to hell.  If one did not believe this, one was called a "cafeteria catholic" and also destined for hell.

----------


## PierzStyx

> This will be an ongoing thread.  Contribute of you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> God chooses. 
> 
> It is "because of Him" that a Christian is in Christ.
> 
> No one can boast in his own will in choosing.  Salvation is all of God.


Yep. God choose to make possible the salvation of all men, who are the lowliest of all creatures because while having the greatest intellect and freedom of will, we choose to abuse that power to disobey God instead of glorifying Him. Men are "less than the dust" because at least the dust obeys God's will without question. Men do not. Yet glory to Him because He has made salvation possible even for our rebellious hearts.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Here is a very clear passage from Paul that disproves Arminianism completely:
> 
> 
> 
> It is by HIS DOING that you are in Christ Jesus.
> 
> God CHOSE the weak ones of this world to shame the powerful ones.
> 
> Jesus is our righteousness and our _sanctification_ (disproving the idea man cooperates with grace).
> ...


Yes. Men are the weak things of the world. The weakest really. Thank God He made it possible for all of us to be saved. Your quote "disproves" nothing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep. God choose to make possible the salvation of all men, who are the lowliest of all creatures because while having the greatest intellect and freedom of will, we choose to abuse that power to disobey God instead of glorifying Him.


No, that is your humanistic religion.  That is not what the Bible says.  The Bible says that Jesus _actually saves_ men, He doesn't just make them saveable.




> Men are "less than the dust" because at least the dust obeys God's will without question. Men do not. Yet glory to Him because He has made salvation possible even for our rebellious hearts.


Men may not obey the prescriptive will of God, but every man and everything obeys the decreetive will of God.  This is because God is Sovereign and men are not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes. Men are the weak things of the world. The weakest really. Thank God He made it possible for all of us to be saved. Your quote "disproves" nothing.


Let's see if your interpretation (that Paul says that men in general are the weak things God chose) can be see in the text.




> 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 NASB
> 
> For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
> 
> But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."


Nope.  It doesn't work.  Paul is not speaking of men generally.  He is speaking of wise men and unwise men...noble men and non-noble men...weak men and strong men.  He is speaking of God choosing the weak, unwise, and non-noble men to shame the strong, wise, and noble men. 

Paul says God did this so that no strong, wise, or noble man may boast before God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Men may not obey the prescriptive will of God, but every man and everything obeys the decreetive will of God. This is because God is Sovereign and men are not.


I've heard the terms "Secret Will" and "Revealed Will" used before, is it the same concept?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've heard the terms "Secret Will" and "Revealed Will" used before, is it the same concept?


Yeah.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah.


OK, cool.  Thanks

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Acts13:48 
> 
> 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.*


As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

(And for TER:  if some sinful and fallible man who was labeled a "church father" denied that all those ordained to eternal life believed, then he was in error, and needs to be corrected.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


Amen.




> (And for TER:  if some sinful and fallible man who was labeled a "church father" denied that all those ordained to eternal life believed, then he was in error, and needs to be corrected.)


Well, he's kind of dead, so correcting him might be pointless

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2nd Corinthians 1:21
> 
> Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.*


It is not that man is justified, and then has to keep his justification with works.  No, it is GOD who makes us stand firm in Christ.  If you are saved, it is because God is MAKING you stand firm.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is not that man is justified, and then has to keep his justification with works.  No, it is GOD who makes us stand firm in Christ.  If you are saved, it is because God is MAKING you stand firm.


Once your eyes are open you can see it everywhere...

I could probably devil's advocate this particular verse but there are far too many others.  Put together the New Testament is pretty much an airtight case against free-will theology.

----------


## moostraks

> It is not that man is justified, and then has to keep his justification with works.  No, it is GOD who makes us stand firm in Christ.  If you are saved, it is because God is MAKING you stand firm.


This is an over simplification of a belief that you feel no interest in wanting to understand because it is easier to hate things and to drip with contempt and threaten eternal damnation as it puffs you up and gives you the appearance of righteousness. You look at every thing that comes out of another with an eye to try and show them up and claim your superiority.

Galatians 5:  15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is an over simplification of a belief that you feel no interest in wanting to understand because it is easier to hate things and to drip with contempt and threaten eternal damnation as it puffs you up and gives you the appearance of righteousness. You look at every thing that comes out of another with an eye to try and show them up and claim your superiority.
> 
> Galatians 5:  15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
> 
> 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> 
> 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.


None of this is a counter-exegesis to 2 Corinthians 1:21.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> None of this is a counter-exegesis to 2 Corinthians 1:21.


He's not really capable of an actual argument.  Jmdrake is at least fun to talk to.  At least he actually presents arguments.  This guy is just like "If you say someone who believed pagans could be saved by works are unregenerate, you might as well damn the tolerant tolerant tolerant tolerant calvinists to Hell like Marc Carpenter too!"

No arguments for anything whatsoever.

----------


## moostraks

> Several years ago I came across a small book entitled Quaker Spirituality – Selected Writings. I’m still not sure what made me pause on the title but I am glad I did. Inside that book was an essay by Thomas R. Kelly (1893-1941) talked about the “Eternal Presence”. I didn’t know it then but this essay put me on the path to learning much more about Quakers. It gave me the most complete understanding of who God was that I have ever had in my life up to that point.
> 
> Here are some of the words from that essay. I am just going to give you bits an pieces but enough to get its message across:
> 
> The Quaker discovery and message has always been that God still lives and moves, works and guides, in vivid immediacy, within the hearts of men. For revelation is not static and complete, like a book, but dynamic and enlarging, as springing from life and Soul of all things. This light and Life is in all men, ready to sweep us into its floods, illumine us with its blinding, or with its gentle guiding radiance, send us tendered but strong into the world of need and pain and blindness. Surrender of self to that indwelling Life is entrance upon an astounding, and almost miraculous Life…..
> 
> We are men of double personalities. We have slumbering demons within us. We all have also a dimly-formed Christ within us. We’ve been too ready to say that the demonic man within us is the natural and real man, and that the Christ-man within us is unnatural and the unreal self but nothing could be further from the truth….
> 
> It is an amazing discovery, at first, to find that the creative Power and Life is at work in the world. God is no longer the object of belief; he is a Reality, who has continued, within each of us, his real presence in the world.
> ...


http://redletterliving.net/tag/quaker/

----------


## moostraks

> Source: On a Short Leash – QuakerQuaker.
> 
> Had occasion to recall a dog that I used to walk. Normally, she was well-behaved and a joy to take to the park. One day, however, this good dog showed a quite different side to her regular disposition. She pulled and pulled and would not stop when I told her to heel. After several attempts at same, I was forced to yank her leash and propel her anxiousness backwards.
> 
> Apparently, a dog can forget about the person at the other end of the leash.
> 
> Now, what about dog spelled backwards? Do we sometimes forget about God walking along with us in this life? Do we still, as early Quakers cautioned, sometimes race ahead of God’s Spirit? And, do we force God to get rough with us – even to propel us backwards, so we remember what it is to walk the right way through life?
> 
> Thanks Clem Gerdlemann for this post on QuakerQuaker. It got me seriously thinking about being on a leash with God on the other end. While I am a strong believer in God having given us free will I also believe that He gives us personal revelations to help guide us through life.  Jerking our chain to bring us back to reality is part of those revelations.
> ...


http://redletterliving.net/tag/quaker/

----------


## moostraks

> The Anabaptists agreed that salvation was a gift of grace and could not be earned. But they read in the New Testament that God's gift of faith brought with it responsibility. Human beings needed to do their part in response to God's gift of faith.
> 
> "The regenerating Word must first be heard and believed with a sincere heart before regeneration, the putting on of Christ, and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost can follow." Menno Simons
> Q: How many kinds of faith are there?
> A: Two kinds, namely a dead one and a living one. 
> Q: What is a dead faith? 
> A: One that is unfruitful and without the works of love, James 2. 
> Q: What is a living faith?
> A: One that produces the fruits of the Spirit and works through love, Galatians 5. 
> ...


http://www.thirdway.com/menno/?Page=...re+We+Saved%3F

----------


## moostraks

> But Jesus also demanded good works to go along with faith.  A man came up to Him with a question about eternal salvation.  Teacher, he asked, what good deed (ti agathon) must I do, to have eternal life?  Jesus did not send him away or correct him.  He didnt say: You are asking the wrong question; you need only to believe in me and you will be saved.  Rather Jesus said to him: Keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself (Mat 19:16-19).  Rather than separate faith and works, Jesus closely united the two as being definitive to Christian life.  Thats the undeniable implication of His great discourse we call Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon contains a vast amount of teachings and exhortations Christ expected His followers to learn and live by (Mat. chaps. 5-7).  Do not bear false witness . . . Love your enemies . . . Seek first Gods kingdom and His righteousness . . . Judge not, that you be not judged (Mat 5:33, 44; 6:33; 7:1).  Jesus set down these teachings as the necessary standards of moral righteousness.  At the end of the Sermon on the Mount He denounced the kind of faith that is only lip service.  He said those who relied only on faith risked the loss of eternal salvation.  He warned:  On that day many will call out to me Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy and cast out demons in your name?  And then I will declare to them:  I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers (Mat 7:21-23).
> 
> Let us also recall the parable about the Last Judgment (Mat 25:31-46).  When Christ comes in His glory with all the angels, He will gather all the nations before Him for universal judgment.  Everyone will be divided into two groups--the sheep on the right and the goats on the left--before Christ the King.  The ones on the right will be blessed and given the inheritance of the eternal kingdom.  The ones on the left will be cursed and sent off to eternal fire.  What will make the difference?  What will be the criterion of judgment?  Works of mercy!  Feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and the prisoner.  Jesus declared:  Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me (Mat 25:40).
> 
> On another occasion Jesus referred to faith as lifetime work.  He urged a crowd not to labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.  They asked: What must we do to be doing the works of God (Ti poiomen ina ergazometha to erga tou Theou)?  He replied:  This is the work of God (to ergon tou Theou): that you believe in Him whom God has sent (John 6:27-29).  The most pleasing work to God is the continuous exercise of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord throughout our lives.  Christ promised us a continuous personal communion with Him, a continuous Easter experience, based on love, faith, and the keeping of His commandments. He said:  If you love me, you will keep my commandments . . .  If a person loves me, He will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:15-17, 23).  Our new birth is given to us in Baptism according to the words of the Lord: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).  And if we lose our way, heartfelt prayer, repentance, Holy Confession and Holy Communion provide personal occasions for spiritual renewal throughout our lives.  How important for salvation the Eucharist is, we know from the words of Christ:  He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54).  In these many ways, according to Christ, Orthodox Christians throughout their lives receive salvation and renewal through faith, works, and the sacraments of the Church.
> 
> Then there is St. Paul.  The apostle is known as the foremost advocate of justification by faith.  In the above text of Gal 2:16-20, St. Paul seems to say something very different than His Master about faith and works.  These words of Paul reflect his conversion by which he left behind the Law of Moses and joined Christ wholeheartedly.  Previously the Mosaic Law was the center of his life, but after Damascus Christ became the core of his being.  Christ dwelt in St. Paul:  It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20).  From this transformed perspective Paul contrasted and opposed faith and works.  He did so categorically:  A person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law, because by works of the Law shall no one be justified (Gal 2:16).  The key to this passage is to see that St. Paul is referring not to ethical works but to works of the Law (erga tou nomou), namely, the Mosaic Law.
> 
> What are the works of the Mosaic Law?  Anyone who studies Galatians carefully will note the apostle is referring to the Jewish religious practices of circumcision, dietary laws, and festivals (Gal 2:2-5, 12; 4:9; 5:1-6, 12; 6:12-15).  The same reference to works of the Law is also primary in the Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:19-20, 27-30). For Paul, such practices were no longer necessary for salvation.  Christ had fulfilled their purpose and also terminated them at the same time (Rom 8:4; 10:4).  For Paul, to adopt such religious practices as some Gentile Christians were doing, was nothing less that betrayal of the gospel (Gal 1:6-9).  He declared:  I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole Law.  You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:3-4).  St. Paul is not opposing faith to ethical works but to the works of the Law.
> ...


http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/how-are-we-saved/

----------


## moostraks

> He's not really capable of an actual argument.  Jmdrake is at least fun to talk to.  At least he actually presents arguments.  This guy is just like "If you say someone who believed pagans could be saved by works are unregenerate, you might as well damn the tolerant tolerant tolerant tolerant calvinists to Hell like Marc Carpenter too!"
> 
> No arguments for anything whatsoever.


Cool then I must be doing something right if I am no fun because I speak of Love and seek not to further this behavior which leads us to bite and devour one another, filled with hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition and envy. 




> Galatians 5: 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
> 
> 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> 
> 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.


I present contrary opinions. I just don't promote hate (or seek not to anyways). Nor do I think that any one human being has the ultimate perfect knowledge of Faith. We are like the blind men and the elephant:




> A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.
> A king explains to them:
> All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.[2]
> The ancient Jain texts often explain the concepts of anekāntvāda and syādvāda with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth.[3] This parable resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and that truth can be stated in different ways (in Jain beliefs often said to be seven versions). This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvada, or the theory of Manifold Predications.[2]
> Two of the many references to this parable are found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."[4] Mallisena also cites the parable when noting the importance of considering all viewpoints in obtaining a full picture of reality. "It is impossible to properly understand an entity consisting of infinite properties without the method of modal description consisting of all viewpoints, since it will otherwise lead to a situation of seizing mere sprouts (i.e., a superficial, inadequate cognition), on the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Your fun seems to be found in seeing how worked up you can make other people by ridiculing and belittling them as you elevate your own positions for their astute accuracy all the while making outrageous claims about things you have no business offering an opinion on (specifically the eternal state of another person's soul). Party on dude, but one day you are going to suffer a hangover from your high you are on...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Wow.... You know nothing about me.  I'm done discussing with you.

----------


## moostraks

> Wow.... You know nothing about me.  I'm done discussing with you.


I didn't say I did know you. I said how your posts come across is mean spirited and self inflating. It is like the cliques in school. You have formed a friendship you fuel by mocking others. (Such as calling people morons and claiming your use of logic as opposed to the others who disagree with you are repeatedly being called illogical. You attack the person and don't stick to the issue being debated.) It saddens me because others see this as how Christians act and it is not representative of His Love for others.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Predestined before the beginning of time:




> *2 Timothy 1:9
> 
> He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,*

----------


## Sola_Fide

Even the angels are chosen:




> *1st Timothy 5:21
> 
> I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

God chose you, brothers and sisters...




> *2nd Thessalonians 2:13
> 
> But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even the angels are chosen:


Hmmm... That's interesting, I've honestly never even considered that before.




> God chose you, brothers and sisters...


Interestingly, this verse also refutes the false theology that Arminianism is a damnable heresy.  If this was the case, Paul would not have referred to people who he apparently had to point this out to as "brothers and sisters."  Unless you think every single person to whom Paul wrote agreed with him and he just put it there for kicks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Interestingly, this verse also refutes the false theology that Arminianism is a damnable heresy.  If this was the case, Paul would not have referred to people who he apparently had to point this out to as "brothers and sisters."  Unless you think every single person to whom Paul wrote agreed with him and he just put it there for kicks.


That certainly isn't the case.  Saved people need to hear the gospel constantly.  Evangelization doesn't just happen to those outside the church, it must happen to those within.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That certainly isn't the case.  Saved people need to hear the gospel constantly.  Evangelization doesn't just happen to those outside the church, it must happen to those within.


I don't disagree with you, but Paul says "God chose you, brothers and sisters."  Thus implying that some who are unaware of this doctrine may nonetheless be his brothers and sisters.  Otherwise, I think we'd get some kind of indication otherwise, such as "And if anyone else brings you any other teaching, let him be anathema" or something like that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't disagree with you, but Paul says "God chose you, brothers and sisters."  Thus implying that some who are unaware of this doctrine may nonetheless be his brothers and sisters.  Otherwise, I think we'd get some kind of indication otherwise, such as "And if anyone else brings you any other teaching, let him be anathema" or something like that.


How does it imply that some were unaware?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *John 12:37-40
> 
> Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
> 
> For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them."*


The reason people don't believe is because God blinds their eyes and hardens their heart.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Well yeah, otherwise pretty much every person ever would believe after seeing miracles  (Whether their belief was of a saving kind or only an intellectual kind aside.)

That doesn't mean that every person ever who doesn't believe was specifically blinded by God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well yeah, otherwise pretty much every person ever would believe after seeing miracles  (Whether their belief was of a saving kind or only an intellectual kind aside.)
> 
> That doesn't mean that every person ever who doesn't believe was specifically blinded by God.


Yes it does.  God mercies who He wants, and hardens who He wants:




> *Romans 9:18
> 
> Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes it does.  God mercies who He wants, and hardens who He wants:


Perusing this thread, it seems you only cite the various writings of Paul.  Your arguments would be more convincing if you could substantiate them with evidence from the synoptic gospels or from the Church Fathers.

----------


## erowe1

> Perusing this thread, it seems you only cite the various writings of Paul.  Your arguments would be more convincing if you could substantiate them with evidence from the synoptic gospels or from the Church Fathers.


Why?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why?


1) Paul never met Yeshua in person 2) The Church has the Authority (to borrow Augustinian lingo) to interpret scripture most accurately, not laypersons.  S_F sitting in his chair stringing together epistle verses without historical context isn't that convincing to me.  But to each his own.

----------


## erowe1

> 1) Paul never met Yeshua in person 2) The Church has the Authority (to borrow Augustinian lingo) to interpret scripture most accurately, not laypersons.  S_F sitting in his chair stringing together epistle verses without historical context isn't that convincing to me.  But to each his own.


1) Neither did the Church fathers. And it's debatable if the authors of the synoptic Gospels did.

2) If Church fathers have that authority, shouldn't the apostle Paul as well?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Perusing this thread, it seems you only cite the various writings of Paul.  Your arguments would be more convincing if you could substantiate them with evidence from the synoptic gospels or from the Church Fathers.


1. The argument would NOT be substantiated by something from the gospels, because the gospels and Paul's letters are both equally inspired.  This is an unbiblical and unChristian view of authority that you have.  But, even on this very page, I quote that Jesus said that God blinds men.  Post #155.

2.  The "church fathers" mean nothing.  Many of who are considered "church fathers" today were heretics.  Most of them were.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1) Paul never met Yeshua in person


Yes he did, on the road to Damascus.  Additionally, this is an argument that no Christian could EVER make.  This is an argument an atheist or a Muslim would make.

----------


## TER

> 2.  The "church fathers" mean nothing.  Many of who are considered "church fathers" today were heretics.  Most of them were.


Really?  Please tell me which ones.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  Please tell me which ones.


Where do you want to start?  Aquinas was heretical because he proposed that man's intellect was not so damaged by the fall that it couldn't still ascertain the truth of God through the senses and reason.  This is an unbiblical position, and it is actually the seed for the destruction of Christianity itself.

----------


## TER

> Where do you want to start?  Aquinas was heretical because he proposed that man's intellect was not so damaged by the fall that it couldn't still ascertain the truth of God through the senses and reason.  This is an unbiblical position, and it is actually the seed for the destruction of Christianity itself.


Actually, Sola, I regretted the previous post after sending it.  It would be better if you didn't start calling out by name Fathers and Saints of the Church and labelling them as heretics lest you face them on the day of the Judgement standing before the throne of God and be reminded of St. Paul's warning:  "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, Sola, I regretted the previous post after sending it.  It would be better if you didn't start calling out by name Fathers and Saints of the Church and labelling them as heretics lest you face them on the day of the Judgement standing before the throne of God and be reminded of St. Paul's warning:  "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)


Whoa wait a second.  Paul was talking to the average Corinthian churchgoers when he said that.  You see, that is the problem with your unbiblical view of the church.  It isn't only some elite in a church hierarchy who are "elect", it is all the chosen ones of God.

Anyway, Aquinas was clearly at odds with the scriptures at several points.  Paul would have condemned him as a heretic for denying  the total inability of man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Aquinas said in Summa Theologica:




> "Man has free will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. ... And foreasmuch a man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will."


Aquinas engaged in the same error that Pelagius did.  Do you support Pelagius too TER?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes he did, on the road to Damascus.  Additionally, this is an argument that no Christian could EVER make.  This is an argument an atheist or a Muslim would make.


'

While this is true, I didn't think of it at first.  That said, that wasn't really his point.  His point had to do with having actually been discipled by Jesus in person (Which is also irrelevant.)




> Yes it does.  God mercies who He wants, and hardens who He wants:


Do you believe anyone could believe if God didn't harden them?  I don't.

Nothing I said contradicts what Paul said either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

John 6:37-44 proves predestination as well, although I know they say John isn't "synoptic."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> While this is true, I didn't think of it at first.  That said, that wasn't really his point. 
> Do you believe anyone could believe if God didn't harden them?  I don't.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts what Paul said either.


Creating a pot for the purpose of destruction is active hardening.  Tighten up your screws and get consistent man.  I don't believe you can effectively preach the gospel when you compromise on God's sovereignty or the doctrines of grace.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, Sola, I regretted the previous post after sending it.  It would be better if you didn't start calling out by name Fathers and Saints of the Church and labelling them as heretics lest you face them on the day of the Judgement standing before the throne of God and be reminded of St. Paul's warning:  "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2)


When Paul says "saints" he's not talking about some special class of Christians. He's talking about all believers.

The idea that saints are some special subgroup of believers is a later innovation that does not belong to the traditions the apostles passed on to the Church.

----------


## TER

> When Paul says "saints" he's not talking about some special class of Christians. He's talking about all believers.
> 
> The idea that saints are some special subgroup of believers is a later innovation that does not belong to the traditions the apostles passed on to the Church.


Erowe, I understand.  I never made a claim that only heirarchs or ordained members of the clergy can only be saints.  I am not sure where you and Sola are getting that from.  The majority of the Saints the Church celebrates throughout the year were never ordained members of the clergy.

The structure of the Church has been Bishops, priests, deacons and the lay people from the earliest days and all four groups are necessary, important, and include amongst them saints and sinners.

My point was that the Church Fathers (who the Church which includes the bishops, priests, deacons and laity have considered to be saints on account of their holy lives filled with the Holy Spirit and the grace of God) are being called heretics by Sola and that is worrisome for him if in the end Sola was wrong and learns about it when he stands before the Judgment Seat of Christ when there will be no repentance but only judgment.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes he did, on the road to Damascus.  Additionally, this is an argument that no Christian could EVER make.  This is an argument an atheist or a Muslim would make.


This is pretty settled history that isn't controversial, amigo.




> * conversion in Acts of the Apostles[edit]*
> 
> Acts of the Apostles discusses Paul's conversion experience at three different points in the text, in far more detail than in the accounts in Paul's letters. The book of Acts records that Paul was on his way from Jerusalem for Syrian Damascus to arrest followers of Jesus, with the intention of returning them to Jerusalem as prisoners for questioning and possible execution. The journey is interrupted when Paul sees a blinding light, and communicates directly with a divine voice.
> *Acts 9[edit]*
> 
> Acts 9 tells the story of Paul's conversion as a third-person narrative:As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
> “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
> "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
> *The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.*
> — Acts 9:3–9, NIVThe account continues with a description of Ananias of Damascus receiving a divine revelation instructing him to visit Saul at the house of Judas on the Street Called Straight and there lay hands on him to restore his sight (the house of Judas is traditionally believed to have been near the west end of the street).[4] Ananias is initially reluctant, having heard about Saul's persecution, but obeys the divine command:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convers...ul_the_Apostle

It's pretty clear this is not an in the flesh meeting, but a vision.  This doesn't make it invalid, per se.  Yeshua can reveal himself to whomever, whenever he chooses.

----------


## RJB

> Aquinas engaged in the same error that Pelagius did.  Do you support Pelagius too TER?


I don't have a dog in this fight, but TER is an Orthodox Christian and Aquinas came after the schism.  Aquinas is more the father of Western Christendom (modern Catholicism and Protestantism.)  TER seems to be too much of a gentleman to throw him under the bus.  

Church Fathers usually refers to the early church of the first few centuries

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> John 6:37-44 proves predestination as well, although I know they say John isn't *"synoptic."*


It's not synoptic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels  John is an example of acopyphral gospel.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> '
> 
> While this is true, I didn't think of it at first.  That said, that wasn't really his point.  His point had to do with having actually been discipled by Jesus in person (*Which is also irrelevant*.)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe anyone could believe if God didn't harden them?  I don't.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts what Paul said either.


Why is that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 1) Neither did the Church fathers. And it's debatable if the authors of the synoptic Gospels did.


But the church fathers had reliable apostolic succession




> 2) If Church fathers have that authority, shouldn't the apostle Paul as well?


Paul has authority in the Augustinian sense-the authority to teach/preach.  To the extent Paul is consistent with what Yeshua actually taught, he is correct.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is pretty settled history that isn't controversial, amigo.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convers...ul_the_Apostle
> 
> It's pretty clear this is not an in the flesh meeting, but a vision.  This doesn't make it invalid, per se.  Yeshua can reveal himself to whomever, whenever he chooses.


Yes, but Jesus is the God-man forever.  Whether Paul saw Jesus body (I think that he probably did) or not, WHO CARES?

It means NOTHING if Jesus revealed Himself as a body (like He did to hundreds of people after His resurrection) or if He only revealed Himself in a vision to Paul.  Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles.  If you reject or dismiss that Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles, you are not a Christian.

No person can be a Christian, yet downplay Paul's epistles. The people who do this are unsaved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But the church fathers had reliable apostolic succession.


What "church"?  A person has apostolic succession if they preach what the apostles preach.  If you don't preach what the apostles preach, you don't have apostolic succession.




> Paul has authority in the Augustinian sense-the authority to teach/preach.  To the extent Paul is consistent with what Yeshua actually taught, he is correct.


This assumes that what Paul said contradicts Jesus in any way, and Paul doesn't contradict Him in a single syllable.  The idea that you are promoting is Satanic.  No Christian could ever say the things you are saying about an apostle.  You don't believe what we believe.

----------


## erowe1

> But the church fathers had reliable apostolic succession.


Paul didn't?




> Paul has authority in the Augustinian sense-the authority to teach/preach.  To the extent Paul is consistent with what Yeshua actually taught, he is correct.


I don't think that you can put Paul in the category of "basically good teacher." He's either a genuine apostle, like he claimed to be, or his claim was a lie, making him a charlatan.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Creating a pot for the purpose of destruction is active hardening.  Tighten up your screws and get consistent man.*  I don't believe you can effectively preach the gospel when you compromise on God's sovereignty or the doctrines of grace*.


By your definition of "compromise" Charles Spurgeon compromised too.  And I'm willing to bet he was a more effective gospel preacher than you are




> But the church fathers had reliable apostolic succession
> 
> 
> Paul has authority in the Augustinian sense-the authority to teach/preach.  To the extent Paul is consistent with what Yeshua actually taught, he is correct.


I thought you were Orthodox?  Does your church also teach that Paul was fallible when he was writing scripture?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By your definition of "compromise" Charles Spurgeon compromised too.  And I'm willing to bet he was a more effective gospel preacher than you are



Spurgeon said some good things, but he also said a lot of very bad things:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=160



> *Spurgeon: Calvinist or Hypo-Calvinist?*
> 
> 
> In a recent issue of The Trinity Review, the author lauds Spurgeon as a solid, uncompromising Calvinist. And from the excerpts of Spurgeon in the article, it seems that this was so. This present writer also held that view for a long period of time. But the sad truth has come to light. Spurgeon promoted Calvinism as the Gospel; but what was his Calvinism? So far we have seen that Spurgeon believed that God desires that all men without exception be saved-the same view as the Amyraldians, the Marrow Men, and men like Murray, Stonehouse, and Van Til. He believed in paradox. He preached resistible grace. From these discoveries alone, we must conclude that Spurgeon was a hypo-Calvinist. However, if there are any doubters left among the readership, the stunning quotes from Spurgeon’s appeals to the unconverted in his sermons should erase all doubt.
> 
> Before the reader considers these words of Spurgeon, it is recommended that the words of the Marrow Men be read in order to bring to mind the striking similarities. It is also recommended that the words be considered in the light of the truth of active reprobation and Hoeksema’s “Jesus Saviour and the Evil of Hawking Him.” Hypo-Calvinism proclaims the falsehood of a universal love of God manifested in a desire that even the reprobate be saved. Thus evangelistic appeals sound just like Arminians: “God is willing to save all of you, if only you will stop resisting His loving, wooing invitations.” Implied in this is a god who is disappointed if the reprobate does not come. In light of this, keep in mind the truthful words of John Gerstner: “God, if He could be frustrated in His desires, simply would not be God.”32
> 
> Here is Spurgeon:
> 
> ...










> I thought you were Orthodox?  Does your church also teach that Paul was fallible when he was writing scripture?


Remember, the Scriptural understanding is that what the writers penned was infallible, not the men themselves.

----------


## PowerOfLiberty

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Colossians 1:23)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Spurgeon said some good things, but he also said a lot of very bad things:
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=160


I'm only about halfway done, but here are some of my thoughts:

I agree with John Robbins on some of what he says here, but not all of it, I agree with Spurgeon over Robbins on some things as well.  

I do agree with John Robbins, for instance, that when the Bible says he will draw "all men" to himself that he means the elect, but I agree with Spurgeon on common grace and the fact that God has some love for the elect.  Regarding the word "offer" its not something I'd seriously nitpick one way or the other unless it was presented in an Arminian fashion, which I don't believe Spurgeon did (I despise "altar calls" and "sinner's prayers" but there is a sense in the Bible in which the gospel is "offered" as the "gift of eternal life").

I really don't like the term "Hypo-Calvinism."  Its a lot like the term "Hyper-Calvinism" to me, its a buzzword and its seriously overused.  I once had a pastor who was a four-point Calvinist and even he was nowhere near Arminian.  Spurgeon was a five pointer.  So to call him a "hypo-calvinist" just because he disagreed with the ultra-high Calvinists on things like common grace and supralapsarianism is silly.  And I don't accuse Robbins of Hyper-Calvinism either.

Disagree with us if you want, but don't pretend like there's no difference between Moderate Calvinists and Arminians.  The difference between Moderate Calvinists and Arminians is bigger than the difference between Moderate Calvinists and you.

Finally, my point in citing Spurgeon wasn't to say that he's right on everything, as I said, I do agree with some (although not all) of Robbins' criticisms.  My point was that Spurgeon clearly DID preach the gospel, he preached it well, and he preached it effectively.  So to say that nobody can effectively preach the gospel without endorsing the kind of ultra-high Calvinism that you and Robbins support is false.








> Remember, the Scriptural understanding is that what the writers penned was infallible, not the men themselves.


Of course.  I even said "While he was writing the scriptures."  I see how you could misinterpret that, but I think you know what I meant

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think its kind of funny that, after going after Spurgeon for the whole article for engaging in double-speak, John Robbins himself engages in double-speak.

He says:




> Spurgeon believed this as well. Although he said that Calvinism is the Gospel, he obviously did not believe it in practicality, since he did not see Arminianism as a different gospel whose proponents were anathema (_Galatians_ 1:6-9): A man may be evidently of Gods chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe in the doctrine of final perseverance.40 Spurgeon unknowingly condemned his own preaching when he said:
> 
> In the pulpits of Methodists we are to be found continually preaching just the same doctrine as we do at the Tabernacle, and we receive no protests, but a great deal more of loving regard than we deserve. Our heart has often been melted by the warm-hearted congratulations of Wesleyan friends who have gloried in the Gospel which we have proclaimed. ... We equally hold by the atonement, the fall of man, regeneration by the Spirit of God, and justification by faith-and we do not leave these points to be moot questions among us; hence we are both driven and drawn into closer contact, and the result is at present, and will be still more so in the future, that we learn of one another. We catch the Wesleyan fire, and they do not close their eyes to our light.41
> Contrary to this view, John W. Robbins put forth the truth when he said, The order of salvation is a crucial matter, a life and death matter.42 Those who believe in the Arminian order of salvation (faith precedes regeneration) do not know the Gospel, because the order of salvation is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. We are not to be joining with them as brothers.
> - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Mru9fONw.dpuf
> - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Mru9fONw.dpuf


John Robbins himself does not believe all Arminians are unregenerate, so he's actually contradicting himself here.  (I know this because I remember reading why Carpenter anathemized him, and it was of course for this reason) 

Now, I think I'm somewhere between Spurgeon and you on this particular issue.  I'd have a hard time letting an Arminian preach from my pulpit (If I had one.)  I don't claim that I can't learn anything from Arminian preachers, but I do believe this is an important issue that a church should stand united on, and that the correct answers are clear.  I think consistent Arminianism is a false gospel.  However, I would call some forms of inconsistent Arminianism to be an erroneous or warped version of the true gospel.  So I would not ALWAYS say that "Arminianism" is a false gospel.  I think ultimately it depends not on whether someone knows whether regeneration comes first, but whether they ultimately, deep down, condition their salvation on works or on Christ.  When I was seven years old, I prayed the sinner's prayer, and I thought that saved me.  I was lost.  I was sincere, I was mistaught, but I was nonetheless lost.  At some point, even though I didn't fully subscribe to "Calvinism" or "TULIP", or recognize that regeneration comes first, or the details of the atonement, or how it all worked, at some point I trusted in Christ for my salvation, deep down, rather than my works.  I would say at that point I was saved.  Spiritually immature, but saved.

So, although I used to call "Arminianism" a false gospel, I can't do that anymore without some kind of qualification.  I know you actually do believe every Arminian is unregenerate, so you can consistently call it a false gospel.  But Robbins doesn't think this, yet he criticizes Spurgeon for not applying Galatians 1:6-9 against Arminians, when he himself doesn't apply it against Arminians.  He's inconsistent with himself.

Mind you, if you want to say Spurgeon was a little TOO tolerant of Arminianism, I might agree with you (Although that's a far cry from saying he was some kind of pseudo-Arminian himself... I have no doubt the likes of Robbins would say the same thing about Whitefield... The classic example of "peace speaking" that Carpenterites feed on), as I said, I'd personally have a hard time letting an Arminian preach from any pulpit of mine, although I have no real leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing Spurgeon, seeing as he was much more mature spiritually than I'll ever be, so take that with a grain of salt.  But that doesn't justify an internally inconsistent criticism using Galatians 1:6-9 like Robbins does.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think its kind of funny that, after going after Spurgeon for the whole article for engaging in double-speak, John Robbins himself engages in double-speak.
> 
> He says:
> 
> 
> 
> John Robbins himself does not believe all Arminians are unregenerate, so he's actually contradicting himself here.  (I know this because I remember reading why Carpenter anathemized him, and it was of course for this reason) 
> 
> Now, I think I'm somewhere between Spurgeon and you on this particular issue.  I'd have a hard time letting an Arminian preach from my pulpit (If I had one.)  I don't claim that I can't learn anything from Arminian preachers, but I do believe this is an important issue that a church should stand united on, and that the correct answers are clear.  I think consistent Arminianism is a false gospel.  However, I would call some forms of inconsistent Arminianism to be an erroneous or warped version of the true gospel.  So I would not ALWAYS say that "Arminianism" is a false gospel.  I think ultimately it depends not on whether someone knows whether regeneration comes first, but whether they ultimately, deep down, condition their salvation on works or on Christ.  When I was seven years old, I prayed the sinner's prayer, and I thought that saved me.  I was lost.  I was sincere, I was mistaught, but I was nonetheless lost.  At some point, even though I didn't fully subscribe to "Calvinism" or "TULIP", or recognize that regeneration comes first, or the details of the atonement, or how it all worked, at some point I trusted in Christ for my salvation, deep down, rather than my works.  I would say at that point I was saved.  Spiritually immature, but saved.
> ...



Hold on... I thought John Robbins wrote this article, but it was in fact Marc Carpenter.  No wonder I thought Robbins contradcited himself!

So, I'll have to retract that assertion.

I still wish you'd explain to me why you still take Carpenter seriously.  If you gave me an email I'd give you my ridiculous conversation with him and Chris Duncan that would show you why you shouldn't.  I assume you've never actually emailed me, because if you did they would have told you you were unregenerate and you probably would have realized you were wasting your time

Carpenter is just being Carpenter, although back then he seems like he was a little less "loud" about his condemnation of heretics (He doesn't explicitly call Spurgeon anathema in that article, as he does on OTC).  So, yeah, forget that I called Robbins hypocritical...  Turns out he didn't write the article...

----------


## Christian Liberty

From the Trinity Foundation, NOT Marc Carpenter:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=166

Very, VERY different perspective on Spurgeon.  He was NOT an Arminian.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> From the Trinity Foundation, NOT Marc Carpenter:
> 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=166
> 
> Very, VERY different perspective on Spurgeon.  He was NOT an Arminian.


I don't think Spurgeon was an Arminian, but I think he was not a consistent Biblical Christian.  And it all goes back to Amyraldianism. It all goes back to some variant of a denial of particular redemption.  It all goes back to the heresy of common grace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think Spurgeon was an Arminian, but I think he was not a consistent Biblical Christian.


I could read this statement a couple of different ways.  Are you saying you believe Spurgeon was an inconsistent Christian, or that he was not a Christian at all?

BTW: I also find this comment kind of funny considering you're using Marc Carpenter to back up your point.  Do you seriously view him as a "Consistent Biblical Christian?"




> And it all goes back to Amyraldianism.


Amyraldians reject Limited Atonement.  I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Spurgeon rejected Limited Atonement.




> It all goes back to some variant of a denial of particular redemption.


Again, Spurgeon didn't deny particular redemption.




> It all goes back to the heresy of common grace.


Meh, I guess I'm a heretic too.  I too believe in common grace.  

I think Phil Johnson is a little too fast and loose with the word "Hyper-Calvinism" here (As I said, I don't really like the term much like I don't really like "Hypo-Calvinism" but otherwise I agree with what he says about common grace and universal love here:




> *4. The denial of common grace.* The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.
> The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).
> The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.
> The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.
> *5. The denial of God's love toward the reprobate.* Type-5 hyper-Calvinism is closely related to type-4. To deny that God in any sense loves the reprobate is to suggest that God holds us to a higher standard than He himself follows, for he instructs us to love our enemies—and Scripture teaches that when we love our enemies, we are behaving like God, who shows lovingkindness even to the reprobate (Deut. 10:18; Matt. 5:44-45).
> Furthermore, to insist that God's demeanor toward the non-elect is always and only hatred is a de facto denial of common grace—the same error of type-4 hyper-Calvinism.
> There are some who hold this view, yet manage (by being inconsistent) to avoid other hyper-Calvinist opinions. The most influential advocate of the type-5 position was Arthur Pink. I hesitate to label him a hyper-Calvinist, frankly, because he fought the stronger varieties of hyper-Calvinism in his later years. A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.
> This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's _redemptive love,_ which is reserved for the elect alone, and His _love of compassion,_ which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."


http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Ist Corinthians 1:26-29
> 
> Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.*


...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Hey, Sola, I've got a question for you (going back to the conversation we were having a few months ago, based on Carpenter's critique of Spurgeon.)

I already knew Carpenter and the other Carpenterites claim that Spurgeon was a "tolerant calvinist" and thus wasn't saved for that reason.  But apparently Carpenter and his little cult of followers also believe a particular view of Creation is essential for salvation, and they believe Spurgeon was unregenerate because he denied this view.  See here:

agrammatos.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/spurgeon-denied-six-day-creation/ 

I've tried to use my logical prowess to try to figure out how in the world these guys distinguish between 
"damnable heresies" and "other errors" and I can't even figure out any way other than specifically asking Marc Carpenter about every single doctrine imagineable.  There's simply no connecting logic.

If Carpenter is correct about six-day creationism being an essential gospel doctrine, why is it?  If not, would this logically mean Carpenter himself is not saved, since he's adding to the gospel?

I know this isn't something we should spend too much time on, but since you think the Arminians aren't saved because they subtract particular redemption from the Bible, I'm curious if you think Carpenter is adding to the gospel here, and if not, why not?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hey, Sola, I've got a question for you (going back to the conversation we were having a few months ago, based on Carpenter's critique of Spurgeon.)
> 
> I already knew Carpenter and the other Carpenterites claim that Spurgeon was a "tolerant calvinist" and thus wasn't saved for that reason.  But apparently Carpenter and his little cult of followers also believe a particular view of Creation is essential for salvation, and they believe Spurgeon was unregenerate because he denied this view.  See here:
> 
> agrammatos.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/spurgeon-denied-six-day-creation/ 
> 
> I've tried to use my logical prowess to try to figure out how in the world these guys distinguish between 
> "damnable heresies" and "other errors" and I can't even figure out any way other than specifically asking Marc Carpenter about every single doctrine imagineable.  There's simply no connecting logic.
> 
> ...



Please don't mix me up too much with Marc Carpenter.  I'm just an old fashioned Reformed believer (a real believer in the doctrines of grace, or sovereign grace, or whatever you want to call it).  I'm Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.  

Sometimes they go overboard and anathematize things that probably don't need to be anathematized.  As for creation, in my experience, the people who deny creationism have not been Christians anyway.  They are compromisers with the world...and if you are compromising with the world on creation, then you are most likely compromising on the doctrines of grace as well.

I do try to keep my mind open about what the Scriptures say in regards to a young or old earth.  As far as a salvation issue, I don't know if it is.  I think it may be more along the lines of the evil of our hearts trying to compromise with the world.  But I could be wrong.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Please don't mix me up too much with Marc Carpenter.


I apologize if you think I did that, I know you don't always agree with him.  I was just curious what your opinion of this particular is (BTW: I did challenge Chris Duncan on it several months ago, but they've stopped responding to me because I made a logical slip up in one conversation, lol.)   Heck, Chris never actually answered my questions about marriage theology, which I guess makes sense since why would he bother if he views me as a non-Christian anyway?




> I'm just an old fashioned Reformed believer (a real believer in the doctrines of grace, or sovereign grace, or whatever you want to call it)


Did the historical Calvinists view Arminians as unregenerate?  Not that it necessarily matters, but I'm curious if your view has any actual historical precedent.




> I'm Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.


Amen.



> Sometimes they go overboard and anathematize things that probably don't need to be anathematized.


Don't worry, they anathemized you too  I was just curious what your opinion on that particular was.




> As for creation, in my experience, the people who deny creationism have not been Christians anyway.  They are compromisers with the world...and if you are compromising with the world on creation, then you are most likely compromising on the doctrines of grace as well.


Well, "creationism" simply means that God created the world.  I don't see how any Christian could deny that.  Heck, I don't see how a monotheist could deny that one, even if they weren't a Christian.  In this case I'm referring to six-day creationism, ie. the doctrine that the earth was created in six twenty-four hour days.  The Carpenterites believe (based on the link I sent) that one is damned if he does not take this view.  Thus, they are adding to the gospel.  I'm curious if this makes them unregenerate, and if not, why not.  I don't even think this is anywhere near an essential gospel doctrine the way limited atonement may be, its the logical equivalent of anathemizing someone because they're paedobaptists, or something like that.



> I do try to keep my mind open about what the Scriptures say in regards to a young or old earth.  As far as a salvation issue, I don't know if it is.  I think it may be more along the lines of the evil of our hearts trying to compromise with the world.  But I could be wrong.


I lean toward the young earth view, but I do have some problems with it:

First off, some people argue for the young earth view because of death entering the world before the Fall.  But, plants certainly died before the Fall.  If plants could die before the Fall, is it necessarily the case that humans cannot do so either?

Second, the fourth day features the creation of the Sun "to keep track of days and seasons and years", as well as to separate the light from the darkness.  Yet there were also three "days" and three "nights" before these things were created.  In other words, three days passed before the concept of the "day" was created.  This leads me to consider the possibility of a more poetic interpretation of Genesis 1.  Genesis 2:5 seeming to suggest that creation actually occurs in a logical order (Which Genesis 1 does not) would give further indication to the possibility of a more poetic view.  I do know that scholars are divided on whether Genesis 1 can qualify as poetry or not, but I wouldn't know since I don't know Hebrew.

Third, and this is more a scientific objection than a Biblical one, but I don't really understand how we can see galaxies that are millions of light years away if the earth is only thousands of years old.  Not saying this makes it wrong, but I'm curious.

And finally, the earth was "Without form, and void" in Genesis 1:2, which makes me wonder if something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis  1:2.

Even with all that said, I probably take the Young Earth view.  But its not something I'm going to be dogmatic on, and honestly, I think its a little sad that Christians have turned some people off to the gospel because they'll die on this hill with unbelievers.  If someone believes in the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and trusts in his work on the cross for their Salvation, I don't really care exactly how they interpret Genesis 1 or if they believe the earth is billions of years old.  I just don't see how it matters.

Of course, I only originally brought this up to expose Carpenter's warped logic, but there ya go.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> First off, some people argue for the young earth view because of death entering the world before the Fall.  But, plants certainly died before the Fall.  If plants could die before the Fall, is it necessarily the case that humans cannot do so either?


Because plants are not "alive" in the sense that the Bible uses the word "alive".  Only Humans and animals are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because plants are not "alive" in the sense that the Bible uses the word "alive".  Only Humans and animals are.


Hmm... that's interesting, I don't know why I never considered that argument.

Can you show me where the Bible makes this distinction, and where it says animals were unable to die before the Fall?  Thanks.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ...


BTW: This seems like irrefutable evidence for election to me.  You should post that in whatever thread TC is emotionally appealing to free will.  I'm curious how he'll fight against that one.  I used to believe in "free will" but I eventually reached a point where I couldn't keep twisting those verses and others like them anymore, so I changed my view to get more consistent with God's Word.

If you look back at my early posting history here, I was still dabbling with Arminianism at the beginning of 2013.  I've changed a lot in a short time.

----------


## Brett85

> Paul, the most important missionary in history, describes his motivation for missions:





> ◄*2 Timothy 2:10*
> 
> Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.


"we know that Peter is talking to Jews and that their election has nothing to do
with salvation. Therefore, this is not a Calvinistic call for us to somehow make sure that
we have been chosen to eternal life! It is rather a reminder to the chosen people to
embrace the fact that they were elected, chosen by God to be His special treasure.
However, their election is by no means an absolute guarantee that they will inherit
eternal life. Paul corroborates this fact so clearly in 2 Timothy: Therefore I endure all
things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in
Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Tim 2:10) Note well that Paul must endure for the
elect, the Jews, so that they too might be saved. As we have seen, election has nothing to
do with salvation. Furthermore, election is generally a term used of the Jews, who are of
course, the chosen people. This is confirmed yet again in Romans 11, where Paul, who is
speaking about the Jews, states Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake,
but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. (Rom 11:28)

http://www.douglashamp.com/wp-conten...-Hamp-2011.pdf

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hmm... that's interesting, I don't know why I never considered that argument.
> 
> Can you show me where the Bible makes this distinction, and where it says animals were unable to die before the Fall?  Thanks.


In the flood,  Noah took humans and animals only.

The first animal death was the covering that was used when Adam realized he was naked, after he sinned and bought death.

----------


## eduardo89

> In the flood,  Noah took humans and animals only.
> 
> The first animal death was the covering that was used when Adam realized he was naked, after he sinned and bought death.


So Adam never ate meat before the Fall? No animal ate another animal before the fall?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So Adam never ate meat before the Fall? No animal ate another animal before the fall?


Yes.  Both Adam and the animals were vegetarians before the fall.




> *Genesis 1:29–30
> 
> Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
> 
> *

----------


## erowe1

> So Adam never ate meat before the Fall? No animal ate another animal before the fall?


That's what the Bible says.

Before the fall:



> 29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.


-Genesis 1:29-30

After the flood:



> 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.


-Genesis 9:3-4

----------


## Brett85

> Yes.  Both Adam and the animals were vegetarians before the fall.


Cool, we agree on something.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes.  Both Adam and the animals were vegetarians before the fall.


Giving “every green plant” to animals as food does not mean that some of them weren’t also carnivores. It’s not as if, before original sin, lions ate dandelions and toadstools and only afterward did they begin picking on poor old wildebeest. This is something Thomas Aquinas wrote about in his Summa Theologica:




> In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.
> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm


If we look at what St. Paul writes in Romans 5, he speaks of human death entering the world through sin, not animal death.

----------


## erowe1

> Giving “every green plant” to animals as food does not mean that some of them weren’t also carnivores. It’s not as if, before original sin, lions ate dandelions and toadstools and only afterward did they begin picking on poor old wildebeest. This is something Thomas Aquinas wrote about in his Summa Theologica:


Compare Genesis 1:29-30 with 9:3-4. You may say that the story the Bible tells didn't really happen. But that is the way the story goes.

I don't see anything compelling about what Aquinas said. It's clear (again, at least the way the story goes in the Bible), that the nature of all sorts of things that we recognize today had to change after the fall: the pain of childbirth, the locomotion of snakes, how fertile the ground was, the loss of potential for immortality in human bodies. And, at least in the minds of the original audience of the Bible, this could well have (and I think positively had to) include the diets of lions. Isaiah 66:25 looks forward to a time when the results of the Fall will be undone:



> The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox

----------


## TER

Eduardo, Thomas Aquina with this regard teaches things which contrast what was taught by the Fathers before him.  Adam was a vegetarian prior to the Fall as were the beasts.  St. Basil expresses the Patristic understanding here:




> God did not say: 'I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.' It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.
> 
> What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?
> 
> To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation, and herbs [are given]...We see however, many wild animals who do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?
> 
> Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods: 'Eat all that in the same way as edible plants '(Gen 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.
> 
> ...Nature had not yet divided, for it was in all its freshness; the hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Giving “every green plant” to animals as food does not mean that some of them weren’t also carnivores. It’s not as if, before original sin, lions ate dandelions and toadstools and only afterward did they begin picking on poor old wildebeest. This is something Thomas Aquinas wrote about in his Summa Theologica:
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at what St. Paul writes in Romans 5, he speaks of human death entering the world through sin, not animal death.


I don't care what compromisers with the world like Aquinas say about what they think is "unreasonable".  The Word of God says humans and animals have the breath of life in them, humans and animals were vegetarians before the fall, and there was no death before sin entered the world.

The Word of God is right and evil men like Aquinas are wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> If we look at what St. Paul writes in Romans 5, he speaks of human death entering the world through sin, not animal death.


And if we look at what he said in Romans 8, all creation groans, having been subjected to futility by him who subjected it, being under a bondage of decay from which it will eventually be freed, which I think must refer to the consequences of the Fall.

----------


## TER

> I don't care what compromisers with the world like Aquinas say about what they think is "unreasonable".  The Word of God says humans and animals have the breath of life in them, humans and animals were vegetarians before the fall, and there was no death before sin entered the world.
> 
> The Word of God is right and evil men like Aquinas are wrong.


Uh, Aquinas being mistaken does not mean he is evil.  Please stop judging men who were far better Christians then many of us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If we look at what St. Paul writes in Romans 5, he speaks of human death entering the world through sin, not animal death.


  Adam's sin brought suffering and death to all creation, including animals.

----------


## erowe1

> Hmm... that's interesting, I don't know why I never considered that argument.
> 
> Can you show me where the Bible makes this distinction, and where it says animals were unable to die before the Fall?  Thanks.


In the Bible, humans and animals are called living souls, they have the breath of life, and they have blood (in which is life). None of these things are said about plants.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Eduardo, Thomas Aquina with this regard teaches things which contrast what was taught by the Fathers before him.


That's a bizarre standard of authority.

----------


## TER

> That's a bizarre standard of authority.


Really?  So what did the early Christians, including St. Paul, have as their standard of authority before the writings of the New Testament were even written?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In the Bible, humans and animals are called living souls, they have the breath of life, and they have blood (in which is life). None of these things are said about plants.


Verse?



> I don't care what compromisers with the world like Aquinas say about what they think is "unreasonable".  The Word of God says humans and animals have the breath of life in them, humans and animals were vegetarians before the fall, and there was no death before sin entered the world.
> 
> The Word of God is right and evil men like Aquinas are wrong.


I've been following this argument, and I think both sides have valid points.  I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1 makes you "evil" if you get it wrong.

I'm not doubting you have some other reason to call Thomas Aquinas an "Evil man" but I don't think being wrong on this is enough.  In fact, I'm not necessarily sure that he's wrong.  Eduardo makes a valid point here.

If Genesis 9 is going to be factored into this, that would mean that the sheep-raising Abel and the livestock raising descendant of Cain (Can't remember his name, making a quick post ATM) didn't actually eat the meat of the animals they raised.  Which is possible, I guess.  I know sheep can be used as wool.  But... Abel killed his animals as a sacrifice to God.  If it was OK to kill them for that reason, why was it wrong to eat meat?

The only aspect of this that I would say is important enough to maybe separate over or draw lines in the sand on is that humans didn't die before the Fall, and that humans were specially created (ie. humans did not evolve from animals.)  Other than that, I don't really think being in error over Genesis 1 is something that would affect salvation or would really be all that important in the grand scheme of things.  I don't necessarily know which view on this is correct.

----------


## erowe1

> Verse?


Genesis 2:19 (where "living creature" is literally "living soul"):



> 9 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.


Genesis 7:15:



> And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.


Leviticus 7:10-14:



> 10 ‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ 12 Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’
> 
> 13 “Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; 14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’

----------


## jmdrake

I'm wondering why people are assuming plants died before the fall?  Because they were eaten?  You can eat fruit of a tree without killing the tree.  You can eat leaves of an herb without killing the herb.  People even do that today.




In contrast, when Jesus cursed the fig tree it (the entire tree) withered and died.  When God sent the worm into the gourd vine He grew for Jonah it withered and died.  Did such death of an entire plant happen prior to the fall?  I dunno.  I don't see what that would have had to have happened though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

But at least the part of the plant that was consumed would have to have died when it was eaten.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So what did the early Christians, including St. Paul, have as their standard of authority before the writings of the New Testament were even written?


The Scriptures.  That is what Jesus and Paul both appealed to as their final authority. 

You don't see Paul citing his local rabbi as an authority do you?  Of course not.

----------


## erowe1

> But at least the part of the plant that was consumed would have to have died when it was eaten.


I think the way you are using the word "die" here is different than any kind of death the Bible talks about.

----------


## TER

> The Scriptures.  That is what Jesus and Paul both appealed to as their final authority. 
> 
> You don't see Paul citing his local rabbi as an authority do you?  Of course not.


The question is how did the early Christians appeal to the teachings of Christ when the New Testament wasn't written yet?

Well, the answer is through the common liturgical worship, through the oral tradition, through epistles, and through obedience to the Apostles and those the Apostles ordained by the sacrament of the laying of hands, namely, their ordained teachers and fathers in the faith.  This is how the early Church operated before _and_ after the New Testament was written.  The New Testament was simply the writing down of the most important and cursory teachings of the oral tradition which preceded it (and certainly did not include ALL the teachings of the oral faith, of which St. John said not all the books in the world could contain).  

This is why St. Paul was sure to stress to those he was instructing to obey not only the things written down in the epistles (or in the Scriptures) but those things which they were taught by word of mouth via oral tradition.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The question is how did the early Christians appeal to the teachings of Christ when the New Testament wasn't written yet?
> 
> Well, the answer is through the common liturgical worship, through the oral tradition, through epistles, and through obedience to the Apostles and those the Apostles ordained by the sacrament of the laying of hands, namely, their ordained teachers and fathers in the faith.  This is how the early Church operated before _and_ after the New Testament was written.  The New Testament was simply the writing down of the most important and cursory teachings of the oral tradition which preceded it (and certainly did not include ALL the teachings of the oral faith, of which St. John said not all the books in the world could contain).  
> 
> This is why St. Paul was sure to stress to those he was instructing to obey not only the things written down in the epistles (or in the Scriptures) but those things which they were taught by word of mouth via oral tradition.


Yes. The apostles had authority to convey the word of God by word or by letter.  All of the apostles are now dead.  So that authority no longer exists.   What God has preserved for Christians today is the written account of apostles.  Nothing is to be added to this, whether it's new revelations of the Spirit or the traditions of men.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the way you are using the word "die" here is different than any kind of death the Bible talks about.


You're probably right.  Maybe the Bible doesn't acknowledge plant death.  At any rate, animals have no eternal souls so I don't really see why it matters whether they died before the Fall or not.  Does it?

Even if only human death and human suffering entered the world through the Fall, that would still be one heck of a punishment.




> Yes. The apostles had authority to convey the word of God by word or by letter.  All of the apostles are now dead.  So that authority no longer exists.   What God has preserved for Christians today is the written account of apostles.  Nothing is to be added to this, whether it's new revelations of the Spirit or the traditions of men.


Just out of curiosity, do you believe God speaks to people today? Obviously I'm talking about personal revelation here, not new scriptures.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just out of curiosity, do you believe God speaks to people today? Obviously I'm talking about personal revelation here, not new scriptures.


Of course.  The Spirit speaks to all Christians through the Word of God.  He calls to mind all that has been written, and is our constant comfort.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course.  The Spirit speaks to all Christians through the Word of God.  He calls to mind all that has been written, and is our constant comfort.


Amen.

----------


## Brett85

> You're probably right.  Maybe the Bible doesn't acknowledge plant death. * At any rate, animals have no eternal souls* so I don't really see why it matters whether they died before the Fall or not.


I'm not convinced that humans do either, even though that's what I used to believe.  The concept of the "immortal soul" actually comes from Greek mythology, not Christianity.  Most of the evidence in the Bible points to human beings going back into the ground when they die, and then being "dead in Christ" until Jesus comes back and raises believers from the dead with an immortal body, and then raising the unsaved from the dead a thousand years later.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not convinced that humans do either, even though that's what I used to believe.  The concept of the "immortal soul" actually comes from Greek mythology, not Christianity.  Most of the evidence in the Bible points to human beings going back into the ground when they die, and then being "dead in Christ" until Jesus comes back and raises believers from the dead with an immortal body, and then raising the unsaved from the dead a thousand years later.


Jesus told the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in paradise."  Which contradicts your belief here.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not convinced that humans do either, even though that's what I used to believe.  The concept of the "immortal soul" actually comes from Greek mythology, not Christianity.  Most of the evidence in the Bible points to human beings going back into the ground when they die, and then being "dead in Christ" until Jesus comes back and raises believers from the dead with an immortal body, and then raising the unsaved from the dead a thousand years later.


Where do you get any of that from???




> Jesus told the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in paradise."  Which contradicts your belief here.


+rep

It also completely demolishes 'soul sleep'/'soul mortality' proponents' arguments.

----------


## Brett85

> Jesus told the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in paradise."  Which contradicts your belief here.


No, you should look up that verse in its original form in Greek.  When that verse was originally written, there was no punctuation in it.  Later on, translators added punctuation to that verse to make it more readable.  But they didn't know where to put it, they just put it in the middle of the sentence to make it easier to read.  This is what the verse looked like before the comma was added.

"Verily I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise."

This is what it looks like in most translations of the Bible today.

"Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise.

You can easily see how the comma could be put in a different place to make the meaning of the verse completely different.

"Verily I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise."

Also, we know that Jesus wasn't in paradise with the thief on the cross on the day that he died, because Jesus didn't ascend to heaven on the day that he died.  He didn't ascend to heaven until later on, after he had been resurrected from the dead and showed himself to the disciples.  So the idea that Jesus was with the thief on the cross in paradise on the day that he was crucified simply doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Brett85

> Where do you get any of that from???


The fact that there's not a single verse in the Bible that refers to the "immortal soul."  The Bible says that God alone is immortal.  

1 Timothy 6:16

"God alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

----------


## eduardo89

> No, you should look up that verse in its original form in Greek.  When that verse was originally written, there was no punctuation in it.  Later on, translators added punctuation to that verse to make it more readable.  But they didn't know where to put it, they just put it in the middle of the sentence to make it easier to read.  This is what the verse looked like before the comma was added.
> 
> "Verily I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise."
> 
> This is what it looks like in most translations of the Bible today.
> 
> "Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise.
> 
> You can easily see how the comma could be put in a different place to make the meaning of the verse completely different.
> ...


This is a good reply to that hogwash of an interpretation.




> *Is the Greek text ambiguous?*
> The first point to note is that Jesus was communicating with the thief verbally. In any language, people converse without commas, semicolons, question marks or exclamation marks. In fact, writers employ such devices only because they believe that the spoken message is clearer and want to approximate it. It is not true, therefore, that what Jesus said was ambiguous. The introduction of the commas into the manuscripts (centuries later) is irrelevant.
> 
> One may be tempted to object by saying that it is the position of the written comma that reveals what Christ really said. This is precisely what is not true of the passage in question. The author of the Gospel was not present at the crucifixion to hear Christ's comment personally. Christ's comment was recorded from the oral tradition of the disciples. This leads us to the second point: that the oral tradition had preserved this comment in a particular form, with the spoken emphasis already built into it.
> 
> *Commas have no syntactical value in New Testament Greek.* If commas are later introduced by an editor, they would serve only to make the text easier to read — not to clarify the meaning. Commas, in any edition of the Greek New Testament, are intended only as a help to the reader, not as a means of safeguarding the correct understanding of a passage.
> 
> In view of the above details, the presupposition that the text of Luke 23:43 is ambiguous without the comma is not legitimate.
> 
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Also, we know that Jesus wasn't in paradise with the thief on the cross on the day that he died, because Jesus didn't ascend to heaven on the day that he died. He didn't ascend to heaven until later on, after he had been resurrected from the dead and showed himself to the disciples. So the idea that Jesus was with the thief on the cross in paradise on the day that he was crucified simply doesn't make any sense.


Sure it does, he was in paradise with him until he rose from the dead.

----------


## Brett85

> Sure it does, he was in paradise with him until he rose from the dead.


What verse says that?

----------


## Christian Liberty

None, I'm just saying there's no contradiction.  Also, the "today, you will be with me in paradise", unless you're right about the translation issue.

----------


## eduardo89

> What verse says that?


The verse you quoted, Luke 23:43. Christ and the thief died and both were in the Bosom of Abraham/Hades/limbo of the fathers where the thief remained until Christ opened the gates of Heaven for the righteous.

----------


## Brett85

> This is a good reply to that hogwash of an interpretation.


That's just one interpretation of that verse.  There are other interpretations of that verse that differ with that.  Either way, that verse doesn't in any way come close to proving that Christians go to heaven immediately when we die.

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and...-that-day.aspx

----------


## Brett85

> The verse you quoted, Luke 23:43. Christ and the thief died and both were in the Bosom of Abraham/Hades/limbo of the fathers where the thief remained until Christ opened the gates of Heaven for the righteous.


That verse doesn't say any such thing.  The verse below says that Jesus had not yet ascended to his father on the Sunday when he was raised from the dead.

John 20:17

“Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.”’”

----------


## Brett85

I probably shouldn't have changed the subject, though.  I'll create a new thread sometime regarding that issue.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not convinced that humans do either, even though that's what I used to believe.  The concept of the "immortal soul" actually comes from Greek mythology, not Christianity.


No that's not true.  The _pre-existence_ of souls is the Greek idea.  No Christian believes in the pre-existence of the soul.  Every Christian believes in the immortality of the soul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sola_Fide- Maybe I don't understand the implications behind the idea, but I know that there are some professing Christians who believe in PCE.  Why is this a damnable heresy?

To be clear, I do not believe in PCE.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> @Sola_Fide- Maybe I don't understand the implications behind the idea, but I know that there are some professing Christians who believe in PCE.  Why is this a damnable heresy?
> 
> To be clear, I do not believe in PCE.


What do you mean by PCE?

----------


## Brett85

> Every Christian believes in the immortality of the soul.


Not true.  I could name a large number of Christians who don't believe in the immortality of the soul, because it simply isn't in the Bible.  The Bible says that God alone is immortal.  That verse is as explicit as any verse in the Bible.

1 Timothy 6:16

 "God alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

----------


## Brett85

If you want to say that anyone who holds a different view on this issue is going to get thrown into hell, then I guess you can.  But the Bible is clear on how we are saved, and it doesn't have anything to do with when you think Christians will go to heaven or what you think hell will consist of.

Acts 16:31

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you mean by PCE?



Pre-Conception Existence.  AKA: Pre-existence of the soul before conception.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not true.  I could name a large number of Christians who don't believe in the immortality of the soul, because it simply isn't in the Bible.  The Bible says that God alone is immortal.  That verse is as explicit as any verse in the Bible.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:16
> 
>  "God alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."


Explicit?  TC, you have probably never read a Greek word in your life.  The Greek word for "immortality" in 1st Timothy 6:16 is _athanasia_.  God alone possesses (_echon_) immortality_(athanasia_) as a unique character of His being.

The ones who believe (as in John 3:16) are given _zeon aionion_ (eternal life) in a point in time.  The soul IS immortal, but the difference between 1st Timothy 6:16 and John 3:16 is that believers who are given eternal life are given it in a point in time, they do not posses it intrinsically.  So in that sense God is alone in possessing immortality (_athanasia_).

TC, you have never even considered this, and you probably don't care.  You may be content to copy/paste off your liberal cultist websites and never truly understand what the Bible teaches.   But I would hope you dig in to it a little more, because you are like a little ship on the sea right now, being tossed around by every little wave of doctrine.

----------


## Brett85

> Explicit?  TC, you have probably never read a Greek word in your life.  The Greek word for "immortality" in 1st Timothy 6:16 is _athanasia_.  God alone possesses (_echon_) immortality_(athanasia_) as a unique character of His being.
> 
> The ones who believe (as in John 3:16) are given _zeon aionion_ (eternal life) in a point in time.  The soul IS immortal, but the difference between 1st Timothy 6:16 and John 3:16 is that believers who are given eternal life are given it in a point in time, they do not posses it intrinsically.  So in that sense God is alone in possessing immortality (_athanasia_).
> 
> TC, you have never even considered this, and you probably don't care.  You may be content to copy/paste off your liberal cultist websites and never truly understand what the Bible teaches.   But I would hope you dig in to it a little more, because you are like a little ship on the sea right now, being tossed around by every little wave of doctrine.


What you call "liberal" I would just call Biblical.  I'm hardly a "liberal" either religiously or politically when you look at my overall views.




> The ones who believe (as in John 3:16) are given _zeon aionion_ (eternal life) in a point in time.


I completely agree.  You won't get any argument from me on that.  The only way that we as Christians can gain immortality is through Christ.  We can gain immortality and eternal life by accepting Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.  Those who don't accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior can never gain immortality and eternal life.  They're thrown into the lake of fire and are destroyed; they die the second death.

I think you were confused by what I was saying earlier.  I wasn't saying that Christians aren't given immortality and eternal life when we accept Christ.  I was just saying that we aren't born with an immortal soul.  We are only given immortality when we accept Christ.  And only Christians are given immortality.  Those who are unsaved *perish*, just like John 3:16 says.

----------


## eduardo89

> I think you were confused by what I was saying earlier.  I wasn't saying that Christians aren't given immortality and eternal life when we accept Christ.  I was just saying that we aren't born with an immortal soul.  We are only given immortality when we accept Christ.  And only Christians are given immortality.  Those who are unsaved *perish*, just like John 3:16 says.


So you don't believe in an eternal Hell then? You believe those who do not go to Heaven are destroyed?

That is completely unbiblical.

----------


## Brett85

> So you don't believe in an eternal Hell then? You believe those who do not go to Heaven are destroyed?
> 
> That is completely unbiblical.


No, it's entirely Biblical.  I could probably give you over 100 different verses that back up the doctrine of annihilationism. I also posted an hour long video by Edward Fudge about this topic, which no one commented on.  So I have to assume that no one even watched the video.

I no longer believe in an eternal hell, because the Bible says that hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire.  I believe in eternal punishment in the sense that those who are destroyed are never able to come back to life.  The punishment is eternal in its consequences.  The decision is final and can never be reversed.  Those who die in the lake of fire can never come back to life and can never be saved and make it into heaven, so the punishment they receive is an "eternal punishment."  It's final and the results last forever.

Also, I'm not 100% sure that I'm correct on this, but I just think that there's much more Biblical evidence for this doctrine than there is for the doctrine of eternal torment.  But I'm still open minded and would be open to changing my mind if someone presented a verse that actually says that people who go to hell are tormented for all eternity.  But I still haven't seen any such verse.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it's entirely Biblical.  I could probably give you over 100 different verses that back up the doctrine of annihilationism. I also posted an hour long video by Edward Fudge about this topic, which no one commented on.  So I have to assume that no one even watched the video.
> 
> I no longer believe in an eternal hell, because the Bible says that hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire.  I believe in eternal punishment in the sense that those who are destroyed are never able to come back to life.  The punishment is eternal in its consequences.  The decision is final and can never be reversed.  Those who die in the lake of fire can never come back to life and can never be saved and make it into heaven, so the punishment they receive is an "eternal punishment."  It's final and the results last forever.


The problem is not the use of the word "destroy" for God's punishment of sinners. It's the idea that their destruction entails a cessation of existence. There are zero places in the Bible that teach that. But there are at least some places in the Bible that teach that their destruction entails their continued existence and the endurance of experienced punishment, including some that say that it goes on forever and ever.

When you say "Hell," I assume you mean Hades. Yes, Hades does not last forever and ever. But the Lake of Fire does. The English word "Hell" gets used for both by some, and that probably confuses the issue.

----------


## jmdrake

> The problem is not the use of the word "destroy" for God's punishment of sinners. It's the idea that their destruction entails a cessation of existence. There are zero places in the Bible that teach that.


God to Lucifer:

Ezekiel 28:18-19

_By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.

All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.'"_

So you are wrong.  There is at least one verse in the Bible that teaches that the ultimate sinner, Lucifer, will be burned until he is "no more".  And yes, there are verses that imply that hell will go on forever and ever.  That's why the Bible is ultimately up for interpretation.  I tried to make that point in the "Five I's to understanding the Bible" thread but nobody wanted to talk about it.  I was making that point in the "How did Judas die" thread, but folks seemed more interested in talking about Constantine.  But over and over again I see people here, you included (and me sometimes as well I supposed) say "The Bible doesn't say X" when being shown a verse where the Bible clearly *does* say X.  We say it doesn't say X because we have our own explanations why X doesn't mean X.  Or we say "The Bible says Y" when the Bible doesn't actually say Y.  But we have our own explanations as to why Z actually implies Y.  But rather than saying "The Bible implies Y by saying Z" we take the shortcut and say "The Bible says Y."  We'd like to believe that our beliefs are solely influenced by our understanding of the Bible.  But the truth is that our understanding of the Bible is strongly influenced by our beliefs.

----------


## erowe1

> God to Lucifer:
> 
> Ezekiel 28:18-19
> 
> _By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.
> 
> All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.'"_
> 
> So you are wrong.  There is at least one verse in the Bible that teaches that the ultimate sinner, Lucifer, will be burned until he is "no more".  And yes, there are verses that imply that hell will go on forever and ever.  That's why the Bible is ultimately up for interpretation.  I tried to make that point in the "Five I's to understanding the Bible" thread but nobody wanted to talk about it.  I was making that point in the "How did Judas die" thread, but folks seemed more interested in talking about Constantine.  But over and over again I see people here, you included (and me sometimes as well I supposed) say "The Bible doesn't say X" when being shown a verse where the Bible clearly *does* say X.  We say it doesn't say X because we have our own explanations why X doesn't mean X.  Or we say "The Bible says Y" when the Bible doesn't actually say Y.  But we have our own explanations as to why Z actually implies Y.  But rather than saying "The Bible implies Y by saying Z" we take the shortcut and say "The Bible says Y."  We'd like to believe that our beliefs are solely influenced by our understanding of the Bible.  But the truth is that our understanding of the Bible is strongly influenced by our beliefs.


That passage doesn't mention Lucifer (which is a Latin word that nowhere appears in any passage of the Bible in the original languages). Most commentators on the Hebrew text of this passage just see it as figurative language about the king of Tyre, which is, after all, who the text itself says it is about. And the language is not that different than the kind of figurative language Ezekiel uses elsewhere for earthly kings. But I get where you're coming from. You see this as describing Satan at some point in the past, when he was good and then became bad. Maybe that's correct. So let's just go with it.

If it is about some literal angel, that once was good and became bad, and that may or may not be the same angel that the Bible elsewhere calls Satan, then we still have to read it figuratively. What will literally happen that Ezekiel's vision describes as ashes on the land? What will literally happen that he tersely sums up with the phrase, "you will be no more"? Taken for the king of Tyre, these things would just refer to his physical end, and the end of his reign and glory as king, that would have been described in the foregoing metaphors. And if, in addition to being about an angel, and not just the king of Tyre, then these phrases would have to point to something analogous to that. But I don't think the text gives us any way to work out the details of what that analogy would be. Is it talking about something that has already happened to this angel, or something that hasn't happened yet? Is it talking about something about the existence of that angel in this world, or in any world? What does it mean that he will no longer be, anyway? Is it no longer existing at all? No longer having his former glory that was described in all the previous verses? No longer being in a certain realm? The Hebrew here is one single word with a suffix. It's the same word that is used in Genesis 5:24 for when Enoch "was not."

----------


## Brett85

> The problem is not the use of the word "destroy" for God's punishment of sinners. It's the idea that their destruction entails a cessation of existence. There are zero places in the Bible that teach that. But there are at least some places in the Bible that teach that their destruction entails their continued existence and the endurance of experienced punishment, including some that say that it goes on forever and ever.
> 
> When you say "Hell," I assume you mean Hades. Yes, Hades does not last forever and ever. But the Lake of Fire does. The English word "Hell" gets used for both by some, and that probably confuses the issue.


The word "destruction" itself implies that they cease to exist.  That's what that word means.  That's also what the word "death" and "perish" mean as well.  Those words don't imply a continued existence in any way.  The only way that your point would be correct is if the Bible used terms like "destructing" or "punishing."  If the Bible used those terms, then you could say that those who go to hell experience a constant state of "destructing" or "punishing."  But the Bible doesn't use those terms.  It used the terms "destruction" and "punishment," which refer to a one time event.  The word "eternal" is added to make it clear that it's an event that has eternal consequences that can't be undone.  If the word "eternal" weren't used, then the universalists could claim that those who die in the lake of fire can eventually be brought back to life and allowed into heaven.  But since these verses use the word "eternal," we know that the universalists simply don't have a leg to stand on.

----------


## Brett85

> That passage doesn't mention Lucifer (which is a Latin word that nowhere appears in any passage of the Bible in the original languages). Most commentators on the Hebrew text of this passage just see it as figurative language about the king of Tyre, which is, after all, who the text itself says it is about.


So the king of Tyre was in the Garden of Eden?

Ezekiel 28:13

"You were in Eden, the garden of God."

----------


## erowe1

> The word "destruction" itself implies that they cease to exist.  That's what that word means.  That's also what the word "death" and "perish" mean as well.


I'm not sure where you got these definitions. But it looks like you're imposing them on the text. Can I ask where?

----------


## erowe1

> So the king of Tyre was in the Garden of Eden?
> 
> Ezekiel 28:13
> 
> "You were in Eden, the garden of God."


First of all, it explicitly says "king of Tyre." So, yeah, whatever that means to be in the Garden of Eden, the very passage that you're talking about says that the king of Tyre was there.

Second of all, compare that mention of the garden of Eden to those in Ezekiel 31:9, 16, and 18. And when you look up those passages, be sure to read the context and take a moment to think about all the metaphors in them. Is that passage talking about Pharaoh and Egypt and Assyria? It says it is.

I'm not saying that we can't see a spiritual second meaning behind Ezekiel 28, where it addresses a real cherub, and not merely the king of Tyre that it claims to be addressing. But it's not a simple thing. You won't find many commentators on the Hebrew text who agree with that view, and those who do will see it as a way to spiritualize the Old Testament, not as something that Ezekiel himself consciously meant when he wrote those words.

My point is not to contradict that view though. My point is to make sure we consider the questions I raised in my next paragraph. I don't think we're warranted to see a cessation of existence, including spiritual existence in the afterlife, of anyone in that passage, whether human or angelic. It just doesn't address that.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not sure where you got these definitions. But it looks like you're imposing them on the text. Can I ask where?


I got the meaning of those words from how they appear elsewhere in the Bible.  The verses below are referring to the flood, and we know that the word "perish" here means to cease to exist, since the Flood destroyed every living thing except for the people and animals in the ark.

Genesis 7:21-23

All flesh that moved on the earth *perished.* 
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, *died.*
Thus he *blotted out* every living thing that was upon the face of the land.

----------


## erowe1

> I got the meaning of those words from how they appear elsewhere in the Bible.  The verses below are referring to the flood, and we know that the word "perish" here means to cease to exist, since the Flood destroyed every living thing except for the people and animals in the ark.
> 
> Genesis 7:21-23
> 
> All flesh that moved on the earth *perished.* 
> All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, *died.*
> Thus he *blotted out* every living thing that was upon the face of the land.


Where does it say anything about a cessation of existence there, or anywhere else?

Are you saying that the people who died then didn't even go to Hades? And if so, do you really conclude that from something in the text?

If anything that verse illustrates my point.

----------


## Brett85

> Where does it say anything about a cessation of existence there, or anywhere else?
> 
> Are you saying that the people who died then didn't even go to Hades? And if so, do you really conclude that from something in the text?
> 
> If anything that verse illustrates my point.


I don't see any verse in the Bible that says that people go immediately to heaven or hell when they die.  It says that they go back into the ground where they came from, until Jesus comes back to earth and first raises believers from the dead, and then the unsaved after that.  The Bible states that no one is in heaven yet except for God/Jesus.

John 3:13

No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

----------


## Brett85

I'm going to start a new thread about this since this thread is supposed to be about Arminianism, and I don't think that the theology that I'm presenting has anything to do with Arminianism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I got the meaning of those words from how they appear elsewhere in the Bible.  The verses below are referring to the flood, and we know that the word "perish" here means to cease to exist, since the Flood destroyed every living thing except for the people and animals in the ark.
> 
> Genesis 7:21-23
> 
> All flesh that moved on the earth *perished.* 
> All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, *died.*
> Thus he *blotted out* every living thing that was upon the face of the land.


Like I said, you are a little boat being tossed around by every wave of doctrine.   Annihilationism is popular right now in theological circles, so you pick it up without even thinking about it or even trying to understand the Biblical position on this.

One of the assumptions of this doctrine is that when a person goes to Hell, that person stops sinning.  This is nowhere in the Bible.  Punishment is eternal because a person in Hell never stops sinning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm going to start a new thread about this since this thread is supposed to be about Arminianism, and I don't think that the theology that I'm presenting has anything to do with Arminianism.


Right.  It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Like I said, you are a little boat being tossed around by every wave of doctrine.   Annihilationism is popular right now in theological circles, so you pick it up without even thinking about it or even trying to understand the Biblical position on this.
> 
> One of the assumptions of this doctrine is that when a person goes to Hell, that person stops sinning.  This is nowhere in the Bible.  Punishment is eternal because a person in Hell never stops sinning.


I agree with you on this, but I'd love to see you debate him on it.  Would be an interesting debate to watch

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right.  It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity either.


I always have to clarify what you mean when you say these things,  is it also impossible for a saved person to believe in annihilation of the unsaved?  If so, why?

----------


## Terry1

It's my opinion that the absolute predestination and the Arminian theories both are flawed because Gods word indicates that predestination and the free will work together harmoniously to bring about the will of God.

Although I do believe the free will does exist, it's of little relevance understanding that we have only one good choice, one path to follow and any other leads only to hell.  God uses our choices or free will to sort us out.  Read the parable of the sower, it explains what I've just said.  Saw this a long time ago.

----------


## erowe1

> It's my opinion that the absolute predestination and the Arminian theories both are flawed because Gods word indicates that predestination and the free will work together harmoniously to bring about the will of God.
> 
> Although I do believe the free will does exist, it's of little relevance understanding that we have only one good choice, one path to follow and any other leads only to hell.  God uses our choices or free will to sort us out.  Read the parable of the sower, it explains what I've just said.  Saw this a long time ago.


I don't have a problem with what you're saying. But notice that you are limited in how you can define "free will" when you say it. You can't use a definition of free will that excludes the possibility of people's free will choices being predestined. And I think that's what a lot of people do.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't have a problem with what you're saying. But notice that you are limited in how you can define "free will" when you say it. You can't use a definition of free will that excludes the possibility of people's free will choices being predestined. And I think that's what a lot of people do.


IMO, we're only predestined by the foreknowledge of God knowing who will choose Him and who won't.  It's all about our choices we make and those who are called and answer their call.  I don't believe God forces anyone to choose Him, but I do believe that he provokes them by and through circumstances in their lives that will serve to lead them to God or they'll walk away because they chose opposite.  

Even the reformationist Martin Luther said that he believed that we had the free will to choose God or to walk away, but it didn't matter in light of the knowledge and wisdom that there's only one good choice and path to take at any given time in our lives.  Hence the shaking down, sorting out and separating the wheat from the chaff.  I believe the harvest has been ongoing for a very long time.

Fact is that those who consider themselves "Christian" need to understand one thing, we can't presume upon God by saying He chooses one above another by the evidence that we see in people.  We're all here as Christians to sow seeds, witness Christ and that's it--nothing more or less.  But the body of Christ has been infiltrated by those calling themselves Christians doing damage to the body by persecuting sinners, casting judgment upon others and literally heretic hunting.  That's not what real Christians are or supposed to be as far as I understand it.  

Arguing over denominational gaps and divides within the body of believers is the worst thing any Christian can do because we've all been separated into different parts to perform different tasks to fulfill the word of God.  It's the same reason God didn't place His spiritual truth all in one place where it could be corrupted as in one church or denomination--that's how it's gets corrupted as reference by the Reformation that freed the word of God for personal interpretation.

We all believe somewhat differently yet the same as a whole for a very good reason.   What Christians really need to focus on is just being who God called them to be and nothing more or less.  

The two greatest commandments were to first, love God and the second is the same as the first love your neighbor as you would yourself, meaning, don't do or say anything to anyone else you wouldn't want said or done to you.  This is the way I understand it and try to live it, surly many will probably disagree with me I'm sure, but then--I don't care about that either.

----------


## erowe1

> Even the reformationist Martin Luther said that he believed that we had the free will to choose God or to walk away, but it didn't matter in light of the knowledge and wisdom that there's only one good choice and path to take at any given time in our lives.


What Luther's view was doesn't really make a difference to me. But could you cite where this claim comes from?

----------


## Terry1

> What Luther's view was doesn't really make a difference to me. But could you cite where this claim comes from?


Yes, it's in Luthers 95 theses line 13 here in this link.  While Luther acknowledges the existence of the free will, he gives it little credit understanding that it only leads to mortal sin when it is applied opposite Gods will.  Here is the line in question and I'll post the link.

*"13.Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin."*

http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php


BTW, I'm not Lutheren, but I do like to read Martin Luther.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, it's in Luthers 95 theses line 13 here in this link.  While Luther acknowledges the existence of the free will, he gives it little credit understanding that it only leads to mortal sin when it is applied opposite Gods will.  Here is the line in question and I'll post the link.
> 
> *"13.Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin."*
> 
> http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm not Lutheren, but I do like to read Martin Luther.


OK. That "in name only," along with the clause that follow it make a pretty big difference. I don't read that as an affirmation of free will but a denial of it.

----------


## Terry1

> OK. That "in name only," along with the clause that follow it make a pretty big difference. I don't read that as an affirmation of free will but a denial of it.


Luther is acknowledging that the free will is of little significance because man left to their own will and devices will inevitably commit mortal sin.  He does acknowledge the will to choose opposite God but he's telling us here in this line that it truly "exists in name only" because it serves mankind no good reason or purpose.  Makes total sense to me.

Free will is Gods tool, it's what God uses to sort us out by our own willingness to serve Him or not.  The free will is not a benefit to mankind, but a detriment because we're able to choose opposite God.

----------


## Terry1

Actually, this is why I say that the argument over the two theories between predestination and free will are ridiculous in light of the truth here that if mankind actually were smart, they wouldn't want a free will because it enables us to make the wrong choices.  This is why I've also said that it's to Gods benefit and not ours that we do have the ability to choose because it's what God uses to choose His elect.  It's symbolic of the Vine that's talked about in John 15:1.  His word clearly says those who are of the vine who don't bear fruit are cast off and burned.  Obviously then, being already part of the Vine they've accepted Christ, but chose another path and were cut off and perished.  

This revelation wipes out the "chosen from birth" and the OSAS doctrines IMO.

----------


## jmdrake

What you are giving, erowe1, is merely your interpretation of the text.  And it's the same interpretation that luciferian/masons use to dispel the idea that Lucifer is "evil".  I don't agree with your assertion that "most commentators see it as figurative language about the king of Tyre."  Historically Christians have seen this passage as a dual prophecy.  And if you simply take the "It's just about the king of Tyre" approach, then you strengthen the hand of those that say that Lucifer/Satan/the devil/hell, was just a Christian/pagan invention.  More on the King of Tyre and Lucifer.

Edit: But furthermore, the prophecy in Ezekiel could *not* have only been talking about an earthly king because it said "You were prefect in all of your ways until sin was found in you."  So unless you are going to believe that, post the fall in Eden, there was some other person who lived a perfect life for some appreciable amount of time, you can't pick the interpretation you are trying to choose.

http://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html
_
Answer: At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11-19 seems to refer to a human king. Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1–28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9,10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to the city of Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11-19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the King of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11-19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11-19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the King of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the King of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12-13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Like Satan, the human King of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the King of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the King of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17-21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-...#ixzz2qVCGCgi4
_




> That passage doesn't mention Lucifer (which is a Latin word that nowhere appears in any passage of the Bible in the original languages). Most commentators on the Hebrew text of this passage just see it as figurative language about the king of Tyre, which is, after all, who the text itself says it is about. And the language is not that different than the kind of figurative language Ezekiel uses elsewhere for earthly kings. But I get where you're coming from. You see this as describing Satan at some point in the past, when he was good and then became bad. Maybe that's correct. So let's just go with it.
> 
> If it is about some literal angel, that once was good and became bad, and that may or may not be the same angel that the Bible elsewhere calls Satan, then we still have to read it figuratively. What will literally happen that Ezekiel's vision describes as ashes on the land? What will literally happen that he tersely sums up with the phrase, "you will be no more"? Taken for the king of Tyre, these things would just refer to his physical end, and the end of his reign and glory as king, that would have been described in the foregoing metaphors. And if, in addition to being about an angel, and not just the king of Tyre, then these phrases would have to point to something analogous to that. But I don't think the text gives us any way to work out the details of what that analogy would be. Is it talking about something that has already happened to this angel, or something that hasn't happened yet? Is it talking about something about the existence of that angel in this world, or in any world? What does it mean that he will no longer be, anyway? Is it no longer existing at all? No longer having his former glory that was described in all the previous verses? No longer being in a certain realm? The Hebrew here is one single word with a suffix. It's the same word that is used in Genesis 5:24 for when Enoch "was not."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you want to say that anyone who holds a different view on this issue is going to get thrown into hell, then I guess you can.  But the Bible is clear on how we are saved, and it doesn't have anything to do with when you think Christians will go to heaven or what you think hell will consist of.
> 
> Acts 16:31
> 
> "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."


OK, so what if I believe Jesus came to show us how to be good enough to earn heaven through our good works?  Am I still saved?  Of course not.

To be clear, I agree that the debate over whether people go to heaven immediately after death or at the Second Coming is a debate saved people can disagree on. But you can't just use Acts 16:31 as a way of getting out of the very real problem of damnable heresy.

----------


## Brett85

> Right.  It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity either.


That's a very arrogant statement to make.  There are different interpretations of the Bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's a very arrogant statement to make.  There are different interpretations of the Bible.  And you didn't respond to any of the verses that I cited or points that I made.


Its not exactly new that Sola makes a distinction between Arminianism and Christianity.  This has been true ever since I've gotten here, and possibly before.

Its only arrogant if he can't prove it.  We've been over this one before and I understand his point, but I think he's wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> What you are giving, erowe1, is merely your interpretation of the text.  And it's the same interpretation that luciferian/masons use to dispel the idea that Lucifer is "evil".


I don't know anything about them. But I don't see how they could support that view with that interpretation, since the passage nowhere mentions anyone named Lucifer.

Also, notice that I tried to be clear that I was not saying that was my interpretation. I'm not dogmatic about it. The important thing is not to draw too much from the passage. It certainly doesn't say anything literal about what the afterlife of anyone, human or angelic, entails. Regardless of whether it refers to a literal angel or a literal human or both, it's packed with figurative language that there's no way Ezekiel expected anyone to take literally.

Even in what you went on to post, it looks like you support the view that the passage somehow addressed both the human king of Tyre and an angelic being. So we're still left with interpreting what it says in a way that needs to be meaningful for that human king of Tyre, and relating it to that angelic being in a way that fits the analogies that the passage is making between that human king and that angelic being. If the human king's destruction wasn't a cessation of existence even in the afterlife, why would the angelic being's have to be?

It's worth pointing out that among Old Testament scholars, of all theological stripes, the view that Ezekiel 28 is talking about Satan is a distinct tiny minority. If you check out the commentaries on Ezekiel at a university library, you'll see what I mean. The link that you gave says that its source is Erwin Lutzer, who is a pastor, and not an Old Testament scholar. I'm not saying the scholars all have to be right. I'm just saying that I'm not comfortable drawing a theological conclusion about the cessation of the existence of some spiritual being from an interpretation of a single word that relies on a chain of conjectures that involve me seeing something in a passage that most of the people who know the most about that passage don't see there, especially when the word itself doesn't always mean a cessation of existence (e.g. Genesis 5:24).

----------


## Brett85

> Its not exactly new that Sola makes a distinction between Arminianism and Christianity.  This has been true ever since I've gotten here, and possibly before.
> 
> Its only arrogant if he can't prove it.  We've been over this one before and I understand his point, but I think he's wrong.


I think he was saying that my theology of conditional immortality/annihilationism doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.  Like I said, rather than actually debate the merits of the issue, he just makes a broad statement that it has "nothing to do with Christianity."  That's despite verses in the Bible that point to it and many early leaders of the church who believed in it, and many Christians who believe in it today.  Even the Bible translator William Tyndale believed in this theology.  It's not just some fringe theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, it's in Luthers 95 theses line 13 here in this link.  While Luther acknowledges the existence of the free will, he gives it little credit understanding that it only leads to mortal sin when it is applied opposite Gods will.  Here is the line in question and I'll post the link.
> 
> *"13.Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin."*
> 
> http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php


You're not making sense.  You are saying Luther believed free will existed (he didn't) and then you post a quote from him that shows he doesn't believe in free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think he was saying that my theology of conditional immortality/annihilationism doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.  Like I said, rather than actually debate the merits of the issue, he just makes a broad statement that it has "nothing to do with Christianity."  That's despite verses in the Bible that point to it and many early leaders of the church who believed in it, and many Christians who believe in it today.  Even the Bible translator William Tyndale believed in this theology.  It's not just some fringe theology.


Fringe or not fringe is not the standard for determining the truth or falsity of a doctrine.  The Bible is the standard for what is true or false doctrine, not what people think is fringe or not.  True Christianity will ALWAYS be fringe, and true Christian doctrine will always be hated because it convicts man of his sin and shows him that he is a powerless pot who is at the mercy of the Sovereign Lord.

I showed you that your interpretation of 1st Timothy 6:16 was incorrect because you don't know what the Greek words mean.  I showed you what they mean.  I got no response from you,  Here, I'll post it again:




> Explicit? TC, you have probably never read a Greek word in your life. The Greek word for "immortality" in 1st Timothy 6:16 is athanasia. God alone possesses (echon) immortality(athanasia) as a unique character of His being.
> 
> The ones who believe (as in John 3:16) are given zeon aionion (eternal life) in a point in time. The soul IS immortal, but the difference between 1st Timothy 6:16 and John 3:16 is that believers who are given eternal life are given it in a point in time, they do not posses it intrinsically. So in that sense God is alone in possessing immortality (athanasia).


You attempted to show that God is the only one who is immortal, and I showed you why that interpretation was wrong when you understand the Greek words.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's a very arrogant statement to make.  There are different interpretations of the Bible.


Yes, but only one can be right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

TC,

Have you ever considered that sinners do not stop sinning when they go to Hell?  Have you ever considered that to be the reason that Hell is eternal?

----------


## Terry1

> You're not making sense.  You are saying Luther believed free will existed (he didn't) and then you post a quote from him that shows he doesn't believe in free will.


I guess that's a matter of opinion and not just mine.  Most theologians already understand and say the very same thing.  If you reread that line again, you might see the true context there.  He's acknowledging the free will saying "*as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin*."  At the same time while Luther acknowledges the free will, gives it very little significance with regard to any benefit because it's not a benefit and only permits one to commit sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> At the same time while Luther acknowledges the free will, gives it very little significance with regard to any benefit because it's not a benefit and only permits one to commit sin.


Then its not free.  The natural will can ONLY sin.  Therefore it is in slavery to sin.  This was the main point in Luther's book called The Bondage Of The Will.

----------


## Terry1

> Then its not free.  The natural will can ONLY sin.  Therefore it is in slavery to sin.  This was the main point in Luther's book called The Bondage Of The Will.


You are correct.  Luther understood that the free will or what some consider the "free will" is not free at all and can only sin.  In other works Luther states this too
* "the power of "free-will" is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace. . . . "free-will" is obviously applicable only to the Divine Majesty If "free-will" is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be-and no blasphemy could exceed that! (10)

Luther argued that although human beings could will, they could only will evil. Anything good that appeared to come from humanity actually came from God; the human creature is merely an agent of divine providence.*

Free will is actually a delusion of some who confuse *choice* with free will.  Obviously, the will isn't free because the wrong choice comes at a price just as a right one does.  There is no "free will" in reality.  It exists in name only as Luther says and gives it little relevance.  It's not a benefit of mankind, it's tool that God uses to sort us out which basically is the choices we make in life.  We are *free* to choose, but the will of mankind has already been purchased for a price, it belongs to God.  This does not mean that mankind are predestined by birth or that they're once saved always saved.  What it means is that the choices we make in this life determine our eternal destinies.  So what crazy person understanding that while they're free to choose would choose opposite God knowing hell awaits them and if they understand what hell entails regarding the eternal torment and suffering?

----------


## Brett85

> OK, so what if I believe Jesus came to show us how to be good enough to earn heaven through our good works?  Am I still saved?  Of course not.
> 
> To be clear, I agree that the debate over whether people go to heaven immediately after death or at the Second Coming is a debate saved people can disagree on. But you can't just use Acts 16:31 as a way of getting out of the very real problem of damnable heresy.


I don't think that anyone here believes that, though.  No one here believes that you can go to heaven through works alone.  Some people here seem to believe in a theology of faith plus works.  They seem to believe that Christ's death and resurrection is the basis for salvation, but that good works are also necessary to be saved.  I disagree with that, as I believe that we're saved through faith in Christ alone.  But, is someone who believes that really going to be sent to hell?  They still believe in Christ's death and resurrection, which is the basis of salvation.  John 3:16 says that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.  At the very least, I'm not going to go around and say that these people who believe in salvation through both faith and works are going to be sent to hell.  I'm just going to say that they're wrong on that, but it's up to God to judge people's eternal destiny.  That's what it says in the Bible.  And even if I privately felt that everyone who holds this view are going to automatically get sent to hell, I wouldn't say something like that publicly.

----------


## TER

> I don't think that anyone here believes that, though.  No one here believes that you can go to heaven through works alone.  Some people here seem to believe in a theology of faith plus works.  They seem to believe that Christ's death and resurrection is the basis for salvation, but that good works are also necessary to be saved.  I disagree with that, as I believe that we're saved through faith in Christ alone.  But, is someone who believes that really going to be sent to hell?  They still believe in Christ's death and resurrection, which is the basis of salvation.  John 3:16 says that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.  At the very least, I'm not going to go around and say that these people who believe in salvation through both faith and works are going to be sent to hell.  I'm just going to say that they're wrong on that, but it's up to God to judge people's eternal destiny.  That's what it says in the Bible.  And even if I privately felt that everyone who holds this view are going to automatically get sent to hell, I wouldn't say something like that publicly.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Philippians 2:12-13 NIV
> 
> Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, *for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.*


Arminians cannot affirm what Paul is saying here.  He is saying that God works in a Christian to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfill his good purpose.

*God WILLS and ACTS in a man.* 

Free will refuted.....cast down to Hell where it came from.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think that anyone here believes that, though.  No one here believes that you can go to heaven through works alone.


There are  people who believe that.  Maybe not here.  It doesn't matter.  Let's deal with the question.  You can't just use "there are different interpretations of the Bible" to cop out of everything.



> Some people here seem to believe in a theology of faith plus works.  They seem to believe that Christ's death and resurrection is the basis for salvation, but that good works are also necessary to be saved.  I disagree with that, as I believe that we're saved through faith in Christ alone.  But, is someone who believes that really going to be sent to hell?  They still believe in Christ's death and resurrection, which is the basis of salvation.  John 3:16 says that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.  At the very least, I'm not going to go around and say that these people who believe in salvation through both faith and works are going to be sent to hell.  I'm just going to say that they're wrong on that, but it's up to God to judge people's eternal destiny.  That's what it says in the Bible.  And even if I privately felt that everyone who holds this view are going to automatically get sent to hell, I wouldn't say something like that publicly.


I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is only one, by faith alone.  Eduardo is right that there's only one correct interpretation.  When it comes to the heart of the gospel, sola fide is in fact an essential doctrine for salvation.  Adding works to the equation is a blasphemous false gospel that cannot save.

And yes, I'm proud to say this publicly.  Why?  Because the people who are still dead in their sins because they believe this blasphemy need to be made aware of their sinful condition.

What you say here is like a doctor who says "You know, I don't really think that there's only one cure to disease X.  But even if I did think that, I wouldn't say it publicly.  I wouldn't want to offend those who are killing themselves with the wrong cure."

----------


## jmdrake

> Arminians cannot affirm what Paul is saying here.  He is saying that God works in a Christian to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfill his good purpose.
> 
> *God WILLS and ACTS in a man.* 
> 
> Free will refuted.....cast down to Hell where it came from.




God only "wills" and "acts" in men who open the door for Him.

_Revelation 3;20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God only "wills" and "acts" in men who open the door for Him.


Lazarus could only be made alive by Christ if he agreed to it, right?

Oh wait.   He was dead.   And the Bible says that the natural man is dead in sins.  How do dead men do anything at all but sit there and rot?

Your entire Arminian philosophy of "you have to accept it" is NOWHERE in the Bible.

----------


## Terry1

> Lazarus could only be made alive by Christ if he agreed to it, right?
> 
> Oh wait.   He was dead.   And the Bible says that the natural man is dead in sins.  How do dead men do anything at all but sit there and rot?
> 
> Your entire Arminian philosophy of "you have to accept it" is NOWHERE in the Bible.


How do you know that Christ is abiding in you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you know that Christ is abiding in you?



Because I believe in the righteousness of Christ alone for salvation. 





> *Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV
> 
> And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are Gods possessionto the praise of his glory.*


When I heard the message of truth, the good news of my salvation, I believed (because God chose me from the foundation of the world, verse 4) and the Holy Spirit did guarantee my inheritance.   

How do I know I'm saved?  Because I believe.

----------


## moostraks

> Lazarus could only be made alive by Christ if he agreed to it, right?
> 
> Oh wait.   He was dead.   And the Bible says that the natural man is dead in sins.  How do dead men do anything at all but sit there and rot?
> 
> Your entire Arminian philosophy of "you have to accept it" is NOWHERE in the Bible.


Have you ever been declared dead before? Have you ever read stories of those who have experienced it? I have seen you using this Lazarus argument before. I think it is faulty because you are imposing a particular bias upon what occurred, a bias that does not have evidence in Scripture. We don't have information on what was going on with Lazarus during the sleep of death. If we did then we might be comparing our relationship to Him and we are not to be judging our walk based upon somebody else's walk. As our Father, His relationship with us is as individual as any parent to their respective children. He knows us intimately as no human knows another. This is why we should not pass judgement on another person's relationship to their Creator. We could explain what we see but we need to trust He knows how to reach His children.

Second, I also see a sequential time problem with what you are comparing here. So we are back to the argument over foreknew and predestined. He foreknew and then he predestined. Lazarus had a relationship with Jesus prior to death. So death did not occur as he already believed. So you will now say, that is because there was no choice. I would say Lazarus made the choice before his death to believe and Jesus knew this, and as much as it pained Him to have his friend die, the death and resurrection were evidence of what Jesus was saying about believe and you shall live. So because of this evidenced in Lazarus many THEN believed. The new believers saw and choose to follow Him.

John 11:21 Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” 23 Jesus *said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 

32 Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and [h]was troubled, 34 and said, “Where have you laid him?” They *said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 

40 Jesus *said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” 41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the [k]people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”

45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Arminians cannot affirm what Paul is saying here.  He is saying that God works in a Christian to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfill his good purpose.
> 
> *God WILLS and ACTS in a man.* 
> 
> Free will refuted.....cast down to Hell where it came from.


Sola do you believe God wills you to sin?

Or do you believe you are sinless?

If you believe that you do sin, does that mean you believe the will of God momentarily leaves you to allow that to happen?

If you believe that the will of God leaves you in those moments, how do you know when you get it back?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola do you believe God wills you to sin?


God wills everything. 




> do you believe you are sinless?


No Christian believes that.




> If you believe that you do sin, does that mean you believe the will of God momentarily leaves you to allow that to happen?


No.  Nothing I do in my life or the bad things that happen to me (even the evil that I do) is an accident.   They were predestined for a greater purpose (God's glory).  Does God hold men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit?  Yes He does.  This can be seen in several places in Scripture. 

God disciples those He loves.  So even my sin may have the purpose of creating an occasion that God may teach me something or show me how wonderful grace is.  Everything has its purpose.  And to a believer, everything happens for his good.  But to the wicked, everything happens to his detriment.

----------


## Terry1

> God wills everything. 
> 
> 
> 
> No Christian believes that.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Nothing I do in my life or the bad things that happen to me (even the evil that I do) is an accident.   They were predestined for a greater purpose (God's glory).  Does God hold men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit?  Yes He does.  This can be seen in several places in Scripture. 
> ...


God does not "predestine" sin.  God is not the author of sin in any way, shape or form.  God allows sin by removing His protective hand in any given circumstance to fulfill His plans design.  Mankind does not commit sin because God said they should or because He forced them to.  Mankind commits sin as a result of his choice to do so.  God foreknew the hearts of mankind and because God foreknew their hearts and the choices they would make, they are either predestined that they "might be" firstborn of many brethren or they "might not".  That encompasses the past, present and future of mankind regarding the foreknowledge of mankind.  Whose names either remain in the Book of Life or are blotted out from it over time.

The Bible is written by the hand of mankind without the certainly of their salvation given any where because of this.  Because even the authors of every book in the Bible were still in a tent of corrupt human flesh even while being spiritually inspired to write the word of God on scrolls--they were not God Himself and gave no guarantee of anyone's state of salvation.  Everything was written upon the premise that "it might be", or that it "may be" or they "may obtain" based upon their faith and ability to overcome and continually abide in Christ.

----------


## mosquitobite

So in Sola's logic, God WILLED Adam and Eve to sin.  This mindset leads me to the conclusion that the God who created everything perfect "It is good", decided that He wanted to play with us as pawns.

I guess that's one way to look at our Creator.  Explains Sola's interpretation of love, I suppose.


I believe He wanted Adam and Eve to stay in communion with Him in the garden. I would need you to point to some Scripture in Genesis that refutes me.

----------


## erowe1

> So in Sola's logic, God WILLED Adam and Eve to sin.


In the sense that their sin was part of God's plan, yes, he did. They played their role in God's salvation program to a tee. As you just pointed out, this sin was committed by God's good and perfect creation behaving completely according to the nature that its Creator gave it. There was no bug in the program. Nothing went wrong, forcing God to resort to some contingency plan. The cross was Plan A.

In the sense that God commanded them not to do it, what they did was against his will.

God's will in the sense of what he predestines and his will in the sense of what he commands are not the same thing.

----------


## Terry1

> So in Sola's logic, God WILLED Adam and Eve to sin.  This mindset leads me to the conclusion that the God who created everything perfect "It is good", decided that He wanted to play with us as pawns.
> 
> I guess that's one way to look at our Creator.  Explains Sola's interpretation of love, I suppose.
> 
> 
> I believe He wanted Adam and Eve to stay in communion with Him in the garden. I would need you to point to some Scripture in Genesis that refutes me.


Yes, this is Sola's god, not the God of creation.  Sola is a babe on the milk whose desire to become something exceeds and usurps his ability to be what he desires most.

----------


## erowe1

> I believe He wanted Adam and Eve to stay in communion with Him in the garden. I would need you to point to some Scripture in Genesis that refutes me.


Why just in Genesis?

----------


## Terry1

> In the sense that their sin was part of God's plan, yes, he did. They played their role in God's salvation program to a tee. As you just pointed out, this sin was committed by God's good and perfect creation behaving completely according to the nature that its Creator gave it. There was no bug in the program. Nothing went wrong, forcing God to resort to some contingency plan. The cross was Plan A.
> 
> In the sense that God commanded them not to do it, what they did was against his will.
> 
> God's will in the sense of what he predestines and his will in the sense of what he commands are not the same thing.


The four times that the word "predestined" is used in the word of God is to reveal that something is going to happen as a result of something else.  It's that "something else" that is our "work of faith" which Paul, James and John all the way through Revelation tells us that without--there can be no salvation or state of "elect" in anyone.  

*Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.*

----------


## mosquitobite

> In the sense that their sin was part of God's plan, yes, he did. They played their role in God's salvation program to a tee. As you just pointed out, this sin was committed by God's good and perfect creation behaving completely according to the nature that its Creator gave it. There was no bug in the program. Nothing went wrong, forcing God to resort to some contingency plan. The cross was Plan A.
> 
> In the sense that God commanded them not to do it, what they did was against his will.
> 
> God's will in the sense of what he predestines and his will in the sense of what he commands are not the same thing.


This all makes sense once sin entered the world.  Joseph, David, Judas... all of it.

But to say that when Adam and Eve were in the garden that there was imperfection is a pretty large blasphemy in my opinion.  Adam and Eve did not NEED salvation until after they sinned.  

And I ask for Scripture in Genesis that says that His creation was not created perfectly because this whole belief system of yours and Sola hinges on the idea that God created a mess right from the start in order that He might fix it.  That's NOT what the Creation story in my book of Genesis says.

Which makes me then say to myself "why would God _intentionally_ create something that is broken?"  
So please, explain to me from the words of the beginning that say He did so!

----------


## erowe1

> But to say that when Adam and Eve were in the garden that there was imperfection is a pretty large blasphemy in my opinion.


If you believe that, then you have to believe that their sin was not an imperfection, but rather the plan all along.

If you do, then I agree. Committing that sin was precisely what they were designed to do.

----------


## erowe1

> And I ask for Scripture in Genesis that says that His creation was not created perfectly because this whole belief system of yours and Sola hinges on the idea that God created a mess right from the start in order that He might fix it.


On the contrary, it's you who must believe that God made some kind of mistake, creating something that was broken, if you really think that Adam's sin was not according to God's plan.

It's precisely because God is a perfect creator that we must accept that the creation who sinned, did so according to God's plan.

----------


## Terry1

> If you believe that, then you have to believe that their sin was not an imperfection, but rather the plan all along.
> 
> If you do, then I agree. Committing that sin was precisely what they were designed to do.


Then if by your belief erowe1, you believe that God ordained that He lose a third of the Heavenly angels and Gods most prized one of all that being Lucifer whom God called O morning star, son of the dawn, before the fall because of PRIDE.

God created the heavenly angels with the ability to choose as well as mankind.  This then should tell a believer that God is looking for something in His creation that He will not force them to be, but by their own willingness to love Him freely.  God is looking for and desire that His creation love Him freely understanding how much He loves them the same.

You're belief is not only depressing, but leaves mankind in a state where they are nothing more than little puppets on a string to be played with as God sees fit.  We are created in His image and likeness for a reason.  There was a reason for the fall of a third of heavenly angels and a reason they rebelled against God.  Lucifer knew before the fall that God was going to create mankind in His image, something that the angels in heaven were not.  The pride and jealousy of Lucifer wanting to be God then himself by his own choice and the choice of the other angels to follow him is what caused the fall.

----------


## mosquitobite

erowe, if you choose to believe free will was an imperfection, I suppose that's your interpretation.  

love without free will is slavery

----------


## mosquitobite

> Your belief is not only depressing, but leaves mankind in a state where they are nothing more than little puppets on a string to be played with as God sees fit.


Agree.  

It also leaves us without any true purpose.

Unless you care to see your purpose on this earth as being a slave with puppet strings.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe, if you choose to believe free will was an imperfection, I suppose that's your interpretation.  
> 
> love without free will is slavery


I never mentioned free will. Much less did I say it would be an imperfection.

If you believe in free will, that doesn't change anything I said.

God could have created a world complete with a first man, Adam, having free will, and given that man a test that he, by making a free will decision, was going to pass.

Instead, God created a world, and an Adam, whom he gave a test, such that he, by making a free will decision, was going to fail.

The very question you asked me could be turned right back on you: Why would God intentionally do that? Including human free will doesn't change the fact that God intentionally created this free-will world in which there would be sin, rather than some other free-will world in which there would not.

If you believe that Adam behaved differently than he was supposed to, then it is you who must believe that something went wrong in God's creation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God does not "predestine" sin.


Yes He does.  God predestined the worst sin that has ever been committed.  He had a good reason to predestine this sin:




> Acts 4:27-28 NASB
> 
> For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.









> The Bible is written by the hand of mankind without the certainly of their salvation given any where because of this.  Because even the authors of every book in the Bible were still in a tent of corrupt human flesh even while being spiritually inspired to write the word of God on scrolls--they were not God Himself and gave no guarantee of anyone's state of salvation.  Everything was written upon the premise that "it might be", or that it "may be" or they "may obtain" based upon their faith and ability to overcome and continually abide in Christ.


First, you don't have a Christian view of inspiration.  Second, the EXACT reason the Bible was written was so that the believing ones would KNOW they had eternal life:




> 1 John 5:13 NASB
> 
> These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may *know* that you have eternal life.


This condition Pelegianism you hold to is unbiblical and heretical.   You have to repent and believe the gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> love without free will is slavery


Wrong. The will is already enslaved to sin.  If you want freedom you have to have the Son.




> John 8:34-36 NASB
> 
> Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.  The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.  So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

----------


## mosquitobite

I still see no Scripture from Genesis that supports your beliefs.

Who was there with God when He created the Heavens and the Earth?  Who documented the book of Genesis?

----------


## erowe1

> I still see no Scripture from Genesis that supports your beliefs.
> 
> Who was there with God when He created the Heavens and the Earth?  Who documented the book of Genesis?


Well, we do have the very verses that you already mentioned, where God called this creation of His that was going to sin "good."

But again, why restrict it to Genesis?

----------


## Terry1

> I never mentioned free will. Much less did I say it would be an imperfection.
> 
> If you believe in free will, that doesn't change anything I said.
> 
> God could have created a world complete with a first man, Adam, having free will, and given that man a test that he, by making a free will decision, was going to pass.
> 
> Instead, God created a world, and an Adam, whom he gave a test, such that he, by making a free will decision, was going to fail.
> 
> If you believe that Adam behaved differently than he was supposed to, then it is you who must believe that something went wrong in God's creation.


Why would God create a being able to choose opposite Himself?  What do you believe the purpose and plan in doing something like that could possibly be?  

If then God created beings with the ability to choose which master they would follow, why then would God force them to do so?  These are two opposing ideas.  God would not create beings while forcing them to be one thing or another and then condemn them or bless them for the same.  Do you realize how completely insane that idea is?

At some point, you have to reconcile this belief with that of nothing more than God given common sense that God also gives a believer.  You have to find out why God would do something so ridiculous as to force mankind to be or do something and then condemn them for it.  

The word "predestined" indicates a future event that's going to happen as a result of "something else".  Mankind is not simply "predestined" for no good reason.  There is a reason they are "predestined" "to be" that they "might become" firstborn of many brethren.  "Might be" being the operative words here, meaning that their predestination is conditional upon something else that this future event "might" happen, or it may not.

No one is "chosen from birth"--no one is "once saved always saved"--no one remains in the state of elect no matter how they choose to live their lives after confession or baptism.  Everyone is held accountable in this life for how they lived it and treated others until the day they die out of this life.  It is possible to fall from grace as Paul says.  It is possible to be a "branch" in the true Vine and then be "cut off and burned" away from that Vine being Jesus (John 15:1).  We are accountable still after confession and baptism and we have not finished this course and race in life until the very end of it. 

 We are called to be overcomers and our faith tried in the fire.  That fire are the trials of this entire life to the very end.  Those trials where we are called to be overcomes do not begin and end at the point of belief and confession or baptism.  Those firery trials are everything that comes after a believer comes to Christ and not before or at the point of belief.  Those who believe otherwise are sadly mistaken and are placing their eternal souls in danger of grieving the Holy Spirit to the point of no return and being turned over to a reprobate mind, which there is no forgiveness for at that point.   They become lost then and their names are then blotted from the Book of Life.  * Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels

*

Realize this today:  Being an overcomer of those firery trials begins at the point of belief and confession, they do not end at this point, they can only begin when an unbeliever becomes a believer and to the very end of their lives.  God says, give me faith tried in the fire.  We are held accountable to the very end of our lives by what we say and do unto God and others. * Revelation 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.  14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d]  15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.*

----------


## mosquitobite

> Well, we do have the very verses that you already mentioned, where God called this creation of His that was going to sin "good."
> 
> But again, why restrict it to Genesis?


Because through your belief that Adam & Eve didn't have free will it means that they had no choice but to follow the serpent when he tempted them.  Why would God curse the serpent if he was just doing part of the plan?  Why would He curse man if he intended for that fall to be the case all along?

Since you can't point to Scripture in Genesis that supports your belief, you should understand WHY I am asking you to prove it from there.

Who was the author of Genesis?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why would God curse the serpent if he was just doing part of the plan?  Why would He curse man if he intended for that fall to be the case all along?


Because God has an eternally good reason for predestining sin (Romans 9).  He does it for His glory and to show His elect how wonderful grace really is.

----------


## erowe1

> Because through your belief that Adam & Eve didn't have free will


Could you quote where I said they didn't?

See post 307.

----------


## erowe1

> Because through your belief that Adam & Eve didn't have free will it means that they had no choice but to follow the serpent when he tempted them.  Why would God curse the serpent if he was just doing part of the plan?  Why would He curse man if he intended for that fall to be the case all along?
> 
> Since you can't point to Scripture in Genesis that supports your belief, you should understand WHY I am asking you to prove it from there.


First of all, I just did point to one in the very quote you just gave from me.

Second of all, again, why restrict it to Genesis? This makes it look like you concede the point that other books of the Bible support me.




> Who was the author of Genesis?


I don't know.

----------


## mosquitobite

I already conceded that point.  I said I agree with David, Joseph, Judas, etc.

What we are arguing about is essentially WHEN we were given free will, if at all (Sola).

Since the book of Genesis is written from the perspective of someone being there IN THE BEGINNING, who do you believe the author to be?

----------


## mosquitobite

> Because God has an eternally good reason for predestining sin (Romans 9).  He does it for His glory and to show His elect how wonderful grace really is.


So you believe Adam and Eve preferred life outside the garden?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you believe Adam and Eve preferred life outside the garden?


Who could know what Adam and Eve personally preferred?

----------


## Terry1

> Because God has an eternally good reason for predestining sin (Romans 9).  He does it for His glory and to show His elect how wonderful grace really is.


"Predestinate" is the same as "foreordain".  For God to "foreordain" something is to then say that God is the author of sin by His own decree.  Do you believe that God is the author of sin or that the ability and choice God gave mankind and the angels gave them the ability to sin by choice?  God can't even look upon sin, to then say that He predestinates it is the same as saying that He's the author and cause of it.

----------


## erowe1

> I already conceded that point.  I said I agree with David, Joseph, Judas, etc.
> 
> What we are arguing about is essentially WHEN we were given free will, if at all (Sola).
> 
> Since the book of Genesis is written from the perspective of someone being there IN THE BEGINNING, who do you believe the author to be?


Genesis isn't written from the perspective of someone being there in the beginning. It's written from the perspective of someone who at the very least lived at the time of Joseph or later, since it ends at the time of Joseph's death. It does talk about what happened in the beginning. But so do many other books of the Bible.

----------


## mosquitobite

The part we are discussing (the beginning) is written as if the writer is a witness.  how would they know what God specifically said before a human was there?

----------


## erowe1

> The part we are discussing (the beginning) is written as if the writer is a witness.


I don't see that. What details lead you to think that?

Do you think Genesis 1 is also written as if by an eye witness? Or just Genesis 2-3?

----------


## Christian Liberty

To my understanding tradition says Moses wrote it.  I've heard that there might be a scripture that says so too, but if there is, I'm unaware of it.

----------


## erowe1

> To my understanding tradition says Moses wrote it.  I've heard that there might be a scripture that says so too, but if there is, I'm unaware of it.


You're right about tradition saying it. The only scriptural arguments for it are by way of an argument that would go something like this:
1) Scripture says that Moses wrote the Law (Torah)
2) Genesis is part of the Torah
3) Therefore Scripture says that Moses wrote Genesis.

Personally, I think that the argument doesn't work because of the different ways that the word Torah or Law can be used. But even if Moses wrote Genesis, he was far from being an eye witness of anything that happened in it, especially Adam's sin.

----------


## mosquitobite

I believe Genesis 1 is the same.  I believe one of the Trinity narrated.  which is why I think that if God had your persepective He would not have told us that "it was good".

So yes, I believe Adam & Eve preferred life in the garden as opposed to out.  I believe the loss/death of their son was probably not preferable for them.

----------


## erowe1

> I believe Genesis 1 is the same.  I believe one of the Trinity narrated.  which is why I think that if God had your persepective He would not have told us that "it was good".


I definitely believe that Genesis is God's Word. But so is the rest of the Bible. So I don't think that what all the rest of the Bible tells us about creation is any less valid than what Genesis tells us about it.

But again, even going with Genesis 2-3 all by itself, God's calling His creation that was going to sin good isn't a problem for me. It's a problem for you, because you're the one who is trying to say that Adam's sin was a divergence from God's plan.

----------


## Terry1

Although no one knows for sure, but I believe that Adam and God both had a hand in the creation of the book of Genesis and that Moses could have been somewhat of the editor of it.  There doesn't seem to me to any way that anyone other than God or Adam could have known some of the things written in Genesis.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Predestinate" is the same as "foreordain".  For God to "foreordain" something is to then say that God is the author of sin by His own decree.  Do you believe that God is the author of sin or that the ability and choice God gave mankind and the angels gave them the ability to sin by choice?  God can't even look upon sin, to then say that He predestinates it is the same as saying that He's the author and cause of it.


Yes, God is the righteous author of all things, including the sin He decrees for an eternally good purpose.

----------


## mosquitobite

I think if you take away free will from the creation story you are putting satan as an equal with God.

----------


## erowe1

> I think if you take away free will from the creation story you are putting satan as an equal with God.


You keep saying that. But free will has nothing to do with it. See post 307.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, God is the righteous author of all things, including the sin He decrees for an eternally good purpose.


Show me one scripture that claims "their sins are of Me"---just one.

Isaiah 54:17

No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
*And their righteousness is from Me,*
Says the Lord.

God created Lucifer, but was God the creator of wickedness?  Even of Satan, it is written  Thou wast PERFECT in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Ezk 28:15) Note the words till iniquity was FOUND IN THEE--  which then tells us that Lucifer had a choice given that ability and it was not God that forced him to choose wickedness, but Lucifer then became the author of sin and not God.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, God is the righteous author of all things, including the sin He decrees for an eternally good purpose.


On this I don't have to speculate or treat as just my opinion, but by the very authority granted through faith and belief that no man will stand before God without accounting for what they chose to believe after they've been presented with the truth.  This judgment will be upon every head and heart that God knows inwardly, that as Revelation 20:13 says-- The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

----------


## mosquitobite

> You keep saying that. But free will has nothing to do with it. See post 307.


It has EVERYTHING to do with it.  

If what Adam did was PREDESTINED then you're saying God intentionally caused him to sin - OR - you're saying that Satan/Lucifer also had equal control over Adam.

You're saying that God designed the world with the fall already in place from the moment He breathed life into Adam.  While there are plenty of things that I would say "man is not capable of understanding God" this is one that makes ZERO sense.  God had communion with Adam and Eve in the garden. They walked with Him, talked with Him, enjoyed His presence.  

Logically following this through, what is there to judge on the final day if God has already predestined everything?

----------


## erowe1

> It has EVERYTHING to do with it.  
> 
> If what Adam did was PREDESTINED then you're saying God intentionally caused him to sin - OR - you're saying that Satan/Lucifer also had equal control over Adam.
> 
> You're saying that God designed the world with the fall already in place from the moment He breathed life into Adam.  While there are plenty of things that I would say "man is not capable of understanding God" this is one that makes ZERO sense.  God had communion with Adam and Eve in the garden. They walked with Him, talked with Him, enjoyed His presence.  
> 
> Logically following this through, what is there to judge on the final day if God has already predestined everything?


First of all, notice that after you said that "free will" has everything to do with it, the explanation you gave for the remainder of your post made no mention of free will.

Second of all, you don't mention anything I said in post 307, which the quote you just responded to mentions.
will.

----------


## mosquitobite

When did sin enter the world erowe?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Show me one scripture that claims "their sins are of Me"---just one.
> 
> Isaiah 54:17
> 
> No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
> And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
> You shall condemn.
> This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
> *And their righteousness is from Me,*
> ...


No verse says "man's sins are of Me" because God does not sin.

God does not sin in decreeing the evil that He decrees.  Why?  Because God has a _ good_  reason for the evil He decrees.

----------


## erowe1

> When did sin enter the world erowe?


When Adam sinned.

----------


## mosquitobite

What was Adam's sin?

----------


## erowe1

> What was Adam's sin?


Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

----------


## mosquitobite

Clever.  but WHY was eating from that tree a sin?

----------


## erowe1

> Clever.  but WHY was eating from that tree a sin?


Because God told him not to.

----------


## Terry1

> First of all, notice that after you said that "free will" has everything to do with it, the explanation you gave for the remainder of your post made no mention of free will.
> 
> Second of all, you don't mention anything I said in post 307, which the quote you just responded to mentions.
> will.


The illustration of Gods word alones reveals the fact that we have a choice and a free will, otherwise what purpose are the Apostles fulfilling when they instruct us on what to do and what not to do as believers.  If we didn't have a choice in the matter, the Apostles, teachers and prophets wasted a lot of time teaching repentance through a work of faith.  Unbelievers can't perform a work of faith, only believers can do that.  Now what is your explanation for this? lol  This is nothing more than blindness due to wanting and choosing to believe a lie.

erowe1, you refuse to acknowledge my replies because you can't back any of your belief up with scripture.  I will continue to come against false doctrine whether you acknowledge me or not. LOL

----------


## mosquitobite

So God, who hates sin put up the *one* law He knew Adam would not keep thereby creating sin.

this mindset totally negates the need for the Mosaic Law. 

If the Creation story tells us that man couldnt even keep ONE law and maintain righteousness, why did we need the Law to prove it?

----------


## Terry1

> So God, who hates sin put up the *one* law He knew Adam would not keep thereby creating sin.
> 
> this mindset totally negates the need for the Mosaic Law. 
> 
> If the Creation story tells us that man couldnt even keep ONE law and maintain righteousness, why did we need the Law to prove it?


erowe1 or Sola both refuse to acknowledge the difference between the Mosaic Law of dead works vs Gods perfect law, His ten commandments written in the hearts of believers.  They can not distinguish the difference between the two laws and do not understand the difference between a "work of faith" to obtain righteousness that we *are* commanded to do and a dead work under the old Mosaic law that we commanded not to do in attempt to obtain righteousness.

----------


## erowe1

> So God, who hates sin put up the *one* law He knew Adam would not keep thereby creating sin.
> 
> this mindset totally negates the need for the Mosaic Law. 
> 
> If the Creation story tells us that man couldnt even keep ONE law and maintain righteousness, why did we need the Law to prove it?


Adam represented the entire human race. His sin wasn't just a proof of something. It was our own sin. Even without the Mosaic law, we're still law breakers by virtue of Adam's breaking of that law on our behalf.

----------


## mosquitobite

That did not answer the question, conveniently.

----------


## Terry1

> Adam represented the entire human race. His sin wasn't just a proof of something. It was our own sin. Even without the Mosaic law, we're still law breakers by virtue of Adam's breaking of that law on our behalf.

----------


## Terry1

> Adam represented the entire human race. His sin wasn't just a proof of something. It was our own sin. Even without the Mosaic law, we're still law breakers by virtue of Adam's breaking of that law on our behalf.



Without the Mosaic Law as a type and shadow, mankind would still be ignorant of their own sin.  Tossing the Mosaic Law out as some dispensationalists like to do is then saying that mankind could have understood where they erred simply by nothing more than knowing Adam and Eve sinned in Garden of Eden.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lazarus could only be made alive by Christ if he agreed to it, right?


Lazarus really has nothing to do with the plan of salvation.  But regardless, you "agreed" with John Robbins who said we must "agree" to salvation.  Oh...but that was before you realized you didn't actually "agree" isn't that right?




> Oh wait.   He was dead.   And the Bible says that the natural man is dead in sins.  How do dead men do anything at all but sit there and rot?
> 
> Your entire Arminian philosophy of "you have to accept it" is NOWHERE in the Bible.


*Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.*

The problem is that you don't accept the parts of the Bible that disagree with you.

----------


## jmdrake

> Adam represented the entire human race. His sin wasn't just a proof of something. It was our own sin. Even without the Mosaic law, we're still law breakers by virtue of Adam's breaking of that law on our behalf.


The Bible clearly teaches that Adam's sin was *not* our sin.  Children do not bear the sins of the parents.  When Romans says "In Adam all sin" it means "Because of Adam all sin because all have inherited a sinful nature."

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## osan

//

----------


## erowe1

> That did not answer the question, conveniently.


Because instead of answering the question, I noted that the premise of the question is false. Adam's sin is not about proving something to us about what we can or can't do. So your conclusion by trying to compare it with the Mosaic Law doesn't follow.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Because instead of answering the question, I noted that the premise of the question is false. Adam's sin is not about proving something to us about what we can or can't do. So your conclusion by trying to compare it with the Mosaic Law doesn't follow.


So from your perspective what is the point of the Mosaic Law?

----------


## erowe1

> So from your perspective what is the point of the Mosaic Law?


There are a lot of equally valid answers to that question, rather than one single point. I can't list them all, and won't claim to know them all.

When God began to give the Law to Israel He told them the point was to distinguish them from the other nations (Exodus 19:5-6; also Deuteronomy 4:6-8).

I bet if we went through Psalm 119 looking for all the answers it gives to the point of the Mosaic law we'd find a dozen. But one of those would be that it teaches good and life giving moral principles (see also Psalm 1).

Yes, you're also right that a point of the Law of Moses is to show those who try to follow it that they can't succeed at meeting God's moral demands. Of course, as you pointed out, there are other ways anybody can learn that even without the Mosaic Law.

It also serves as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. And it does this in many ways beyond just revealing sin. We could probably open our Bibles and have a good brain storming session just coming up with ways the Law does this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Romans 5:6 NIV
> 
> You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.*


Arminianism is the lie from Hell that says men have the power to choose their own eternal destiny,  but the Word of God says that man is POWERLESS!  Not only that, Christ didn't die for the ones who have done the right thing and "chose" Him, Christ died for the UNGODLY.   Christ died for the ones who were dead in sins and were against Him...And His death perfects them and infallibly saves them.

----------


## mosquitobite

I've said before that I do believe I was chosen.  I DO believe God predestined me to be His.  I was literally RUNNING away from Him but it didn't stop Him.  I believe God willed Joseph's brothers to sell him.  I believe God willed Judas to sell out Jesus.  

But I also feel pity for those who believe only THEIR interpretation of the Bible as the only correct version.  

My God is one who is the powerful Creator and Author of life and can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.  

Which means yes, if He wants to will someone to Him, He will.  But I do not believe that we should put *our* earthly limits on Him.  Especially when you have to ignore complete sections of the Bible to do so!  Why can it not be both?  Why can't God both choose some (like He did throughout the Bible) and yet still allow others to come to Him of their own choice?

God is Love.  The Holy Spirit within us and what unites us is Love.  When we draw to Him the love pours out and should be evident in our lives to everyone we meet.  For God SO LOVED the world!

When we show love to the world, they see God through us.

Some interpretations people believe leave me wondering if they'd recognize Jesus if He was standing right in front of them!  
Paul's books were added to the New Testament for edification, and as a reminder...by the Catholic Church.

Through my seeking and relationship with Him, He has revealed that the Gospels and Jesus' own words within them should carry the most weight.  

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Matt 23:13

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But I also feel pity for those who believe only THEIR interpretation of the Bible as the only correct version.


Well, there is only one correct interpretation.  Maybe mine is wrong on certain points.  But it can't be both right and wrong at the same time.  That's illogical.

----------


## jmdrake

> Arminianism is the lie from Hell that says men have the power to choose their own eternal destiny,  but the Word of God says that man is POWERLESS!  Not only that, Christ didn't die for the ones who have done the right thing and "chose" Him, Christ died for the UNGODLY.   Christ died for the ones who were dead in sins and were against Him...And His death perfects them and infallibly saves them.


If Arrminianism was a lie from hell then you would believe it.  As it stands  you are willfully blinded to the truth.  And Romans 5:6 doesn't at all prove your point.  Anyone with half a brain knows that.  All you do it take verses out of context, twist them to fit your view *ignore all verses in the Bible that don't fit your view* then scream and stomp like a two year old as if that makes your point any more true.  Yes we are powerless to pay for our sins.  We are not powerless to accept *or agree* to the salvation provided.  There is no difference between "accept" and "agree" in this context despite your protestations to the contrary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If Arrminianism was a lie from hell then you would believe it.  As it stands  you are willfully blinded to the truth.  And Romans 5:6 doesn't at all prove your point.  Anyone with half a brain knows that.  All you do it take verses out of context, twist them to fit your view *ignore all verses in the Bible that don't fit your view* then scream and stomp like a two year old as if that makes your point any more true.  Yes we are powerless to pay for our sins.  We are not powerless to accept *or agree* to the salvation provided.  There is no difference between "accept" and "agree" in this context despite your protestations to the contrary.



But my agreement or acceptance is from God.  Regeneration precedes repentance.

This is what you don't believe.   You don't believe that the gospel is the power of God to save the powerless.   You worship the idol of your all powerful will.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, there is only one correct interpretation.  Maybe mine is wrong on certain points.  But it can't be both right and wrong at the same time.  That's illogical.


It's also illogical to assume that your interpretation *must* be the correct one.  Further, time after time in these discussions I've seen you say "Well that verse can't mean X because it disagrees with the rest of the Bible."  What you *really* mean is that it disagrees *with your interpretation* of the Bible.  But you never come back with an alternative explanation for the verse in question.  That would be okay, except you then later come back and say "There's no verse in the Bible to support X".  But that's only because you a priori throw out verses in the Bible that don't agree with you.  That's not a "logical" way to approach Biblical interpretation.  The logical approach is to concede "You know what?  I may be wrong.  I don't think I am, but I may be.  I can understand why someone else has come to a different conclusion than I have."

----------


## Christian Liberty

I never said I couldn't be wrong.  What I rejected is that there can be more than one correct interpretation.

----------


## Terry1

> No verse says "man's sins are of Me" because God does not sin.
> 
> God does not sin in decreeing the evil that He decrees.  Why?  Because God has a _ good_  reason for the evil He decrees.


So now you're telling us that God is the author of evil.  Call me psychic here, somehow I knew you'd stick with that one. Don't give up the day job Sola.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So now you're telling us that God is the author of evil.  Call me psychic here, somehow I knew you'd stick with that one. Don't give up the day job Sola.


God is the righteous author of sin.  The devil and the demons do God's will.  Evil serves the sovereign Lord.  The evil of men is what God decrees to fulfill His ultimately good purpose. 

This weakling idol that you worship which begs sinners to repent and cannot bring His purposes to pass is not the God of the Bible.

----------


## TER

*Jeremiah 32:31-35* 

  ‘For this city has been to Me a provocation of My anger and My fury from the day that they built it, even to this day; so I will remove it from before My face. 32  ‘because of all the evil of the children of Israel and the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke Me to anger; they, their kings, their princes, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33  ‘And they have turned to Me the back, and not the face; though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not listened to receive instruction. 34  ‘But they set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to defile it. 35  ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, *which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.*’

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Jeremiah 32:31-35* 
> 
>   ‘For this city has been to Me a provocation of My anger and My fury from the day that they built it, even to this day; so I will remove it from before My face. 32  ‘because of all the evil of the children of Israel and the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke Me to anger; they, their kings, their princes, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33  ‘And they have turned to Me the back, and not the face; though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not listened to receive instruction. 34  ‘But they set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to defile it. 35  ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, *which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.*’



Yes.  God never commanded that they should do this abomination.  This is the difference between God's revealed will (you shall not murder) and His decreetive will (the parties who carried out the crucifixion did what I predestined to occur).

----------


## TER

> Yes.  God never commanded that they should do this abomination.  This is the difference between God's revealed will (you shall not murder) and His decreetive will (the parties who carried out the crucifixion did what I predestined to occur).


Yes, I understand that John Calvin had a schizophrenic notion on the nature of God and that his innovative (mis)interpretations and 'revelations' ultimately ends up with the blasphemous conclusion of attributing God as the author of sin.  And in order to make this the case, he must ignore/twist/distort/mischaracterize verses from the Scriptures to justify his new religion (which is exactly what he has done).  

Thankfully, for those who wish to make an effort and learn the apostolic truths as defended and handed down by the God-bearing Saints and Fathers of the Church, they will see that such needless mental gymnastics and blasphemous suggestions are not necessary.   Indeed, they are spiritually dangerous.

If one chooses to put their allegiance to the Scriptures through the lens of John Calvin and make God impotent (since He apparently is not great enough to produce men with free will!) and to denigrate Him to be the author of sin, then one can do so.  God has given men free will and it is with free will which they do reject Him and by which they will be judged against.  For it too is with their own free will which they ignore/twist/distort/mischaracterize verses from Scriptures in order to justify their innovative beliefs, even as it goes completely against the apostolic teachings handed down from the beginning and ultimately makes God to be the father of lies and sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I understand that John Calvin had a schizophrenic notion on the nature of God and that his innovative (mis)interpretations and 'revelations' ultimately ends up with the blasphemous conclusion of attributing God as the author of sin.  And in order to make this the case, he must ignore/twist/distort/mischaracterize verses from the Scriptures to justify his new religion (which is exactly what he has done).  
> 
> Thankfully, for those who wish to make an effort and learn the apostolic truths as defended and handed down by the God-bearing Saints and Fathers of the Church, they will see that such needless mental gymnastics and blasphemous suggestions are not necessary.   Indeed, they are spiritually dangerous.
> 
> If one chooses to put their allegiance to the Scriptures through the lens of John Calvin and make God impotent (since He apparently is not great enough to produce men with free will!) and to denigrate Him to be the author of sin, then one can do so.  God has given men free will and it is with free will which they do reject Him and by which they will be judged against.  For it too is with their own free will which they ignore/twist/distort/mischaracterize verses from Scriptures in order to justify their innovative beliefs, even as it goes completely against the apostolic teachings handed down from the beginning and ultimately makes God to be the father of lies and sin.



TER, did the 4 parties who crucified Jesus do what God's hand and purpose predestined to occur?

----------


## Terry1

> God is the righteous author of sin.  The devil and the demons do God's will.  Evil serves the sovereign Lord.  The evil of men is what God decrees to fulfill His ultimately good purpose. 
> 
> This weakling idol that you worship which begs sinners to repent and cannot bring His purposes to pass is not the God of the Bible.


Is this the "weakling idol" you're calling my God who is begging His children He loves to repent and return unto Him?  Then if this is my God, it begs the question here---who is yours?

Isaiah 44:22
I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.


Jeremiah 4:1
If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.

Jeremiah 24:7
And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.

Malachi 3:7
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

----------


## jmdrake

> I never said I couldn't be wrong.  What I rejected is that there can be more than one correct interpretation.


Actually sometimes there is more than one correct interpretation.  Tell me this.  Which arithmetic operator satisfies 2 _ 2 = 4?  Some scriptures lend themselves to more than one correct interpretation.  Not all interpretations that are different are in conflict.  That's especially true of Bible prophecy (Matthew 24 was talking about at least two separate events, but they were interwoven as if it was a single prophecy.)

----------


## TER

> TER, did the 4 parties who crucified Jesus do what God's hand and purpose predestined to occur?


Sola, before I answer, please answer this question as it pertains to the quote I posted above, namely that when God said:

 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, *which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination*, to cause Judah to sin.

Was God lying?

----------


## jmdrake

> But my agreement or acceptance is from God.  Regeneration precedes repentance.
> 
> This is what you don't believe.   You don't believe that the gospel is the power of God to save the powerless.   You worship the idol of your all powerful will.


You're back to your logical fallacies again.






I believe that all good gifts come from God including the gift of free will.  God gave it to Adam.  God gave it to Lucifer.  Both abused their free gift and that's why we are in the state we are in.  Whenever I point that out to you, you try your lame stupid comeback of "What does Adam have to do with salvation?"  Well *a lot*!  It was his abuse of freewill that put us in the state we are in.  I worship God out of love.  I am not so fearful that I need to pretend that I don't have freewill and am therefore not responsible for what I do.  Why are you afraid of responsibility Sola_Fide?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually sometimes there is more than one correct interpretation.  Tell me this.  Which arithmetic operator satisfies 2 _ 2 = 4?  Some scriptures lend themselves to more than one correct interpretation.  Not all interpretations that are different are in conflict.  That's especially true of Bible prophecy (Matthew 24 was talking about at least two separate events, but they were interwoven as if it was a single prophecy.)


OK, that's a valid point.  I agree that sometimes there is no conflict.  But sometimes there is.  In this case, I think there is.  Either Sola and I are right (Specifically on the issue of predestination) or you guys are right and we're wrong.  I feel strongly that it is the former, but its definitely, undeniably one or the other.  I should note that I strongly disagree with Sola on the "Author of sin" bit though.

----------


## TER

Unfortunately, making God to be the author of sin and evil is the logical conclusion of Calvinism and the fruits of such theology.

"From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing *but the author of them*.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

----------


## mosquitobite

> OK, that's a valid point.  I agree that sometimes there is no conflict.  But sometimes there is.  In this case, I think there is.  Either Sola and I are right (Specifically on the issue of predestination) or you guys are right and we're wrong.  I feel strongly that it is the former, but its definitely, undeniably one or the other.  I should note that I strongly disagree with Sola on the "Author of sin" bit though.


Why do you put God in such a box?

Why can God not allow those with willing hearts to come to him...

AND AT THE SAME TIME

Also choose those He feels will fulfill His purpose

Why MUST it be one or the other?

----------


## erowe1

> Why do you put God in such a box?
> 
> Why can God not allow those with willing hearts to come to him...
> 
> AND AT THE SAME TIME
> 
> Also choose those He feels will fulfill His purpose
> 
> Why MUST it be one or the other?


This is an odd post to me.

Isn't what you just wrote exactly what SF and FF advocate?

And isn't it you who rejects this both-and possibility? Earlier in the conversation it looked like you were positively arguing that it could not be true that God predestined Adam's choice. You weren't saying that it could be both free will and predestination, but that it had to be free will with no predestination.

----------


## mosquitobite

I don't think it's odd at all.  I think it's saying the same thing I said in #358 which you  +repped me for?

From the posts I've read, I do not believe FF and Sola believe someone with a willing heart can come to know God.  From what I understand, they believe the only people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them.  Which is why I posted the woe verse from Matthew about closing the door to kingdom of God on all others.

----------


## erowe1

> From the posts I've read, I do not believe FF and Sola believe someone with a willing heart can come to know God.  From what I understand, they believe the only people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them.


But those two sentences are not contradictory.

If it is true that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them, then it is also true that someone with a willing heart can come to know God.

Believing the second sentence in what I quoted from you does not entail rejecting the first one. And the fact that you're contrasting those sentences as if they are mutually exclusive is the thing I see as odd.

Yes, someone with a willing heart can come to know God. Not only can they, but they assuredly will. But who gets 100% of the credit for their heart being willing in the first place? God does, and only God. Were it not for some gracious act on his part, their heart would not be willing.

----------


## Terry1

> But those two sentences are not contradictory.
> 
> If it is true that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them, then it is also true that someone with a willing heart can come to know God.
> 
> Believing the second sentence in what I quoted from you does not entail rejecting the first one. And the fact that you're contrasting those sentences as if they are mutually exclusive is the thing I see as odd.
> 
> Yes, someone with a willing heart can come to know God. Not only can they, but they assuredly will. But who gets 100% of the credit for their heart being willing in the first place? God does, and only God. Were it not for some gracious act on his part, their heart would not be willing.


Then what happens when a heart becomes "unwilling" through trials and temptations?  Were they chosen or not and would that indicate that the state of "one being chosen or elect" is conditional upon something else continually throughout their entire life?

----------


## mosquitobite

> But those two sentences are not contradictory.
> 
> If it is true that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them, then it is also true that someone with a willing heart can come to know God.
> 
> Believing the second sentence in what I quoted from you does not entail rejecting the first one. And the fact that you're contrasting those sentences as if they are mutually exclusive is the thing I see as odd.
> 
> Yes, someone with a willing heart can come to know God. Not only can they, but they assuredly will. But who gets 100% of the credit for their heart being willing in the first place? God does, and only God. Were it not for some gracious act on his part, their heart would not be willing.


I think they are adamantly contradictory.

If the only hearts that are willing are those that God chose before they were even born, well why even bother about repentance and forgiveness?

----------


## erowe1

> I think they are adamantly contradictory.
> 
> If the only hearts that are willing are those that God chose before they were even born, well why even bother about repentance and forgiveness?


That last question is another story.

But clearly, someone who believes that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them, does not by saying that deny that someone with a willing heart can come to know God.

You must at least be able to see that.

If you meant to write sentences that were contradictory, then whatever you meant to say was not what you said, because the sentences you wrote do not contradict.

I don't know if you can find quotes of SF or FF ever denying that that someone with a willing heart can come to know God. I doubt that you can. And I'm certain that you can't find any quotes of me saying that. I would not say such a thing, and don't believe it. But I do believe that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them.

----------


## mosquitobite

It's not another story though!!

If God predestines ALL, and God wills all sin, why should we then repent of the sin He causes us to do?

I cannot agree with that!

----------


## erowe1

> I cannot agree with that!


You can't agree with the thing that I said you must agree with?

I don't see how that's possible.

You are telling me that if a person believes that people with willing hearts are the ones God chose before He breathed life into them, that person logically must deny that someone with a willing heart can come to know God.

In what possible way does that conclusion follow?

ETA: Or when you say you can't agree, are you talking about something else you can't agree with?

Another ETA: This direction you're going only makes your post 376 seem more odd to me. Because you're just confirming that it is you who cannot accept a both/and answer. You presented that as an objection to SF and FF, but in reality, they're the ones who can have the both/and, while you're the one who won't abide it. You insist that the two possibilities are contradictory.

----------


## erowe1

> If God predestines ALL, and God wills all sin, why should we then repent of the sin He causes us to do?


I don't mind getting to that question (and that's all it is, a question, one which may in the end be unanswerable, not a factual statement). But not until after we settle the topic at hand, which is that the two sentences that you claimed to be contradictory aren't.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK, that's a valid point.  I agree that sometimes there is no conflict.  But sometimes there is.  In this case, I think there is.  Either Sola and I are right (Specifically on the issue of predestination) or you guys are right and we're wrong.  I feel strongly that it is the former, but its definitely, undeniably one or the other.  I should note that I strongly disagree with Sola on the "Author of sin" bit though.


You know that it's possible to believe in predestination, unlimited atonement and limited salvation based on freewill choice simultaneously right?  I'll explain that later.  That's probably worth its own thread.  Meanwhile erowe1 has, at times, attempted to say that SF and I were saying the same thing, but that's not possible.  Either atonement is limited or it is unlimited.  Gunny made a post some time ago that kind of harmonized predestination and freewill, but I think that he didn't quite get there.  Anyway, it call comes down to what kind of limit you are going to place on God.  If God is truly all powerful, then He can "have His cake and eat it too" in this regard.

But again, that's for another thread.  In this thread I'm curious as to what you believe about the "author of sin" if you disagree with SF?  How, to your understanding, did sin originate?  The question of ultimate responsibility for sin is one of the main reasons why I and many others reject TULIP.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't mind getting to that question (and that's all it is, a question, one which may in the end be unanswerable, not a factual statement). But not until after we settle the topic at hand, which is that the two sentences that you claimed to be contradictory aren't.


The question is a valid question and it isn't unanswerable to those of us who have seen fit to see it for what it is.

----------


## jmdrake

> Unfortunately, making God to be the author of sin and evil is the logical conclusion of Calvinism and the fruits of such theology.
> 
> "From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing *but the author of them*.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).


Thank you for the quote.  I wasn't familiar with it, but yes, this is the "logical" conclusion of Calvinism and why John Wesley and other protestant reformers rejected it.  Beliefs like "God is the author of sin" or "God hates most of mankind" make some Calvinists uncomfortable.  But nobody can convince me that a God who would create someone *with no possibility of salvation*, knowing He will ultimately torture that person in hell *forever* is "loving" to that person even if He does send a few blessings during the 70 or so years the person is allowed to live.

----------


## erowe1

> The question is a valid question and it isn't unanswerable to those of us who have seen fit to see it for what it is.


I didn't imply that it wasn't valid. And I only said that it might be unanswerable, not that it is.

At any rate, we don't have to answer it. Just because I have a belief that raises questions, that doesn't make the belief wrong. Questions are just that, questions.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't imply that it wasn't valid. And I only said that it might be unanswerable, not that it is.
> 
> At any rate, we don't have to answer it. Just because I have a belief that raises questions, that doesn't make the belief wrong. Questions are just that, questions.


So by that argument, that whole "conundrum" thread you posted recently is totally irrelevant to anything.

----------


## erowe1

> So by that argument, that whole "conundrum" thread you posted recently is totally irrelevant to anything.


I thought it was relevant. You seemed to think so to, since you engaged in the conversation.

----------


## jmdrake

> I thought it was relevant. You seemed to think so to, since you engaged in the conversation.


I answered the question.  But in this case you didn't.  You can't have it both ways.  Either a "conundrum" proves something or it doesn't.  Either it shows a weakness in a belief or it doesn't.  I don't mind going along with the "You may be right, I may be right" approach.  But the "I must be right because of X" (proof text, conundrum, whatever) view coupled with a "Well even if you have Y against my argument (proof text, conundrum, whatever) I'm still right" approach is insufferable.

----------


## erowe1

> I answered the question.  But in this case you didn't.  You can't have it both ways.  Either a "conundrum" proves something or it doesn't.  Either it shows a weakness in a belief or it doesn't.  I don't mind going along with the "You may be right, I may be right" approach.  But the "I must be right because of X" (proof text, conundrum, whatever) view coupled with a "Well even if you have Y against my argument (proof text, conundrum, whatever) I'm still right" approach is insufferable.


I don't know what question you're referring to that you answered. Nor do I recall charging you with not having answered a question.

I don't know of any place where I ever said a conundrum proved anything. Nor do I know of any place where I said a conundrum didn't prove anything. Much less do I know of my saying both of those things.

That conundrum in the other thread wasn't mine. It was John Owen's. It also wasn't just an open question like this one is here. This question on its own, as a question, is just that, a question. It is not an argument. It doesn't show weakness in a belief. And it may or may not be answerable. The simple fact that a belief raises questions doesn't count as an argument against the belief.

Now, if this is really just a rhetorical question, and if Mosquitobite really means to assert, and not merely ask, that predestination does not comport with a command to repent, then they could present an argument showing how those two things can't fit together. I doubt that it will be possible to formulate such an argument that will work. But until someone can present that, so far, all we have is the unanswered question that, all by itself, doesn't support either side.

My hunch (and further discussion may bear out whether this hunch is right) is that Mosquitobite (and perhaps some others here) simply has an assumption that the giving of a command implies that the obedience or disobedience of that command has not been predestined. If this is the case, and this belief is simply assumed, then it cannot work as an argument against predestination, since that would be question begging. Furthermore, that assumption could be proven false merely by showing a single example of any time anyone anywhere was predestined either to obey or disobey one of God's commands. And in the context of biblical theology that would be easily done.

And I'm not taking a "you may be right, I may be right" approach.

Note that in my posts about that question, I never said that it was an invalid question or that I was opposed to discussing it. I just didn't like how Mosquitobite seemed to be using it as a way to move on from the previous point without resolving it. He had just said that two things were contradictory, which clearly are not contradictory, and then when I pointed that out, he just moved right on to this question, like he was committing drive-by fallacies or something.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know what question you're referring to that you answered. Nor do I recall charging you with not having answered a question.


You don't know what question I'm referring to?  Sorry, but I don't believe you.  You just got through saying that I "engaged you in conversation" on the conundrum you posted.  My "engagement" was answering it.  You may not like my answer, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there was no question posed that I answered.




> I don't know of any place where I ever said a conundrum proved anything. Nor do I know of any place where I said a conundrum didn't prove anything. Much less do I know of my saying both of those things.


You just got through saying that the fact that you couldn't answer the question mosquitobite posed didn't prove your belief was wrong.  So it's disingenuous for you to now say "Nor do I know of any place where I said a conundrum didn't prove anything."




> That conundrum in the other thread wasn't mine. It was John Owen's.


I never said it was yours.  It's disingenuous of you to imply that I did.




> It also wasn't just an open question like this one is here. This question on its own, as a question, is just that, a question. It is not an argument. It doesn't show weakness in a belief. And it may or may not be answerable. The simple fact that a belief raises questions doesn't count as an argument against the belief.


So again you are contradicting your claim that "no where did I say that a conundrum didn't prove anything."




> Now, if this is really just a rhetorical question, and if Mosquitobite really means to assert, and not merely ask, that predestination does not comport with a command to repent, then they could present an argument showing how those two things can't fit together. I doubt that it will be possible to formulate such an argument that will work. But until someone can present that, so far, all we have is the unanswered question that, all by itself, doesn't support either side.


Fine.  So the next time you pose a question against Arminianism that you feel is unanswerable and Sola_Fide says: 




> This is irrefutable.


I can count on you to be consistent and rebut him by saying _so far, all we have is the unanswered question that, all by itself, doesn't support either side._ right?




> And I'm not taking a "you may be right, I may be right" approach.


I didn't say that you were.  *That approach would be preferable and far more honest*.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I didn't imply that it wasn't valid. And I only said that it might be unanswerable, not that it is.
> 
> At any rate, we don't have to answer it. Just because I have a belief that raises questions, that doesn't make the belief wrong. Questions are just that, questions.


Your belief doesn't just "raise questions" when a significant portion of the bible is discussion of forgiveness and grace.  

I can believe I was chosen, but I do not DARE place myself on the judgment seat of others believing that for most of the human race this earth here is as close to Heaven as they will get.  

I also refuse to believe God wills my sin.  _Can_ he?  Absolutely.  But from my perspective that's a far cry from saying He is the author of all sin and the cause of all sin.

I do not believe you have to say "because He willed 'this' it means He wills it all"  I do not put God in that box.  Because, as I said, I believe when you do that you take away ALL free will and therefore you take away the need for repentance and forgiveness.  You have to throw out so much of the bible to believe that!

Perhaps this is confusing or not acceptable to some of you because God has willed YOU not to see the Truth!

----------


## Terry1

> My hunch (and further discussion may bear out whether this hunch is right) is that Mosquitobite (and perhaps some others here) simply has an assumption that the giving of a command implies that the obedience or disobedience of that command has not been predestined. If this is the case, and this belief is simply assumed, then it cannot work as an argument against predestination, since that would be question begging. Furthermore, that assumption could be proven false merely by showing a single example of any time anyone anywhere was predestined either to obey or disobey one of God's commands. And in the context of biblical theology that would be easily done..


I've never argued against predestination, what I have said is that our free will and predestination work together to bring about the state of elect.  I've said that from the very beginning.  Because being "predestined" is a future event and conditional upon something else as Romans 8:18-29, clearly illustrates.

What I dispute is "predestination alone" that is taught absent the free will or choice of mankind.  

If you do a hard study of the words "might be", "may be" and "we have the hope" and within the context of the scriptures they're in, what you will come to see is that the four times that that word "predestined" is mentioned in the entire bible---it's always referring to a future event and something that hasn't happened yet because it is conditional upon something else.  That *something else* is our "work of faith", which without it, no one can remain in the state of elect.   

While you assume just the opposite of what those scriptures are actually saying---that you've already been predestined, justified and glorified by God.  Glorification only happens after we are perfected.  We're not perfected in this life until the next and still subject to the judgment of God.  So in actuality, we are not perfected until and some time after we die from this life.

----------


## moostraks

> I didn't imply that it wasn't valid. And I only said that it might be unanswerable, not that it is.
> 
> At any rate, we don't have to answer it. Just because I have a belief that raises questions, that doesn't make the belief wrong. Questions are just that, questions.


A valid question would mean it is relevant and not to be so easily dismissed as unanswerable just because a pretentious poster wishes to ignore the weaknesses within his own argument.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Two quotes from Dr. Robert Reymond:




> Free will has nothing to do with the establishment of responsibility.*What makes a person “responsible” is whether there is a lawgiver over him who has declared that he will require that person to give an account to him for his thoughts, words, and actions.





> God is not “responsible” for his thoughts, words and actions because there is no lawgiver over him to whom he is accountable. Contrary to what some might think, he is not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments as the human creature is. The Ten Commandments are his revealed precepts for men. They do not apply to him as the ethical norm by which he is to live. He cannot worship another God because there is none. 
> 
> He cannot dishonor his father and his mother because he has no parents (we are not considering at this moment the Incarnation), he cannot murder because all life is his to do with as he pleases, he cannot steal because everything already belongs to him, he cannot lie because his nature disallows it, he cannot covet anything that does not belong to him because, again, everything is his already And because he is the absolute Sovereign over the universe, he cannot be called to account by a more ultimate lawgiver (there is no such being) for anything he does or ordains someone else to do. 
> 
> Because he is sovereign, whatever he decrees and whatever he does in accordance with his eternal decree are proper and right just because he is the absolute Sover*eign. Did he decree the horrible crucifixion of Christ? The Bible says he did. Then it was proper and right that he did so. Did he predestine some men in Christ before the foundation of the world to be his sons while he foreordained others to dishonor and wrath for their sins? The Bible says he did. Then it was proper and right that he did so. Did he determine that he would call men to account for their transgressions against him. The Bible says he did. Then it is proper and right that God should re*gard us as the chargeable, responsible causes of our sin.

----------


## Terry1

If God is true and we are all truly saved if we keep continually throughout our lives, *keep the two most important commandments in the word which are 

 “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d]  38 This is the first and great commandment.  39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]  40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

This is performing "a work of faith".  Loving someone is not done with lip service.  Any one can tell you that they love you, but if they never act upon that love by revealing it in a physical form--then love is spoken but never evident, hence it can't exist.  Loving someone means work and sacrifice and giving of oneself constantly in one form or another that include our actions and deeds.

----------


## TER

> Two quotes from Dr. Robert Reymond:


Aside from the double-somersault mental gymnastics in those quotes, at least Dr. Reymond confesses that man is responsible for his sins and the evil he does, and does not ascribe it to God (of course, double twist handstand forward roll withstanding). How we got there is actually wrong and is due to his misunderstanding of foreknowledge and predestination, but at least Sola you are making enough progress to stop ascribing God to be the author and cause for sin.  This gives me hope.  I hope you take this small step of progress and grow from your previous blasphemous assertions.

----------


## jmdrake

> Two quotes from Dr. Robert Reymond:

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Aside from the double-somersault mental gymnastics in those quotes, at least Dr. Reymond confesses that man is responsible for his sins and the evil he does, and does not ascribe it to God (of course, double twist handstand forward roll withstanding). How we got there is actually wrong and is due to his misunderstanding of foreknowledge and predestination, but at least Sola you are making enough progress to stop ascribing God to be the author and cause for sin.  This gives me hope.  I hope you take this small step of progress and grow from your previous blasphemous assertions.


I have NEVER said that "God is responsible for sin".  Man is responsible for sin because God is above him as his judge to make him responsible.  God predestines everything that comes to pass, including sin, for his own good purpose.  God holds men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit, and He is completely just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction (Romans 9).

----------


## TER

> I have NEVER said that "God is responsible for sin".  Man is responsible for sin because God is above him as his judge to make him responsible.  God predestines everything that comes to pass, including sin, for his own good purpose.  God holds men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit, and He is completely just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction (Romans 9).


Well, that glimmer of hope was thrown away pretty quick.  *sigh*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, that glimmer of hope was thrown away pretty quick.  *sigh*




TER, you have no hope other than the sovereign Lord of the universe who mercies whom He will and hardens whom He will.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I have NEVER said that "God is responsible for sin".  Man is responsible for sin because God is above him as his judge to make him responsible.  God predestines everything that comes to pass, including sin, for his own good purpose.  God holds men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit, and He is completely just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction (Romans 9).


FF and erowe1, do you agree with this statement of Sola's?

If every bit of your interpretation relies solely on Romans 9, and not the words of Jesus well may the Lord have mercy on you on the day of judgment.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have NEVER said that "God is responsible for sin".  Man is responsible for sin because God is above him as his judge to make him responsible.  God predestines everything that comes to pass, including sin, for his own good purpose.  God holds men accountable for the sins He predestines them to commit, and He is completely just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction (Romans 9).


Responsible literally means response-able.  Someone without the ability to respond is not responsible.  Period.  It doesn't matter how many time you falsely claim the Bible teaches God makes man sin then holds man responsible or how many idiots with phd's behind their names teach it.  It's not true.

----------


## Terry1

> TER, you have no hope other than the sovereign Lord of the universe who mercies whom He will and hardens whom He will.


Hey Sola, seriously, have you ever thought about being a lawyer for the mafia?  

Don Corleone to Sonny: 'Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again.'

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Responsible literally means response-able.  Someone without the ability to respond is not responsible.  Period.  It doesn't matter how many time you falsely claim the Bible teaches God makes man sin then holds man responsible or how many idiots with phd's behind their names teach it.  It's not true.


Wrong.

The Bible doesnt use the word as "able to respond", it uses it as "being held responsible by a higher authority".  If it was the case that the Bible used it in your sense, no one would be "responsible" because no one is able to respond.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hey Sola, seriously, have you ever thought about being a lawyer for the mafia?  
> 
> Don Corleone to Sonny: 'Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again.'


What are you talking about?

----------


## Terry1

> What are you talking about?


Well, you seem to have a real talent for covering up the truth with a lie.  There's money to be made there, you just never want to cross your boss.  He won't be quite as patient and sympathetic as God is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, you seem to have a real talent for covering up the truth with a lie.  There's money to be made there, you just never want to cross your boss.  He won't be quite as patient and sympathetic as God is.


I still have no idea what you're talking about.  Do you?

----------


## Terry1

> I still have no idea what you're talking about.  Do you?


Have you ever wondered why you're secluded in your beliefs?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Have you ever wondered why you're secluded in your beliefs?


Secluded from who?  The world?

Have you ever wondered why you agree with so many other faiths? 

Think about it.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Wrong.
> 
> The Bible doesnt use the word as "able to respond", it uses it as "being held responsible by a higher authority".  If it was the case that the Bible used it in your sense, no one would be "responsible" because no one is able to respond.


Being held responsible _for_ something the higher authority _MAKES_ you do.

Seriously?  

You go right ahead and put all your eggs in Roman 9.

I'll stick with the totality of the Bible, thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Being held responsible _for_ something the higher authority _MAKES_ you do.



Yeah seriously.   God predestined the murder of His own Son and held the parties who did it responsible for it (Acts 4).

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'd disagree with the presumption that predestining something and "forcing" someone to do something are different things.

I don't know how God's control and man's responsibility work together.  I trust God that they do in a way that is just and fair.  I believe strongly that the Assyrian King chose to attack Israel (see Isaiah 10.)  I also believe strongly that God predestined it to occur.

----------


## TER

> Yeah seriously.   God predestined the murder of His own Son and held the parties who did it responsible for it (Acts 4).


Sola, God the Father did not murder His Son.  The Son willingly gave His life to save the world.  You have a sick view of God and you should change your ways while you can.

----------


## TER

> I'd disagree with the presumption that predestining something and "forcing" someone to do something are different things.
> 
> I don't know how God's control and man's responsibility work together.  I trust God that they do in a way that is just and fair.  I believe strongly that the Assyrian King chose to attack Israel (see Isaiah 10.)  I also believe strongly that God predestined it to occur.


Do not make the exceptions the rule.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, God the Father did not murder His Son.  The Son willingly gave His life to save the world.  You have a sick view of God and you should change your ways while you can.


No one said that God murdered his Son, TER.  That is your twisting of what I said.  God does not sin when He predestines the evil of men.  And Acts chapter 4 says that God predestined the men to do what they did at the crucifixion.  You cannot get around it.

----------


## TER

> No one said that God murdered his Son, TER.  That is your twisting of what I said.  God does not sin when He predestines the evil of men.  And Acts chapter 4 says that God predestined the men to do what they did at the crucifixion.  You cannot get around it.


And you cannot get around making God the cause for these men to flog and crucify God according to your view of predestination.  

Did these men who tortured and crucified Christ do this on their own free will or did God cause them to kill His Son?

Your sad answer is going to be that God predestined them which is basically saying that God made them kill His Son.  So the one who is really twisting things here is you because the logical conclusion of your distorted and blasphemous views is that the Father (through other agents, but ultimately because of His pleasure) murdered His Son.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'd disagree with the presumption that predestining something and "forcing" someone to do something are different things.
> 
> I don't know how God's control and man's responsibility work together.  I trust God that they do in a way that is just and fair.  I believe strongly that the Assyrian King chose to attack Israel (see Isaiah 10.)  I also believe strongly that God predestined it to occur.


Yes I agree.  And the issue is twisted by people like TER who would say "God murdered" the people of Israel.  That's not what the Biblical or Reformed position is.  Men HAVE wills.  They are not puppets.  Men WANT to do the sin they do.  The Assyrian king wanted to attack Israel.  He had no idea (and didn't care) that he was acting as the axe in the hand of the sovereign Lord.

God does not sin.  He is not the one sinning, men are.  God does predestinate what comes to pass, but He cannot be charged with sin for predestinating evil.  Why?  Because God has a GOOD reason for the evil He plans.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you cannot get around making God the cause for these men to flog and crucify God according to your view of predestination.  
> 
> Did these men who tortured and crucified Christ do this on their own free will or did God cause them to kill His Son?
> 
> Your sad answer is going to be that God predestined them which is basically saying that God made them kill His Son.  So the one who is really twisting things here is you because the logical conclusion of your distorted and blasphemous views is that the Father (through other agents, but ultimately because of His pleasure) murdered His Son.






> Acts 4:27-28 NASB
> 
> For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, *to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.*



That is the Bible, TER.  You don't believe it.  You believe in your church.

----------


## eduardo89

> That is the Bible, TER.  You don't believe it.  You believe in your church.


lol, and you worship your pride.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> lol, and you worship your pride.


Do you believe Acts chapter 4?

----------


## eduardo89

> Do you believe Acts chapter 4?


I believe everything taught in the Bible to be true.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe everything taught in the Bible to be true.


No you don't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe everything taught in the Bible to be true.


How is that an answer to my question?

----------


## erowe1

> FF and erowe1, do you agree with this statement of Sola's?


Yes.

And it's not just Romans 9. It's all throughout the Bible.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Yes.
> 
> And it's not just Romans 9. It's all throughout the Bible.


As is forgiveness and repentence.  

Seems odd to expect man to repent of the sin that God causes Him to do.

----------


## erowe1

> As is forgiveness and repentence.  
> 
> Seems odd to expect man to repent of the sin that God causes Him to do.


Right. But since there's no conflict between predestination and forgiveness and repentance, you can't appeal to one as an argument against the other.

Whether that seems odd is a matter of your personal opinion. It doesn't seem odd to me. And, at any rate, it apparently didn't seem odd to any of the authors of the Bible, who repeatedly present peoples' responsibility for their actions and God's predestining of them together as harmonious truths.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As is forgiveness and repentence.  
> 
> Seems odd to expect man to repent of the sin that God causes Him to do.


Your objection assumes that God's commands imply man's ability to perform the commands.  This is not the case.   God commands men to do things that they cannot do.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

"If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing, then he is evil. If he is both able and willing, since evil exists, he doesn't exist.  If he is both unable and unwilling, then he is no God."

An edited version of Epicurus' logic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing, then he is evil. If he is both able and willing, since evil exists, he doesn't exist.  If he is both unable and unwilling, then he is no God."
> 
> An edited version of Epicurus' logic.



1.  God is all powerful

2.  God is good

3.  Evil exists

4.  _God has a good reason for evil to presently exist_


The "problem of evil" logically solved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1.  God is all powerful
> 
> 2.  God is good
> 
> 3.  Evil exists
> 
> 4.  _God has a good reason for evil to presently exist_
> 
> 
> The "problem of evil" logically solved.



By the way,  the only way to have this airtight philosophical consistency is to understand Reformed theology.   All of these sub-biblical views of God who deny God's sovereignty will NEVER be able to stand up against atheism.  Only true Christianity has the ability to have an answer for unbelieving worldviews.

----------


## TER

> By the way,  the only way to have this airtight philosophical consistency is to understand Reformed theology.   All of these sub-biblical views of God who deny God's sovereignty will NEVER be able to stand up against atheism.  Only true Christianity has the ability to have an answer for unbelieving worldviews.


Actually, many believe that it was Scholasticism (which is the prelude and mother of modern Western Christian thought) which paved the way for the surging of nihilism and atheism in the last few centuries.  One only needs to look at the state of the West now, in countries whose traditions stem from Scholasticism, to see the rising post-Christian secular societies where relativism and subjectivism has grown mainstream.  

Western metaphysics, as developed from Plato onwards, through the prevalence of the ontic interpretation of being, has generated a historical process that, _in relation to being_ - both in its affimative form (natural theology, rationalism) and in its negative form (Western apophaticism, irrationalism) - leads by way of Kant to the Hegelian metaphysics of absolute subjectivism, which in the end transforms metaphysics into an axiology, or a philosophy of value and worth.  In this light, the reality of beings is no longer a logical necessity but an empirical or historical necessity, and the empirical or historical validity of beings is tied to their utility, not to their truth.

_Practical_ value, thus, becomes the criterion of the value of beings themselves.  As was proposed by Heidegger, the coup de grace given to God, when He was raised and or reduced to the rank of supreme value, was not delivered by the atheists, but by the faithful and their theologians.  Nietzsche, with his proclamation of the death of God, has in fact only made explicit the sense and the internal necessity of the development of the West's mode of behavior towards _being_.  The relational value of being, as one in communion with not only one's immediate surroundings, but with God and man in a communion of existence (that is, a living church within this world while also apart from it, imminent as well as transcendent) has been eroded and diminished, thereby ushering in the rise of humanism and nihilism in it's absence, which in turn leads to materialism and secularism.

Rationalism, the resurgence of Aristotelianism, and the elevation of the human mind as the penultimate means to truth has been one of if not the greatest catalyst to ignite the fires of nihilism and atheism in the world today.  Calvinism has only helped add fuel to that fire.

----------


## Terry1

> Right. But since there's no conflict between predestination and forgiveness and repentance, you can't appeal to one as an argument against the other.
> 
> Whether that seems odd is a matter of your personal opinion. It doesn't seem odd to me. And, at any rate, it apparently didn't seem odd to any of the authors of the Bible, who repeatedly present peoples' responsibility for their actions and God's predestining of them together as harmonious truths.


You're entire premise is wrong though.  Although predestination, forgiveness and repentance all play a part in creating a state of elect or salvation in a believer, none of these end at the point of belief, this is where they begin to work in the life of a believer.  

Predestined in the context it's used in the word is speaking of a future event beyond this life as in "glorification".  Then confirming what Paul, John, James as well as the rest of the word all the way through Revelation tells us that we can't achieve perfection in anything, including our salvation until after this life.  No where in the word are you given an absolute guarantee of salvation other than the "hope"--"that it might be"---that they might become firstborn"--"that they may also obtain"--"that it may be".  

We are told that we can rest in our assurance of salvation as long as we continually abide in Christ--to the very end of our lives.  Then and only then do we know that as Paul said that we have kept the faith and finished our race in this life.

No one can presume upon God by judging themselves or anyone else as "guaranteed glorification" in this life because there are judgments coming after this life when the Book of Life is opened to see whose names are still in it.  Those that are not, will be cast into the Lake of Fire with the beast and the false prophet.  

*Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.*

----------


## Terry1

*Philippians 3:

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.*

----------


## Terry1

In the word of God, we are told what the two greatest commandments are.  These two greatest commandments that we are commanded to be and do encompass what it is that we believe.  What we believe is what we do, it's who we are and the evidence of our faith.  Our actions are our "fruits of the Spirit" and "work of faith".  What we believe and act upon as a result of that same belief are our actions done in faith in accordance to what is written upon our hearts-- * Romans 2:15

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another*

_1 Thessalonians 1:3
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;_

So then it is what we say and do to others according to what we believe that will either save us or condemn us.  These are the fruits of the spirit, which without this evidence of who we are in Christ, there is no evidence--no faith--hence fallen from grace.

This life is a test of our faith and only those whom our Lord said "overcome it", whose faith has been tried in the fire and trials of this life, as "purged and rise as pure gold" will our Lord confess before the Father in heaven".  Revelation 3:5

So anyone who falsely believes that their course in life is finished because Jesus died on the cross and finished His work by fulfilling the Law, giving us the gift of salvation that we are meant to use and be in accordance with His word, we are still held accountable for our belief or unbelief with regards to continually abiding in Christ until the very end of our lives as being overcomers.

*Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.*

Who then can be "tried in the fire" who believes there's no fires left for them to be tried in?  Who can be an "overcomer" when they feel they've nothing left to overcome in this life?  Who then can produce the "fruit of the Spirit" and "perform a work of faith" when the branch has become dead on the Vine/Jesus-John 15:1?  Who then can do what the two greatest commandments in the word command us to do?

Doctrines such as this that teach the message that we are already perfected and glorified in this life are false.  No one is elect of God unless they abide in Christ by doing and being what we have been called to do and be in Him and from the very point of belief to the very end of our lives.

*Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.*

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Right. But since there's no conflict between predestination and forgiveness and repentance, you can't appeal to one as an argument against the other.
> 
> Whether that seems odd is a matter of your personal opinion. It doesn't seem odd to me. And, at any rate, it apparently didn't seem odd to any of the authors of the Bible, who repeatedly present peoples' responsibility for their actions and God's predestining of them together as harmonious truths.


Would you please quote Scripture for harmonious truths?  I find this very compelling.  Thanks, erowe.

Also, since God knows we will sin, what would one's prayer be, for God to stop that particular sin, or are we not to pray for this?   

Would like to hear from Sola as well, thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Would you please quote Scripture for harmonious truths?  I find this very compelling.  Thanks, erowe.
> 
> Also, since God knows we will sin, what would one's prayer be, for God to stop that particular sin, or are we not to pray for this?   
> 
> Would like to hear from Sola as well, thanks.


One of the many places where this is harmonized is in Romans chapter 8.  In it is what theologians have called the "golden chain of redemption".




> *
> Romans 8:28-30 NASB
> 
> And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 
> 
> For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.*


Salvation is an unbreakable chain that God accomplishes.  God predestines.  God calls.  God justifies.   God glorifies.


This prompts Paul to say in the next verses:



> *Romans 8:31-34 NASB
> 
> What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 
> 
> He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 
> 
> Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? 
> 
> Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.*


Jesus intercedes only for His elect.  And His intercession at the right hand of the Father is what ensures their salvation.

Arminians will say that Christ intercedes for every man, but this cannot be.   If Christ intercedes for every man then every man would be saved.  Unless you say Christ's intercession can fail.   If you say that you shouldn't even pretend to be a Christian.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> By the way,  the only way to have this airtight philosophical consistency is to understand Reformed theology.   All of these sub-biblical views of God who deny God's sovereignty will NEVER be able to stand up against atheism.  Only true Christianity has the ability to have an answer for unbelieving worldviews.


I agree with this post as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree with this post as well.


It's sad that you do because it shows philosophical *in*consistency on your part.  Multiple times you've been forced to admit that there are verses in the Bible that do *not* fit your TULIP view.  Rather than say "Well there might be something wrong with TULIP", you just throw them out.  There's just no way you can honestly claim that such selective "cherry picking" of the Bible is philosophically consistent, let alone the "only" philosophically consistent view.

----------


## jmdrake

> By the way,  the only way to have this airtight philosophical consistency is to understand Reformed theology.   All of these sub-biblical views of God who deny God's sovereignty will NEVER be able to stand up against atheism.  Only true Christianity has the ability to have an answer for unbelieving worldviews.


Coming from the most philosophically *in*consistent person in the religion subforum at RPF.  SF, have you made up your mind yet whether or not God excuses sin?  And how are you being "consistent" in claiming that one must "agree" to salvation, but stating that is somehow different from one "accepting" salvation?

----------


## erowe1

> Would you please quote Scripture for harmonious truths?  I find this very compelling.  Thanks, erowe.
> 
> Also, since God knows we will sin, what would one's prayer be, for God to stop that particular sin, or are we not to pray for this?   
> 
> Would like to hear from Sola as well, thanks.


I haven't forgotten about this. It's the kind of thing that would take some time to answer, so I hope to get back to it when I have a good chance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In the word of God, we are told what the two greatest commandments are.  These two greatest commandments that we are commanded to be and do encompass what it is that we believe.  What we believe is what we do, it's who we are and the evidence of our faith.  Our actions are our "fruits of the Spirit" and "work of faith".  What we believe and act upon as a result of that same belief are our actions done in faith in accordance to what is written upon our hearts-- * Romans 2:15
> 
> 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another*
> 
> _1 Thessalonians 1:3
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;_


Terry1, can I make a suggestion?   Could you make your posts shorter?  If you were a little more pithy, it would be easier to respond to your posts,  because as it stands your wall-of-text posts have so many errors in them that it would take too long to correct them all.

Your first verse you posted is from Romans 2 where Paul is talking about the universal requirements of the law.  Only the DOERS of the law will be justified.   To be justified by the law you have to DO it perfectly.  Paul's point in chapter 2 and 3 is that no one can do what the law requires.

Your second verse you keep posting makes me a little angry,  because I have responded to that verse FOUR times to you on this forum,  proving to you that it says the OPPOSITE of what you say it means, and you have never responded to me.

You either don't read my posts or my points go in one ear and right out the other.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Something that I find really interesting is that eduardo can call Sola, who has claimed multiple times that he takes no credit for his own salvation and only believes what he believes because of God's grace "Arrogant" or whatever and get applauded.  Yet the people here who teach doctrines that include their own works, or at least, free-will faith, as a prerequesite for their salvation, if you call them out on their arrogance you get called arrogant.

If Sola actually believes what he says he believes he is not being arrogant, by definition.  By contrast, every single Catholic and EO on this forum is unbelievably damnably arrogant.  That's right, I said every single one.  Because you believe that your own works: baptism, the sacraments, et. al play a role in your own salvation.  That makes you arrogant, by definition.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's sad that you do because it shows philosophical *in*consistency on your part.  Multiple times you've been forced to admit that there are verses in the Bible that do *not* fit your TULIP view.  Rather than say "Well there might be something wrong with TULIP", you just throw them out.  There's just no way you can honestly claim that such selective "cherry picking" of the Bible is philosophically consistent, let alone the "only" philosophically consistent view.


There are verses that make my interpretation difficult, yes.  There are more verses that make Arminianism difficult.

What verses have I not answered?




> Coming from the most philosophically *in*consistent person in the religion subforum at RPF.  SF, have you made up your mind yet whether or not God excuses sin?  And how are you being "consistent" in claiming that one must "agree" to salvation, but stating that is somehow different from one "accepting" salvation?


OK, you said the religion subforum.  If you hadn't, I was going to draw up a list.  At any rate, as I said, all the works-salvationists who call Sola "Arrogant" are far more inconsistent than Sola is, for the reasons I discussed in my previous post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Coming from the most philosophically *in*consistent person in the religion subforum at RPF.  SF, have you made up your mind yet whether or not God excuses sin?  And how are you being "consistent" in claiming that one must "agree" to salvation, but stating that is somehow different from one "accepting" salvation?


Its funny because I taught a lesson to the kids in my Sunday School class just yesterday.  Exodus 24:4-8 claim that God is merciful and gracious yet that he does not clear the guilty.  So right there it seems like the Bible teaches both.  The obvious solution is that God does not excuse sins, but that the sins of believers are paid for by Jesus Christ.  So, they aren't excused, but Christ pays for them instead of the sheep.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Something that I find really interesting is that eduardo can call Sola, who has claimed multiple times that he takes no credit for his own salvation and only believes what he believes because of God's grace "Arrogant" or whatever and get applauded.  Yet the people here who teach doctrines that include their own works, or at least, free-will faith, as a prerequesite for their salvation, if you call them out on their arrogance you get called arrogant.
> 
> If Sola actually believes what he says he believes he is not being arrogant, by definition.*  By contrast, every single Catholic and EO on this forum is unbelievably damnably arrogant.  That's right, I said every single one.  Because you believe that your own works: baptism, the sacraments, et. al play a role in your own salvation.  That makes you arrogant, by definition*.


Again, you are wrong about this.  Let me give you the definition of "arrogant":



> *ar·ro·gant*  [ar-uh-guhnt]  Show IPA  
>    adjective  1.making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.  
> 
> 2.characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims.


Simply making factual ("is") statements is never arrogant.  The Orthodox Church lays claim to being the ancient Church simply because it is (as we discussed not too long ago).  The Orthodox have traditionally been content to just "be" and worship.  The Orthodox are actually always surprised by Inquirers.  Though they do evangelize to the community in the traditional sense, they don't go out of their way to "recruit" people.  To the parishioners and clergy, it's just part of their way of life.  When I first began attending St George, the clergy were quite surprised that I would want to be Orthodox and asked me a lot of questions about my background, what I want to know, why I want to be Orthodox, etc.

WRT "works", that's been explained to you a number of times in a number of ways.  It's very old.  Please review past discussions about this _for comprehension_. 

I'm sorry you feel the need to slander people.  Please review Christ's twofold commandment on love and John 13:35.

----------


## RJB

> if you call them out on their arrogance you get called arrogant.


Baloney.  Sola is called arrogant not for his faith in God but rather his belief that he knows more than everyone else.  This is especially laughable when considering his lack of reading comprehension when responding to a post where he distorts what the poster wrote.  Even worse he (as do you) has a habit of posting fallacies of what others believe.  He (like you) is also too arrogant to admit when he is wrong.  Here is but one many examples:  
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5231172

This was the 3RD TIME  (yes, 3rd  time) he was called for posting these quotations that were NEVER uttered from publications that NEVER existed.  I had to bring this up a few times and he still wont answer for it.  Most would apologize.  He wont.  Because he will have to admit his man made religion is false.  He does this to everyone no matter their belief.






> By contrast, every single Catholic and EO on this forum is unbelievably *damnably* arrogant.  That's right, I said every single one.  Because you believe that your own works: baptism, the sacraments, et. al play a role in your own salvation.  That makes you arrogant, by definition.


Arrogant as in all humans are arrogant--  That's why we need the blood of the lamb.  Not arrogant as you claim.  
Heres an example of TERs arrogance:  
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5411833

Im tempted to call you a damnable liar, but the damnable part is not up to me.  Youve been told we believe that our sins are washed by the blood of our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.  Sacraments are what we see in the bible and we do it out of love to be closer to God because the scriptures say so.  We've been over this.

Here is an example of one of many times youve been called for distortions of our belief.  You also have yet to answer how any of us show hatred of God in this fasting thread or where we stated that "fasting matters more than the gospel."  Nowhere did we claim it was for salvation but rather to get close to God.  Jesus himself fasted.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5310832

I post this as one of the many times this was explained to you, but you duck out as soon as the subject matter gets too deep.  There are also links to Eduardos open question to you in that link.   How can you claim to live the scriptures if you cant answer them?  Youve accused us of not following scripture, yet we agree with every verse youve posted.  Every one! Yet you hide from many scripture verses  
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5223865
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5292035

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, can I make a suggestion?   Could you make your posts shorter?  If you were a little more pithy, it would be easier to respond to your posts,  because as it stands your wall-of-text posts have so many errors in them that it would take too long to correct them all.
> 
> Your first verse you posted is from Romans 2 where Paul is talking about the universal requirements of the law.  Only the DOERS of the law will be justified.   To be justified by the law you have to DO it perfectly.  Paul's point in chapter 2 and 3 is that no one can do what the law requires.
> 
> Your second verse you keep posting makes me a little angry,  because I have responded to that verse FOUR times to you on this forum,  proving to you that it says the OPPOSITE of what you say it means, and you have never responded to me.
> 
> You either don't read my posts or my points go in one ear and right out the other.


You are completely blinded to what Paul is saying in Romans 2:15.  What Paul is telling you is that now that the Law of God/His ten commandments are written upon our hearts so that now the work we do is not by ritual or tradition as it was under the Mosaic Law, but by Gods law that's written upon our hearts and our conscience bearing witness through our work of faith being done in obedience to the Holy Spirit and not in obedience to the dead works law of Moses that was done by ritual and tradition.  The law where mankind failed to keep by his own efforts and deeds to obtain righteousness.  It's what Paul is teaching in every one of his epistles that you have amazingly managed to twist and pervert the meaning of almost every single one of them!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Isaiah 45:9
> 
> Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
>     those who are nothing but potsherds
>     among the potsherds on the ground.
> Does the clay say to the potter,
>     What are you making?
> Does your work say,
>     The potter has no hands?


...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ...


But... but that's not fair!

----------


## moostraks

> But... but that's not fair!


And yet this sense of fairness where does it come from that we should question such as this? Are we more just than our Creator? Shall we consider ourselves better than He who knows our entirety of existence? 

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it [s]a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),

“I am the Lord, and there is none else.
19 “I have not spoken in secret,
In [t]some dark land;
I did not say to the [u]offspring of Jacob,
‘Seek Me in [v]a waste place’;
I, the Lord, speak righteousness,
Declaring things that are upright.
20 “Gather yourselves and come;
Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations;
They have no knowledge,
Who carry about [w]their wooden idol
And pray to a god who cannot save.
21 “Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together.
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the Lord?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And yet this sense of fairness where does it come from that we should question such as this?


It comes from your hatred of God and your sinful heart.  Paul deals with a sinful person who questions God's fairness in predestination in Romans 9.  He says:




> Romans 9:19-21 NIV
> 
> One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will? 
> 
> But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?   
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

----------


## moostraks

> It comes from your hatred of God and your sinful heart.  Paul deals with a sinful person who questions God's fairness in predestination in Romans 9.  He says:


So you say. You misuse Romans 9 and beat it to death repetitively. My hatred and sinful heart causes me to have a sense of fairness that would seem to be more just than His? Is this so you say? Well that works for you who sees nothing of value in man whom we are called to love not just when they become our brother or sister in the faith.

Genesis 1:26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? 37 And He said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and [a]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 5:43-44 

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." 

"This is My commandment, that you love [AGAPE] one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12

Micah 6:8 

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Psalm 37:27-29

Turn away from evil and do good; so shall you dwell forever. For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints. They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever.

Isaiah 30:18 

Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.

Isaiah 61:8 

For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Hebrews 11:1-40 
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

Jeremiah 9:23-24 

Thus says the Lord: Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.

1 Corinthians 4:5 

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

James 2:12-13 
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Luke 16:19-31 

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

Revelation 20:11-15 

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I'm a thinkin' that this here sense of fairness might not be as you say from my hatred and sinful heart but He which lives in me telling me that in the end He is Love and Just.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you say. You misuse Romans 9 and beat it to death repetitively. My hatred and sinful heart causes me to have a sense of fairness that would seem to be more just than His?


Criminals tend to think of themselves more fair than their Judge all of the time.  This is normal, because the criminal has committed crimes and will be held to account by the Judge.





> I guess what I am trying to say is that I'm a thinkin' that this here sense of fairness might not be as you say from my hatred and sinful heart but He which lives in me telling me that in the end He is Love and Just.


You quoted verses that talk about God's justice, which is great, but you failed to talk about the verse that you think is unjust:




> *Romans 9:20-21
> 
> But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
> *


So let me ask you Moostraks:  Is the Potter just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Criminals tend to think of themselves more fair than their Judge all of the time.  This is normal, because the criminal has committed crimes and will be held to account by the Judge.


Admittedly, in the case of human judges, sometimes its true (See every "drug enforcement" sentence).  But in God's case, the criminals are always wrong.

----------


## moostraks

> Criminals tend to think of themselves more fair than their Judge all of the time.  This is normal, because the criminal has committed crimes and will be held to account by the Judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted verses that talk about God's justice, which is great, but you failed to talk about the verse that you think is unjust:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me ask you Moostraks:  Is the Potter just to create some pots for glory and some for destruction?



I never said it was unjust. I said you take it out of context to prove a point you are trying to make that the text is not trying to make. I have repeated this to you numerous times so stop misconstruing my beliefs. I quoted text to you that says the type of justice and love we are expected to have as He has for us. So your point that He is without mercy fails imo. Not going to stop you from acting as if you have proven anything but I don't discuss these points to change the opinion of someone so heavily invested in being right with Calvinism but those who might be curious as to counter arguments to your loveless doctrine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I never said it was unjust. I said you take it out of context to prove a point you are trying to make that the text is not trying to make. I have repeated this to you numerous times so stop misconstruing my beliefs. I quoted text to you that says the type of justice and love we are expected to have as He has for us. So your point that He is without mercy fails imo. Not going to stop you from acting as if you have proven anything but I don't discuss these points to change the opinion of someone so heavily invested in being right with Calvinism but those who might be curious as to counter arguments to your loveless doctrine.


It doesn't mean what I think it means?  Well, what does it mean then?




> Romans 9:20-21 NIV
> 
> But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?   Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?


What does that mean?

----------


## Brett85

It means that God will create some pots for destruction based on his foreknowledge of their choice to reject him.  And if you say that God doesn't have the power to see into the future, aren't you limiting God and what he can do?

----------


## erowe1

> It means that God will create some pots for destruction based on his foreknowledge of their choice to reject him.


Earlier today you said that God doesn't foreknow people's choice to reject him, but only the choices of those who accept him.

Plus, God could just not create those pots. Your answer still gets back to monergism.

----------


## Brett85

> Earlier today you said that God doesn't foreknow people's choice to reject him, but only the choices of those who accept him.


I was talking about the specific verse in question.  But wouldn't you agree that the Bible teaches that God knows every event that's going to happen in the future?

----------


## Brett85

> Plus, God could just not create those pots. Your answer still gets back to monergism.


Yeah, that's true.  But since I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment, I don't really think there's any moral dilemma with God creating some pots with the knowledge that they would choose to reject him.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, that's true.  But since I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment, I don't really think there's any moral dilemma with God creating some pots with the knowledge that they would choose to reject him.


How does not believing in eternal torment have anything to do with it?

You don't have to believe in eternal torment to be a monergist.

----------


## erowe1

> I was talking about the specific verse in question.  But wouldn't you agree that the Bible teaches that God knows every event that's going to happen in the future?


Absolutely. He not only foreknew every event. He predestined every event.

----------


## Brett85

> How does not believing in eternal torment have anything to do with it?
> 
> You don't have to believe in eternal torment to be a monergist.


It just seems to be an extremely sadistic theology to say that God created certain people simply for the purpose of torturing them in hell for all eternity, to say that the majority of people ever created never even had the chance to be saved and avoid torture for all eternity in hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't have to believe in eternal torment to be a monergist.


I agree in theory...but boy does that open up a huge can of worms.

----------


## TER

> It just seems to be an extremely sadistic theology to say that God created certain people simply for the purpose of torturing them in hell for all eternity, to say that the majority of people ever created never even had the chance to be saved and avoid torture for all eternity in hell.


Sadistic is exactly the correct term.




> But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels. . . . .But the novelties which the Calvinists have blasphemously introduced concerning God and divine things, perverting, mutilating, and abusing the Divine Scriptures, are sophistries and inventions of the devil (Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem, 1672)

----------


## moostraks

> It doesn't mean what I think it means?  Well, what does it mean then?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?


I have gone through Romans twice with you to come up to this point where you misconstrue the point. You have dismissed it and ignored it. I will repost tomorrow when i am at a computer if I feel like it fwiw.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have gone through Romans twice with you to come up to this point where you misconstrue the point. You have dismissed it and ignored it. I will repost tomorrow when i am at a computer if I feel like it fwiw.


No, please don't quote bomb me.  Just tell me what you think that one verse means.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It means that God will create some pots for destruction based on his foreknowledge of their choice to reject him.  And if you say that God doesn't have the power to see into the future, aren't you limiting God and what he can do?


The passage says nothing about "foreknowing."  See Romans 9:13.



> I agree in theory...but boy does that open up a huge can of worms.


Maybe for some other reason, but in theory there's nothing inconsistent about the belief (Note that I don't hold this belief) that God creates some pots for salvation and others for destruction, but that the penalty for sin is actually temporary suffering and then annihilation instead of eternal torment.  I don't see how it lines up with the book of Revelation, particularly the points where the devil, beast, false prophet, and all who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the lake of fire, which is described as lasting forever and ever.  I'm sure there are verses outside of revelation that address this as well... I know there are passages that do address suffering in Hell outside of Revelation, but I am uncertain if any of them specifically state that the suffering lasts forever.

But, as far as I know, that's a scripture problem, not a logic problem.

More and more, I suspect that TC's problem is less with monergism and more with eternal torment.  Admittedly, I don't know as much about the annihilation v eternal torment debate because I always grew up with the belief that suffering in Hell goes on forever and that was just how it was, I didn't even really know anyone debated this issue until I found out about it on the internet (other than the Jehovah's Witnesses).  By contrast, I grew up in a mostly Arminian church, I remember my parents converting to Calvinism about six years ago, and I've met and interacted with Christians (I know Sola would say the Arminians aren't Christians, but at any rate, these were people in Baptist churches, not JWs or other cultists) on both sides of the predestination debate.  I started with more of an Arminian position and was convinced by scripture that I was wrong about what I had previously believed.  So... I think I know enough monergistic scripture that Arminianism has no good arguments, but I haven't really seen the annihilation debate actually debated so I don't know as much about that.

----------


## Brett85

I have a problem with both eternal torment and limited atonement, but both of them combined are particularly bad, and I believe that such a philosophy is contrary to the character of God that is revealed in the Bible.  I'll try to find a debate between a traditionalist and an annihilationist that I watched recently.  Both of them were really good.

----------


## moostraks

> No, please don't quote bomb me.  Just tell me what you think that one verse means.


Again I said it has to be read in context. So its benfit is for those who have the capacity to read more than a verse or two at a time. Maybe you should build up your reading stamina first and we will come back to it when you are ready

----------


## erowe1

> It just seems to be an extremely sadistic theology to say that God created certain people simply for the purpose of torturing them in hell for all eternity, to say that the majority of people ever created never even had the chance to be saved and avoid torture for all eternity in hell.


I wouldn't say "simply for the purpose" as if there can't be other purposes too.

But that's an emotional argument. And I still don't see how it changes things. Whatever the punishment sinners have in store is, we don't know exactly what it will be like even if it is eternal. And if it's not eternal, we still don't know exactly what it will be like. But either way, we have more than enough biblical evidence that it will be bad and undesirable. Whatever this "destruction" is, if it's sadistic for God to create people knowing that they're doomed to experience it when he could have not created them, then that doesn't change just by changing the nature of the destruction.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wouldn't say "simply for the purpose" as if there can't be other purposes too.
> 
> But that's an emotional argument. And I still don't see how it changes things. Whatever the punishment sinners have in store is, we don't know exactly what it will be like even if it is eternal. And if it's not eternal, we still don't know exactly what it will be like. But either way, we have more than enough biblical evidence that it will be bad and undesirable. Whatever this "destruction" is, if it's sadistic for God to create people knowing that they're doomed to experience it when he could have not created them, then that doesn't change just by changing the nature of the destruction.


*Devil's Advocate*

I could argue  that it would be better to live and then suffer annihilation, even a very painful, prolonged annihilation, rather than  never be born.  Switch "annihilation, even a very painful prolonged annihilation" to "eternal conscious torment in Hell" and I have a harder time making that argument.  I have seen it made though, I talked to a Catholic one time who thought eternal torment was merciful when compared to the idea of being annihilated.  I don't really understand that, though.

----------


## Terry1

Debating annihilationism is a moot point IMO.  I believe the word that in every sense of the words "forever and eternal" mean just that.  "They will be tormented day and night forever and ever".  Attempting to redefine that is beyond ridiculous and it really doesn't go after the weightier matters with regard to where people are now in what they believe and practice, which is where the emphasis should be placed.

Because by the time people die and leave this life, then they'll see that what Gods words says is exactly what He meant.  Forever and eternal mean just that.  Simply understanding that everything God creates is eternal and everlasting.  It never ceases to exist, but rather is transformed into another form of existence.

----------


## erowe1

> *Devil's Advocate*
> 
> I could argue  that it would be better to live and then suffer annihilation, even a very painful, prolonged annihilation, rather than  never be born.  Switch "annihilation, even a very painful prolonged annihilation" to "eternal conscious torment in Hell" and I have a harder time making that argument.  I have seen it made though, I talked to a Catholic one time who thought eternal torment was merciful when compared to the idea of being annihilated.  I don't really understand that, though.


Well, whatever his punishment entailed and however long it would last, Judas would have been better off having never been born (Mark 14:21).

----------


## Brett85

> Debating annihilationism is a moot point IMO.  I believe the word that in every sense of the words "forever and eternal" mean just that.  "They will be tormented day and night forever and ever".  Attempting to redefine that is beyond ridiculous and it really doesn't go after the weightier matters with regard to where people are now in what they believe and practice, which is where the emphasis should be placed.


It's not beyond ridiculous, because for one thing it only refers to three individuals, not all of the unsaved, and it conflicts with the prophesy that is taught in Daniel, where the beast is destroyed and done away with.  So you have to decide whether you believe Daniel, or believe what is written in Revelation, which is an extremely symbolic book which hardly any theologian takes 100% literally.  On the other hand, it is beyond ridiculous to say that words like "death, kill, destroy, perish, and consume" actually mean "eternal torment."

----------


## Brett85

When I said earlier that I have a problem with limited atonement, I think it would be more accurate to say that I have a problem with unconditional election.

----------


## Terry1

> It's not beyond ridiculous, because for one thing it only refers to three individuals, not all of the unsaved, and it conflicts with the prophesy that is taught in Daniel, where the beast is destroyed and done away with.  So you have to decide whether you believe Daniel, or believe what is written in Revelation, which is an extremely symbolic book which hardly any theologian takes 100% literally.  On the other hand, it is beyond ridiculous to say that words like "death, kill, destroy, perish, and consume" actually mean "eternal torment."


I love ya TC, but you're not my first annihilationist encounter either, lol.

Fact is here:  Anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the same lake of fire with the beast and the false prophet.


*Revelation 20:15
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, whatever his punishment entailed and however long it would last, Judas would have been better off having never been born (Mark 14:21).


Yes, and that in my mind is a problem with Annihilationism right there, unless the suffering while being annihilated lasted a really, really long time.

----------


## Brett85

> I love ya TC, but you're not my first annihilationist encounter either, lol.
> 
> Fact is here:  Anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the same lake of fire with the beast and the false prophet.
> 
> 
> *Revelation 20:15
> And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.*


Yes, where they'll receive the second death.  "Death" does not mean "existing for all eternity."

Revelation 21:8

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, whatever his punishment entailed and however long it would last, Judas would have been better off having never been born (Mark 14:21).





> Yes, where they'll receive the second death.  "Death" does not mean "existing for all eternity."
> 
> Revelation 21:8
> 
> "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."


Except that this is the very same Lake of Fire in which the Beast, False Prophet, and Dragon (Satan) are tortured in for all eternity.  So why do they suffer forever but nobody else does?

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, and that in my mind is a problem with Annihilationism right there, unless the suffering while being annihilated lasted a really, really long time.


Judas would've been better off not being born because he went down in history as possibly the worst human being on the face of the earth, who was responsible for killing the son of God.  He'll be remembered with shame and everlasting contempt.  His legacy is one of betrayal and murder.  He also ended his life in a violent and humiliating way, by hanging himself.  He will then rise at the 2nd resurrection and have to face Christ and be held accountable by Christ for what he did to him.  He will receive even more shame and embarrassment at that time.  He will then receive his judgment and be cast into the lake of fire, where he will die the most excruciating and painful death that anyone can possibly imagine.  He will then be seen with everlasting contempt by those who have received eternal life.  So of course it would've been better if Judas had never been born.

----------


## Brett85

> Except that this is the very same Lake of Fire in which the Beast, False Prophet, and Dragon (Satan) are tortured in for all eternity.  So why do they suffer forever but nobody else does?


1)  I don't think it's clear that those three even suffer for all eternity, when the book of Daniel teaches that the beast will be destroyed, and Ezekiel teaches that Satan will be turned to ashes.  The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic book that references the Old Testament heavily.  For example, hardly anyone believes that the 200 million horses that are talked about is actually a literal teaching.

2)  Even if you take that verse 100% literally, it says that those three people will be "tormented day and night forever and ever," not all of the unsaved.  It says that the rest of the unsaved will die the second death.  Since the Bible says that God created hell for Satan and his angels, it's not unreasonable to assume that Satan would receive a much worse fate than unsaved humans, which would be eternal torment.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, where they'll receive the second death.  "Death" does not mean "existing for all eternity."
> 
> Revelation 21:8
> 
> "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."


If you can find anywhere in the word of God where "death" means *ceases to exist entirely*, I might give your belief more thought, but even the word "destroy" and "destruction" never indicate total annihilation.  It means that something is transformed into another existence.

God of creation is eternal and everything He creates is eternal as well.  God never *uncreates* anything, but He does transform His creation as it ceases to exist as one thing, is then transformed into another.  The same as God has no beginning and no end, so does everything He creates.

----------


## Brett85

> If you can find anywhere in the word of God where "death" means *ceases to exist entirely*, I might give your belief more thought, but even the word "destroy" and "destruction" never indicate total annihilation.  It means that something is transformed into another existence.


Death at least means that your body ceases to exist, that you will have no more life on this earth.  So the 2nd death would have to be similar to the first death.  At the first death, your body is destroyed and ceases to exist as something that can function and have consciousness.  So at the 2nd death, the resurrected bodies of the unsaved will perish in the lake of fire and be turned to ashes.  Malachi 4:1-3 is explicit that the unsaved will be turned to ashes after the judgment.

"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer *will be stubble*, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “*Not a root or a branch will be left to them.* 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; *they will be ashes under the soles of your feet* on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 1)  I don't think it's clear that those three even suffer for all eternity, when the book of Daniel teaches that the beast will be destroyed, and Ezekiel teaches that Satan will be turned to ashes.  The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic book that references the Old Testament heavily.  For example, hardly anyone believes that the 200 million horses that are talked about is actually a literal teaching.


You obviously have not read "Left Behind".  Yes, there are Christians who take these things 100% literally.  Personally, my eschatology isn't really worked out yet so I have no comments to offer on that particular point.



> 2)  Even if you take that verse 100% literally, it says that those three people will be "tormented day and night forever and ever," not all of the unsaved.  It says that the rest of the unsaved will die the second death.  Since the Bible says that God created hell for Satan and his angels, it's not unreasonable to assume that Satan would receive a much worse fate than unsaved humans, which would be eternal torment.


There's more than just that passage.  See this link: http://carm.org/hell-eternal

----------


## Brett85

> There's more than just that passage.  See this link: http://carm.org/hell-eternal


I sent you a video yesterday of a three hour debate, but this one is shorter, about 45 minutes.  If you have time to listen to this, you can hear Chris Date go through practically all of the verses that traditionalists believe prove eternal torment.  In my opinion he does a really good job of refuting the common interpretations of these verses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMxAYDlY9rQ

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I sent you a video yesterday of a three hour debate, but this one is shorter, about 45 minutes.  If you have time to listen to this, you can hear Chris Date go through practically all of the verses that traditionalists believe prove eternal torment.  In my opinion he does a really good job of refuting the common interpretations of these verses.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMxAYDlY9rQ


Yeah, that's right, I forgot about that.  I'll be interested to watch both videos at some point.

----------


## Terry1

> Death at least means that your body ceases to exist, that you will have no more life on this earth.  So the 2nd death would have to be similar to the first death.  At the first death, your body is destroyed and ceases to exist as something that can function and have consciousness.  So at the 2nd death, the resurrected bodies of the unsaved will perish in the lake of fire and be turned to ashes.  Malachi 4:1-3 is explicit that the unsaved will be turned to ashes after the judgment.
> 
> "Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer *will be stubble*, and the day that is coming will set them on fire, says the Lord Almighty. *Not a root or a branch will be left to them.* 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; *they will be ashes under the soles of your feet* on the day when I act, says the Lord Almighty.


As well as Malachi 4:1-3 say, so dos Ezekiel refer to our "ashes" as the physical remains here on earth and not after.  

*Ezekiel 28:18 
You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midst; It devoured you, And I turned you to ashes upon the earth In the sight of all who saw you.*

Here in Revelation it tells us that the dead were raised from the sea and those already dead and those in hell.  Ashes refer to those who's physical bodies have been turned to ash/dust/dirt/earth.

*Revelation 20:
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.  14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d]  15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.*

----------


## Brett85

There might be some verses that refer to people becoming "ashes" in this life, but the verse in Malachi is very clear that it's talking about what's going to happen after the resurrection and judgment.  It's talking about "the day of the Lord," which is also talked about in Zephaniah 1:14-20.

"Near is the great day of the LORD, Near and coming very quickly; Listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, A day of trouble and distress, A day of destruction and desolation, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.  A day of trumpet and battle cry Against the fortified cities And the high corner towers. I will bring distress on men So that they will walk like the blind, Because they have sinned against the LORD; And their blood will be poured out like dust And their flesh like dung. Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth."

----------


## Brett85

Then 2nd Peter 3:5-7 refers to the same thing.  It says that the present earth is going to be destroyed by fire, which will destroy "ungodly men" on the day of judgment.  It compares that with the destruction of the earth when the great flood occurred.

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

----------


## Terry1

> There might be some verses that refer to people becoming "ashes" in this life, but the verse in Malachi is very clear that it's talking about what's going to happen after the resurrection and judgment.  It's talking about "the day of the Lord," which is also talked about in Zephaniah 1:14-20.
> 
> "Near is the great day of the LORD, Near and coming very quickly; Listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, A day of trouble and distress, A day of destruction and desolation, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.  A day of trumpet and battle cry Against the fortified cities And the high corner towers. I will bring distress on men So that they will walk like the blind, Because they have sinned against the LORD; And their blood will be poured out like dust And their flesh like dung. Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth."


Malachi 4: is referring to "The Day of God".  This is when the earth is consumed with fire and those upon it.  Note here:


Malachi 4:1-3

New King James Version (NKJV)


*The Great Day of God
*

4 For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,
Says the Lord of hosts,
That will leave them neither root nor branch.

2 
But to you who fear My name
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings;
And you shall go out
And grow fat like stall-fed calves.

3 
You shall trample the wicked,
*For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet
On the day that I do this,
*Says the Lord of hosts.


Now note 2 Peter 3:
*
The Day of the Lord*

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat;* both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up*.[c]  11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,  12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?  13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.


1 Thessalonians 5  says the very same thing confirming Malachi 4 and 2 Peter here:

*New King James Version (NKJV)


The Day of the Lord

5 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.  2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.  3 For when they say, Peace and safety! then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.  4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.  5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.  6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober.  7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night.  8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation.  9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,  10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
*

----------


## Brett85

The verse in 2nd Peter specifically says "the day of judgment."  How do you just ignore that?  It's talking about after the resurrection of the unsaved, when they'll be judged by God and then destroyed with fire from heaven.  The lake of fire described in Revelation is simply fire that God sends down from heaven.  2nd Peter explicitly says this happens on the day of judgment.  After the judgment is over and the earth and the heavens are destroyed, God will create new heavens and a new earth, and the new earth will be the eternal paradise for believers.


 "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the *DAY OF JUDGMENT* and destruction of ungodly men."

----------


## Brett85

> If you can find anywhere in the word of God where "death" means *ceases to exist entirely*, I might give your belief more thought, but even the word "destroy" and "destruction" never indicate total annihilation.


Right, which is why the word "annihilation" really isn't a good word.  I just believe in conditional immortality.  If the unsaved were burnt up in the lake of fire, they would still exist as ashes, so you're right that they would still exist in another form.  But they just wouldn't be conscious for all eternity, which is the main point that those who believe in this theology make.  But here's one verse for you.

Psalm 146:4

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day *his thoughts perish.*

----------


## Terry1

> The verse in 2nd Peter specifically says "the day of judgment."  How do you just ignore that?  It's talking about after the resurrection of the unsaved, when they'll be judged by God and then destroyed with fire from heaven.  The lake of fire described in Revelation is simply fire that God sends down from heaven.  2nd Peter explicitly says this happens on the day of judgment.  After the judgment is over and the earth and the heavens are destroyed, God will create new heavens and a new earth, and the new earth will be the eternal paradise for believers.
> 
> 
>  "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the *DAY OF JUDGMENT* and destruction of ungodly men."


Well, here I go, but I'm a fairly firm believer in the rapture of the church out of this world.  If you read through to the end of Revelation chapter 3 at the very beginning of chapter 4 in Revelation it says this.


*Revelation 4* 

New King James Version (NKJV)


The Throne Room of Heaven

4 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. *And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying*,* “Come up here,* and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

After the beginning of Revelation chapter 4, there is no more mention of the churches in the world after that.

Also take a look at this scripture that confirms Revelation 4:1 here:

*1 Thessalonians 4: 13* But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.  14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.[b]

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.  16 For the *Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.* 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.  18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Also:
*
Matthew 24:30* 
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the *earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
* 
*Mark 13:26* 
*Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
*

----------


## Terry1

The rapture shouldn't be confused with the second coming of Christ where He sets Himself upon the Mount of Olives and splits it in two.  The rapture is a different event that happens before the second coming where we meet the Lord in the clouds.  This is where He removes the physical spiritual church from the world and at this point is the beginning of the first half of the great tribulation, the first three and a half years.

I also have good reason to believe there will be more than one rapture, but that is a different topic for another time as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Psalm 65:4
> 
> Blessed is the man *You choose*,
> And *cause to approach You*,
> That he may dwell in Your courts.


Blessed is the one God causes to come to Him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *John 12:39-40
> 
> Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”*


God blinds the eyes and hardens the heart of man.

----------


## Brett85

Sola is back with a vengeance.  Lol.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola is back with a vengeance.  Lol.


In fairness, his post was on topic  Although, the topic is somewhat unfair in that its technically impossible for an Arminian to post without going off topic

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Romans 15:5-6
> 
> Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> *


GOD is the one who gives perseverance.   Arminianism refuted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

As far as I'm concerned Arminianism has already been refuted a thousand times.  I need a debate between a "tolerant" calvinist and an "intolerant" calvinist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Romans 14:4
> 
> Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls;  and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> *


The Lord makes a man stand.  Arminianism refuted.

----------


## Brett85

> The Lord makes a man stand.  Arminianism refuted.


The Lord *is able* to make him stand.  He doesn't force him to stand.  You always have to twist every single one of these verses to conform to your ideology.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, you obviously have too much fun with this

----------


## Brett85

Predestination is based on foreknowledge and not on unconditional election.  Calvinism refuted.

1 Peter 1:1-2

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the *foreknowledge* of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

----------


## Christian Liberty

"predestination according to foreknowledge" doesn't even make sense when foreknowledge is explained the way you explain it.  Its not even really predestination the way you define it.

----------


## RJB

Hey Sola.  Have you checked out this thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...inists-worship


This isn't an attack on you. I'm genuinely curious. You attack everyone else, but give nothing as the alternative.  How do you worship and what do you call yourself?

I'm asking this because you have 20,000 + posts mostly bashing other Christians, yet you do not tell us how we are supposed to worship.  EVERY Christian denominations claims to be Christian and claims to worships Scripturally.  Witness to us about the beauty of your faith without bashing others.

----------


## Brett85

> "predestination according to foreknowledge" doesn't even make sense when foreknowledge is explained the way you explain it.  Its not even really predestination the way you define it.


Can predestination only be predestination if it's based on unconditional election?  Is there no definition of predestination that can't include unconditional election?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Predestination is based on foreknowledge and not on unconditional election.  Calvinism refuted.
> 
> 1 Peter 1:1-2
> 
> Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the *foreknowledge* of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.


This has already been explained to you.  _Proginosko_ is a term that describes a relationship.  It does not denote something like God looking down the corridors of time and seeing people's decisions.  You do violence to the Word of God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can predestination only be predestination if it's based on unconditional election?  Is there no definition of predestination that can't include unconditional election?


I don't honestly know for sure, but it doesn't work if its based on foreknowledge.  "I'm choosing you because you will choose me" is not predestination, its just free will.

----------


## Brett85

> This has already been explained to you.  _Proginosko_ is a term that describes a relationship.  It does not denote something like God looking down the corridors of time and seeing people's decisions.  You do violence to the Word of God.


It also means God's foreknowledge of future events.  God is all powerful and can see every event that occurs in the future.  "A relationship" is not the only definition of _proginosko._  Besides, a relationship would include knowing a person's heart, their qualities, and whether or not they would be open to accepting the gospel.  Unconditional election simply isn't taught anywhere in the Bible.  Predestination is always based on God's foreknowledge.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't honestly know for sure, but it doesn't work if its based on foreknowledge.  "I'm choosing you because you will choose me" is not predestination, its just free will.


Well, the verse itself says that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge.

----------


## Christian Liberty

No it doesn't.  Sola answered you on this.

----------


## Brett85

> No it doesn't.  Sola answered you on this.


And he's wrong.  There are several meanings of _proginosko,_ not simply "a relationship."  It's also a word that describes God's ability to see future events.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It also means God's foreknowledge of future events.  God is all powerful and can see every event that occurs in the future.  "A relationship" is not the only definition of _proginosko._  Besides, a relationship would include knowing a person's heart, their qualities, and whether or not they would be open to accepting the gospel.  Unconditional election simply isn't taught anywhere in the Bible.  Predestination is always based on God's foreknowledge.


_Proginosko_ does refer to a relationship whenever it is used in regards to election.

----------


## Brett85

> _Proginosko_ does refer to a relationship whenever it is used in regards to election.


Right, I guess the Calvinists just get to make up their own rules for interpreting the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right, I guess the Calvinists just get to make up their own rules for interpreting the Bible.


In the passages which speak about election and predestination (in Ephesians 1 for example), the object of foreknowledge is people, not things, and not choices.  To "know" someone in the Bible is to enter into an intimate relationship with them.  Adam "knew" Eve for example.

[mod delete]

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In the passages which speak about election and predestination (in Ephesians 1 for example), the object of foreknowledge is people, not things, and not choices.  To "know" someone in the Bible is to enter into an intimate relationship with them.  Adam "knew" Eve for example.
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times.  You don't accept it because you aren't a Christian and *you will hold on to the fairy tale of your free will until your dying breath.*  You are a slave.


Sola, you should edit the bold.  You are expressing wrong theology there and you know it.  You don't know whether God will open his eyes or not.  And its posts like this that end up making us have to deal with false accusations that we claim to know who is and isn't elect.

----------


## Brett85

> This has been explained to you countless times.  You don't accept it because you aren't a Christian and you will hold on to the fairy tale of your free will until your dying breath.  You are a slave.


Like I said, I'll just keep Jesus' words in mind and pray for those who persecute me.  Have a great night Sola.  God bless.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Like I said, I'll just keep Jesus' words in mind and pray for those who persecute me.  Have a great night Sola.  God bless.


I think calling this "persecution" is a bit of a stretch. If the whole forum were calling you a non-Christian and you were right against the vast majority of the forum I can see your point, but Sola is going to be attacked for his post by far more people than you will.

----------


## Terry1

> In the passages which speak about election and predestination (in Ephesians 1 for example), the object of foreknowledge is people, not things, and not choices.  To "know" someone in the Bible is to enter into an intimate relationship with them.  Adam "knew" Eve for example.
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times.  You don't accept it because you aren't a Christian and you will hold on to the fairy tale of your free will until your dying breath.  You are a slave.


Nope--slaves have chains, we're free folk in Christ.  I can't imagine ever choosing opposite God, but it's good to know that God values liberty and freedom as much as we do here on earth just the same.  God honors our faith because we choose to remain in Him and not because God keeps that faith for us.


*Hebrews 11:
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 

*

----------


## moostraks

> The Lord makes a man stand.  Arminianism refuted.


Psalm 34:4I sought the LORD, and He answered me,
            And delivered me from all my fears.

      5They looked to Him and were radiant,
            And their faces will never be ashamed.

      6This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him
            And saved him out of all his troubles.

      7The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him,
            And rescues them.

Psalm 91: 10No evil will befall you,
            Nor will any plague come near your tent.

      11For He will give His angels charge concerning you,
            To guard you in all your ways.

      12They will bear you up in their hands,
            That you do not strike your foot against a stone.

----------


## moostraks

> GOD is the one who gives perseverance.   Arminianism refuted.


Matthew 7:7Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Matthew 7:7“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8“For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9“Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10“Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!


What does Matthew 7:7 have to do with perseverance?

----------


## moostraks

> What does Matthew 7:7 have to do with perseverance?


Everything. If you ask for Him to aid you in persevering then He will hear your pleas. Perseverance is important and should considered one of the good gifts He will give His children who ask.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't see how anyone can read Romans 8:28-35 and come away not holding to all 5 TULIP points.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Verses that destroy Arminianism

Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:21

----------


## Rond

> *John 15:16
> 
> You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.*


Synergism completely refuted.  It is GOD who causes one to bear good fruit.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Synergism completely refuted.  It is GOD who causes one to bear good fruit.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rond again.

It has taken months of study and prayer to understand monergism.  I was raised in and learned to love Christ, in an Arminian-type church.  Now, it is nearly impossible to find a church of any denomination that clearly teaches believers, to rest in the Atonement and Satisfaction of Christ Alone.

----------


## Rond

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rond again.
> 
> It has taken months of study and prayer to understand monergism.  I was raised in and learned to love Christ, in an Arminian-type church.  Now, it is nearly impossible to find a church of any denomination that clearly teaches believers, to rest in the Atonement and Satisfaction of Christ Alone.


I attend a sovereign grace church.  They are hard to find...but the road is narrow and it will always be that way.  The key is to seek out those congregations who magnify Christ and Christ alone in salvation,  as opposed to the ones who preach the false gospel of man's effort.

trinityfoundation.org had a sovereign grace church listing.  Let me see if they still have it.


EDIT:  here it is Louise  http://trinityfoundation.org/churchregmain.php

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Yes, it is encouraging to read the questions, replies and the long list of faithful churches.   I am thrilled you have found this kind of church to be in covenant with.  What you have is priceless.

----------


## Brett85

I attend a non cultish church.

----------


## Rond

> I attend a non cultish church.


I doubt that.   Anyway, any congregation that would not dispel you for your cultic views is not a Christian congregation anyway.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, it is encouraging to read the questions, replies and the long list of faithful churches.   I am thrilled you have found this kind of church to be in covenant with.  What you have is priceless.


nice to see ya Louise!

----------


## Brett85

> I doubt that.   Anyway, any congregation that would not dispel you for your cultic views is not a Christian congregation anyway.


We don't dispel people from our church.  We believe in the message of love that is all throughout the Bible; we don't accept or believe in your Fred Phelps theology.

----------


## Rond

> We don't dispel people from our church.  We believe in the message of love that is all throughout the Bible; we don't accept or believe in your Fred Phelps theology.


That's right, because you don't attend a Christian church.  All Christian churches dispel the wicked people from their congregations. 




> 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
> 
> But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

----------


## Brett85

> That's right, because you don't attend a Christian church.  All Christian churches dispel the wicked people from their congregations.


Then we should all be kicked out of church, because we're all wicked by God's standards.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I don't see how anyone can read Romans 8:28-35 and come away not holding to all 5 TULIP points.


Indeed.

Romans 8:38-39 -   believers are sealed forever, in Christ.  I am convinced, too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I doubt that.   Anyway, any congregation that would not dispel you for your cultic views is not a Christian congregation anyway.


Hold on, is merely tolerating heresy enough reason to make a church non-Christian now?  Wow...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then we should all be kicked out of church, because we're all wicked by God's standards.


YOu know what he means.  I don't even necessarily agree, but come on.  

While we're on the subject of church discipline, why shouldn't confessing Christians who support "collateral damage" not also be excommunicated?

----------


## Rond

> Hold on, is merely tolerating heresy enough reason to make a church non-Christian now?  Wow...





> 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
> 
> But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, *or an idolater*, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.


Christians expel idolaters from among themselves FF.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christians expel idolaters from among themselves FF.


The problem is that you're finding a Biblical command, and you're assuming that failure to follow it (For whatever reason) makes a church a non-Christian.  Christians do sin.

----------


## Rond

> The problem is that you're finding a Biblical command, and you're assuming that failure to follow it (For whatever reason) makes a church a non-Christian.  Christians do sin.


How could it be possible that a Christian is an idolater?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How could it be possible that a Christian is an idolater?


I actually do think its possible in a certain sense.  Its not that a Christian can actively worship other gods, but we do all worship idols without realizing it whenever we put something above God in any situation.  While we may not consciously do this, we still do it.  I think it would be incredibly arrogant to claim that one never does this.

That said, I wasn't even really talking about this.  I was talking about churches that fail to expel the idolatry within them.  Mind you, I am not saying a true church can tolerate blatantly false religions that flat out deny Christ.  But when heresy gets more subtle, I think its possible for a church (a true church) to fail to go after it with the correct degree of zealousness.

----------


## Rond

> I actually do think its possible in a certain sense.  Its not that a Christian can actively worship other gods, but we do all worship idols without realizing it whenever we put something above God in any situation.  While we may not consciously do this, we still do it.  I think it would be incredibly arrogant to claim that one never does this.
> 
> That said, I wasn't even really talking about this.  I was talking about churches that fail to expel the idolatry within them.  Mind you, I am not saying a true church can tolerate blatantly false religions that flat out deny Christ.  But when heresy gets more subtle, I think its possible for a church (a true church) to fail to go after it with the correct degree of zealousness.



Idolatry is the worship of a false god.  Idolatry is not sinning in some situation where you should have put God's command in priority.   How can a Christian worship a false god?

----------


## Brett85

> YOu know what he means.  I don't even necessarily agree, but come on.  
> 
> While we're on the subject of church discipline, why shouldn't confessing Christians who support "collateral damage" not also be excommunicated?


I don't think I'm really in favor of excommunicating people from church.  I just wouldn't allow them to become members of the church if they have really bad theological views or live a completely immoral lifestyle.

----------


## erowe1

> How could it be possible that a Christian is an idolater?


If an idolater is anyone who commits idolatry, then it must be possible for a Christian to do that. All through 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul warns saved Christians against committing idolatry, and he even refers to the Christians who would be most prone to do it as those who have knowledge, since they understand that an idol is really nothing, who are instructed not to on account of the consciences of those who lack knowledge. Colossians 3:5 tells Christians to put to death greed which is idolatry. In Acts 19:18 a bunch of Christians gather up their magic books and burned them. These were people who already had believed (n.b. the perfect tense verb in verse 18), not people just then coming to faith. There was also a common situation in the early Church where Christians were ordered by the state to commit idolatry or else be killed. Many chose death, and those who did chose rightly. But I wouldn't say that the ones who caved in under those circumstances couldn't possibly have been saved.

Also, if you believe that never committing an act of idolatry is a condition of salvation, then isn't that a work?

If an idolater is anyone who is reckoned as an idolater by God, then I agree, a Christian can't be one of those, no matter what they do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Idolatry is the worship of a false god.  Idolatry is not sinning in some situation where you should have put God's command in priority.   How can a Christian worship a false god?





> If an idolater is anyone who commits idolatry, then it must be possible for a Christian to do that. All through 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul warns saved Christians against committing idolatry, and he even refers to the Christians who would be most prone to do it as those who have knowledge, since they understand that an idol is really nothing, who are instructed not to on account of the consciences of those who lack knowledge. Colossians 3:5 tells Christians to put to death greed which is idolatry. In Acts 19:18 a bunch of Christians gather up their magic books and burned them. These were people who already had believed (n.b. the perfect tense verb in verse 18), not people just then coming to faith. There was also a common situation in the early Church where Christians were ordered by the state to commit idolatry or else be killed. Many chose death, and those who did chose rightly. But I wouldn't say that the ones who caved in under those circumstances couldn't possibly have been saved.
> 
> Also, if you believe that never committing an act of idolatry is a condition of salvation, then isn't that a work?
> 
> If an idolater is anyone who is reckoned as an idolater by God, then I agree, a Christian can't be one of those, no matter what they do.


I agree with erowe1's answer above (admittedly, I could find a way around the second to last part, which may or may not work.)




> I don't think I'm really in favor of excommunicating people from church. I just wouldn't allow them to become members of the church if they have really bad theological views or live a completely immoral lifestyle.


Is there really a difference?

----------


## Rond

> If an idolater is anyone who commits idolatry, then it must be possible for a Christian to do that. All through 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul warns saved Christians against committing idolatry, and he even refers to the Christians who would be most prone to do it as those who have knowledge, since they understand that an idol is really nothing, who are instructed not to on account of the consciences of those who lack knowledge. Colossians 3:5 tells Christians to put to death greed which is idolatry. In Acts 19:18 a bunch of Christians gather up their magic books and burned them. These were people who already had believed (n.b. the perfect tense verb in verse 18), not people just then coming to faith. There was also a common situation in the early Church where Christians were ordered by the state to commit idolatry or else be killed. Many chose death, and those who did chose rightly. But I wouldn't say that the ones who caved in under those circumstances couldn't possibly have been saved.
> 
> Also, if you believe that never committing an act of idolatry is a condition of salvation, then isn't that a work?
> 
> If an idolater is anyone who is reckoned as an idolater by God, then I agree, a Christian can't be one of those, no matter what they do.


Paul says:



> *"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." 
> 
> I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11*


Now of course there is a way to read the above verse as a condition of salvation,  and no Christian does this because Christ has fully met all the conditions of salvation on behalf of His people.

But there is a descriptive way to read this that shows Christians cannot be idolaters.  "And such WERE some of you, but you were sanctified".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Paul says:
> 
> 
> Now of course there is a way to read the above verse as a condition of salvation,  and no Christian does this because Christ has fully met all the conditions of salvation on behalf of His people.
> 
> But there is a descriptive way to read this that shows Christians cannot be idolaters.  "And such WERE some of you, but you were sanctified".


If a man who is professing the true gospel engages in a single act of homosexuality and then repents, does this prove that he isn't really a Christian?

I would say that he isn't a homosexual.  Similarly, David was not an adulterer or murderer, because he was washed.

erowe1 put it in a way I agree with.  Christians aren't idolaters.  But Christians can engage in (certain forms of) idolatry even as Christians, but they aren't idolaters because Christ paid for those sins.

Now, to be clear, I am in no way suggesting that a Christian can flat out worship and truly believe in another God, like the Muslim Allah* or one of the Hindu gods.  But I do believe that a Christian can value their will too highly, or otherwise impose unbiblical traditions on God, and still be a Christian, depending on what they are.

----------


## jmdrake

> Synergism completely refuted.  It is GOD who causes one to bear good fruit.


LOL.  AquaBuddha/Sola_Fide you are so predictable.  You get smacked down in one thread, you go bump another.  I see that you still don't want to address the fact that the verse you were quoting about Esau clearly was talking about the nation of Esau (Edom) and not "Esau in the womb".

Now let's look at the context of John 15:16.  Jesus was talking to His disciples.  When He called them to be disciples *they were already seeking God*.  Proof?

John 1:
_41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man._

Nathan and his friends were seeking the Messiah.  The Messiah (Jesus) saw that and called them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL.  AquaBuddha/Sola_Fide you are so predictable.  You get smacked down in one thread, you go bump another.  I see that you still don't want to address the fact that the verse you were quoting about Esau clearly was talking about the nation of Esau (Edom) and not "Esau in the womb".
> 
> Now let's look at the context of John 15:16.  Jesus was talking to His disciples.  When He called them to be disciples *they were already seeking God*.  Proof?
> 
> John 1:
> _41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
> 
> 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
> 
> ...


But why were they seeking?  Was it because there was something in them that was better than those who did not seek?  Or was it solely an act of monergistic mercy from God? 

I affirm the latter.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would say that he isn't a homosexual.  Similarly, David was not an adulterer or murderer, because he was washed.


Okay.  So the next time someone on death row converts to Christianity, he should receive clemency because, after all, he's not a murderer.   

Here's what God had to say.

_2 Samuel 12:10King James Version (KJV)

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife._

Sure God forgave David.  God was merciful to David.  David will ultimately be in heaven.  But to say that God treated David as if David didn't commit any crime at all is lunacy.

----------


## jmdrake

> But why were they seeking?  Was it because there was something in them that was better than those who did not seek?  Or was it solely an act of monergistic mercy from God? 
> 
> I affirm the latter.


You can believe or "affirm" whatever you like.  But you can't twist the Bible to say what it doesn't.   That's what AB/SF did.  It's what he always does.   It's a shame you never cal him out on it.  It's a shame that the best you can do is say "Well....I still believe X anyway."  John 15:16 simply doesn't say Jesus called them before they started seeking God in any form or fashion.  AquaBuddha took a verse in the Bible that was specifically talking about Jesus' calling His disciples *to ministry* and extrapolated that to a general "truth" about Christianity itself.

----------


## Rond

> You can believe or "affirm" whatever you like.  But you can't twist the Bible to say what it doesn't.   That's what AB/SF did.  It's what he always does.   It's a shame you never cal him out on it.  It's a shame that the best you can do is say "Well....I still believe X anyway."  John 15:16 simply doesn't say Jesus called them before they started seeking God in any form or fashion.  AquaBuddha took a verse in the Bible that was specifically talking about Jesus' calling His disciples *to ministry* and extrapolated that to a general "truth" about Christianity itself.


A call to ministry is a call to salvation.  And you missed the point of the verse:  it is GOD who is causing the ministry to bear fruit.

----------


## Rond

> LOL.  AquaBuddha/Sola_Fide you are so predictable.  You get smacked down in one thread, you go bump another.  I see that you still don't want to address the fact that the verse you were quoting about Esau clearly was talking about the nation of Esau (Edom) and not "Esau in the womb".
> 
> Now let's look at the context of John 15:16.  Jesus was talking to His disciples.  When He called them to be disciples *they were already seeking God*.  Proof?
> 
> John 1:
> _41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
> 
> 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
> 
> ...



I don't have time to find all the times I have refuted the nation interpretation of Romans 9.   Either you are a liar,  or you simply don't read my responses or the responses of Biblical scholars that I post.  The nation interpretation of Romans 9 is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE and cannot in any way be supported by the text.

Here is your interpretation completely refuted 12 different ways:

*Twelve Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election*
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...rate-election/

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't have time to find all the times I have refuted the nation interpretation of Romans 9.


Well I just took the time to review your entire posting history and you didn't address that point even once.

So, link or you're a baldfaced liar.

----------


## Rond

> Well I just took the time to review your entire posting history and you didn't address that point even once.
> 
> So, link or you're a baldfaced liar.


Look harder.

----------


## acptulsa

> Look harder.


You lied.  You can confess and repent, or you can lie some more, or you can keep silent and show everyone you did lie.  I don't see any other options.

I really don't need to look harder.  'Rond' has a posting history which is an open book, and about ten percent of it is denials that you're someone else.  So, either you lied or you lied.  And I say you lied.

----------


## jmdrake

> A call to ministry is a call to salvation.  And you missed the point of the verse:  it is GOD who is causing the ministry to bear fruit.


Ummmmmm....no.  In fact that contradicts your own view that salvation precedes repentance.  Isiah was not "unsaved" when he was called to be a prophet.  Neither were Samuel or Elijah or a host of other prophets.  When Matthias was called to replace Judas he was given a call to ministry even though he was already saved.  Same with Stephen when he was called to be a deacon.  Really, you just make stuff up as you go along without any basis in reality.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have time to find all the times I have refuted the nation interpretation of Romans 9.   Either you are a liar,  or you simply don't read my responses or the responses of Biblical scholars that I post.  The nation interpretation of Romans 9 is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE and cannot in any way be supported by the text.


You are the liar Sola_Fide.  Everybody here knows that you are lying about who you are.  Further, while you made a stupid attempt to refute a post moonstraks made on the issue you never refuted mine.  You didn't because you can't.  Paul was quoting Malachi and Malachi was clearly talking about Essau the nation, not Essau the person.




> Here is your interpretation completely refuted 12 different ways:
> 
> *Twelve Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election*
> http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...rate-election/


Riiight.  Typical theological cowardice from you.  Rather than actually address the Bible, you link to some other ignorant person's opinion.  It's really simple.  Paul quoted Malachi.  Malachi was talking about Esau as a nation.  Even FreedomFanatic knows this to be the truth.

Edit: One more thing liar.  I actually clicked on your link.  The idiot you are linking to just totally ignored the Malachi point.  But a commentator on the blog did not.

_cherylu October 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Michael,

Malachi one speaks election of nations re Jacob and Esau, does it not?_

And this idiots response?

_C Michael Patton October 4, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Cheryl, yes, but what I have argued above is that due to all 12 points, it seems clear that Paul is not using them in such a way. So many factors point to individual election. I don’t know how election “out of” Israel (point #10) can still refer to corporate Israel, do you?_

So that's how Calvinism works my friends.  Ignore the context of what is actually being said.  Ignore the parallel passages that Paul was actually quoting.  And instead come up with your own "logic" to "prove" your point regardless of the fact that it contradicts what the scriptures were plainly saying.  Sola scriptura my foot!

----------


## acptulsa

> In fact that contradicts your own view that salvation precedes repentance...  Really, you just make stuff up as you go along without any basis in reality.


When some people engage in self-contradiction they're never closer to reality.  Indeed, it's often the only time they make any sense at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> You lied.  You can confess and repent, or you can lie some more, or you can keep silent and show everyone you did lie.  I don't see any other options.
> 
> I really don't need to look harder.  'Rond' has a posting history which is an open book, and about ten percent of it is denials that you're someone else.  So, either you lied or you lied.  And I say you lied.


LOL.  Oh what a tangled web we we've when we first practice to deceive.    But I'll go a step further.  Not only has "Rond" not refuted the Paul-is-quoting-Malachi connection, but Sola_fide hasn't nor has AquaBuddha.

----------


## acptulsa

> Rather than actually address the Bible, you link to some other ignorant person's opinion.


Well, when you're lying, nothing else makes any sense.  The Bible just isn't much help with that.

----------


## Rond

> LOL.  Oh what a tangled web we we've when we first practice to deceive.    But I'll go a step further.  Not only has "Rond" not refuted the Paul-is-quoting-Malachi connection, but Sola_fide hasn't nor has AquaBuddha.





> Well, when you're lying, nothing else makes any sense.  The Bible just isn't much help with that.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-from-the-womb!

Jmdrake, I forgive you.

----------


## Rond

> LOL.  Oh what a tangled web we we've when we first practice to deceive.    But I'll go a step further.  Not only has "Rond" not refuted the Paul-is-quoting-Malachi connection, but Sola_fide hasn't nor has AquaBuddha.


HERE IS A POST FROM 2 YEARS AGO

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...84#post5646384


WHERE IS MY APOLOGY JMDRAKE?    That's what I thought.   You are not an honorable man.

----------


## jmdrake

> HERE IS A POST FROM 2 YEARS AGO
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...84#post5646384
> 
> 
> WHERE IS MY APOLOGY JMDRAKE?    That's what I thought.   You are not an honorable man.


*WE NOW HAVE AN ADMISSION FROM ROND THAT HE WAS LYING WHEN HE CLAIMED NOT TO BE SOLA_FIDE!  WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR LIES ROND?*

----------


## moostraks

> *WE NOW HAVE AN ADMISSION FROM ROND THAT HE WAS LYING WHEN HE CLAIMED NOT TO BE SOLA_FIDE!  WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR LIES ROND?*


Lol...I was waiting to get to the computer to link that for you before it was edited. So what type of a "Christian" does this behavior seem to indicate, eh SF/AB/Rond?

----------


## Brett85

> Is there really a difference?


I was saying that I would allow people who are theologically incorrect or immoral to attend church but wouldn't allow them to actually become members of the church.  So yes, there's a difference.  At our church there's a higher bar for becoming a member than for simply attending church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was saying that I would allow people who are theologically incorrect or immoral to attend church but wouldn't allow them to actually become members of the church.  So yes, there's a difference.  At our church there's a higher bar for becoming a member than for simply attending church.


OK, I didn't think excommunication meant not being able to attend church.  And I agree that nobody should be turned away at the doors solely for holding heretical* views (Although if they were TEACHING heresy that may be required) but I do think that those who hold heresy shouldn't be allowed to be church members.  Similar to those who engage in immoral lifestyles.

*I am not certain to what degree Arminianism is applicable here.  Personally I think its a mistake to allow Arminianism to be taught in a Reformed church, but I'm not certain that it qualifies as a heresy, at least if "heresy" is used to mean a teaching which no Christian can subscribe to.  I meant my comment in a more general context.




> Okay.  So the next time someone on death row converts to Christianity, he should receive clemency because, after all, he's not a murderer.   
> 
> Here's what God had to say.
> 
> _2 Samuel 12:10King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife._
> 
> Sure God forgave David.  God was merciful to David.  David will ultimately be in heaven.  But to say that God treated David as if David didn't commit any crime at all is lunacy.


David wasn't a murderer IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT VERSE.  But yes, I agree there were temporal punishment for David's actions.




> You can believe or "affirm" whatever you like.  But you can't twist the Bible to say what it doesn't.   That's what AB/SF did.  It's what he always does.   It's a shame you never cal him out on it.  It's a shame that the best you can do is say "Well....I still believe X anyway."  John 15:16 simply doesn't say Jesus called them before they started seeking God in any form or fashion.  AquaBuddha took a verse in the Bible that was specifically talking about Jesus' calling His disciples *to ministry* and extrapolated that to a general "truth" about Christianity itself.



I would use other verses to defend the idea that God called them beforehand (such as the end of Romans 8) not John 15:16.

----------


## jmdrake

> David wasn't a murderer IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT VERSE.  But yes, I agree there were temporal punishment for David's actions.


When David committed murder he was a murderer.  When he purposed in his heart to murder he was a murderer.  God met out punishment for his murder.  David repented and humbly accepted his punishment.  His record has been expunged.  There is an equivalent for that in our modern legal system.  You can commit a crime, receive punishment for that, and under certain circumstances still have your record expunged as if it never happened.  But, generally, that only happens if you accept responsibility for what you did.  (Confession).




> I would use other verses to defend the idea that God called them beforehand (such as the end of Romans 8) not John 15:16.


It's interesting that I never see you or SF quoting this part of John 15.

_5 `I am the vine, ye the branches; he who is remaining in me, and I in him, this one doth bear much fruit, because apart from me ye are not able to do anything;

6 if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without as the branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and cast to fire, and they are burned;

7 if ye may remain in me, and my sayings in you may remain, whatever ye may wish ye shall ask, and it shall be done to you._

Key word...*if*.  The "work" of the Christian is to remain in Jesus.  The clear implication here is that it's possible to have been in Jesus but not remain.  And before you go with "No man can pluck me out of His hand", that's true.  Nobody *else* can take you away from Jesus.  That doesn't mean you lack the ability to leave yourself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
> 
> - Mt 24:31*



...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?
> 
> - Luke 18:7*


...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
> 
> - 2 Thes 2:13
> *


...

----------


## Sola_Fide

...

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...63.3ljp639kyy0

----------


## Sola_Fide

> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...63.3ljp639kyy0


Why even post that?

----------


## pcosmar

> Why even post that?


Seems a relevant search for any that had never heard of Arminianism.

I never had before you posted it here.

----------


## moostraks

> *WE NOW HAVE AN ADMISSION FROM ROND THAT HE WAS LYING WHEN HE CLAIMED NOT TO BE SOLA_FIDE!  WHERE IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR LIES ROND?*





> ...


Well???
Luke 12...“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.

But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Galatians 5:7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is...

I John 4:7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

      15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19We love, because He first loved us. 20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Seems a relevant search for any that had never heard of Arminianism.
> 
> I never had before you posted it here.


It's important to know your traditions.  If you don't know the traditions you bring to the text, you are a slave to your traditions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

When you understand what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, even the normal verses that Arminians go to for proof of their view become *solid*  verses for the truth of predestination:




> *2 Peter 3:9  
> 
> The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 
> *


The Lord could bring an end to this world right now, but is patient toward His elect people so that all the ones He has predestined will be born and reach repentance.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why even post that?


  To provide additional information for those that may want or need it. Everyone else can just feel free to ignore it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> When you understand what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, even the normal verses that Arminians go to for proof of their view become *solid* verses for the truth of predestination:
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord could bring an end to this world right now, but is patient toward His elect people so that all the ones He has predestined will be born and reach repentance.


So he can end this world right now, but not fix it.  Is that what you are saying?  

His universe, his game, his rules, I guess.  <shrug>

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So he can end this world right now, but not fix it.  Is that what you are saying?  
> 
> His universe, his game, his rules, I guess.  <shrug>


Yes, He could end the world right now and bring the world to judgement.  He doesn't do this because He is patiently waiting for all the elect to be born and reach repentance.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes, He could end the world right now and bring the world to judgement. He doesn't do this because He is patiently waiting for all the elect to be born and reach repentance.


Or just go on ahead and forgive and save all he ever will, right now, correct?  Does it really even matter when, why and how?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or just go on ahead and forgive and save all he ever will, right now, correct?  Does it really even matter when, why and how?


Yes it matters because Jesus Christ paid the price for sin for all of His elect past, present, and future.  The elect that are in the future need to be born and come to repentance.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's important to know your traditions.  If you don't know the traditions you bring to the text, you are a slave to your traditions.


I have no traditions.  I was saved in a cell. locked in a cage. And eventually freed from that.. 

I was Raised in the Roman Church,, and rejected much of that when I read the Word. I retain none of those "traditions".

Though i do remember Christs birth at Christmastime. And his Resurrection at Easter. I do not get caught up in the hype generally accompanies them.
I do not believe his birth was in December,, nor do I accept the 2 days in the grave that tradition teaches.

you can keep your traditions if that comforts *you*.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have no traditions.  I was saved in a cell. locked in a cage. And eventually freed from that.. 
> 
> I was Raised in the Roman Church,, and rejected much of that when I read the Word. I retain none of those "traditions".
> 
> Though i do remember Christs birth at Christmastime. And his Resurrection at Easter. I do not get caught up in the hype generally accompanies them.
> I do not believe his birth was in December,, nor do I accept the 2 days in the grave that tradition teaches.
> 
> you can keep your traditions if that comforts *you*.


Pete,

The one who says he has no traditions is a slave to his traditions.

You must examine the foundation of your beliefs to ever understand what the Bible truly says.

----------


## moostraks

> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...63.3ljp639kyy0





> Why even post that?





> My motive is to spur a civil discussion in the religious forum.  That's really it.


Proverbs 20:11 11 Even a child is known by his actions,...

----------


## pcosmar

> Pete,
> 
> The one who says he has no traditions is a slave to his traditions.
> 
> You must examine the foundation of your beliefs to ever understand what the Bible truly says.



Oh,, I am very comfortable with my beliefs.. and the only one that corrects them is the Holy Spirit. (He has,,and he does)
I do not hold to the traditions of this world,, and look forward to no traditions,, when the King returns.

I speak with my Father and he answers my questions. I am not here to learn anything from you.

It is your tradition that is blinding you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh,, I am very comfortable with my beliefs.. and the only one that corrects them is the Holy Spirit.
> I do not hold to the traditions of this world,, and look forward to no traditions,, when the King returns.
> 
> I speak with my Father and he answers my questions. I am not here to learn anything from you.
> 
> It is your tradition that is blinding you.



I'm not saying that to insult you Pete.  I'm just saying that the one who says he has no traditions is actually blinded by his traditions.  Everyone has traditions...and those traditions must be examined by the Word of God.  Some traditions are biblical, and some aren't.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes it matters because Jesus Christ paid the price for sin for all of His elect past, present, and future. The elect that are in the future need to be born and come to repentance.


The price for sin was a bad 3 day weekend? 

What do the unborn have to repent for?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The price for sin was a bad 3 day weekend?


Obviously you do not understand the spiritual nature of Christ's sacrifice.






> What do the unborn have to repent for?


Are you asking if babies go to hell?

In Romans 5, it is explained that all men, whatever the age, are imputed with Adam's sin.  If you are a man, you are born with a sin nature because Adam acted as the federal head of mankind when he sinned, and when Adam fell, we all fell.  We are born in to a natural state of sin.

I think what you are asking is if babies will be in Hell.  I don't think the Bible says one way or the other. But what is clear is that God has the same freedom to create vessels of mercy of any age and He has the same freedom to create vessels of destruction, at any age.  I personally believe (although I don't find any scriptural support for it) that God saves all babies and puts them in Christ, but He does so out of His mercy, because all men, whatever the age, are fallen.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Obviously you do not understand the spiritual nature of Christ's sacrifice.
> 
> *Perhaps, but not being a Christian allows me to be OK with that.
> 
> Aside from his Dad allowing him to be nailed to a tree (cross), I'd SWAG the physical "sacrifice" (so called) was probably much more painful than the spiritual.*
> 
> Are you asking if babies go to hell?
> 
> In Romans 5, it is explained that all men, whatever the age, are imputed with Adam's sin. If you are a man, you are born with a sin nature because Adam acted as the federal head of mankind when he sinned, and when Adam fell, we all fell. We are born in to a natural state of sin.
> ...


//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> //


You don't have to hold Paul in any esteem, but God spoke through Paul and the other apostles, so we esteem the words of God spoken through them and recorded by them.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not saying that to insult you Pete.  I'm just saying that the one who says he has no traditions is actually blinded by his traditions.  Everyone has traditions...and those traditions must be examined by the Word of God.  Some traditions are biblical, and some aren't.


well then,, what "traditions" do I have. Tell me about them.

I have already said that I remember Christs Birth at Christmas time, but I do not believe that he was born on that date.
and we generally do have a meal associated with that. I suppose that is traditional. but I don't think it is blinding. I see the commercialization,, and the fantasy and pagan rituals associated.. but generally ignore them.
I do not get into all the spring fertility rites associated with Easter,, but generally remember the passover,, and the resurrection of Christ.

I do hold the tradition of offering whatever hospitality I have to guests in my home,,but there is no ritual attached.

I don't even teach my dogs to do "tricks".. So tell me,,what are these Traditions you speak of??

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You don't have to hold Paul in any esteem, but God spoke through Paul and the other apostles, so we esteem the words of God spoken through them and recorded by them.


So says Paul.   Personally, I'm more than very skeptical. The other REAL apostles didn't seem to care much for Paul either.

*"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel about Jesus - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle, Church Historian
*
*"All the good in Christianity can be traced to Jesus, all the bad to Paul." - Franz Overbeck, Protestant Theologian
*
*"One might say that it became...The exact opposite of what was intended." - Manfred Mezger, Protestant Theologian

**"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So says Paul.   Personally, I'm more than very skeptical.


Well, it's very normal that you are skeptical about the claims of Christianity if you are not a Christian.  But, to let you know, Christianity and Paulism (as you call it) are one and the same thing.  Paul did not contradict Christ in one syllable.  Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles (Luke said that by the way).  And all Christians love the word of God through Paul and know it is inspired.






> The other REAL apostles didn't seem to care much for Paul either.


What do you mean by that?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, it's very normal that you are skeptical about the claims of Christianity if you are not a Christian. But, to let you know, Christianity and Paulism (as you call it) are one and the same thing. Paul did not contradict Christ in one syllable. Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles (Luke said that by the way). And all Christians love the word of God through Paul and know it is inspired.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...00.o_mIbJuXkmI
> 
> 
> What do you mean by that?
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=apos...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=


 Homework time.

Actually, I'm very fond of Jesus. That is exactly why I'm not a "Christian" (so called).

----------

