Cause and Effect/Conditions of Salvation

[BobRyan]

>For every effect there is said to be a cause.

But it is not correct. Random events occur. Transistors are based upon random events occurring.

The thread problem is resolved when one realizes that conversion is the human response to one's prior regeneration.

In Romans 10 regeneration happens in response to belief. And Salvation is the result of acting on that belief - in confession.

In John 16 Christ said that it is the Act of God - to DRAW ALL mankind unto Himself. That supernatural drawinig of God - enables all mankind to come to Him if they so choose and it also enables them to choose if they are willing.

As God said in Genesis 3 "I will put war and hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent". Alhtough our nature is sinful - God places a supernatural degree of war between the soul and the kingdom of Satan. There is also the supernatural drawing of God - thus the lost sinful soul is "enabled" to choose life if the person really wants it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

On the other hand I don't think God is just giving a philisophical excersise when he says that he desires that all men be saved or that Jesus died for all men. Those two truism work against the double predestination consept. else God would be a liar. The only variable in this to keep men from heaven then must be free will.

True.

And with the nature of evil we must asked how if all things are created good (submitting free will to God's soveriegnty) could Satan consider evil in his heart save it was put there to begin with. Free will then by the nature of it allow for an evil. Then God in his soveriegnty must on some level must allow for evil

Allowing "for evil" is like saying "I showed my child how to ride the bike - but I am allowing for the condiition that they just might fall a few times while riding that bike

Thus to "allow for a condition" in which they might fall -- by not physically putting your hand on the bike and never letting them ride the bike alone - is not the same thing as "making them fall".

The parent always wants the child to grow and learn.

The parent knows this will not happen if you treat the child like a toy doll and never let him/her do anything on their own.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

True.



Allowing "for evil" is like saying "I showed my child how to ride the bike - but I am allowing for the condiition that they just might fall a few times while riding that bike

Thus to "allow for a condition" in which they might fall -- by not physically putting your hand on the bike and never letting them ride the bike alone - is not the same thing as "making them fall".

The parent always wants the child to grow and learn.

The parent knows this will not happen if you treat the child like a toy doll and never let him/her do anything on their own.

in Christ,

Bob

If you knew by allowing your child to ride the bike your child would be killed, would you still allow your child to ride the bike?

:jesus:

 

[Jedi Knight]

And they "believers" shall NEVER perish.....why? Because it's Eternal Life! Can they backslide? Yes. Can they perish? No!

 

[steaver]

And they "believers" shall NEVER perish.....why? Because it's Eternal Life! Can they backslide? Yes. Can they perish? No!

That's to simple brother!

Don't be throwing words like "never" and "eternal" around. They are much to specific and there would not be any debate boards over this subject anymore. Let's all pretend they do not exist. :thumbs:

 

[billwald]

>In John 16 Christ said that it is the Act of God - to DRAW ALL mankind unto Himself.

If this is NOT hyperbole then EITHER all men are drawn to him OR God has substantially failed.

What does "drawn" mean in this context?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bill, if something appears to happen in a random fashion, does that necessitate or even point to a lack of a cause? If so, could you explain why.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Jedi Knight
And they "believers" shall NEVER perish.....why? Because it's Eternal Life! Can they backslide? Yes. Can they perish? No!

HP: I cannot remember where it ever states "shall" never perish JK. The words are "should not," not 'shall not' as I recall. There is a clear distinction between 'shall not' as you say and "should not" as Scripture in reality states.

 

[DHK]

HP: I cannot remember where it ever states "shall" never perish JK. The words are "should not," not 'shall not' as I recall. There is a clear distinction between 'shall not' as you say and "should not" as Scripture in reality states.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

 

[Jedi Knight]

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

I do believe DHK made it very clear......but I suppose HP is getting his dancing shoes ready to try and dance his way out of this corner.

 

[steaver]

I do believe DHK made it very clear......but I suppose HP is getting his dancing shoes ready to try and dance his way out of this corner.

I looked at several versions and they all say "will never" or "shall never".

Don't know where HP got the "should not".

:jesus:

 

[Jedi Knight]

I looked at several versions and they all say "will never" or "shall never".

Don't know where HP got the "should not".

:jesus:

I believe HP was thinking of John 3:16....opps I am helping HP now!

 

[steaver]

I believe HP was thinking of John 3:16....opps I am helping HP now!

In the case of john 3, some translations say "will not" some "shall not" and some "should not".

The NIV says,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,* that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Now if HP wants to abide by his words, "There is a clear distinction between 'shall not' as you say and "should not", then he has some explaining to do. If his premise was that "shall not" would be OSAS and "should not" would allow for the possibility of losing one's salvation then praise the Lord we have a new convert to the camp!

He might have to wiggle a bit on this one. One of those "I spoke in haste" moments no doubt, but he will have to do some back peddling or believe in OSAS now.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 18 provides the example given by Christ of "forgiveness revoked"

John 15:1-6 gives the example provided by Christ of "branches in Me" that are "removed" and cast into the fire.

Romans 11 gives the warning via the writing of Paul "you should fear for you stand only by your faith - if He did not spare them neither will He spare you".

The references keep going - but you get the general idea.

 

[DHK]

Matt 18 provides the example given by Christ of "forgiveness revoked"

John 15:1-6 gives the example provided by Christ of "branches in Me" that are "removed" and cast into the fire.

Romans 11 gives the warning via the writing of Paul "you should fear for you stand only by your faith - if He did not spare them neither will He spare you".

The references keep going - but you get the general idea.

Of course there is no such doctrine as "forgiveness revoked." It is a unique "Bob Ryan" doctrine only, never to be found in Scriptures. It is derived from a parable, a parable which does not teach doctrine, but only is intended to illustrate doctrine already previously taught in the Bible. Bob's doctrine is not taught anywhere else in the Bible, thus making his eisegesis of the parable moot.

 

[steaver]

Matt 18 provides the example given by Christ of "forgiveness revoked"

John 15:1-6 gives the example provided by Christ of "branches in Me" that are "removed" and cast into the fire.

Romans 11 gives the warning via the writing of Paul "you should fear for you stand only by your faith - if He did not spare them neither will He spare you".

The references keep going - but you get the general idea.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


The Pharisees of Jesus' time had difficulty understanding the word of truth as well. They insisted they knew the law and how to apply it. It is no surprise that there would be modern day Pharisees today who still want the law, as they see it, to be the mark of salvation.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: I believe HP was thinking of John 3:16....opps I am helping HP now!

HP: No dancing here. :laugh: Indeed you are right. I was. I have heard it misquoted so many times I jumped to a wrong conclusion when you posted. Sorry.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So, back to the OP. Who will be the first on the list to tell us salvation has no conditions?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Of course there is no such doctrine as "forgiveness revoked." It is a unique "Bob Ryan" doctrine only, never to be found in Scriptures. It is derived from a parable, a parable which does not teach doctrine, but only is intended to illustrate doctrine already previously taught in the Bible. Bob's doctrine is not taught anywhere else in the Bible, thus making his eisegesis of the parable moot.

HP: DHK, you must live in a fairytale world of your own making. Apart from Calvinists and some leaning hard towards Calvinism, forgiveness revoked is clearly an accepted and Scriptural doctrine. It is not derived simply from a parable as you falsely claim, but is found from Genesis to Revelations if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Let me put a bug in the ear of BR as well. In the OT God called it a “breach” of promise. (Not that you did not know that, just reminding us of the OT parlance) God being Sovereign can do that……or is this yet one other thing a Sovereign God cannot do according to DHK and others????

 

[Jedi Knight]

So, back to the OP.

Watching too much Dancing with the Stars? lol You tried to point out to us something YOU was clearly wrong about.....so you now avoid the "Shall NEVER perish" text? Come now let's be reasonable. If you was clearly in the wrong .........what do you do with the text now?