Arminian, General, or Free Will Baptists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul is turning him over to Satan for the destruction of the "sinful nature"?? Why would Satan destroy the sinful nature? He wants you to have a sinful nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not that Satan will destroy the sinful nature, it is so that the person will realize that what they are doing is sinful and unacceptable. If a person has no ramifications for his actions, he is much more likely to continue doing it. Once excommunicated, the person will be forced to choose between being apart of the Christian community or continue living by the flesh. Choosing to give up the sinful lifestyle would destoying the flesh.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not that Satan will destroy the sinful nature, it is so that the person will realize that what they are doing is sinful and unacceptable[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is that is not what the text says. That view requires a very unnatural and forced reading of the text. We should read the text as it stands.

 

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh

The text only says to deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, not that Satan will do the destroying. It only states the purpose for doing it, not how it is done.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me, the only assurance of this man's salvation is that Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, says that his soul will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Notice Paul says 'may be saved', I don't think this is a definite will be saved. If Paul had said will, then I would tend to agree with you, but it says may.


Now to Romans 1&2...

Paul says that man has no excuse for not worshipping God. That all a man needs to do is look at the creation to know that God exists and that a man can search out God to know how to live. Therefore there is no excuse for not knowing, loving and worshipping God. Paul says that it was because of man's decision to leave God that man was given over to lust for other men. In other words, it was because of man's choice that God let man fall into such a deprived state of being. If man had no choice, then there would be an excuse, the people would only be doing what God wanted them to do. What better excuse is there than doing exactly what your creator created you to do? If man didn't have a choice, to follow God or not follow God, then Paul's statement about God's Righteous Judgement would be faulty. The entire argument is based on man's decision not to follow God.

If we are merely predistined robots, only carrying out the what has been programmed within us, none of us could be held responsible for our actions. The only one to blame would be the programmer.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we are merely predistined robots, only carrying out the what has been programmed within us, none of us could be held responsible for our actions. The only one to blame would be the programmer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not merely predestined robots. We are individuals who are held responsible for our choices, no matter how sinful they might be. You must understand that when man rejects God, he is doing exactly what he wants to do. He is not forced to reject God.

Since you like Paul, consider Paul's words in Romans 9:14-15. When he says that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau, he poses the exact question you here pose: Doesn't that make God unfair that Esau never had a chance? His answer is unequivocally no, it does not. May it never be is what he says. He follows with an eloquent discussion of what it means to be God. He has mercy on whom we wants to and there are some vessels that are made for destruction that are endured for a time so that his grace may be shown to vessels prepared beforehand for glory. It is a passage well worth meditating on because it is all about who God is and his righteousness and grace.

I think you are misinterpreting 1 Cor 5. I have never seen anyone attempt to interpret in the way you have. There is some discussion about what the destruction of the flesh means but I have never seen anybody say it is the sinful flesh. If you have someone who says such, then put his name out and let's look at his arguments.

 

I originally got it from the NIV. hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

I believe that such an interpretation can be derived from the King James Version that describes the sinful nature as the flesh in Galatians 5. I am surprised that you have never heard this interpretation of this before. I have never heard anyone interpret it any other way. Even over the internet, I asked to hear how others understood this scripture and everyone came to the same conclusion(I didn't even give my interpretation).

As I understand it, God is outside of time. He already knew Esau before Esau was born. He knew what was going to happen, and blessed Jacob for who he was and cursed Esau for what he was.

Now for somethings that Jesus said about the issue:

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


Matthew 16:11-12 How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


Why are there any teachings/warnings showing us how we should live, if our salvation has nothing to do with what we do? If we have no choice in the matter, then why warn us to live a certain way?


**Disclaimer- I am not trying to prove predestination/eternal security wrong, I am just showing you scriptures that I believe support free will/loss of salvation.

By the way, I still believe my quote from Ezekiel is relevent. It was under the Law, therefore God's covenant required living by the Law. In the same way, we must live up to our end of the contract. We are just under a different covenant.(But the spirit is the same- Love God with our whole heart and to Love our neighbors as ourselves)

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
[QB]I originally got it from the NIV. hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not realize the NIV did that. I just lost some respect for it . Actually not; I just don't think it is right. When I say I have never seen anybody support that I was referring to commentators. I have not studied it in depth and I am certianly open to change. I took a class on Greek Exegesis of 1 Cor 1-7 and I don't remember that interpretation being discussed though I may just not remember enough. It just seems contrary to the passage to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God is outside of time. He already knew Esau before Esau was born. He knew what was going to happen, and blessed Jacob for who he was and cursed Esau for what he was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how did he know? Because of his eternal decree. The text clearly removes it from the realm of Jacob and Esau by saying before they were born or could do anything good or bad. The text is clear that it rests solely on the sovereign choice of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why are there any teachings/warnings showing us how we should live, if our salvation has nothing to do with what we do? If we have no choice in the matter, then why warn us to live a certain way?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because man is held responsible to obedience. You must remember that God is not forcing people to be disobedient and unsaved. They are doing exactly what they want to do. The changed life is evidence and thus assurance of eternal life is based on that evidence. Man is called to obey God and will be held responsible for it.

 

All I have tried to do is show why I believe this to be a disputable matter. As Paul says about disputable matters:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Romans 14

 

For all the Arminian arguments against unconditional election, particular atonement, irresistible grace and preservation of the saints, the core of their misunderstanding always comes back to a basic denial of total depravity. Whether they admit it or not, anti-calvinists adhere closely to a belief that there is some spark of good in lost sinners, and that sinners want to be saved. Time and time again this denial is betrayed by arguments about hypothetical people being "unable to choose", or wanting to be saved "but can't because they are unchosen".
Until one understands that all are depraved, dead in their sins and actual God-haters, the understanding of God's perfect, elective grace will not be understood.

 

While I believe the real problem is the problem that Paul was addressing in Romans 14. There apparently was a division between people who were eating meat that had been offered to an idol. Those who were against such practices were sure to say that eating such meat was actually worshipping other gods, while others were saying that it wasn't a big deal since the other gods didn't exist. The meat eaters were probably saying that the non-meat eaters didn't have the proper understanding that Paul agrees with. Notice that Paul didn't put down the weak brothers with the inferior understanding. Paul was sympathetic to the weaker brothers when he said,

It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.

As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12-13

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

We all have an imperfect understanding about disputable matters. As Paul says 'we see but a poor reflections'.

What are we doing by arguing over such matters? All we are doing is causing division in the Church. We all love and Worship God. The Bible doesn't say the we don't have a choice, the Bible does say that God knows who will and will not go to heaven. God has created all for a purpose, both the noble and ignoble, but does that mean he chose who will be noble and ignoble? Perhaps, perhaps not. What good comes from the bickering, other than proving yourself right. Love is not concerned about being right, love is not proud. This is why Paul says:

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

We are all different, and we all have a different understanding of God, our Master. This is why Paul says:

Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Peace be to all. May we all find unity in Christ.

Nils

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

Ode To The Divisive Christian

Where can I go from your criticism? Where can I flee from your judgment?
If I go up to the Music Ministry Forum, you are there; if I make my bed in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the General Discussion Forum, if I settle on the far side of the Denominational Discussions Forum,
even there your cynical attacks will find me, your right hand will judge me.
If I say, "Surely the unity of brotherhood will protect me and the truth become known around me,"
even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. (Adlibbed from: Psalm 139:7-12)

Taken from the NIV to arouse "a certain group!"
Sung to the tune of a dcTalk song to arouse "another certain group."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
All I have tried to do is show why I believe this to be a disputable matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how God being God is really disputable. Either God is sovereign or he is not. I realize that is pretty simplistic and there are many people who I consider "good people" (in the sense that they are good Christians) who disagree with me. That is fine. I still dont' think it is really disputable.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
[QB]Ode To The Divisive Christian
[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Michael
Is that why Al Mohler gave the EY Mullins award to Paige Patterson this year? I never could figure that out.
Russell

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't see how God being God is really disputable. Either God is sovereign or he is not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't dispute the fact that God has the power to do whatever He wants. God is God. What is in dispute is how God chooses to let things happen. God can choose to give us free will to choose to love Him or reject Him. God can choose to make everybody turn out the way they turn out. Perhaps God does a combination of both. The ways of God are above human understanding.

What I am trying to say, is that using Biblical references as to what God has chosen is debatable.

Look at Romans 2:14-15 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consiences also bearing witness, and heir thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

As Paul states, there are gentiles who follow God purely by what God has written into their hearts. Paul states that all people have this written into their hearts, it is just some choose to ignore it.

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't dispute the fact that God has the power to do whatever He wants. God is God. What is in dispute is how God chooses to let things happen. God can choose to give us free will to choose to love Him or reject Him. God can choose to make everybody turn out the way they turn out. Perhaps God does a combination of both. The ways of God are above human understanding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God has revealed to us what he does, though not how he does it. He reveals to us that he elects out of his mercy but does not describe the working of the Spirit in the heart by which a person is brought of his own free will to that choice. Who are we to question that? If God chooses to cede some of his sovereignty to the "free will" of man, then by definition he is no longer sovereign. You can't have it both ways.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I am trying to say, is that using Biblical references as to what God has chosen is debatable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The references say what they say. You cannot simply change them because you don't like them. YOu must correlate your truth so that it fits together.

Look at Romans 2:14-15 ... As Paul states, there are gentiles who follow God purely by what God has written into their hearts. Paul states that all people have this written into their hearts, it is just some choose to ignore it.[/quote]

That is not what Paul says. Paul is talking about general revelation through the conscience and the innate knowledge of God that every man has. Some do choose to ignore. Those who act on it are those whom God has given the ability to act on it. The rest he lets go as they please. Without the intervention of God, man will not choose God. Romans 8 says that he cannot, he is unable. Natural man goes the way he wants and God lets him go. For those who are his elect, God changes their will so that they do choose him.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... he does affirm total depravity, as did John Wesley, but that did not negate for them the truth of a divine spark, prevenient grace, the Light of Christ, image of God--call it whatever--within human beings, that religious bent in every human that distinguishes us from the rest of creation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have contradicted yourself and confused your terms. Total depravity is contradictory to "divine spark" or "prevenient grace." Prevenient grace mitigates total depravity so that it is no longer total. The image of God in man or the light of Christ is different than prevenient grace. Those testify to the fact that every man instinctively knows that God exists. They refuse him because they do not have a spark of truth or prevenient grace.