Define...

... What Bible are you reading?... "That's Not What My KJV Says!... Brother(saved by grace)Glen </font>[/QUOTE]It says in the KJV that Christians will be in the majority? Where? (Saying that they are like the sands of the sea does not make them a majority - simply that the number is very large.) The evidence is for the other side, that while the number itself may be large, the comparison is, indeed, "few."

1 billion dollars sounds like a lot, but compared to 1 trillion dollars, it's not as much. So is the picture that is painted in the Scripture. That a lot will be saved, but "few" in comparison to the "many" that will not be.

SEC

 

Ken Hamilton,

All of the myriad of factors that cause a person to make his or her faith decision or lack of faith are the determining elements.

Some want money, prestege, a loose life with no strings attached. Others determine that God is for real and they don't want to face Him without Christ in their lives. Some agree with their conviction coming from the Holy Spirit and find or are found by Him. Others resist the Spirit because they want to rule their lives without God's input and perpetual surveillance.

This will give you a start as to what goes through people's minds.

 

Freewill means that all people have a choice to believe or not to believe. The Holy Spirit persuades some to believe and many more not to believe. Money, sensuality, pride of religious background, and worldliness keep many from yielding to Christ. In the United States, especially no one has an excuse for not finding the truth of the Gospel.

 

Does God not have free will then?

 

Ray,

Did you miswrite there? Your sentence says that the Holy Spirit persuades many more not to believe.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Ken Hamilton,

Yes, I did miswrite the last phrase of the sentence. My mistake.

 

Pastor Larry,

I think and believe human beings have free will. God has absolute freedom and does what He desires to do {Sovereignty} but always within the confines of the purity of His Divine attributes. For example, He cannot lie because of the purity of His nature.

 

So why does "freedom" mean that man can contradict his nature but "freedom" does not mean that God can contradict his? This is what I mean by a consistent definition. You want to use one kind of freedom for man and another kind for God. If man is depraved (which he is), he cannot act to contradict that nature. That doesn't mean he is not free.

 

Keep in mind that it's man who is out of whack, not God, so that is why they can't be compared like that. (Why would God even want to contradict His nature? So the issue of "freedom" in that respect is moot)

 

All of God's attributes are always in perfect harmony. His love is perfect so He loves all of His created human beings. To pick and choose would make God other than the perfection that He always is. The offer of salvation is to all. He has made all human beings responsible for their eternal destiny. [John 3:16 & Acts 17:30-31]

His sovereignty is also perfect. He never is more sovereign than He is in all of His other attributes, such as righteousness, holiness, mercy, grace. Sovereignty is never stronger than His love and therefore, by His own will, has chosen to love everyone. If He autocratically chose some for Heaven, He would be in violation of His perfection of Divine love.

His justice keeps Him from universally saving everyone. His justice will be ministered at the Great White Throne Judgment when He dispatches the rebellious to eternal punishment. In fact His justice is in effect all the time because He says that those who do not have Jesus are already condemned. [John 3:18b]

In order to have correct theology one has to keep all of His attributes in perfect concord.

 

Pastor Larry asked:

Interesting question. Here is how I would summarize God and man in thier natures and in their works:

God
By nature: Holy and righteous
In intent: Holy and righteous
In action: Incapable of performing a morally corrupt act

Man
By nature: Sinful
In intent: Sinful
In action: Capable of performing morally corrupt and morally excellent acts

The last line contains the distinction which causes me to have difficulty with your position, Pastor Larry. If man is dead in sin in the sense in which you teach it, then it would be impossible for him to perform a morally upright act. By nature he would be incapable of performing a morally excellent act just as God is incapable of performing a morally wrong act. If man is as dead in sin as you say he is, his nature would determine that every act would be a sinful choice. Yet we know that this is not the case. So, I admit that the definitions are not perfectly consistent, but I also observe that you are inconsistent because you believe that man is completely dead in sin even though you admit that he can perform morally upright acts. I do not see how your view of man's nature allows for this.

 

Exactly. This is what we have been saying all along. You are finally catching on. Becuase it is nature, no one wants to contradict it, either God or man. This is exactly what makes your position untenable.

As for God's attributes, I think Ray has totally missed them in many regards as we have discussed before. He still hasn't told us how a God of justice can exact a double penalty for the same sin. He has completely misunderstood sovereignty, which has been demonstrated before. His views on love do not match the biblical record which tells us that he hates sinners. No one here denies his love. That is not at issue. The issue is, What is his governing attribute? The answer is, "Holiness."

As for swaimj, your parallels I think are inconsistent. Man can do civil good, which may be classified by some as moral good. However, it does not have a righteous godly motivation; therefore, it does not meet the true definition of morally upright actions. Depravity does not say that man never does anything civilly or socially good. He does. It says that even his good is tainted by sin, is not done for God, and is not accepted by God as worth anything in any sense.

 

Arminians don't buy the idea of a double penalty. That's only found in the understanding of a Calvinist trying to use his own system to understand the Arminian position. The Arminian system is consistent in and of itself - it is the Calvinist position that believes that we thing that there is a "double penalty" for one sin.

Why do you say that "holiness" is the number one attribute of God?

 

"...whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I would argue that no act of an unregenerate person is genuinely righteous. It goes beyond outcome to the motive/objective. It is God that searches the heart. Even people who would swear their sincerity and selflessness are subject to not knowing the deceitfulness of their own heart.

Anything not done specifically to the glory of God is done to the glory of some other person or thing... by definition, idolatrous sin.

 

I realize you don't buy it but the question is, How do you avoid it? If Christ paid for all men's sin, then on what basis does God send anyone to hell as a punishment for their sin. It is not enough to say that God sends men to hell, not for their sin, but rather for their unbelief. Unbelief is a sin since it is an act of rebellion against God's command to believe. In short, if Christ paid for the sins of all men, then God has no basis on which to send anyone to hell.

Theological priority. See Berkhof p. 73; Strong pp. 271-75, 713, 14; Charnock, pp. 449-452; Mullins pp. 229-43.

 

What you're saying is this: "If Christ died for everyone, God would be unfair in sending people to Hell for their own sins. No law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either." Thus the atonement cannot be unlimited unless all men are saved. The Calvinist position is this: "Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their own sins."

Your argument suffers from this error - You assume that if Christ's death was sufficient for all for whom he died, then it must save all for whom he died. This ignores the nature of GOd and the nature of man created in God's image. There is no logical contradiction in saying that Christ's suffering and deat were universal (in qualtity), but that free, responsible individuals have to accept that free gift (quantity). THere is no double payment. Only Christ could pay the penalty for anyone or for everyone, but each individual must still accept that free gift.

(BTW, Calvin himself believed that Christ died for the sins of the entire world as he wrote in his commentary of John and his commentary of Galatians. IN fact, he himself statesd that the atonement was unlimited in quality, but limited in quantity)

How about providing a little more of a bibliography, than random people and page numbers, or even some quotes saying such. There are many other scholars who would list another attribute as having priority. The apostle John sure seemed to.

 

Scott Emmerson,

Under the former covenant, the 'death angel' returned an killed the first born of not only Jews but pagans. God provided a way of escape for all Israelites and other pagans, but only the ones who placed the 'blood' over the doorpost were saved. By this same view/measure Christ died for every human being, but only the people who receive Christ are covered by His blood. This is how Christ died for the sins of the whole world, but also made the people responsible to Him for not receiving His atonement and perfect plan of salvation.

 

I'm glad the U.S. legal system doesn't work like the one you free-willers have
concocted.

"Sir, your debt to society has been paid. Now if don't accept it, well, then your debt to society has not been paid and you'll have to keep paying it because you didn't accept the fact that it is paid."

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ August 23, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Pastor Larry and Scott J,
I think my distinction between man's intentions and his actions is in agreement with what you are saying. I said man's intentions are sinful, but his actions are often morally upright. I was careful not to say that his actions are righteous for they cannot be righteous as you both point out. Paul is quite clear that even the moral actions of the unsaved are unrighteous. Nevertheless, moral actions among the unsaved do occur. Therein is the contradiction on your part in defining the nature of God and the nature of man. God cannot perform an immoral action with a good intention, but man can perform a morally upright act even though the intention behind it is not righteous by God's standard. Man, by his reason can define a moral code and he can seek to keep its standard. I am not arguing that this makes him righteous in a judicial sense before God, but it does show that he is not dead in sin in the absolute sense that you teach.

 

BINGO!!!

Scenario:
You are in jail. Bail is $1,000. I show up and post bail for you, but you don't like me, so you emphatically, and proudly refuse to accept the offer because it's from me.

Whose fault is it that you spend the night in jail; the opportunity is there for you to get out, but pride keeps you from accepting an offer of freedom; you have consciously and willfully rejected the only option you have to see freedom!

Just like the offer of salvation, it's there, but if refused, then it's not applicable to you.

Some people get hung up on this 'cause they consider "accepting, and/or believing" as WORKS, and since we can do no works toward our salvation, then the theory is that we have absolutely nothing to do with it. (At least that's what I read into the "ELECTION" issue!)