Church Sign Message Has Low Opinion of Christ and High Opinion of Mankind

[KenH]

They also said faith, in the way I explained it above, is a "condition".

Then Owens and Edwards were wrong to say that if they meant that salvation is based on man fulfilling conditions instead of Christ fulfilling all of the conditions for God's elect.

 

[KenH]

The difference between you and I is simply that you only go along with passages of Scripture you understand to support your theology while I go along with all of Scripture.

I believe ALL of the Scripture.

 

[JonC]

I believe God. I don't believe in false religion that conditions salvation in any amount whatsover on man.



Of course, it's not a smorgasbord. Scripture is to be taken as a whole.



I have done no such thing. Repentance, as well as faith, are gifts of God.

I also believe faith is a gift from God. But like I said, I believe everything is predestined.

The difference is I also believe that if anyone answers Christ will come in....if they don't He won't. If anyone repents God is faithful to forgive....if they don't He won't forgive.

Have you ever considered that you may be holding a philosophy that contradicts biblical thought? If not, you may want to consider it.

The reason is you deny or explain away far too many passages. You argue against others who believe the passages you deny or explain away because they deny or explain away the passages you accept.

But what if Scripture (all of Scripture) is true?

The passages you reject or explain away are not really contradictions to the passages you affirm. You only believe them to be because you reduce God to an all powerful man.

You'd do well to take Surgeon's advice about not saying "nay" to certain passages.

 

[JonC]

I believe ALL of the Scripture.

Obviously you do not believe passages that present divine action as conditioned on man (God responding to man). So no, you do not believe all of Scripture except as you rewrite passages that don't fit your ideas.

 

[KenH]

Have you ever considered that you may be holding a philosophy that contradicts biblical thought? If not, you may want to consider it.

I consider lots of things. I am not contradicting the gospel of Christ.

If anyone is philosophizing a bunch of mumbo-jumbo it is you - "Western mindset", "error on both sides", "compatibilism".

 

[DaveXR650]

Then Owens and Edwards were wrong to say that if they meant that salvation is based on man fulfilling conditions instead of Christ fulfilling all of the conditions for God's elect.

There again, if you don't believe that the person being saved has to himself believe (that Christ does not believe for him) then you have another gospel. Owen and Edwards did believe that faith was a gift. But they believed the individual being saved must believe. I have trouble completely reconciling those two concepts. I know that God is not required to sit back and wait to see if we are going to believe or not. Yet it is also hard to imagine how you can be given something that you do. There are scriptures that seem to indicate both concepts.

 

[KenH]

The reason is you deny or explain away far too many passages.

I "explain away" nothing.

But what if Scripture (all of Scripture) is true?

There is no "if" to it. ALL of Scripture IS true.

You only believe them to be because you reduce God to an all powerful man.

I do no such thing. It is the free-will conditionalists who put man on the throne and put God at man's feet that have a horribly distorted view of God.

 

[KenH]

Owen and Edwards did believe that faith was a gift.

Good.

Yet it is also hard to imagine how you can be given something that you do.

I have no problem with that concept at all.

 

[KenH]

Obviously you do not believe passages that present divine action as conditioned on man (God responding to man).

Your idea of God as a "Master Chessplayer" where man makes a move and God makes a move, etc., is unBiblical.

 

[DaveXR650]

The "either or" problem is largely a problem with the Western mindset. I think this is because both sides diminish God by viewing the mind of God as the mind of man (just more powerful).

There is something to that. We are using a logic pattern that the ancients did not do. I imagine there is literature on that but I am not aware of it and at this point in my life probably don't want to go there but I have noticed that too. An ancient writer could strive with all his might to obey God and do his will (or the will of the gods if pagan) and yet give all credit for success to God and believe fully that God had orchestrated all good things. Something has happened in our modern thought patterns to make that very difficult. It is humbling to think about really.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have no problem with that concept at all.

I take it you mean this:

Yet it is also hard to imagine how you can be given something that you do.

To me it is hard to imagine. If I see a young man who is really good at throwing and I said he has a gift, meaning God gave him an ability to throw like that - well that's no problem. But if you say that the actual act of throwing the ball, itself, is a gift then that to me is a difficult concept. In the first case the boy's doing the throwing himself, using a God given ability. In the second case, if God has His hand on the boys hand is the boy really throwing at all?

That might sound silly but the WCF seemed to think the same way as they talk about God regenerating a person so that they have the ability and desire to believe rather than get into the question of God believing for someone. Faith must be done by the person.

 

[KenH]

In the second case, if God has His hand on the boys hand is the boy really throwing at all?

1) God does absolutely control the throwing of the ball. 2) The boy is the one physically throwing it.

When my dogs go out into the backyard, it is God who controls whether they turn to the right or turn to the left or go straight ahead into the yard.

If you don't accept that God is absolutely totally sovereign, then you are left to accept that there are random acts taking place outside of God's sovereign control. Then, you are going to have to deal with trying to figure out when God is sovereign and when He is not sovereign. When there is a car accident, is it based on God's sovereignty, or was it just a random act? When a person gets sick, is it based on God's sovereignty, or was it just a random act of catching a germ?

 

[KenH]

the question of God believing for someone

God didn't mentally believe for me. God granted me the gift of faith and then I believed and looked to Christ as the Lord my Righteousness. After God granted me the gift of faith, then there was no question that I would believe. I could not turn away from the gospel as God would not let me, or any child of His, do so.

 

[JonC]

There is something to that. We are using a logic pattern that the ancients did not do. I imagine there is literature on that but I am not aware of it and at this point in my life probably don't want to go there but I have noticed that too. An ancient writer could strive with all his might to obey God and do his will (or the will of the gods if pagan) and yet give all credit for success to God and believe fully that God had orchestrated all good things. Something has happened in our modern thought patterns to make that very difficult. It is humbling to think about really.

Not only that, but much of the world today does not fall in our pattern (particularly with religion).

Doesn't mean right or wrong, just that there are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your (our) philosophy .

 

[JonC]

Your idea of God as a "Master Chessplayer" where man makes a move and God makes a move, etc., is unBiblical.

But that's my point...and you are missing it.

I do not view God as a "Master Chessplayer" where man makes a move and God makes a move, ect.

As I explained to you at least twice in this thread, I believe EVERYTHING is predestined.

The difference is I believe where man makes his move on the chessboard God is not a fellow player.

So insofar as Scripture goes I agree with what you affirm, just not with what you deny. Insofar as Scripture goes, I agree with what your opponents affirm, but not what they deny.

 

[KenH]

But that's my point...and you are missing it.

Then answer this question using some of your own phrasing: Do you think that Divine action is ever conditioned on man (God responding to man)?

 

[JonC]

I "explain away" nothing.

Sure you do.

Scripture says if a man repents God will forgive. But you immediately respond that God gives them a new heart.

But you ignored the negative.

Do you believe that the lost control God by their disbelief (force God to punish them)?

Those are the same type of conditional statements.

If men are not controlling God by rejecting Him then (per your logic) God has authored their disobedience.

My point is Scripture does not present God as just a ln all powerful man. But you are.

It isn't "either or when" it comes to God's Word. Scripture is all or none. You can't reject just the parts you don't like and stand in what remains.

The problem isn't Scripture but your approach to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Then answer this question using some of your own phrasing: Do you think that Divine action is ever conditioned on man (God responding to man)?

Sure God responds to man.

If a man repents and believes then God is faithful to forgive.

If a Christian is disobedient then God will discipline him.

God answers prayers.

If a man denies God before men then God will deny him.

If man does not forgive others then God will not forgive that man.

Scripture is full of these types of statements.

 

[KenH]

Sure you do.

No, I do not.

Scripture says if a man repents God will forgive. But you immediately respond that God gives them a new heart.

Man repents from dead works because God gives him a new heart.

Do you believe that the lost control God by their disbelief (force God to punish them)?

The doctrine of reprobation(which may be a doctrine hated even more by the lost than the doctrine of election) is taught in the Bible.

If men are not controlling God by rejecting Him then (per your logic) God has authored their disobedience.

Yes, the Bible teaches that.

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Numbers 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

My point is Scripture does not present God as just a ln all powerful man. But you are.

No, I am not.

Scripture is all or none. You can't reject just the parts you don't like and stand in what remains.

I totally agree.

The problem isn't Scripture but your approach to Scripture.

No. The problem is that you do not understand the Scriptures. God must give a person eyes to see and ears to hear(Matthew 13:16)

 

[KenH]

Sure God responds to man.

Let me be more precise:

Who do you think is always the primary actor and who do you think is always the secondary actor whose actions are always controlled by the primary actor?