Are words of life meant for only those already living?

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry;
I must have missed it.
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

 

[Wes Outwest]

[John 1:9] The Word was the real light that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world.
[John 1:10] He was in the world that had come into being through him, and the world did not recognize him.
[John 1:11] He came to his own (his elect) and his own people did not accept him.
[John 1:12,13] But to those who did accept him (believing is accepting) he gave power to become children of God, to those who believed in his name who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.

You will note in verse 11 that "he came to his own (His ELECT) and his own did not accept him, BUT there were some who did accept him, the initial number was 11 of them, to them gave he the power to become children of God. Then to all who believed he gave the same power. They through believing in HIM, were "BORN AGAIN" not from human stock or desire, (see John 3) and they did not will it for themselves (not of yourselves it is the gift of God) Will what? Being "born again" that truly is performed by God in man, all that man contributes is FAITH in God, and FAITH (believing) comes FIRST as noted in verses 12 and 13!

 

[Pastor Larry]

You will note in verse 11 that the words "his elect" are not in there. You have added to Scriputre in order to justify your doctrine. You have made no case that "elect" should be understood there, especially "elect to salvation." In fact, when you study the context, it is very clear that he is referring to the Jews, not the elect to salvation.

So long as you add to Scripture you will not find the truth. The text indicates that spiritual birth into the family of God does not come by the will of man. That is in direct contradiction to your teaching, and your explanations will not change that.

 

[Wes Outwest]

I have added nothing to the scripture Larry.

Is it not true that what you have as "your own" is your elect? Do you have someone elses "elect"? That which you cherish is that which you choose to cherish! It is only coincidence when you cherish that which others cherish.

Did Jesus not create the world, including MAN? Did Jesus not choose the Jews to be his "elect", do scriptures not declare the Jews to be God's "cherished" people?.

"his own" means "his elect" All through the Old testament, the Jews are God's elect, Jesus is God the Son!

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Jews were God's elect nation in the OT, and are still God's elect nation, whom he will one day bring to repentance and restoration. But it is clear from reading the NT that "elect" takes on a different meaning, that of individuals chosen to salvation from the beginning. It is very hard to miss that. In fact, you can only miss that be being so committed to a position that you will ignore Scripture to get there.

"Elect" does not always mean the same thing in Scripture. IT is easy to see that.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry;
So what's the big deal here anyway. His own, are all He has according to Calvinist. Satan has the rest. If they were His own they had to be His elect they could not be His unless they were. Unless you have some other ownership in mind if so, what would that be? The Bible says they were His own. Are you denying scripture says they were His ? and by that very fact they were His they had to be His elect? Otherwise they weren't His.
May God Bless you;
Mike.
P.S.
There is no individual election Calvinist and others have not proven there is. All we have is your word. No scripture says that we are elected individually.

Talk about Israel being God's chosen people. This choosing was unto Salvation.
Besides this The whole nation didn't reject Christ only some of them did.

[ December 18, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: ILUVLIGHT ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

The big deal of the thread was that the Word is what the Spirit uses to give life.

As for election, choosing "you to salvation" is pesonal. God doesn't save in groups. He saves individuals. They are his own. '

Israel as "elect" is a completely different subject. Don't let the use of the same word confuse you. The two are analogical, not identical.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry;
You didn't show scripture to support individual election. You didn't show any for it on my thread about it either so when you mentioned it here I just thought I'd ask again.
May God Bless;
Mike

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You must not have read it all ...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 1:12-13 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

How much clearer does it get? </font>[/QUOTE]In addition to what Wes has posted I would like to add a few thoughts:

Notice the order of this verse:

1. They receive Him
2. They are given the right to become children
3. They become a child by being born.

So it goes like this. They receive Him, they are given the right to become children of God so they become a child by being born spiritually, which is of God.

Calvinists turn it around by asserting that the man is born of God so that they will receive Him which then would give them the right to become what they already have become through birth. It turns the clear intention of this verse up on its ear.

Pastor Larry wrote: The other factor is the illuminating/regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the effectual call that results in justification and glorification (Rom 8:29-30; 1 Cor 1:18ff).

As I expected, you don't leave any room for men's response which makes human responsibility, reward, punishment and judgement non-sensical. If Calvinism is accurate, God might as well reward and punish dogs as men.

We have been through these verses several times so I won't waste our time going through them again, but I think it should be pointed out that neither of these passages you list present any kind of explicit or indepth discussion on this so-called determining factor. I realize this is an argument from silence and it doesn't prove anything, but I just think it is revealing that God spends so much time discussing the Holy Spirit's work in bringing the means of the gospel and so little (if any) discussing the Holy Spirit so called "effectual calling." It just seems that the only means that have an actual effect should be mentioned in more depth, doesn't it?

 

[Southern]

Skan,

I see the Spirit working through the ordained means. The word. The Spirit inspired the words, the Spirit comforts and guides us who carry the words, the Spirit keeps the word spreading, but its the word itself that is the work of the Spirit, not some additional extra supernatural thing that the bible never really addresses.

The difference I would have with your view is that I see salvation being brought about by the word and Spirit and not the word "only"(I Thes. 1:5). While the word is the means, the unseen work of the Spirit is what "opens" the heart in order to heed the spoken "words"(Acts 16:14). Hope this helps.


P.S. Just curious, when you pray for a person's salvation. Given your view, how does God go about to accomplish that?

In Christ...

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The Jews were God's elect nation in the OT, and are still God's elect nation, whom he will one day bring to repentance and restoration. But it is clear from reading the NT that "elect" takes on a different meaning, that of individuals chosen to salvation from the beginning. It is very hard to miss that. In fact, you can only miss that be being so committed to a position that you will ignore Scripture to get there.

"Elect" does not always mean the same thing in Scripture. IT is easy to see that.

Is it not true in the Old Testament that gentiles who, of themselves, took up the "faith of Israel" were accounted as Jews, thus making them "Of the elect"? Why does that not carry forward into the New Testament? Those who believe in the Christ BECOME through their belief, CHRISTIAN! Thus, they become "of the elect", and would in the same right be called "THE ELECT"!

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Southern:
[QB] Skan,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I see the Spirit working through the ordained means. The word. The Spirit inspired the words, the Spirit comforts and guides us who carry the words, the Spirit keeps the word spreading, but its the word itself that is the work of the Spirit, not some additional extra supernatural thing that the bible never really addresses.

The difference I would have with your view is that I see salvation being brought about by the word and Spirit and not the word "only"(I Thes. 1:5).</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. The Spirit brings power to the word by guiding and encouraging the messengers, indwelling those who believe the message and continuing this process over and over again. If you read in Acts you see the Jewish Christians were debating about the Gentiles coming to faith and the fact that the Holy Spirit was coming to indwell in them when they believed was what they sited as being proof that they too, like the Jews, were elected of God. I believe that is the same tone of this passge being that it is from Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, to the Thessolonians, a primarily Gentile congregation that he helped to start. So, I see his statement about being sure of their election due to the Holy Spirit's working is more about the question of whether God really elected to allow Gentiles into covenant with the "Jews" God.

While the word is the means, the unseen work of the Spirit is what "opens" the heart in order to heed the spoken "words"(Acts 16:14). Hope this helps.

This passage doesn't speak of the means God used to "open" Lydia's heart. But as I believe we have discussed, Lydia was already a worshipper of God before Paul came with his message.

P.S. Just curious, when you pray for a person's salvation. Given your view, how does God go about to accomplish that?

I believe God works through human means. The gospel is an example of human means. Its spoken by humans, heard by humans and it is tangible. As an example, one could say, "God changed Jonah's heart about going to Ninevah." And if that is all you heard you might assume that God worked in some secret inward way to make Jonah change his mind. We can imagine it to be some spiritual awakening internally. But we know the story of Jonah and know that God used a boat full of fishmen and a big fish to change Jonah's mind. He used human means. That is the way I believe God has chosen to work.

So, if I pray for God to change someones heart I'm praying not so much for some inward secret working (though I sure He could do that), but instead I'm praying for God to use circumstances and human means (such as me) to influence and persuade the heart of the lost soul. I hope that answers your question.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Notice the order of this verse:

1. They receive Him
2. They are given the right to become children
3. They become a child by being born.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Born is "were" ... past tense. It gives clear evidence that the birth precedes the rest. And it has the added benefit of making sense theologically.

As I expected, you don't leave any room for men's response which makes human responsibility, reward, punishment and judgement non-sensical.

When will you stop misrepresenting Calvinism? This is dead wrong and it has been explained before. In calvinism, there is plenty of room from man's response. That response, 100% of the time is to reject God. That is a response even if you don't like it. Until God is at work, man will always respond by rejection. Punishment and judgment is not only not nonsensical; it is the only thing that makes any sense. Man is responsible because he willfully and of his free will rejects God.

If Calvinism is accurate, God might as well reward and punish dogs as men.

Why? Dogs aren't made in man's image. Dogs haven't sinned against God. Dogs haven't rejected God.

I just think it is revealing that God spends so much time discussing the Holy Spirit's work in bringing the means of the gospel and so little (if any) discussing the Holy Spirit so called "effectual calling." It just seems that the only means that have an actual effect should be mentioned in more depth, doesn't it?

It is discussed ... The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind and gives understanding through the preached word. As Christ said, it is like the wind. We don't know where it comes from or where it is going. But we know that it works because we see it. Why do we need more explanation than the words of Christ?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Born is "were" ... past tense. It gives clear evidence that the birth precedes the rest. And it has the added benefit of making sense theologically.

So, men are born children of God BEFORE even being given the right to become children of God? please explain.

When will you stop misrepresenting Calvinism? This is dead wrong and it has been explained before. In calvinism, there is plenty of room from man's response. That response, 100% of the time is to reject God. That is a response even if you don't like it. Until God is at work, man will always respond by rejection. Punishment and judgment is not only not nonsensical; it is the only thing that makes any sense. Man is responsible because he willfully and of his free will rejects God.

We were talking about what factors in salvation, remember? I'll repost it for you...

You said that the Holy Spirit bring life throught the preaching of the word of God. However, the word of God is preached to many who are not brought to life, therefore isn't there another factor involved? I believe that "factor" is man's will. What say you?

YOUR RESPONSE:

Skan. If that other factor is man's will, then you have a direct violation of John 1, where it specifically states that the new birth is not the product of man's will. The other factor is the illuminating/regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the effectual call that results in justification and glorification

Then I just said, "...you didn't leave room for men's response (will)"

Now, I may be mistaken but didn't you just deny that man's will (response) was a factor and not only that but that if it were it would be a direct violation of John 1? So, sense that is a misrepresentation of Calvinism it must mean that men's response/will is a factor. Which is it Larry?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
So, men are born children of God BEFORE even being given the right to become children of God? please explain.

Yes, what is there to explain? I am not sure what is confusing about that? Before a child comes into existence, he has no rights as a child. And a child doesn't come into existence by his own desire.

We were talking about what factors in salvation, remember?[/qutoe]Yes, I remember. And my point was that birth is the result of the Father's will. That does not mean that man does not have the responsibility to believe and repent, but that is the product of the Father's will. Apart from the Father's will, the unbeliever will always choose to reject.

Now, I may be mistaken but didn't you just deny that man's will (response) was a factor and not only that but that if it were it would be a direct violation of John 1? So, sense that is a misrepresentation of Calvinism it must mean that men's response/will is a factor. Which is it Larry?

It seems to me you are changing the subject, at least what I thought we were talking about. No Calvinist ever denies that man has the responsibility to believe and repent, and that that response is a necessary response for salvation. (There may be some Calvinists who say that, so perhaps "no Calvinist" is too strong, but I doubt there are many.) The issue we were discussing is initiative. Who initiates it? Does man initiate it by his own will, or does it happen by the will of the Father? The latter is clearly the biblical position, and is contrary to the one you espouse.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Is it not true in the Old Testament that gentiles who, of themselves, took up the "faith of Israel" were accounted as Jews, thus making them "Of the elect"?

No, not true. They were still proselytes with restrictions.

Why does that not carry forward into the New Testament?

Because it wasn't true int eh OT.

Those who believe in the Christ BECOME through their belief, CHRISTIAN!

That is true.

Thus, they become "of the elect", and would in the same right be called "THE ELECT"!

That is not The Bible never talks about someone becoming the elect through their faith. BTW, I haven't forgotten that I asksed you to support that with Scripture and you haven't done it. The reason is because you won't find it in Scripture. Scriputre never says anything about becoming elect through faith. Election was in the beginning, before the foundation of hte world, not as a result of faith.

 

[Wes Outwest]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is it not true in the Old Testament that gentiles who, of themselves, took up the "faith of Israel" were accounted as Jews, thus making them "Of the elect"?

No, not true. They were still proselytes with restrictions.</font>[/QUOTE]"Proselyte" is merely a distinction of how it came to be, not a limitation on it's validity. Any restrictions were merely "National" in essence and not part of the "faith".

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skandelon:
So, men are born children of God BEFORE even being given the right to become children of God? please explain.

Yes, what is there to explain? I am not sure what is confusing about that? Before a child comes into existence, he has no rights as a child. And a child doesn't come into existence by his own desire.</font>[/QUOTE]

What?!? Larry it doesn't say that they are given rights as a child. It says they are given the right to BECOME a child. How is it that a man can BECOME a child BEFORE he has even been given the right to become a child?

It seems to me you are changing the subject, at least what I thought we were talking about.

Nope, I have always been talking about the factors the determine whether or not one will be saved. You said that if man's will was a factor it was a violation of John 1 and then you rebuke me for misrepresenting you because I say you don't leave room for men's will. Which is it Larry? Is it a factor or not.

The issue we were discussing is initiative. Who initiates it? Does man initiate it by his own will, or does it happen by the will of the Father? The latter is clearly the biblical position, and is contrary to the one you espouse.

I agree with the latter as well (which you should know), but your position is that men cannot respond to that initiative of the Father unless first regenerated, therefore the response really isn't a factor, is it?

 

[Southern]

Skandelon,

The Spirit brings power to the word by guiding and encouraging the messengers, indwelling those who believe the message and continuing this process over and over again.

For clarification, are you saying that the Spirit is "guiding and encouraging" distinct from the Word?
Or are you saying that the Spirit just made the Word and "it"(the word) guides and encourages, thus equating the Word with the Spirit? In other words, in a practical sense, the word and the spirit are the same as far as spiritual influence.

So, I see his statement about being sure of their election due to the Holy Spirit's working is more about the question of whether God really elected to allow Gentiles into covenant with the "Jews" God.

My point was that Paul was saying that the Gospel came not in word "only"(1 Thes. 1:5). This seems to be exactly your position. The Spirit applies no personal power but rather the words alone are sufficient to bear upon a fallen mans mind. Paul said it came not in word "only" but in the Spirit also, which is what I am affirming.

This passage doesn't speak of the means God used to "open" Lydia's heart. But as I believe we have discussed, Lydia was already a worshipper of God before Paul came with his message.

Saying it does not mention how God opened her heart is to beg the question. God "is" the one who opens peoples hearts to respond to the truth in "distinction" from the words spoken, as examplified by Lydia. You seem to imply that the "opening" of her heart had nothing to do with the gospel message. However, this seems unlikely given the fact that she was Baptized immediately after.