Circumcision and OSAS

[DHK]

I would say that eternal is indeed eternal but in this present world were are birthed into a ‘lively hope’ of eternal life.
1Pe 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

There is nothing to worry about period IF we remain faithful to the Lord unto the end. He has promised the strength to accomplish the ends of hope, life eternal. We must simply walk in obedience and trust in the Lord.

He has begotten us again (born again) to a lively hope ( a new life in Christ) by the resurrection in Jesus Christ (a past event--the gospel).
There are no "ifs!
Eternal life, the gift of salvation (Romans 6:23) is unconditional.
I give unto you eternal life. That is what the verse says.
If one must keep conditions to maintain it then the verse would not be true and Christ Himself would be a liar, for he says the same thing in John 10:27-30
"I give unto them eternal life."
"They shall never perish."
"No man shall pluck them out of my Father's hand."

These are absolute statements regarding eternal life. If we don't have eternal life right now then Christ is a liar.

If we should lose eternal life at any time then eternal would become temporary, and Christ would be a liar. Eternal means eternal and can never become temporal. The very definition of eternal means you cannot lose your salvation. Otherwise eternal does not mean eternal and Christ is found to be a liar. By believing one can lose their salvation, it is an attack on the integrity of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

If I agree with Arminian or Calvin in anyway I have no problem saying so. I just don't think I would agree with anything in the TULIP statements. Maybe I am wrong for I have not studied them in any depth. Begin a thread and if it turns out I do agree with them then I guess you can call me a Calvinist if it makes you feel good. But hey, I don't call you an Ellen Whitist. You go out of your way to say that your beliefs are totally based on the scriptures and have nothing to do with EGW. So why can't us in the OSAS camp say the same without being labled a Calvinist?

And guess what? If TULIP turns out to be biblically acurate, then I still am not technically a Calvinist but rather just a biblical Christian just like your not a Whitist. Calvin is just another commentator.

:jesus:

I find the Arminian vs Calvinist concept to be helpful in cutting directly to the point in most cases.

Therefore - to use your model above - even though I (like almost everyone else here) claim that my doctrinal views are arrived at and tested "sola scriptura" -- I still claim to be Arminian in that I accept free will and I also accept the T and the P of the Calvinist Tulip - because I think they are both consistent with an Arminian view of "free will".

(Hence my argument that 3 point Calvinists are the closest thing you find to Arminians among the Calvinists :laugh: ).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I find the Arminian vs Calvinist concept to be helpful in cutting directly to the point in most cases.

Therefore - to use your model above - even though I (like almost everyone else here) claim that my doctrinal views are arrived at and tested "sola scriptura" -- I still claim to be Arminian in that I accept free will and I also accept the T and the P of the Calvinist Tulip - because I think they are both consistent with an Arminian view of "free will".

(Hence my argument that 3 point Calvinists are the closest thing you find to Arminians among the Calvinists :laugh: ).

in Christ,

Bob

Many are confused on the "T" and what the Calvinists believe by it. I certainly don't believe in it. I believe in what most refer to by "original sin." I believe in the depravity of man. I believe that man has a sin nature from birth.
But I do not believe in "Total Depravity"--a man so depraved that he has no free will. He is unable to choose for himself because he is dead, totally depraved. A dead man is not alive. A dead man cannot choose. Total depravity takes away the inability for man to choose. He is so depraved that he has no free will to choose. This I cannot accept. If you understand what the Calvinist means by Total Depravity I doubt if you would believe it either.

 

[BobRyan]

I think total depravity is described in Romans 3 - "There is NONE righteous no not one... there is NNE that seeks after God NO NOT ONE".

This is true of man in his sinful state -- as the Holy Spirit finds him to be.

However in John 12:32 Christ said that He "DRAWS ALL mankind" unto himself.

In John 16 we see that the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

So it is the supernatural work of God to ENABLE ALL mankind to CHOOSE life.

Thus in John 1 - Christ is the light that coming into the world "enlightens EVERY man".

This is the kind of T-total depravity that I agree with in the Calvinist model.

But Calvinists argue that God does NOT "Draw ALL" -- God does NOT "enable all" to choose.

That is where I differ with them.

=============================

having said that - the thing that DHK is pointing to - where I do have some agrement is that the "hardening of the heart" has not happened to the child even though that child has a sinful nature -- and even though that child does not of its own nature "seek after God".

But at a certain point in that person's life - if they continue to resist the drawing of God - that hardening of the heart WILL take place.

If that heart-fully-hardened condition is what DHK means by T-Total depravity -- then I agree that man does not start off in that condition.

(And I agree that a dead person cannot choose to harden their heart).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RAdam]

Total depravity doesn't mean man has no free will. It means that man's will is subject to his nature.

Let favor be showed to the wicket, yet will he not learn righteousness...
The wicked in the pride of his countenance will not seek God...
No man can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him...

 

[RAdam]

The problem is many rip the bible from its context. Many of the "all" and "world" statements made in the bible were originally made to Jews. First century Jews believed that the benefits of the Messiah were meant for only them, not for the Gentiles.

John 3:16 - Jesus is speaking to a Jewish Pharisee ruler of the Jews and tells him that God loves the world, not Jews only but also Gentiles. The Jews often referred to the Gentiles as the world.

John 12:32 - This is part of a discourse that was started when some of His disciples came to Him telling Him that some Greeks were seeking Him. He goes on to say that now was the time, the time when He would die, the time when the prince of this world would be cast out. He says that He, being lifted up from the earth (being crucified) would draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, unto Him. The greek word translated draw here is helko. Helko means to drag, literally or figuratively. It is used by John to describe Peter "drawing" his sword out of the scabbard in John 18. It is used by John to describe Peter "drawing" the net to the bank in John 21. The word refers to someone exerting an irrestible force on something or someone - it is used of something that is effectual.

 

[DHK]

The problem is many rip the bible from its context. Many of the "all" and "world" statements made in the bible were originally made to Jews. First century Jews believed that the benefits of the Messiah were meant for only them, not for the Gentiles.

John 3:16 - Jesus is speaking to a Jewish Pharisee ruler of the Jews and tells him that God loves the world, not Jews only but also Gentiles. The Jews often referred to the Gentiles as the world.

The Calvinist believes that "world" here refers only to the elect. That "whosoever" in John 3:16 is only "the elect". Regardless of how well the world was known, the Calvinist interpretation of all the "whosoever" Scriptures is very narrow in scope.

 

[RAdam]

The word world in John 3:16 refers to Gentiles as well as Jews, in contrast to the Jewish idea that God would only favor them. You'll see this all over the New Testament. If you read Romans, it is literally all over that epistle. It is man that later ripped these passages from their context.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, are the elect the results of Gods foreordained choice of some to salvation? How do you see the election you claim to hold to and that of a Calvinist different?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There is only one reason to designate a system of thought as being in line with Calvinism. If in the end it is a system of total necessity it is a system in lock step with the ends of Calvinism. Minor distinctions in the verbiage used, if it does not keep one from the same end, is simply meaningless verbiage. The END is what is important, not the verbiage use to get there. A system of necessity is a system of necessity regardless of the wrappings placed around it. If the ends are the same, they are in basic agreement.

 

[BobRyan]

The word world in John 3:16 refers to Gentiles as well as Jews, in contrast to the Jewish idea that God would only favor them. You'll see this all over the New Testament. If you read Romans, it is literally all over that epistle. It is man that later ripped these passages from their context.

In John 1 - John sets the context for his own use of that term - stating that Christ MADE the World and that He then entered into that world that He made.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RAdam]

So world means the same thing everywhere it is used in John? How in the world could one make any sense of John 17.

World in the scriptures is a term that needs the context to determine what it means. Salvation is the same way. So is all.

 

[webdog]

The problem is many rip the bible from its context. Many of the "all" and "world" statements made in the bible were originally made to Jews. First century Jews believed that the benefits of the Messiah were meant for only them, not for the Gentiles.

John 3:16 - Jesus is speaking to a Jewish Pharisee ruler of the Jews and tells him that God loves the world, not Jews only but also Gentiles. The Jews often referred to the Gentiles as the world.

John 12:32 - This is part of a discourse that was started when some of His disciples came to Him telling Him that some Greeks were seeking Him. He goes on to say that now was the time, the time when He would die, the time when the prince of this world would be cast out. He says that He, being lifted up from the earth (being crucified) would draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, unto Him. The greek word translated draw here is helko. Helko means to drag, literally or figuratively. It is used by John to describe Peter "drawing" his sword out of the scabbard in John 18. It is used by John to describe Peter "drawing" the net to the bank in John 21. The word refers to someone exerting an irrestible force on something or someone - it is used of something that is effectual.

While world may have different meanings in different contexts, the jews are never one of them, especially in John's letters.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There is more than one problem with original sin, from a completely Calvinistic position or the slightly altered Calvinistic notion as held by Arminians. The fountain of both positions comes straight from Augustine, in that they both hold to the physical flesh being the fountain of sin as opposed to the will.

Take the position DHK described. He feels he is separating himself from the Calvinistic position due to a difference over what a sinner is able to do. Bear in mind after all the discussions with DHK, he has still maintains the depravity of man in that he can only sin and that continually apart from ‘one thing’ he claims as an exception. He claims one can respond to the gospel. The question is, in reality is that position any different than the Calvinist in the end? I say no and here is why.

[personal attack removed]

 

[ccrobinson]

[personal attack removed]

It is evident where the things are going when one side is reduced to personal attacks rather than substantive debate.

 

[DHK]

There is more than one problem with original sin, from a completely Calvinistic position or the slightly altered Calvinistic notion as held by Arminians. The fountain of both positions comes straight from Augustine, in that they both hold to the physical flesh being the fountain of sin as opposed to the will.

Take the position DHK described. He feels he is separating himself from the Calvinistic position due to a difference over what a sinner is able to do. Bear in mind after all the discussions with DHK, he has still maintains the depravity of man in that he can only sin and that continually apart from ‘one thing’ he claims as an exception. He claims one can respond to the gospel. The question is, in reality is that position any different than the Calvinist in the end? I say no and here is why.

[personal attack removed]

If you can't understand the words "I am not a Calvinist" there is not much I can do for you. Your false accusations and personal attacks will be deleted. Your "gnostic knowledge" of the intimacy of my mind and thorough knowledge of my theology will be deleted. For they end up in false accusations. If, in the future, you need to state what I believe, then be sure it is in quotes.