If....then....

KJV1611 stated,

Thanks!

John 3:16, Revelation 22:17, are all consistent with Calvinist theology. The "Whosoever wills" are the elect while the "whosover won'ts" are the non elect.

John Calvin gives the Biblical position on John 3:16
“The Father loves the human race...the universal term, whosoever, both to invite all
indiscrimately to partake of life, and to cut off any excuse from unbelievers...He invites
all without exception to the faith of Christ...Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”

 

Please, give one person from the Bible who kept all the 10 commandments other than Jesus Christ.

 

Helen,

This is rather long and I hope you will read it all. If you respond that is fine. I may or may not answer it because of time on my end. I spend this amount of time because I believe you to be sincere and to be a lover of God. I have great respect for the work that you do here and I would commend you for your obvious commitment to Scripture in areas such as origins. There, you believe Scripture in spite of the massive ‘evidence’ against it. Yet strangely enough, here you reject Scripture in favor of the “evidence” of human will when such evidence is even more tenuous than evolutionary evidence. I will briefly demonstrate this for you and encourage you to apply the hermeneutic with which you read Gen 1-3 to the rest of the book.

I would say at the outset that you seem to have a caricature of God and his dealings with man. You do not give evidence of understanding the arguments and problems that reformed soteriology addresses. I do not say that to be derogatory but simply to say that as I read your descriptions of reformed soteriology, I do not know many of us (if any) who would agree with you. Let me start:

Exactly my point. Their depraved minds do not accept the truth of God’s Scripture. They are doing what they want to do. God is not forcing them to disobey him. You make my point very well.

Actually, you are making my argument for me. The if/then warnings do not imply an ability to keep them. Man rejects them because of his depravity. While these statements are a motivation to the regenerated, they are not to the unregenerated. The only thing this can be attributed to is the supernatural work of God in a person’s life.

Here again, you make my point. They reject God in favor of themselves. They do not want seek God or accept him. They are interested only in themselves because their minds are depravied.

Here is a place where you need to accept Scripture rather than experience. Rom 1:21 tells us that all men know about God (For even though they knew God). God is not a secret. He is plain for all to see. Ps 14 tells us that they do hate God, they do not understand, they are turned aside. Rom 8 tells us that the natural man is unable to please God. All of these passages and many more make the point that refutes your contention that they do not hate God.

This stems from a misunderstanding of depravity. Scripture tells us that man’s nature is always evil (Rom 3:10-17; Rom 8:1-13; Eph 2:1-3; etc.). This is not man’s idea as you say. It is what God has told us about man. I too see remarkable acts of charity coming from unsaved people … but depravity is not about this. Depravity means that all of man’s being has been affected by sin. Therefore, his acts of “charity” are not biblical charity. (Notice here how your theology is driven by “what you see” rather than what God says.)

No this is not what it says

Rom 1:20-23 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Clearly they rejected God himself.

They are aware of right and wrong because of the image of God in man (Rom 1:18ff; 2:14-16). This is absolutely consistent with reformed soteriology. The problem is that they do not want to accept God’s truth.

I totally reject this. Man is born a sinner. He chooses to sin because of his nature. I would check out John Murray’s The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. This is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of sin and its affect on people.

First, I wouldn’t get your theology from fairy tales. Second, men seek for the idea of God; that is why there are false religions. They will not accept the God that is; therefore they make their own (Rom 1:22-23). Third, spiritual death does not mean that man cannot comprehend anything other than evil. I don’t know of anyone who says that.

Scripture tells us that man is not capable of achieving this. Rom 8 says that the unsaved man is unable to please God, he cannot do so. Here again, the text of Scripture answers your questions. They long for the God idea and for what God can give; but they will not submit themselves to God. They choose to seek it on their own.

But I have shown you time and time again here and in other threads on this forum where your understanding of God does not match his revelation. I believe you do know his love and power and omnipotence and all that. That is not at issue. I do not think you have been consistent in your understanding of these issues. You say that reformed theology does not understand these things. Yet I doubt that you have ever read any reformed theologians. It seems that your base your ideas on a caricature that some have created. I would recommend a couple of books. First, The Grandeur of God by C. Samuel Storms. It is out of print I think but get your hands on this is you have to sell your husband to get it (Just kidding there … only rent him out). Second, read Desiring God by John Piper. Third, read the most significant theological work I have ever read –The Pleasures of God by John Piper. These books should correct your misunderstandings about what reformed theology thinks about God.

This is totally inconsistent with everything you have said so far. Do you believe God purposes for people to go to hell?? That is what is happening. And if man has a “free will” (as you define it), how does success not rest on my ability to convince them to exercise that free will for God?

It is because my theology is horrid. But try to understand what I am saying.

When I say “walk away” I mean that I do not stand there and keep beating people up. I present the gospel. I explain it, illustrate it, ask questions, call them to repent from their sins and turn in faith to Christ, and urge them strongly to do it. I shared the gospel with two people this past week. If I talk for another 2 hours, they might pray just to get rid of me and that is not salvation. If the Holy Spirit is not working, I can’t do his work.

In Philip’s walking alongside the Ethiopian, he was explaining the gospel. I believe we should do that. We should show kindness and love. There was nothing in my post to make you think otherwise. I have put my arms around drunks in my suit. I have gone to the apartments of drug addicts and paroled convicts to share the gospel with them. I do that because I believe that God is calling out for himself a people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and some of them live around here. I am guaranteed success in my ministry because God is in charge of it … all of it. It must be a horrible life to live, to walk away from a message or a witnessing confrontation wondering if that person is still unsaved because you did bad job or messed up somehow. I never have to think about that. I pray for God to do his work through me.

They most certainly will but what causes them to seek? You are missing a very important part of this equation found in Rom 3:10-12 where it tells us that all are in sin, no do good, and no one seeks God. You cannot ignore the verses you don’t like. They are Scripture from God just like the rest of it is.

Are you still witnessing to everyone you have ever talked to? Surely you walked away from people before. We have to sleep, eat, work, etc. I do not know the condition of anyone’s heart., However, I can look at their life and see if what it says matches up with Scripture.

Our theology must be driven by Scripture, not by what we think God ought to be like or ought to do. I fear that you have submitted Scripture to your own understanding rather than accepting what God has told us about himself. I do not doubt your salvation or love for him. I only ask you to consider what Scripture says rather than what you would like it to say.

 

This has been said many times before, and recently, something had dawned on me about it, and I was waiting to discuss it.
People in their state now may not want God and be "doing whatever they want", but if they knew the reality of Hell would they still? They, like us see in a glass darkly (they even moreso, since they are not enlightened by the World of God and the Spirit), so as Jesus said "they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), and Paul "Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor.2:8).
But to teach that God makes these people do these things, or at least keeps them in the unregenerate state (which guarantees they will continue disobeying) by not giving them the chance to repent, and then condemns them for it, is hypothetically shutting people out who might have chosen Him. It is no real choice that they continue as they do, "according to their nature" if God has decreed that "this individual will not receive the new nature required to choose differently".

But once again, there is the "vessels of wrath" (Romans 9) argument used to explain why God would create these people He does not intend to save. Rather than being judged for their own "sinful condition", in the context it is speaking of a neutral element (clay) which is then formed and assigned to "destruction" or "glory", "not because of any good or evil in themselves". It's usually after this chapter is cited that the whole notion of "neutrality" enters the questioner's mind (along with the emotional defense of the "vessels of wrath"), when neutrality is in fact, quite moot in reference to individual sinners.
Then after all this, to insist "God doesn't really ordain people to destruction; He only passively allows the already evil people to 'go their own way'" is creating many contradictions.
BTW, I am mentioning this point repeatedly, because I have realized that it is the whole linchpin of the debate, despite the charges that non-Calvinists deny sovereignty or cannot answer all the philosophical questions.

Isn't this submitting scripture to our understanding (or what is mentally convenient for us)? Whether what you said was true or not (there are some legitimate points in it), the Bible does say that our testimony (including our lives, etc) do matter, and this is why Christians caught up in sin themselves should not be allowed to lead the church, etc. Even though we should not put so much stock in ourselves in leading people, still that argument really is not a good premise to support Calvinism over free will.

[ April 20, 2002, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

I just wanted to apologise for a vey ignorant and very embarassing reply I made to Timothy W. I was wrong and have no excuse for my blunder. please forgive my ignorance in that reply.

 

Romans 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Rev 9;20-21 20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts

Rev 16:9-11 9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory ... and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.

These last two passages in Revelation expressly describe the horror of the tribulation to come and in the face of it they refuse to repent but instead blaspheme more. So the biblical answer to your question is, "YES."

You contradicted yourself here. You say that they do not have the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit (which I would say) and then say that God would be unfair to condemn them for it. Paul's points in 1 Cor 2:8 is that these people were so turned against God that they would not have crucified Christ if they had known that they were accomplishing God's wisdom in a mystery. So that verse proves my point, not yours. They unknowingly and unwittingly accomplished God's plan. Had they understood that they were accomplishing God's plan they would have never done it.

Your discussion of the vessels of wrath passage again errs in several points all of which can be gleaned by studying some good commentaries. I will only cite the apostle Paul here from the same passage: On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? (Rom 9:20).

Contradictions for whom? It seems the contradictions arise because you insist on fitting God into your box of "fairness." I say that again because you are not accepting what the Scripture teaches but rather reworking it to fit your own conceptions of fairness. You cannot offer any passage of Scripture that defines fairness the way that you have. If you had a passage, you would have long ago offered it. In fact, if you had a passage, this discussion would never have taken place. "Moral Neutrality" cannot exist on the basis of passages such as Rom 3:10-17; Rom 5:12-14; Rom 8:1-13; Eph 2:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-10; John 8:44-46; Ps 51; 1 Kings 8:26; Gen 3:16ff; Isa 53:6; etc. It simply cannot be defended from Scripture. Man does not do good, does not seek God, does not understand, is dead in trespasses and sins, is unable to please God, cannot do so, was conceived in sin, will manifest sinful actions and will revel in those that do them even though they deserve and bring death. Everythign I have just said is explicit in Scripture and it all points to one thing -- there is no moral neutrality.

It is the lynchpin of the debate for you because you don't want to answer the exegetical questions and deal with the passages at hand. This is the only card in your hand (the fairness card) and you don't use Scripture to argue because you have none.

No. It is based on the teaching of Scripture that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit our words are useless.

I do believe our testimony matters. Christians in sin should not lead the church. I believe our words and witness matters. But that alone is insufficient to bring belief. (BTW, Calvinism does believe in free will).

The fact is that you pray like a Calvinist I imagine. Everyone does. They pray that God would move people to salvation ... would save them ... would draw them to himself ... all prayers that indicate your belief that something besides "free will" must happen so that people will be saved.

[ April 21, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

People might know (in the back of their consciosness) that what they're doing deserves judgment, but none of them understands what this judgement is. I've heard people accept the thought of going to Hell, because they thought it would be some kind of party with all their friends. The traditional cartoon picture of sitting in some underground lava cavern with a devil with a pitchfork isn't really so bad. Those in the 7 last plagues have been totally given over to sin after many chances to repent (Rev. does not say such people were "passed over" before that point), and they still have no idea of the eternal judgment in Hell. Still, it stands that they remain in this hopeless state because God created them in a world of sin and passed over them in giving opportunities to be saved.

I meant in the sense of 1 Cor.2:14. (Cannot understand the things of God) That's all.

Just by reading, I don't see that in the context. It may be theoretically possible, but not necesarily. The Israelites had certain expectations of the Messiah, and the Romans saw Him as a threat. Neither understood God's plan (the "mystery"), so they killed Him in accordance with the dictates of their "wisdom" because they didn't know this was the Hope of the World. This is the first time I've heard your interpretation.

You tell me I can't answer things, but all you ever do on this point is refer to commentaries (which can themselves be wrong, especially if they're biased to a particular view), and just answer again with the passage in question. If Rom.9 doesn't even mean what you say, then "who are you who answers back to God" is moot, because I'm not in the class that is even being addressed there. (Once again, it is an Israelite taking pride in his lineage).

I keep telling you that it is not MY box of fairness, but the principles God Himself lays down in scripture. I have given you the scriptures for this (Ezekiel 33:11, Luke 12:48, Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41, Matt.25:41--Hell made for angels, not man) several times and you ignore them, and only once did someone attempt to answer it, and they separated God's "nature" from His "decrees" (thus admitting this would be against His nature, but His decrees override that). The "card" is not "fairness", but God's character-- does He pretend to weep for people He had no desire of saving anyway? Do His decrees contradict His nature? (Another one I haven't mentioned is Ezekiel 18:31-32) This card is significant enough, because it is more true to scriptural meaning and principle than what you are reading into all the scriptures you cite. "Exegetical questions" are often a tactic to logically force a meaning into the Bible that it doesn't support on it's own. As I have said, cults use this as well. Meanwhile, what about the exegetical questions above that you are simply brushing aside.
Yet, you continue to say I have offered not one single passage. This, along with a reason why my side seems to have less scripture, (explaining what Bible does not teach), I have addressed further in the 2nd private mesage, which you have not read as of yet. But as man's notion of fairness is one of the things along with justice that stems from the image of God in man, this argument against "fairness" doesn't work. If you all insist God cannot lie, then it follows from the same principles that He is not looking to leave people in Hell, and yes, the contradiction remains, that that on one hand, you insist God is not electing people to Hell, but that is what the whole notion of individual "vessels of wrath" suggests.
In fact, while you accuse me of basing my views on "fairness", it is actually your view that was modified by certain Calvinists because of the "unfair" implications of the supralapsarian (original pure Calvinist) scheme where God creates the Fall to reprobate the non-elect. Yours is the real "Moderate Calvinism" (I even considered bringing this up on that thread, but avoided starting another argument), and the supralapsarians regard yours as the same as Arminism, using the same "exegetical questions" (logical philosophy) you use! (Just look at the debates between you and other Calvinists going on right now, over "Gospel regeneration" and some other things. (I agree the preaching of the Gospel would be not needed under the real Calvinist scheme. And see Christopher's new post on "Salvation of Mankind"). Those debates prove the issue is not a cut and clear "Biblical theology" versus someone's "'box' or 'system' of 'fairness'", as the Calvinists cannot even agree among themselves on what the real "Gospel" is. (The only agreement is that many people have no chance of salvation). There are a lot of hard to put together paradoxes when dealing with God's realm, and what you're doing is trying to harmonize (compromize) Calvinism with the Bible, and it just doesn't work. One has to be bent to fit the other's "box" or "system"

It's not me who's suggesting moral neurality, it's Romans 9:11&21 according to your interpretation. But if human individuals are not morally neural, then it shows that this passage must be referring to something else.

[ April 21, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Helen What an encouragement to my heart. Your post are right and I agree.

Like Helen, I avoid this forum. I know Helen's position on this issue and noticed her name, and that she posted so I decided to give this thread a read. The reason I avoid this forum is because I also lack the time and some responses take a lot of time, and I know I won't sleep if I get too involved. Helen's post has prompted me to post.

Pastor Larry, I have acquired a great deal of respect for you here on the BB. Your knowledge and insights are generally the most sound and Biblically based. I am always thankful to see your name on a thread knowing that it will be posted with a true Biblical exegesis and with sound judgment. You will never know how much I appreciate your well articulated post on dispensationalism (even though there is a difference in kingdom of God/heaven ). As well as your well defined views on pre-millennialism, and the rapture, including the proper understanding of Church. And of course you should know how much I love your post on the KJV issue. I would devote more time to these issues as well if I had the time. But I must respectfully disagree with you on this issue, and as you admonished Helen to take a closer look, I ask you sir, to take a closer look. It is here that I believe you are miss-understanding scripture and doing more proof-texting than proper hermeneutics. I find that most of the discussions on this result in an attack on knowledge. And sadly as soon as someone states that they are a non-Calvinist then we are looked at as less intelligent, unlearned, non studied people. This is a false allegation. So, I ask you to please take a closer look at your position.

You said,

What does the book of Isaiah mean when it says
Isa 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.

Or Samuel when he said:
1 Sam 12:7
Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your fathers.

Or what was Paul doing?
Acts 17:2-4
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

Acts 18:4-6
Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

I agree with you Pastor Larry that there is a time when there is only so much we can do. But here are examples from Scripture of the great effort of trying to persuade people to Christ, showing them evidence from Scripture. Paul even used evidence from nature trying to persuade people. Truly what would be the point? I met a very nice gentlemen recently who was from Portal Ricoh. He was sharing how his children are grown and living in California. My wife asked if they were saved, he said no but God will save them if He wants to. That God probably did not elect them. My wife asked him nicely to share the gospel with them. At this point the man was now mad. I DID!!, he said Once is enough!, he said with a louder tone. God will use that event if he wants to! I knew he was now really upset. This is the fruit of the Reformed faith. Now somehow, someway a claim will be made that somewhere, someone will have miss-represented Calvinism. But this is not a misrepresentation of a doctrine that makes God responsible for sending multitudes of people to hell. God's desire and will is for all people to be saved.

Chet

 

But you don’t have one verse of Scripture to prove that. Use Scripture. I used Scripture to demonstrate that you have a flawed basis for your thought. But you won’t accept it.

I meant in the sense of 1 Cor.2:14. (Cannot understand the things of God) That's all.[/quote]Which is exactly what I meant. And your position is contradictory. The enlightenment of 1 Cor 2 is the enlightenment by which people come to understand the things of God and get the mind of Christ. You say that it is unfair for God to judge people who don’t have this.

It is very clear. In v. 6, there is a wisdom from God that is not the wisdom of the rulers of this age. It is a wisdom predestined before the ages to our glory which the rulers did not understand. If they had understood it (the wisdom of a Christ crucified [see 1:18ff]), they would not have crucified the Lord of glory and contributed to the plan of God.

I have never heard any other but then a lot of what you say here is certainly not being talked about in the major circles of conservative theological discussion today.

[/qb]Commentaries can be wrong. But until you read them, how do you know? I tell you to check them because I don’t want to take up the space here again to address it. It is very clear in the text what it is talking about.

[/qb]But Scripture disagrees with you. I have read the passages you talk about and none of them says anything that I disagree with. What these verses say is completely coherent with what I believe. It is the other verses that are a problem for you.

[/qb]Where??

I did get the message and read it. I have made my position clear. You try to explain what the Bible does not teach but you cannot do it according to Scripture. You pick the ones you like and ignore the rest. You have to take into account all of Scripture.

On the issue of fairness, I will again say that you misunderstand the issue: 1) You assume that man deserves a chance and it is unfair for him not to have one. Yet Scripture says no such thing. 2) You are not interested in fairness with yourself. You do not want God to treat your fairly because then you would spend eternity in hell. You have decided what fairness can be based on a misunderstanding of man’s nature. If man deserves a chance, then I agree with you – it would be unjust and unfair for God not to give him one. However, since no one does good, all deserve eternal death. To be fair, God would give all eternal death.

Sub or infra lapsarianism is not moderate Calvinism. It is a different interpretation of certain issues. Calvinism is determined by a belief in the sovereignty of God. When you limit it and deny it, you are no longer a Calvinist. Furthermore, Calvinism is not driven by logical philosophy. This conversation has demonstrated that. Notice that you are the one arguing the logic of how can be fair if he doesn’t give all an equal chance and how illogical it is to talk of vessel of wrath prepared for destruction while talking about not desiring the death of the wicked. I have no logical necessity to try and figure that out. You are the one trying to put the logical pieces together. I do not believe that God is illogical. I think we are finite and should accept what he says.

[quoteI's not me who's suggesting moral neurality, it's Romans 9:11&21 according to your interpretation. But if human individuals are not morally neural, then it shows that this passage must be referring to something else.[/QUOTE]I have no idea what you are talking about here. This makes no sense. However, neither do I see any need to continue this month long discussion with you over this. The issues have been well presented and no further end can be accomplished.

 

Well then we have a problem because I accept reformed soteriology because of Scripture. I used to believe what you believe and in studying Scripture alone, I realized that there were too many inconsistencies if I was right. SO I changed. To this day, I have never read John Calvin or Augustine. I have no real interest in either. My interest in is what Scripture says and I do not see the God you describe in Scripture.

I am curious then, and honestly so, how can your understanding coincide with Rom 9 where “it is not of him who wills or of him who runs but of God that shows mercy.” How about 2 Thes 2:13 where Paul thanks God “because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” What about John 5:64-65 where Christ says "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." These verses taken with the same hermeneutic that you read Gen 1-3 with cannot possibly mean what you say they do. I do not understand how “no one can come ot Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” can mean anything other than that. How does “God chose you from the beginning for salvation” mean anything other than that? I could list verses on top of verses that seem totally contradictory to what you are saying.

I too take the if/then statements seriously. But I take all the Scripture seriously. That is not at issue.

I don’t see any “tendency” in “dead.” There is not a ‘tendency tol be in trespasses and sins” but “dead in trespasses and sins.” “Tendency” is simply not a word the Bible uses in this discussion.

I am very aware of ginosko and what it means. Yet you are saying that man does seek God when Paul says they don’t. Who do we go with here? I agree that men are seeking things. I think Acts 17 at Mars Hill describes this very well when it says that men are seeking the idea of God, the god of their thought and art. But the divine nature cannot be described or worshipped in such manner. Those who seek will find. But those who seek the true God do so because God has drawn them (John 6:44, 65). When you put these two verses together from the mouth of Christ himself, your contention seems to fall on its face.

I don’t think so. You seemed to be saying that people doing good is proof that total depravity is wrong. I do not think it is. (I do not argue the sake of arguing.)

How so? These verses do not disagree with anything I have said. Paul says that we are dead in sin – it’s that simple. When you limit sin to conscious rejection, you remove the “all have sinned” truth because you deny that babies are sinners. That seems incompatible with Scripture.

You are the one who brought it up. I too study false religions. I have Hislop in my office.

I have spent a good part of my adult life studying other religions as well as the ancient mythologies and legends. I recommend to you Hislop's "Two Babylons" for a better understanding of what is actually going on in a lot of them. You will find it on the net here: http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

Never have truer words been spoken.

Because of my respect for you, I went to great lengths in my post to be charitable to you. I do not believe you to be ignorant or unstudied. I do not understand how you can hold the position you hold and have encouraged you to study some more. If you have read and interpreted for these guys, you should know better than to represent the doctrine they teach as you have.

There are a number of things that I can take or leave. There are a number of positions that I will agree to disagree on. This is not one of them. This is so fundamental to grace and biblical doctrine that it cannot be minimized. I am not trying to insult you or make you defensive. I believe this is essential to the gospel. I believe that people who preach what you seem to be espousing here are in danger of preaching another gospel. I do not say that to be offensive to you and I hope you understand that. I take no prisoners on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. We can agree to disagree about being Baptist vs. Presbyterian, about whether or not the kenosis was literal or metaphorical, about which text we should prefer, etc. We cannot disagree on the grace of God in salvation.

Unless the God who ordains the ends also ordains the means. I understand that God is sovereign and that at the same time, God has commanded me to pray. I understand that God’s sovereignty is worked through prayer. I do not understand it but I accept it. I am glad that my God is in control and does not subject himself to the whims of depraved humanity.

Helen, I do not mean to be offensive and I know that you hold your position strongly. I am very concerned for those who read here and see things such as you have said unanswered. To be honest, I get very frustrated and bored with these conversation because they are so much the same thing. I am firm believer that Scripture speaks for itself. That is why I try to insist that Scripture be discussed. Alas, it is hard to get people to do it though.

These posts are excessively long and need to be cut down. I will probably just observe as most have seen my position and my defense for it.

 

Why do you think I disagree with any of this? You should have been in my service tonight. These weeks (last 2 and probably the next 3) are devoted to evangelism and sharing the gospel. If you were there, you would understand that I totally agree with the plain meaning of these verses. We are to go and reason with people. I told my people tonight that I believe Christianity is a reasonable faith, able to be defended against all comers. It is the only coherent system of belief..

No, unequivocally it is not. This man is disobedient and does not hold the reformed faith. You know that I do not agree with this approach and I condemn it (Just read the threads containing the stuff from the primitive baptists). That is pure and utter foolishness.

Paul in 2 Tim 2 talks about enduring all things for the sake of the elect that they may be saved. He knew their salvation depended on him preaching the gospel and accepting the persecution that came along with it. Paul was satisfied in suffering because of the guarantee of the salvation of the elect.

You have totally misrepresented this and you are no better off than we are. You have a God who could have done something and didn't. Therefore he is responsible. Our God gives unsaved man what he deserves. Ultimately God is responsible for sending people to hell. He is in charge. That is his prerogative.

I do not feel compelled to accept the reasoning of man for why certain things should be certain ways. I am perfectly content to preach the gospel of Christ to people who are lost and let God be God. In the end, as I have said so often (to the offense of some), we must simply accept what Scripture says.

 

No, The man is no doubt ignorant of the Reformed faith to act that way.

 

I see. Its O.K. for you to study Scripture alone, but we have to read a book by Piper to understand what true salvation is.

Fellow dispensationalist, Romans nine is not dealing with individual salvation. Read the context of the entire book, focus on chapter 10,11,12, and 15. This is dealing with Jews/Gentiles.

God has chosen from the beginning for Salvation, how? through sanctification by the
Spirit and faith.

Maybe you mean John chapter 6. No where in John 6 does Jesus tell us that we are forced into Salvation, or the God only elects a few people for Salvation.

It means what it says, and I don’t think there is anyone here who would disagree with this passage. We can’t come to Christ without the Spirit of God drawing us. He first
loved us.

The problem is PL is that the Bible does not teach Total Depravity. But simply the
depravity of man. Depravity does not extend to incapability to respond. As the topic of this thread is addressing the many places that the Bible does admonish us to respond positively to the gospel.

Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Unbelievable statement. Do you think that Helen is teaching a works salvation? Do you think I am? Do you think any non-Calvinist is?

Because of your own very words, which you spoke at the outset. And because of the very fact that this doctrine has that end result. My point was to focus on reasoning and persuading. This takes much effort and time, study devotion. It is something Paul did to win the lost to Christ, not to walk away knowing that God will either take his words and save them or not save them.

NOW it does depend on man and his mere words. Which is it Pastor Larry, man or God. Can you see your circular reasoning here?

Do you believe I am a Christian? Pastor Larry, you speak as if we have two different gods, do you believe we worship a different god than you? I have not misrepresented anything, only spoke about the fruit result of your theology. To use your terminology, it is your God who could have done something about it and didn’t, not the God of the Bible. Your God chose for more lost people to go down the road to eternal death because He did not give them ultimate ability to respond to the gospel. Soverien God could give everyone the ability right?. The question is why doesn’t He? Why does God only chose a few for Salvation? For His glory? That is not much glory is it? The God of the Bible is full of mercy, and wishes none to perish but for all to come to repentance. It is the God of the Bible who came to show that mercy and pay for our sins for all of man. Your right, the God you are portraying is sending people to hell, because of his prerogative. (its hard to even type that)
Besides all of the arguments PL, what difference does it really make? God is the one who predestined that I believe the way I do, and the way you do. He has decreed this to be so. He has predestined for all these words to be wrote down, so why even get upset?

If you are not too board, I hope you respond.

And if you like we can start a thread simply based on Scripture alone. One passage at at time. I would like to see how you handle some key passages. I invite you to do that Pastor Larry becaue I care about how people read your post. I care about you.

[ April 22, 2002, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

AMEN brother CHET!!!!!! So much truth in your response, it was a blessing to read.

 

No. You will get this from Scripture alone. I recommended Piper because he answers some of the questions that Helen asked. Piper has some issues but the books I recommended are very good. Study scripture alone ... but do it without your preconceptions about the nature of man.

So why do we use Rom 10 in personal witnessing? I agree that the difference between the Jew and Gentile is being discussed but it the church is made of Gentiles who have been individually elected to salvation apart from anything in them. True Israel will be saved by individual election to salvation.

QUOTEGod has chosen from the beginning for Salvation, how? through sanctification by the Spirit and faith.[/quote][/qb]Absolutely ... but you are agreeing with me when you say this. He chose us from the beginning. He accomplished that choice through the setting apart by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

And no where have I or any reformed theologian that I know of siad that God forces people into salvation. He does not do that. What Christ does say is that There are some who do not believe ... and he knew who it was because no one can come unless it has been granted him from the Father. So very clearly the only way that anyone comes is if the Father grants it to him. When you compare Scripture with SCripture and look at v. 37, you see that All that the Father gives (same word as in v. 65) will come. So here is the picture: No one come unless the Father gives it to him; All that the Father gives will come. There is no room for the prevenient grace that your position finds so necessary. You want to say that everyone has an equal chance ... that everyone has been effectually drawn by the Father. So why doesn't everyone come? Is v. 37 wrong or is v. 65 wrong? In your position, it seems that you have to choose one or the other.

But again, compare v. 37 where all that are drawn come. You simply cannot have it both ways.

[/qb]The denial of total depravity is unconscionable to me. I could list so many verses here but I will only list a couple and then draw a theological necessity. First the verses, Jer 17:9; Eph 4:17-19; Rom 3:9-23; Luke 11:13; Gen 6:5-6; Ps 58:3 -- okay that is more than a few but I got carried away. Notice how that depravity affects even the will: John 6:44 -- you cannot come (an issue of ability) unless ...; John 14:17 -- the world cannot accept ...; John 15:4-5 -- without me you are nothing; 1 Cor 2:14 -- does not understand. The reality is the Scripture is very clear about the nature of man. Total depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he could be; it means that every area of man's being is affect.

The theological necessity is seen in the death of Christ. If man is not totally depraved, then he still has hope of sinless perfection and Christ is not the only way to the Father. We can say, "Well it will never happen" but the reality is that we do not know that. If righteousness could come by any other means, then the death of Christ was unnecessary. If man is not totally depraved from conception, then there is the possibility that someone could live a sinless life and thereby negate the necessity of the atonement.

Unbelievable statement. Do you think that Helen is teaching a works salvation? Do you think I am? Do you think any non-Calvinist is? [/quote]Notice I said "in danger" of it. Yes I think the grace of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ is compromised when we place merit of any kind in the person. By necessity in your view, people are saved by their own recognition of their need and thus their own response. The difference between the lost and the saved lies in the individual. I reject that on the basis of Scripture and the teaching of grace. When we were dead in trespasses and sin, God who was rich in mercy made us alive. It is God who took the initiatory step; it is God who started the good work and it is God who will finish it.

[/qb]But I agree with all that. We need to witness to people, to be clear about the gospel. But Paul himself said that we should be careful about how we present the message because "even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:3-6). Paul said that for the gospel preaching to be effective, God must shine in the hearts to give knowledge of the glory of God and he admits that there are some for whom this light has not been shown (they are still blinded). Hence, not all have this prevenient grace.

NOW it does depend on man and his mere words. Which is it Pastor Larry, man or God. Can you see your circular reasoning here?[/quote]There is no circle here for where God ordains the ends he ordains the means. The election of God in 1 Thess 1:4 did not negate the preaching of the word in 1:5. The work of election is carried out through the preaching of the word.

So far as I know, yes, you give every evidence of it. I think you are inconsistent. I do not think you have fully reckoned with some of the problems that are inherent in your position.

In no way at all. You have spoken about what you would like it to be and what apparently someone has distorted it as, but it is not what Scripture teaches and it is not what I believe.

God did this many times. In Job's life, he could have prevented suffering and didn't. In Lazarus's life, he could have prevented death and didn't. So the God of the Bible clearly does not prevent everything he could.

Yes ... I don't konw ... I don't know ... Yes ... no. That is a lot of glory. Read Eph 1 -- he chose us in him before before the foundation fo the world that we would be to the praise of the glory of his grace. 1 Cor 1:18ff clearly say that God's wisdom is totally contrary to man's wisdom.

This is the very reason why it is important. You have adopted a fatalistic position that is the problem. God's sovereign grace is never an excuse for fatalism. The point is that God does call people to repentance and to right belief. It is our reponsibility to respond.

I will be more than happy to answer individual passages. I would love to do that. I hate not talking about Scripture.

Chet, for you and Helen both I have a lot of respect. I do not believe you to be unsaved. I hope you both understand that. I am concerned that we be God centered and biblical in our theology.

 

from Helen's message: It is your last paragraph which I actually found almost painful to read:

The Reformed position on soteriology is what gives me hope in ministry. I am glad that success doesn't rest on my frail shoulders.

I am glad I can walk away from those who reject the gospel knowing that another five minutes would not have made the difference ... knowing that different words or different illustrations would not have made the difference. God uses our personal witness to accomplish his purpose. But it is his purpose that is being accomplished.

Nelson: The painful part is that the Reformed doctrine leaves no room for the pathos of God and our sharing in it; that is why one of the Reformed perusuasion can confidently say, "I did my part," and walk away happy without any sense of loss.

There is no need to struggle for with those who reject God, to cry for those who cannot understand God's way of salvation, to plead for God's mercy in the midst of judgment; because even the exact number is tabulated within the immutable mind of God; the Reformed Christian has no need to wrestle for the lost or wayward believer, at least, not really. The part may be played out but, essentially, such concern for the lost is irrelevant when the true implications of Reformed theology are seriously considered.

The Reformed teaching removes all personal responsibility for salvation of the lost. Has one who upholds the Reformed position ever considered that another may reject his preaching of the Cross because there is no power accompanying his words (1 Cor. 2:4)?

In the little I have read about and discussed regarding their theology, the Reformed God's immutability leaves out the pathos of God and the emphasis upon divine sovereignty upstages divine mercy. From what I've read in the Bible, it is not divine sovereignty that is emphasized, but divine mercy; and such sovereignty as God possesses can only be rightly understood within the context of divine pathos.

I agree with Helen that the teachings of the Reformed are painful.

 

Ahh, but the power accompanying the words comes from the Spirit--from God himself. It is only God's work that makes my words bear fruit. The success of my words is determined not by how clever I am or how persuasive my words are, but by the Spirit of God.

I personally have found this truth to be very freeing. Thinking that anyone's salvation was MY responsibility was an absolutely paralyzing thought to me. I am much more free with my sharing of the gospel since I came to a reformed understanding of God's work in salvation.

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then, neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gave the increase." (I Cor. 3:5-7)

We are God's gardeners, instruments He uses to bring in His harvest. We do our job to the best of our ability (and that, we are responsible to God for), but it is God who "gives the increase". The size of the harvest from our work is determined not by us, but by God.

 

The above comment seems to demonstrate the point of my previous message; it is divine sovereignty that determines who is lost and who is saved, according to the Reformed Tradition, and not divine mercy.