Question

[Cage]

I love you Cage but I need to add something just to try to clarify... the MAN Jesus said He cannot be called good because He was lesser than the Father God in flesh.. but He was still God. So the MAN cannot be called good.. but God is Good. He emptied himself out and put Himself into submission to God and subjected Himself to the will of the Father.. it was an example for all of us.. His whole life was an example to us. You and I would agree on this. We would have to call Him a liar and a blasphemer for allowing people to worship Him since it went against everything He taught..

Im posting a link that addresses this.. its an interesting and informative read.

Apologetics Press - Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God While on Earth?

Thank you, FS.

I understand what, and why you believe what you do, and I appreciate your commitment in explaining, but I have not come to that point...Yet. When God puts it in me to believe Jesus was God, it will be then, and only then that I will accept it. I cannot believe what I cannot believe until God reveals it to me and changes my mind. Until then, any acceptance would be in vain, as my heart won't allow me to 'truly' believe it at this time.

Great article, though...it really explains it in a way that makes 'better' sense. But, I'm not worried about being wrong about Christs divinity, anymore. I view him as having divine attributes associated with being born of God's Spirit, but viewing him as God is troubling for me at the moment. God will put it in my heart when I'm ready if it is true, and it will be made clear for me. I trust in God, and have faith in him...


Much Love,

 

[Silas]

path_of_one

If people are only saved through election by God, and God will elect these people no matter what their will is, what is the point of evangelism? Why would we be called upon by Christ to spread the gospel, if it doesn't matter?

There are two reason to witness. 1. Jesus commands it. and 2. It is the "means" by which God reaches the "end" in salvation (1Cor. 1:23). We witness the truth to every one with confidence that God has a people from every tribe, tounge, and nation and that He will save His own by the means of the gospel going out. Therefore, we dont have to be great with words, we just give the gospel to everyone and know that the sheep will hear. All of the great preachers who did the most evangelism have been Calvinist and understood these teachings, from the Reformation to the Puratain, to the Great Awaking in American with Jonathan Edwars, to Spurgeon in England, to Way of the Master in American today, etc. etc.

1. That people really do not have free will, when the Bible says they do.

Give me one verse in the Bible that says "man has a free will" or is able to come to Christ in and of His own strength.

If people are incapable of choosing to have faith in God, in choosing the narrow path, then how can people be held responsible at all for their actions? After all, if it is up to God and not to ourselves if we follow Christ, then those who do not follow Christ are excused from that- as they could not choose to follow him. You get what I'm saying here?

Apostle Paul knew this question would arise and so he said in Romans 9:19..."You will say to me then, why does He [God] still find fault?" Read Romans 9 for a clear teaching of God's election and then Read from Romans 8:28 all the way through Romans 11 for Paul's teaching of election. The reason why God could still find fault is because man should know that he ought to come to God, but he doesnt want to. Instead, He in and of his own will, chooses sin over God. Moreover, man is judged supernatually through Adam. His sin is our sin and all are guilty through him.

2. It sets God up to be playing favorites, for no apparent reason.

Not at all. All are guilty before God. God's ection has nothing to do with the sinner, but with God's good pleasure and God's choice to love them. All sinners are created equal and the ONLY reason some arent as bad as they could be is because of God's good pleasure in frustrating the evil desiers of their heart. God's mercy even extends to the reprobate sinner in that God does not allow them to get as bad as they could be. In other words, Hitler could have been worse, but wasnt because God didnt allow it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that He is not calling all people to Him, but only some. The rest He presumably ignores or destines for hell. Well, that is in direct contradiction to Bible verses that say He desires that all come to Him, and it is also in contradiction to His essence- Love- and His nature revealed through Jesus Christ, who came not for the healthy but rather for the sick. There are numerous places in the NT in which people are healed because they have faith- just think of the woman who was healed simply by having faith and touching the hem of His robe.

First, God sent Jesus for ALL those who will want Him and NONE that come to Christ will be turned away. Second, you said God's essence is Love. That isnt true. Rather, God's essence is Holiness. Love is a perfect attribute that flows from His Holiness (as all of His other attributes do). Third, you allude to 2Peter 3:9 where it says "God desieres all" to come to Christ and be saved. Ive already shown form both an easy english read and a hard context study that the "all" is refering to elect. Its on this thread I believe, or I can say it again. Lastly, the people in the NT that had the most faith, namely, the woman who had a demon possed child and the Roman officer, were both Gentiles and in each occurance we can see allusions to the fact that Gentiles were going to be counted as "Children of God," and not just Jews.

3. It makes evangelism pointless. If everyone who will be saved was already ordained to be saved, and the rest of the people haven't the free will to choose God anyway, it's kind of pointless to try to spread the Good News. You'd either be preaching to the already converted or sowing seed on infertile ground.

Again, God hasnt only ordained the "ends" but the "means." The gospel is the means by which God calls His sheep.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the doctrine of election. People were created with free will.

If you can show from scripture ONE verse that teaches that after the fall man's will is free, you would have successfully debunked 1500 years of how the Chruch of yesteryear believed scripture.

We are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ, but we have to make the choice to accept that Gift. God reaches out to ALL people in love, but we have to make the choice to reach back.

We are saved by Grace through faith, amen!! But, we dont have the ability to come on our own..."None can come to the Son unless the Father first draws him." Does God draw everyone? Is that what scritpures teach? Honestly, I know why Christians have hard time with this doctrine. Its because we've been unknowingly influenced by free will theology and most of us wont come out of our presuppossitons. Ive been a Christian for three years and I started out as most - a "free willer." I didnt even know there was a 1500 year old debate between Chrsitians concern Arminism or Calvinism or Predestination vs free will, I just assumed that man has a free will when the Bible clearly shows that man's will is in bondage to sin and he will always be consistant to His nature when making a choice. Man's nature hates God and loves sin, loves darkness and not light, he never chooses to Come to Christ. If it werent for election, NONE would be saved.

 

[Cage]

Im just going to say something..

People need to quit laying stumbling blocks before other people...

Crosswalk.com - romans 14

Its horrible. Im seeing a lot of spiritual pride in some of these posts and Im guilty of some of it.. thank you Jesus for revealing my sin to me.. Its a serious offense and that pride will be a stumbling block to yourself.. watch it happen.. you start thinking your so smart that you have the answer and you just sinned a horrible sin.

Danger In Spiritual Pride

(Ephesians 4) ESV Bible Online: Passage: Ephesians 4 I read it this morning and it conveys a great message, imo.


Love,

 

[Faithfulservant]

Faithfulservant

No beloved of God. What I'm saying is simply this:

We are saved by GRACE alone, through our FAITH alone, and in CHRIST alone. We both have that basic construct. You however, as must Christians do, opt for free will inasmuch as you believe God foresees faith and elects or saves people that He foreknew would have faith. I'm saying that God's election is not based on foreseen faith, or any good or other merit in the person because the person had no faith or any good, but was just as bad as anyone else, and God's election is rooted in "His own good pleasure." Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills. Futhermore, faith is something God gives us, not what we give to God and since thats the case, ALL of salvation, from the gifts of "faith" to "repentence" to "Grace" is ALL of God and none of man. So when Abraham is made righteous by his faith (as everyone else will be), Im saying that His faith was a gift from God and not something He himself produced. I hope that made a little sense?

In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO!


Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching.
-Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel

I had to erase what I wrote because it wasnt quite what I was trying to say.. so Im posting this instead..

Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God

 

[path_of_one]

Therefore, we dont have to be great with words, we just give the gospel to everyone and know that the sheep will hear.

Agreed. I actually think you don't need to speak at all. "Speak the gospel always, and if necessary use words." A Christian's actions and character should speak volumes about our Lord on their own.

All of the great preachers who did the most evangelism have been Calvinist and understood these teachings, from the Reformation to the Puratain, to the Great Awaking in American with Jonathan Edwars, to Spurgeon in England, to Way of the Master in American today, etc. etc.

This is a nice opinion. From your perspective, the great preachers were Calvinist. From my perspective, the great preachers were the Christian mystics. From someone else's perspective, it might be Billy Graham or Chuck Smith. What makes a great preacher to one person isn't what makes a great preacher to another, which is why it's wonderful to have a diverse selection, so each of us can be fed spiritually in the way that we need and for which we are ready.

If you insist that this is fact, rather than opinion, I would challenge you to prove to others that the greatest preachers were Calvinist. It isn't possible because saying something is "great" is in and of itself a personal judgement.

There's nothing wrong (at least to me) with you feeling that Calvinism works for you and helps you grow spiritually. I just ask for the same respect- there is a history of Christian mysticism back not only 1500 years, but back to the very beginning of the Jesus movement, so I think my path is justified, if you feel that a long history helps justify a spiritual path and set of beliefs (which is indicated by your reference to the long history of Calvinism). Personally, I don't think that historical longevity necessarily points toward truth, but then I am not arguing that my flavor of Christianity is superior to all others, so it doesn't really fall on me to defend my own path as the "best" and "greatest" since I only claim it to be so for myself.

Give me one verse in the Bible that says "man has a free will" or is able to come to Christ in and of His own strength.

Like the word "trinity" the word "free will" is not in the Bible. That does not mean that it does not exist or is not a correct interpretation, just as most Christians defend the trinitarian vision of God.

Why is "free will" not in the Bible as a phrase? Language differences between expression of the concept in Hebrew, Greek, and English.

In Hebrew, human will is expressed as intentional action by a variety of verbs rather than a noun. Verbs such as "to choose," "to desire," and "to determine" indicate intentionality. One cannot choose without the capacity to do so. Biblical Hebrew makes no effort to distinguish will from intellect, feeling, or emotion. The culture and language at the time did not think about dividing up the human personality as we do today (which has its own long philosophical history). For the Biblical Jews, "will" was an objective reality of action, not a description of inner thought as it is used today, hence the indication that an interpretation of humankind's nature as "free willed" is correct when we look at the verbs used to describe human action.

The NT reflects the same perspective as the old, as it was an outgrowth of Jewish culture, thought, and religion. Greek was similar in that verbs expressed choice and intention, rather than a noun as we use it today.

A variety of Biblical scholars agree that scripture shows humans are agents that, unlike the animals, are responsible for their actions, have the capacity to deliberate among courses of action, choose, and act intentionally (rather than driven by instinct), and can thus respond to the revealed will of God by accepting or rejecting it.

Thus, you have passages that clearly depict human beings who are choosing to turn toward God, asking for His assistance and strength to keep them on that narrow path:
"I desire to do your will, O my God" - Psalms 40:8
"Teach me to do your will" - Psalms 143:10
"If anyone chooses to do God's will" - John 7:17
"but has control over his own will" 1 Cor 7:37
"I have come to do your will, O God" - Heb 10:7
"We ask anything according to His will" - 1 John 5:14

Romans 9 for a clear teaching of God's election and then Read from Romans 8:28 all the way through Romans 11 for Paul's teaching of election.

I've read these passages many times and I am not ashamed to say I'm still praying over and working through them. However, I am very aware of the Calvinist doctrine (learned about it long ago) and I do not believe that this is what Paul meant. Why? Here's a few of the passages that still indicate that human choice is some factor in the salvation equation (and mind you, human choice does not negate God's grace or make it "our own doing" that we are saved):

"The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach, because if you acknolwedge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justifed (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms his salvation." 10:8-10 Amplified

There are more- it just takes careful reading. Knowing what we do about intentional action indicating free will in Hebrew and Greek, you can clearly see some issues with the doctrine of election here. As far as I've seen, it takes intentional action on the part of a human being to "acknowledge," "confess," "adhere to," "trust in," and "rely on." We choose what to confess, what to acknowledge, what to rely on. I could choose something different, but I choose God, even when it gets difficult.

Secondly, I do not see any reason in these passages why God has not called us all to be His children and saved. What I do see is an exhortation to be happy with our place and gifts in life. There are some who are called by God to be great among all humanity- these are the Mother Theresas of the world- and we are not to be envious of others' gifts and place in God's plan. We are all created for different purposes (the parable of the clay vessels) and we should desire to grow into whatever gifts God has given us rather than being jealous of others.

I suppose you could say I believe that God creates us all with different and unique qualities and purposes in His plan. Some might be considered "elect" because they make a huge and lasting impact in spreading the love and grace of God to others; most of us are created for much smaller purposes. We are not to question that God has His reasons for each of us. Yet it is up to us individually whether to choose to follow God's will for us or whether to remain self-centered, using our gifts for our own ends rather than His.

I do not believe any person is created and predestined for hell.

Paul himself indicates that God wills that all humanity be saved:
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in its proper time." - 1 Timothy 2:1-5 NIV

The reason why God could still find fault is because man should know that he ought to come to God, but he doesnt want to. Instead, He in and of his own will, chooses sin over God.

So, according to the doctrine of election, people have the free will to choose sin, but not God? **Philosophical question here: if you only have one choice, is it a choice?**

Moreover, man is judged supernatually through Adam. His sin is our sin and all are guilty through him.

The very popular doctrine of original sin. After study, I decided I did not believe this was accurate, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say I do not agree, and would be happy to discuss this at a later time in another thread.

All are guilty before God. God's ection has nothing to do with the sinner, but with God's good pleasure and God's choice to love them. All sinners are created equal and the ONLY reason some arent as bad as they could be is because of God's good pleasure in frustrating the evil desiers of their heart. God's mercy even extends to the reprobate sinner in that God does not allow them to get as bad as they could be. In other words, Hitler could have been worse, but wasnt because God didnt allow it.

So God is halting all sinners to some degree, but chooses to let some sinners sin more than others. Why? We don't know. It doesn't seem to make sense, since God tells us over and over in the Bible that He wants righteousness, He wants goodness, He wants peace and love, and He wants all to be saved (see above quote) but somehow instead of getting what He wants, He chooses to let some sinners be like Mother Theresa and others be like Hitler.

Hmm... Just isn't meshing with everything I've learned about God's character and will from the Bible.

I put the responsibility for people's sin squarely on humankind. I can choose to sin more or less. I can't choose to be perfect (or if I can, I haven't figured that out yet), but I certainly can and do choose whether or not to sin all the time. I am not a puppet whose strings are pulled by God.

First, God sent Jesus for ALL those who will want Him and NONE that come to Christ will be turned away.

I believe God sent Jesus for everyone. Period. Whether they want Him or not. The work that Jesus Christ accomplishes in us through God's grace depends on us accepting the Gift, but the Gift was freely given for all.

And yes, no one who comes to Christ is turned away.

Second, you said God's essence is Love. That isnt true. Rather, God's essence is Holiness.

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16 KJV

Love is a perfect attribute that flows from His Holiness (as all of His other attributes do).

OK. That doesn't negate that the scripture does not say, "God has love" or "God loves" or "God is holy and so He loves." The scripture says, clearly and in every translation, "God IS love." That is what indicates that this is not merely one of His attributes, but rather an essence. It is a definitional statement- X is Y.

Third, you allude to 2Peter 3:9 where it says "God desieres all" to come to Christ and be saved.

That idea comes from far more than 2 Peter 3:9. See above.

Ive already shown form both an easy english read and a hard context study that the "all" is refering to elect. Its on this thread I believe, or I can say it again.

You can say it as many times as you want, but that does not make it true, nor does it explain the other passages that indicate the same thing (see above). I don't need you to say it again, I need you to provide detailed justification.

Lastly, the people in the NT that had the most faith, namely, the woman who had a demon possed child and the Roman officer, were both Gentiles and in each occurance we can see allusions to the fact that Gentiles were going to be counted as "Children of God," and not just Jews.

Not sure what the point is here. I'm a Gentile myself, so obviously I believe this is true.

Continued... (text limitations)

 

[path_of_one]

If you can show from scripture ONE verse that teaches that after the fall man's will is free, you would have successfully debunked 1500 years of how the Chruch of yesteryear believed scripture.

See above. Second, maybe I'm debunking 1500 years of the Calvinist church's doctrine. There's another slew of Christian churches that have been around in that 1500-year time period as well, and they weren't Calvinist. Christianity does not equal Calvinism, any more than it equals Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Catholic.

"The Church" or "The Body of Christ" is Christ's followers, not a particular denomination.

Does God draw everyone? Is that what scritpures teach?

Yes. And yes.

Honestly, I know why Christians have hard time with this doctrine. Its because we've been unknowingly influenced by free will theology and most of us wont come out of our presuppossitons.

Actually, it's because I've prayed and studied over the scriptures and I feel called to my beliefs. Can't speak for others and why they believe in free will, though I guess you think you know why we all believe what we do.

Calvinism is just as influenced by "presuppostions" (aka cultural baggage) as any other denomination of Christianity. Having studied Calivinism a bit (not extensively, but at the college level) and its interactions with other forces of history, particularly in the United States, I know this to be the case. I would encourage everyone to study not only the scripture, but the history and cultural context of their denomination. It's nothing to be ashamed of- we can't escape cultural conditioning and historical impact, but we can be aware of it and use this awareness to further our understanding of ourselves and how we are interpreting scripture.

Ive been a Christian for three years and I started out as most - a "free willer." I didnt even know there was a 1500 year old debate between Chrsitians concern Arminism or Calvinism or Predestination vs free will, I just assumed that man has a free will when the Bible clearly shows that man's will is in bondage to sin and he will always be consistant to His nature when making a choice. Man's nature hates God and loves sin, loves darkness and not light, he never chooses to Come to Christ. If it werent for election, NONE would be saved.

Well, glad that works for you. It doesn't make sense with what I've learned in studying scripture or what has been indicated to me by the Spirit, but I believe it could certainly have value for you even though it doesn't for me.

I've been a Christian literally my entire life (well, since I can remember, about 25 years) and I do not mean that I was just raised in a church. On the contrary, I was always encouraged to seek after my own relationship with God and Christ, and to study the scriptures. I've known for a while there is a debate about predestination, and I think the Bible's discussion of the nature of humankind is a lot more complex than "free will versus bondage to sin" (which are not entirely antithetical, by the way).

We'll have to agree to disagree, unless you can come up with better arguments for Calvinism than I've already read in religious studies classes. Agreeing to disagree is fine with me, and I hope you realize I do not seek to convert you to my way of thinking, but rather to explain why I do not agree. I don't think the doctrine of election is an issue that matters in terms of salvation, so it's not like I think you aren't saved. I think if you love Christ and follow Him, you're saved and will be led by God on the path you are meant to be on, and that has nothing much to do with doctrines of any sort.

 

[path_of_one]

In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO!


Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching.
-Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel

I had to erase what I wrote because it wasnt quite what I was trying to say.. so Im posting this instead..

Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God

FS, thank you for that. I often find a lot of help in Chuck Smith's sermons.

 

[Silas]

Faithfulservant

In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division - NO!

Amen. I agree!

Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative, legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching. -Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel

I agree with Chuck Smith on somethings here - namely the point of "bearing fruit" and becoming "Christ-like." It is equally true that knowledge both "is a gift of God that we ought to ask for and seek after" and still yet "puffs up." Therefore, it is the responsibility of the person who seeks to stay humble and think ok Himself less than others. Pride is a horrible thing and it always goes before a fall. Anyone who teaches with the motives to show off or boast, or anything other than to glorify God and build up the saints is sinning and I would either assume they are very young in the faith or not even a Christian at all. That said, doctrine and theology are very important that I beleive all believers ought to study to understand. The Bible is God's words; it is rich with mystery and wonder. I know that God has put into the hearts of all His people a desier to read it, but we all dont study it as we outh (myself included). Ultimately, it comes down to this proverb: "It is the Glory of God to hid a matter and the glory of Kings to seek out a matter." - Pro. 25:2. As for the Chuck Smith aritcle, I actually read it before, long ago, when my understanding of election was the same as his, i.e., based on foreknoweldge. I know longer hold that view though, and Im actually surprised that Smith and some of his friends, e.g, Chuck Missler, etc. (guys whom I love by the way), would hold to that view after acknowledging total depravity.

 

[Silas]

path_of_one

Agreed. I actually think you don't need to speak at all. "Speak the gospel always, and if necessary use words." A Christian's actions and character should speak volumes about our Lord on their own.

I like that qoute, I used to qoute it all the time. Is it all true though? No, not exactly. Here's why: The situation isnt an "either" "or" situation, but "both" "and." Life without the verbal preaching of the word makes you a moralist and speaking without living the gospel makes you a hypocrate - either way the Lord is disrespected. Again, its both and. "Preach the gospel" and when necessary "use words."

This is a nice opinion. From your perspective, the great preachers were Calvinist. From my perspective, the great preachers were the Christian mystics. From someone else's perspective, it might be Billy Graham or Chuck Smith. What makes a great preacher to one person isn't what makes a great preacher to another, which is why it's wonderful to have a diverse selection, so each of us can be fed spiritually in the way that we need and for which we are ready.

I like Smith. Im not too familar with Graham and I'm leary that he's so loved by the world (not the mark of someone who's Christlike). That said, what makes a preacher good, isnt the number of people that runs up to the alter. Thats pragmatism and wrong. Rather, what makes a preacher good is that he's faithful to His calling as a Sheaperd.

If you insist that this is fact, rather than opinion, I would challenge you to prove to others that the greatest preachers were Calvinist. It isn't possible because saying something is "great" is in and of itself a personal judgement.

Agreed. What makes them great isnt what they've done in terms of accomplishments; eventhough its obvious from history that God used such men as "Chargles Spurgeon" "Jonathan Edwards," "Luther" "Calvin" "AW Pink" "John Piper" "Lenard Ravenhill (who wasnt a Calvinist), etc., but rather what they've done in terms of what they were supposed to do as Christians, Husbands, Preachers/Sheaperds, etc. Faithfulness is the rod whereby we measure them.

There's nothing wrong (at least to me) with you feeling that Calvinism works for you and helps you grow spiritually. I just ask for the same respect- there is a history of Christian mysticism back not only 1500 years, but back to the very beginning of the Jesus movement, so I think my path is justified, if you feel that a long history helps justify a spiritual path and set of beliefs (which is indicated by your reference to the long history of Calvinism). Personally, I don't think that historical longevity necessarily points toward truth, but then I am not arguing that my flavor of Christianity is superior to all others, so it doesn't really fall on me to defend my own path as the "best" and "greatest" since I only claim it to be so for myself.

Wether you undestand scripture from a Calvinistic view or Arminian view or a view of a lay person who claims the "Biblical view" but has the understading of an arminian (unknowingly), the core essentials are the same. We ALL agree that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone and in Christ Jesus alone. We may differ on the process or detials and nonessentials issues such as "eschotology," etc., but again we all unite and agree for the essentials. The essentials of the faith differ from those who would opt for Christian mysticism and so we within the body who unify without uniformity, would disagree with that stuff.

Like the word "trinity" the word "free will" is not in the Bible. That does not mean that it does not exist or is not a correct interpretation, just as most Christians defend the trinitarian vision of God. Why is "free will" not in the Bible as a phrase? Language differences between expression of the concept in Hebrew, Greek, and English.

The word free will is in the Bible. However, its never in context of salvation.

In Hebrew, human will is expressed as intentional action by a variety of verbs rather than a noun. Verbs such as "to choose," "to desire," and "to determine" indicate intentionality. One cannot choose without the capacity to do so. Biblical Hebrew makes no effort to distinguish will from intellect, feeling, or emotion. The culture and language at the time did not think about dividing up the human personality as we do today (which has its own long philosophical history). For the Biblical Jews, "will" was an objective reality of action, not a description of inner thought as it is used today, hence the indication that an interpretation of humankind's nature as "free willed" is correct when we look at the verbs used to describe human action.

The Hebrew word for "freewill" is "nedâbâh." Its in the Bible. The book of Lev. talks about "free will" a lot, I think?

The NT reflects the same perspective as the old, as it was an outgrowth of Jewish culture, thought, and religion. Greek was similar in that verbs expressed choice and intention, rather than a noun as we use it today.

The whole bible speaks about man's will. It speaks of it being in bondage to sin and choosing what man wants. Man is by nature a sinner and loves darkness rather than light and loves sin's pleasures more than God. Man is influenced by His own sin nature, Satan, and how society is moving, which incidentally is also influenced by satan. The will that is in bondage to sin, because of its love for it, chooses what is in its nature to choose. In other words, Man has a free will to choose what he wants and he wants sin's pleasure over God. His choice therefore, is consistant with his nature.

A variety of Biblical scholars agree that scripture shows humans are agents that, unlike the animals, are responsible for their actions, have the capacity to deliberate among courses of action, choose, and act intentionally (rather than driven by instinct), and can thus respond to the revealed will of God by accepting or rejecting it.

I agree! Man is responsible for his actions! Moreover, he is accountablebefore God for his sinful actions. He and can choose between right and wrong, and does! However, when faced with the highest good in the spiritual realm, namely to deny self, follow Christ, become holy, etc., man wont. Mankind's problem isnt that He cant, but that He wont and he wont because he hates God. Man by nature is a God hating, sin loving moral agent who wills to have his will be done over God. His choice in not denying self and coming to Christ is due to nothing but his desire NOT to come. Why? He loves sin's pleasures more than God. That is his nature. That is who he is. And, that is why he needs to be born agian - he needs a new heart and a new nature. The scripture you qoute are great because if you would continue reading, they always state that it is first God who makes us willing and then able to even desier him. The Psalms declare: "Turn me and I will be turned Lord." Thats the understanding of a man who knows he cannot in and of his own strength turn to God because of his great love for sin.

I've read these passages many times and I am not ashamed to say I'm still praying over and working through them. However, I am very aware of the Calvinist doctrine (learned about it long ago) and I do not believe that this is what Paul meant. Why? Here's a few of the passages that still indicate that human choice is some factor in the salvation equation (and mind you, human choice does not negate God's grace or make it "our own doing" that we are saved):

"The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach, because if you acknolwedge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justifed (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms his salvation." 10:8-10 Amplified

I affairm this! This does not take away the fact that before we "will come" or "can come" the Father must first draw us like Jesus said. Moreover, Jer. 13:23 should be the crux of the issue..."Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." Again, we need a nature change and we cannot do it ourselves, it must be God. And in Ezk. 36:26-27, He still He will. Read the scriptures I post for a clearer picture of what Im saying.

...To Be Continued

 

[Silas]

...Continued

path_of_one


There are more- it just takes careful reading. Knowing what we do about intentional action indicating free will in Hebrew and Greek, you can clearly see some issues with the doctrine of election here. As far as I've seen, it takes intentional action on the part of a human being to "acknowledge," "confess," "adhere to," "trust in," and "rely on." We choose what to confess, what to acknowledge, what to rely on. I could choose something different, but I choose God, even when it gets difficult.

How much participation did Lazarus have in being once dead and did made alive? If you say none for each, then how do you suppose a person who is "dead in sin" can make Himself alive again? You have as much participation in being born again as you did in your natural birth.

Secondly, I do not see any reason in these passages why God has not called us all to be His children and saved. What I do see is an exhortation to be happy with our place and gifts in life. There are some who are called by God to be great among all humanity- these are the Mother Theresas of the world- and we are not to be envious of others' gifts and place in God's plan. We are all created for different purposes (the parable of the clay vessels) and we should desire to grow into whatever gifts God has given us rather than being jealous of others. I suppose you could say I believe that God creates us all with different and unique qualities and purposes in His plan. Some might be considered "elect" because they make a huge and lasting impact in spreading the love and grace of God to others; most of us are created for much smaller purposes. We are not to question that God has His reasons for each of us. Yet it is up to us individually whether to choose to follow God's will for us or whether to remain self-centered, using our gifts for our own ends rather than His.

OK, I'll leave that one alone. I dont know how you got that though.

I do not believe any person is created and predestined for hell.

The only people predestined for hell are the people who God knew wouldnt desier Him. As C.S. Lewis liked to put it, "Hell is locked from inside."

Paul himself indicates that God wills that all humanity be saved:
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men- the testimony given in its proper time." - 1 Timothy 2:1-5 NIV

I both affairm that God desires all men to be saved and elects only some to be saved. It has to do with "The Two Wills in God." You know what? I'll didicate a post to this topic next. For now, I'll say we both agree with the two wills in God, I'll show you. You say that God wills for all to be saved. My question is "why" arent all saved? And you'll say no doubt, that it is because God has given them free will and left man a self determining choice. There are "your" two wills, because you say that on one hand God wills for ALL to be saved, but since ALL arent saved it is because God "wills" for man to have a self determining choice (free will). There's "your" two wills in God. My two wills in God are that grounded in Romans 9 and like I said, I'll make a post concerning this.

So, according to the doctrine of election, people have the free will to choose sin, but not God? **Philosophical question here: if you only have one choice, is it a choice?**

Yes we have choice! I never said we didnt. We arent robots bro.

The very popular doctrine of original sin. After study, I decided I did not believe this was accurate, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say I do not agree, and would be happy to discuss this at a later time in another thread.

Later, not now. Remember it though, OK?

So God is halting all sinners to some degree, but chooses to let some sinners sin more than others. Why? We don't know. It doesn't seem to make sense, since God tells us over and over in the Bible that He wants righteousness, He wants goodness, He wants peace and love, and He wants all to be saved (see above quote) but somehow instead of getting what He wants, He chooses to let some sinners be like Mother Theresa and others be like Hitler.

Sure. It plays in His will. This is also apart of the "Two wills in God." We must learn to determine between what God desiers and what he actually permits. God's will is that we do not Kill but love another. Yet, according to acts 2, it was God's will for Judas to betray Jesus and for Him to be beaten up and punished by the hands of wicked men. Again: "what he desiers" verses "what He permits." Or, "will of command" vs "will of decree."

Hmm... Just isn't meshing with everything I've learned about God's character and will from the Bible.

Thats what I said when I first started studying theology, but quickly realized my god wasnt God, but a smaller version of what I thought He was.

I put the responsibility for people's sin squarely on humankind. I can choose to sin more or less. I can't choose to be perfect (or if I can, I haven't figured that out yet), but I certainly can and do choose whether or not to sin all the time. I am not a puppet whose strings are pulled by God.

Sin is NEVER motivated by God! Man is responsible for Sin, not God! That said, I will concent that man is only a puppet to do whatever God bids and scripture is filled with instances: God frustrated Abimelech's plans and kept him from sleeping with Abraham's wife in Gen., "Man may make plans in his heart, but what the tongue utters is from the LORD (Pro. 16:1), " In his mind a man plans his course, but the LORD directs his steps" (Pro. 16:9) etc.

I believe God sent Jesus for everyone. Period. Whether they want Him or not. The work that Jesus Christ accomplishes in us through God's grace depends on us accepting the Gift, but the Gift was freely given for all.

Is God sovereign in salvation or man? Think about that. Moreover, if God did merely offer salvation or garuntee it? Did Christ did for sheeps or for goats? If God offers man salvation and man "accepts" as you opt for, does he have ground for boasting (even if he doesnt want to)? Who then gets the glory in salvation?

And yes, no one who comes to Christ is turned away.

Praise God for that!

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16 KJV

Amen!

OK. That doesn't negate that the scripture does not say, "God has love" or "God loves" or "God is holy and so He loves." The scripture says, clearly and in every translation, "God IS love." That is what indicates that this is not merely one of His attributes, but rather an essence. It is a definitional statement- X is Y.

Yes, scripture says "God is love," "God is a merciful God," etc., but never "love love love" or "mercy mercy mercy." But it does say that "God is Holy! Holy! Holy!" That is His nature and essence.

 

[Silas]

path_of_one


See above. Second, maybe I'm debunking 1500 years of the Calvinist church's doctrine. There's another slew of Christian churches that have been around in that 1500-year time period as well, and they weren't Calvinist. Christianity does not equal Calvinism, any more than it equals Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Catholic.

Calvinism is only a name that we give to a set of doctrines; more specificaly the "doctrine of Grace," and not a name for Christians. As for debunking calvinism however, you must understand it first to do that. I can tell by what you've said thus far you dont understand it. It is my aim to help you to at least understand, not to persuade you into bleieving it.

"The Church" or "The Body of Christ" is Christ's followers, not a particular denomination.

Amen!

Actually, it's because I've prayed and studied over the scriptures and I feel called to my beliefs. Can't speak for others and why they believe in free will, though I guess you think you know why we all believe what we do.

One of my favorate preachers who isnt a calvinist, is Chuck Missler. He's famous for saying this: "The only certian berrior to truth is the presumption that you already have it." I have learned to be bias without myopic and to hold presuppositions while still having my views in a flux. I'll consider anyone's exposition on free will, but I have yet to see a good arguement for it. It was the view I held, but I cant say its held up by scripture more than my feelings.

Calvinism is just as influenced by "presuppostions" (aka cultural baggage) as any other denomination of Christianity. Having studied Calivinism a bit (not extensively, but at the college level) and its interactions with other forces of history, particularly in the United States, I know this to be the case. I would encourage everyone to study not only the scripture, but the history and cultural context of their denomination. It's nothing to be ashamed of- we can't escape cultural conditioning and historical impact, but we can be aware of it and use this awareness to further our understanding of ourselves and how we are interpreting scripture.

I can tell you havent studied it a lot (no disrespect at all sir!!). But you do have a point, I can be conditioned to believe this view of scripture. That said however, that same arguement can be used to the free will side. You know?

Well, glad that works for you. It doesn't make sense with what I've learned in studying scripture or what has been indicated to me by the Spirit, but I believe it could certainly have value for you even though it doesn't for me.

I've been a Christian literally my entire life (well, since I can remember, about 25 years) and I do not mean that I was just raised in a church. On the contrary, I was always encouraged to seek after my own relationship with God and Christ, and to study the scriptures. I've known for a while there is a debate about predestination, and I think the Bible's discussion of the nature of humankind is a lot more complex than "free will versus bondage to sin" (which are not entirely antithetical, by the way).

We'll have to agree to disagree, unless you can come up with better arguments for Calvinism than I've already read in religious studies classes. Agreeing to disagree is fine with me, and I hope you realize I do not seek to convert you to my way of thinking, but rather to explain why I do not agree. I don't think the doctrine of election is an issue that matters in terms of salvation, so it's not like I think you aren't saved. I think if you love Christ and follow Him, you're saved and will be led by God on the path you are meant to be on, and that has nothing much to do with doctrines of any sort.

You said it bro! Its not an essential doctrine in terms of salvation, but I do believe it is very important. All good doctrines are!! They not only govern how you live, but help you in ALL of life's issues, e.g., times of trials and sufferings, times of happiness and witnessing, prayer, understanding scripture, etc. Ulimately, however, we may have to agree to disagree and thats fine. I just will ask you to read what I say and ask questions if you dont understand. I find that you said many things that arent what I've been saying and you seem to think that I believe man is a robot and is not responsible for sin. I must admit, this is really tough to dicuss without actually "talking" with you. Good talking with you though.

 

[wil]

... You have as much participation in being born again as you did in your natural birth....

I can agree here...wonder which parents I'll pick next time...

 

[path_of_one]

You said it bro! Its not an essential doctrine in terms of salvation, but I do believe it is very important. All good doctrines are!! They not only govern how you live, but help you in ALL of life's issues, e.g., times of trials and sufferings, times of happiness and witnessing, prayer, understanding scripture, etc. Ulimately, however, we may have to agree to disagree and thats fine. I just will ask you to read what I say and ask questions if you dont understand. I find that you said many things that arent what I've been saying and you seem to think that I believe man is a robot and is not responsible for sin. I must admit, this is really tough to dicuss without actually "talking" with you. Good talking with you though.

Actually, I'm not a bro or a sir. I'm a sis and a ma'am. People new to this forum always seem to assume I'm a guy, but I'm not!

I'll respond in detail later (probably tomorrow or Tuesday), because it's time for a little time with my husband- we got six inches of snow and our woodsy home is beautiful. We're going to take a nighttime stroll in the snow and get in the Christmasy feeling.

I don't tend to hold doctrine in the same importance as you do, and I tend to see my own beliefs as works in progress rather than doctrines at all, but I appreciate that this is meaningful to you.

I always read what people have to say and ask questions if I'm not getting what they're saying. I will refine further (soon) what I was getting at in response to your post.

I would ask that you be respectful towards Christian mysticism and perhaps look into the history and actual definition of it. Mysticism is not about new age, recent stuff, nor is it about magic or anything of the sort, as I've often found some Christians to think. Mysticism is not a denomination, but a path and a primary concern with the development of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. There have been many, many mystics in a variety of denominations.

My beliefs are closest to Episcopalian, Celtic Chrisitan, and Quaker, but I do not claim any single denomination or doctrinal standpoint. I am also a Druid by what you could say is practicing philosophy, and if you delve into my past posts such as the one on "God and the Elements" and the one on "Alternative Christian Awakenings" you'll understand more where I'm coming from. I am not a "mainstream" Christian, which I fully admit and which causes some people to entirely dismiss anything I have to say, but then again I'm not looking for anything more than discussion and fellowship, so that's OK by me.

And I agree with you- these kinds of conversations are always easier in person. I've entirely agreed with people and exchanged several posts of clarification before realizing it before. Communication through delayed posting has its benefits (especially to bring together diverse communities interested in the same topics), but it certainly is a more difficult medium than just talking to people in person.

 

[Silas]

Thanks for being so nice! And Im also sorry for assuming that you were a guy, I was actually thinking if I should put Sir or Sis, but my hunch was wrong. Anway, I know some what of the doctrinal views of the Episcopalian and Celtic and Druids, etc., but before I can say anything, Id just like to ask you your views on Salvation. How do you understand Jesus, man's nature, what Christ accomplished, the Bible, etc?

 

[path_of_one]

I'll respond in purple, Silas. Easier than quoting...


I like that qoute, I used to qoute it all the time. Is it all true though? No, not exactly. Here's why: The situation isnt an "either" "or" situation, but "both" "and." Life without the verbal preaching of the word makes you a moralist and speaking without living the gospel makes you a hypocrate - either way the Lord is disrespected.

I agree, to a point. I believe in being a living testimony to my faith in Jesus Christ, and when people ask me about it, I preach with words. I don't believe in preaching without first walking and befriending. We are called to make disciples, and if you look at what that meant in terms of Jesus' example, it indicates (to me) an emphasis on compassionate action first and teaching afterward. I also think that this just works better in a lot of practical situations. I know a lot of atheists who were staunchly against hearing about God and religion until they got to know me (sometimes it takes years), and then they wanted to know what was different in my life. If I had spoken first, they would have retreated from me just like they had from everyone else. It was seeing the testimony of my life that caused them to be interested, and then when I was asked, I would respond simply with my own testimony, delving into beliefs when they pressed further. This is non-threatening and respectful, and in the circles I run in, about the only way you'll be able to talk to someone about religion anyway.


I like Smith. Im not too familar with Graham and I'm leary that he's so loved by the world (not the mark of someone who's Christlike). That said, what makes a preacher good, isnt the number of people that runs up to the alter. Thats pragmatism and wrong. Rather, what makes a preacher good is that he's faithful to His calling as a Sheaperd.

I completely ignore popularity on these matters; to me it makes no difference if someone is fabulously popular or unknown.

I agree that what makes a preacher good is not popularity, but rather being faithful to God and having a servant's heart. I wasn't trying to say that popularity matters, but rather that different preachers and denominations worship in different ways and follow varying doctrines, but perhaps this is a good thing so long as it is not divisive in the Body of Christ. Different people need different denominations and preachers, just like teaching in a variety of ways can help more people learn. Some learn by doing, some by writing stuff down, some by teaching others, etc.

Agreed. What makes them great isnt what they've done in terms of accomplishments; eventhough its obvious from history that God used such men as "Chargles Spurgeon" "Jonathan Edwards," "Luther" "Calvin" "AW Pink" "John Piper" "Lenard Ravenhill (who wasnt a Calvinist), etc., but rather what they've done in terms of what they were supposed to do as Christians, Husbands, Preachers/Sheaperds, etc. Faithfulness is the rod whereby we measure them.

By their fruit you shall know them...

I agree. I wasn't saying that these were not great preachers, but that I hesitate to put a superlative (greatest) on any group of preachers, since it indicates the superiority of one branch of Christianity over others. I prefer to just weed out those whose fruit indicates a bad tree, and consider the rest more or less equal in value, whether or not I agree with them.

Wether you undestand scripture from a Calvinistic view or Arminian view or a view of a lay person who claims the "Biblical view" but has the understading of an arminian (unknowingly), the core essentials are the same. We ALL agree that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone and in Christ Jesus alone. We may differ on the process or detials and nonessentials issues such as "eschotology," etc., but again we all unite and agree for the essentials.

Agreed.

The essentials of the faith differ from those who would opt for Christian mysticism and so we within the body who unify without uniformity, would disagree with that stuff.

Actually, most Christian mystics are/were firmly in a mainstream denomination. Mysticism is a spiritual path of cultivating a personal relationship with God and Christ, not a denomination or doctrine. It isn't much different than usual Christianity except that it emphasizes personal relationship, spiritual experience, and a total life commitment to God/Christ. That is, you won't find mystics whose spirituality is confined to church. It's about a total transformation of the self.

The Hebrew word for "freewill" is "nedâbâh." Its in the Bible. The book of Lev. talks about "free will" a lot, I think?

I'll have to look into that- thank you for the reference. I meant that in the five or six translations I own, I couldn't find the phrase in English. And yes, I agree that many passages in the OT talks about free will.

The whole bible speaks about man's will. It speaks of it being in bondage to sin and choosing what man wants. Man is by nature a sinner and loves darkness rather than light and loves sin's pleasures more than God.

I understand that you believe this. I believe humankind's nature to be different than this, but I am familiar with your line of thought on this. I went to a Baptist church for years that taught this.

Man is influenced by His own sin nature, Satan, and how society is moving, which incidentally is also influenced by satan.

Agreed (well, I probably define Satan differently than you, but still agreed). I also believe that humankind is influenced by the inner light of God with which each person is endowed.

The will that is in bondage to sin, because of its love for it, chooses what is in its nature to choose. In other words, Man has a free will to choose what he wants and he wants sin's pleasure over God. His choice therefore, is consistant with his nature.

I believe it is in the nature of humankind to struggle between good and evil, obedience and sin. I do not believe it is our nature to choose sin, neither is it our nature to choose good. Rather, it is in our nature to be a battleground between the two options, and God's grace allows us to grow in spiritual strength (if we will acknowledge Him) and it forgives us our trespasses.

I agree! Man is responsible for his actions! Moreover, he is accountablebefore God for his sinful actions. He and can choose between right and wrong, and does! However, when faced with the highest good in the spiritual realm, namely to deny self, follow Christ, become holy, etc., man wont. Mankind's problem isnt that He cant, but that He wont and he wont because he hates God. Man by nature is a God hating, sin loving moral agent who wills to have his will be done over God.

I understand this line of thinking, but I just disagree with it. I believe, as I said, that humankind by nature is a battleground and loves both sin (born of self-centeredness) and God (born of our innate desire to connect with our Creator and Savior). We struggle between our desire to do our own will and our desire to acknowledge our weakness and give ourselves up to God's will. Some of us choose one and some choose the other, but practically everyone (in practicality) hovers between the two poles, which is why Christians still sin despite not wanting to sin and why many atheists act morally and take pleasure in doing good though they will not give up their will for God's.

His choice in not denying self and coming to Christ is due to nothing but his desire NOT to come. Why? He loves sin's pleasures more than God. That is his nature. That is who he is. And, that is why he needs to be born agian - he needs a new heart and a new nature.

I believe that for some, it is an experience that is like being born again. But I believe that all people are gifted with the innate divine light from their creation (before birth). So for some, it is a gradual fanning of this little light to flame. There is no before/after experience for these people- it is a consistent (more or less) process of growth in Christ over thier lifetime. For others, the light is hidden under the bed, in a closet- it becomes a very tiny tiny spark nearly extinguished by self-centeredness. Sometimes for these people, Christ reaches out to them in a very powerful and sudden way, and they suddenly are broken and realize that the spark they tried so desperately to extinguish is the only part of them that is true, right, good, and worth hanging on to. I don't believe we are wrested out of our true nature by being saved. To the contrary- I believe we become who we truly were created to be. Humanity was created to be the stewards of the earth, in image of God. Salvation powerfully places us on the narrow path of becoming real human beings- the spirits that God intended us to be- in communion with God, at peace with each other, and in love with all that is good.

The scripture you qoute are great because if you would continue reading, they always state that it is first God who makes us willing and then able to even desier him. The Psalms declare: "Turn me and I will be turned Lord." Thats the understanding of a man who knows he cannot in and of his own strength turn to God because of his great love for sin.

For me, this kind of gets into a "chicken and egg" argument. I don't believe anything operates outside of God. God is entirely sovereign over all processes. He may allow some to operate more or less independently, but it is still God at work underneath the mechanisms. I wouldn't be breathing, much less seeking God, if it weren't for God's grace and love to begin with.

That said, I do not believe in the mechanism that Calvinist thought describes. I'd say we agree on the forces behind the possibility of salvation (God at work in us), but not on the way that force operates within us. While the Calvinist argument (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert) says that humanity is entirely depraved, and only the elect come to salvation through God sort of coming from outside their own nature to wrest them from depravity, I am more... Quaker I guess you could say. I believe that humanity is by nature a battleground of good and evil, and everyone has access to salvation through the God-given divine light innate in our nature. Some of us choose to follow that part of our nature, and others of us choose to follow darkness. In my beliefs, salvation is still ultimately only possible because of God's grace, but everyone has access to this grace and everyone is called.

Again, we need a nature change and we cannot do it ourselves, it must be God.

I hope now it is clearer that I don't think we necessarily do it ourselves- it is God at work. It's just that I see the boundary between ourselves and God as more fuzzy. We're not God and God isn't us (at least to me), but God is immanent in all His creation, including us. It is that immanence that leaves all humankind no excuse, for the law is written on our hearts and God's presence is writ on the very heaves and earth. That the law is written on our hearts speaks that we are by nature, in part, set up to allow for salvation. But of course it is God Himself who set it up that way, so ultimately our salvation is entirely dependent on His grace.

 

[path_of_one]

How much participation did Lazarus have in being once dead and did made alive? If you say none for each, then how do you suppose a person who is "dead in sin" can make Himself alive again? You have as much participation in being born again as you did in your natural birth.

Many times, Jesus healed people because of their faith. There is a participation there. As I say above, I believe the very fact that my atoms stick together to make my body function is only because of God. God is the foundation of being. But there is a participatory aspect to salvation, as I say above.

Jesus said that those who forgive others will be forgiven. That sounds pretty participatory to me. How are we able to forgive in the first place? Well, of course it is because of God's grace. I just believe this is built in to the nature of humanity, while the Calvinist idea seems to see it as coming from outside. I suppose perhaps I believe God is more immanent?

OK, I'll leave that one alone. I dont know how you got that though.

Perhaps it's best for another discussion, as it's really an in-depth look at the text, and is a bit outside the scope of our discussion here. We'll have to pick a topic here and there to tackle and discuss. I only have time for about one major thread at a time.

I both affairm that God desires all men to be saved and elects only some to be saved. It has to do with "The Two Wills in God." You know what? I'll didicate a post to this topic next.

That would be an interesting discussion. I would enjoy hearing what the Calvinist view is on this.

For now, I'll say we both agree with the two wills in God, I'll show you. You say that God wills for all to be saved. My question is "why" arent all saved? And you'll say no doubt, that it is because God has given them free will and left man a self determining choice. There are "your" two wills, because you say that on one hand God wills for ALL to be saved, but since ALL arent saved it is because God "wills" for man to have a self determining choice (free will). There's "your" two wills in God. My two wills in God are that grounded in Romans 9 and like I said, I'll make a post concerning this.

I'm afraid I'm even more left of center than what you are describing. My views of what ultimately happens are not mainstream and to be honest are not fully developed, as I've felt God tell me that it isn't for me to worry about. I currently am of the thought that God is of one will (wanting all to be saved) and that ultimately all WILL be saved. But to be entirely honest, I tend to avoid nailing down what I think about who will be saved and what happens to everyone and so forth, as I think it isn't my place (and I mean me individually, not that no one should think about these issues, but rather that it isn't my individual purpose). My purpose is much more a "practicing/practical" Christian, you could say. I'm about here and now- both in my personal growth in God and in my interactions with others. How can I become more obedient to God? How can I ease suffering of others- feed people, help people out, spread love and peace? How can I become more peaceful and joyful?

I don't have nailed down ideas about what happens to me or others after I die. Salvation to me is knowing that God accepts me into His presence and that I have the Spirit within me and Christ to guide me. I trust that whatever happens to my spirit (and others) upon death, it will be just and merciful because God is just and merciful. That is sufficient for me. I have a long story about how I came to be in that place (it was not always so), but it is an area in which, though I sometimes struggle (because of course I want details! ), I have felt firmly guided by the Spirit to trust and be childlike in my understanding.


Sure. It plays in His will. This is also apart of the "Two wills in God." We must learn to determine between what God desiers and what he actually permits.

I suppose this gets into semantics. I see desire and permit as two different things.

Sin is NEVER motivated by God! Man is responsible for Sin, not God! That said, I will concent that man is only a puppet to do whatever God bids and scripture is filled with instances: God frustrated Abimelech's plans and kept him from sleeping with Abraham's wife in Gen., "Man may make plans in his heart, but what the tongue utters is from the LORD (Pro. 16:1), " In his mind a man plans his course, but the LORD directs his steps" (Pro. 16:9) etc.

I do not think humans are mere puppets. I do think that God works in all His creation, including humans, and that He also has a tendency to rework even the most heinous acts of humanity into glory and goodness. How God interacts with people and how much He intercedes would be another interesting topic for the future- I'd be really curious how different folks here weigh in on the issue.


Is God sovereign in salvation or man? Think about that. Moreover, if God did merely offer salvation or garuntee it? Did Christ did for sheeps or for goats? If God offers man salvation and man "accepts" as you opt for, does he have ground for boasting (even if he doesnt want to)? Who then gets the glory in salvation?

I think my conversation thus far explains that I think God is sovereign, just in a different way than Calvinists do. As I say above, I would not judge whether salvation is offered for all or guaranteed for all- it's an issue that is outside the boundaries of my place.

Christ died for everyone, even the goats. "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

And, as I hope I've made clear, humanity does not have ground for boasting by accepting the gift of salvation, for the impetus to accept the gift is only in our nature because the Creator made it so. So all the glory goes to God.

Yes, scripture says "God is love," "God is a merciful God," etc., but never "love love love" or "mercy mercy mercy." But it does say that "God is Holy! Holy! Holy!" That is His nature and essence.

I'd be curious (if anyone knows) what these phrases look like in Hebrew and/or Greek. In English, there is a definitional statement here:
God is love. God is [noun]- denotes a definition.
God is merciful. God is [adjective]- denotes a characteristic or description.
God is holy. God is [adjective]

I think it's splitting hairs, personally. Does mercy and holiness flow from perfect Love, or does mercy and love flow from perfect Holiness? Kinda mute point in my opinion, but I still am of the mind, given the text, that God's essence is Love. Perfect unconditional love incorporates perfect holiness as well as God's other qualities. But, splitting hairs...

 

[path_of_one]

I can tell by what you've said thus far you dont understand it. It is my aim to help you to at least understand, not to persuade you into bleieving it.

I'm more than willing to hear your explanation of Calvinism so as to better understand. I think it might be a great thing to start some topics for discussion (some of the topics we've touched on but are outside the boundaries of this thread) and just hear various people's (including your own) takes on the issues. I think it gets confusing to people if topics are started in the guise of a question when it is really more leaning toward discussion of set view points- it made me feel initially that you were evangelizing to other Christians in a way- trying to get everyone to be Calvinist. These latest posts have been much more open-ended and interactive.


One of my favorate preachers who isnt a calvinist, is Chuck Missler. He's famous for saying this: "The only certian berrior to truth is the presumption that you already have it." I have learned to be bias without myopic and to hold presuppositions while still having my views in a flux.

I guess I just try to acknowledge my biases up front but avoid them if at all possible. But then, I'm an anthropologist and we're sort of trained into that sort of thing til it becomes second nature.

But you do have a point, I can be conditioned to believe this view of scripture. That said however, that same arguement can be used to the free will side. You know?

Well, it isn't just that we are all conditioned to have certain worldviews that influence our religious experience. The doctrines and practices of organized religions are themselves partially a product of the larger culture and society. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it's a good idea to figure out which pieces are truth and which are cultural baggage, both on an individual and broader level. And I entirely acknowledge that ALL beliefs/doctrines (both Calvinist and "free will") are influenced by culture/society.

You said it bro! Its not an essential doctrine in terms of salvation, but I do believe it is very important. All good doctrines are!! They not only govern how you live, but help you in ALL of life's issues, e.g., times of trials and sufferings, times of happiness and witnessing, prayer, understanding scripture, etc.

As I said, I don't give the importance you do to doctrine, but I don't think it's wrong to do so. I think some people respond well to doctrine and others are more experiential, and neither is wrong (indeed, I think both tendencies are important for the Christian community as a whole). I wouldn't say I'm governed or helped a lot by doctrine. I am governed a lot by my experience of the Spirit and my relationship with Christ. I'm pretty open-ended in belief, but I just cling as much as I can to the love of Christ and to His example.

 

[path_of_one]

Thanks for being so nice!

No problem- I hope we'd all be nice, considering the forum we're in!

And Im also sorry for assuming that you were a guy, I was actually thinking if I should put Sir or Sis, but my hunch was wrong.

That's OK. LOL- nearly everyone makes the mistake at first on this forum. Just figured you might want to know!

Anway, I know some what of the doctrinal views of the Episcopalian and Celtic and Druids,

I don't think Druids of my ilk have doctrine, since it isn't a religion. Modern Druid groups range from literal polythestic religious groups to philosophical/spiritual groups that encompass a variety of other religions. The group that I most closely affiliate with has Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, even some atheists. So there isn't a whole lot of doctrine there, but rather some common philosophical priorities.

Id just like to ask you your views on Salvation. How do you understand Jesus, man's nature, what Christ accomplished, the Bible, etc

Wow. I don't really have time to write on all these issues, but I'll briefly state a little bit.

Jesus... is the son of God, my Savior, my guide, my friend, my comfort, and my King. I embrace the trinity not as a definition of God, but rather as a mystery to be experienced. I do not tend to separate the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit out in purpose or characteristics as much as many Christians. I'm a one-ist and typically think of God as the One. I think we experience God in the "persons" of Christ, Father, and Spirit, but these are more attributes of God than persons to me- they are ways that God connects to us, but I hesitate to define God in any way. My mind is too little to comprehend or communicate what can be experienced.

I think I answered a bit about the nature of humanity above. I'm more or less Quaker on that issue.

Christ is the eternal Word of God- His grace and love. Christ exists outside the boundaries of space and time, as God does. Christ stepped into space and time in the form of the man Jesus, being fully Christ/God and fully man. Christ accomplished a myriad of things. In unifying God and man, He embodied the miracle of our salvation through the grace and love of God.

I do not believe God demands blood sacrifice in payment of sin. At least, He did not demand it of my people (I'm not Jewish, so I can't speak for that). I do not believe that God the Father is incapable of being in the presence of sin, either. I do believe that God is utterly holy, and so it is a sacrifice beyond measure that He forgives our sins, loves us anyway, and brings us into His presence. This sacrifice alive in Christ has ever been and will ever be, and was made manifest on earth and embodied in the man Jesus- His life, His teachings, His actions, and His death. I do not hold any part of Jesus' life (i.e., His crucifixion) higher or more sacred than the rest. The fact that God so loved us that Christ came to us on earth is a tremendous sacrifice in itself, as He submitted Himself to the same temptations and suffering that people experience, thus showing God's ultimate love, mercy, and grace. In Christ is the miracle of God's sacrifice and gift of grace, which makes our salvation possible.

Christ's teachings and actions also give us a blueprint for the perfect life, a vision of what the Kingdom of God will look like, and encouragement to be alive in Christ- to be Christ to others.

The Bible... is a collection of documents inspired by God. It is a record of a bunch of stuff, including cultural history (OT), poetry and songs, prophecy (which to me is not about telling the future), and letters. All of it was inspired by people's experiences of God. I do not think it was entirely meant to be taken literally, and even the most staunch literalist agrees with me when they consider Song of Solomon or the parables. I do not think it is without errors in translation, and it has not been free from politics during the canonization process. Also, the OT is difficult to interpret because it doesn't include all the Jewish commentaries that went along with it. I think Christianity got mixed up quite a bit with Pagan religions early on in Rome's effort to spread the religion across Europe, and it lost a lot of its essential Jewish-ness. I haven't been entirely sure what to do about that on a personal level, but I'm aware that it's an issue, and I find a variety of traditional Christian beliefs that don't really make sense if you look at the scriptures and the context of Judaism.

Also, as an aside, I do not place equal weight on all scripture. In the NT, I value the gospels and the actions and words of my Lord above all else, and though I find a lot of wisdom and beauty in Paul's letters, I attempt to form my beliefs very heavily on the gospels and what I can know about my Savior. I take Christ as my guide and teacher, and I think that while it is a great gift to have all the scriptures, the gospels (good news) would be sufficient on their own.

That said...

I think the Bible contains the Truth and I think anyone who seeks after God will find Him in it. I believe that despite any inaccuracies, politics, mistranslations, etc. that the essential messages come through to any who read it with the intent of connecting to God. I find the scriptures often difficult, but always beautiful and deeply moving. They fulfill so many human needs- they are comforting, they can give you a kick in the pants when you need it, they are encouraging, they provide wisdom and healthy living, they show the constancy of God's concern for humanity...

In peace,
Kim/Path

 

[Silas]

path_of_one

I agree, to a point. I believe in being a living testimony to my faith in Jesus Christ, and when people ask me about it, I preach with words. I don't believe in preaching without first walking and befriending. We are called to make disciples, and if you look at what that meant in terms of Jesus' example, it indicates (to me) an emphasis on compassionate action first and teaching afterward. I also think that this just works better in a lot of practical situations. I know a lot of atheists who were staunchly against hearing about God and religion until they got to know me (sometimes it takes years), and then they wanted to know what was different in my life. If I had spoken first, they would have retreated from me just like they had from everyone else. It was seeing the testimony of my life that caused them to be interested, and then when I was asked, I would respond simply with my own testimony, delving into beliefs when they pressed further. This is non-threatening and respectful, and in the circles I run in, about the only way you'll be able to talk to someone about religion anyway.

We are called to "go out" and make disciples of already converted believers. The gospel is an "offense" to the "natural man." Its not a "feel good" message to make someone feel better about themselves - its not tharapy. Instead, the gospel alone (without anyone trying to dress it up), is God's means by which He uses to save sinners. His sheep hear the truth and repent and trust in their Savior. It is very important to preach without words insomuch as having your life be your testimony, but it is equally important to preach the gospel by witnessing. The Bible makes it clear that we must witness with words and not just with our lives. In fact, it mentions that we ought to preach more with words than it does of speaking about preaching with our life. If they dont hear, how will they believe, you know?

Actually, most Christian mystics are/were firmly in a mainstream denomination. Mysticism is a spiritual path of cultivating a personal relationship with God and Christ, not a denomination or doctrine. It isn't much different than usual Christianity except that it emphasizes personal relationship, spiritual experience, and a total life commitment to God/Christ. That is, you won't find mystics whose spirituality is confined to church. It's about a total transformation of the self.

Will you explain more about Chrisitan mystics to me please? I'm not very learned in this subject.

I'll have to look into that- thank you for the reference. I meant that in the five or six translations I own, I couldn't find the phrase in English. And yes, I agree that many passages in the OT talks about free will.

No problem. Yes the OT speaks of freewill but never in context of salvation. I think that is worth mentioning.

I understand that you believe this. I believe humankind's nature to be different than this, but I am familiar with your line of thought on this. I went to a Baptist church for years that taught this.

How do you explain the Bible's explantion of man's heart being wicked and mind being evil? Do you consider man inherently good?

Agreed (well, I probably define Satan differently than you, but still agreed). I also believe that humankind is influenced by the inner light of God with which each person is endowed.

But...where in scripture do you get this? Scripture says that until we are born agian in Jesus, we are still children of Adam and thus children of wrath because we follow after our own lust and Satan. By the way, how do you define Satan?

I believe it is in the nature of humankind to struggle between good and evil, obedience and sin. I do not believe it is our nature to choose sin, neither is it our nature to choose good. Rather, it is in our nature to be a battleground between the two options, and God's grace allows us to grow in spiritual strength (if we will acknowledge Him) and it forgives us our trespasses.

Can you show me this in scripture, please? Especially the part that speaks of man's nature "not" being evil.

I believe that for some, it is an experience that is like being born again. But I believe that all people are gifted with the innate divine light from their creation (before birth).

Can you show me scriptures for this too, please. I only see the opposite - namely that man is born in sin and come out of the womb going astray.

For me, this kind of gets into a "chicken and egg" argument. I don't believe anything operates outside of God. God is entirely sovereign over all processes. He may allow some to operate more or less independently, but it is still God at work underneath the mechanisms. I wouldn't be breathing, much less seeking God, if it weren't for God's grace and love to begin with.

Wow. I agree!

That said, I do not believe in the mechanism that Calvinist thought describes. I'd say we agree on the forces behind the possibility of salvation (God at work in us), but not on the way that force operates within us. While the Calvinist argument (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert) says that humanity is entirely depraved, and only the elect come to salvation through God sort of coming from outside their own nature to wrest them from depravity, I am more... Quaker I guess you could say. I believe that humanity is by nature a battleground of good and evil, and everyone has access to salvation through the God-given divine light innate in our nature. Some of us choose to follow that part of our nature, and others of us choose to follow darkness. In my beliefs, salvation is still ultimately only possible because of God's grace, but everyone has access to this grace and everyone is called.

OK. Lets try to take this from a scriptural angle. How can a man who is dead in sin and cannot obey God's Laws (Romans 8:7), who cannot understand spiritual things - namely the gospel in this instance (1Cor. 2:14), and who's nature is enslave to sin (John 8:34), choose in and of his own strength to do something he cannot do and cannot understand - namely to follow God's law and repent and trust Christ? If it is not in man's nature to seek after God or love God, why will he, unlike every other creature, choose to do something that is not in his nature? Will he not be consistant with his nature? In any case, answer the question above.

I hope now it is clearer that I don't think we necessarily do it ourselves- it is God at work. It's just that I see the boundary between ourselves and God as more fuzzy. We're not God and God isn't us (at least to me), but God is immanent in all His creation, including us. It is that immanence that leaves all humankind no excuse, for the law is written on our hearts and God's presence is writ on the very heaves and earth. That the law is written on our hearts speaks that we are by nature, in part, set up to allow for salvation. But of course it is God Himself who set it up that way, so ultimately our salvation is entirely dependent on His grace.

There are somethings you say that blows my mind insomuch that I agree and admit that I couldnt have said it any better - like what you said herem for example. I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be very biblical on somethings, e.g., that the Law of God is written upon the hearts of men and they have no excuse before God, that Salvation is by Grace through faith, etc., yet there are some other things that seem very unorthodox and I'm wondering were in the Bible you get it from. Any how, its good talking with you.

- Silas

 

[Silas]

path_of_one

Many times, Jesus healed people because of their faith. There is a participation there. As I say above, I believe the very fact that my atoms stick together to make my body function is only because of God. God is the foundation of being. But there is a participatory aspect to salvation, as I say above.

I understand what you're saying, but I would like you to show me from scripture, OK? I see from scripture that God knows that man in and of his own self cannot come to Him and therefore did not leave salvation to be a self determining choice, but rather give it to whom He wills.

Jesus said that those who forgive others will be forgiven. That sounds pretty participatory to me. How are we able to forgive in the first place? Well, of course it is because of God's grace. I just believe this is built in to the nature of humanity, while the Calvinist idea seems to see it as coming from outside. I suppose perhaps I believe God is more immanent?

No. The calvinist would say that any good that man does is by God's grace and that if God were to leave man to himself, he would do all that his evil desiers wills. In essence, man is not as bad as he could be because God will not have it to be so. Moreover, the calvinist wouldnt say that man cant do good, but instead that all of man's goodness at its zenith, is sin and filty rags before God because they are not done in faith and not done in true and perfect motives.

I'm afraid I'm even more left of center than what you are describing. My views of what ultimately happens are not mainstream and to be honest are not fully developed, as I've felt God tell me that it isn't for me to worry about. I currently am of the thought that God is of one will (wanting all to be saved) and that ultimately all WILL be saved.

So you believe those in Hell will be eventually saved too? If so, where do you find support for that in scripture?

I don't have nailed down ideas about what happens to me or others after I die.

Chargles Spurgeon has a qoute which says: "If you dont have a desier to see others saved, then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that." No Christian knowing that Jesus is the only way to God and way from God's wrath, can sit by and gladly watch people going to hell without having a desier to warn them. Thats why we witness. You know?

I suppose this gets into semantics. I see desire and permit as two different things.

God's will are spoken two ways in scripture, e.g., "will of command" and "will of decree." God's will of command can be broken and is broken often. For example, God wills that we do not murder, but people break that law. God's will of decree, however, is something that cannot be undone or thwarted. For example, God wills that Jesus be betrayed by Judas and given over to wicked men that they may do whatever they want of him and then crucify him. Both examples are spoken of in scripture of God's will. When reading the word "will" we must understand if its something he desieres e.g., "all be save" or if its something he premits, e.g., "all that dont trust in Christ be damned."

I do not think humans are mere puppets. I do think that God works in all His creation, including humans, and that He also has a tendency to rework even the most heinous acts of humanity into glory and goodness. How God interacts with people and how much He intercedes would be another interesting topic for the future- I'd be really curious how different folks here weigh in on the issue.

I think I agree with you here. Men are not puppets, but God does work in them to frustrate their plans or do his bidding, somtimes. Is that what you're saying?

I think my conversation thus far explains that I think God is sovereign, just in a different way than Calvinists do. As I say above, I would not judge whether salvation is offered for all or guaranteed for all- it's an issue that is outside the boundaries of my place.

Everything in the Bible is written for our understand and instruction (2Tim 3:16). God expects us to live by His word. Remember, Jesus' words..."Man shall not live by bread alone."

Christ died for everyone, even the goats. "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

OK. Well, how do you understand Jesus only praying and interceeding only on behalf of His sheep and not the goats? Moreover, Jesus is the propetation for the sins of the world. Propeitation means that He "paid" or made atonment to satisfy the wrath of God. "There is now no more condenmation for those in Christ." If Christ paid for the sins of everyone in the whole world, goats included, why then are those presumed "forgiven sinners" still in hell paying for their sins?

And, as I hope I've made clear, humanity does not have ground for boasting by accepting the gift of salvation, for the impetus to accept the gift is only in our nature because the Creator made it so. So all the glory goes to God.

According to the Bible, does Salvation actually guarantee salvation or only make it possible to be saved? Also, who does the Bible say salvation belongs to - man's choice or God's choice? Thats the question you have to answer and answer according to scripture. I maintain that salvation is of the Lord and that if He does not change our hearts and put His spirit in us causing us to fear Him and walk in His statues (Eze. 36:26-27), we will never come. "No man can come to the Son unless the Father first draw him."

I'd be curious (if anyone knows) what these phrases look like in Hebrew and/or Greek. In English, there is a definitional statement here:
God is love. God is [noun]- denotes a definition.
God is merciful. God is [adjective]- denotes a characteristic or description.
God is holy. God is [adjective]

I think it's splitting hairs, personally. Does mercy and holiness flow from perfect Love, or does mercy and love flow from perfect Holiness? Kinda mute point in my opinion, but I still am of the mind, given the text, that God's essence is Love. Perfect unconditional love incorporates perfect holiness as well as God's other qualities. But, splitting hairs...

Were in the Bible do you see that God's essence is Love? According to scripture, do the Seraphims and Cherubims sing "Love Love Love is the Lord" or "Holy Holy Holy" is the Lord? Again, according to scripture, what is God's essence? I maintain that it is Holiness and that all other attributes, e.g., Love, Mercy, Justice, Wrath, etc., flow out of His Perfect holiness.