Did Jesus have free will?

[BobRyan]

Bob, You are right. Our differences are huge.

You take scripture and bend it to fit your own theology.

This verse you reference - REV 3:20 - was written to a church in which Christians were terribly backslidden.

Yes, a Christian can push Christ out of his life to the point where Christ has no "intimate" relationship with that person. You've seen this happen. You've also seen Christians repent and enjoy once again an "intimate" relationship with Christ.

If a Christian persists in sinning then he winds up in that position with Christ outside the door of his heart seeking to reestablish the close relationship.

Rev 3:20 has nothing to do with the inital Salvation experience.

Let's let Scripture speak in the context in which it was written.

Wonderful "assertion" Hardsheller! Now "SHOW" from scripture alone that "Salavation" is EVER described as "man ALONE and WITHOUT Christ". So far you merely "assert" what you can not prove.

But if in fact you have the Bible saying that "salvation" is defined (ever) as the state where "man is alone and without Christ" then this should be "easy" to prove ( if in fact you are not simply "making it up" since your view "needs it" in Rev 3).

If you ARE just making it up - then we still agree on one thing -- there is a HUGE difference between our views of how to study the Bible, determine doctrine, define salvation etc etc etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Bob, You are right. Our differences are huge.

You take scripture and bend it to fit your own theology.

This verse you reference - REV 3:20 - was written to a church in which Christians were terribly backslidden.

Yes, a Christian can push Christ out of his life to the point where Christ has no "intimate" relationship with that person. You've seen this happen. You've also seen Christians repent and enjoy once again an "intimate" relationship with Christ.

If a Christian persists in sinning then he winds up in that position with Christ outside the door of his heart seeking to reestablish the close relationship.

Rev 3:20 has nothing to do with the inital Salvation experience.

Let's let Scripture speak in the context in which it was written.

Wonderful "assertion" Hardsheller! Now "SHOW" from scripture alone that "Salavation" is EVER described as "man ALONE and WITHOUT Christ". So far you merely "assert" what you can not prove.

But if in fact you have the Bible saying that "salvation" is defined (ever) as the state where "man is alone and without Christ" then this should be "easy" to prove ( if in fact you are not simply "making it up" since your view "needs it" in Rev 3).

If you ARE just making it up - then we still agree on one thing -- there is a HUGE difference between our views of how to study the Bible, determine doctrine, define salvation etc etc etc.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Why would I make up something that is so plain in Scripture?

But here's your proof.

REV 2:1-7 - Letter to the Church as Ephesus
Christ's Warning - "You've Lost Your First Love
Solution: Repent and do what you did at first.

Rev 2:8-11 - Letter to the Church in Smyrna
Christ's Warning - "Some of you are about to die"
Solution: Be Faithful and I will give you a crown of life.

Rev 2:12 -17 Letter to the Church in Pergamum
Christ's Warning - "You have heresy in the Church"
Solution: Repent Get Rid of it or I will fight against it with the sword of my mouth

Rev 2:18-29 Letter to the Church in Thyatira
Christ's Warning - "You have a false Prophetess in your midst."
Solution: Repent from following her or suffer the consequence.

Rev 3:1-6 Letter to the Church in Sardis
Christ's Warning - "You are dead!"
Solution: Repent, Wake Up! Strenghten what remains.

Rev 3:7-13 Letter to the Church in Philadelphia
Christ's Warning - "The Hour of Trial is coming"
Solution: Hold on like you've been doing.

Rev 3:14-22 Letter to the Church in Laodicea
Christ's Warning - " You are lukewarm and you make me sick."
Solution: Be Earnest, Repent and Open the Door of your heart

When any Christian of any Era since Pentecost is out of fellowship with Christ they have deliberately chosen to move themselves away from
said fellowship. The barrier that stands between them and Christ is their sin.

To re-establish the relationship requires sincere repentence.

That's all that Rev 3:20 is saying. A Christian cannot be "without" Christ but he or she can be "out of fellowship" with Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

None of that "describes" salvation as "being separated from Christ. Being Alone without Christ".

You "assume" that "dead, and without Christ" are descriptions of "the saved experience" but this is never stated in the text.

The idea that "all rebellious people in church are saved" has never been accepted EITHER by Calvinists or Arminians. So I question your "proof" that JUST because these people were in church they were saved.

In the case of those who lost their first love -- it does not say that they no longer Love God -- but that is not the point you need to show. You need to show that "salvation is EVER described as "ALONE and without Christ".

So far you have not found a single quote for "Salvation IS ...".

I find that "instructive".

Apparently you task is not as "simple" as it would be if you were not making this up.

In the case of those about to be spewed out -- we see the same thing in Romans 11 where the branches are warned about being "cut off" IF they should no longer walk in faith. Only in the case of Rev 3 and Laodicea they are NOT told that some future failure will get them deleted from grace - (as we see in Romans 11) rather we see that their CURRENT state is unnacceptable. They have ALREADy achieved failure.

This description of failure is never "the description of salvation" in all of scripture - OT or NT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Ok Bob,

So you are saying that all Christians in the New Testament and the Old Testament never failed?

Of course they failed. David Failed
Timothy Failed. Paul even talks in Romans 7 about his Struggles post-salvation.

I give up - Where did I say that Salvation is ever described as being alone without Christ?

You are the one who keeps on insisting that Rev 3:20 is speaking of Salvation.

I challenge you to prove that.

It seems to me in your zeal to prove your Arminianism you grasp any straw available and attempt to build a doctrine of "free will" completely overlooking the facts of the text and the context of the passage.

 

[BobRyan]

Christian (saints) in both the OT and NT made mistakes, sinned etc. But they are NEVER in a SAVED stated "apart from Christ".

Salvation is never "without Christ" or "you ALONE and Christ on the OUTSIDE knocking".

The saint will always have "CHRIST IN YOU the hope of Glory" for they are given "THE MIND of CHRIST". The saved person walks by faith not by sight and is "By the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh". (Rom 8).

The Bible never describes people in rebellion and "without Christ" as "saved" or as "the saved condition".

In Romans 8 the "difference" between the saved is "seen clearly" in those who DO walk by the Spirit and those who do not.

In 1John 2 John says that the one who CLAIMS to know Christ but does NOT walk AS HE WALKED is a "liar".

"Salvation" is "clearly defined" in scripture. But you have to "Admit" that Calvinism "gets stuck" with that Bible definition when it comes to Rev 3 because there Christ is on the OUTSIDE knocking.

Fellowship with Christ is not taking place there. The relationship is broken. The sinner "without Christ" in Rev 3. This is - and has always been "the lost condition".

I do not now - nor have I ever claimed that the Rev 3:20 condition of Christ on the outside "IS SALVATION" or is the description of "SALVATION". Rather it is the "description of the lost". It is the description of "light shining in darkness" and those in darkness must "choose" to either "love darkness rather than light" or "open the door" to that light.

When we see Christ IN fellowship with the sinner in Rev 3:21 - THEN you have "salvation" not before.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Bob,

You have the right to be wrong.

Jesus is knocking on the door of the Lukewarm Laodiceans' hearts, minds and lives in order to be invited back to the intimate relationship they once enjoyed with Him.

In the First Century - the Greeks had a light breakfast of bread dipped in wine, at lunch they grabbed a bite of bread or fruit at the central market in the city and in the evening they supped with their family - it was a long heavy meal complete with fellowship and conversation. It is this kind of fellowship that Jesus is referring to.

In the NT Paul warns that we are not to quench the Spirit - These Christians at Laodicea had quenched the spirit to the point where Jesus said they made him sick - BUT - He is still their Savior and stands ready to "Sup" with them at their invitation.

 

[BobRyan]

You have the right to continue to post no text in support of your "idea" that the Bible EVER describes salvation or the saved-state as "ALONE and without Christ".

You have the right to continue to avoid the devastating case that 1John 2 makes against such "imagination".

You have the right to ignore the fact that even Calvinists admit that "not everyone rebelling against God in church - is saved - just because they are in church".

You have the right to ignore the fact that the "Failing condition" of Laodicea had already been reached. God was not warning them about some "future failure". And that "Failure" is exactly what is warned about in Romans 11 --


Rom 11: 22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who
fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His
kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


So regardless of whether you accept the Romans 11 idea of failure coming after conversion (and therefore confine failure only to those who never were saved) the point is that the "failing case" is clearly the starting point in Rev 3:14-19

14 ""To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
15 " I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

17 "Because you say, "" I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,'' and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Blind without the Spirit.

Naked without the Righteousness of Christ.

Alone without Christ on the inside.

THIS IS the "description" of the lost NOT ONLY in Rev 3- but in all of scripture!

You are free to ignore this as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Bob,

I choose to disagree with you not the Bible.

If you believe that Rev 3:20 can be lifted from its context and made to say something that it never said then who can argue with a theology based on that kind of Bible interpretation?

I certainly can't.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe Rev 3:20 can be bent to say that "Salvation is being ALONE without Christ" but I understand why you need to at least "try it".

I don't believe 1John 2:2-8 "can be ignored" but I see why you need to make the attempt.

I don't believe that "spiritually naked" is ever the description of "salvation" or that spiritually blind and in darkness is the definition "being in the light as children of light" -- but I see why you need to turn the text to say as much.

If at the end of all that twisting and turning - your Bible is still readible (at least parts of it) then I am thankfull. It is enough.

So perhaps we simply agree to disagree.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Bob I never said Salvation is being alone without Christ - I said that a person who is out of fellowship with Christ needs to repent and get Jesus back at the center of his life.

For the Umpteenth time I say it - Rev 3:20 should be taken in the context in which it was written.

AS far as 1 John 2:2-8 goes....The same writer (John) also wrote John chapter 10:28-29.

As far as "Spiritually naked" goes do you ever read scripture with any attention to the historical period or the local circumstances it addresses?

Laodicea at the time of the writing of this letter approx 95 AD was a center of finance, it was a textile center, and a medical school that had a special eye salve (tephra Phrygia) known throughout the world.

Jesus is making a reference to the environment these Christians had messed up in. Every one of his admonitions is addressed in terms of what they know in their every day lives.

Bob, I agree that we simply need to agree to disagree. In fact we would probably disagree over most subjects that come up!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott said --

... the Word of God. Is that physical hearing or spiritual hearing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Bob said --
Well it says "faith COMES by.." so it is PRE-FAITH hearing.

Scott J said --

Nice evasion attempt but that wasn't the question. Was it physical hearing or spiritual hearing? The difference is enormous with regard to our disagreement.

But your answer does help my contention that "faith" is predicated on new birth with its "ear to hear" and not the other way around.

Really?

Heb 11 says "WITHOUT faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God".
</font>[/QUOTE] But it doesn't say a word about the ultimate source of that faith nor whether the change that leads to faith is caused by human good will or a divine act of God.... these things are clarified elsewhere.

You have the New Birth happening to the one WITHOUT faith or salvation... then the one who is born again BUT NOT SAVED and NOT a person of faith -- "HEARS" and then "Faith comes" and then "salvation" (that last sequence is actually IN the text by contrast with your assumption that they are FIRST born again).

A deaf person cannot hear. After a man receives spiritual hearing, I have absolutely no disagreement with the "sequence" you note.

And you are comfortable with that "born-again but not saved" and "born-again but totally without faith" definition of "born-again"??

No. Because as I mentioned I don't think it is correct to make a timeline out of it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One must choose to have the mind of Christ before they are given the mind of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Scott said --
Can you cite a scripture that specifically says this? Scriptures that use the words "believe" or "faith" are not sufficient as is obvious by the disagreements we have over the meanings.

I would like to see a scripture that says what you said above using a word like "choose" that clearly means that a person independently chooses to have the mind of Christ, to believe, to have faith, etc.

It is always the easy things that we get asked for.

"God so Loved THE WORLD that HE GAVE... That WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in Him should not perish"..</font>[/QUOTE] In context, Jesus said that one must be born again to enter into the kingdom of God. To make this "new birth" a willful human choice denies the legitimacy of the analogy.

"But to AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM TO THEM HE GAVE the right to be called the children of God"

.... 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD.

Context is an incredibly important (and wonderful) thing.

In context, this scripture proves rather than disproves my contention. Thanks for reminding me of it.

"IF anyone HEARS AND ALSPENS the door THEN I WILL come in" Rev 3.

Deaf people don't hear and they certainly don't answer knocks on the door.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IF anyone HEARS AND ALSPENS the door THEN I WILL come in" Rev 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deaf people don't hear and they certainly don't answer knocks on the door.

Indeed - hence the "supernatural drawing of ALL MANKIND".

Hence the "CONVICTING of the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

God ENABLES hearing and ACTING -- CHOOSING ability... but REMAINS on the OUTSIDE knocking!!

How devastating to Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have the New Birth happening to the one WITHOUT faith or salvation... then the one who is born again BUT NOT SAVED and NOT a person of faith -- "HEARS" and then "Faith comes" and then "salvation" (that last sequence is actually IN the text by contrast with your assumption that they are FIRST born again).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A deaf person cannot hear. After a man receives spiritual hearing, I have absolutely no disagreement with the "sequence" you note.

Would that this "were true".

You argue that continually that FIRST the person must be saved (In fellowship with Christ - CHRIST IN YOU) to be able to HEAR.

I argue that God ENABLES spiritual hearing FIRST - while Christ is on the OUTSIDE knocking -- while the sinner is ALONE and WITHOUT Christ --

I argue that this enabling to hear is the DRAWING (the supernatural drawing) of ALL MANKIND to God.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is NOT that "God does not cause the hearing" - it is that "HEARING ALONE - and WITHOUT Christ" is NOT salvation as defined in scripture - but Calvinists think it is "anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Bob I never said Salvation is being alone without Christ - I said that a person who is out of fellowship with Christ needs to repent and get Jesus back at the center of his life.

WE both agree on their need to accept Christ.

But I see the Bible describing those who have NOT accepted Christ as "lost" and "without Christ" -- ALONE, in NEED of the Savior.

Christ said I have not come to save the healthy but the sick and those in Need.

Christ says COME UNTO ME and then I WILL give you rest.

Christ says that HE is the LIGHT and WE are IN darkness until we accept and embrace HIM as the light and life and truth.

How you would describe the Rev 20 experience PRIOR to "opening the door" and being "IN fellowship" with Christ as "SAVED" is beyond me.

Paul says "HAVING BEEN Justified we HAVE peace with God" Romans 5:1.

Paul says that "IT is NO LONGER I who live but CHRIST who LIVES IN ME" Gal 2:20

Paul says that the one who DOES NOT Walk BY the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh is NOT saved.

Paul says "BE NOT DECEIVED" in 1Cor 6 and lists the acts of rebellion saying "Such people will not enter the kingdom of heaven".

Your description of the "failed state" in Rev 3 as "saved" and "Alone without Christ" as "Salvation" is not supported in all of scripture.

For the Umpteenth time I say it - Rev 3:20 should be taken in the context in which it was written.

Yes - the context is that it is written to a failed church who has "already" reached the failed condition of "luke warm" where Christ says "I will spit you out of my mouth".

AS far as 1 John 2:2-8 goes....The same writer (John) also wrote John chapter 10:28-29.

If this is a way to "Exegete" 1John 2:2-8 by "ignoring the details of the text" -- then it is a new method of exegesis on me.

Looks more like eisegesis trying to ignore the text in question and only read "a more pleasing text" instead.

What say you?

As far as "Spiritually naked" goes do you ever read scripture with any attention to the historical period or the local circumstances it addresses?

They were not LITERALLY naked they were SPIRITUALLY naked which is ONLY applicable to the robe of Christ's righteousness and the fact that they DON't have it.

If you actually have a text that says that being WITHOUT the robe of Christ's righteousness is the "SAVED state" -- show it.

Jesus is making a reference to the environment these Christians had messed up in. Every one of his admonitions is addressed in terms of what they know in their every day lives.

Wrong.

This is not an "environmental update from God" in Rev 3.

Lets stay with the text.

Bob, I agree that we simply need to agree to disagree. In fact we would probably disagree over most subjects that come up!

Pretty funny!

I thought you were Trinitarian - am I wrong?

I thought you accepted the entire 66 books as "scripture" -- did I miss something?

I thought you rejected the doctrine of purgatory, praying to the dead and praying for the dead -- did I assume too much?

I thought you believed in a literal 7 day Creation week where God "really" created the earth and all life on it -- no?

The bottom line is that there are a "lot" of debates on the Baptist board where we would be arguing the same side of the fence.

Don't lose sight of the big picture just because we find a place to differ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of "common ground"

What about basing all doctrine "sola scriptura" rather than fiat of church leadership or man's tradition? That point is debated heavily on the other section of the Board. -- but I suspect we would agree on it.

And what about a literal millenium of 1000 years with the 2nd coming being literal and "premillennial"? Surely you are holding to the truth on some of that as well.

How about a literal bodily resurrection of Christ? You agree on that do you not?

Saved by Grace through faith not of works - yet created for Good works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them -- surely you still hold to that do you not?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hardsheller]

Bob,

So you're saying we should ignore context when we interpret Scripture?

And tell me how 1 John 2:2-8 carries more weight than John 10:28-29? I'd really like to know.

You believe Jesus is talking to lost people in Rev 3:20. Fine. Holman Hunt probably did more to advance that theory than any other human alive with his painting "The Light of the World." That still doesn't make it right nor does it make it somehow different from all the other letters to the churches contained in Rev 2 & 3.

And as far as us disagreeing - I'd always have problems getting by the fact that you're not a Baptist.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Speaking of "common ground"

What about basing all doctrine "sola scriptura" rather than fiat of church leadership or man's tradition? That point is debated heavily on the other section of the Board. -- but I suspect we would agree on it.

And what about a literal millenium of 1000 years with the 2nd coming being literal and "premillennial"? Surely you are holding to the truth on some of that as well.

How about a literal bodily resurrection of Christ? You agree on that do you not?

Saved by Grace through faith not of works - yet created for Good works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them -- surely you still hold to that do you not?

In Christ,

Bob

Then tell us Bob, if you really value Scripture so highly, then why are you not a Baptist?

I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm serious. Many people who study the Bible as much as you apparently do wind up coming to the conclusion that the Baptists are the closest to the New Testament.

 

[Scott J]

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is NOT that "God does not cause the hearing" - it is that "HEARING ALONE - and WITHOUT Christ" is NOT salvation as defined in scripture - but Calvinists think it is "anyway".

Bob, This is an untrue statement.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IF anyone HEARS AND ALSPENS the door THEN I WILL come in" Rev 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Deaf people don't hear and they certainly don't answer knocks on the door.

Indeed - hence the "supernatural drawing of ALL MANKIND".

Hence the "CONVICTING of the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

God ENABLES hearing and ACTING -- CHOOSING ability... but REMAINS on the OUTSIDE knocking!!

How devastating to Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Nope.

This is what "devastating" looks like:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"But to AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM TO THEM HE GAVE the right to be called the children of God"

.... 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD.

Context is an incredibly important (and wonderful) thing.

In context, this scripture proves rather than disproves my contention. Thanks for reminding me of it.</font>[/QUOTE]