Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I didn't really know, and still don't know Calvinism through and through, when I made that statement. I had a very general sense of of it.
I don't know how to explain how I came to know it better, and the affinity that ensued, except to relay that when I read of the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace, something inside, that was rigid and frozen, thawed. It actually felt like I thawed. I know that probably sounds crazy, but I don't know how else to put it into words.
I hate to quote that crazy Nietchze (sp? - who I think might have been a bit misunderstood, while fully admitting he was no fan of Christians), but this struggle has made me a lot stronger, and my Faith more profound. And I've only just begun.
The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world John 1:29
he {Jesus} is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world 1 John 2:2
Christ died for the sin of all mankind, just as Adam's one sin effected all mankind (romans 5). We both agree that not everyone will utilize this incredible gift.
1 Cor 3:13
Not sure what you are getting at, brother.
God said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved
The word "Believe" implies an ongoing activity, not just a one-time declaration. Thus, if we continue WALKING IN FAITH, yes, we will be saved for eternal life.
God said He'll keep me safe. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Yes, in retrospect, the elect will have followed the Master's voice UNTIL THE END.
I believe God's word.
The "problem" is that we disagree what it says, don't we? Christ had plenty of foresight when He appointed an authoritative body to bind and loosen, didn't He?
Regards
Luk 1:46-47 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
One has to wonder why if Mary lived her entire life sinless by her own choice would she then need a Savior?
In her humility, she would never think otherwise.
First, what you call a word of God is one of the versions that has become a word of God after tradition of men. Second, you select isolated verses you want to believe. Third, you make up your own interpretations.
But, let me ask you: if God were to reveal that there is no salvation for us, because mankind has not repeneted and He now decided to cause another great flood, except without Noah, would you still glorify Him? Would you still love Him?
As for 1 John 2:2 you left off 1 John 2:1:
The word "Believe" implies an ongoing activity, not just a one-time declaration.
Of course belief is an ongoing activity. Where do you think your faith came from to believe in the first place? Who do you think gives you the faith to continue? It all comes from God.
The "problem" is that we disagree what it says, don't we? Christ had plenty of foresight when He appointed an authoritative body to bind and loosen, didn't He?
So, your version of plain meaning then is that God asked them what they had done, because He did not know, and wanted to be educated by them? Is that the plain meaning?
That is the literary device that the inspired author used in order to indicate that the will of God was not followed but rather violated: God did not ordain the Fall.
Obviously, all-knowing God foreknew the Fall.
That is contrary to what the New Testament teaches us.
Kosta, you're such a tease. :) OK, I'll bite. Why is it contrary?
It states in the scriptures that, in the end, EVERY KNEE will bow and everyone will be under subjection-including those in hell.
1Jo 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.
kosta-In her humility, she would never think otherwise.
Then one has to wonder why our Lord Jesus in His humility didn't think He needed a Savior. After all wasn't both Mary and Jesus sinless?
Yes, a man by himself is insufficient to be considered righteous. How can a man who abides in Christ do so if he is not of the elect? And, what does any of this have to do with being perfect in our actions while alive on earth? You've never heard that from me.
Again, the mother ALLOWS this daughter to be a secondary cause of how the cookies turn out. And I believe God does the same with us. He allows us to struggle through life, not fulfilling the Commandments perfectly, but struggling to abide in Him, ... He is in control, but He doesn't use that control to overtake our efforts.
I fully agree that God allows us to struggle, and that He allows many of the cookies we make to be misshapen. That's how we learn how to make cookies the right way, and this is a good thing in God's eyes. However, when it comes time to actually make the cookies, to turn the dough into cookies, the mother DOES overtake the daughter's efforts to help. The loving mother won't let the daughter anywhere near the hot oven. God keeps His elect out of the oven too! :)
However, "an offer they can't refuse"? You are presuming that a person TRUSTS God completely and totally from the get-go. Trust is learned.
No, the trust I am talking about is a grace from God. If you believe that this trust comes from ourselves, apart from God, then what exactly do we need from God to come to Him? No one can have belief without trust, therefore, it appears you are saying that our belief also comes from ourselves, apart from God.
But why is it necessary that we pray that the will of God be done, if God's will is ALWAYS done?
LOL! Pretty good, Joe. I think we are commanded to pray for God's will for similar reasons that we are to praise God in prayer. (Does God really need our praise?) It is for our benefit because it reminds us of who God is and what He has done for us, both for our salvation and in our day to day lives.
We will always battle the serpent - and he will try to get us to refuse the Lord.
On this there can be no doubt. For the elect, under my system, the serpent always loses in the end. It appears that under your system, the serpent sometimes wins, such as with those unfortunate missionaries you told me about.
FK: "All those who are saved are of the elect and all those of the elect will be saved."
A wonderful circular argument!
Wow! When you take it completely out of context like that, you're right. It sure sounds like it.
My statement was in direct response to your challenge: "You are equating "being saved" with being of the elect ...". You were implying that is wrong, and I was saying that I disagree and that it is right. The sinner's prayer CANNOT be ineffective for the elect. I notice that you never bothered to tell me which of the elect are not saved, and which of the saved are not of the elect. Surely, this should be easy for you, since I'm using circular reasoning.
FK: "We humans can't be absolutely certain about that for other people, but God provides that we may be sure about ourselves."
LOL!!! Which Protestant believes that that after saying the Sinner's Prayer, that they are not of the elect? The only one who believes it didn't work are those who judge other people after the fact when a person falls - "He was never saved to begin with" What device did God give that person to indicate that this person would falter?
The Bible. I hope that also gives you a good laugh. Ultimately, I don't judge the salvation of any particular person. I just answer hypotheticals based on scripture.
If you are wrong, your assurance is just delusional, correct? When IF Christ meant that a person must eat His flesh to be saved for eternal life? Have you received the Eucharist as HE implemented it at the Last Supper and practiced by Christians for 2000 years?
Yes, if I am wrong, then my assurance is most assuredly delusional. If Christ really meant, as you suggest, that a person has to partake of the Eucharist, with the Catholic meanings attached, in order to be saved, then I am toast. I am perfectly comfortable with all of this, because if I am wrong, then the Bible is wrong, and I am worshiping a false God anyway.
The point of this is that your assurances are based on presumptions. Presumptions that you will remain faithful until the end, that you will persevere, AND presumptions that your interpretations of Scripture are entirely in line with God's intent.
What you call presumptions, I call scripture. As for my interpretations, if God really did write mostly in secret code, to confound the elect, then my interpretations will be wrong. If, however, Christianity is a revealed faith, then the scripture is understandable to the elect. It appears that the scripture is almost completely useless to the average Catholic without a translation manual separately written by the Church.
FK: "I am certain that we will all face a judgment based on our walk in faith. Interestingly, my Pastor preached on this point yesterday. That makes two weeks in a row that his sermon has been directly on point in this thread. Maybe he's lurking. :) Anyway, no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love. God gives the elect love, which we use to love Him back. He loved us first."
So then we are not saved by faith alone, correct? Furthermore, if we are judged on our walk, what happens if our walk was insufficient, for example, as Jesus describes on several occasions in Matthew 25 with three parables? Are those who are judged unworthy entering heaven?
To your first question, 'No', we are saved by grace through faith alone. I'm not sure what part of my paragraph you find contradictory. On my reference to judgment, I was only talking about rewards in Heaven, not salvation at all. As to the parables, the elect will be judged worthy and the non-elect will not. It is impossible for a member of the elect to have salvation, and then lose it for failing these parables.
You said that God gives the elect love. God offers His blessings to all, FK; for He "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" [Mat 5:45]
Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to love our enemies (cf Mat 5:44), "and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" as he prayed for forgiveness for these who crucified Him, "fore they don't know what they do."
Do you think God would teach us to love our enemies, while He loved only those who love Him? Doesn't He say "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?" (Mat 5:46)
In other words, true love loves those who hate you. What does that mean, FK? That we take them out to dinner? That we make friends with them? NO! It means we fervently and honestly pray for them, "they don't know what they do," and ask for the conversion of their hearts, so that they may be saved and live. God gives everyone a chance to convert, FK, everyone is salvageable. If they fail, it is not for the lack of God's love for them.
You believe in one of man's versions of the Scriptures. You form your beliefs based on what you read in the version and treat it as the truth.
"Isolated" verses that you cannot explain
Just about for every verse there is a verse that seems to counter it, HD. Our understanding of the faith is based on the totality of the oldest Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
You ignore those verses that don't fit your agenda. But, more importantly, you form your beliefs on isolated verses.
all I get in answer to my verses are "Yes, but..." or "It's a mystery..." or "I don't believe it"
Well, God is a Mystery or else we would all understand Him the same way. We don't argue over gravity, HD. God, we don't know the same way: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." {1 Cor 13:12)
Because we only know "in part" we do not claim to have all the answers (unlike some Protestants); we humbly accept our imperfect knowledge of God because it is not the knowledge of the Bible verses that is at the core of our faith, but love for God. If we love God, we fulfill the law. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Gal 5:14)
But that's the "lovey-dovey" (your own words) part of Christianity that bothers you...which is why you don't go there.
No, I simply tend to believe one church father over another; no different than you. You believe Cassian. I believe Augustine
Wrong, HD. I believe in consensus patrum; I believe that it reflects, to the best of human ability to comprehend, our collective understanding of the Scripture and the Faith revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ.
The ONLY reason I can love God is because..."He first loved us."
Given, but that applies to all people, not just the "elect." It is also easier said that done. You must think yourself better than Apostle Peter who disowned Christ three times in dire situation. Lip service is everyone's specialty. I tell you that if God were to decide to drown the world for the second time, the churches would empty and no one would glorify Him.
Take the salvation out of the faith and watch churches become empty buildings!
That's interesting about remarriage after the death of a spouse. From my POV, I would say it's OK to get remarried in this case because the vow before God was honored and completed. Since the surviving spouse is not "broken", as you describe in the case of most marriage dissolutions, why is this an ideal? I could be wrong about this, but in the OT, if a married man died, wasn't it the duty of his brother to take the widow as his wife, either to provide for her or to carry on the family name, etc.?
God gives -- if asked. That's why we pray. If we don't get what we ask for it is because the prayer is empty or we pray with an evil heart.
We do not ask for His will to be done; we make a statement of trust in His goodness. When we pray and say "Thy will be done" it means whatever happens we trust in God's mercy and justice; that whatever happens to us and the world is mericful and just even if we don't see it that way.
Those whom we love we trust. We are told to love God with all our heart, mind and soul; if so, then we must trust Him the same way. What makes Christianity unique compared to all other religions is that our faith is love -- in those we love, we have faith; God above all. In love, we fulfill the law.
I have never had any problem with God being omniscient. He doesn't just correctly guess everything we will ever do, He sees and He knows. He does see our response before we "choose", but the key is that He sees it before He creates us, physically. (You agreed that in real time God existed before man.)
[continuing ...] I never said man chooses God first. To us, He takes the initiative. But it is perfectly feasible to see that He would "see" our response as part of His initiative.
And there's the rub. How much of God's foreknowledge went into His decision on whom He would pick as the elect? I would say zero, and you can answer for yourself. If you say anything greater than zero, then that intrudes on God's sovereignty.
FK: "Obviously, it is no where in the Bible."
That God is not bound by creation? Do I need to prove that?
No, I was referring to my immediately prior sentences about your assertions that God chooses us and we choose Him simultaneously. I was saying I didn't think that was Biblically supported, and that I had not heard an explanation as to how that works. To what degree is God in control, how much luck is involved, how much credit do the elect deserve for making the right choice, etc.? That kind of thing.
God doesn't give everyone that sort of information. God gives EVEN THE GENTILES (Romans 2) a Natural Law, a law written on EVERYONE'S heart that tells them what is right and what is wrong. Everyone "knows" the Golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do to you". Everyone "knows" that stealing is wrong, because if someone steals from THEM, they get upset...
I think it is an over generalization to say that the difference between right and wrong is written into EVERYONE's heart. I would say likewise about everyone knowing the Golden Rule. That rule is quickly learned through experience, but what says a person is born knowing it? There are just too many obvious exceptions to this idea. This sounds too "man-centered" to me.
God rains down His grace upon all, the good and the evil. God spreads His "seed" upon ALL ground. God even DIED for ALL men, not just the elect...Scripture clearly notes you are incorrect. God gives everyone sufficient grace, since He desires ALL men to be saved.
So God gives everyone SAVING grace? Your faith is more man-centered than I thought. Assuming you are talking about prevenient grace, here is an excerpt from A Short Response to the Arminian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace ... by John Hendryx:
"Arminian Similarities with Reformed Theology:
(1) All men need to be saved from God's wrath through the atoning work of Christ.
(2) Both Reformed and Arminians believe, that, without the grace of God, man is totally incapable of responding to the Gospel. In this both positions are in total agreement.
Arminian Differences with Reformed Theology in its understanding of grace:
Lets observe at least three ways in which prevenient grace sharply differs from the biblical view of monergism:
(1) That the Arminian doctrine of "prevenient grace" is universal to all persons on earth whether or not they have heard the gospel. (But doesn't the Bible state, "how can one be believe if they have not heard?" and "...faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." - Rom 10: 14-17. This view, then, embraces the idea that the gospel is not necessary for one to be saved. In spite of the overwhelming case made by Paul against the Gentiles in Romans 1-3, the Arminians believe that some who have never heard the gospel can actually live their whole life without violating their conscience in sinless perfection, and thus be saved.)
(2) Prevenient grace is not effectual but puts us in a "neutral" frame of reference (fallen man can either swing to receive or reject Christ) But this raises a question. If our desires are "neutral" what causes a man to choose one way or another? It is both biblical (A thorn tree does not produce grapes) and self-evident that we always choose something based on our greatest desires. If we do not desire God or the world, choice is either impossible or it is by chance. Lets be clear that this concept is no where taught in the Bible. Arminians awkwardly force this on the Scripture in order to hold their system together. This alone should lead us to reject it. Unaided reason should NEVER be the foundation of our theological insights.
(3) Arminians hold that while still unregenerate some can and will improve on grace ... that God's prevenient grace takes us part of the way to salvation but man's still unregenerate will does the rest. Therefore, if all human beings have this prevenient grace at some point in their life, it wasn't grace that makes men to differ but the persons who made use of what God gave them which makes them to differ.
In other words some men had the ability to create a right thought, generate a right affection, or originate a right volition that was autonomous, beyond and independent of grace that led to their salvation while other men could not come up with what was needed to be saved. Why do some men make use of grace and not others? So, to the Arminian, the grace of God is still penultimate while the sinners faith is ultimate, the sine qua non of his salvation. So whether or not God extends prevenient grace you still have the same result: one man from his unregenerate will generates belief, another man from his unregenerate will does not generate belief and rejects Christ. What makes these two persons to differ? If they both received prevenient grace, why does one believe and not the other? One is making a morally good choice and the other a morally bad choice. Any way to look at Arminian prevenient grace it is merit that ultimately makes men to differ and besides having no biblical support this makes the position untenable. They are making the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and do not agree that it is the effectual gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble. I guess Arminians believe that some beggars are more equal than others. ...
The Scriptures testify that the man without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). Even with prevenient grace theoretically putting humanity in a neutral position, we would still lack the quickening Spirit to give us what we need. How is it then that the natural man can understand or desire God independent of grace? Can a blind man see prior to his eyes being opened? Can a man with a heart of stone love and desire God before His heart is made flesh? How can a ox desire flesh to eat or water rise above its source? We believe that salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He deserves all the glory. While we were still helpless Christ died for us and His death purchased everything we need to be saved, including our regeneration. For an unregenerate man would not ever desire the things of God on his own. If God's grace does not save us then man still ultimately decides based on some principle within, either good or evil."
I will continue in my next post.
FK: "Could God put love into these hearts if He wanted to?"
"PUT" love into one's heart? Is that love? A person can be disposed of to serve others, to be more open to God's graces and blessings, but in the end, love is not love if one does not choose.
Therefore, all of the love for God that we have comes only from within ourselves, and not from God. Just as God created satan, who later became evil, so did God create us, and we later developed love for Him on our own? Is this a fair statement of your view?
FK: "You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee [of assurance]. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. ...
God's word? You hear voices? What are you talking about? As to your confidence that your prayers took, how confident were you immediately following the first time you did it - then fell away, a proposition that could have lasted until your death?
I'm sorry. Whenever I refer to "God's word" I am talking about the Bible. I didn't know that Catholics don't see it that way. ... When I said the sinner's prayer as a teenager I was very confident of my salvation. That never changed, even when I fell away during college, because at that time I believed in OSAS. (Lucky for me :) Had I not been of the elect then that condition would have lasted until my death. But, praise Jesus, it didn't turn out like that. :)
FK: "Wow! You're strict. What would you accept as evidence or proof? How many God points do I need? :)"
There is NOTHING you can do that will prove you are of the elect 5 years from now. What sort of question is that? All we can do is look at our current stance with the Lord and our past - trusting in God's mercy that if we were to die today, He would have brought us into heaven.
Well, at least you answered my question, so thank you. :) I believe that through scripture, God offers all of His elect the gift of assurance, and I have just chosen to accept it.
I am only saying that you are being presumptuous on your status with the Lord 5 years from now, or the day of your death. God's promises are not for those who turn away and don't repent. It has nothing to do with being Protestant or being Catholic.
Then if I am following your logic, since no one can say what his status will be with the Lord 5 years from now, then ALL of God's promises are USELESS to anyone TODAY. NO ONE can know if God's promises apply to him personally, so they are all useless. Is that what you mean?
God knows whether you are of the elect, but you don't know. Haven't you admitted that reciting the Sinner's Prayer does not make you of the Elect? Thus, you are saying that your good deeds are the basis for your understanding of your being of the elect.
I certainly have admitted that saying the sinner's prayer does not change me from being of the non-elect into being of the elect. I believe that is true. I don't think at all that whatever my good deeds are, this is a basis for assurance. The assurance comes strictly from the Bible, and the good deeds are a simple evidence that I am on the right path. I actually believe that for some people it is possible to fall away without really ever realizing or intending it to happen. So, if I ever noticed, or it was pointed out to me, that my good deeds took a dramatic downturn, then it would be a bright red flag to me to take stock of my condition in Christ.
I know of people who were Christian for many years, and fell away from Christ. Who would have thought - 20 years of good deeds - now they are agnostic... but you know you won't be that way...
I am very sorry about those people. You have said that I cannot prove it to you, but 'Yes', I know. I am by no means better or smarter than any of them, it is just something that speaks to me from scripture.
[From the article FK cited:] Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place.
Please. That is not logical. Nothing there about permanent safety is suggested by your quote. After King David expanded Israel's territory, providing peace and safety to all Jews during his rule, did that prevent the Assyrians and Babylonians from conquering ALL of Israel???
The author is obviously talking about salvational "safety", not physical safety. No one is ever guaranteed physical safety no matter who he is. Ask Jesus. :)
"Being saved" refers to past, present, and future utilizations. Paul uses all three tenses. If you like, I will post them. When Jesus healed someone, did that mean they never got sick again???
Do you equate a physical healing with the Biblical meaning of the word "saved"???
[continuing ...] When Jesus said "it was finished", it means His life was finished. He died. The suffering was over. He had completed His Father's will.
The only thing I DO agree with is that He completed His father's will. What do you say that will was?
[continuing ...] That doesn't mean HIS WORK was done! Christ's work continues to this day! He continues to bring people into the Kingdom of God! For example, I recall that Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD! Why would He do that if "His work was finished"? Why His continued teachings? Why breathe upon the Disciples, giving them the power to forgive sins? Why the Great Commission?
Nice try, but I specifically said "Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?" You don't address that at all here.
[On Dt. 30:19, and to FK noting that it was actually Moses speaking and not God directly :] Sorry, Moses is giving God's revelation - or do you doubt that Scripture is God's Word? ... Sure, the point of view is human. From our point of view, we CHOOSE God or not. ...
No, I have no doubt that scripture is God's word. And, as Harley said earlier, this is an example of an outward call. It was for the same reason that we are to spread the Gospel to the whole world, as opposed to only a select few. That's why I thought it was important that the POV was human. The "choosing" is a human perception, when unknown to probably most who do it at the time, it was actually God who chose us first.
Apparently Job knows the answer to that one which was asked of him by God Himself.
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me... Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?" -- Job 38:1-3;36"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.