The Often Heard Modern Gospel

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jesusfan: Do you hold that ONLY calvinism is the theological system to understand scriptures by then?
that non cals/arminian theologies are ALL bad, period?

HP: I believe both Calvinists and Arminians miss the mark of presenting truth when they start from the false Augustinian notion of original sin. While I credit the Arminians for being slightly inconsistent with that notion, by their insistence that such a doctrine does not infer guilt, or transmit actual guilt because we are born that way, still they insist upon the basic doctrine and ignore where the real problem lies. Sin in no wise lies in the constitution of the flesh as Augustine falsely held, but rather sin lies in the will of man as distinct from any nature he is born with. Certainly we are born with a proclivity to sin, but that serves as an influence to sin, and NOT sin in and of itself.

Calvinists generally associate guilt by original sin, in that all are born with a sinful nature that causes them to sin. Thy are guilty sinners before God on account of the nature they are born with. Their nature is said to be the cause of their sin. If this was true, the only thing that would be blameworthy is their nature, not their choices, for if their nature caused them to sin it would prove that the relationship between their will and the actual sin would be one of necessity not freedom. Accountability can only be justly incurred where true freedom exists. "Freedom to do as one wills" as often stated by Calvinists, or those leaning hard towards Calvinism, is in reality necessity, and not freedom in the least. The relationship that exists between the will and the doing is one of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as one wills.

Jesusfan:You do know God has and still does use in mughty fashions individuals/groups holding to either sides of this?

HP: God has often worked in spite of certain doctrinal beleifs, not because of them. As I stated before, the further a Calvinist,or one leaning hard in that direction, preaches away from the necessity of the Calvinistic theology, and preaches conssitent with personal responsibility, the more results they will have.

Jesusfan:My view is that Cal is BEST way to come to scriptures as regarding Sotierology, NOT though only way, as other systems are good, just incomplete, especially in regards to salvation model...

HP: I would simply disagree.

Jesusfan: Do you hold calvinism IS the Gospel, not jusyt a better way to understand it?

HP: It is not my place on this forum to answer such questions. The reader needs to decide what is and what is not the true gospel presented for themselves. With so many differing views being presented, some things are best left to the listener to decide by themselves on forums such as this. This is simply not to time and place to answer those questions.:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, no one acts freely that is bound to only one possible consequent for any given antecedent. Freely implies being able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances. The 'freely' you speak of is not freedom in any sense of the word, but is the sheer results of force or coercion in one singular direction, which in the case of a sinner, would be to sin and that continually. In such a state with the will bound to sin and that by necessity, it is logically impossible for such a sinner to choose life, because that would go against the coercion of his nature.

Ok, lets put your theory to the test? Does God have a Free will according to your definition?

Is it possible that he can FREELY choose to love darkness?

If you respond no because he is immutably righteous than you are admitting he has no FREE will according to your own definition of FREE will. Furthermore, you are admitting that his will cannot express anything other than his own heart and it is his immutable righteous heart that dictates his choices.

I say the same is true of sinful man. He loves darkness and hates light and his FREEDOM of choice is dictated by his own unrighteous heart as much as God's freedom of choice is dictated by his own righteous heart. God "WILL NOT" sin and the lost man "WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT."

I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point i am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

Regeneration is the creation of something that is in "TRUE HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) because it is "created IN CHRIST JESUS." Hence, what is born of God cannot sin. However, the body has not been born of God. However, the soul has not been born of God. It is the spirit that has been born of God (Jn. 3:6 "what is born of the Spirit is spirit"). It is this inward man confirmed in true holiness and righteousness that is the seat of, origin of saving faith in the gospel.

When Satan came before God and challenged God that He could make Job repudiate his faith in God, God gave him over to Satan because God knew what neither Satan or Job knew. Saving faith is rooted in the new man perserved by the power of God alone and neither Satan or self can overthrow it and his testimony bore this out after Satan threw everything he could at him. This is why tribulation only worketh for us and never against us (Rom. 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 1:6-8). This is what overcomes the world - even our faith in Christ because it is "of grace" and it is "not of yourself but it is a GIFT of God, not of works.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, if something is dictated, it is necessitated. If something is necessitated, such a one is not free. Man is indeed, in a sinful state, both free and necessitated in differing senses. Once he sins, nothing he can do can free him from the penalty of sin outside of Christ. He is by necessity stained with sin. Necessity did not force him into such a state, neither can sin be produced by force or coercion. Once in the state of sin, indeed nothing he can do, even if it is doing good, can free him from that state of sin apart from the blood of Jesus Christ. Still, if anything is denoted as sin in his life, and as such blameworthy, he must have had a choice to do something other than sin, but simply refused to.

Yes, lost men do come to the light, for we came. We came if we came at all, freely on our own volition. Certainly God drew us, and revealed our sin and Himself to us, but not in any forceful coercive manner. "Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Forgive me, but in your response, you still completely avoided answering the questions directly that I asked. I will ask once more.


I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point I am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? Does not a sinner have to be regenerated before he can respond to the gospel? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Forgive me Biblicist, but this should have been the first part of the last post.

Biblicist: Ok, lets put your theory to the test? Does God have a Free will according to your definition?

HP: Absolutely, but He always acts in accordance to His nature. It is not that God cannot but that He 'will not' act in opposition to Himself.

Biblicist: Is it possible that he can FREELY choose to love darkness?

HP: Not and remain the Loving God that He is. By faith I believe Him when he says He will never, as He stated he would not, fail to act Just and Loving.

Biblicist: If you respond no because he is immutably righteous than you are admitting he has no FREE will according to your own definition of FREE will. Furthermore, you are admitting that his will cannot express anything other than his own heart and it is his immutable righteous heart that dictates his choices.

HP: But I did not answer no.

Biblicist: I say the same is true of sinful man. He loves darkness and hates light and his FREEDOM of choice is dictated by his own unrighteous heart as much as God's freedom of choice is dictated by his own righteous heart. God "WILL NOT" sin and the lost man "WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT."

( my answer to this question starts on the first of the last post. Sorry)

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Absolutely, but He always acts in accordance to His nature. It is not that God cannot but that He 'will not' act in opposition to Himself.


HP: Not and remain the Loving God that He is. By faith I believe Him when he says He will never, as He stated he would not, fail to act Just and Loving.



HP: But I did not answer no.

Either way you answered disproved your definition of free will. If you agreed with me and said "no" then that means the freedom of his will is dictated by his heart and is no more FREE than his heart's love and hates. Hence, just as FREE! If you said, "yes" then you would have denied that God's heart dictates his will and that would be consistent with your definition of free will but inconsistent with God's nature. Hence, nature equals the condition of the heart whether it loves or hates light or loves or hates darkness. The FREEDOM of the will is to express that nature or condition of the heart.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, if something is dictated, it is necessitated.

Not if it is dictated by SELF as that is the essence of freedom! The will of God is dictated by SELF - his own heart. The will of man is dictated by SELF - his own heart! It is the condition of the heart of SELF that dictates the choice of Will both in God and in man!

If the condition of the heart is love for darkness then the dictate of SELF is that such a man "WILL NOT come to the light."

If the condition of the heart is love for light then the dictate of SELF is that such a man will come to the light (Jn. 6:37-39; 40-41; 64-65).

What is true in God is true in man - the heart condition or SELF dictates the will and that is the essence of FREEDOM of choice.

Yes, lost men do come to the light, for we came. We came if we came at all, freely on our own volition. Certainly God drew us, and revealed our sin and Himself to us, but not in any forceful coercive manner. "

How many time must I repeat that SELF determination (heart condition) is not coercion outside of YOURSELF!

Regeneration is God's work INSIDE of man to change the HEART CONDITION which expresses itself FREELY according to its new disposition toward light and hate of darkness!

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

He is talking to saved church members who have "ears" to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to "THE CHURCHES" not to the lost world. This is a break of FELLOWSHIP between the WHOLE CHURCH and Christ.
[

I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point I am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? Does not a sinner have to be regenerated before he can respond to the gospel? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

I answered this in detail. Go back and read carefully what I said. Can't say it any clearer or better. Your whole question is based upon distortions of what I said.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I read your responses carefully and you did not address the questions I asked directly in the least. Oh well. No one can force you to.

 

[The Biblicist]

I read your responses carefully and you did not address the questions I asked directly in the least. Oh well. No one can force you to.

Here was your questions:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point i am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

Here was my response:

Regeneration is the creation of something that is in "TRUE HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) because it is "created IN CHRIST JESUS." Hence, what is born of God cannot sin. However, the body has not been born of God. However, the soul has not been born of God. It is the spirit that has been born of God (Jn. 3:6 "what is born of the Spirit is spirit"). It is this inward man confirmed in true holiness and righteousness that is the seat of, origin of saving faith in the gospel.

When Satan came before God and challenged God that He could make Job repudiate his faith in God, God gave him over to Satan because God knew what neither Satan or Job knew. Saving faith is rooted in the new man perserved by the power of God alone and neither Satan or self can overthrow it and his testimony bore this out after Satan threw everything he could at him. This is why tribulation only worketh for us and never against us (Rom. 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 1:6-8). This is what overcomes the world - even our faith in Christ because it is "of grace" and it is "not of yourself but it is a GIFT of God, not of works.

Could not have answered it any clearer! The born again person does not fall from his STATE of grace although he may fall from the DOCTRINE of justification by grace as in the case of the Galatians (Gal. 3:1).

 

[The Biblicist]

I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point i am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

Perhaps I misunderstood your questions. I am not saying the regenerated heart makes a person only able "to accept" his Gift! I am saying that conversion is the necessary and inseparable consequence of regeneration. The heart is changed from love of darkness to hate of darkness and hate of light to love of light and that frees the elect from the previous disposition and is in effect the divine side of repentance or CHANGE of mind manifested toward darkness. Likewise, the change from love of darkness to love of light is the divine side (draw) COMING to the light as revealed in Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

So, it is not that God gives a new heart and then the will has to make a decision as though it is independant of the heart! No! "WITH the heart man believeth unto righteousness" becuase it is a new heart that loves righteousness.

Regeneration is the LOGICAL INSEPARABLE CAUSE expressed in conversion - It is God working in them both "TO WILL" and "TO DO" freely without any EXTERNAL coersion but is a SELF (heart) determination.

The difference between regeneration and salvation is that salvation is much broader including all individual aspects from election to glorification. Regeration is one aspect dealing with the change of heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26) as the "cause" for obedience (Ezek. 36:27).

The gospel is preach to all men equally but in regard to the elect the gospel comes IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE being a CREATIVE WORD OF POWER by God because it is INFUSED by His Power to CREATE a new heart and spirit "in Christ." The non-elect FREELY RESPOND to the gospel according to the SELF-determination of their heart's condition which LOVES darkness and HATES light and thus freely "WILL NOT" come to the light.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Lets see. I take it you believe precisely as ever other Calvinist in that God has chosen some to regeneration and others He refuses to grant the very abilities necessary to accept salvation. Double predestination rules.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Double predestination, irresistible grace, limited atonement are clear inescapable ends of Calvinistic logic. They are unavoidable logical consequences of any such system of necessity. As hard as men try to coin their theology differently, when they start off from a basis of original sin and total moral depravity from birth, they are well on their way to the absurd conclusions mentioned above of double predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. If you want to end up in the same notions every time, the rule is simple. Just begin in the same place.

 

[The Biblicist]

Double predestination, irresistible grace, limited atonement are clear inescapable ends of Calvinistic logic. They are unavoidable logical consequences of any such system of necessity. As hard as men try to coin their theology differently, when they start off from a basis of original sin and total moral depravity from birth, they are well on their way to the absurd conclusions mentioned above of double predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. If you want to end up in the same notions every time, the rule is simple. Just begin in the same place.

Well, I guess when you cannot respond to the evidence in a rational and biblical way, you have to invent things! I don't believe in "double predestination" and how I interpret the scripture it is not rationally necessary but is rationally anti-Biblical.

However, have your way!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, is that really what you wanted to say? I believe I would desire my thoughts and interpretations to be rational and Biblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, is that really what you wanted to say? I believe I would desire my thoughts and interpretations to be rational and Biblical.

You certainly did not deal with the answers I gave you in any rational and biblical manner. You constantly distorted what I said and then accused my position of embracing what I not only explicitly denied but demonstrated with scriptures that it was an irrational accusation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me demonstrate some of the false and contradictory conclusions Biblicist has proposed to the list. He first denies that God Himself has no freedom to act in any other manner than His self dictates. He theorizes that Adam was the only one with a free will to choose between two or more possibilities involving a moral decision. He also recognizes that Adam was pure and righteous before God without the least stain of sin. For Adam to now sin, Adam has to violate the very principle he said rules. If the theory Biblicist purports is true, and Adam was without the stain of sin of sin having a pure heart of love towards God, it would have been impossible for Adam to sin, for in doing so he would have had to go against his very self, a heart of love, something Biblicist states is impossible. Remember, it is not impossible because of the nature of Adam at creation, but rather he reasons from a fixed eternal notion, the Character of God Himself and that being unchangeable. If his theory of God is correct, and man acts as he does because of this fixed principle of Gods heart, it would have been impossible under any circumstance for Adam once righteous to sin. He cannot say that the fixed principle did not apply to Adam, for again he states that the reason why is based upon an eternal unchanging principle fixed in the heart of God himself.

The error and contradictions simply multiply from there as we will see as we continue to re-examine the reality of what he presented.

Of a truth, Biblicist has committed a cardinal error in his approach to the doctrine of the will. To reason from something you do not know from Scripture or examination, i.e., the manner in which God reasons, and then use these notions, which again you have no way to test or prove other than to simply accept the conclusions of Biblicist, while rejecting any examination of conscience, something we can indeed test and know somewhat about, is to insure ones conclusions are the mere musings of a wrong approach to the doctrine of the will. It is no wonder why the theories of the will Biblicist sets forth as cardinal doctrines of truth are contradicted by Scripture, reason and experience, and his own remarks concerning other issues. He has approached a mental science in developing his doctrine of the will, refusing to carefully study and examine the best source of truth, a source we can indeed test by inner reflection.

I hope as time permits to carefully not only examine the wrong approach to establishing ones doctrine of the will, but also demonstrate how a right approach, through careful inner reflection, will free us from the contradictions and confusion Biblicist has demonstrated for the list thus far.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is yet another point to consider from the statements of Biblicist. He claims that man can create nothing because he can only will in the direction of his own heart. If that is true, neither can God create anything because He as well, we are told by Biblicist, is driven by his heart and can only do what His heart dictates.

What do you think? Disagree or agree with Biblicist? If the logic I am using is wrong, tell us why.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Consider yet another point. Biblicist speaks of freely choosing. Is there the least bit of freedom expressed in the 'choosing' he speaks of?

Biblicist represents sinful man as freely choosing sin and only sin due to his nature dictating sin. He then speaks of man, passive in regeneration and only active in salvation as the new nature he is granted by God now dictates his new intents and actions, but he speaks of one born again as 'freely' choosing righteousness now by his new heart 'dictating' a love for light and a hate for darkness.

If something is dictated by a force or nature, what freedom in reality is expressed? Biblicist paints a picture of man as evil by the force of his nature as a sinner and righteous as a believer by the new force of his new nature. How does this represent a moral being? Could one in reality justly be blamed or praised if in fact he could in reality not do any other than what he does? I would say that the 'freedom' expressed by Biblicist is a pure chimera, and no freedom at all.

Disagree? Tell us in your own words what freedom consists of and see if you can support your ideas by reason so plain, that a wayfaring man though a fool understand. Explain to us the difference between bondage and freedom, if there is any in your opinion.

How does a born again believer sin if in fact he can only form intents and act in agreement with his nature as Biblicist proposes, his new nature being one that loves light and hates the evil??

 

[Alive in Christ]

Heavenly pilgrim...

The sheer ignorance of many of the rank and file members in churches today on theological issues amazes me. I cannot tell you how many individuals that I have conversed with over the years look at me like I fell off of a banana boat when I try to explain to them some basic notions of Calvinistic theology, such as deals with repentance and faith. I might say, Calvinism teaches that men repent and believe because they have been regenerated first by the Holy Spirit...or according to Calvinistic thought, or that Calvinism teaches that dead men have no wills and make no choices, and that in order to be saved God must first regenerate their souls. Man cannot even repent or have faith until God regenerates them making repentance and faith possible.

You are probably getting the responses you are getting regarding what I quoted because you are articulating *doctrine* that is 100% false teaching.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Would one venture to say that possibly the angels are moral agents? Do they have freedom of the will to choose righteousness or sin? Are they dictated by their natures or self and bound to do only that which 'self' dictates? Would the principle apply to angels that applies to man according to Biblicist, i.e., all must act only in sync with their self, and that they can create nothing? If it is a principle of truth stemming from the "self" of God, that Biblicist proposes, mandates, or is dictated by, ones self and that such a one can only act in sync with ones self or inner nature, pray tell us how the angels fell?

Does it seem a bit strange to you as it does to me that God created beings that everyone seems to agree had the ability of a free will at least at one point or another, yet the Creator God of the universe is said by some to not have any such ability?? Where did the power of free will come from? Can man possess powers, being created by God, that God Himself is void of??

 

[The Biblicist]

dictates.

What do you think? Disagree or agree with Biblicist? If the logic I am using is wrong, tell us why.

I have spelled it out to you in baby steps and you still distort what I said because you can't grasp it. So what is the use of repeating it to you again??